物聯網、人工智慧的興起，我們逐漸不再是對物擁有主權的主掌者，在萬物皆聯網之下，環繞在我們週遭的日常生活設計物應有著與我們不同的平行生活。物件導向本體（Object-Oriented Ontology, OOO）主張世界的所有存在皆為平等，我們與物件是相互影響彼此行動的，人透過與世界互動而確立彼此的存在。性別不只成為人類兩性行為的參考依據，也是構成社會互動的結構要素；從設計物之於人、活動、場域至文化的交互關係來看，性別與這個世界密切鏈接，而設計扮演著其中體現的重要角色。本研究希冀設計師透過不同的視角來理解人與物件的新世界關係，以物件性別的角度切入，並藉由現象學還原，探究互動設計物如何於人的意向性之中建構物件性別的意象。並透過設計做研究（Research through Design）和實踐認識，邀請參與者與設計研究者一同探知與反思物件性別的存在。本研究以三個互動設計案例為探討：成癮產品（Addicted products）、自拍植物（The selfie plant）和渴望的桌燈（The aspirational lamp），分別進行主觀和感知的性別量測，並分析其性別特質。設計「對性化物件（contrasexualize artifacts）」之設計原型，企圖釐清互動設計師如何將性別意象具現化，並透過參與者的感知詮釋，轉譯出物件所擁有的人格特質，進而框架出物件的陰陽性。最後，本研究總結：一、物件導向互動設計物是能被感知到性別特質的差異。二、物件導向互動設計物的性別特質是於情境脈絡中產生的。三、設計具性別之物件導向互動設計物須考量選用之角色原型的性別行為模式與個性決策。

In recent years, there has been a dramatic proliferation of research concerned with things’ gender in the object oriented research field of artificial intelligence. With the increasing usage of smart things, such as google home and amazon alexa, things have been performed different genders into our everyday lives. Yet, current researches on things’ gender only conduct in voice itself, there should be wider perspectives (behaviors, perception, etc.) to discuss things’ gender in interaction design. Therefore, this paper aims to explore human perception on things’ gender by research through design. First, we examined three design cases to understand how people perceive gender. Second, we design two prototypes, called ‘Contrasextualized artifacts’. Each artifact performed different behaviors and made a show together for participants, enabling participants to interpret each artifact’s gender in such relationship. Finally, this paper can provide designers, an understanding on how to use gender as annotation, to give form to interaction artifact design.

中文部分

吳奕佩（2008）。女性設計師其性別特質與產品性別之關係。國立臺北科技大學創新設計研究所。碩士論文。
呂應鐘（2003）。超心理生死學。高雄市：上宜・
李美枝（1981）。性別特質問卷的編制及男女大學生四種性別特質類型在成就動機、婚姻、事業及性態度上的比較。中華心理學刊，第 23 卷，第一期，23-27。
李美枝、鍾秋玉（1996）。性別與性別角色析論。本土心理學研究，6，260-299。
林志明譯（1997）。物體系。台北市：時報文化。
林怡君（2005）。大學生性別角色取向、性別平權態度與成功恐懼之研究。國立交通大學教育研究所。碩士論文。
林逸筑（2011）。從抽象中提取概念：詩意互動設計初探。國立台灣科技大學工商業設計學系。碩士論文。
張春興（1995）。現代心理學。台北市：東華書局。
莊安祺譯（2015）。人類時代：我們所塑造的世界。台北市：時報文化。
陳羿君、 劉電芝、 朱江容、 陳翠（2014）。海峽兩岸大學生性別角色發展的對比研究。教育心理學報 ， 46卷2期 ， 205 - 232。
陳皎眉、孫旻暐（2006）。 從性別刻板印象威脅談學業表現上的性別差異。教育研究。147，19-30。
陳麗芳（2010）。設計哲學中有關性別意識的影響思考。朝陽科技大學設計研究所。碩士論文。
傅永新（2005）。數的概念起源與感知:現象學的兩個切入點。江蘇社會科學， 4，43-47。
游美惠（2014）。性別教育小詞庫。高雄市：巨流。
楊宜音、張志學、彭泗清等譯（1997）。 性格與社會心理測量總覽。台北市：遠流。
廖仁義譯（1997）。胡賽爾與現象學 。台北巿 : 桂冠。
劉泗瀚譯（2004）。性／別。台北市：書林。
劉師豪（2012）。性別化產品對於產品意象與產品喜好度之探討-以手機為例。國立台灣科技大學工商業設計學系。碩士論文。
蔣韜譯（1997）。導讀榮格。新北市：立緒文化。
儲裕娟（2003）。互動式工作空間。國立成功大學建築學系碩博士班。碩士論文。

英文部分
Ackrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. W Bijker and J Law (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society, 205-224.

Aiken, L. R., Jr. (1963). The relationships of dress to selected measures of personality in undergraduate women. Journal of Social Psychology, 59, 119-128.

Arnall, T., & Martinussen, E. S. (2010). Depth of field: Discursive design research through film. FORMakademisk–research journal for design and design education, 3(1).

Bardzell, S., Bardzell, J., Forlizzi, J., Zimmerman, J., & Antanitis, J. (2012). Critical design and critical theory: the challenge of designing for provocation. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (pp. 288-297). ACM.

Beckwith, L., Burnett, M., Grigoreanu, V., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2006). Gender hci: What about the software?. Computer, 39(11), 97-101.

Beckwith, L., & Burnett, M. (2004, September). Gender: An important factor in end-user programming environments?. In Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing, 2004 IEEE Symposium on (pp. 107-114). IEEE."

Bell, J., & Huang, Z. (1999). Seeing is believing: A common sense theory of the adoption of perception-based beliefs. AI EDAM, 13(02), 133-140.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Berg, A. J., & Lie, M. (1995). Feminism and constructivism: do artifacts have gender?. Science, Technology & Human Values, 20(3), 332-351.

Bogost, I. (2012). Alien phenomenology, or, what it's like to be a thing. U of Minnesota Press.

Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. A., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, 61-79.

Bryant, L. R. (2011). The democracy of objects. Open Humanities Press.

Bryant, L.R., Srnicek, N., and Harman, G. (2011). Towards a Speculative Philosophy. In Levi R. Bryant, Nick Srnicek & Graham Harman (eds.), The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism. Re.Press

Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum?. Psychological bulletin, 80(5), 389.

Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing (pp. 1-13). Springer London.

DeLanda, M. (2013). Intensive science and virtual philosophy. A&C Black.

Ehrnberger, K., Räsänen, M., & Ilstedt, S. (2012). Visualising gender norms in design: Meet the mega hurricane mixer and the drill dolphia. International Journal of design, 6(3).

Gilbert, L. A. (1985). Measures of psychological masculinity and femininity: A comment on Gaddy, Glass, and Arnkoff.

Gaver, B., & Bowers, J. (2012). Annotated portfolios. interactions, 19(4), 40-49.

Harackiewicz, J. M., & DePaulo, B. M. (1982). Accuracy of Person Perception A Component Analysis According to Cronbach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(2), 247-256.

Harman, G. (2015). Object-Oriented Ontology. In The Palgrave Handbook of Posthumanism in Film and Television (pp. 401-409). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Heilbrun, A., & Pitman, D. (1979). Testing some basic assumptions about psychological androgyny. Jourual of Genetic Psychology, 135, 175-188.

Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative inquiry, 3(3), 274-294.

Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors.Psychological bulletin, 84(4), 712.

Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B. (1997). Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Humanfactors in computing systems (pp. 234-241). NY: ACM.

Janlert, L. E., & Stolterman, E. (1997). The character of things. Design Studies, 18(3), 297-314.

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redstrom, J., & Wensveen, S. (2011).Design research through practice: From the lab, field, and showroom. Elsevier.

Levy, S. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, 37, 117-124.

Lippa, R., Valdez, E., & Jolly, A. (1983). The effects of self-monitoring on the expressive display of masculinity-femininity. Journal of Research in Personality,17(3), 324-338.

Morton, T. (2010). The ecological thought. Harvard University Press.

Nansen, B., van Ryn, L., Vetere, F., Robertson, T., Brereton, M., & Douish, P. (2014, December). An internet of social things. In Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Designing Futures: the Future of Design (pp. 87-96). ACM.

Orlofsky, J. L., Aslin, A. L., & Ginsburg, S. D. (1977). Differential effectiveness of two classification procedures on the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41: 414-416.

Oudshoorn, N., Saetnan, A. R., & Lie, M. (2002, August). On gender and things: Reflections on an exhibition on gendered artifacts. In Women's Studies International Forum (Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 471-483). Pergamon.

Oviatt, S. (1999). Ten myths of multimodal interaction. Communications of the ACM, 42(11), 74-81.

Shaffer, D. R. (1996). Developmental psychology: Childhood and adolescence. New York, NY: Brooks/Cole and ITP.

Spence, J. T., and Helmreich, R., and Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and person sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conception of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 32, 29-39.

Takayama, L. (2012). Perspectives on Agency Interacting with and through Personal Robots. In Human-Computer Interaction: The Agency Perspective (pp. 195-214). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Vallgårda, A. (2014). Giving form to computational things: developing a practice of interaction design. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(3), 577-592.

Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the 21st century. Scientific american,265(3), 94-104.

Willis, A. M. (2006). Ontological designing. Design philosophy papers, 4(2), 69-92.

Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007, April). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 493-502). ACM.

網路參考資料

Addicted products:
http://www.simonerebaudengo.com/#/addictedproducts/

The selfie plant
http://ciid.dk/education/portfolio/idp15/courses/secret-life-of-objects/projects/the-selfie-plant/

The aspirational lamp
http://ciid.dk/education/portfolio/idp15/courses/secret-life-of-objects/projects/the-aspirational-lamp/

Vincent & Emily
http://www.nachtproduktion.de/vincentundemily

Reese, H. (2016, March 24). Why Microsoft's 'Tay' AI bot went wrong? TechRepublic. from http://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-microsofts-tay-ai-bot-went-wrong/

Taylor, H. (2016, March 16). Could you fall in love with this robot? CNBC. from http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/could-you-fall-in-love-with-this-robot.html

Weintraub, S. (2015, December 29). Watch ‘The Force Awakens’ Cast Answer Whether BB-8 Is a Boy or a Girl. Collider.com. from http://collider.com/bb8-boy-girl-gender-star-wars-7-the-force-awakens/