本論文將從微觀的產品矛盾語意，以及巨觀的跨領域合作兩個角度，來探索設計的創新策略。在矛盾語意部分，本研究以88張無扶手椅為案例，分別以「雙極量測法」、「雙變數量測法」與「四宮格量測法」等三種方式來量測產品語意，以探討讓產品既美又新奇的語意操作策略。結果發現，新奇度與美感偏好呈現倒U曲線相關，中等程度的新奇度可以達到最高的美感偏好，且影響新奇性的因素中，現代感影響最大，其次為複雜度、最低是感性度。此外，具有「矛盾語意(如既典型又獨特)」及「語意模糊(如不典型也不獨特)」的椅子，在雙極量測法中有很高的標準差。且矛盾語意與美感偏好有線性正相關，語意模糊與美感偏好則有線性負相關，兩者皆可視為影響美感偏好的變數。
在跨領域合作部分，本研究以國科會「前瞻概念設計計畫(ideastorming)」，以及工研院所推動的「設計為科技加值專案(Dechnology)」為例進行個案研究，來探討設計與科技之間的合作模式。結果在ideastorming(設計主導)專案中發現包括「設計導向」、「科技導向」、「共同概念發展」三種協同合作模式，且三種模式都能夠產生創新的概念產品，而設計與科技雙方對於可應用技術的認知、概念發展時程與核心技術轉換的彈性並不相同。此外，在Dechnology(科技主導)專案中，本研究發現技術的「易理解性」、「是否有限定應用」、「成熟度」三者，可用於區隔三種設計的途徑(設計競賽、設計師協同合作、委外設計公司)。進一步納入三種應用的產品類型(獨立產品、軟體導向產品、整合性系統產品)，本研究提出一個技術找設計的九種配合矩陣，並探討了不同途徑的優缺點以及適合的科技，可讓設計與科技在合作前，能夠有合理的預期。

This dissertation aims to explore design’s innovative strategies from two perspectives— product‘s contradictory semantics and cross-disciplinary collaboration. From the micro perspective of product semantics, this study selected 88 unarmed chairs as example, and used three methods—“bipolar”, “bivariate”, and “four-quadrant” — to measure contradiction in product semantics and to explore strategies for designing novel and beautiful products. The results found that the relationship between novelty and aesthetic is an inverted-U function, where the most preferred chairs are those with a moderate level of novelty. For the semantic factors influencing novelty, trendiness has the greatest influence, followed by complexity, and finally by emotion. Furthermore, for the chairs with contradictory (e.g. both typical and unique) and vague (e.g. neither typical nor unique) meanings, the distributions of bipolar ratings have higher standard deviations. In addition, semantic contradiction is positively correlated with aesthetic preferences, while semantic vagueness is negatively correlated with aesthetic preferences. Both of them can be regarded as predictor variables for aesthetic preference.
From the macro perspective of cross-disciplinary collaboration, this study used the ideastorming project funded by NSC (National Science Council) and the Dechnology (Design+Technology) project run by ITRI (Industrial Technology Research Institute) as examples to investigate the patterns of collaboration between design and technology. Three models for collaborative innovation are identified in the ideastorming (design oriented) project— “design-driven”, “technology driven”, and “joint concept development”—each of which could lead to innovative concept products. It was found that design and engineering teams differ in their perception of applicable technologies, development schedules, and flexibility to switch technologies. For the Dechnology (technology oriented) project, this study found that, three factors—"comprehensibility", "application restrictions", and "maturity" of a technology—can be used to match a technology to one of the three design approaches (design competitions, collaboration with designers, and outsource to design consultancies). Finally, combining three design approaches and three categories of product (stand-alone product, software-oriented product, and integrated system), this study arrived at a matrix of nine product-design approach combinations. We then explain how to choose among different design approaches according to their advantages, disadvantages and features of suitable technologies, such that the better cooperation between design and technology can be achieved through reasonable expectations of targets as well as limitations.

1.唐玄輝、林穎謙（2011）。情境故事法運用於跨領域合作的問題與影響。設計學報，16（3），21-44。
2.謝銘洋 (1995) 。智慧財產權之制度與實務。台北市：翰蘆圖書。
3.Aleixo, G. G., & Tenera, A. B. (2009). New product development process on high-tech innovation life cycle. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 58(135), 794-800.
4.Ambiguity. (n. d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity
5.Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2000). The effects of ambivalence on attitude stability and pliability, prediction of behavior and information processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1432-1443.
6.Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science, 17(8), 645-648.
7.Barrett, P., & Stanley, C. (1999). Better construction briefing. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.
8.Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(4), 629-654.
9.Battistella, E. L. (1996). The logic of markedness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
10.Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 279-286.
11.Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
12.Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. New York, NY: Wiley.
13.Blijlevens, J., Carbon, C. -C., Mugge, R., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2012). Aesthetic appraisal of product designs: Independent effects of typicality and arousal. British Journal of Psychology, 103(1), 44-57.
14.Blijlevens, J., Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2009). How consumers perceive product appearance: The identification of three product appearance attributes. International Journal of Design, 3(3), 27-35.
15.Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16-29.
16.Bonsiepe, G. (2007). The uneasy relationship between design and design research. In R. Michel (Ed.), Design research now: Essays and selected projects (pp.25-39). Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.
17.Boselie, F., & Leeuwenberg, E. (1985). Birkhoff revisited: Beauty as a function of effect and means. American Journal of Psychology, 98(1), 1-39.
18.Breckler, S. J. (1994). A comparison of numerical indexes for measuring attitude ambivalence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(2), 350-365.
19.Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
20.Bryson, J. R., Keeble, D., & Wood, P. (1997). The creation and growth of small business service firms in post-industrial Britain. Small Business Economics, 9(4), 345-360.
21.Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(1), 3-25.
22.Candi, M. (2006). Design as an element of innovation: Evaluating design emphasis in technology-based firms. International Journal of Innovation Management, 10(4), 351-374.
23.Candi, M. (2007). The role of design in the development of technology-based services. Design Studies, 28(6), 559-583.
24.Carter, N., Stearns, T. M., & Reynolds, P. D. (1994). New venture strategies: Theory development with an empirical base. Strategic Management Journal, 15(1), 21-41.
25.Conn, S. (2005). New Product Development (NPD) success factors: A review of the literature. Retrieved Dec. 8, 2011, from https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/31001/TMP.objres.91.pdf.
26.Conner, M., Sparks, P., Povey, R., James, R., Shepherd, R., & Armitage, C. J. (2002). Moderator effects of attitudinal ambivalence on attitude-behaviour relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(5), 705-718.
27.Contradiction. (n.d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction
28.Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1), 63-81.
29.Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, J. P. (2004). Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547-577.
30.Cross, N. (2000). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (3rd ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
31.Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
32.Desmet, P., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 57-66.
33.Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425-437.
34.Driver, A., Peralta, C., & Moultrie, J. (2011). Exploring how industrial designers can contribute to scientific research. International Journal of Design, 5(1), 17-28.
35.Dubberly, H. (2008). On modeling: Learning curves for design. Interactions, 15(4), 13-16.
36.Eagle, N. (2004). Can serendipity be planned? MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(1), 10-14.
37.Einhorn, B. (2005, May 16). Why Taiwan Matters? BusinessWeek, 3933, 76-81.
38.Esslinger, H. (2009). A fine line: How design strategies are shaping the future of business. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
39.Fenn, J., & Raskino, M. (2008). Mastering the hype cycle: How to choose the right innovation at the right time. Boston, NY: Harvard Business Press.
40.Fraenkel, T., & Schul, Y. (2008). The meaning of negated adjectives. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(4), 517-540.
41.Fiell, C., & Fiell, P. (1997). 1000 chairs. New York, NY: Taschen.
42.Fitzsimmons, J. A., & Fitzsimmons, M. J. (2006). Service management: Operations, strategy, information technology (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
43.Fixson, S. K. (2009). Teaching innovation through interdisciplinary courses and programmes in product design and development: An analysis at sixteen U.S. Schools. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(3), 199-208.
44.Frith, C. D., & Nias, D. K. B. (1974). What determines aesthetic preferences? Journal of General Psychology, 91(2), 163-173.
45.Gardner, P. L. (1987). Measuring ambivalence to science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(3), 241-247.
46.Geldard, F. A. (1953). The human senses. New York, NY: Wiley.
47.Haspelmath, M. (2006). Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics, 42(1), 25-70.
48.Gemser, G., & Leenders, M. A. A. M. (2001). How integrating design in the product development process impacts on company performance. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(1), 28-38.
49.Gundling, E. (2000). The 3M way to innovation: Balancing people and profit. Toyko, Japan: Kodansha International.
50.Hallnas, L., & Redstrom, J. (2001). Slow technology: Designing for reflection. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 5(3), 201-212.
51.Harman, J. (2008). Factors influencing successful collaboration: The case of dKnet. Retrieved Dec. 8, 2011, from University of Wollongong Research Online: http://ro.uow.edu.au.
52.Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: Principle of pleasure in design. Psychology Science, 48(2), 157-172.
53.Hekkert, P., & Leder, H. (2008). Product aesthetics. In H. N. J. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Product experience (pp. 259-285). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
54.Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & van Wieringen, P. C. W. (2003). Most advanced, yet acceptable: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial deign. British Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 111-124.
55.Hekkert, P., & van Wieringen, P. C. W. (1990). Complexity and prototypicality as determinants of the appraisal of cubist paintings. British Journal of Psychology, 81(4), 483-495.
56.Hekkert, P., & Wieringen, P. C. W. (1996). The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings. Acta Psychologica, 94(2), 117-131.
57.Hertenstein, J. H., Platt, M. B., & Veryzer, R. W. (2005). The impact of design effectiveness on corporate financial performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1), 3-21.
58.Hornsey, M. J., Blackwood, L., Louis, W., Fielding, K., Mavor, K., Morton, T., et al. (2006). Why do people engage in collective action? Revisiting the role of perceived effectiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(7), 1701-1722.
59.Hsiao, K. A., & Chen, L. L. (2006). Fundamental dimensions of affective responses to product shapes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36(6), 553-564.
60.Hung, W. K. & Chen, L. L. (2009). Exploring relationships between product aesthetics, typicality and preference, In Proceedings of the 3th IASDR Conference on Design Research [CD ROM]. Seoul, South Korea: Korean Society of Design Science.
61.Hung, W. K. & Chen, L. L. (2011). Aesthetics and contradiction in product semantics. In Proceedings of the 4th IASDR Conference on Design Research [CD ROM]. Delft, the Netherlands: TU Delft.
62.Jonas, K., Broemer, P., & Diehl, M. (2000a). Attitudinal ambivalence. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 35-74.
63.Jonas, K., Broemer, P., & Diehl, M. (2000b). Attitudinal ambivalence as a moderator of the consistency between attitudes and behaviors. Zeitschrift Für Sozialpsychologie, 31(3), 153–165.
64.Karana, E., Hekkert, P., & Kandachar, P. (2007). Material considerations in product design: A survey on crucial material aspects used by product designers. Materials and Design, 29(6), 1081-1089.
65.Keinonen, T., & Takala, R. (Eds.) (2005). Product concept design. Germany: Springer.
66.Kelley, T. (1999). Designing for business, consulting for innovation. Design Management Journal, 10(3), 30-34.
67.Krippendorff, K. (2007). Design research, an oxymoron? In R. Michel (ed.), Design research now: Essays and selected projects (pp. 67-80). Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.
68.Kruger, C. (1999). Cognitive strategies in industrial design engineering. Delft, the Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
69.Kruger, C., & Cross, N. (2006). Solution driven versus problem driven design: Strategies and outcomes. Design Studies, 27(5), 527-548.
70.Kyffin, S., & Gardien, P. (2009). Navigating the innovation matrix: An approach to design-led innovation. International Journal of Design, 3(1), 57-69.
71.Lavie, T., & Tractinsky, N. (2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60(3), 269-298.
72.Lawson, B. (1979). Cognitive strategies in architectural design. Ergonomics, 22(1), 59-68.
73.Leder, H., & Carbon, C. C. (2005). Dimensions in appreciation of car interior design. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(5), 603-618.
74.Linden, A., & Fenn, J. (2003). Understanding Gartner's hype cycles. Retrieved Dec. 8, 2011, from http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/hype-cycle.jsp.
75.Linden, G., Kraemer, K. L., & Dedrick, J. (2007). Who captures value in a global innovation system: the case of Apple’s iPod. Irvine, CA: Personal Computing Industry Center.
76.Loewy, R. (1951). Never leave well enough alone. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
77.Loken, B., & Ward, J. (1990). Alternative approaches to understanding the determinants of typicality. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 111-126.
78.Martindale, C., Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings of Berlyne’s psychobiological theory. American Journal of Psychology, 103(1), 53-80.
79.Meir, I. A., Erell, E., Etzion, Y., & Pearlmutter, D. (1996). Are design ideas competitions hitting the target? Comments on the International Design Ideas Competition for a resort hotel by the Dead Sea, Israel. Energy and Buildings, 23(3), 299-306.
80.Merton, R. K. & Barber, E. (2004). The travels and adventures of serendipity: A study in sociological semantics and the sociology of science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
81.Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 39-54.
82.Moultrie, J., Livesey, F., Malvido, C., Beltagui, A., Pawar, K., & Riedel, J. (2009). Design funding in firms: A conceptual model of the role of design in industry. Design Management Journal, 4(1), 68-82.
83.Niedderer, K., Harrison, C., & Johns, P. (2006). Exploring the creative possibilities of Argentium® Sterling Silver. In K. Friedman, T. Love, & E. Corte-Real (eds.), WonderGround. Lisbon, Portugal: IADE.
84.Nordby, K. (2010). Conceptual designing and technology: Short-range RFID as design material. International Journal of Design, 4(1), 29-44.
85.Nordgren, L. F., Van Harreveld, F., & Van der Pligt, J. (2006). Ambivalence, discomfort, and motivated information processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 252-258.
86.Norman, D. A. (1998). The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
87.Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional desgin, why we love (and hate) everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
88.Norman, D. (2010a). Why design contests are bad. Retrieved Dec. 8, 2011, from http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/why_design_contests_are_bad_17024.asp.
89.Norman, D. (2010b). Why great ideas can fail. Retrieved Dec. 8, 2011, from http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/why_great_ideas_can_fail_17235.asp.
90.Norman, D. (n. d.). The research-practice gap. Retrieved Dec. 8, 2011, from http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/the_research-practice_gap_1.html.
91.OECD. (1998). Interdisciplinarity in science and technology, directorate for science. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
92.Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
93.Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2009). Business model generation. Retrieved Sep. 20, 2012, from http://www.businessmodelgeneration.com/downloads/business_model_canvas_poster.pdf
94.Parnes, S. J. (1987). Visioneering - State of the art. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 21(3), 283-299.
95.Philips Corporate Design (1996). Vision of the Future. Bussum, the Netherlands: V+K Publishing.
96.Pine II, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 97-105.
97.Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 431-449.
98.Purcell, A. T. (1984). The aesthetics experience and mundane reality. In W. R. Crozier & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Cognitive processes in the perception of art (pp. 189-210). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland.
99.Radford, S. K., & Bloch, P. H. (2011). Linking innovation to design: Consumer responses to visual product newness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(1), 208-220.
100.Rayport, J. F., & Jaworski, B. J. (2005). Best face forward. Boston, NY: Harvard Business School Press.
101.Reisenzein, R. (1994). Pleasure-activation theory and the intensity of emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 525-539.
102.Repp, B. H. (1997). The aesthetic quality of a quantitatively average music performance: Two preliminary experiments. Music Perception, 14(4), 419-444.
103.Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
104.Russell, J. A. (1978). Evidence of convergent validity on the dimensions of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(10), 1152-1168.
105.Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161-1178.
106.Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, 125(1), 3-30.
107.Rust, C. (2004). Design enquiry: Tacit knowledge and invention in science. Design Issues, 20(4), 76-85.
108.Saunders, R., & Gero, J. S. (2002). Curious agents and situated design evaluations. In J. S. Gero & F. Brazier (eds.), Agents in Design 2002, Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition (pp.133-149). Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney.
109.Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & Kappen, D. M. (2003). Attitudes toward group-based inequality: Social dominance or social identity? British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 161-186.
110.Schoormans, J. P. L., & Robben, Henry H. S. J. (1997). The effect of new package design on product attention, categorization, and evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology 18(2-3), 271-287.
111.Silvia, P. J., & Barona, C. M. (2009). Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(1), 25-42.
112.Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(1), 181-201.
113.Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813-838.
114.Stuart, F. I., & Tax, S. (2004). Toward an integrative approach to designing service experiences: Lessons learned from the theatre. Journal of Operations Management, 22(6), 609-627.
115.Suarez, F., & Lanzola, G. (2005). The half truth of first-mover advantage. Harvard Business Review, 83(4), 121-127.
116.Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York, NY: Doubleday.
117.Thayer, R. E. (1989). The biopsychology of mood and activation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
118.Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-386). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
119.Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger S. D. (1995). Product Design and Development. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
120.Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston, NY: Harvard Business School Press.
121.Van der Heijden, H. (2003). Factors influencing the usage of websites: The case of a generic portal in the Netherlands. Information & Management, 40(6), 541-549.
122.Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535.
123.Venkatraman, R. (2005). Role of design service firms in product innovation. Unpublished master's thesis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA.
124.Verganti, R. (2008). Design, meanings, and radical Innovation: A meta-model and a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(5), 436-456.
125.Verganti, R. (2009). Design-driven innovation: Changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean. Boston, NY: Harvard Business School Press.
126.Veryzer, R. W., & de Mozota, B. B. (2005), The impact of user-oriented design on new product development: An examination of fundamental relationships. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(2), 128-143.
127.Veryzer, R. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 374-385.
128.Ward, J., & Loken, B. (1988). The generality of typicality effects on preference and comparison: An exploratory test. In M. J. Houston (ed.), Advances in consumer research (pp.55-61). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
129.Weiss, L. (2002). Developing tangible strategies. Design Management Journal, 10(3), 32-38.
130.Whelton, M., & Ballard, G. (2002). Wicked problems in project definition. In Proceedings of the International Group for Lean Construction 10th Annual Conference. Porto Alegre, Brazil: Lean Construction Institute.
131.Whissell, C. M. (1981). Pleasure and activation revisited: Dimensions underlying semantic responses to fifty randomly selected "emotional" words. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 53, 871-874.
132.Whitfield, T. W. A. (1983). Predicting preference for familiar, everyday objects: An experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(3), 221-237.
133.Whitfield, T. W. A., & Slatter, P. E. (1979). The effects of categorization and prototypicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task. British Journal of Psychology 70(1), 65-75.
134.Wikipedia (n.d.). 工業技術研究院. Retrieved Dec. 8, 2011, from http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B7%A5%E7%A0%94%E9%99%A2.
135.Yamamoto, M., & Lambert, D. R. (1994). The impact of product aesthetics on the evolution of industrial products. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(4), 309-324.
136.Yorke, M. (2001). Bipolarity or not? Some conceptual problems relating to bipolar rating scales. British Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 171-186.
137.Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman A., & Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering service quality: Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York, NY: The Free Press.