IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v12y2022i2p21582440221096130.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Smooth and Hard or Beautiful and Elegant? Experts’ Conceptual Structure of the Aesthetics of Materials

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara E. Marschallek
  • Thomas Jacobsen

Abstract

The present study’s aim was to examine whether interindividual differences in levels of expertise influence the aesthetic processing of materials. In particular, we elucidated experts’ conceptual structure of the aesthetics of different materials using a free list task and compared it to recent non-expert data. To this end, we asked 401 architects, designers, and interior designers to list adjectives that could be used to describe the aesthetics of materials. The experts listed a large number of sensorial as well as aesthetically evaluative terms. As measured in a supplementary study, a slight majority of the listed terms had a neutral valence, followed by a large proportion of positive terms. The term beautiful , frequently the preeminent term in aesthetics, was by no means one of the most relevant terms in both studies. The results suggest that the conceptual structure of the aesthetics of materials is multifaceted and expressive, and, to some extent, influenced by expertise. Furthermore, the findings indicate that concepts underlying materials aesthetics differ from other domains.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara E. Marschallek & Thomas Jacobsen, 2022. "Smooth and Hard or Beautiful and Elegant? Experts’ Conceptual Structure of the Aesthetics of Materials," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:12:y:2022:i:2:p:21582440221096130
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440221096130
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440221096130
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440221096130?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthijs J. Warrens, 2016. "Inequalities Between Similarities for Numerical Data," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 33(1), pages 141-148, April.
    2. Jesper W. Schneider & Pia Borlund, 2007. "Matrix comparison, Part 2: Measuring the resemblance between proximity measures or ordination results by use of the mantel and procrustes statistics," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(11), pages 1596-1609, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wildgaard, Lorna, 2016. "A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1055-1078.
    2. Copiello, Sergio, 2019. "Peer and neighborhood effects: Citation analysis using a spatial autoregressive model and pseudo-spatial data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 238-254.
    3. Stoyanov, Slavi & Jablokow, Kathryn & Rosas, Scott R. & Wopereis, Iwan G.J.H. & Kirschner, Paul A., 2017. "Concept mapping—An effective method for identifying diversity and congruity in cognitive style," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 238-244.
    4. Zdeněk Šulc & Hana Řezanková, 2019. "Comparison of Similarity Measures for Categorical Data in Hierarchical Clustering," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 36(1), pages 58-72, April.
    5. Tom Broekel & Pierre-Alexandre Balland & Martijn Burger & Frank Oort, 2014. "Modeling knowledge networks in economic geography: a discussion of four methods," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 53(2), pages 423-452, September.
    6. Tom Broekel & Pierre-Alexandre Balland & Martijn Burger & Frank van Oort, 2013. "Modeling Knowledge Networks in Economic Geography: A Discussion of Four Empirical Strategies," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1325, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Dec 2013.
    7. Nikolaj Bak & Lars K Hansen, 2016. "Data Driven Estimation of Imputation Error—A Strategy for Imputation with a Reject Option," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-13, October.
    8. Hung-Wen Yeh & Byron Gajewski & David Perdue & Angel Cully & Lance Cully & K. Greiner & Won Choi & Christine Daley, 2014. "Sorting it out: pile sorting as a mixed methodology for exploring barriers to cancer screening," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 2569-2587, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:12:y:2022:i:2:p:21582440221096130. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.