Development of Conceptual Framework of User Decision Making on Purchasing Running Shoes through Ergo-Aesthetic Value on Sight Behavioral Assessment

Zazarida Rifin; Khairul Aidil Azlin Abd. Rahman

doi:10.56225/ijgoia.v3i1.344

Authors

Zazarida Rifin Department of Industrial Design, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Khairul Aidil Azlin Abd. Rahman Department of Industrial Design, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56225/ijgoia.v3i1.344

Keywords:

Ergo aesthetic, Running shoes, Sight behavioral, Decision making

Abstract

A few scholars have highlighted the association between ergonomics and aesthetics with behavior. For this study, it should be noted that deviations in ergonomics and aesthetics are inevitable as human behavior and cultural experience change constantly. Nevertheless, applying ergonomics and aesthetics through behavior evaluation inside a design process can significantly improve the created item's visual appearance and comfort level. Moreover, culture and behavior will affect the product's visual assessment and the design's final quality. Therefore, the user's sight behavior is an important factor in judging the ergonomics and aesthetics of the running shoe selection. According to this paper, user decision-making will influence the purchase of suitable running shoes. Therefore, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, consumers face difficulty purchasing suitable running shoes in stores, malls, or shoe outlets. This dilemma might influence a consumer to make their decision making to choose suitable running shoes in a very short time. The uncommon ground between ergonomics and aesthetics may become an unpleasant medium for designers to use in terms of ergonomic and aesthetic values in each design process. This dilemma may result in ineffective design process flow, increasing the cost of developing a certain product.

References

Adams, R. B., & Nelson, A. J. (2016). Eye behavior and gaze. In APA handbook of nonverbal communication. (pp. 335–362). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14669-013

Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: a mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 421–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.010

Bridger, R. (2008). Introduction to Ergonomics. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781439894927

Cash, P. J., Hartlev, C. G., & Durazo, C. B. (2017). Behavioural design: A process for integrating behaviour change and design. Design Studies, 48(1), 96–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.10.001

Chengalur, S. N., Rodgers, S. H., & Bernard, T. E. (2004). Ergonomic Designfor People at Work (pp. 18-150). Hoboken. NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Christensen, E. (1987). Multivariate survival analysis using Cox’s regression model. Hepatology, 7(6), 1346–1358. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.1840070628

Dul, J., & Weerdmeester, B. (2003). Ergonomics For Beginners. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203212097

Foulsham, T., Walker, E., & Kingstone, A. (2011). The where, what and when of gaze allocation in the lab and the natural environment. Vision Research, 51(17), 1920–1931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.07.002

Frederick, E. C., Clarke, T. E., & Hamill, C. L. (1984). The effect of running shoe design on shock attenuation. In Sport shoes and playing surfaces (pp. 190–198). Human Kinetics Champaign.

Gallop, C. J. (2013). Knowing nothing: Understanding new critical social work practice. Journal of Applied Hermeneutics, 17(7), 1–21.

Hardeman, W., Sutton, S., Griffin, S., Johnston, M., White, A., Wareham, N. J., & Kinmonth, A. L. (2005). A causal modelling approach to the development of theory-based behaviour change programmes for trial evaluation. Health Education Research, 20(6), 676–687. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyh022

Kaljun, J., & Dolšak, B. (2011). Artificial intelligence in aesthetic and ergonomic product design process. 2011 Proceedings of the 34th International Convention MIPRO, 959–964.

Karlsson, N., Juliusson, Á., & Gärling, T. (2005). A conceptualisation of task dimensions affecting escalation of commitment. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17(6), 835–858. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440540000004

Karwowski, W. (2006). The International Ergonomics Association (IEA). In International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors-3 Volume Set (pp. 170–173). CRC Press.

Lehman, P. K., & Geller, E. S. (2004). Behavior Analysis and Environmental Protection: Accomplishments and Potential for More. Behavior and Social Issues, 13(1), 13–33. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v13i1.33

Lehto, M. R., Landry, S. J., & Buck, J. (2007). Communication and display design. In Introduction to human factors and ergonomics for engineers (pp. 657–710). CRC Press.

MacLeod, D. (1994). The ergonomics edge: improving safety, quality, and productivity. John Wiley & Sons.

Martinez-Conde, S., Macknik, S. L., & Hubel, D. H. (2004). The role of fixational eye movements in visual perception. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(3), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1348

Massaro, D., Savazzi, F., Di Dio, C., Freedberg, D., Gallese, V., Gilli, G., & Marchetti, A. (2012). When Art Moves the Eyes: A Behavioral and Eye-Tracking Study. PLoS ONE, 7(5), 37–285. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037285

Michie, S., Johnston, M., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., & Eccles, M. (2008). From Theory to Intervention: Mapping Theoretically Derived Behavioural Determinants to Behaviour Change Techniques. Applied Psychology, 57(4), 660–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00341.x

Openshaw, S., & Taylor, E. (2006). Ergonomics and design. In A Reference Guide.

Redford, G. D., & Redford, G. D. (1966). Aesthetic and Ergonomic Considerations. In Mechanical Engineering Design: An Introduction (pp. 109–124). Springer.

Rucci, M., & Victor, J. D. (2015). The unsteady eye: an information-processing stage, not a bug. Trends in Neurosciences, 38(4), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2015.01.005

Sagi, A., & Friedland, N. (2007). The cost of richness: the effect of the size and diversity of decision sets on post-decision regret. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 515–524.

Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: An effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.207

Simó-Pinatella, D., Font-Roura, J., Alomar-Kurz, E., Giné, C., Matson, J. L., & Cifre, I. (2013). Antecedent events as predictive variables for behavioral function. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(12), 4582–4590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.09.040

Weintraub, D. J., & Gardner, G. T. (1970). Emmert’s Laws: Size Constancy vs. Optical Geometry. The American Journal of Psychology, 83(1), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.2307/1420854

Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational Innovation: Review, Critique And Suggested Research Directions*. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1994.tb00624.x

Wood, G., & Newborough, M. (2003). Dynamic energy-consumption indicators for domestic appliances: environment, behaviour and design. Energy and Buildings, 35(8), 821–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(02)00241-4

Wright, W. D. (1984). The Perception of Light and Colour. In Foundations of Sensory Science (pp. 229–258). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69425-7_7