Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In their comments, Frohlich (this issue), Monk (this issue), Tractinsky (thisissue), Overbeeke and Wensveen (this issue) addressed a wide variety of in-teresting issues relevant to the study of beauty. The methodological aspectsare especially valuable. Besides the regular debate of what constitutes goodresearch,theyrevealmanyunresolvedhigher-levelconceptualdiscrepancies.To resolve those and to find a shared understanding of what beauty is andhow to study it is the key to guaranteeing the impact of our research in thefield of human–computer interaction (HCI). Only if studies can be comparedand integrated into a common model ,or even theory, others will begin tobenefit.The present reply is selective. I address the following six loosely con-nected, conceptual aspects, which I consider important.• Beauty as an experience versus beauty as a judgment.• Beauty in objects as a desired extension of the self.• Does visceral beauty exist?• Beauty as a neither less nor more elusive judgment than usability,utility, or satisfaction.• Shall we focus on objects or on individuals?• Any lessons for design?I am aware of the many other issues, large and small, raised but not ad-dressed by the reply. They are not lost. There will be many future opportuni-ties to further research and discuss them.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marc Hassenzahl (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: