不同的設計手法讓產品產生差異化，達到既具美感又富有創新的商品，並獲得市場上較高的喜好度。觀察近代的產品有許多都呈現出既典型又新奇的設計，試圖讓產品在市場中提升其獨特性及價值。在設計的過程中觀察到，設計師大多將物件的原型視為設計的參考基準，再藉由造形、色彩、質感等運用，使產品更加獨特、新奇。例如：Harri Koskinen 所設計的冰塊燈，將燈泡包覆在冰塊中，視覺上同時呈現了燈泡的溫暖與冰塊的冰冷；Philip Starck於1990年所設計的Miss Sissi table light，造型上是典型的檯燈而材料是運用近代的塑膠材質，視覺上呈現了既典型又獨特的感覺。雷蒙洛伊在研究中認為，人們喜好的產品，是典型與新奇的最佳組合，這當中隱含矛盾的語意，而在過去研究中也發現矛盾的設計，相對於整體而言，亦有較高的喜好。同樣的，在Ludden (2008)研究中也提到，令人產生與過去經驗或感官上不一致的產品，更能增加產品其意義及互動性，甚至產生驚奇感，因而更容易受到人們的注意並留下深刻的印象。

有鑑於此，本研究將針對矛盾與驚奇的關係作為探討重點，並提供設計者在設計實務上的參考。本研究共歸納出以下三項結論：

（1）從實驗結果在相關性中的趨勢觀察，整體而言，矛盾是可以引發驚奇。

（2）本研究實驗，運用K平均數集群分類觀察樣本在九宮格中的分佈，既驚喜又喜歡的樣本範例主要都偏於矛盾或獨特，而不同教育背景受測者對於驚奇與喜好的認知亦有明顯的差異。

（3）既錯愕又不喜歡的樣本大多都因為受測者無法瞭解與接收到設計師所要表達的設計語言，甚至產生反感而降低了喜好度，因此，設計師應注意所運用的設計手法是否能易於理解，避免運用太過抽象的設計語言及元素。

Designers apply different design techniques to create more beautiful and innovative products, to achieve higher market preference. Through the observation of contemporary products, many of them exhibit both typical and novel features to increese their uniqueness and value in the market. Based on the procedure of design, it is found that most of the designers regard the prototype of a product as a basis for reference and then deviate from it to make a product more unique and novel. For example: the light bulb of the ice lamp designed by Harri Koskinen was enclosed in the ice to present a vision of both warm and cold. The model of the Miss Sissi table light designed by Philip Starck in 1990 is a typical lamp which was made unique by using plastic materials to show both typical and unique feelings. As per Raymond Loewy’s claim, the preferred product is usually the best combination of typical and novel features. This concept implies a contradiction. Designs with contradiction were found to gain higher overall preference in many former studies. Ludden (2008) also mentioned in her study that products can improve the meaning and interaction, and even create surprise feeling if they can evoke different experience or sensations. As a result, these products can easily attract people’s attention and leave a deep impression on them.

This study focuses on the discussion of the relationship between contradiction and surprise, and provides guidelines to the designers for contradictory design. Three conclusions as the followings:
（1）In general, contradiction can trigger surprise based on the research results and correlations of trend observations.
（2）This study applied the k-means cluster classification method to observe the distribution of the sample in the Nine Chequers. The surprising and preferred samples all fall into the contradiction and uniqueness categories. Participants with different education backgrounds have significantly different perceptions toward contradiction and preference.
（3）The stunned and disliked samples are mainly caused by the lack of understanding of what the designers wanted to express. This even resulted in a resentment towards the products which may have further reduced the level of preference. Indeed, the designers must be careful about whether the design technique can be easily understood and avoid excessively applying design language and elements.

1.曾懷德，（2003），產品造形形變於情感意象空間之探討─以椅子造形為例，國立台灣科技大學工業設計研究所碩士論文。
2.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.
3.Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
4.Bloch, P. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59, 16-29.
5.Boselie, F., & Leeuwenberg, E. (1985). Birkhoff revisited: Beauty as a function of effect and means. American Journal of Psychology, 98, 1-39.
6.Breckler, S. J. (1994). A comparison of numerical indexes for measuring attitude ambivalence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 350-365.
7.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, 3-25.
8.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, 705-718.
9.Contradiction. (n. d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction
10.Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547-577.
11.Charlotte & Peter F., (2004), 1000 Lights, Italy :Taschen.
12.Fiell, C., & Fiell, P. (1997). 1000 Chairs. Italy: Taschen.
13.Gardner, P. L. (1987). Measuring ambivalence to science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(3), 241-247.
14.Geldard, F. A. (1953). The Human Senses. New York︰Wiley.
15.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, 117-131.
16.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, 111-124.
17.Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: principle of pleasure in design. Psychology Science, 48(2), 157-172.
18.Hsiao, K. A., & Chen, L. L. (2006). Fundamental dimensions of affective responses to product shapes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36, 553-564.
19.Jonas, K., Broemer, P., & Diehl, M. (2000a). Attitudinal ambivalence. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 35-74.
20.Jonas, K., Broemer, P., & Diehl, M. (2000b). Attitudinal ambivalence as a moderator of the consistency between attitudes and behaviors. Zeitschrift Für Sozialpsychologie, 31, 153–165.
21.Ludden, G. D. S. (2008). Sensory incongruity and surprise in product design. Delft University of Technology, Delft.
22.Nordgren, L. F., Van Harreveld, F., & Van der Pligt, J. (2006). Ambivalence, discomfort, and motivated information processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 252-258.
23.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, 431-449.
24.Russell, J. A. (1978). Evidence of convergent validity on the dimensions of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1152-1168.
25.Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161-1178.
26.Thayer, R. E. (1989). The biopsychology of mood and activation. New York: Oxford University Press.
27.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.
28.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.

相關網站
天晴設計事務所 (http://www.afteraindesign.com)
Scandi Living (http://www.scandiliving.com)
MoMA（http://www.moma.org）
dezeen（http://www.dezeen.com）
Fanantique（http://www.fanantique.com/en/accueil.html）
Modern Design: furniture and lighting（http://www.stardust.com）
ARAM（http://www.aram.co.uk）
MOCO（http://mocoloco.com）
The National Gallery of Australia（http://nga.gov.au/Home/Default.cfm）
Studiomold （http://www.studiomold.com/index.html）
droog（http://www.droog.com）
bonluxat（http://www.bonluxat.com）
ARCHIXEPO（http://www.archiexpo.fr）
Homedosh（http://www.homedosh.com）
A+. 29（http://atelier29.blogspot.com/）
THE FIRE WIRE （http://larryfire.wordpress.com）
SENDHEN（http://www.sendhen.com）