Emotional Design Donald Norman

TLFeBOOK
Emotional Design
TLFeBOOK
This page intentionally left blank
TLFeBOOK
ALSO BY DONALD A. NORMAN
The Invisible Computer
Things That Make Us Smart
Turn Signals Are the Facial Expressions of Automobiles
The Design of Everyday Things
The Psychology of Everyday Things
User Centered System Design: New Perspectives

on Human-Computer Interaction
(Edited with Stephen Draper)
Learning and Memory
Perspectives on Cognitive Science (Editor)
Human Information Processing (With Peter Lindsay)
Explorations in Cognition
(With David E. Rumelhart and the LNR Research Group)
Models of Human Memory (Editor)
Memory and Attention:

An Introduction to Human Information Processing
TLFeBOOK
TLFeBOOK
Emotional
Design
Why We Love (or Hate)
Everyday Things
Donald A. Norman
BASIC
A MEMBER OF THE P E R S E U S BOOKS GROUP
BOOKS NEW YORK
TLFeBOOK
Copyright © 2004 by Donald A. Norman
Published by Basic Books,
A Member of the Perseus Books Group
All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may
be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case
of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. For information, address
Basic Books, 387 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 100168810.
Books published by Basic Books are available at special discounts for bulk
purchases in the United States by corporations, institutions, and other
organizations. For more information,please contact the SpecialMarkets
Department at the Perseus Books Group, 11 Cambridge Center,
Cambridge, MA 02142, or specialmarkets@perseusbooks.com
Designed by Lovedog Studio
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGINGINPUBLICATION DATA

Norman, Donald A.
Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things / Donald A.
Norman.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0465051359
1. Emotions and cognition. 2. Design—Psychological aspects. 3.
Design, Industrial—Psychological aspects. I. Title.
BF531.N672004
155.9'H—dc21
04 05 06 / 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
TLFeBOOK
To Julie
TLFeBOOK
TLFeBOOK
Contents
Prologue: Three Teapots 3
Part I: The Meaning of Things
1 Attractive Things Work Better 17

2 The Multiple Faces of Emotion and Design 35
Part II: Design in Practice
3 Three Levels of Design: Visceral, Behavioral,

and Reflective 63
4 Fun and Games 99
5 People, Places, and Things I 35
ix
TLFeBOOK
x Contents
6 Emotional Machines 161

7 The Future of Robots 195
Epilogue: We Are All Designers 213
Personal Reflections and Acknovledgments 229
Notes 235
References 243
Index 249
TLFeBOOK
Emotional Design
TLFeBOOK
FIGURE 0.1 FIGURE 0.2
An impossible teapot. Michael Graves's "Nanna" teapot.
(Author's collection. So charming I couldn't resist it.
Photograph by Ayman Shamma.) (Author's collection.
Photograph by Ayman Shamma.)
FIGURE 0.3a, b, and c

The Ronnefeldt "tilting" teapot. Put leaves on the internal shelf (not
visible, but just above and parallel to the ridge that can be seen running
around the body of the teapot), fill with hot water, and lay the teapot on its
back (figure a). As the tea darkens, tilt the pot, as in figure b. Finally, when
the tea is done, stand the teapot vertically as in figure c, so the water no
longer touches the leaves and the brew does not become bitter.
(Author's collection. Photographs by Ayman Shamma.)
TLFeBOOK
PROLOGUE
Three Teapots
If you want a golden rule that will fit everybody,
this is it: Have nothing in your houses that you
do not know to be useful, or believe to be
beautiful.
—William Morris
"The Beauty of Life," 1880
I H A V E A C O L L E C T I O N OF T E A P O T S . One of them is

completely unusable—the handle is on the same side as the spout. It
was invented by the French artist Jacques Carelman, who called it a
coffeepot: a "coffeepot for masochists." Mine is a copy of the original.
A picture of it appears on the cover of my book The Design of
Everyday Things.
The second item in my collection is the teapot called Nanna, whose
unique squat and chubby nature is surprisingly appealing. The third is
a complicated but practical "tilting" pot made by the German firm
Ronnefeldt.
The Carelman pot is, by intent, impossible to use. The Nanna
teapot, designed by the wellknown architect and product designer
TLFeBOOK
4 E m o t i o n a l D e s i g n
Michael Graves, looks clumsy but actually works rather well. The tilt
ing pot, which I discovered while enjoying high tea at the Four
Seasons Hotel in Chicago, was designed with the different stages of
tea brewing in mind. To use it, I place the tea leaves on a shelf (out of
sight in the pot's interior) and lay the pot on its back while the leaves
steep. As the brew approaches the desired strength, I prop the pot up
at an angle, partially uncovering the tea leaves. When the tea is ready,
I set the pot upright, so that the leaves are no longer in contact with
the tea.
Which one of these teapots do I usually use? None of the above.
I drink tea every morning. At an early hour, efficiency comes first.
So, upon awakening, I pad into my kitchen and push the button on a
Japanese hot pot to boil water while I spoon cut tea leaves into a little
metal brewing ball. I drop the ball into my cup, fill it with boiling
water, wait a few minutes for it to steep, and my tea is ready to drink.
Fast, efficient, easy to clean.
Why am I so attached to my teapots? Why do I keep them out on
display, in the alcove formed by the kitchen window? Even when they
are not in use, they are there, visible.
I value my teapots not only for their function for brewing tea, but
because they are sculptural artwork. I love standing in front of the
window, comparing the contrasting shapes, watching the play of light
on the varied surfaces. When I'm entertaining guests or have time to
spare, I brew my tea in the Nanna teapot for its charm or in the tilting
pot for its cleverness. Design is important to me, but which design I
choose depends on the occasion, the context, and above all, my
mood. These objects are more than utilitarian. As art, they lighten up
my day. Perhaps more important, each conveys a personal meaning:
each has its own story. One reflects my past, my crusade against
unusable objects. One reflects my future, my campaign for beauty.
And the third represents a fascinating mixture of the functional and
the charming.
The story of the teapots illustrates several components of product
design: usability (or lack thereof), aesthetics, and practicality. In ere
TLFeBOOK
P r o l o g u e : T h r e e T e a p o t s 5
FIGURE 0.4
Three teapots: works of art in the window above the kitchen sink.
(Author's collection. Photograph by Ayman Shamma.)
ating a product, a designer has many factors to consider: the choice of
material, the manufacturing method, the way the product is marketed,
cost and practicality, and how easy the product is to use, to under
stand. But what many people don't realize is that there is also a strong
emotional component to how products are designed and put to use. In
this book, I argue that the emotional side of design may be more criti
cal to a product's success than its practical elements.
The teapots also illustrate three different aspects of design: viscer
al, behavioral, and reflective. Visceral design concerns itself with
appearances. Here is where the Nanna teapot excels—I so enjoy its
appearance, especially when filled with the amber hues of tea, lit from
beneath by the flame of its warming candle. Behavioral design has to
do with the pleasure and effectiveness of use. Here both the tilting
teapot and my little metal ball are winners. Finally, reflective design
considers the rationalization and intellectualization of a product. Can
I tell a story about it? Does it appeal to my selfimage, to my pride? I
TLFeBOOK
6 Emotional Design
FIGURE 0.5
The MINI Cooper S.
"It is fair to say that almost no new vehicle in recent memory has pro-
voked more smiles." (Courtesy of BMW AG.)
love to show people how the tilting teapot works, explaining how the
position of the pot signals the state of the tea. A nd, of course, the
"teapot for masochists" is entirely reflective. It isn't particularly beau
tiful, and it's certainly not useful, but what a wonderful story it tells!
Beyond the design of an object, there is a personal component as
well, one that no designer or manufacturer can provide. The objects in
our lives are more than mere material possessions. We take pride in
them, not necessarily because we are showing off our wealth or status,
but because of the meanings they bring to our lives. A person's most
beloved objects may well be inexpensive trinkets, frayed furniture, or
photographs and books, often tattered, dirty, or faded. A favorite
object is a symbol, setting up a positive frame of mind, a reminder of
pleasant memories, or sometimes an expression of one's self. And this
object always has a story, a remembrance, and something that ties us
personally to this particular object, this particular thing.
Visceral, behavioral, and reflective: These three very different
dimensions are interwoven through any design. It is not possible to
have design without all three. But more important, note how these
three components interweave both emotions and cognition.
TLFeBOOK
This is so despite the common tendency to pit cognition against

emotion. Whereas emotion is said to be hot, animalistic, and irra
tional, cognition is cool, human, and logical. This contrast comes
from a long intellectual tradition that prides itself on rational, logical
reasoning. Emotions are out of place in a polite, sophisticated society.
They are remnants of our animal origins, but we humans must learn
to rise above them. At least, that is the perceived wisdom.
Nonsense! Emotions are inseparable from and a necessary part of
cognition. Everything we do, everything we think is tinged with emo
tion, much of it subconscious. In turn, our emotions change the way
we think, and serve as constant guides to appropriate behavior, steer
ing us away from the bad, guiding us toward the good.
Some objects evoke strong, positive emotions such as love, attach
ment, and happiness. In reviewing BMW's MINI Cooper car [figure
0.5], the New York Times observed: "Whatever one may think of the
MINI Cooper's dynamic attributes, which range from very good to
marginal, it is fair to say that almost no new vehicle in recent memory
has provoked more smiles." The car is so much fun to look at and
drive that the reviewer suggests you overlook its faults.
Several years ago, I was taking part in a radio show along with
designer Michael Graves. I had just criticized one of Graves's cre
ations, the "Rooster" teapot, as being pretty to look at, but difficult
to use—to pour the water was to risk a scalding—when a listener
called in who owned the Rooster. "I love my teapot," he said.
"When I wake up in the morning and stumble across the kitchen to
make my cup of tea, it always makes me smile." His message seemed
to be: "So what if it's a little difficult to use? Just be careful. It's so
pretty it makes me smile, and first thing in the morning, that's most
important."
One side effect of today's technologically advanced world is that it
is not uncommon to hate the things we interact with. Consider the
rage and frustration many people feel when they use computers. In an
article on "computer rage," a London newspaper put it this way: "It
starts out with slight annoyance, then the hairs on your neck start to
TLFeBOOK
8 E m o t i o n a l D e s i g n
prickle and your hands begin to sweat. Soon you are banging your

computer or yelling at the screen, and you might well end up belting
the person sitting next to you."
In the 1980s, in writing The Design of Everyday Things• , I didn't
take emotions into account. I addressed utility and usability, function
and form, all in a logical, dispassionate way—even though I am infu
riated by poorly designed objects. But now I've changed. Why? In
part because of new scientific advances in our understanding of the
brain and of how emotion and cognition are thoroughly intertwined.
We scientists now understand how important emotion is to everyday
life, how valuable. Sure, utility and usability are important, but with
out fun and pleasure, joy and excitement, and yes, anxiety and anger,
fear and rage, our lives would be incomplete.
Along with emotions, there is one other point as well: aesthetics,
attractiveness, and beauty. When I wrote The Design of Everyday
Things, my intention was not to denigrate aesthetics or emotion. I
simply wanted to elevate usability to its proper place in the design
world, alongside beauty and function. I thought that the topic of aes
thetics was wellcovered elsewhere, so I neglected it. The result has
been the welldeserved criticism from designers: "If we were to fol
low Norman's prescription, our designs would all be usable—but they
would also be ugly."
Usable but ugly. That's a pretty harsh judgment. Alas, the critique
is valid. Usable designs are not necessarily enjoyable to use. And, as
my threeteapot story indicates, an attractive design is not necessarily
the most efficient. But must these attributes be in conflict? Can beauty
and brains, pleasure and usability, go hand in hand?
All these questions propelled me into action. I was intrigued by the
difference between my scientific self and my personal life. In science,
I ignored aesthetics and emotion and concentrated on cognition.
Indeed, I was one of the early workers in the fields that today are
known as cognitive psychology and cognitive science. The field of
usability design takes root in cognitive science—a combination of
cognitive psychology, computer science, and engineering, analytical
TLFeBOOK
fields whose members pride themselves on scientific rigor and logical
thought.
In my personal life, however, I visited art galleries, listened to and
played music, and was proud of the architectdesigned home in
which I lived. As long as these two sides of my life were separate,
there wasn't any conflict. But early in my career, I experienced a sur
prising challenge from an unlikely source: the use of color monitors
for computers.
In the early years of the personal computer, color displays were
unheard of. Most of the display screens were black and white. Sure,
the very first Apple Computer, the Apple II, could display color, but
for games: any serious work done on the Apple II was done in black
and white, usually white text on a black background. In the early
1980s, when color screens were first introduced to the world of per
sonal computers, I had trouble understanding their appeal. In those
days, color was primarily used to highlight text or to add superfluous
decoration to the screen. From a cognitive point of view, color added
no value that shading could not provide. But businesses insisted on
buying color monitors at added cost, despite their having no scientific
justification. Obviously, color was fulfilling some need, but one we
could not measure.
I borrowed a color monitor to see what all the fuss was about. I was
soon convinced that my original assessment had been correct: color
added no discernible value for everyday work. Yet I refused to give up
the color display. My reasoning told me that color was unimportant,
but my emotional reaction told me otherwise.
Notice the same phenomenon in movies, television, and newspa
pers. At first, all movies were in black and white. So, too, was televi
sion. Movie makers and television manufacturers resisted the
introduction of color because it added huge costs with little dis
cernible gain. After all, a story is a story—what difference does color
make? But would you go back to blackandwhite TV or movies?
Today, the only time something is filmed in black and white is for
artistic, aesthetic reasons: The lack of full color makes a strong emo
TLFeBOOK
10 Emotional Design
tional statement. The same lesson has not fully transferred to newspa
pers and books. Everyone agrees that color is usually preferred, but
whether the benefits are sufficient to overcome the additional costs it
entails is hotly debated. Although color has crept into the pages of
newspapers, most of the photographs and advertisements are still in
black and white. So, too,with books: The photographs in this book are
all in black and white, even though the originals are in color. In most
books, the only place color appears is on the cover—presumably to
lure you into purchasing the book—but once you have purchased it,
the color is thought to have no further use.
The problem is that we still let logic make decisions for us, even
though our emotions are telling us otherwise. Business has come to be
ruled by logical, rational decision makers, by business models and
accountants, with no room for emotion. Pity!
We cognitive scientists now understand that emotion is a necessary
part of life, affecting how you feel, how you behave, and how you
think. Indeed, emotion makes you smart. That's the lesson of my cur
rent research. Without emotions, your decisionmaking ability would
be impaired. Emotion is always passing judgments, presenting you
with immediate information about the world: here is potential danger,
there is potential comfort; this is nice, that bad.One of the ways by
which emotions work is through neurochemicals that bathe particular
brain centers and modify perception, decision making, and behavior.
These neurochemicals change the parameters of thought.
The surprise is that we now have evidence that aesthetically pleas
ing objects enable you to work better. As I shall demonstrate, products
and systems that make you feel good are easier to deal with and pro
duce more harmonious results. When you wash and polish your car,
doesn't it seem to drive better? When you bathe and dress up in clean,
fancy clothes, don't you feel better? And when you use a wonderful,
wellbalanced, aesthetically pleasing garden or woodworking tool,
tennis racket or pair of skis, don't you perform better?
Before I go on, let me interject a technical comment: I am talking
TLFeBOOK
P r o l o g u e : T h r e e T e a p o t s II
here about affect, not just emotion. A major theme of this book is that
much of human behavior is subconscious, beneath conscious aware
ness. Consciousness comes late, both in evolution and also in the way
the brain processes information; many judgments have already been
determined before they reach consciousness. Both affect and cogni
tion are informationprocessing systems, but they have different func
tions. The affective system makes judgments and quickly helps you
determine which things in the environment are dangerous or safe,
good or bad. The cognitive system interprets and makes sense of the
world. Affect is the general term for the judgmental system, whether
conscious or subconscious. Emotion is the conscious experience of
affect, complete with attribution of its cause and identification of its
object. The queasy, uneasy feeling you might experience, without
knowing why, is affect. Anger at Harry, the usedcar salesman, who
overcharged you for an unsatisfactory vehicle, is emotion. You are
angry at something—Harry—for a reason. Note that cognition and
affect influence one another: some emotions and affective states are
driven by cognition, while affect often impacts cognition.
Let's look at a simple example. Imagine a long and narrow plank
ten meters long and one meter wide. Place it on the ground. Can you
walk on it? Of course. You can jump up and down, dance, and even
walk along with your eyes shut. Now prop the plank up so that it is
three meters off the ground. Can you walk on it? Yes, although you
proceed more carefully.
What if the plank were a hundred meters in the air? Most of us
wouldn't dare go near it, even though the act of walking along it and
maintaining balance should be no more difficult than when the plank
is on the ground. How can a simple task suddenly become so difficult?
The reflective part of your mind can rationalize that the plank is just
as easy to walk on at a height as on the ground, but the automatic,
lower visceral level controls your behavior. For most people, the vis
ceral level wins: fear dominates. You may try to justify your fear by
stating that the plank might break, or that, because it is windy, you
TLFeBOOK
12 Emotional Design
might be blown off. But all this conscious rationalization comes after
the fact, after the affective system has released its chemicals. The
affective system works independently of conscious thought.
Finally, affect and emotion are crucial for everyday decision mak
ing. The neuroscientist Antonio Damasio studied people who were
perfectly normal in every way except for brain injuries that impaired
their emotional systems. As a result, despite their appearance of nor
mality, they were unable to make decisions or function effectively in
the world. While they could describe exactly how they should have
been functioning, they couldn't determine where to live, what to eat,
and what products to buy and use.This finding contradicts thecom
mon belief that decision making is the heart of rational, logical
thought. But modern research shows that the affective system pro
vides critical assistance to your decision making by helping you make
rapid selections between good and bad, reducing the number of things
to be considered.
People without emotions, as in Damasio's study, are often unable to
choose between alternatives, especially if each choice appears equally
valid. Do you want to come in for your appointment on Monday or
Tuesday? Do you want rice or baked potato with your food? Simple
choices? Yes, perhaps too simple: there is no rational way to decide.
This is where affect is useful. Most of us just decide on something, but
if asked why, often don't know: "I just felt like it," one might reply. A
decision has to "feel good," or else it is rejected, and such feeling is an
expression of emotion.
The emotional system is also tightly coupled with behavior, prepar
ing the body to respond appropriately to a given situation. This is why
you feel tense and edgy when anxious. The "queasy" or "knotted"
feelings in your gut are not imaginary—they are real manifestations
of the way that emotions control your muscle systems and, yes,even
your digestive system. Thus, pleasant tastes and smells cause you to
salivate, to inhale and ingest. Unpleasant things cause the muscles to
tense as preparation for a response. A bad taste causes the mouth to
pucker, food to be spit out, the stomach muscles to contract. All of
TLFeBOOK
these reactions are part of the experience of emotion. We literally feel

good or bad, relaxed or tense. Emotions are judgmental, and prepare
the body accordingly. Your conscious, cognitive self observes those
changes. Next time you feel good or bad about something, but don't
know why, listen to your body, to the wisdom of its affective system.
Just as emotions are critical to human behavior, they are equally
critical for intelligent machines, especially autonomous machines of
the future that will help people in their daily activities. Robots, to be
successful, will have to have emotions (a topic I discuss in more detail
in chapter 6). Not necessarily the same as human emotions, these will
be emotions nonetheless, ones tailored to the needs and requirements
of a robot. Furthermore, the machines and products of the future may
be able to sense human emotions and respond accordingly. Soothe you
when you are upset, humor you, console you, play with you.
As I've said, cognition interprets and understands the world around
you, while emotions allow you to make quick decisions about it.
Usually, you react emotionally to a situation before you assess it cog
nitively, since survival is more important than understanding. But
sometimes cognition comes first. One of the powers of the human
mind is its ability to dream, to imagine, and to plan for the future. In
this creative soaring of the mind, thought and cognition unleash emo
tion, and are in turn changed themselves. To explain how this comes
about, let me now turn to the science of affect and emotion.
TLFeBOOK
TLFeBOOK
PART ONE
The Meaning
of Things
TLFeBOOK
TLFeBOOK
C H A P T E R ONE
Attractive Things
Work Better
N O A M T R A C T I N S K Y , A N I S R A E L I S C I E N T I S T , W A S
puzzled. Attractive things certainly should be preferred over ugly
ones, but why would they work better? Yet in the early 1990s, two
Japanese researchers, Masaaki Kurosu and Kaori Kashimura, claimed
just that. They studied different layouts of controls for ATMs, auto
mated teller machines that allow us to perform simple banking tasks
any time of the day or night. All versions of the ATMs were identical
in function, the number of buttons, and how they operated, but some
had the buttons and screens arranged attractively, the others unattrac
tively. Surprise! The Japanese found that the attractive ones were per
ceived to be easier to use.
Tractinsky was suspicious. Maybe the experiment had flaws. Or
perhaps the result could be true of Japanese, but certainly not of
Israelis. "Clearly," said Tractinsky, "aesthetic preferences are cultur
ally dependent." Moreover, he continued, "Japanese culture is
17
TLFeBOOK
18 Emotional Design
known for its aesthetic tradition," but Israelis? Nah,Israelis are

actionoriented—they don't care about beauty. So Tractinsky redid
the experiment. He got the ATM layouts from Kurosu and Kashimura,
translated them from Japanese into Hebrew, and designed a new
experiment, with rigorous methodological controls. Not only did he
replicate the Japanese findings, but—contrary to his belief that
usability and aesthetics "were not expected to correlate"—the results
were stronger in Israel than in Japan. Tractinsky was so surprised that
he put that phrase "were not expected" in italics, an unusual thing to do
in a scientific paper, but appropriate, he felt, given the unexpected
conclusion.
In the early 1900s, Herbert Read, who wrote numerous books on
art and aesthetics, stated, "it requires a somewhat mystical theory of
aesthetics to find any necessary connection between beauty and func
tion," and that belief is still common today. How could aesthetics
affect how easy something is to use? I had just started a research proj
ect examining the interaction of affect, behavior, and cognition, but
Tractinsky's results bothered me—I couldn't explain them. Still, they
were intriguing, and they supported my own personal experiences,
some of which I described in the prologue. As I pondered the experi
mental results, I realized they fit with the new framework that my
research collaborators and I were constructing as well as with new
findings in the study of affect and emotion. Emotions, we now know,
change the way the human mind solves problems—the emotional sys
tem changes how the cognitive system operates. So, if aesthetics
would change our emotional state, that would explain the mystery. Let
me explain.
Until recently, emotion was an illexplored part of human psychol
ogy. Some people thought it an evolutionary leftover from our animal
origins. Most thought of emotions as a problem to be overcome by
rational, logical thinking. And most of the research focused upon
negative emotions such as stress, fear, anxiety, and anger. Modern
work has completely reversed this view. Science now knows thatevo
lutionarily more advanced animals are more emotional than primitive
TLFeBOOK
O n e : A t t r a c t i v e T h i n g s W o r k B e t t e r 19
ones, the human being the most emotional of all. Moreover, emotions
play a critical role in daily lives, helping assess situations as good or
bad, safe or dangerous. As I discussed in the prologue, emotions aid
in decision making. Positive emotions are as important as negative
ones—positive emotions are critical to learning, curiosity, and cre
ative thought, and today research is turning toward this dimension.
One finding particularly intrigued me: The psychologist Alice Isen
and her colleagues have shown that being happy broadens the
thought processes and facilitates creative thinking. Isen discovered
that when people were asked to solve difficult problems, ones that
required unusual "out of the box" thinking, they did much better
when they had just been given a small gift—not much of a gift, but
enough to make them feel good. When you feel good, Isen discov
ered, you are better at brainstorming, at examining multiple alterna
tives. And it doesn't take much to make people feel good. All Isen had
to do was ask people to watch a few minutes of a comedy film or
receive a small bag of candy.
We have long known that when people are anxious they tend to nar
row their thought processes, concentrating upon aspects directly rele
vant to a problem. This is a useful strategy in escaping from danger,
but not in thinking of imaginative new approaches to a problem. Isen's
results show that when people are relaxed and happy, their thought
processes expand, becoming more creative, more imaginative.
These and related findings suggest the role of aesthetics in product
design: attractive things make people feel good, which in turn makes
them think more creatively. How does that make something easier to
use? Simple, by making it easier for people to find solutions to the
problems they encounter. With most products, if the first thing you
try fails to produce the desired result, the most natural response is to
try again, only with more effort. In today's world of computer
controlled products, doing the same operation over again is very
unlikely to yield better results. The correct response is to look for
alternative solutions. The tendency to repeat the same operation over
again is especially likely for those who are anxious or tense. This state
TLFeBOOK
20 Emotional Design
of negative affect leads people to focus upon the problematic details,

and if this strategy fails to provide a solution, they get even more
tense, more anxious, and increase their concentration upon those trou
blesome details. Contrast this behavior with those who are in a posi
tive emotional state, but encountering the same problem. These
people are apt to look around for alternative approaches, which is
very likely to lead to a satisfying end. Afterward, the tense andanx
ious people will complain about the difficulties whereas the relaxed,
happy ones will probably not even remember them. In other words,
happy people are more effective in finding alternative solutions and,
as a result, are tolerant of minor difficulties. Herbert Read thought we
would need a mystical theory to connect beauty and function. Well, it
took one hundred years, but today we have that theory, one based in
biology, neuroscience, and psychology, not mysticism.
Human beings have evolved over millions of years to function
effectively in the rich and complex environment of the world. Our
perceptual systems, our limbs, the motor system—which means the
control of all our muscles—everything has evolved to make us func
tion better in the world. Affect, emotion, and cognition have also
evolved to interact with and complement one another. Cognition
interprets the world, leading to increased understanding and knowl
edge. Affect, which includes emotion, is a system of judging what's
good or bad, safe or dangerous. It makes value judgments, the better
to survive.
The affective system also controls the muscles of the body and,
through chemical neurotransmitters, changes how the brain functions.
The muscle actions get us ready to respond, but they also serve assig
nals to others we encounter, which provides yet another powerful role
of emotion as communication: our body posture and facial expression
give others clues to our emotional state. Cognition and affect, under
standing and evaluation—together they form a powerful team.
TLFeBOOK
One: A t t r a c t i v e Things Work Better 21
Three Levels of Processing:

Visceral, Behavioral, and Reflective
Human beings are, of course, the most complex of all animals, with

accordingly complex brain structures. A lot of preferences are present at
birth, part of the body's basic protective mechanisms. But we also have
powerful brain mechanisms for accomplishing things, for creating, and
for acting. We can be skilled artists, musicians, athletes, writers, or car
penters. All this requires a much more complex brain structure than is
involved in automatic responses to the world. And finally, unique among
animals, we have language and art, humor and music. We are conscious
of our role in the world and we can reflect upon past experiences, the
better to learn; toward the future, the better to be prepared; and inward
ly, the better to deal with current activities.
My studies of emotion, conducted with my colleagues Andrew
Ortony and William Revelle, professors in the Psychology
Department at Northwestern University, suggest that these human
attributes result from three different levels of the brain: the automatic,
prewired layer, called the visceral level', the part that contains the brain
processes that control everyday behavior, known as the behavioral
level; and the contemplative part of the brain, or the reflective level.
Each level plays a different role in the total functioning of people.
And, as I discuss in detail in chapter 3, each level requires a different
style of design.
The three levels in part reflect the biological origins of the brain,
starting with primitive onecelled organisms and slowly evolving to
more complex animals, to the vertebrates, the mammals, and finally,
apes and humans. For simple animals, life is a continuing set of threats
and opportunities, and an animal must learn how to respond appropri
ately to each. The basic brain circuits, then, are really response mech
anisms: analyze a situation and respond. This system is tightly coupled
to the animal's muscles. If something is bad or dangerous, the muscles
tense in preparation for running, attacking, or freezing. If something
TLFeBOOK
22 Emotional Design
FIGURE 1.1
Three levels of processing: Visceral, Behavioral, and Reflective.
The visceral level is fast: it makes rapid judgments of what is good or bad,
safe or dangerous, and sends appropriate signals to the muscles (the
motor system) and alerts the rest of the brain. This is the start of affective
processing. These are biologically determined and can be inhibited or
enhanced through control signals from above. The behavioral level is the
site of most human behavior. Its actions can be enhanced or inhibited by
the reflective layer and, in turn, it can enhance or inhibit the visceral layer.
The highest layer is that of reflective thought. Note that it does not have
direct access either to sensory input or to the control of behavior. Instead
it watches over, reflects upon, and tries to bias the behavioral level.
(Modified from a figure by Daniel Russell for Norman, Ortony, & Russell, 2003.)
is good or desirable, the animal can relax and take advantage of the

situation. As evolution continued, the circuits for analyzing and
responding improved and became more sophisticated. Put a section of
wire mesh fence between an animal and some desirable food: a chicken
is likely to be stuck forever, straining at the fence, but unable to get to
the food; a dog simply runs around it. Human beings have an even
more developed set of brain structures. They can reflect upon their
experiences and communicate them to others. Thus, not only do we
walk around fences to get to our goals, but we can then think back
about the experience—reflect upon it—and decide to move the fence
or the food, so we don't have to walk around the next time. We can
TLFeBOOK
also tell other people about the problem, so they will know what to do
even before they get there.
Animals such as lizards operate primarily at the visceral level. This
is the level of fixed routines, where the brain analyzes the world and
responds. Dogs and other mammals, however, have a higher level of
analysis, the behavioral level, with a complex and powerful brain that
can analyze a situation and alter behavior accordingly. The behavioral
level in human beings is especially valuable for welllearned, routine
operations. This is where the skilled performer excels.
At the highest evolutionary level of development, the human brain
can think about its own operations. This is the home of reflection, of
conscious thought, of the learning of new concepts and generaliza
tions about the world.
The behavioral level is not conscious, which is why you can suc
cessfully drive your automobile subconsciously at the behavioral level
while consciously thinking of something else at the reflective level.
Skilled performers make use of this facility. Thus, skilled piano play
ers can let their fingers play automatically while they reflect upon the
higherorder structure of the music. This is why they can hold con
versations while playing and why performers sometimes lose their
place in the music and have to listen to themselves play to find out
where they are. That is, the reflective level was lost, but the behavioral
level did just fine.
Now let's look at some examples of these three levels in action: rid
ing a roller coaster; chopping and dicing food with a sharp, balanced
knife and a solid cutting board; and contemplating a serious work of
literature or art. These three activities impact us in different ways.
The first is the most primitive, the visceral reaction to falling, exces
sive speed, and heights. The second, the pleasure of using a good tool
effectively, refers to the feelings accompanying skilled accomplish
ment, and derives from the behavioral level. This is the pleasure any
expert feels when doing something well, such as driving a difficult
course or playing a complex piece of music. This behavioral pleasure,
in turn, is different from that provided by serious literature or art,
TLFeBOOK
24 Emotional Design
FIGURE 1.2
People pay money to get scared.
The roller coaster pits one level of affect—the visceral sense of fear—
against another level—the reflective pride of accomplishment.
(Photograph by Bill Vane, © 2007 Corbis, all rights reserved.)
whose enjoyment derives from the reflective level, and requires study

and interpretation.
Most interesting of all is when one level plays off of another, as in
the roller coaster. If the roller coaster is so frightening, why is it so
popular? There are at least two reasons. First, some people seem to
love fear itself: they enjoy the high arousal and increased adrenaline
rush that accompanies danger. The second reason comes from the
feelings that follow the ride: the pride in conquering fear and of being
able to brag about it to others. In both cases, the visceral angst com
petes with the reflective pleasure—not always successfully, for many
people refuse to go on those rides or, having done it once, refuse to do
it again. But this adds to the pleasure of those who do go on the ride:
their self image is enhanced because they have dared do an action that
others reject.
TLFeBOOK
Focus and Creativity

The three levels interact with one another, each modulating the oth
ers. When activity is initiated from the lowest, visceral levels, it is
called "bottomup." When the activity comes from the highest, reflec
tive level, it is called "topdown" behavior. These terms come from
the standard way of showing the processing structures of the brain,
with the bottom layers associated with interpreting sensory inputs to
the body and the top layers associated with higher thought processes,
much as I illustrated in Figure 1.1. Bottomup processes are those
driven by perception whereas topdown are driven by thought. The
brain changes its manner of operation when bathed in the liquid
chemicals called neurotransmitters. A neurotransmitter does what its
name implies: It changes how neurons transmit neural impulses from
one nerve cell to another (that is, across synapses). Some neurotrans
mitters enhance transmission, some inhibit it. See, hear, feel, or other
wise sense the environment, and the affective system passesjudgment,
alerting other centers in the brain, and releasing neurotransmitters
appropriate to the affective state. That's bottomup activation. Think
something at the reflective level and the thoughts are transmitted to
the lower levels which, in turn, triggers neurotransmitters.
The result is that everything you do has both a cognitive and an
affective component—cognitive to assign meaning, affective to
assign value. You cannot escape affect: it is always there. More
important, the affective state, whether positive or negative affect,
changes how we think.
When you are in a state of negative affect, feeling anxious or
endangered, the neurotransmitters focus the brain processing. Focus
refers to the ability to concentrate upon a topic, without distraction,
and then to go deeper and deeper into the topic until some resolution
is reached. Focus also implies concentration upon the details. It is very
important for survival, which is where negative affect plays a major
role. Whenever your brain detects something that might be danger
TLFeBOOK
2 6 E m o t i o n a l D e s i g n
ous, whether through visceral or reflective processing, your affective

system acts to tense muscles in preparation for action and to alert the
behavioral and reflective levels to stop and concentrate upon the prob
lem. The neurotransmitters bias the brain to focus upon the problem
and avoid distractions. This is just what you need to do in order to
deal with danger.
When you are in a state of positive affect, the very opposite actions
take place. Now, neurotransmitters broaden the brain processing, the
muscles can relax, and the brain attends to the opportunities offered
by the positive affect. The broadening means that you are now far less
focused, and far more likely to be receptive to interruptions and to
attending to any novel idea or event. Positive affect arouses curiosity,
engages creativity, and makes the brain into an effective learning
organism. With positive affect, you are more likely to see the forest
than the trees, to prefer the big picture and not to concentrate upon
details. On the other hand, when you are sad or anxious, feeling nega
tive affect, you are more likely to see the trees before the forest, the
details before the big picture.
What role do these states have in design? First, someone who is
relaxed, happy, in a pleasant mood, is more creative, more able to
overlook and cope with minor problems with a device—especially if
it's fun to work with. Recall the reviewer of the Mini Cooper automo
bile, quoted in the prologue, who recommended that the car's faults be
ignored because it was so much fun. Second, when people are anxious,
they are more focused, so where this is likely to be the case, the
designer must pay special attention to ensure that all the information
required to do the task is continually at hand, readily visible, with
clear and unambiguous feedback about the operations that the device
is performing. Designers can get away with more if the product is fun
and enjoyable. Things intended to be used under stressful situations
require a lot more care, with much more attention to detail.
One interesting effect of the differences in thought processes of the
two states is the impact upon the design process itself. Design—and
for that matter, most problem solving—requires creative thinking fol
TLFeBOOK
lowed by a considerable period of concentrated, focused effort. In the

first case, creativity, it is good for the designer to be relaxed, in a good
mood. Thus, in brainstorming sessions, it is common to warm up by
telling jokes and playing games. No criticism is allowed because it
would raise the level of anxiety among the participants. Good brain
storming and unusual, creative thinking require the relaxed state
induced by positive affect.
Once the creative stage is completed, the ideas that have been gen
erated have to be transformed into real products. Now the design team
must exert considerable attention to detail. Here, focus is essential.
One way to do this is through deadlines just slightly shorter than feel
comfortable. Here is the time for the concentrated focus that negative
affect produces. This is one reason people often impose deadlines on
themselves, and then announce those deadlines to others so as to make
them real. Their anxiety helps them get the work done.
It is tricky to design things that must accommodate both creative
thinking and focus. Suppose the design task is to build a control room for
operators of a plant—think of a nuclear power plant or a large chemi
calprocessing plant, but the same lessons apply to many manufacturing
and production facilities. The design is meant to enhance some critical
procedure or function—say to enable control room operators to watch
over a plant and solve problems as they arise—so it is probably best to
have a neutral or a slightly negative affect to keep people aroused and
focused. This calls for an attractive, pleasant environment so that in nor
mal monitoring, the operators are creative and open to explore new situ
ations. Once some plant parameter approaches a dangerous level,
however, the design should change its stance, yielding a negative affect
that will keep the operators focused upon the task at hand.
How do you design something so that it can change from invoking
a positive affect to invoking a negative one? There are several ways.
One is through the use of sound. The visual appearance of the plant
can be positive and enjoyable. During normal operation, it is even
possible to play light background music, unless the control room is
located where the sounds of the plant operating can be used to indi
TLFeBOOK
cate its state. But as soon as any problem exists, the music should go

away and alarms should start to sound. Buzzing, ringing alarms are
negative and anxiety producing, so their presence alone might do the
trick. Indeed, the problem is not to overdo it: too much anxiety pro
duces a phenomenon known as "tunnel vision," where the people
become so focused they may fail to see otherwise obvious alternatives.
The dangers of too much focus are well known to people who
study accidents. Thus, special design and training is required of peo
ple if we want them to perform well under high stress. Basically,
because of the extreme focus and tunnel vision induced by high anxi
ety, the situation has to be designed to minimize the need for creative
thought. That's why professionals are trained over and over again in
accident scenarios, through training exercises and simulators, so that if
a real incident occurs, they will have experienced it so many times in
training that their responses follow automatically. But this training
works only if the training is repeated frequently and performance is
tested. In commercial aviation, the pilots and crew are well trained,
but the passengers are not. Even though frequent fliers continually
hear and see the instructions on how to escape the airplane in case of
fire or crash, they sit passively, only partially attentive. They are not
apt to remember them in an emergency.
"Fire," yells someone in a theater. Immediately everyone stam
pedes toward the exits. What do they do at the exit door? Push. If the
door doesn't open, they push harder. But what if the door opens
inward and must be pulled, not pushed? Highly anxious, highly
focused people are very unlikely to think of pulling.
When under high anxiety—high negative affect—people focus
upon escape. When they reach the door, they push. And when this
fails, the natural response is to push even harder. Countless people
have died as a result. Now, fire laws require what is called "panic
hardware." The doors of auditoriums have to open outward, and they
must open whenever pressure is applied.
Similarly, designers of exit stairways have to block any direct path
from the ground floor to those floors below it. Otherwise, people
TLFeBOOK
using a stairway to escape a fire are likely to miss the ground floor and
continue all the way into the basement—and some buildings have sev
eral levels of basements—to end up trapped.
The Prepared Brain
Although the visceral level is the simplest and most primitive part of
the brain, it is sensitive to a very wide range of conditions. These are
genetically determined, with the conditions evolving slowly over the
time course of evolution. They all share one property, however: the
condition can be recognized simply by the sensory information. The
visceral level is incapable of reasoning, of comparing a situation with
past history. It works by what cognitive scientists call "pattern match
ing." What are people genetically programmed for? Those situations
and objects that, throughout evolutionary history, offer food, warmth,
or protection give rise to positive affect. These conditions include:
warm, comfortably lit places,
temperate climate,
sweet tastes and smells,
bright, highly saturated hues,
"soothing" sounds and simple melodies and rhythms,
harmonious music and sounds,
caresses,
smiling faces,
rhythmic beats,
"attractive" people,
symmetrical objects,
rounded, smooth objects,
"sensuous" feelings, sounds, and shapes.
Similarly, here are some of the conditions that appear to produce
automatic negative affect:
TLFeBOOK
30 Emotional Design
heights,
sudden, unexpected loud sounds or bright lights,
"looming" objects (objects that appear to be about to hit the
observer),
extreme hot or cold,
darkness,
extremely bright lights or loud sounds,
empty, flat terrain (deserts),
crowded dense terrain (jungles or forests),
crowds of people,
rotting smells, decaying foods
bitter tastes,
sharp objects,
harsh, abrupt sounds,
grating and discordant sounds,
misshapen human bodies,
snakes and spiders,
human feces (and its smell),
other people's body fluids,
vomit.
These lists are my best guess about what might be automatically
programmed into the human system. Some of the items are still under
dispute; others will probably have to be added. Some are politically
incorrect in that they appear to produce value judgments on dimen
sions society has deemed to be irrelevant. The advantage human
beings have over other animals is our powerful reflective level that
enables us to overcome the dictates of the visceral, pure biological
level. We can overcome our biological heritage.
Note that some biological mechanisms are only predispositions
rather than fullfledged systems. Thus, although we are predisposed
to be afraid of snakes and spiders, the actual fear is not present in all
people: it needs to be triggered through experience. Although human
language comes from the behavioral and reflective levels, it provides a
TLFeBOOK
good example of how biological predispositions mix with experience.

The human brain comes ready for language: the architecture of the
brain, the way the different components are structured and interact,
constrains the very nature of language. Children do not come into the
world with language, but they do come predisposed and ready. That is
the biological part. But the particular language you learn, and the
accent with which you speak it, are determined through experience.
Because the brain is prepared to learn language, everyone does so
unless they have severe neurological or physical deficits. Moreover,
the learning is automatic: we may have to go to school to learn to read
and write, but not to listen and speak. Spoken language—or signing,
for those who are deaf—is natural. Although languages differ, they all
follow certain universal regularities. But once the first language has
been learned, it highly influences later language acquisition. If you
have ever tried to learn a second language beyond your teenage years,
you know how different it is from learning the first, how much harder,
how reflective and conscious it seems compared to the subconscious,
relatively effortless experience of learning the first language. Accents
are the hardest thing to learn for the older languagelearner, so that
people who learn a language later in life may be completely fluent in
their speech, understanding, and writing, but maintain the accent of
their first language.
Tinko and losse are two words in the mythical language Elvish,
invented by the British philologist J. R. R. Tolkien for his trilogy, The
Lord of the Rings. Which of the words "tinko " and "losse " means
"metal," which "snow"? How could you possibly know? The surprise
is that when forced to guess, most people can get the choices right,
even if they have never read the books, never experienced the words.
Tinko has two hard, "plosive" sounds—the "t" and the "k." Losse has
soft, liquid sounds, starting with the "1" and continuing through the
vowels and the sibilant "ss." Note the similar pattern in the English
words where the hard "t" in "metal" contrasts with the soft sounds of
"snow." Yes, in Elvish, tinko is metal and losse is snow.
The Elvish demonstration points out the relationship between the
TLFeBOOK
sounds of a language and the meaning of words. At first glance, this

sounds nonsensical—after all, words are arbitrary. But more and more
evidence piles up linking sounds to particular general meanings. For
instance, vowels are warm and soft: feminine is the term frequently
used. Harsh sounds are, well, harsh—just like the word "harsh" itself
and the "sh" sound in particular. Snakes hiss and slither; and note the
sibilants, the hissing of the "s" sounds. Plosives, sounds caused when
the air is stopped briefly, then released—explosively—are hard,
metallic; the word "masculine" is often applied to them. The "k" of
"mosquito" and the "p" in "happy" are plosive. And, yes, there is evi
dence that word choices are not arbitrary: a sound symbolism governs
the development of a language. This is another instance where artists,
poets in this case, have long known the power of sounds to evoke
affect and emotions within the readers of—or, more accurately, listen
ers to—poetry.
All these prewired mechanisms are vital to daily life and our inter
actions with people and things. Accordingly, they are important for
design. While designers can use this knowledge of the brain to make
designs more effective, there is no simple set of rules. The human
mind is incredibly complex, and although all people have basically the
same form of body and brain, they also have huge individual differ
ences.
Emotions, moods, traits, and personality are all aspects of the differ
ent ways in which people's minds work, especially along the affective,
emotional domain. Emotions change behavior over a relatively short
term, for they are responsive to the immediate events. Emotions last
for relatively short periods—minutes or hours. Moods are longer last
ing, measured perhaps in hours or days. Traits are very longlasting,
years or even a lifetime. And personality is the particular collection of
traits of a person that last a lifetime. But all of these are changeable as
well. We all have multiple personalities, emphasizingsome traits when
with families, a different set when with friends. We all change our
operating parameters to be appropriate for the situation we are in.
TLFeBOOK
Ever watch a movie with great enjoyment, then watch it a second
time and wonder what on earth you saw in it the first time? The same
phenomenon occurs in almost all aspects of life, whether in interac
tions with people, in a sport, a book, or even a walk in the woods. This
phenomenon can bedevil the designer who wants to know how to
design something that will appeal to everyone: One person's accept
ance is another one's rejection. Worse, what is appealing at one
moment may not be at another.
The source of this complexity can be found in the three levels of
processing. At the visceral level, people are pretty much the same all
over the world. Yes, individuals vary, so although almost everyone is
born with a fear of heights, this fear is so extreme in some people
that they cannot function normally—they have acrophobia. Yet oth
ers have only mild fear, and they can overcome it sufficiently to do
rock climbing, circus acts, or other jobs that have them working high
in the air.
The behavioral and reflective levels, however, are very sensitive to
experiences, training, and education. Cultural views have huge impact
here: what one culture finds appealing, another may not. Indeed,
teenage culture seems to dislike things solely because adult culture
likes them.
So what is the designer to do? In part, that is the theme of the rest
of the book. But the challenges should be thought of as opportunities.
Designers will never lack for things to do, for new approaches to
explore.
TLFeBOOK
TLFeBOOK
CHAPTER TWO
The Multiple Faces

of Emotion and Design
A F T E R D I N N E R , W I T H A G R E A T F L O U R I S H , m y friend
Andrew brought out a lovely leather box. "Open it," he said, proudly,
"and tell me what you think."
I opened the box. Inside was a gleaming stainlesssteel set of old
mechanical drawing instruments: dividers, compasses, extension arms
for the compasses, an assortment of points, lead holders, and pens that
could be fitted onto the dividers and compasses. All that was missing
was the T square, the triangles, and the table. And the ink, the black
India ink.
"Lovely," I said. "Those were the good old days, when we drew by
hand, not by computer."
Our eyes misted as we fondled the metal pieces.
"But you know," I went on, "I hated it. My tools always slipped, the
point moved before I could finish the circle, and the India ink—ugh,
the India ink—it always blotted before I could finish a diagram.
Ruined it! I used to curse and scream at it. I once spilled the whole bot
35
TLFeBOOK
36 Emotional Design
tie all over the drawing, my books, and the table. India ink doesn't

wash off. I hated it. Hated it!"
"Yeah," said Andrew, laughing, "you're right. I forgot how much I
hated it. Worst of all was too much ink on the nibs! But the instru
ments are nice, aren't they?"
"Very nice," I said, "as long as we don't have to use them."
T H I S STORY shows the several levels of the cognitive and emotion
al system—visceral, behavioral, and reflective—at work, fighting
among themselves. First, the most basic visceral level responds with
pleasure to seeing the welldesigned leather case and gleaming stainless
steel instruments and to feeling their comfortable heft. That visceral
response is immediate and positive, triggering the reflective system to
think back about the past, many decades ago, "the good old days,"
when my friend and I actually used those tools. But the more we reflect
upon the past, the more we remember the actual negative experiences,
and herein lies the conflict with the initial visceral reaction.
We recall how badly we actually performed, how the tools were
never completely under control, sometimes causing us to lose hours of
work. Now, in each of us, visceral is pitted against reflection. The
sight of the classic tools is attractive, but the memory of their use is
negative. Because the power of emotion fades with time, the negative
affect generated by our memories doesn't overcome the positive affect
generated by the sight of the instruments themselves.
This conflict among different levels of emotion is common in
design: Real products provide a continual set of conflicts. A person
interprets an experience at many levels, but what appeals at one may
not at another. A successful design has to excel at all levels. While
logic might imply, for example, that it is bad business to scare cus
tomers, amusement and theme parks have many customers for rides
and haunted houses designed to scare. But the scaring occurs in a safe,
reassuring environment.
The design requirements for each level differ widely. The visceral
TLFeBOOK
Two: The Multiple Faces of Emotion and Design 37
FIGURE 2.1
Sky diving: An innate fear of heights or a pleasurable experience?
(Rocky Point Pictures; courtesy of Terry Schumacher.)
level is preconsciousness, prethought. This is where appearance

matters and first impressions are formed. Visceral design is about the
initial impact of a product, about its appearance, touch, and feel.
The behavioral level is about use, about experience with a product.
But experience itself has many facets: function, performance, and
usability. A product's function specifies what activities it supports,
what it is meant to do—if the functions are inadequate or of no inter
est, the product is of little value. Performance is about how well the
product does those desired functions—if the performance is inade
quate, the product fails. Usability describes the ease with which the
user of the product can understand how it works and how to get it to
perform. Confuse or frustrate the person who is using the product and
negative emotions result. But if the product does what is needed, if it
is fun to use and easy to satisfy goals with it, then the result is warm,
positive affect.
It is only at the reflective level that consciousness and the highest
TLFeBOOK
38 Emotional Design
levels of feeling, emotions, and cognition reside. It is only here that

the full impact of both thought and emotions are experienced. At the
lower visceral and behavioral levels, there is only affect, but without
interpretation or consciousness. Interpretation, understanding, and
reasoning come from the reflective level.
Of the three levels, the reflective one is the most vulnerable to vari
ability through culture, experience, education, and individual differ
ences. This level can also override the others. Hence, one person's
liking for otherwise distasteful or frightening visceral experiences that
might repel others, or another's intellectual dismissal of designs oth
ers find attractive and appealing. Sophistication often brings with it a
peculiar disdain for popular appeal, where the very aspects of a design
that make it appeal to many people distress some intellectuals.
There is one other distinction among the levels: time. The visceral
and behavioral levels are about "now," your feelings and experiences
while actually seeing or using the product. But the reflective level
extends much longer—through reflection you remember the past and
contemplate the future. Reflective design, therefore, is about long
term relations, about the feelings of satisfaction produced by owning,
displaying, and using a product. A person's selfidentity is located
within the reflective level, and here is where the interaction between
the product and your identity is important as demonstrated in pride
(or shame) of ownership or use. Customer interaction and service
matter at this level.
Working with the Three Levels
The ways in which the three levels interact are complex. Still, for

purposes of application, it is possible to make some very useful sim
plifications. So, although the scientist in me protests that what I am
about to say is far too simple, the practical, engineering, designer side
of me says that the simplification is good enough, and, more impor
tant, useful.
TLFeBOOK
Two: The Multiple Faces of E m o t i o n and Design 39
The three levels can be mapped to product characteristics like this:
Visceral design > Appearance

Behavioral design > The pleasure and effectiveness of use
Reflective design > Selfimage, personal satisfaction,
memories
Even these simplifications are difficult to apply. Should some prod
ucts be primarily visceral in appeal, others behavioral, others reflec
tive? How does one trade off the requirements at one level against
those of the others? How do visceral pleasures translate into prod
ucts? Won't the same things that excite one group of people dismay
others? Similarly, for the reflective level, wouldn't a deep reflective
component be attractive to some and bore or repel others? And, yes,
we can all agree that behavioral design is important—nobody is ever
against usability—but just how much in the total scheme of things?
How does each of the three levels compare in importance with the
others?
The answer is, of course, that no single product can hope to satisfy
everyone. The designer must know the audience for whom the prod
uct is intended. Although I have described the three levels separately,
any real experience involves all three: a single level is rare in practice,
and if it exists at all is most likely to come from the reflective level
than from the behavioral or the visceral.
Consider the visceral level of design. On the one hand, this would
appear to be the easiest level to appeal to since its responses are bio
logical and similar for everyone across the world. This does not neces
sarily translate directly into preferences. Furthermore, although all
people have roughly the same body shape, the same number of limbs,
and the same mental apparatus, in detail, they differ considerably.
People are athletic or not, energetic or lazy. Personality theorists
divide people along such dimensions as extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness. To designers,
this means that no single design will satisfy everyone.
TLFeBOOK
40 Emotional Design
In addition, there are large individual differences in the degree of a
visceral response. Thus, while some people love sweets and especially
chocolate (some claim to be addicts or "chocoholics"), many can
ignore them, even if they like them. Almost everyone initially dislikes
bitter and sour tastes, but you can learn affection for them, and they
are often the components of the most expensive meals. Many foods
loved by adults were intensely disliked at first taste: coffee, tea, alco
holic drinks, hot pepper, and even foods—oysters, octopus, and eye
balls—that make many people squeamish. And although the visceral
system has evolved to protect the body against danger, many of our
most popular and soughtafter experiences involve horror and danger:
horror novels and movies, deathdefying rides, and thrilling, risky
sports. And, as I have already mentioned, the pleasure of risk andper
ceived danger varies greatly among people. Such individual differ
ences are the basic components of personality, the distinctions among
people that make each of us unique.
Go outside. Get some air.

Watch a sunset.
Boy, does that get old fast.
—XBOX advertisement
(Microsoft's video game player)
THE T E X T of Microsoft's ad campaign for XBOX appeals to teens

and young adults (whatever their actual age)who seek fast, exciting
games with high visceral arousal, contrasting these people with those
who prefer the commonly accepted norm that sunsets and fresh air are
emotionally satisfying. The advertisement pits the reflective emotions
of being outside and sitting quietly, enjoying the sunset against the
continuous visceral and behavioral thrill of the fastmoving, engaging
video game. Some people can spend hours watching sunsets. Some get
bored after the first few seconds: "Been there, done that," is the refrain.
With the large range of individual, cultural, and physical differ
TLFeBOOK
Two: The M u l t i p l e Faces of E m o t i o n and Design 41
ences among the people of the world, it is impossible for a single
product to satisfy everyone. Some products are indeed marketed to
everyone across the world, but they can succeed only if there are no
real alternatives or if they do manage to reposition their appeal to dif
ferent people through the adroit use of marketing and advertising.
Hence, CocaCola and PepsiCola manage worldwide success, in part
capitalizing on a universal liking for sweet beverages, in part through
sophisticated, culturespecific advertising. Personal computers are
successful throughout the world because their benefits overcome their
(numerous) deficiencies, and because there really is no choice. But
most products have to be sensitive to the differences among people.
The only way to satisfy a wide variety of needs and preferences is
to have a wide variety of products. Many product categories special
ize, each catering to a different audience. Magazines are a good exam
ple. The world has tens of thousands of magazines (almost 20,000 in
the United States alone). It is the rare magazine that tries to cater to
everyone. Some magazines even flaunt their specialness, pointing out
that they aren't for everyone, just for the people who match a particu
lar set of interests and style.
Most product categories—home appliances, shop or gardening
tools, furniture, stationery goods, automobiles—are manufactured
and distributed differently across the world, with a wide variety of
styles and form depending upon the needs and preferences of the mar
ket segment for whom they are targeted. Market segmentation is the
marketing phrase used for this approach. Automobile companies bring
out a variety of models, and different companies often emphasize dif
ferent market segments. Some are for older, more sedate established
people, some for the young and adventurous. Some are for those who
truly need to go into the wilderness and travel through rivers and
forests, up and down steep inclines, through mud,sand, and snow.
Others are for those who like the reflective image of appearing to do
such adventurous activities, but who will never actually do them.
Another important dimension for a product is its appropriateness to
setting. In some sense, this point applies to all of human behavior:
TLFeBOOK
What is appropriate and indeed preferred in one setting may be most
inappropriate and rejected in another. All of us have learned to modu
late our language, speaking differently when in casual interaction with
our friends than when in formal presentation at a serious business
meeting, or with the parents of our friends, or with our professors.
Clothes that are appropriate for latenight clubs are inappropriate in
business. A product that is cute and snuggly, or that conveys a humor
ous, playful image, is probably not appropriate for the business set
ting. Similarly, an industrialstyle design, appropriate for the factory
floor, would not be for the home kitchen or living room.
Computers sold to the home marketplace often are more powerful
and have better sound systems than computers used in business. In
fact, many business computers do not have some of the standard fea
tures of home machines, such as dialout modems, sound systems, or
DVD players. The reason is that these aspects of the machine are nec
essary for entertainment or game playing, activities not appropriate in
the serious world of business. If a computer looks too attractive and
playful, management may reject it. Some people feel that this hurt the
sales of Apple's Macintosh computer. The Macintosh is considered a
home, education, or graphics machine, not appropriate for business
workers. This is an image problem because in fact, computers are
pretty much the same, whether made by Apple or some other manu
facturer, whether running the Macintosh or the Windows operating
system, but images and psychological perceptions determine what
people will buy.
The distinction between the terms needs and wants is a traditional
way of describing the difference between what is truly necessary for a
person's activities (needs) versus what a person asks for (wants).
Needs are determined by the task: A pail is needed to carry water;
some sort of carrying case is needed to transport papers back and
forth to work. Wants are determined by culture, by advertising, by the
way one views oneself and one's selfimage. Although a student's
backpack or even a paper bag would work perfectly fine for carrying
papers, it might be embarrassing to carry one into a serious "power"
TLFeBOOK
business meeting. Embarrassment is, of course, an emotion that

reflects one's sense of the appropriateness of behavior and is really all
in the mind. Product designers and marketing executives know that
wants can often be more powerful than needs in determining the suc
cess of a product.
Satisfying people's true needs, including the requirements of differ
ent cultures, age groups, social and national requirements, is difficult.
Now add the necessity to cater to the many wants—whims, opinions,
and biases—of the people who actually purchase products, and the
task becomes a major challenge. Note that many people purchase prod
ucts for others, whether it be the purchasing department of a company
trying to minimize cost, a parent buying for a child, or a contractor
equipping a home with appliances that might enhance the sale of a
house, whether or not the occupants would ever use them. To some
designers, the challenge seems overwhelming. To others, it inspires.
One example of the challenge comes from the marketing of con
soles for playing video games. Video game machines are clearly aimed
squarely at the traditional game market: young males who love excite
ment and violence, who want rich graphics and sound and have quick
reflexes, whether for sports or firstperson shooting matches. The
design of the machine reflects this image, as does the advertising: big,
hefty, powerful, technical; young, virile, male. For this market, the
game machines have been so wildly successful that the sales of video
games exceeds the boxoffice sales of movies.
But although the design of these machines still seems to be targeted
at young males, the actual market for video games is much broader.
The average age is now around thirty, roughly as many women as
men play, and the appeal is worldwide. In the United States, roughly
half the population plays some sort of video game. Many of these
games are no longer wild and violent. I discuss video games as a new
genre of entertainment and literature in chapter 4, but here I want to
focus on the fact that, despite the broader audience, the physical
design of the game consoles has not been changed to meet the grow
ing popularity. The design focus upon young, excitable males limits
TLFeBOOK
44 Emotional Design
the potential sales to a fraction of the possible audience, excluding not

only many girls and women but also many men. This rich potential is
completely untapped.
Moreover, the potential uses of video games extends far beyond the
playing of games. They could be excellent teaching devices. In play
ing a game, you have to learn an amazing variety of skills and knowl
edge. You attend deeply and seriously for hours, weeks, even months.
You read books and study the game thoroughly, doing active problem
solving and working with other people. These are precisely the activi
ties of an effective learner, so what marvelous learning could be expe
rienced if only we could use this same intensity when interacting with
meaningful topics. Thus, game machines have huge potential for
everyone, but it has not been systematically addressed.
To break out of the traditional video game market, the industry
needs to project a different kind of appeal. Here is where the three
levels of design come into play. At the visceral level, the physical
appearances of the consoles and controllers need to be changed.
Different markets should have different designs. Some designs should
reflect a warmer, more feminine approach. Some should look more
serious, more professional. Some should have a more reflective
appeal, especially for the educational marketplace. These changes
wouldn't make the product dull and unexciting. They could make it as
inviting and attractive as before, but emphasize different aspects of its
potential. Its appearance should match its usage and audience.
Today, the behavioral design of many games revolves around pow
erful graphics and fast reflexes. Skill at operating the controls is one of
the features distinguishing the beginning from the advanced player.
To branch out into other arenas requires changing the behavioral
characteristics so that they emphasize rich, detailed graphics and
informative structures. In many domains, the emphasis should be on
content, not on the skill of using the device, so ease of use should be
stressed. Where content matters, the user should not have to spend
time mastering the device, but rather should be able to devote time
TLFeBOOK
T w o : T h e M u l t i p l e F a c e s o f E m o t i o n a n d D e s i g n 45
and effort toward mastering the content, enjoying the presentations,
and exploring the domain.
The reflective design of today's games projects a product image
that is consistent with the sleek powerful appearance of the console
and the fast reflexes required of the player. This has to be changed.
Advertisements should promote the device as a learning and educa
tional tool for people of all ages. One form of console should con
tinue to project the image of powerful game machine. Others should
be positioned to be an intelligent guide to activities such as cooking
or auto mechanics or woodworking. And others should be posi
tioned as an aid to learning. Each with different appearances, differ
ent modes of operation, and different advertising and marketing
messages.
Now imagine the outcome. The device that used to be specialized
for the playing of video games takes on different appearances,
depending upon its intended function. In the garage, the device would
look like shop machinery, with a serious, rugged appearance, impervi
ous to damage. It would serve as tutor and assistant, displaying auto
mobile manuals, mechanical drawings, and short videos of the
required steps to maintain or upgrade the auto. In the kitchen, it
matches the decor of kitchen appliances and becomes a cooking aid
and tutor. In the living room, it fits with the furniture and books and
becomes a reference manual, perhaps an encyclopedia, tutor, and
player of reflective games (such as go, chess, cards, word games). And
for the student, it is a source of simulations, experiments, and exten
sive exploration of interesting, wellmotivated topics, but topics care
fully chosen so that, in the process of enjoying the adventure, you
automatically learn the fundamentals of your field. Designs appropri
ate to the audience, the location, and the purpose. Everything I have
described here is doable. It simply hasn't yet been done.
TLFeBOOK
46 Emotional Design
Objects That Evoke Memories

True, longlasting emotional feelings take time to develop: they come
from sustained interaction. What do people love and cherish, despise
and detest? Surface appearance and behavioral utility play relatively
minor roles. Instead, what matters is the history of interaction, the
associations that people have with the objects, and the memories they
evoke.
Consider keepsakes and mementoes, postcards and souvenir monu
ments, such as the model of the Eiffel Tower shown in figure 2.2.
These are seldom considered beautiful, seldom thought of as works of
art. In the world of art and design they are called kitsch. This term of
derision for the cheap and vulgar has been applied, says the Columbia
Electronic Encyclopedia, "since the early 20th century to works consid
ered pretentious and tasteless. Exploitative commercial objects such as
Mona Lisa scarves and abominable plaster reproductions of sculptural
masterpieces are described as kitsch, as are works that claim artistic
value but are weak, cheap, or sentimental." "Sentimental" means,
according to the American Heritage Dictionary, "resulting from or col
ored by emotion rather than reason or realism." "Emotion rather than
reason"—well, yes, that is precisely the point.
Yogi Berra put it this way: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too
crowded." Or, translating this to design, "Nobody likes kitsch, it's too
popular." Yup. If too many people like something, there must be
something wrong with it. But isn't that very popularity telling us
something? We should stop to consider just why it is popular. People
find value in it. It satisfies some basic need. Those who deride kitsch
are looking at the wrong aspects.
Yes, the cheap reproductions of famous paintings, buildings, and
monuments are "cheap." They have little artistic merit, being copies
of existing work, and poor copies at that. There is little intellectual
depth, for the creativity and insight is part of the original, not the
copy. Similarly, most souvenirs and popular trinkets are gaudy,
TLFeBOOK
schmaltzy, "excessively or insin
cerely emotional." But while
this may be true of the object
itself, that object is important
only as a symbol, as a source of
memory, of associations. The
word souvenir means "a token of
remembrance, a memento." The
very sentimentality the world of
art or design derides is the
source of something's strength
and popularity. Kitschy objects
of the sort shown in figure 2.2
do not pretend to be art—they
are aids to memory.
In the world of design, we
tend to associate emotion with
beauty. We build attractive
things, cute things, colorful FIGURE 2.2
things. However important these A souvenir monument.
attributes, they are not what Although often denounced as "kitsch,"

unworthy of being considered as art,
drive people in their everyday
souvenirs are rich in emotional mean-
lives. We like attractive things ings because of the memories they
because of the way they make us evoke. (Author's collection.)
feel. And in the realm of feel
ings, it is just as reasonable to become attached to and love things that
are ugly as it is to dislike things that would be called attractive.
Emotions reflect our personal experiences, associations, and memories.
In The Meaning of Things, a book that should be required reading
for designers, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Eugene RochbergHalton
study what makes things special. The authors went into homes and
interviewed the residents, trying to understand their relationship to
the things about them, to their material possessions. In particular, they
asked each person to show things that were "special" to him or her,
TLFeBOOK
48 Emotional Design
and then, in the extensive interviews, explored what factors made

them so. Special objects turned out to be those with special memories
or associations, those that helped evoke a special feeling in their own
ers. Special items all evoked stories. Seldom was the focus upon the
item itself: what mattered was the story, an occasion recalled. Thus,
one woman interviewed by Csikszentmihalyi and RochbergHalton
pointed to her livingroom chairs and said: "They are the first two
chairs me and my husband ever bought, and we sit in them and I just
associate them with my home and having babies and sitting in the
chairs with babies."
We become attached to things if they have a significant personal
association, if they bring to mind pleasant, comforting moments.
Perhaps more significant, however, is our attachment to places:
favorite corners of our homes, favorite locations, favorite views. Our
attachment is really not to the thing, it is to the relationship, to the
meanings and feelings the thing represents. Csikszentmihalyi and
RochbergHalton identify "psychic energy" as the key. Psychic energy,
by which we mean mental energy, mental attention. Csikszentmihalyi's
concept of "flow" provides a good example. In the flow state, you
become so engrossed and captured by the activity being performed
that it is as if you and the activity were one:You are in a trance where
the world disappears from consciousness. Time stops. You are only
aware of the activity itself. Flow is a motivating, captivating, addictive
state. It can arise from transactions with valued things. "Household
objects," say Csikszentmihalyi and RochbergHalton, "facilitate flow
experiences in two different ways. On the one hand, by providing a
familiar symbolic context they reaffirm the identity of the owner. On
the other hand, objects in the household might provide opportunities
for flow directly, by engaging the attention of people."
Perhaps the objects that are the most intimate and direct are those
that we construct ourselves, hence the popularity of homemade
crafts, furniture, and art. Similarly, personal photographs, even
though they may be technically inferior: blurred, heads cut off, or fin
gers obscuring the image. Some may have faded, or be torn and
TLFeBOOK
repaired with tape. Their surface appearance is less important than

their ability to evoke the memory of particular people and events.
This point was vividly dramatized for me in 2002 when I walked
through the exhibits on display at the San Francisco Airport. This is
one of the world's most interesting museums—especially for people
like me who are fascinated by everyday things, by the impact of tech
nology upon people and society. This exhibition, "Miniature
Monuments," was about the role of souvenirs in evoking memory.
The show displayed hundreds of miniature monuments, buildings,
and other souvenirs. The items were not on display for their artistic
quality, but to applaud their sentimental value, for the memories they
evoked and, in brief, for their emotional impact upon their owners.
The text that accompanied the exhibition described the role of sou
venir monuments thusly:
The marvel of souvenir buildings is that the identical miniature sparks

in each of us extravagantly different webs of remembrance.
While the purpose of all monuments is to cause us to remember,
their subjects have a wide range. Great people and important events;
wars and their casualties; and the history of Astoria, Oregon, are
memorialized in the monuments represented in miniature.
These souvenirs serve two purposes, though. Even as a copper
plated pot metal replica of Lincoln's Tomb in Springfield, Illinois,
causes us to remember the sixteenth president, it also prods recollection
of the monument itself. Monuments may remember significant people
and events; architectural miniatures remember the monuments.
The architect Bruce Goff has remarked, "In architecture, there's the
reason you do something, and then there's the real reason." With sou
venir buildings, despite their ostensible (if purposeless) functions, their
real reason remains the provocation of human memory.
Those of us viewing these miniatures did not necessarily have any
emotional attachment to the objects—after all, they weren't ours; they
were collected and displayed by someone else. Still, as I strolled
TLFeBOOK
50 Emotional Design
around, I was most attracted to souvenirs of places I had myself vis
ited, perhaps because they brought back memories of those visits.
Had any one been emotionally negative, however, I would have
quickly moved past it to escape—not the object but the memories it
called forth in me.
P H O T O G R A P H S , M O R E than almost anything else, have aspe
cial emotional appeal: they are personal, they tell stories. The power
of personal photography lies in its ability to transport the viewer back
in time to some socially relevant event. Personal photographs are
mementos, reminders, and social instruments, allowing memories to
be shared across time, place, and people. In the year 2000, there were
about 200 million cameras in the United States alone, or around two
cameras per household; with these cameras people took around 20 bil
lion photographs. With the advent of digital cameras, it is no longer
possible to know just how many pictures are being taken, but probably
a lot more.
Although pictures are loved for the memories they maintain, the
technologies of digital picture transmission, printing, file sharing, and
display are sufficiently complex and timeconsuming as to prevent
many people from saving, retrieving, and sharing the pictures they
cherish.
Numerous studies have shown that the work required to transform
a picture in the camera into a print that can be shared defeats many
people. Thus, while lots of pictures are taken, not all the film gets
developed. Of the film that is developed, some of it is never looked at.
Of the pictures that are looked at, many are simply put back into the
envelope and then filed away in a box,never to be looked at again.
(People in the photography industry call these "shoe boxes," because
the storage is often within the cardboard boxes in which shoes come.)
Some people carefully arrange their pictures in photo albums, but
many of us have unused photo albums stored in closets or bookcases.
One of the most precious resources of the modern household is
time, and the effort to take care of all those wonderful photographs
TLFeBOOK
T w o : T h e M u l t i p l e F a c e s o f E m o t i o n a n d D e s i g n 51
defeats their value. Even though taking photographs out of an envelope
and organizing them in photograph albums is about as simple a way of
doing this job as can be imagined, most people don't do it. I don't.
Digital cameras change the emphasis, but not the principle. It is rel
atively easy to take digital photographs, easy to share them from the
display on the camera itself. It is more difficult to print the pictures or
email them to friends and acquaintances. Despite the power of the
personal computer, paper prints of photographs are easier to take care
of and display than are electronic versions. With electronic pictures
comes the problem of storing them in some way that you can find
them again later.
Thus, although we like to look at photographs, we do not like to
take the time to do the work required to maintain them and keep them
accessible. The design challenge is to keep the virtues while removing
the barriers: make it easier to store, send, share. Make it easier to find
just the desired pictures years after they have been taken and put into
storage. These are not easy problems, but until they are overcome, we
will not reap the full benefits of photography.
Portraits of family, though, are different. Wander through many
places of work, and you'll see on desk, bookcase, and walls framed
photographs of a person's family: husband, wife, son, daughter—
family portraits, family snapshots—and occasionally parents. Yes,
there are also ceremonial pictures of the person with the company
president or other dignitaries, pictures of awards, and, in academic
offices, conference photographs, where all the participants have gath
ered together sometime during the conference for the ritual photo
graph, which ends up published in the conference proceedings and
posted on walls.
But, I hasten to add, this personal display is very culturesensitive.
Not all cultures display such personal symbols. In some countries, the
display of personal photographs in the office is extremely rare, and in
the home it can be infrequent. Instead, visitors are shown the photo
graph album, with each photograph lovingly pointed at and described.
Some cultures prohibit photographs altogether. Still, the major
TLFeBOOK
52 Emotional Design
nations of the world on all continents take billions of photographs, so
that even if they are not on public display, they serve a powerful emo
tional role.
Photographs are clearly important to people's emotional lives.
People have been known to rush back into burning homes to save
treasured photographs. Their comforting presence maintains family
bonds even when the people are separated. They assure permanence
of the memories and are often passed from generation to generation.
In the days before photography, people hired portrait painters to cre
ate images of loved or respected ones. The task required long sittings
and produced more formal results. Painting had the virtue that the
artist could change people's appearance to fit their desires rather than
be restricted to the reality of the photograph. (Nowadays, with digital
tools readily available, photographs, too, are easily doctored. I plead
guilty to altering a family group photograph, replacing the scowling
face of one family member with a happy, smiling face from a photo
graph of that person at a different occasion. Nobody has ever noticed
the modification, not even the person who was modified.) Today,
even with the ubiquity of personal cameras, portrait photographers
maintain a lively business, in part because only professionals usually
have the skills required for lighting and framing the shot so as to pro
duce a highquality picture.
Photographs can bring back only sights, not sounds. David
Frohlich, a research scientist at the Hewlett Packard Laboratories in
Bristol, England, has been developing a system he calls "audiophotog
raphy," photographs that combine an audio track, capturing the
sounds on the scene surrounding the instant when the picture was
taken. (Yes, the recording can start before the photograph is taken,
one of the magical possibilities of modern technology.) Amy Cowen,
who wrote about Frohlich's work, described its importance this way:
"With every photo there is a story, a moment, a memory. As time
passes, however, the user's ability to recall the details needed to evoke
the moment the picture records fades. Adding sound to a photo can
help keep the memories intact."
TLFeBOOK
Frohlich points out that today's technology allows us both to cap

ture the sounds occurring around the time a photograph is being taken
and also to play them back while it is being shown in an album. The
sounds capture the emotional setting in a far richer way than can the
image itself. Imagine a family group photograph where, in the twenty
seconds prior to the taking of the picture, the voices of family mem
bers joshing among themselves ("Mary, stop scowling" and "Henry,
quick, stand between Frank and Uncle Oscar") are also recorded—
possibly followed by giggling and relief in the twenty seconds after
the photo was taken. Frohlich describes the possibilities this way:
"Ambient sounds recorded around the moment of image capture pro
vide an atmosphere or mood that can really help you remember the
original event better. Nostalgic music set to a photo can evoke more
feelings and memories of the era in which the photo was taken, and a
spoken story can help others to interpret the meaning of the photo,
especially in the absence of the photographer."
Feelings of Self
Memories reflect our life experiences. They remind us of families and
friends, of experiences and accomplishments. They also serve to rein
force how we view ourselves. Our selfimage plays a more important
role in our lives than we like to admit. Even those who deny any inter
est in how others view them actually do care, if only by making sure
that everyone else understands that they don't. The way we dress and
behave, the material objects we possess, jewelry and watches, cars and
homes, all are public expressions of our selves.
The concept of self appears to be a fundamental human attribute. It
is difficult to imagine how it could be otherwise, given what we know
of the mechanisms of mind and the roles that consciousness and emo
tion play. The concept is deeply rooted in the reflective level of the
brain and highly dependent upon cultural norms. It is, therefore, diffi
cult to deal with in design.
TLFeBOOK
In psychology, the study of the self has become a big industry, with
books, societies, journals, and conferences. But "self" is a complex
concept: It is culturally specific. Thus, Eastern and Western notions of
self vary considerably, with the West placing more emphasis on the
individual, the East on the group. Americans tend to want to excel as
individuals, whereas Japanese wish to be good members of their
groups and for others to be satisfied with their contributions. But even
these characterizations are too broad and oversimplified. In fact, on
the whole, people behave very similarly, given the same situation. It is
culture that presents us with different situations. Thus, Asian cultures
are more likely to establish a sharing, group attitude than are the cul
tures of Europe and the Americas, where individualistic situations are
more common. But put Asians in an individualistic situation and
Europeans or Americans in a social, sharing situation, and their
behaviors are remarkably similar.
Some aspects of self seem to be universal, such as the desire to be
wellthoughtof by others, even if the behavior others praise differs
across cultures. This desire holds both in the most individualistic soci
eties, which admire deviance, and in the most grouporiented soci
eties, which admire conformance.
The importance of other people's opinions is, of course, well
known to the advertising industry, which tries to promote products
through association. Take any product and show it alongside happy,
contented people. Show people doing things that an intended purchas
er is likely to fantasize about, such as romantic vacations, skiing, exot
ic locations, eating in foreign lands. Show famous people, people who
serve as role models or heroes to the customers, to induce in them,
through association, a sense of worthiness. Products can be designed
to enhance these aspects. In clothing fashion, one can have clothes that
are neat and trim or baggy and nondescript, each deliberately induc
ing a different image of self. When company or brand logos are
imprinted on clothes, luggage, or other objects, the mere appearance
of the name speaks to others about your sense of values. The styles of
objects you choose to buy and display often reflect public opinion as
TLFeBOOK
Two: The M u l t i p l e Faces of E m o t i o n and Design 55
much as behavioral or visceral elements. Your choice of products, or
where and how you live, travel, and behave are often powerful state
ments of self, whether intended or not, conscious or subconscious.
For some, this external manifestation compensates for an internal,
personal lack of selfesteem. Whether you admit it or not, approve or
disapprove, the products you buy and your lifestyle both reflect and
establish your selfimage, as well as the images others have of you.
One of the more powerful ways to induce a positive sense of self is
through a personal sense of accomplishment. This is one aspect of a
hobby, where people can create things that are uniquely theirs, and,
through hobby clubs and groups, share their achievements.
From the late 1940s through the mid1980s the Heathkit Company
sold electronic kits for the home handyperson. Build your own radio,
your own audio system, your own television set. The people who con
structed the kits felt immense pride in their accomplishments as well as
a common bond with other kit builders. Putting together a kit was a
personal feat: the less skilled the kit builder, the more that special feel
ing. Electronic experts did not take such pride in their kits; it was those
who ventured forth without the expertise who felt so satisfied. Heathkit
did an excellent job of aiding the firsttime builder with what, in my
opinion, were the best instruction manuals ever written. Mind you,the
kits were not much less expensive than equivalent commercial elec
tronic devices. People bought the kits for their high quality and for the
feeling of accomplishment, not to save money.
In the early 1950s, the Betty Crocker Company introduced a cake
mix so that people could readily make excellent tasting cakes at home.
No muss, no fuss: just add water, mix, and bake. The product failed,
even though taste tests confirmed that people liked the result. Why?
An afterthefact effort was made to find the reasons. As the market
researchers Bonnie Goebert and Herma Rosenthal put it: "The cake
mix was a little too simple. The consumer felt no sense of accomplish
ment, no involvement with the product. It made her feel useless, espe
cially if somewhere her aproned mom was still whipping up cakes
from scratch."
TLFeBOOK
Yes, it was too easy to make the cake. Betty Crocker solved the

problem by requiring the cook to add an egg to the mix, thereby put
ting pride back into the activity. Clearly, adding an egg to a prepared
cake mix is not at all equivalent to baking a cake "from scratch" by
using individual ingredients. Nonetheless, adding the egg gave the act
of baking a sense of accomplishment, whereas just mixing water into
the cake mix seemed too little, too artificial. Goebert and Rosenthal
summarized the situation: "The real problem had nothing to do with
the product's intrinsic value, but instead represented the emotional
connection that links a product to its user." Yes, it's all about emotion,
about pride, about the feeling of accomplishment, even in making a
cake from a prepared mix.
The Personality of Products

As we have seen, a product can have a personality. So, too, can compa
nies and brands. Consider my proposed transformation of the video
game device discussed earlier in this chapter. In one version, the
machine would be a fast, powerful tool for exciting, visceral experi
ences: loud booming sounds and fastpaced adventure. In a different
version, it would be a cooking assistant: animated, but informative,with
menus for meals and videos that demonstrate just how to prepare the
food. In still another, it might be calm, but authoritative, guiding repair
work on an automobile or construction of woodworking projects.
In each manifestation, that product's personality would change.
The product would look and behave differently in the different set
tings appropriate to use and target audience. The style of behavioral
interaction could differ: filled with slang and informal language in the
game setting; polite and formal for the kitchen. But like human per
sonality, once established, all aspects of a design must support the
intended personality structure. A mature cooking tutor should not
suddenly start spouting obscenities. A shop assistant should probably
not discuss the philosophical implications of quality in automobile
TLFeBOOK
Two: The Multiple Faces of Emotion and Design 57
Figure 2.3
Fashion from the
seventeenth century.
On the left, Maria Anna of
Bavaria, crown princess of
France. On the right, a
"young elegant."
(Braun et al., courtesy of
Northwestern University Library.)
design, quoting from R. M.

Pirsig's Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance when
ever a repair is attempted.
Personality is, of course, a complex topic in its own right. A simpli
fied way of thinking of product personality is that it reflects the many
decisions about how a product looks, behaves, and is positioned
throughout its marketing and advertisements. Thus, all three levels of
design play a role. Personality must be matched to market segment.
And it must be consistent. Think about it. If a person or product has
an obnoxious personality, at least you know what to expect: you can
plan for it. When behavior is inconsistent and erratic, it is difficult to
know what to expect, and occasional positive surprises are not enough
to overcome the frustration and irritation caused by never quite know
ing what to expect.
The personalities of products, companies, and brands need as much
tending to as the product itself.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines fashion, style, mode, and
vogue thus: "These nouns refer to a prevailing or preferred manner of
dress, adornment, behavior, or way of life at a given time. Fashion,
the broadest term, usually refers to what accords with conventions
adopted by polite society or by any culture or subculture: a time when
long hair was the fashion. Style is sometimes used interchangeably
TLFeBOOK
58 Emotional Design
with fashion, but like mode often stresses adherence to standards of
elegance: traveling in style; miniskirts that were the mode in the late
sixties. Vogue is applied to fashion that prevails widely and often sug
gests enthusiastic but shortlived acceptance: a video game that was in
vogue a few years ago."
The very existence of the terms fashion, style, mode, and vogue
demonstrates the fragility of the reflective side of design. What is
liked today may not be tomorrow. Indeed, the reason for the change is
the very fact that something was once liked: When too many people
like something, then it is no longer deemed appropriate for the leaders
of a society to partake of it. After all,goes the thinking, how can one
be a leader unless one is different, doing today what others will do
tomorrow, and doing tomorrow what they will be doing after that?
Even the rebellious have to change continually, carefully noticing
what is in fashion so as not to be following it, carefully creating their
own fashion of counterfashion.
How does a designer cope with popular taste if it has little to do
with substance? Well, it depends upon the nature of the product and
the intentions of the company producing it. If the product is some
thing fundamental to life and wellbeing, then the proper response is
to ignore continual shifts in popular sentiment and aim for longlast
ing value. Yes, the product must be attractive. Yes, it should be pleas
urable and fun. But it must also be effective, understandable, and
appropriately priced. In other words, it must strive for balance among
the three levels of design.
In the long run,simple style with quality construction and effective
performance still wins. So a business that manufactures office
machines, or basic home appliances, or web sites for shipping, com
merce, or information, would be wise to stick to the fundamentals. In
these cases, the task dictates the design: make the design fit the task,
and the product works more smoothly and is bound to be more effec
tive across a wide range of users and uses. Here is where the number
of different products is determined by the nature of particular tasks
and the economics.
TLFeBOOK
There is a set of products, however, whose goals are entertainment,
or style, or perhaps enhancement of a person's image. Here is where
fashion comes into play. Here is where the huge individual differences
in people and cultures are important. Here the person and marketseg
ment dictate the design. Make the design appropriate to the market
segment that forms the target audience. It is probably necessary to
have multiple versions of the design for different market segments.
And it is probably necessary to do rapid changes in style and appear
ance as the market dictates.
Designing for the whims of fashion is tricky. Some designers may
see it as a difficult challenge, others, as an opportunity. In some sense,
the division often breaks between large and small companies, or
between market leaders and the competition. To the market leader, the
continual changes in people's fashion, and the wide variety of prefer
ences for the same product across the world, are huge challenges. How
can the company ever keep up? How does it track all the changes and
even anticipate them? How does it keep the many necessary product
lines effective? To the competitive companies, however, the same
issues represent an opportunity. Small companies can be nimble, mov
ing rapidly into areas and using approaches that the more conservative
larger companies hesitate to try. Small companies can be outrageous,
different, and experimental. They can exploit the public's interests,
even if the product is initially purchased by only a few. Large compa
nies attempt to experiment by spinning off smaller, more nimble divi
sions, sometimes with unique names that make them appear to be
independent of their parent. All in all,this is the everchanging, con
tinual battleground of the consumer marketplace, where fashion can
be as important as substance.
IN THE world of products, a brand is an identifying mark, the sym

bol that represents a company and its products. Particular brands pro
duce an emotional response that draws the consumer toward the
product or away from it. Brands have taken on the emotional repre
TLFeBOOK
60 Emotional Design
sentation. They carry with them an emotional response that guides us
toward a product or away from it. Sergio Zyman, former chief mar
keting officer of CocaCola, has said that "emotional branding is
about building relationships; it is about giving a brand and a product
longterm value." But it is more: it involves the entire relationship of
the product to the individual. Again, in Zyman's words: "Emotional
branding is based on that unique trust that is established with an audi
ence. It elevates purchases based on need to the realm of desire. The
commitment to a product or an institution, the pride we feel upon
receiving a wonderful gift of a brand we love or having a positive
shopping experience in an inspiring environment where someone
knows our name or brings an unexpected gift of coffee—these feel
ings are at the core of Emotional Branding."
Some brands are simply informative, essentially naming a company
or its product. But on the whole, the brand name is a symbol thatrep
resents one's entire experience with a product and the company that
produces it. Some brands represent quality and high prices. Some rep
resent a focus upon service. Some represent value for money. And
some brands stand for shoddy products, for indifferent service, or for
inconvenience at best. And, of course, most brand names are mean
ingless, carrying no emotional power at all.
Brands are all about emotions. And emotions are all about judg
ment. Brands are signifiers of our emotional responses, which is why
they are so important in the world of commerce.
T H I S C O N C L U D E S part I of the book: the basic tools of emo

tional design. Attractive things do work better—their attractiveness
produces positive emotions, causing mental processes to be more cre
ative, more tolerant of minor difficulties. The three levels of process
ing lead to three corresponding forms of design: visceral, behavioral,
and reflective. Each plays a critical role in human behavior, each an
equally critical role in the design, marketing, and use of products.
Now it is time to explore how this knowledge is put to work.
TLFeBOOK
PART Two
Design in
Practice
TLFeBOOK
FIGURE 3.1
Water bottles. The ones on the left and the right are clearly aimed to
please at the visceral level; the middle one, well, it is efficient, it is inex-
pensive, and it works. The bottle on the left, for Perrier water, has
become so well known that the shape and its green color are the brand.
The bottle on the right is by TyNant, a bottle of such a pleasant shape
coupled with its deep, cobalt blue color that people save the empty ones
to use as vases. The clear plastic bottle is by Crystal Geyser: simple,
utilitarian, effective when you need to carry water with you.
(Author's collection.)
TLFeBOOK
CHAPTER THREE
Three Levels of Design

Visceral, Behavioral,
and Reflective
I remember deciding to buy Apollinaris, a German mineral water, sim
ply because I thought it would look so good on my shelves. As it
turned out, it was a very good water. But I think I would have bought
it even though it was not all that great.
The nice interplay between the bottle's green and the label's beige
and red as well as the font used for the brand turned this product of
mass consumption into a decoration accessory for your kitchen.
—Hugues Belanger
email, 2002
IT WAS L U N C H T I M E . My friends and I were in downtown

Chicago, and we decided to try Cafe des Architectes in the Sofitel
Hotel. As we entered the bar area, a beautiful display greeted us: water
bottles, the sort you can buy in a food market, set out as works of art.
63
TLFeBOOK
64 Emotional Design
The entire rear wall of the bar was like an art gallery: frosted glass,

subtly lit from behind, from floor to ceiling; shelves in front of the
glass, each shelf dedicated to a different type of water. Blue, green,
amber—all the wonderful hues, the glass gracefully illuminating them
from behind, shaping the play of color. Water bottles as art.I resolved
to find out more about this phenomenon. How did the packaging of
water become an art form?
"Walk down a grocery aisle in any town in the U.S.,Canada,
Europe, or Asia and there is a virtual tidal wave of bottled water
brands," is how one web site that I consulted put it. Another web site
emphasized the role of emotion: "Package designers and brand man
agers are looking beyond graphic elements or even the design as a
whole to forge an emotional link between consumers and brands."
The selling of premium bottled water in major cities of the world,
where the tap water is perfectly healthful, has become a big business.
Water sold in this way is more expensive than gasoline. Indeed, the
cost is part of the attraction where the reflective side of the mind says,
"If it is this expensive, it must be special."
And some of the bottles are special, sensuous, and colorful.
People keep the empty bottles, sometimes refilling them with tap
water, which, of course, demonstrates that the entire success of the
product lies in its package, not its contents. Thus, like wine bottles,
water bottles serve as decorative additions to rooms long after they
have fulfilled their primary purpose. Witness another web site:
"almost everyone who enjoys TyNant Natural Mineral Water admits
to keeping one or two around the home or office as an ornament,
vase or the like. Photographers positively delight in the bottles' pho
togenic appeal." (In figure 3.1, the bottle with the flower in it is
TyNant.)
How does one brand of water distinguish itself from another?
Packaging is one answer, distinctive packaging that, in the case of
water, means bottle design. Glass, plastic, whatever the material, the
design becomes the product. This is bottling that appeals to the pow
erful visceral level of emotion, that causes an immediate visceral reac
TLFeBOOK
T h r e e : T h r e e L e v e l s of Design 65
tion: "Wow, yes, I like it, I want it." It is, as one designer explained to

me, the "wow" factor.
The reflective side of emotion is involved as well, for the saved bot
tles can serve as reminders of the occasion when the beverage was
ordered or consumed. Because both wine and expensive water are
sometimes purchased for special occasions, the bottles serve as
mementos of those occasions, taking on a special emotional value,
becoming meaningful objects, not because of the objects themselves,
but because of the memories they produce, and, as I noted in chapter
2, memories can trigger the powerful, longlasting emotions.
What are the design factors in play here, where pure appearance is
the issue, beauty that is all on the surface? This is where those genetic,
hardwired biological processes play their role. Here the designs are
apt to be "eye candy," as sweet to the eye as the taste of candy to the
mouth. Yet just as sweettasting candy is empty of nutritional value,
so, too, is appearance empty beneath the surface.
Human responses to the everyday things of the world are complex,
determined by a wide variety of factors. Some of these are outside the
person, controlled by designer and manufacturer, or by advertising
and such things as brand image. And some come from within, from
your own, private experiences. Each of the three levels of design—
visceral, behavioral, and reflective—plays its part in shaping your
experience. Each is as important as the others, but each requires a dif
ferent approach by the designer.
Visceral Design
Visceral design is what nature does. We humans evolved to coexist in
the environment of other humans, animals, plants, landscapes, weath
er, and other natural phenomena. As a result, we are exquisitely tuned
to receive powerful emotional signals from the environment that get
interpreted automatically at the visceral level. This is where the lists of
features in chapter 1 came from. Thus, the colorful plumage on male
TLFeBOOK
66 Emotional Design
birds was selectively enhanced through the evolutionary process to be
maximally attractive to female birds—as, in turn, were the prefer
ences of female birds so as to discriminate better among male
plumages. It's an iterative, coadaptive process, each animal adapting
over many generations to serve the other. A similar process occurs
between males and females of other species, between coadaptive life
forms across species, and even between animals and plants.
Fruits and flowers provide an excellent example of the coevolution
of plants and animals. Nature's evolutionary process made flowers to
be attractive to birds and bees, the better to spread their pollen, and
fruits to be attractive to primates and other animals, the better to
spread their seeds. Fruits and flowers tend to be symmetrical, round
ed, smooth, pleasant to the touch, and colorful. Flowers have pleasant
odors, and most fruits taste sweet, the better to attract animals and
people who will eat them and then spread the seeds, whether by spit
ting or defecation. In this coevolution of design, the plants change so
as to attract animals, while the animals change so as to become attract
ed to the plants and fruits. The human love of sweet tastes and smells
and of bright, highly saturated colors probably derives from this co
evolution of mutual dependence between people and plants.
The human preference for faces and bodies that are symmetrical
presumably reflects selection of the fittest; nonsymmetrical bodies
probably are the result of some deficiency in the genes or the matura
tion process. Humans select for size, color, and appearance, and what
you are biologically disposed to think of as attractive derives from
these considerations. Sure, culture plays a role, so that, for example,
some cultures prefer fat people, others thin; but even within thosecul
tures, there is agreement on what is and is not attractive, even if too
thin or too fat for specific likes.
When we perceive something as "pretty," that judgment comes
directly from the visceral level. In the world of design, "pretty" is
generally frowned upon, denounced as petty, trite, or lacking depth
and substance—but that is the designer's reflective level speaking
(clearly trying to overcome an immediate visceral attraction). Because
TLFeBOOK
T h r e e : Three L e v e l s of D e s i g n 67
designers want their colleagues to recognize them as imaginative, cre
ative, and deep, making something "pretty" or "cute" or "fun" is not
well accepted. But there is a place in our lives for such things, even if
they are simple.
You can find visceral design in advertising, folk art and crafts, and
children's items. Thus, children's toys, clothes, and furniture will
often reflect visceral principles: bright, highly saturated primary col
ors. Is this great art? No, but it is enjoyable.
Adult humans like to explore experiences far beyond the basic, bio
logically wiredin preferences. Thus, although bitter tastes are viscer
ally disliked (presumably because many poisons are bitter), adults
have learned to eat and drink numerous bitter things, even to prefer
them. This is an "acquired taste," so called because people have had to
learn to overcome their natural inclination to dislike them. So, too,
with crowded, busy spaces, or noisy ones, and discordant, nonhar
monic music, sometimes with irregular beats: all things that are viscer
ally negative but that can be reflectively positive.
The principles underlying visceral design are wired in, consistent
across people and cultures. If you design according to these rules,
your design will always be attractive, even if somewhat simple. If you
design for the sophisticated, for the reflective level, your design can
readily become dated because this level is sensitive to cultural differ
ences, trends in fashion, and continual fluctuation. Today's sophistica
tion runs the risk of becoming tomorrow's discard. Great designs, like
great art and literature, can break the rules and survive forever, but
only a few are gifted enough to be great.
At the visceral level, physical features—look, feel, and sound—
dominate. Thus, a master chef concentrates on presentation, arranging
food artfully on the plate. Here good graphics, cleanliness, and beauty
play a role. Make the car door feel firm and produce a pleasant chunk
ing sound as it closes. Make the exhaust sound of the Harley Davidson
motorcycle have a unique, powerful rumble. Make the body sleek,
sexy, inviting, such as the classic 1961 Jaguar roadster of figure 3.2.
Yes, we love sensuous curves, sleek surfaces, and solid, sturdy objects.
TLFeBOOK
68 Emotional Design
FIGURE 3.2
The 1961 Jaguar E-type: Viscerally exciting.
This automobile is a classic example of the power of visceral design:
sleek, elegant, exciting. It is no surprise that the car is in the design col-
lection of the New York Museum of Modern Art.
(Courtesy of the Ford Motor Corporation.)
Because visceral design is about initial reactions, it can be studied
quite simply by putting people in front of a design and waiting for
reactions. In the best of circumstances, the visceral reaction to appear
ance works so well that people take one look and say "I want it." Then
they might ask, "What does it do?" And last, "And how much does it
cost?" This is the reaction the visceral designer strives for, and it can
work. Much of traditional market research involves this aspect of
design.
Apple Computer found that when it introduced the colorful iMac
computer, sales boomed, even though those fancy cabinets contained
the very same hardware and software as Apple's other models, ones
that were not selling particularly well. Automobile designers count on
visual design to rescue a company. When Volkswagen reintroduced
their classic "beetle" design in 1993, Audi developed the TT, and
Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser, sales for all three companies
climbed. It's all in the appearance.
TLFeBOOK
Three : Three L e v e l s of Design 69
FIGURE 3.3
The sensual component
of behavioral design.
Behavioral design empha-
sizes the use of objects, in
this case, the sensual feel
of the shower: a key, often
overlooked component of
good behavioral design.
The Kohler WaterHaven
Shower.
(Courtesy of the Kohler Co.)
Effective visceral design requires the skills of the visual and graph

ic artist and the industrial engineer. Shape and form matter. The phys
ical feel and texture of the materials matter. Heft matters. Visceral
design is all about immediate emotional impact. It has to feel good,
look good. Sensuality and sexuality play roles. This is a major role of
"point of presence" displays in stores, in brochures, in advertisements,
and in other enticements that emphasize appearance. These may be a
store's only chance of getting the customer, for many a product is
purchased on looks alone. Similarly, otherwise highly rated products
may be turned down if they do not appeal to the aesthetic sense of the
potential buyer.
Behavioral Design
Behavioral design is all about use. Appearance doesn't really matter.
Rationale doesn't matter. Performance does. This is the aspect of
design that practitioners in the usability community focus upon. The
TLFeBOOK
70 Emotional Design
principles of good behavioral design are well known and often told;

indeed, I laid them out in my earlier book, The Design of Everyday
Things. What matters here are four components of good behavioral
design: function, understandability, usability, and physical feel.
Sometimes the feel can be the major rationale behind the product.
Consider the shower shown in figure 3.3. Imagine the sensual pleas
ure, the feel—quite literally—of the water streaming across the body.
IN M O S T behavioral design, function comes first and foremost;

what does a product do, what function does it perform? If the item
doesn't do anything of interest, then who cares how well it works?
Even if its only function is to look good, it had better succeed. Some
welldesigned items miss the target when it comes to fulfilling their
purpose and thus deserve to fail. If a potato peeler doesn't actually
peel potatoes, or a watch doesn't tell accurate time, then nothing else
matters. So the very first behavioral test a product must pass is
whether it fulfills needs.
On the face of it, getting the function right would seem like the eas
iest of the criteria to meet, but in fact, it is tricky. People's needs are
not as obvious as might be thought. When a product category already
exists, it is possible to watch people using the existing products to
learn what improvements can be made. But what if the category does
not even exist? How do you discover a need that nobody yet knows
about? This is where the product breakthroughs come from.
Even with existing products, it is amazing how seldom the design
ers watch their customers. I visited a major software developer to
meet with the design team for one of their more widely used products,
one that has an overabundance of features, but nonetheless still fails to
meet my everyday needs. I came prepared with a long list of problems
that I had encountered while attempting to do routine activities.
Moreover, I had checked with other dissatisfied users of this product.
To my great surprise, much of what I told the design team seemed to
be novel. "Very interesting," they kept saying, while taking copious
TLFeBOOK
Three : T h r e e L e v e l s of Design 71
notes. I was pleased that they paid attention to me, but disturbed by

the fact that these rather basic points appeared to be new. Had they
never watched people use their products? These designers—like
many design teams in all industries—tend to keep to their desks,
thinking up new ideas, testing them out on one another. As a result,
they kept adding new features, but they had never studied just what
patterns of activities their customers performed, just what tasks need
ed to be supported. Tasks and activities are not well supported by iso
lated features. They require attention to the sequence of actions, to
the eventual goal—that is, to the true needs. The first step in good
behavioral design is to understand just how people will use a product.
This team had not done even this most elementary set of observations.
There are two kinds of product development: enhancement and
innovation. Enhancement means to take some existing product or
service and make it better. Innovation provides a completely new way
of doing something, or a completely new thing to do, something that
was not possible before. Of the two, enhancements are much easier.
Innovations are particularly difficult to assess. Before they were
introduced, who would have thought we needed typewriters, personal
computers, copying machines, or cell phones? Answer: Nobody.
Today it is hard to imagine life without these items, but before they
existed almost no one but an inventor could imagine what purpose
they would serve, and quite often the inventors were wrong. Thomas
Edison thought that the phonograph would eliminate the need for let
ters written on paper: business people would dictate their thoughts
and mail the recordings. The personal computer was so misunder
stood that several thenmajor computer manufacturers completely
dismissed them: some of those oncelarge companies no longer exist.
The telephone was thought to be an instrument for business, and in
the early days, telephone companies tried to dissuade customers from
using the phone for mere conversation and gossip.
One cannot evaluate an innovation by asking potential customers
for their views. This requires people to imagine something they have
no experience with. Their answers, historically, have been notoriously
TLFeBOOK
72 Emotional Design
bad. People have said they would really like some products that then
failed in the marketplace. Similarly, they have said they were simply
not interested in products that went on to become huge market suc
cesses. The cellular telephone is a good example. It was originally
thought to be of value to a limited number of business people. Very
few people could imagine carrying one simply for personal interac
tion. Indeed, when individuals first purchased cell phones, they often
explained that they didn't intend to use them, but that they were "in
case I have an emergency." Predicting the popularity of a new prod
uct is almost impossible before the fact, even though it may seem obvi
ous afterward.
Enhancements to a product come primarily by watching howpeo
ple use what exists today, discovering difficulties, and then overcom
ing them. Even here, however, it can be more difficult to determine
the real needs than might seem obvious. People find it difficult to
articulate their real problems. Even if they are aware of a problem,
they don't often think of it as a design issue. Ever struggle with a key,
to discover that you are inserting it upside down? Or ever lock your
keys inside the automobile? Or lock the car, only to realize that you
left the windows open, so you have to unlock the car and lean inside to
close them? In any of these cases, would you think these were design
flaws? Probably not, probably you just blamed yourself. Well, they all
could be corrected by appropriate designs. Why not design a symmet
rical key that works no matter which way it is inserted into a lock?
Why not design cars so that the key is required to lock the doors, mak
ing it much less likely that the car can be locked with the key inside?
Why not make it possible to close the windows from outside the car?
All of these designs now exist, but it took clever observations for the
designers to recognize that the problems could be overcome.
Ever put batteries into a product in the wrong orientation? Why is
this even possible? Why shouldn't batteries be designed so that they
can only go into their slots in one orientation, making it impossible to
insert them improperly? I suspect battery makers don't care, and that
manufacturers who purchase and specify batteries for their equipment
TLFeBOOK
never considered that it was possible to do things better. Standard

cylindrical batteries are excellent examples of poor behavioral design,
of a failure to understand the problems facing people who must figure
out just which orientation is required for each device—moreover in
the face of warning labels that point out that the equipment might be
damaged if the batteries are inserted incorrectly.
Consider the automobile. Sure, it is easy to note that storage areas
ought to be bigger or seat adjustments easier, but how about such an
obvious item as cup holders for beverages? People like to drink coffee
and sodas while riding in their vehicles. Today this seems like an obvi
ous necessity in an automobile, but it was not always thought so.
Automobiles have been around roughly a century, but cup holders
were not considered appropriate for their interiors until quite recently,
and the innovation didn't come from the automobile manufacturers—
they resisted them. What happened was that small manufacturers real
ized the need, probably because they had built cup holders for
themselves, and then discovered that other people wanted them also.
Soon, all sorts of addon devices were being manufactured. These
were relatively inexpensive and easy to install in a car: stickon hold
ers, magnetic holders, beanbag holders. Some attached to the win
dows, some to the dashboards, and some to the space between the
seats. It was only because these were so popular that manufacturers
slowly started to add them as standard items inside the car. Now there
is a vast array of clever cup holders. Some people claim that they pur
chased a particular automobile solely because of its cup holders. Buy a
car solely because of the cup holders? Why not? If the car is used pri
marily for daily commuting and short errands around a city, conven
ience and comfort for drivers and passengers are the most important
needs.
Even after the need for cup holders seemed obvious, German auto
mobile manufacturers resisted them, explaining that automobiles were
for driving, not drinking. (I suspect that this attitude reflects the old
fashioned German automobile design culture, which proclaims that the
engineer knows best, and considers studies of real people driving their
TLFeBOOK
74 Emotional Design
vehicles irrelevant. But if the automobile is only for driving, why do
Germans provide ashtrays, cigarette lighters, and radios?) The
Germans reconsidered only when decreases in sales in the United
States were attributed to the lack of cup holders. Engineers and
designers who believe they do not need to watch the people who use
their products are a major source of the many poor designs that con
front us.
My friends at the industrial design firm of Herbst LaZar Bell told
me that they had been asked by a company to redesign their floor
cleaning machine to satisfy a long list of requirements. Cup holders
were not on the list, but perhaps they should have been. When the
designers visited maintenance workers in the middle of the night to
observe just how they cleaned the floors of large commercial build
ings, they discovered that workers had difficulty drinking coffee while
manipulating the huge cleaning and waxing machines. As a result, the
designers added cup holders. The new design had numerous major
enhancements to the product in both appearance and behavior—vis
ceral and behavioral design—and has proven to be a market success.
How important was the cup holder to the success of the new design?
Probably not much, except that it is symptomatic of the attention to
true customer needs that signifies quality products. As Herbst LaZar
Bell properly emphasizes, the real challenge to product design is
"understanding enduser unmet and unarticulated needs." That's the
design challenge—to discover real needs that even the people who
need them cannot yet articulate.
How does one discover "unarticulated needs"? Certainly not by
asking, not by focus groups, not by surveys or questionnaires. Who
would have thought to mention the need for cup holders in a car, or on
a stepladder, or on a cleaning machine? After all, coffee drinking
doesn't seem to be a requirement for cleaning any more than for driv
ing in an automobile. It is only after such enhancements are made that
everyone believes them to be obvious and necessary. Because most
people are unaware of their true needs, discovering them requires
careful observations in their natural environment. The trained observ
TLFeBOOK
Three : T h r e e L e v e l s of D e s i g n 75
er can often spot difficulties and solutions that even the person experi

encing them does not consciously recognize. But once an issue has
been pointed out, it is easy to tell when you have hit the target. The
response of the people who actually use the product is apt to be some
thing like, "Oh, yeah, you're right, that's a real pain. Can you solve
that? That would be wonderful."
After function comes understanding. If you can't understand a
product, you can't use it—at least not very well. Oh, sure, you could
memorize the basic operating steps, but you probably will have to be
reminded over and over again what they are. With a good understand
ing, once an operation is explained, you are apt to say, "Oh, yes, I
see," and from then on require no further explanation or reminding.
"Learn once, remember forever," ought to be the design mantra.
Without understanding, people have no idea what to do when
things go wrong—and things always go wrong. The secret to good
understanding is to establish a proper conceptual model. In The
Design of Everyday Things, I pointed out that there are three different
mental images of any object. First is the image in the head of the
designer—call that the "designer's model." Then the image that the
person using the device has of it and the way it works: call this the
"user's model." In an ideal world, the designer's model and the user's
model should be identical and, as a result, the user understands and
uses the item properly. Alas, designers don't talk to the final users;
they only specify the product. People form their models entirely from
their observations of the product—from its appearance, how it oper
ates, what feedback it provides, and perhaps, any accompanying writ
ten material, such as the advertising and manuals. (But most people
don't read the manuals.) I called the image conveyed by the product
and written material the "system image."
As Figure 3.4 indicates, designers can communicate with the even
tual users only through the system image of a product. Thus, a good
designer will make sure that the system image of the final design con
veys the proper user model. The only way to find this out is through
testing: develop early prototypes, then watch as people try to use
TLFeBOOK
76 Emotional Design
FIGURE 3.4
The designer's model, the system image, and the user's model.
For someone to use a product successfully, they must have the same
mental model (the user's model) as that of the designer (the designer's
model). But the designer only talks to the user via the product itself, so
the entire communication must take place through the "system image":
the information conveyed by the physical product itself.
them. What is something with a good system image? Almost any

design that makes apparent its operation. The rulers and margin set
ting in the word processor I use as I type this is one excellent example.
The seat adjustment control shown in Figure 3.5 is another. Notice
how the arrangement of the controls automatically refers to the oper
ation each performs. Lift on the bottom seat control and the seat rises.
Push forward on the vertical control and the seat back leans forward.
That's good conceptual design.
An important component of understanding comes from feedback: a
device has to give continual feedback so that a user knows that it is
working, that any commands, button presses, or other requests have
actually been received. This feedback can be as simple as the feel of
the brake pedal when you depress it and the resultant slowing of the
automobile, or a brief flash of light or sound when you push some
thing. It is amazing, though, how many products still give inadequate
TLFeBOOK
T h r e e : Three L e v e l s of Design 77
FIGURE 3.5
Seat controls—an excellent system image.
These seat controls explain themselves: the conceptual model is provided
by the positioning of the controls to look just like the item being con-
trolled. Want to change the seat adjustment? Push or pull, lift or depress
the corresponding control and the corresponding part of the seat moves
accordingly. (Mercedes Benz seat controls; photograph by the author.)
feedback. Most computer systems now display a clock face or an hour
glass to indicate that they are responding, if slowly. If the delay is
short, this indicator suffices, but it is completely inadequate if the
delay lengthens. To be effective, feedback must enhance the concep
tual model, indicating precisely what is happening and what yet
remains to be done. Negative emotions kick in when there is a lack of
understanding, when people feel frustrated and out of control—first
uneasiness, then irritation, and, if the lack of control and understand
ing persists, even anger.
Usability is a complex topic. A product that does what is required,
and is understandable, may still not be usable. Thus, guitars and vio
lins do their assigned tasks well (that is, create music), they are quite
simple to understand, but they are very difficult to use. The same is
true of the piano, a deceptively simplelooking instrument. Musical
instruments take years of dedicated practice to be used properly, and
TLFeBOOK
78 Emotional Design
even then, errors and poor performance are common among nonpro

fessionals. The relative unusability of musical instruments is accepted,
in part because we know of no other alternative, in part because the
results are so worthwhile.
But most of the things you use in everyday life should not require
years of dedicated practice. New items appear every week, but who
has the time or energy to spend the time required to learn each one?
Bad design is a frequent cause of error, often unfairly blamed on users
rather than on designers. Errors can lead to accidents that not only are
financially expensive but can cause injury or death. There is no excuse
for such flaws, for we understand how to build functional, under
standable, and usable things. Moreover, everyday things have to be
used by a wide variety of people: short and tall, athletic and not, who
speak and read different languages, who may be deaf or blind, or lack
physical mobility or agility—or even hands. Younger people have dif
ferent skills and abilities than older ones.
Usage is the critical test of a product: Here is where it stands alone,
unsupported by advertising or merchandising material. All that mat
ters is how well the product performs, how comfortable the person
using it feels with the operation. A frustrated user is not a happy one,
so it is at the behavioral stage of design that applying the principles of
humancentered design pay off.
Universal design, designing for everyone, is a challenge, but one
well worth the effort. Indeed, the "Universal Design" philosophy
argues persuasively that designing for the handicapped, the hard of
hearing or seeing, or those less agile than average invariably makes an
object better for everyone. There is no excuse not to design usable
products that everyone can use.
" H E R E , TRY this." I am visiting IDEO, the industrial design com

pany. I am being shown their "Tech Box," a big cabinet with an appar
ently endless set of small drawers and boxes, loaded with an eclectic
combination of toys, textures, knobs, clever mechanical mechanisms,
TLFeBOOK
and objects that I cannot classify. I peer into the boxes, trying to figure
out what they are for, what purpose they serve. "Just turn the knob,"
I'm told, as something is thrust into my hands. I find the knob and
rotate it. It feels good: smooth, silky. I try a different knob: it doesn't
feel as precise. There are dead regions where I turn and nothing
seems to happen. Why the difference? Same mechanism, I am told:
the difference is the addition of a special, very viscous oil. "Feel mat
ters," a designer explains, and from the "Tech Box" appear yet more
examples: silky cloth, microfiber textiles, sticky rubber, squeezable
balls—more than I can assimilate at one experience.
Good designers worry a lot about the physical feel of their prod
ucts. Physical touch and feel can make a huge difference in your
appreciation of their creations. Consider the delights of smooth, pol
ished metal, or soft leather, or a solid, mechanical knob that moves
precisely from position to position, with no backlash or dead zones, no
wobbling or wiggling. No wonder IDEO designers love their "Tech
Box," their collection of toys and textures, mechanisms and controls.
Many design professionals focus on visual appearance, in part because
this is what can be appreciated from a distance and, of course, all that
can be experienced in an advertising or marketing photograph or
printed illustration. Touch and feel, however, are critical to our behav
ioral assessment of a product. Recall the shower of figure 3.3.
Physical objects have weight, texture, and surface. The design term
for this is "tangibility." Far too many hightechnology creations have
moved from real physical controls and products to ones that reside on
computer screens, to be operated by touching the screen or manipulat
ing a mouse. All the pleasure of manipulating a physical object is gone
and, with it, a sense of control. Physical feel matters. We are, after all,
biological creatures, with physical bodies, arms, and legs. A huge
amount of the brain is taken up by the sensory systems, continually
probing and interacting with the environment. The best of products
make full use of this interaction. Just imagine cooking, feeling the
comfort of a balanced, highquality knife, hearing the sound of cut
ting on the chopping board or the sizzle when you drop food into the
TLFeBOOK
80 Emotional Design
skillet, smelling the odors released from the freshcut food. Or imag

ine gardening, feeling the tenderness of a plant, the grittiness of the
earth. Or playing tennis, hearing the twang of the ball against the
racket's strings, its feel in your hands. Touch, vibration, feel, smell,
sound, visual appearance. And now imagine doing all this on a com
puter screen, where what you see may look real, but with no feel, no
scent, no vibrations, no sound.
The world of software is to be commended for its power and
chameleonlike ability to transform itself into whatever function is
needed. The computer provides for abstract actions. Computer scien
tists call these environments "virtual worlds," and although they have
many benefits, they eliminate one of the great delights of real interac
tions: the delight that comes from touching, feeling, and moving real
physical objects.
The virtual worlds of software are worlds of cognition: ideas and
concepts presented without physical substance. Physical objects
involve the world of emotion, where you experience things, whether
the comfortable sensuousness of some surfaces or the grating, uncom
fortable feel of others. Although software and computers have
become indispensable to daily life, too much adherence to the abstrac
tion of the computer screen subtracts from emotional pleasure.
Fortunately, some designers of many computerbased products are
restoring the natural, affective pleasures of the real, tangible world.
Physical controls are back in style: knobs for tuning, knobs for vol
ume, levers for turning or switching. Hurrah!
Badly conceived behavioral design can lead to great frustration,
leading to objects that have lives of their own, that refuse to obey, that
provide inadequate feedback about their actions, that are unintelligible,
and all in all, putting anyone who tries to use them into a big, gray
funk. No wonder this frustration often erupts in rage, causes the user to
kick, scream, and curse. Worse, there is no excuse for such frustration.
The fault does not lie with the user; the fault lies with the design.
Why do so many designs fail? Mainly because designers and engi
neers are often selfcentered. Engineers tend to focus upon technology,
TLFeBOOK
Three : Three L e v e l s of Design 81
putting into a product whatever special features they themselves pre
fer. Many designers fail as well through their fondness for the sophis
ticated use of images, metaphors, and semantics that win prizes in
design competitions but create products that are inaccessible to users.
Web sites fail here as well, for the creators focus either upon the tech
nical sophistication of images and sounds, or upon making sure that
each division of a company receives the recognition that its political
power dictates.
None of these cases takes into account the concerns of the poor
user, people like you and me, who use a product or web site to satisfy
some need. You need to accomplish a task or to find some informa
tion. You don't know the organizational chart of the company on
whose web site you seek information, nor do you wish to. You may
enjoy flashy images and sounds briefly, but not when that cleverness
and sophistication get in the way of getting your job done.
Good behavioral design should be humancentered, focusing upon
understanding and satisfying the needs of the people who actually use
the product. As I have said, the best way to discover these needs is
through observation, when the product is being used naturally, and
not in response to some arbitrary request to "show us how you would
do x." But observation is surprisingly rare. You would think that man
ufacturers would want to watch people use their products, the better
to improve them for the future. But no, they are too busy designing
and matching the features of the competition to find out whether their
products are really effective and usable.
Engineers and designers explain that, being people themselves,
they understand people, but this argument is flawed. Engineers and
designers simultaneously know too much and too little. They know
too much about the technology and too little about how other people
live their lives and do their activities. In addition, anyone involved
with a product is so close to the technical details, to the design difficul
ties, and to the project issues that they are unable to view the product
the way an unattached person can.
Focus groups, questionnaires, and surveys are poor tools for learn
TLFeBOOK
ing about behavior, for they are divorced from actual use. Most behav
ior is subconscious and what people actually do can be quite different
from what they think they do. We humans like to think that we know
why we act as we do, but we don't, however much we like to explain
our actions. The fact that both visceral and behavioral reactions are
subconscious makes us unaware of our true reactions and their causes.
This is why trained professionals who observe real use in real situa
tions can often tell more about people's likes and dislikes—and the
reasons for them—than the people themselves.
An interesting exception to these problems comes when designers
or engineers are building something for themselves that they will use
frequently in their own everyday lives. Such products tend to excel.
As a result, the best products today, from a behavioral point of view,
are often those that come from the athletic, sports, and craft industries,
because these products do get designed, purchased, and used by peo
ple who put behavior above everything else. Go to a good hardware
store and examine the hand tools used by gardeners, woodworkers,
and machinists. These tools, developed over centuries of use, are care
fully designed to feel good, to be balanced, to give precise feedback,
and to perform well. Go to a good outfitter's shop and look at a moun
tain climber's tools or at the tents and backpacks used by serious hikers
and campers. Or go to a professional chef's supply house and examine
what real chefs buy and use in their kitchens.
I have found it interesting to compare the electronic equipment sold
for consumers with the equipment sold to professionals. Although
much more expensive, the professional equipment tends to be simpler
and easier to use. Video recorders for the home market have numerous
flashing lights, many buttons and settings, and complex menus for set
ting the time and programming future recording. The recorders for
the professionals just have the essentials and are therefore easier to use
while functioning better. This difference arises, in part, because the
designers will be using the products themselves, so they know just
what is important and what is not. Tools made by artisans for them
selves all have this property. Designers of hiking or mountain climb
TLFeBOOK
Three : T h r e e L e v e l s of D e s i g n 83
ing equipment may one day find their lives depending upon the quali
ty and behavior of their own designs.
When the company Hewlett Packard was founded, their main
product was test equipment for electrical engineers. "Design for the
person on the next bench," was the company motto, and it served
them well. Engineers found that HP products were a joy to use
because they fitted the task of the electrical engineer at the design or
test bench perfectly. But today, the same design philosophy no longer
works: the equipment is often used by technicians and field crew who
have little or no technical background. The "next bench" philosophy
that worked when the designers were also users fails when the popula
tions change.
Good behavioral design has to be a fundamental part of the design
process from the very start; it cannot be adopted once the product has
been completed. Behavioral design begins with understanding the
user's needs, ideally derived by conducting studies of relevant behav
ior in homes, schools, places of work, or wherever the product will
actually be used. Then the design team produces quick, rapid proto
types to test on prospective users, prototypes that take hours (not
days) to build and then to test. Even simple sketches or mockups from
cardboard, wood, or foam work well at this stage. As the design
process continues, it incorporates the information from the tests. Soon
the prototypes are more complete, sometimes fully or partially work
ing, sometimes simply simulating working devices. By the time the
product is finished, it has been thoroughly vetted through usage: final
testing is necessary only to catch minor mistakes in implementation.
This iterative design process is the heart of effective, usercentered
design.
Reflective Design
Reflective design covers a lot of territory. It is all about message,
about culture, and about the meaning of a product or its use. For one,
TLFeBOOK
84 Emotional Design
FIGURE 3.6
Reflective design through cleverness.
The value of this watch comes from the
clever representation of time: Quick, what
time is represented? This is Time by
Design's "Pie" watch showing the time of
4:22 and 37 seconds. The goal of the com-
pany is to invent new ways of telling time,
combiing "art and time telling into amusing
and thought provoking clocks and watches."
This watch is as much a statement about the
wearer as it is a timepiece.
(Courtesy of Time by Design.)
it is about the meaning of things, the personal remembrances some

thing evokes. For another, very different thing, it is about selfimage
and the message a product sends to others. Whenever you notice that
the color of someone's socks matches the rest of his or her clothes or
whether those clothes are right for the occasion, you are concerned
with reflective selfimage.
Whether we wish to admit it or not, all of us worry about the image
we present to others—or, for that matter, about the selfimage that we
present to ourselves. Do you sometimes avoid a purchase "because it
wouldn't be right" or buy something in order to support a cause you
prefer? These are reflective decisions. In fact, even people who claim a
complete lack of interest in how they are perceived—dressing in
whatever is easiest or most comfortable, refraining from purchasing
new items until the ones they are using completely stop working—
make statements about themselves and the things they care about.
These are all properties of reflective processing.
Consider two watches. The first one, by "Time by Design" (figure
3.6), exhibits reflective delight in using an unusual means to display
time, one that has to be explained to be understood. The watch is also
viscerally attractive, but the main appeal is its unusual display. Is the
time more difficult to read than on a traditional analog or digital
TLFeBOOK
FIGURE 3.7
Pure behavioral design.
The Casio "G-Shock" watch is
pure behavioral design; efficient
and effective, with no claims to
beauty and low in such measures
of reflective design as prestige
and status. But consider the
behavioral aspects: two time
zones, a stopwatch, a countdown
timer, and an alarm. Inexpensive,
easy to use, and accurate.
watch? Yes, but it has an excellent underlying conceptual model, satis
fying one of my maxims of good behavioral design: it need only be
explained once; from then on, it is obvious. Is it awkward to set the
watch because it has but a single control? Yes, but the reflective
delight in showing off the watch and explaining its operation out
weighs the difficulties. I own one myself and, as my weary friends will
attest, proudly explain it to anyone who shows the slightest bit of
interest. The reflective value outweighs the behavioral difficulties.
Now contrast this reflective design with the practical, sensible,
plastic digital watch by Casio (figure 3.7). This is a practical watch,
one emphasizing the behavioral level of design without any attrib
utes of visceral or reflective design. This is an engineer's watch:
practical, straightforward, multiple features, and low price. It isn't
particularly attractive—that isn't its selling point. Moreover, the
watch has no special reflective appeal, except perhaps through the
reverse logic of being proud to own such a utilitarian watch when
one can afford a much more expensive one. (For the record, I own
both these watches, wearing the Time by Design one for formal
affairs, the Casio otherwise.)
A number of years ago I visited Biel, Switzerland. I was part of a
small product team for an American hightechnology company, there
TLFeBOOK
to talk with the folks at Swatch, the watch company that had trans

formed the Swiss watchmaking industry. Swatch, we were proudly
told, was not a watch company; it was an emotions company. Sure,
they made the precision watches and movements used in most watches
around the world (regardless of the brand displayed on the case), but
what they had really done was to transform the purpose of a watch
from timekeeping to emotion. Their expertise, their president boldly
proclaimed, was human emotion, as he rolled up his sleeves to display
the many watches on his arm.
Swatch is famous for transforming the watch into a fashion state
ment, arguing that people should own as many watches as ties, or
shoes, or even shirts. You should change your watch, they proclaimed,
to match mood, activity, or even the time of day. The executive team
of Swatch patiently tried to explain this to us: Yes, the watch mecha
nism had to be inexpensive, yet of high quality and reliable (and we
were very impressed by our tour of their completely automated man
ufacturing facilities), but the real opportunities lay in exploiting the
face and body of the watch. Their web site puts it like this:
Swatch Is Design. The form of a Swatch watch is always the same.

The tiny space it offers for creative design exerts an irresistible power
of attraction on artists. Why? Because the watch face and strap can
take on the wildest imaginative concepts, the most unusual ideas, bril
liant colors, rousing messages, art and comics, dreams for today and
tomorrow, and much, much more. And that's exactly what makes each
Swatch model so fascinating: it is design that incorporates a message,
handwriting that bears witness to a personality.
At the time of my visit, we were impressed, but puzzled. We were
technologists. The concept that a piece of advanced technology should
really be thought of as a vehicle for emotions rather than for function
was a bit difficult for us engineers to fathom. Our group could never
get its act together enough to work in such a creative way, so nothing
ever came of that venture—except for the longlasting impression it
TLFeBOOK
T h r e e : T h r e e L e v e l s of D e s i g n 87
made on me. I learned that products can be more than the sum of the
functions they perform. Their real value can be in fulfilling people's
emotional needs, and one of the most important needs of all is to estab
lish one's selfimage and one's place in the world. In his important
book about the role of industrial design, Watches Tell More than Time,
the designer Del Coates explains that "it is impossible, in fact, to design
a watch that tells only time. Knowing nothing more, the design of a
watch alone—or of any product—can suggest assumptions about the
age, gender, and outlook of the person who wears it."
Did you ever consider buying an expensive, handcrafted watch?
Expensive jewelry? Single malt scotch or a prestige vodka? Can you
really distinguish among the brands? Blindtasting of many whiskeys,
where the taster has no idea which glass contains which drink, reveals
that you probably can't taste the difference. Why is an expensive orig
inal painting superior to a highquality reproduction? Which would
you prefer to have? If the painting is about aesthetics, then a good
reproduction should suffice. But, obviously, paintings are more than
aesthetics: they are about the reflective value of owning—or view
ing—the original.
These questions are all cultural. There is nothing practical, nothing
biological, about the answers. The answers are conventions, learned
in whatever society you inhabit. For some of you, the answers will be
obvious; for others, the questions will not even make sense. That is the
essence of reflective design: it is all in the mind of the beholder.
Attractiveness is a viscerallevel phenomenon—the response is
entirely to the surface look of an object. Beauty comes from the
reflective level. Beauty looks below the surface. Beauty comes from
conscious reflection and experience. It is influenced by knowledge,
learning, and culture. Objects that are unattractive on the surface can
give pleasure. Discordant music, for example, can be beautiful. Ugly
art can be beautiful.
Advertising can work at either the visceral or the reflective level.
Pretty products—sexy automobiles, powerfullooking trucks, seduc
tive bottles for drinks and perfume—play with the visceral level.
TLFeBOOK
Prestige, perceived rarity, and exclusiveness work at the reflective

level. Raise the price of Scotch, and increase the sales. Make it difficult
to get reservations to a restaurant or entrance to a club, and increase
their desirability. These are reflectivelevel ploys.
Reflectivelevel operations often determine a person's overall
impression of a product. Here, you think back about the product,
reflecting upon its total appeal and the experience of using it. Here is
where many factors come into play and where the deficiencies of one
aspect can be outweighed by the strengths of another. Minor difficul
ties might very well be overlooked in the overall assessment—or
enhanced, blown all out of proportion.
The overall impact of a product comes through reflection—in ret
rospective memory and reassessment. Do you fondly show your pos
sessions to friends and colleagues, or do you hide them and, if you talk
at all, is it only to complain? Things that an owner is proud of will be
displayed prominently, or, at the least, shown to people.
Customer relationships play a major role at the reflective level, so
much so that a good relationship can completely reverse an otherwise
negative experience with the product. Thus, a company that goes out
of its way to assist and help disgruntled customers can often turn them
into its most loyal fans. Indeed, the person who buys a product and
has nothing but pleasant experiences with it may be less satisfied than
the one who has an unhappy experience, but is well treated by the
company as it fixes the problem. This is an expensive way to win cus
tomer loyalty, but it shows the power of the reflective level. Reflective
design is really about longterm customer experience. It is about serv
ice, about providing a personal touch and a warm interaction. When a
customer reflects on the product in order to decide what next to pur
chase or to advise friends, a pleasant reflective memory can overcome
any prior negative experiences.
Amusement park rides are a good example of the interplay between
reflection and reaction. The ride appeals both to those who value the
feelings that accompany high arousal and fear for its own sake and to
those for whom the ride is all about the reflective power afterward. At
TLFeBOOK
the visceral level, the whole point is to thrill riders, scaring them in the
process. But this has to be done in a reassuring way. While the visceral
system is operating at full force, the reflective system is a calming
influence. This is a safe ride, it is telling the rest of the body. It only
appears to be dangerous. It is okay. During the ride, the visceral sys
tem probably wins. But in retrospect, when memory has dimmed, the
reflective system wins. Now,it is a badge of honor to have experi
enced the ride. It provides stories to tell other people. Here an effec
tive amusement park enhances the interaction by selling photographs
of the rider at the peak of the experience. They sell photographs and
souvenirs, so the riders can brag to friends.
Would you go on a ride if the amusement park was old and shabby,
with clearly broken components, rusty railings, and a general air of
incompetence? Obviously not. The rational reassurance will not be
nearly as effective. Once the reflective system fails, then the appeal is
apt to collapse as well.
A Case Study: The National

Football League Headset
"You know what the hardest part of this design was?" Walter Herbst,

of the design firm Herbst LaZar Bell, asked, proudly showing me the
Motorola headset (figure 3.8).
"Reliability?" I answered, hesitantly, thinking that it looked so big
and strong, it must be reliable.
"Nope," he answered, "it was the coaches—making the coaches
feel good about wearing it."
Motorola had asked Herbst LaZar Bell to design the headset to be
used by the coaches of the National Football League. Mind you,these
couldn't be just any headset. They had to be highly functional, deliv
ering intelligible messages between coaches and their staff scattered
about the stadium. The microphone boom had to be movable so that it
could be placed on either side of the head for lefthanded and right
TLFeBOOK
90 Emotional Design
FIGURE 3.8
Motorola's headset for the coaching staff of the National Football League.
The headset was designed by the industrial design firm Herbst LaZar Bell,
which won a Gold Prize from both Business Week's Industrial Design
Excellence Awards and the Industrial Design Society of America (IDSA) for
their achievement. IDSA described the reasons this way:"lt's a rare
moment when a design team realizes that it has been given the green light
to create an icon—one that will be seen by millions around the world. The
Motorola NFL Headset represents the marriage of sophisticated commu-
nications technology and great design with the blood, sweat and tears on
the field of play. In addition, it enhances awareness of a company commit-
ted to delivering on the demanding requirements of professional users in
every arena." (Courtesy of Herbst LaZar Bell and Motorola, Inc.)
handed coaches. The environment is a difficult one. It is noisy.

Football games are played in temperature extremes, from high heat, to
rain, to extreme cold. And headsets get abused: angry coaches take out
their frustration on whatever happens to be around, sometimes grab
bing hold of the microphone boom and throwing the headset to the
ground. The signals have to be private so opposing teams cannot
TLFeBOOK
eavesdrop. The headset is also an important advertising symbol,

exposing the Motorola name to television viewers, so the brand name
has to be visible regardless of camera angle. And finally, the coaches
have to be satisfied. They have to want to use it. So not only does the
headset have to stand up to the rigors of the game, it has to be com
fortable to wear for hours at a time.
The headset design was a challenge. Small, lightweight headsets,
though more comfortable, are not strong enough. More importantly,
though, coaches rejected them. The coaches are the leaders of a large,
active team. Football players are among the largest, most muscular
players in team sports. The headset had to reinforce this image: it had to
be muscular itself to convey the image of a coach in charge of things.
So, yes, the design had to have visceral appeal; and, yes, it had to
meet the behavioral objectives. The biggest challenge, however, was
to do all this while satisfying the coaches, projecting the heroic, manly
selfimage of strong, disciplined leaders who managed the world's
toughest players, and who were always in control. In short: reflective
design.
Accomplishing all this took a lot of work. This was not a design to
be scribbled on the side of a napkin (although a lot of trial designs
were, in fact, done on napkins). Sophisticated computeraided draw
ing tools that allowed the designers to visualize just how the headset
looked from all angles before anything had been built, optimizing the
interaction of ear cups and microphone, headband adjustment, and
even the placement of the logos (maximizing their visibility to the TV
audience while simultaneously minimizing it to the coaches, to avoid
distraction).
"The main goal in designing the Coaches Headset," said Steve
Remy, project manager for Herbst LaZar Bell, "was to create a cool
new look for the product that is often overlooked as a background
item, and turn it into an imagebuilding product that attracts the view
er's attention even in the high energy, actionpacked context of the
professional football game." It worked. The result is a "cool" prod
uct—one that not only functions well, but also serves as an effective
TLFeBOOK
92 Emotional Design
advertising tool for Motorola and enhances the selfimage of the
coaches. This is an excellent example of how the three different
aspects of design can work well with one another.
The Devious Side of Design
To the uninitiated, walking into the Diesel jeans store on Union
Square West feels a lot like stumbling into a rave. Techno music
pounds at a mindrattling level. A television plays a videotape of a
Japanese boxing match, inexplicably. There are no helpful signs point
ing to men's or women's departments, and no obvious staff members
in sight.
While large clothing retailers like Banana Republic and Gap have
standardized and simplified the layout of their stores in an effort to put
customers at ease, Diesel's approach is based on the unconventional
premise that the best customer is a disoriented one.
"We 're conscious of the fact that, outwardly, we have an intimidat
ing environment," said Niall Maher, Diesel's director of retail opera
tions. "We didn't design our stores to be userfriendly because we
want you to interact with our people. You can't understand Diesel
without talking to someone."
Indeed, it is at just the moment when a potential Diesel customer
reaches a kind of shopping vertigo that members of the company's
intimidatingly withit staff make their move. Acting as salesmenin
shiningarmor, they rescue—or prey upon, depending on one's point
of view—wayward shoppers.
—Warren St. John, New York Times
To the practitioner of humancentered design, serving customers

means relieving them of frustration, of confusion, of a sense of help
lessness. Make them feel in control and empowered. To the clever
salesperson, just the reverse is true. If people don't really know what
they want, then what is the best way to satisfy their needs? In the case
TLFeBOOK
of humancentered design, it is to provide them with the tools to
explore by themselves, to try this and that, to empower themselves to
success. To the sales staff, this is an opportunity to present themselves
as rescuers "inshiningarmor," ready to offer assistance, to provide
just the answer customers will be led to believe they had been seeking.
In the world of fashion—which encompasses everything from
clothes to restaurants, automobiles to furniture—who is to say which
approach is right, which wrong? The solution through confusion is a
pure play on emotions, selling you, the customer, the idea that the pro
posed item will precisely serve your needs and, more important,
advertise to the rest of the world what a superior, tasteful, "with it"
person you are. And, if you believe it, it will probably come to pass,
for strong emotional attachment provides the mechanism for self
fulfilling prophecy.
So, again, which approach is right: that of the Gap and Banana
Republic, which "have standardized and simplified the layout of their
stores in an effort to put customers at ease"; or Diesel, which deliber
ately confuses and intimidates, the better to prepare the customer to
welcome the helpful, reassuring salesperson? I know my preferences;
I'll go with Gap and Banana Republic any day, but the very success of
Diesel shows that not everyone shares this view. In the end, the stores
serve different needs. The first two stores are more utilitarian
(although they would shudder to be called that); the second pure fash
ion, where the whole goal is caring about what others think.
"When you're wearing a thousanddollar suit," super salesman
Mort Spivas told the media critic Douglass Rushkoff, "you project a
different aura. And then people treat you differently. You exude confi
dence. And if you can feel confident, you'll act confident." If sales
people believe that wearing an expensive suit makes them different,
then it does make them different. For fashion, emotions are key. Stores
that manipulate emotions are simply playing the game consumers
have invited themselves into. Now, the fashion world may have inap
propriately brainwashed the eager public into believing that the game
counts, but that is the belief, nonetheless.
TLFeBOOK
To disconcert shoppers as a selling tool is hardly news.

Supermarkets long ago learned to put the most frequently desired
items at the rear of the store, forcing buyers to pass by isles of tempt
ing impulse purchases. Moreover, related items can be placed nearby.
Do people rush to the store to buy milk? Put the milk at the rear of the
store, and put cookies nearby. Do they rush in to buy beer? Put the
beer next to snacks. Similarly, at the checkout counter, display the
small, lastminute items people might be tempted to buy while waiting
in line. Creating these "point of purchase" displays has become a big
business. I can even imagine stores deliberately slowing up the check
out procedure to give customers more time to make those lastminute,
impulse purchases.
Once a customer has learned the shop or shelf layout, it is time to
redo it, goes this marketing philosophy. Otherwise, a shopper want
ing a can of soup will simply go directly to the soup and not notice
any of the other enticing items. Rearranging the store forces the
shopper to explore previously unvisited aisles. Similarly, rearranging
how the soups are stored prevents the shopper from buying the same
type of soup each time without ever trying any other variety. So
shelves get rearranged, and related items are put nearby. Stores get
restructured, and the most popular items are placed at the furthest
ends of the store, with impulse items placed either adjacent or at the
"end caps," the ends of the aisles where they are most visible. There
is a perverse set of usability principles at play here: make it difficult
to buy the most desired items, and extremely easy for the impulse
items.
When these tricks are used, it is critically important that the shop
per not notice. Make the store layout appear normal. Indeed, make the
disorientation part of the fun. Diesel gets away with their confusion
because they are famous for it, because their clothes are very popular,
and because wandering through the store is part of the experience.
The same philosophy would not work for a hardware store. In the
supermarket, the fact that milk or beer is at the farthest end of the
store doesn't appear deliberate, it seems natural. After all, the coolers
TLFeBOOK
are there at the back, which is where these items are kept. Of course,

no one ever asks the real question, Why are the coolers located there?
Once shoppers realize that they are being manipulated in these
ways, a backlash may occur whereby shoppers desert the manipulative
stores and visit the ones that make their experiences more pleasant.
Stores that try to profit through confusion often enjoy a meteoric rise
in sales and popularity, but suffer a similar meteoric fall as well. The
staid, conventional, helpful store is more stable, with neither the great
ups nor the great downs in popularity. Yes, shopping can be a sensual,
emotional experience, but it can also be a negative, traumatic one. But
when stores do things correctly, when they understand "The Science
of Shopping," to use the subtitle of Paco Underbill's book, then the
experience can be both a positive emotional one for the shopper and a
profitable one for the seller.
Just as the scary rides of an amusement park pit the anxiety and fear
of the visceral level against the calm reassurance of the intellect, the
Diesel store pits the initial confusion and anxiety at both the behav
ioral and reflective levels against the relief and welcome of the rescu
ing sales person. In both cases, the initial negative affect is necessary
to set up the relief and delight at the end. In the park, the ride is now
safely over, and the rider can reflect upon all the positive experiences
of having successfully mastered the adventure. In the store, the
relieved customer reflects back upon the calm guidance and reassur
ance offered by the salesperson. In the store, the customer is apt to
bond with the salesperson, not unlike the "Stockholm syndrome," in
which kidnap victims develop such a positive emotional bond with
their captors that, after they are freed and the captors in custody, they
plead for mercy for the kidnappers. (The name comes from a bank
robbery in the early 1970s in Stockholm, Sweden, where a hostage
developed a romantic attachment to one of her captors.) But there is a
real difference between these two cases. In the amusement park, the
fear and excitement is the draw. It is public, advertised. In the Diesel
store, it is artificial, manipulative. One is natural, the other not. Guess
which will last over time.
TLFeBOOK
96 Emotional Design
Design by Committee Versus

by an Individual
Although reflective thought is the essence of great literature and art,

films and music, web sites and products, appealing to the intellect is no
guarantee of success. Many wellacclaimed serious works of art and
music are relatively unintelligible to the average person. I suspect they
may even be unintelligible to those who proclaim them, for in the
exalted realm of literature, art, and professional criticism, it would
appear that when something can be clearly understood, it is judged as
flawed, whereas when something is impenetrable, it must of necessity
be good. And some items convey such subtle, hidden intellectual mes
sages, that they are lost on the average viewer or user, perhaps lost on
everyone except the creator and dutiful students in universities, listen
ing to the learned critiques from their professors.
Consider the fate of Fritz Lang's classic film "Metropolis," "a
wildly ambitious, hugely expensive science fiction allegory of filial
revolt, romantic love, alienated labor and dehumanizing technology."
It was first shown in Berlin in 1926 but the American distributor,
Paramount Films, complained that it was unintelligible. They hired
Channing Pollock, a playwright, to reedit the film. Pollock com
plained that "symbolism ran such riot that people who saw it couldn't
tell what the picture was all about." Whether or not one agrees with
Pollock's criticism, there is no doubt that too much intellectualism can
certainly get in the way of pleasure and enjoyment. (Which, of
course, is often beside the point: The purpose of a serious essay,
movie, or piece of art is to educate and inform, not to amuse.)
There is a fundamental conflict between the preferences of the pop
ular audience and the desires of the intellectual and artistic community.
The case is most easily made with respect to movies, but also applies
to all design as well as to serious music, art, literature, drama, and tel
evision.
Making a movie is a complex process. Hundreds of people are ulti
TLFeBOOK
mately involved, with layers of producers, directors, screenwriters,

cameramen, editors, and studio executives all having some legitimate
say in the end product. Artistic integrity, a cohesive thematic
approach, and deep substance seldom come from committees. The
best designs come from following a cohesive theme throughout, with
a clear vision and focus. Usually, such designs are driven by the vision
of one person.
You may think that I am contradicting one of my standard design
rules: test and redesign, test and redesign. I have long championed
humancentered design, where a product undergoes continual revi
sion based upon tests with potential users of the product. This is a
timetested, effective method for producing usable products whose
end result fits the needs of the largest number of people. Why do I
now claim that a single designer who has a clear model of the end
product and ensures that it gets developed can be superior to that cau
tious design cycle of design, test, and then redesign?
The difference is that all my previous work focused upon behav
ioral design. I still maintain that an iterative, humancentered
approach works well for behavioral design, but it is not necessarily
appropriate for either the visceral or the reflective side. When it comes
to these levels, the iterative method is design by compromise, by com
mittee, and by consensus. This guarantees a result that is safe and
effective, but invariably dull.
This is what happens with movies. Movie studio executives often
subject movies to screen tests, where a film is shown to a test audience
and their reactions gauged. As a result, scenes are deleted, story lines
changed. Frequently an ending is changed to make it more comfort
able to the viewers. All of this is done to increase the popularity and
sales of the movie. The problem is that the director, cameramen, and
writers are apt to feel that the changes have destroyed the soul of the
film. Who to believe? I suspect both the test results and the opinions
of the creative crew are valid.
Films are judged by a variety of standards. On the one hand, even
an "inexpensive" film can cost millions of dollars to produce, while an
TLFeBOOK
expensive one can cost hundreds of millions. A film can be both a

major business investment and an artistic statement.
Business versus art or literature: the debate is real and appropriate.
In the end, the decision is whether one wishes to be an artist making a
statement, in which case profits are irrelevant, or a business person,
changing the film or product to make it appeal to as many people as
possible, even at the cost of artistic merit. Want a popular film, one
that appeals to the masses? Show the film to test audiences and revise.
Want an artistic masterpiece? Hire a great creative crew that you can
trust.
Henry Lieberman, a research scientist at the MIT Media
Laboratory has described the case against "design by committee"
most eloquently, so let me simply repeat his words here:
The brilliant conceptual artists Vitaly Komar and Alex Melamid con

ducted surveys asking people questions like, What's your favorite
color? Do you prefer landscapes to portraits? Then they produced
exhibitions of perfectly "usercentered art." The results were pro
foundly disturbing. The works were completely lacking in innovation
or finesse of craftsmanship, disliked even by the very same survey
respondents. Good art is not an optimal point in a multidimensional
space; that was, of course, their point. Perfectly "usercentered design"
would be disturbing as well, precisely because it would lack that
artistry.
One thing is certain, this debate is fundamental: it will continue as

long as the creators of art, music, and performance are not the same
people as those who must pay to get them distributed to the world. If
you want a successful product, test and revise. If you want a great
product, one that can change the world, let it be driven by someone
with a clear vision. The latter presents more financial risk, but it is the
only path to greatness.
TLFeBOOK
CHAPTER FOUR
Fun and Games
P R O F E S S O R H I R O S H I I S H I I of the MIT Media Laboratory

runs back and forth, eager to show me all his exhibits. "Pick up a bot
tle," he says, standing in front of a colorfully lit stand of glass bottles.
I do so and am rewarded by a playful tune. I pick up a second bottle
and another instrument joins in, playing in harmony with the first.
Pick up the third bottle, and the instrumental trio is complete. Put
down one of the bottles and the instrument associated with it stops.
I'm intrigued, but Hiroshi is anxious for me to experience more.
"Here, look at this," Hiroshi is calling from the other side of the
room, "try this." What is going on? I don't know, but it certainly is
fun. I could spend the whole day there.
But Hiroshi has more delights to show. Imagine trying to play table
tennis on a school of fish, as in figure 4.1. There they are, swimming
about the table, their images delivered by a projector located in the
ceiling above the table. Each time the ball hits the table surface, the
ripples spread out and the fish scatter. But the fish can't get away—it's
a small table, and no matter where the fish go, the ball soon scatters
99
TLFeBOOK
100 Emotional Design
FIGURE 4.1
Table tennis on top of a school of fish.
"Ping Pong Plus." Images of water and a school of fish are projected onto
the surface of the ping pong table. Each time the ball hits the table, the
computer senses its position, causing the images of ripples to spread out
from the ball and the fish to scatter.
(Courtesy of Hiroshi Ishii of the MIT Media Laboratory.)
them again. Is this a good way to play table tennis? No, but that's not

what it's about: it's about fun, delight, the pleasure of the experience.
Fun and pleasure, alas, are not topics often covered by science.
Science can be too serious, and even when it attempts to examine the
issues surrounding fun and pleasure, its very seriousness becomes a
distraction. Yes, there are conferences on the scientific basis of
humor, of fun ("funology" is the name given to this particular
endeavor), but this is a difficult topic and progress is slow. Fun is still
an art form, best left to the creative minds of writers, directors, and
other artists. But the lack of scientific understanding should not get
in the way of our enjoyment. Artists often pave the way, exploring
TLFeBOOK
F o u r : F u n a n d G a m e s 101
approaches to human interaction that science then struggles to under
stand. This has long been true in drama, literature, art, and music,
and it is these areas that provide lessons for design. Fun and games: a
worthwhile pursuit.
Designing Objects for

Fun and Pleasure
Why must information be presented in a dull, dreary fashion, such as
in a table of numbers? Most of the time we don't need actual numbers,
just some indication of whether the trend is up or down, fast or slow,
or some rough estimate of the value. So why not display the informa
tion in a colorful manner, continually available in the periphery of
attention, but in a way that delights rather than distracts? Once again,
Professor Ishii suggests the means: Imagine colorful pinwheels spin
ning above your head, enjoyable to contemplate, but where the rate of
spin is meaningful, perhaps coupled to the outside temperature, or
maybe volume of traffic on the roads you use for your daily commute,
or for any statistic that is useful to watch. Do you need to be reminded
to do something at a specific time? Why not have the pinwheels
increase their speed as the time approaches, the higher rate of speed
being more likely to attract your attention and, simultaneously, to
indicate the urgency. Spinning pinwheels? Why not? Why not have
information displayed in a pleasant, comfortable way?
Technology should bring more to our lives than the improved per
formance of tasks: it should add richness and enjoyment. A good way
to bring fun and enjoyment to our lives is to trust in the skill of artists.
Fortunately, there are many around.
Consider the pleasure of the Japanese lunchbox, which started as a
simple work lunch. In the box lunch you can enjoy a wide assortment
of foods, wide enough so that even if you do not like some of the
entrees, there are other choices. The box is small, yet fully packed,
which poses an aesthetic challenge to the chef. In the best of cases
TLFeBOOK
FIGURE 4.2
The cover of Kenji Ekuan's book
The Aesthetics of the Japanese Lunchbox.
The book illustrates how design should incorporate depth, beauty, and
utility. Ekuan demonstrates that the lunchbox is a metaphor for much of
Japanese design philosophy. It is art meant to be consumed. It follows the
philosophy more is better, offering an assortment of foods so that every-
one can find something to their taste. It originated as a practical, working
person's lunch, so it combines function, practicality, and beauty—as well
as an exercise in philosophy.
(Photograph by Takeshi Do/, with permission of Do/, Ekuan and MIT Press.)
(figure 4.2), the result is a work of art: art meant to be consumed. The
Japanese industrial designer Kanji Ekuan has suggested that the aes
thetics of the Japanese lunchbox is an excellent metaphor for design.
This lunchbox, divided into small compartments, each with five or six
types of food, packs twenty to twentyfive colors and flavors within
its small space. Ekuan describes it this way:
the cook. . . would naturally be disappointed if the result of such an

effort were eaten without a glance or a second thought, (so) he or she
TLFeBOOK
F o u r : Fun and Games 103
works to make lunchbox meals so attractive that guests are actually

reluctant to take up their chopsticks and begin eating. But even so, it is
only a matter of time before the masterwork is consumed. The guest
senses the formal layout even as he proceeds to break up the perfected
layout. This is the inherent and paradoxical relationship between the
provision and the acceptance of beauty.
The crowded nature of the lunchbox has many virtues. It forces

attention to detail in the arrangement and presentation of the food.
This essence of design, packing a lot into a small space while main
taining an aesthetic sense, says Ekuan, is the essence of much of
Japan's design for high technology, where one goal is "to establish
multifunctionality and miniaturization as equal values. Packing
numerous functions into something and making it smaller and thinner
are contradictory aims, but one had to pursue contradiction to the
limit to find a solution."
The trick is to compress multiple functions into limited space in a
way that does not compromise the various dimensions of design.
Ekuan clearly prizes beauty—aesthetics—first. "A sense of beauty
that lauds lightness and simplicity," he continues, "desire that precipi
tates functionality, comfort, luxury, diversity. Fulfillment of beauty
and its concomitant desire will be the aim of design in the future."
Beauty, fun, and pleasure all work together to produce enjoyment,
a state of positive affect. Most scientific studies of emotion have
focused upon the negative side, upon anxiety, fear, and anger, even
though fun, joy, and pleasure are the desired attributes of life. The cli
mate is changing, with articles and books on "positive psychology"
and "wellbeing" becoming popular. Positive emotions trigger many
benefits: They facilitate coping with stress. They are essential to peo
ple's curiosity and ability to learn. Here is how the psychologists
Barbara Fredrickson and Thomas Joiner describe positive emotions:
positive emotions broaden people's thoughtaction repertoires, encour

aging them to discover novel lines of thought or action. Joy, for
TLFeBOOK
instance, creates the urge to play, interest creates the urge to explore,

and so on. Play, for instance, builds physical, socioemotional, and
intellectual skills, and fuels brain development. Similarly, exploration
increases knowledge and psychological complexity.
It doesn't take much to transform otherwise dull data into a bit of
fun. Contrast the style of three major internet search companies.
Google stretches out its logo to fit the number of results in a playful,
jolly way (figure 4.3). Several people have told me how much they
look forward to seeing just how long the Gooooogle will get. But Yahoo,
Microsoft network (MSN), and many other sites forgo any notion of
fun, and instead present the straightforward results in an unimagina
tive, orderly way. Small point? Yes, but a meaningful one. Google is
known as a playful, fun site—as well as a very useful one—and this
playful distortion of its logo helps reinforce this brand image: Fun for
the user of the site, good reflective design, and good for business.
The academic, research enterprise of design has not done a good
job of studying fun and pleasure. Design is usually thought of as a
practical skill, a profession rather than a discipline. In my research for
this book, I found lots of literature on behavioral design, much dis
cussion of aesthetics, image, and advertising. The book Emotional
Result Page:
FIGURE 4.3
Google plays with their name and logo in a creative, inspiring way.
Some searches return multiple pages, so Google modifies its logo
accordingly: When I performed a search on the phrase "emotion and
design" I got 10 pages of results. Google stretched its logo to put 10
"Os" in its name, providing some fun while also being informative and,
best of all, non-intrusive. (Courtesy of Google.)
TLFeBOOK
Branding is a treatment of advertising, for example. Academics have

concentrated primarily upon the history of design, or the social histo
ry or societal implications, or if they are from the cognitive and com
puter sciences, upon the study of machine interfaces and usability.
In Designing Pleasurable Products, one of the few scientific studies
of pleasure and design, the human factors expert and designer Patrick
Jordan builds on the work of Lionel Tiger to identify four kinds of
pleasure. Here is my interpretation:
Physio-pleasure. Pleasures of the body. Sights, sounds,

smells, taste, and touch. Physiopleasure combines many aspects
of the visceral level with some of the behavioral level.
Socio-pieasure. Social pleasure derived from interaction with
others. Jordan points out that many products play an important
social role, either by design or by accident. All communication
technologies—whether telephone, cell phone, email, instant
messaging, or even regular mail—play important social roles by
design. Sometimes the social pleasure derives serendipitously as
a byproduct of usage. Thus, the office coffeemaker and mail
room serve as focal points for impromptu gatherings at the
office. Similarly, the kitchen is the focal point for many social
interactions in the home. Sociopleasure, therefore, combines
aspects of both behavioral and reflective design.
Psycho-pleasure. This aspect of pleasure deals with people's
reactions and psychological state during the use of products.
Psychopleasure resides at the behavioral level.
Ideo-pleasure. Here lies the reflection on the experience. This
is where one appreciates the aesthetics, or the quality, or perhaps
the extent to which a product enhances life and respects the envi
ronment. As Jordan points out, the value of many products
comes from the statement they make. When displayed so that
others can see them, they provide ideopleasure to the extent that
they signify the value judgments of their owner. Ideopleasure
clearly lies at the reflective level.
TLFeBOOK
Take the Jordan/Tiger classification, mix with equal parts of the

three design levels, and you have a fun and pleasurable end result. But
fun and pleasure are elusive concepts. Thus, what is considered
delightful depends a lot upon the context. The actions of a kitten or
human baby may be judged fun and cute, but the very same actions
performed by a cat or human adult can be judged irritating or disgust
ing. Moreover, what is fun at first can outwear its welcome.
Consider the "Te 6" tea strainer (figure 4.4), designed by Stefano
Pirovano for the Italian manufacturing firm Alessi. At first glance it is
cute, childish even. As such, it doesn't qualify as fun—not yet. It is a
simple animate figure. The day I purchased it, I had lunch with
Keiichi Sato, a professor of design at the Illinois Institute of
Technology's Institute of Design in Chicago. At the lunch table, I
proudly displayed my new purchase. Sato's first response was skepti
cal. "Yes," he said, "it's pleasant and cute, but to what purpose?" But
when I placed the strainer on a cup, his eyes lit up, and he laughed (see
figure 4.5).
At first sight, the arms and legs of the figure are simply cute, but
when it becomes apparent that the cuteness is also functional, then
"cute" becomes transformed into "pleasure" and "fun," and this,
moreover, is longlasting. Sato and I spent much of the next hour try
ing to understand what transforms an impression of shallow cuteness
into one of deep, longlasting pleasure. In the case of the Te 6 strainer,
the unexpected transformation is the key. Both of us noted that the
essence of the surprise was the separation between the two viewings:
first the tea strainer alone, then on the teacup. "If you publish this in
your book," Sato warned me, "make sure that you have only the pic
ture of the strainer visible on one page, and make the reader turn the
page to see the strainer on a teacup. If you don't do that, the sur
prise—and the fun—will not be as strong." As you see, I have fol
lowed that advice.
What transforms the strainer from "cute" into "fun"? Is it sur
prise? Cleverness? Certainly both of those traits play a big role.
Does familiarity breed contempt, as the old folk saying would have
TLFeBOOK
Four: Fun and G a m e s 107
FIGURE 4.4
Stefano Pirovano's Te 6 tea strainer, made by Alessi.
The figure is cute, the color and shapes attractive. Pleasureabie?
Yes, slightly. Fun? Not yet.
it? Many things are cute or fun at first, but over time diminish or even
become tiresome. In my home the tea strainer is now permanently on
display, perched on a teacup nestled among the three teapots on the
window shelf of my kitchen. The charm of the tea strainer is that it
retains its fun even after considerable use, even though I see it every
day.
Now, the tea strainer is just a trifle, and I do not believe that even
Pirovano, its designer, would disagree. But it passes the test of time.
This is one of the hallmarks of good design. Great design—like great
literature, music, or art—can be appreciated even after continual use,
continued presence.
People tend to pay less attention to familiar things, whether it's a
possession or even a spouse. On the whole, this adaptive behavior is
biologically useful (for objects, events, and situations, not for spous
es), because it is usually the novel, unexpected things in life that
TLFeBOOK
FIGURE 4.5
Pirovano's Te 6 tea strainer, ready for use.
Now it's fun.
(Photo by the author.)
require the most attention. The brain naturally adapts to repeated

experiences. If I were to show you a series of repeated images and
measure your brain responses, the activity would diminish with the
repetitions. Your brain would respond again only when something
new was presented. Scientists have shown that the biggest responses
always come with the least expected event. A simple sentence such as,
"He picked up the hammer and nail" gives a tiny response; change the
last few words, "He picked up the hammer and ate it," and you'll see a
much larger one.
Human adaptation creates a challenge for design, but an opportunity
for manufacturers: When people tire of an item, perhaps they will buy
a new one. Indeed, the essence of fashion is to make the current trends
obsolete and boring, turning them into yesterday's favorites. The
attractive appliance of yesterday no longer looks quite as attractive
TLFeBOOK
today. Some of the examples in this book may have already followed

this trajectory: the Mini Cooper automobile, so charming and cute to
the reviewers at the time of this book's writing, may look dated, old
fashioned, and dull by the time you flip through these pages—so
much so that you may wonder how I came to choose it as an example.
The concern for the diminishing impact of familiarity has led some
designers to propose hiding beautiful views, lest continual encounter
might diminish their emotional impact. In the book A Pattern
Language, the architect Christopher Alexander and his colleagues
describe 253 different design patterns derived from their observations
and analyses. These patterns provide the basis of their guidelines for
"a timeless way of building," which structures buildings in ways cal
culated to enhance the experience of the people living within them.
Pattern number 134deals with the problem of overexposure:
Pattern 134: Zen View. If there is a beautiful view, don't spoil it by

building huge windows that gape incessantly at it. Instead, put the
windows which look onto the view at places of transition—along
paths, in hallways, in entry ways, on stairs, between rooms.
If the view window is correctly placed, people will see a glimpse of
the distant view as they come up to the window or pass it: but the view
is never visible from the places where people stay.
The name "Zen View" comes from "the parable of a Buddhist
monk who lived on a mountain with a beautiful view. The monk built
a wall that obscured the view from every angle, except for a single
fleeting glimpse along the walk up to his hut." In this way, said
Alexander and colleagues, "the view of the distant sea is so restrained
that it stays alive forever. Who, that has ever seen that view, can ever
forget it? Its power will never fade. Even for the man who lives there,
coming past that view day after day, it will still be alive."
Most people, however, are not Buddhist monks. Most of us would
be unable to resist the temptation to engulf ourselves in such beauty.
Whether hiding beauty is appropriate for all of us is up for debate, and
TLFeBOOK
although the fable described as the rationale for the Zen view is inter
esting, it is opinion, not fact. Given the chance to experience beauty
for some period of time, is the total enhancement greater if the beauty
is always there to be appreciated, even if it does fade with time? Or is
the enhancement greater when it can only be glimpsed now and then?
I do not think anyone knows the answer to this query.
I, for one,go straight for immediate enjoyment. I have always built
my homes with large windows facing a view (ocean, when I lived in
Southern California; pond with geese, ducks, and herons, when I lived
in Northern Illinois), so I am not ready to endorse pattern 134, the
Zen View, as a universal design principle.
The issue, however, is a real one.How can we maintain excitement,
interest, and aesthetic pleasure for a lifetime? I suspect that part of the
answer will come from the study of those things that do stand the test
of time, such as some music, literature, and art.In all these cases, the
works are rich and deep, so that there is something different to beper
ceived on each experience. Consider classical music. For many it is
boring and uninteresting, but for others it can indeed be listened to
with enjoyment over a lifetime. I believe that this longevity derives
from the richness and complexity of its structure. The music inter
leaves multiple themes and variations, some simultaneous, some
sequential. Human conscious attention is limited by what it can attend
to at any moment, which means that consciousness is restricted to a
limited subset of the musical relationships. As a result, each new lis
tening focuses upon a different aspect of the music. The music is
never boring because it is never the same. I believe a similar analysis
will reveal similar richness for all experiences that last: classical music,
art, and literature. So, too,with views.
The views I treasure are dynamic. Scenes are continually changing.
The vegetation changes with the seasons, the lighting with the time of
day. Different animals congregate at different times, and their interac
tions with one another and with the environment are everchanging.
In California, the waves rolling in from the ocean change continually,
reflecting weather patterns from thousands of miles away. The vari
TLFeBOOK
Four: Fun and G a m e s 1 II
ous sea animals visible from my windows—brown pelicans, gray

whales, the blacksuited surfers, and dolphins—varied their activities
according to the weather, the time, and the activities of those around
them. Why wasn't the Zen view just as rich, just as long lasting?
Maybe the problem lies not in the object being viewed but in the
viewer. It's quite possible the Buddhist monk had never learned to
look. For once you have learned how to look at, listen to, and analyze
what is before you, you realize that the experience is ever changing.
The pleasure is forever.
This conclusion has two important implications. First, the object
must be rich and complex, one that gives rise to a neverending inter
play among the elements. Second, the viewer must be able to take the
time to study, analyze, and consider such rich interplay; otherwise, the
scene becomes commonplace. If something is to give lifelong pleas
ure, two components are required: the skill of the designer in provid
ing a powerful, rich experience, and the skill of the perceiver.
How may a design maintain its effectiveness even after long
acquaintance? The secret, say designers Julie Khaslavsky and Nathan
Shedroff, is seduction.
The seductive power of the design of certain material and virtual
objects can transcend issues of price and performance for buyers and
users alike. To many an engineer's dismay, the appearance of a prod
uct can sometimes make or break the product's market reaction.What
they have in common is the ability to create an emotional bond with
their audiences, almost a need for them.
Seduction, Khaslavsky and Shedroff argue, is a process. It gives

rise to a rich and compelling experience that lasts over time. Yes, there
has to be an initial attraction. But the real trick—and where most
products fail—is in maintaining the relationship after that initial burst
of enthusiasm. Make something consciously cute where the cuteness is
extraneous, irrelevant to the task, and you get frustration, irritation,
and resentment. Think how many gadgets or items of furniture you
TLFeBOOK
FIGURE 4.6
Two items of seduction.
Philippe Starck's "Juicy Salif" citrus juicer alongside my Global kitchen
knife. Rotate the orange half on the ribbed top of the juicer and the juice
flows down the sides and drips from the point into the glass. Except this
gold-plated version will be damaged by the acidic fluid. As Starck is
rumored to have said, "My juicer is not meant to squeeze lemons; it is
meant to start conversations." (Author's collection.)
have brought home excitedly and then, after the first use or two, ban

ished to storage. How many survive the passage of time and are still in
use, still giving joy? And what is the difference between these two
experiences?
Khaslavsky and Shedroff suggest that the three basic steps are
enticement, relationship, and fulfillment: make an emotional promise,
continually fulfill the promise, and end the experience in a memorable
way. They illustrate their argument by examining the citrus juicer
designed by Philippe Starck (figure 4.6). The juicer, whose full name
TLFeBOOK
Four: Fun and Games 113
is "Juicy Salif," was designed on a napkin in a pizza parlor in Capraia,
an island in Tuscany, Italy. Alberto Alessi, whose company manufac
turers them, describes the design this way:
On the napkin, along with some incomprehensible marks (tomato

sauce, in all likelihood) there were some sketches. Sketches of squids.
They started on the left and, as they worked their way over to the
right, they took on the unmistakable shape of what was to become the
most celebrated citrusfruit squeezer of the century that has just come
to a close. You can imagine what happened: while eating a dish of
squid and squeezing a lemon over it, our man had finally received his
inspiration! Juicy Salif was born, and with it some headaches for the
champions of "Form follows function."
That juicer was indeed seductive. I saw it and immediately went
through the sequence of responses so loved by merchants: "Wow, I
want it," I said to myself. Only then did I ask, "What is it? What does
it do? How much does it cost?" concluding with "I'll buy it," which I
did. That was pure visceral reaction. The juicer is indeed bizarre, but
delightful. Why? Fortunately, Khaslavsky and Shedroff have done the
analysis for me:
Entices by diverting attention. It is unlike every other kitchen

product by nature of its shape, form, and materials.
Delivers surprising novelty. It is not immediatelyidentifiable as
a juicer, and its form is unusual enough to be intriguing, even surpris
ing when its purpose first becomes clear.
Goes beyond obvious needs and expectations. To satisfy
these criteria—of being surprising and novel—it need only be bright
orange or all wood. It goes so far beyond what is expected or required,
it becomes something else entirely.
Creates an instinctive response. At first, the shape creates
curiosity, then the emotional response of confusion and, perhaps, fear,
since it is so sharp and dangerous looking.
TLFeBOOK
Espouses values or connections to personal goals. It trans

forms the routine act of juicing an orange into a special experience. Its
innovative approach, simplicity, and elegance in shape and perform
ance creates an appreciation and the desire to possess not only the
object but the values that helped create it, including innovation, origi
nality, elegance, and sophistication. It speaks as much about the person
who owns it as it does about its designer.
Promises to fulfill these goals. It promises to make an ordinary
action extraordinary. It also promises to raise the status of the owner
to a higher level of sophistication for recognizing its qualities.
Leads the casual viewer to discover something deeper
about the juicing experience. While the juicer doesn't necessarily
teach the user anything new about juice or juicing, it does teach the
lesson that even ordinary things in life can be interesting and that
design can enhance living. It also teaches to expect wonder where it is
unexpected—all positive feelings about the future.
Fulfills these promises. Every time it is used, it reminds the user
of its elegance and approach to design. It fulfills these promises
through its performance, reconjuring the emotions originally connect
ed with the product. It also serves as a point of surprise and conversa
tion by the associates of its owner—and is another chance to espouse
its values and have them validated.
However compelling this analysis of the juicer as an item of seduc

tion, it leaves out one important component: the reflective joy of
explanation. The juicer tells a story. Anyone who owns it has to show
it off, to explain it, perhaps to demonstrate it. But mind you, the juicer
is not really meant to be used to make juice. As Starck is rumored to
have said, "My juicer is not meant to squeeze lemons; it is meant to
start conversations." Indeed, the version I own, the expensive,num
bered, special anniversary edition (gold plated, no less), is explicit: "It
is not intended to be used as a juice squeezer," says the numbered card
attached to the juicer. "The gold plating could be damaged if it comes
into contact with anything acidic."
TLFeBOOK
I bought an expensive juicer, but I am not permitted to use it for

making juice! Score zero for behavioral design. But so what? I proud
ly display the juicer in my entrance hall. Score one hundred for viscer
al appeal. Score one hundred for reflective appeal. (ButI did use it
once for making juice—who could resist?)
Seduction is real. Take the Global kitchen knife of figure 4.6,
shown alongside the juicer. Unlike the juicer, which is primarily an
object for display, not for use, the knife is beautiful to look at and a joy
to use.It is well balanced, it feels good to the hand, and it is sharper
than any other knife I have ever owned. Seduction indeed! I look for
ward to cutting when I cook, for these knives (I own three different
types) fulfill all the requirements of seduction put forth by Khaslavsky
and Shedroff.
Music and Other Sounds
Music plays a special role in our emotional lives. The responses to

rhythm and rhyme, melody and tune are so basic, so constant across
all societies and cultures that they must be part of our evolutionary
heritage, with many of the responses prewired at the visceral level.
Rhythm follows the natural beats of the body, with fast rhythms suit
able for tapping or marching, slower rhythms for walking, or swaying.
Dance, too, is universal. Slow tempos and minor keys are sad. Fast,
melodic music that is danceable, with harmonious sounds and relative
ly constant ranges of pitch and loudness, is happy. Fear is expressed
with rapid tempos, dissonance, and abrupt changes in loudness and
pitch. The whole brain is involved—perception, action, cognition,
and emotion: visceral, behavioral, and reflective. Some aspects of
music are common to all people; some vary greatly from culture to
culture. Although the neuroscience and psychology of music are
widely studied, they are still little understood. We do know that the
affective states produced through music are universal, similar across
all cultures.
TLFeBOOK
1 1 6 E m o t i o n a l D e s i g n
The term "music," of course, covers many activities—composing,

performing, listening, singing, dancing. Some activities, such as per
forming, dancing, and singing, are clearly behavioral. Some, such as
composing and listening, are clearly visceral and reflective. The musi
cal experience can range from the one extreme where it is a deep, fully
engrossing experience where the mind is fully immersed to the other
extreme, where the music is played in the background and not con
sciously attended to. But even in the latter case, the automatic, visceral
processing levels almost definitely register the melodic and rhythmic
structure of the music, subtly, subconsciously, changing the affective
state of the listener.
Music impacts all three levels of processing. The initial pleasure of
the rhythm, tunes, and sounds is visceral, the enjoyment of playing
and mastering the parts behavioral, and the pleasure of analyzing the
intertwined, repeated, inverted, transformed melodic lines reflective.
To the listener, the behavioral side is vicarious. The reflective appeal
can come several ways. At one extreme, there is the deep appreciation
of the structure of the piece, perhaps of the reference it makes to
other pieces of music. This is the level of music appreciation exercised
by the critic, the connoisseur, or the scholar. At the other extreme the
musical structure and lyrics might be designed to delight, surprise, or
shock.
Finally, music has an important behavioral component, either
because the person is actively engaged in playing the music or equally
actively singing or dancing. But someone who is just listening can also
be behaviorally engaged by humming, tapping, or mentally follow
ing—and predicting—the piece. Some researchers believe that music
is as much a motor activity as a perceptual one, even when simply lis
tening. Moreover, the behavioral level could be involved vicariously,
much as it is for the reader of a book or the viewer of a film (a topic I
discuss later in this chapter).
Rhythm is built into human biology. There are numerous rhythmic
patterns in the body, but the ones of particular interest are those that
are relevant to the tempos of music: that is, from a few events per sec
TLFeBOOK
ond to a few seconds per event. This is the range of body functions
such as the beating of the heart and breathing. Perhaps more impor
tant, it is also the range of the natural frequencies of body movement,
whether walking, throwing, or talking. It is easy to tap the limbs with
in this range of rates, hard to do it faster or slower. Much as the tempo
of a clock is determined by the length of its pendulum, the body can
adjust its natural tempo by tensing or relaxing muscles to adjust the
effective length of the moving limbs, matching their natural rhythmic
frequency to that of the music. It is therefore no accident that in play
ing music, the entire body keeps the rhythm.
All cultures have evolved musical scales, and although they differ,
they all follow similar frameworks. The properties of octaves and of
consonant and dissonant chords derive in part from physics, in part
from the mechanical properties of the inner ear. Expectations play a
central role in creating affective states, as a musical sequence satisfies
or violates the expectations built up by its rhythm and tonal sequence.
Minor keys have different emotional impact than major keys, univer
sally signifying sadness or melancholy. The combination of key struc
ture, choice of chords, rhythm, and tune, and the continual buildup of
tension and instability create powerful affective influences upon us.
Sometimes these influences are subconscious, as when music plays in
the background during a film, but deliberately scored to invoke specif
ic affective states. Sometimes these are conscious and deliberate, as
when we devote our full conscious attention to the music, letting our
selves be carried vicariously by the impact, behaviorally by the
rhythm, and reflectively as the mind builds upon the affective state to
create true emotions.
We use music to fill the void when pursuing otherwise mindless
activities, while stuck on a long, tiring trip, walking a long distance,
exercising, or simply killing time. Once upon a time, music was not
portable. Before the invention of the phonograph, music could be
heard only when there were musicians. Today we carry our music
players with us and we can listen twentyfour hours a day if we wish.
Airlines realize music is so essential that they provide a choice of
TLFeBOOK
FIGURE 4.7a and b

Music everywhere.
While drilling holes or recharging batteries, while taking photographs, on
your cell phone. And of course, while driving your car, jogging, Hying in an
airplane, or just plain listening to music. Figure a shows the DEWALT bat-
tery charger for portable tools, with built-in radio; figure b shows an MP3
player built into a digital camera.
(Image a courtesy of DeWALT Industrial Tool Co. Image b courtesy
of Fujifilm USA. Note: This model is no longer available.)
styles and hours of selections at every seat. Automobiles come
equipped with radios and music players. And portable devices prolif
erate apparently endlessly, being either small and portable or com
bined with any other device the manufacturer thinks you might have
TLFeBOOK
with you:watches, jewelry, cell phones, cameras, and even work tools
(figure 4.7a & b). Whenever I have had construction work done on a
home, I noted that, first, the workers brought in their music players,
which they set up in some central location with a superloud output;
then they would bring in their tools, equipment, and supplies.
DfiWALT, a manufacturer of cordless tools for construction workers,
noticed the phenomenon and responded cleverly by building a radio
into a battery charger, thus combining two essentials into one easyto
carrybox.
The proliferation of music speaks to the essential role it plays in
our emotional lives. Rhyme, rhythm, and melody are fundamental to
our emotions. Music also has its sensuous, sexual overtones, and for all
these reasons, many political and religious groups have attempted to
ban or regulate music and dance. Music acts as a subtle, subconscious
enhancer of our emotional state throughout the day.This is why it is
everpresent, why it is so often played in the background in stores,
offices, and homes. Each location gets a different style of music:
Peppy, rousing beats would not be appropriate for most office work
(or funeral homes). Sad, weepy music would not be conducive to effi
cient manufacturing.
The problem with music, however, is that it can also annoy—if it is
too loud, if it intrudes, or if the mood it conveys conflicts with the lis
tener's desires or mood. Background music is fine, as long as it stays in
the background. Whenever it intrudes upon our thoughts, it ceases to
be an enhancement and becomes an impediment, distracting, and irri
tating. Music must be used with delicacy. It can harm as much as help.
But if music can be annoying, what about the intrusive nature of
today's beeping, buzzing, ringing electronic equipment? This is noise
pollution gone rampant. If music is a source of positive affect, elec
tronic sounds are a source of negative affect.
In the beginning was the beep. Engineers wanted to signal that
some operation had been done, so, being engineers, they played a
short tone. The result is that all of our equipment beeps at us.
Annoying, universal beeps. Alas, all this beeping has given sound a
TLFeBOOK
bad name. Still sound, when used properly, is both emotionally satis

fying and informationally rich.
Natural sounds are the best conveyers of meaning: a child laugh
ing, an angry voice, the solid "clunk" when a wellmade car door
closes. The unsatisfying tinny sound when an illconstructed door
closes. The "kerplunk" when a stone falls into the water.
But so much of our electronic equipment now bleats forth unthink
ing, unmusical sounds that the result is a cacophony of irksome beeps
or otherwise unsettling sounds, sometimes useful, but mostly emo
tionally upsetting, jarring, and annoying. When I work in my kitchen,
the pleasurable activities of cutting and chopping, breading and
sauteing, are continually disrupted by the dinging and beeping of
timers, keypads, and other illconceived devices. If we are to have
devices that signal their state, why not at least pay some attention to
the aesthetics of the signal, making it melodic and warm rather than
shrill and piercing?
It is possible to produce pleasant tones instead of irritating beeps.
The kettle in figure 4.8 produces a graceful chord when the water
boils. The designers of the Segway, a twowheeled personal trans
porter, "were so obsessed with the details on the Segway HT that they
designed the meshes in the gearbox to produce sounds exactly two
musical octaves apart—when the Segway HT moves, it makes music,
not noise."
Some products have managed to embed playfulness as well as infor
mation into their sounds. Thus, my Handspring Treo, a combined cel
lular telephone and personal digital assistant, has a pleasant threenote
ascending melody when turned on, descending when turned off. This
provides useful confirmation that the operation is being performed,
but also a cheery little reminder that this pleasant device is obediently
serving me.
Cell phone designers were perhaps the first to recognize that they
could improve upon the grating artificial sounds of their devices.
Some phones now produce rich, deep musical tones, allowing pleasant
tunes to replace jarring rings. Moreover, the owner can select the
TLFeBOOK
Four: Fun and G a m e s 121
FIGURE 4.8
Richard Sapper's kettle with singing whistle, produced by Alessi.
Considerable effort was given to the sound produced by the whistling
spout: a chord of "e" and "b," or, as described by Alberto Alessi, "inspired
by the sound of the steamers and barges that ply the Rhine."
(Alessi "9091." Design by Richard Sapper, 1983. Kettle with
melodic whistle. Image courtesy of Alessi.)
sounds, allowing each individual caller to be associated with a unique
sound. This is especially valuable with frequent callers and friends. "I
always think of my friend when I hear this tune, so I made it play
whenever he calls me," said one cell phone user to me, describing how
he chose "ring tones" appropriate to the person who was calling: joy
ful pleasant tunes to joyful pleasant people; emotionally significant
tunes for those who have shared experiences; sad or angry sounds to
sad or angry people.
But even were we to replace the grating electronic tones with more
pleasant musical sounds, the auditory dimension still has its draw
backs. On the one hand, there is no question that sound—both musi
cal and otherwise—is a potent vehicle for expression, providing
delight, emotional overtones, and even memory aids. On the other
hand, sound propagates through space, reaching anyone within range
equally, whether or not that person is interested in the activity: The
TLFeBOOK
musical ring that is so satisfying to a telephone's owner is a disturbing
interruption to others within earshot. Eyelids allow us to shut out
light; alas, we have no earlids.
When in public spaces—the streets of a city, in a public transit sys
tem, or even in the home—sounds intrude. The telephone is, of
course, one of the worst offenders. As people speak loudly to make
sure they are heard by their correspondent, they also cause themselves
to be heard by everyone within range. Telephones, of course, are not
the only intrusions. Radios and television sets, and the beeps and
bongs of our equipment. More and more equipment comes equipped
with noisy fans. Thus, the fans of heating and airconditioning equip
ment can drown out conversation, and the fans of office equipment
and home appliances add to the tensions of the day. When we are out
of doors, we are bombarded by the sounds of passing aircraft, the
horns and engine sounds of motor traffic, the warning backup horns
of trucks, the loud music players of others, emergency sirens, and the
everpresent, shrill sounds of the cellular telephone ring, often mim
icking a full musical performance. In public spaces, we are far too fre
quently interrupted by public announcements, starting with the
completely unnecessary but annoying "Attention, Attention," fol
lowed by an announcement only of interest to a single person.
There is no excuse for this proliferation of sounds. Many cell
phones have the option to set their rings to a private vibration, felt by
the desired recipient but no others. Necessary sounds could be made
melodious and pleasant, following the lead of the Sapper kettle in fig
ure 4.8 or the Segway. Cooling and ventilation fans could be designed
to be quiet as well as efficient by reducing their speed and increasing
their blade size. The principles of noise reduction are well known,
even if seldom followed. Whereas musical sounds at appropriate
times and places are emotional enhancers, noise is a vast source of
emotional stress. Unwanted, unpleasant sounds produce anxiety, elicit
negative emotional states, and thereby reduce the effectiveness of all
of us. Noise pollution is as negative to people's emotional lives as
other forms of pollution are to the environment.
TLFeBOOK
Sound can be playful, informative, fun, and emotionally inspiring.

It can delight and inform. But it must be designed as carefully as any
other aspect of design. Today, little thought is given to this side of
design, and so the result is that the sounds of everyday things annoy
many while pleasing few.
Seduction at the Movies

All the theatrical arts engage the viewer both cognitively and emo
tionally. As such, they are perfect vehicles to explore the dimensions
of pleasure. In my research for this book, I discovered Jon Boorstin's
analysis of films, a marvelous example of how the three levels of pro
cessing have their impact. His 1990 book, The Hollywood Eye: What
Makes Movies Work, was such a wonderful fit to the analyses of my
book that I just had to tell you about it.
Boorstin points out that movies appeal on three different emotional
levels: visceral, vicarious, and voyeur, which bear perfect correspon
dence to my three levels of visceral, behavioral, and reflective. Let me
start with the visceral side of movies. Boorstin's description of this
component of a film is pretty much identical with my visceral level.
Indeed, the match was so good, that I decided to use his term instead
of "reactive," the term I use in my scientific publications. The phrase
"reactive design" didn't quite capture the correct intention, but once I
read Boorstin, it was obvious that the phrase "visceral design" was
perfect, at least for this purpose. (But I still use "reactive" in my scien
tific publications.)
The passions aroused in film, says Boorstin, "are not lofty, they're
the gut reactions of the lizard brain—the thrill of motion, the joy of
destruction, lust, blood lust, terror, disgust. Sensations, you might say,
rather than emotions. More complex feelings require the empathic
response, but these simple, powerful urges reach up and grab us by the
throat without an intermediary." He identifies the "slowmotion
killing in The Wild Bunch, the monster in The Fly, or the bland titilla
TLFeBOOK
tion of softcore porn" as examples of the visceral side of movies.

Add the chase scene in The French Connection (or any classic spy or
detective story), gun battles, fights, adventure stories, and,of course,
horror and monster movies, and you have classic visceral level adven
tures.
Note the critical role played by music and lighting: dark, creepy
scenes and dark, foreboding music. Minor keys for sad or unhappy,
jubilant bouncy melodies for positive affect. Bright colors and bright
lighting versus dark, gloomy colors and lights all exert their visceral
influence. Camera angle, too, exerts its influence. Too far away, and
the viewer is no longer experiencing but, instead, observing vicarious
ly. Too close, and the image is too large for direct immediate impact.
Film from above, and the people in the scene are diminished; film
from below, and the actors are powerful, imposing. These operations
all work on the subconscious level. We are usually unaware of the
techniques used by directors and photographers to manipulate our
emotions. The visceral level becomes completely absorbed in the
sights and sounds. Any awareness of the technique would occur on
the reflective level and would distract from the visceral experience. In
fact, the only way to critique a film is by becoming detached, removed
from visceral reaction and able to ponder the technique, the lights, the
camera movements and angles. It is difficult to enjoy the film while
analyzing it.
B O O R S T I N ' S " V I C A R I O U S " level corresponds to my "behav

ioral" level. The word "vicarious" is appropriate because the viewers
are not directly engaging in the filmed activities but are, instead,
watching and observing. If the film is well crafted, they are enjoying
the activities vicariously, experiencing them as if they were participat
ing. As Boorstin says, "The vicarious eye puts our heart in the actor's
body: we feel what the actor feels, but we judge it for ourselves.
Unlike relationships in life, here we can give ourselves up to other
people in full confidence that we will always be in command."
TLFeBOOK
If the visceral level grabs the viewer in the guts, driving automatic
reactions, the vicarious level involves the viewer in the story andemo
tional line of the movie. Normally, the behavioral level of affect is
invoked by a person's activities: it is the level of doing and acting. In
the case of a film, the viewer is passive, sitting in a theater, experienc
ing the action vicariously. Nonetheless, the vicarious experience can
play upon the same affective system.
Here is the power of storytelling, of the script, the actors, trans
porting viewers into the world of makebelieve. This is "the willful
suspension of disbelief" that the English poet Samuel Taylor
Coleridge discussed as being essential for poetry. Here is where you
get captured, caught up in the story, identifying with the situation and
the characters. To be fully engrossed within a movie is to feel the
world fade away, time seem to stop, and the body enter the trans
formed state that the social scientist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has
labeled "flow."
Csikszentmihalyi's flow state is a special, detached state of con
sciousness, in which you are aware only of the moment, of the activity,
and of the sheer enjoyment. It can occur in almost any activity: skilled
tasks, sports, video games, board games, or any kind of mindabsorb
ing work. You can experience it in the theater, reading a book, or with
intense problem solving.
The conditions required for flow to occur include lack of distrac
tions and an activity paced precisely to match your skills, pushing you
slightly above your capabilities. The level of difficulty has to be just at
the edge of capability: too difficult and the task becomes frustrating;
too easy and it becomes boring. The situation has to engage your
entire conscious attention. This intense concentration causes outside
distractions to fade away and the sense of time to disappear. It is
intense, exhausting, productive, and exhilarating. It is no wonder that
Csikszentmihalyi and his colleagues have spent considerable time
exploring the phenomenon in its many manifestations.
The key to success of the vicarious level in film is the development
and maintenance of the flow state. The pace has to be appropriate to
TLFeBOOK
avoid frustration or boredom. There can be no interruptions or dis
tractions that might divert attention if one is to become truly captured
by flow. Whenever we speak of films or other entertainment as
"escapist," we are referring to the ability of the vicarious state and the
behavioral level of affect to disengage people from the cares of life
and transport them into some other world.
THE V O Y E U R I S T I C level is that of the intellect, standing back to

reflect and observe, to comment and think about an experience. Here
is where the depth and complexity of characters, events, and the
metaphors and analogies that a movie is meant to convey produce a
deeper, richer meaning than is visible on the surface with the charac
ters and story. "The voyeur's eye,"says Boorstin, "is the mind's eye,
not the heart's."
The word "voyeur" often is used to refer to observation of sensual
or sexual subjects, which is not the meaning intended here. Boorstin
explains that by the term "voyeur," he means "not the sexual kink but
Webster's second definition of the word: the voyeur is the 'prying
observer.' The voyeur's pleasure is the simple joy of seeing the new
and the wonderful."
The voyeur's eye demands explanation—this is the level of cogni
tion, of understanding and interpreting. As Boorstin points out,the
vicarious experience can be profoundly moving, but the voyeur'seye,
ever watching, ever thinking, is logical and reflective: "The voyeur in
us is logical to a fault, impatient, picky, literal, but if properly
respected it gives the special pleasures of the new and the clever, of a
fresh place or crisply thoughtout story." Of course, the voyeur can
generate emotional suspense as well. It is the voyeur who knows that
the wicked villain is hiding in wait for the hero, that the trap seems
inescapable, and therefore that the hero is about to face death or, at
the least, pain and torture. This level of excitement requires the
thinking mind, and, of course, a clever director who plays upon those
conjectures.
TLFeBOOK
But, as Boorstin also points out, the voyeur can ruin a perfectly

good movie by critiquing it:
It can ruin the most dramatic moment with the most mundane con

cern: "Where are they?" "How did she get in the car?" "Where did
the gun come from?" "Why don't they call the police?" "He's already
used six shots—how come he's still firing?" "They'd never get there
in time!" For a movie to work, the voyeur's eye must be pacified. For a
movie to work brilliantly, the voyeur's eye must be entranced.
Voyeuristic movies are reflective movies, for example 2001: A Space

Odyssey, which, except for one lengthy visceral section, is mind
numbing in its intellectualism and almost exclusively a reflective expe
rience. Citizen Kane is a fine example of both an entrancing story and a
voyeur's delight.
J U S T AS our experiences do not come neatly divided into

unique categories of visceral, behavioral, or reflective, so films
cannot be stuck neatly into one of three packages: visceral, or vicar
ious, or voyeuristic. Most experiences, and most films, cut across
the boundaries.
The best products and the best films neatly balance all three forms
of emotional impact. Although The Magnificent Seven is, as Boorstin
puts it, "seven guys saving a town from bandits," if that were all
there was to it, it would not have become such a classic. The film
started life in 1954 in Japan as The seven samurai (Shichinin no samu-
rai), a film directed by Akira Kurosawa. In Japan, it was the story of
seven samurai warriors hired to save a village from murderous
thieves. It was redone as an American western in 1960 as The
Magnificent Seven by John Sturges. Both films follow the same story
line (both are excellent, although many movie buffs prefer the origi
nal). And both films successfully capture the viewer at all three
modes, with engaging visceral spectacles, an engrossing story for the
TLFeBOOK
vicarious, and enough depth and hidden metaphorical allusions to

content the reflective voyeur.
Sound, color, and lighting also play critical roles. In the best of
cases, they heighten the experience without conscious awareness.
Background music, on the face of it, is strange, for it is present even in
socalled realistic movies, even though no music plays in our everyday
world of real life. Purists scoff at the use of music, but omit it and a
movie suffers. Music seems to modulate our affective system to
enhance the experience at all levels of involvement: visceral, vicari
ous, and voyeuristic.
Lighting can intensify experience. Although most films today are
shot in color, the director and photographer can dramatically impact
the film by the style of lighting and color. Bright primary colors are
the one extreme, with subdued pastels or dimly lit scenes another.
The extreme case of color is the decision not to use it: to film in black
and white. Although rarely used anymore, black and white can con
vey powerful dramatic impact, quite different from that possible with
color. Here, the cinematographer can make skillful use of contrasts—
light and dark, subtle grays—to convey an image's emotional tone.
The craft of filmmaking encompasses a wide variety of domains.
All elements of a film make a difference: story line, pace and tempo,
music, framing of the shots, editing, camera position and movement.
All come together to form a cohesive, complex experience. A thor
ough analysis can, and has, filled many books.
All these effects work best, however, when they are unnoticed by
the viewer. The Man Who Wasn 't There (directed and written by the
Coen brothers) was filmed in black and white. Roger Deakins, the
cinematographer, stated that he wanted black and white rather than
color so as not to distract from the story; unfortunately, he fell in love
with the power of monochrome images. The film has wonderfully
glorious shots, with high dark/light contrast, and in some places
spectacular backlighting, all of which I noticed. This is a nono in
film: if you notice it, it is bad. Noticing takes place at the reflective
(voyeur's) level, distracting you from that suspension of disbelief so
TLFeBOOK
essential to becoming fully captured by the flow at the behavioral

(vicarious) level.
The story line and engrossing exposition of The Man Who Wasn 't
There enhanced the vicarious pleasure of the film, but noticing the
photography caused the voyeuristic pleasure to interrupt with internal
commentary ("Howdid he do that?" "Look at the magnificent light
ing," and so on) and throw the vicarious pleasure off track. Yes, you
should be able to go back afterward and marvel at how a film was
done, but this should not intrude upon the experience itself.
Video Games
Overslept, woke at 8:00. Only time for a quick coffee before the car

pool arrives. The kitchen is disgusting, didn't clean up after last night's
little party. Need a bath, but no time (the bathroom's flooded anyway
from the broken sink I never got around to fixing). Got to work late
and in horrible shape, was demoted as a result. Got home at 5:00,the
repo man promptly showed up and repossessed my television because
I forgot to pay my bills. My girlfriend won't speak to me because she
saw me flirting with the neighbor last night.
Did you realize that this quotation is the description of a game?

Not only does it feel like real life, but a bad life at that. Why would
anyone think it was a game? Aren't games supposed to be fun? Well,
not only is it a description of a game, it is a bestselling one called
"The Sims." Will Wright, the designer and inventor of the Sims,
explained that this was a typical day in the life of a game character, as
developed by a beginning player.
The Sims is an interactive simulatedworld game, otherwise known
as a "God" game or sometimes "simulated life." The player acts like a
god, creating characters, populating their world with houses, appli
ances, and activities. In this game, the player does not control what the
game characters do. Instead, the player can only set up the environ
TLFeBOOK
ment and make highlevel decisions. The characters control their own

lives, although they have to live within the environment and highlevel
rules established by the player. The result is quite often not at all what
their god intended them to do. The quotation is one example of a char
acter unable to cope within the world its god created. But, says Wright,
as the player's skill at creating worlds improves, the character might be
able to spend the end of each day "sipping mintjuleps by the pool."
Wright explains the problem like this:
The Sims is really just a game about life. Most people don't con

sciously realize how much strategic thinking goes into everyday,
minutetominute living. We're so used to doing it that it submerges
into our subconscious as a background task. But each decision you
make (which door to go through? where to eat lunch? when to go to
bed?) is calculated at some level to optimize something (time, happi
ness, comfort). This game takes that internal process and makes it
external and visible. One of the first things players usually do in the
game is to recreate their family, home, and friends. Then they're play
ing a game about themselves, sort of a strange, surreal mirror of their
own lives.
Play is a common activity, engaged in by many animals and, of

course, by us humans. Play serves many purposes. It probably is good
practice for many of the skills required later in life. It helps children
develop the mix of cooperation and competition required to live effec
tively in social groups. In animals, play helps establish their social
dominance hierarchy. Games are more organized than play, usually
with formal or, at least, agreedupon rules, with some goal and usually
some scoring mechanism. As a result, games tend to be competitive,
with winners and losers.
Sports are even more formally organized than games, and at the
professional level, are as much for the spectator as the player. As a
result, an analysis of spectator sports is somewhat akin to that of
movies, where the experience is vicarious and as a voyeur.
TLFeBOOK
Of all the varieties of play, games, and sports, perhaps the most

exciting new development is that of the video game. This is a new
genre for entertainment: literature, film, game playing, sports, inter
active novel, storytelling—all of these, but more besides.
Video games were once thought of as a mindless sport for teenage
boys. No more. They are now played all around the world, including
slightly more than half the population of the United States. They are
played by everyone: from children to mature adults, with the average
age of a player around thirty, and the gender difference evenly split
between men and women. Video games come in many genres. In The
Medium of the Video Game, Mark Wolf identifies fortytwo different
categories:
Abstract, Adaptation, Adventure, Artificial Life, Board Games,

Capturing, Card Games, Catching, Chase, Collecting, Combat,
Demo, Diagnostic, Dodging, Driving, Educational, Escape, Fighting,
Flying, Gambling, Interactive Movie, Management Simulation, Maze,
Obstacle Course, PencilandPaper Games, Pinball, Platform,
Programming Games, Puzzle, Quiz, Racing, RolePlaying, Rhythm
and Dance, Shoot 'Em Up, Simulation, Sports, Strategy, TableTop
Games, Target, Text Adventure, Training Simulation, and Utility.
Video games are a mixture of interactive fiction with entertain
ment. During the twentyfirst century, they promise to evolve into
radically different forms of entertainment, sport, training, and edu
cation. Many games are fairly elementary, simply putting a player in
some role where fast reflexes—and sometimes great patience—are
required to traverse a relatively fixed set of obstacles in order to
move up the levels either to obtain a total game score or to accom
plish some simple goal ("rescue the beleaguered princess and save
her kingdom"). But wait. The story lines are getting evermore com
plex and realistic, the demands upon the player more reflective and
cognitive, less visceral and fast motor responses. The graphics and
sound are getting so good that simulator games can be used for real
TLFeBOOK
training, whether flying an airplane, operating a railroad, or driving

a race car or automobile. (The most elaborate video games are the
fullmotion airplane simulators used by the airlines that are so accu
rate that they enable pilots to be certified to fly passenger planes
without ever flying the actual aircraft. But don't call these "games";
they are taken very seriously, and some of them can cost as much as
the airplane itself.)
Today's sales of video games approach—and, in some cases, sur
pass—boxoffice receipts of movies. And we are still in the early days
of video games. Imagine what they will be like in ten or twenty years.
In an interactive game what happens in a story depends as much upon
your actions as on the plot set up by the author (designer). Contrast
this with a movie, where you have no control over the events. As a
result, when experienced game players watch a movie, they miss this
control, feeling as if they are "stuck watching a oneway plot."
Moreover, the sense of involvement, the flow state, is much more
intense in games than in most movies. In movies, you sit at a distance
watching events unfold. In a video game, you are an active participant.
You are part of the story, and it is happening to you, directly. As
Verlyn Klinkenborg says, "what underlies it all is that visceral sense of
having walked through a door into another universe."
The interactive, controlling part of video games is not necessarily
superior to the more rigid, fixed format of books, theater, and film.
Instead, we have different types of experiences, both of which are
desirable. The fixed formats let master storytellers control the events,
guiding you through the events in a carefully controlled sequence,
very deliberately manipulating your thoughts and emotions until the
climax and resolution. You surrender yourself quite voluntarily to this
experience, both for the enjoyment and for the lessons that might be
learned about life, society, and humanity. In a video game, you are an
active participant, and as a result, the experience may vary from time
to time—dull, boring, frustrating during one session; exciting, invig
orating, rewarding during another. The lessons to be learned will vary
depending upon the exact sequence of events that occurred and
TLFeBOOK
whether or not you were successful. Books and films clearly have a

permanent role in society, as do games, video or otherwise.
Books, theater, movies, and games all occupy a fixed period of
time: there is a beginning, then an end. This is not so of life. Sure,
birth marks the beginning and death the end, but from your everyday
perspective, life is ongoing. It continues even when you sleep or trav
el. Life cannot be escaped. When you go away, you return to find out
what has transpired in your absence (during those moments when you
were not in touch via messaging, email, or telephone). Video games
are becoming like life.
Video games used to involve single individuals. This will always be
a viable genre, but more and more, these games are involving groups,
sometimes scattered across the world, communicating through com
puter networks. Some are online, realtime activities, such as sports,
games, conversations, entertainment, music, and art. But some are
environments, simulated worlds with people, families, households,
and communities. In all of these, life goes on even when you, the play
er, are not present.
Some games have already tried to reach out toward their human
players. If you, the player, create a family in a "god" game, nurturing
your invented characters over an extended duration, perhaps months
or even years, what happens when a family member needs help while
you are asleep, or at work, school, or play? Well, if the crisis is severe
enough, your gamefamily member will do just what a real family
member would do: contact you by telephone, fax, email, or whatever
form works. Someday one might even contact your friends, asking for
help. So don't be surprised if a coworker interrupts you in an impor
tant business meeting to say that your game character is in trouble: it is
in urgent need of your assistance.
Yes, video games are an exciting new development in entertain
ment. But they may turn out to be far more than entertainment. The
artificial may cease to be distinguishable from the real.
TLFeBOOK
FIGURE 5.1
Oops! Uh oh, the poor chair.
It lost its ball, and it doesn't want anyone to know! Look
how quietly it's sneaking out its foot, hoping to get it back
before anyone notices.
(Renwick Gallery; image courtesy of Jake Cress, cabinetmaker.)
TLFeBOOK
CHAPTER FIVE
People, Places,
and Things
"UH OH, THE P O O R CH AIR has lost its ball and doesn't want

anyone to know." To me, the most interesting thing about the chair in
figure 5.1 is that my reaction upon viewing "the poor chair" is per
fectly sensible. Certainly I don't believe the chair is animate, that it
has a brain, let alone feelings and beliefs. Yet there it is, clearly sneak
ing out its foot, hoping nobody will notice. What is going on?
This is an example of our tendency to read emotional responses
into anything, animate or not. We are social creatures, biologically
prepared to interact with others, and the nature of that interaction
depends very much on our ability to understand another's mood.
Facial expressions and body language are automatic, indirect results of
our affective state, in part because affect is closely tied to behavior.
Once the emotional system primes our muscles in preparation for
action, other people can interpret our internal states by looking at how
tense or relaxed we are, how our face changes, how our limbs move—
135
TLFeBOOK
in short, our body language. Over millions of years, this ability to

read others has become part of our biological heritage. As a result, we
readily perceive emotional states in other people and, for that matter,
anything that is at all vaguely lifelike. Hence our reaction to figure
5.1: the chair's posture is so compelling.
We have evolved to interpret even the most subtle of indicators.
When we deal with people, this faculty is of huge value. It is even use
ful with animals. Thus, we can often interpret the affective state of
animals—and they can interpret ours. This is possible because we
share common origins for facial expression, gesture, and body pos
ture. Similar interpretations of inanimate objects might seem bizarre,
but the impulse comes from the same source—our automatic interpre
tive mechanisms. We interpret everything we experience, much of it
in human terms. This is called anthropomorphism, the attribution of
human motivations, beliefs, and feelings to animals and inanimate
things. The more behavior something exhibits, the more we are apt to
do this. We are anthropomorphic toward animals in general, especial
ly our pets, and toward toys such as dolls, and anything we may inter
act with, such as computers, appliances, and automobiles. We treat
tennis rackets, balls, and hand tools as animate beings, verbally prais
ing them when they do a good job for us, blaming them when they
refuse to perform as we had wished.
Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass have done numerous experi
ments that demonstrate—as the subtitle of their book puts it—"how
people treat computers, television, and new media like real people
an
• d places." B. J. Fogg shows how people think of "computers as
social actors," in his chapter of that title in his Persuasive Technology.
Fogg proposes five primary social cues that people use to infer socia
bility with the person, or device, with whom, or which, they are
interacting:
Physical: Face, eyes, body, movement
Psychological: Preferences, humor, personality, feelings,
empathy, "I'm sorry"
TLFeBOOK
Five: People, Places, and Things 137
Language: Interactive language use, spoken language, lan

guage recognition
Social Dynamics: Turn taking, cooperation, praise for good
work, answering questions, reciprocity
Social Roles: Doctor, teammate, opponent, teacher, pet, guide
With the chair in figure 5.1, we succumb to the physical side. With
computers, we often fall for the social dynamics (or, as is more often
the case, the inept social dynamics). Basically, if something interacts
with us, we interpret that interaction; the more responsive it is to us
through its body actions, its language, its taking of turns, and itsgen
eral responsiveness, the more we treat it like a social actor. This list
applies to everything, human or animal, animate or nonanimate.
Note that just as we infer the mental intentions of a chair without
any real basis, we do the same for animals and other people. We don't
have any more access to another person's mind than we do to the mind
of an animal or chair. Our judgments of others are private interpreta
tions based on observation and inference, not much different, really,
than the evidence that makes us feel sorry for the poor chair. In fact,
we don't have all that much information about the workings of our
own minds. Only the reflective level is conscious: most of our motiva
tions, beliefs, and feelings operate at the visceral and behavioral levels,
below the level of awareness. The reflective level tries hard to make
sense of the actions and behavior of the subconscious. But in fact,
most of our behavior is subconscious and unknowable. Hence the
need for others to aid us in times of trouble, for psychiatrists, psychol
ogists, and analysts. Hence Sigmund Freud's historically impressive
descriptions of the workings of id, ego, and superego.
So interpret we do, and over the many thousands or millions of
years of evolution, we have coevolved muscle systems that display
our emotions, and perceptual systems that interpret those of others.
And with that interpretation also comes emotional judgment and
empathy. We interpret, we emote. We can thereby believe that the
object of our interpretations is sad or happy, angry or calm, sneaky or
TLFeBOOK
embarrassed. And, in turn, we ourselves can become emotional just by
our interpretation of others. We cannot control those initial interpre
tations, for they come automatically, built in at the visceral level. We
can control the final emotions through reflective analysis, but those
initial impressions are subconscious and automatic. But, more impor
tant, it is this behavior that greases the wheels of social interaction,
that makes it possible.
Designers take note. Humans are predisposed to anthropomorphize,
to project human emotions and beliefs into anything. On the one hand,
the anthropomorphic responses can bring great delight and pleasure to
the user of a product. If everything works smoothly, fulfilling expecta
tions, the affective system responds positively, bringing pleasure to the
user. Similarly, if the design itself is elegant, beautiful, or perhaps play
ful and fun, once again the affective system reacts positively. In both
cases, we attribute our pleasure to the product, so we praise it, and in
extreme cases become emotionally attached to it. But when the behavior
is frustrating, when the system appears to be recalcitrant, refusing to
behave properly, the result is negative affect, anger, or worse, even rage.
We blame the product. The principles for designing pleasurable, effec
tive interaction between people and products are the very same ones
that support pleasurable and effective interaction between individuals.
Blaming Inanimate Objects
It starts out with slight annoyance, then the hairs

on your neck start to prickle and your hands begin
to sweat. Soon you are banging your computer or
yelling at the screen, and you might well end up
belting the person sitting next to you.
—Newspaper article on "Computer Rage"
Many of us have experienced the computer rage described in the epi

graph. Computers can indeed be infuriating. But why? And why do
TLFeBOOK
we get so angry at inanimate objects? The computer—or for that mat
ter, any machine—doesn't intend to anger; machines have no inten
tions at all, at least not yet. We get angry because that's how our mind
works. As far as we are concerned, we have done everything right, so
the inappropriate behavior is therefore the fault of the computer. The
"we" who faults the computer comes from the reflective level of our
minds, the level that observes and passes judgment. Negative judg
ments lead to negative emotions, which can then inflame the judg
ments. The system for making judgments—cognition—is tightly
coupled with the emotional system: each reinforces the other. The
longer a problems lasts, the worse it becomes. Mild unhappiness is
transformed into strong unhappiness. Unhappiness is transformed
into anger, and anger into rage.
Note that when we get angry at our computer, we are assigning
blame. Blame and its opposite, credit, are social judgments, assigning
responsibility. This requires a more complex affective assessment than
the dissatisfaction or pleasure one gets from a well or illdesigned
product. Blame or credit can come about only if we are treating the
machine as if it were a causal agent, as if it made choices, in other
words, as a human does.
How does this happen? Neither the visceral nor the behavioral level
can determine causes. It is the role of reflection to understand, to
interpret and find reasons, and to assign causes. Most of our rich,
deepest emotions are ones where we have attributed a cause to an
occurrence. These emotions originate from reflection. For example,
two of the simpler emotions are hope and anxiety, hope resulting from
expectation of a positive result, anxiety from expectation of some
thing negative. If you are anxious, but the expected negative outcome
doesn't happen, your emotion is one of relief. If you expect some
thing positive, you are hopeful, and if it doesn't happen, then you feel
disappointment.
So far, this is pretty simple, but suppose you—at your reflective
level, to be more precise—decide that the result was someone's fault?
Now we get into the complex emotions. Whose fault was it? When the
TLFeBOOK
result is negative and the blame put on yourself, you get remorse, self
anger, and shame. If you blame someone else, then you feel anger and
reproach.
When the result is positive and the credit yours, you get pride and
gratification. When the credit is someone else's, you get gratitude
and admiration. Note how emotions reflect the interaction with oth
ers. Affect and emotion constitute a complex subject, involving all
three levels, with the most complex emotions dependent upon just
how the reflective level attributes causes. Reflection, therefore, is at
the heart of the cognitive basis of emotions. The important point is
that these emotions apply equally well to things as to people, and why
not? Why distinguish between animate and inanimate things? You
build up expectations of behavior based upon prior experience, and if
the items with which you interact fail to live up to expectations, that is
a violation of trust, for which you assign blame, which can soon lead
to anger.
Cooperation relies on trust. For a team to work effectively each
individual needs to be able to count on team members to behave as
expected. Establishing trust is complex, but it involves, among other
things, implicit and explicit promises, then clear attempts to deliver,
and, moreover, evidence. When someone fails to deliver as expected,
whether or not trust is violated depends upon the situation and'upon
where the blame falls.
Simple mechanical objects can be trusted, if only because their
behavior is so simple that our expectations are apt to be accurate. Yes,
a support or a knife blade may break unexpectedly, but that is about
the largest possible transgression a simple object can do. Complex
mechanical devices can go wrong in many more ways, and many a
person has fallen in love—or become outraged—over the transgres
sions of automobiles, shop equipment, or other complex machinery.
When it comes to a lack of trust, the worst offenders of all are
today's electronic devices, especially the computer (although the cell
phone is rapidly gaining ground). The problem here is that you don't
know what to expect. The manufacturerspromise all sorts of wonder
TLFeBOOK
F i v e : P e o p l e , P l a c e s , a n d T h i n g s 141
ful results; but, in fact, the technology and its operations are invisible,

mysteriously hidden from view, and often completely arbitrary, secre
tive, and sometimes even contradictory. Without any way of under
standing how they operate or what actions they are doing, you can feel
out of control and frequently disappointed. Trust eventually gives
way to rage.
I believe that those of us who become angry with today's technolo
gy are justified. It may be an automatic result of our affective and
emotional systems. It may not be rational, but so what? It is appropri
ate. Is it the computer's fault, or is it the software that runs within it? Is
it really the software's fault, or is it the programmers who neglected to
understand our real needs? As users of the technology, we don't care.
All we care about is that our lives are made more frustrating. It is
"their fault," "their" being everyone and everything involved in the
computer's development. After all, these systems do not do a very
good job of gathering trust. They lose files and they crash, oftentimes
for no apparent reason. Moreover, they express no shame, no blame.
They don't apologize or say they are sorry. Worse, they appear to
blame us, the poor unwitting users. Who is "they"? Why does it mat
ter? We are angered, and appropriately so.
Trust and Design

My 10inch Wusthof chef knife. I could go on about the feel and aes
thetic beauty, but upon further introspection I think my emotional
attachment is substantially based on trust that comes from experience.
I know that my knife is up to whatever task I use it for. It is not
going to slip out of my hand, the blade it not going to snap or break no
matter how much pressure I apply; it is sharp enough to cut bones; it is
not going to mutilate the meal I am about to serve to guests. I hate
cooking in other people's kitchens and using their cutlery, even if it is
good quality stuff.
This is a durable good, meaning I will only need to buy chef knives
TLFeBOOK
once or twice in a lifetime. I liked it OK when I purchased it, but my

emotional attachment to it has developed over time through literally
hundreds of consecutive positive experiences. This object is my friend.
The response above, one of many I received offering examples of

products that people have learned to love or hate, vividly demon
strates the importance and power and properties of trust. Trust
implies several qualities: reliance, confidence, and integrity. It means
that one can count on a trusted system to perform precisely according
to expectation. It implies integrity and, in a person, character. In arti
ficial devices, trust means having it perform reliably, time after time
after time. But there is more. In particular, we have high expectations
of systems we trust: we expect them "to perform precisely according
to expectation," which; of course, implies that we have built up partic
ular expectations. These expectations come from multiple sources: the
advertisements and recommendations that led us to buy the item in the
first place; the reliability with which it has been performing since we
got it; and, perhaps most important of all, the conceptual model we
have of the item.
Your conceptual model of a product or service—and the feedback
that you receive—is essential in establishing and maintaining trust. As
I discussed in chapter 3, a conceptual model is your understanding of
what an item is and how it works. If you have a good, accurate con
ceptual model, especially if the item keeps you informed about what it
is doing—what stage in the operations it has reached, and whether
things are proceeding smoothly or not—then you are not surprised by
the result.
Consider what happens when your car runs out of gasoline. Whose
fault is it? It depends. Most people's conceptual model of a car
includes a fuel gauge that says what percentage of the tank is filled
with gasoline. Many people also expect a warning such as a flashing
light when the tank is close to empty. Some people even rely upon
their assumption that the gas gauge is conservative, indicating that the
tank is emptier than it really is, giving some leeway.
TLFeBOOK
Five: People, Places, and T h i n g s 143
Suppose that the gas gauge has been reading close to empty, the

warning light has flashed, but you procrastinate, not wanting to take
the time to refill. If you run out of gasoline, you will blame yourself.
Not only will you not be upset at the car, you might even now trust it
more than ever. After all, it indicated you were going to run out of
fuel, and you did. What if the warning light never came on? In that
case you would blame the car. What if the gas gauge fluctuated up and
down, continually varying? Then you wouldn't know how to inter
pret it: you wouldn't trust it.
Do you trust the gas gauge of your car? Most people are wary at
first. When they drive in a new car, they have to do some tests to dis
cover how much to trust the gas gauge. The typical way is to drive the
car to lower and lower fuel estimates before refilling. The true test, of
course, would be to run out of fuel deliberately in order to see how that
corresponded to the meter reading, but most people don't need that
much reassurance. Rather, they do enough driving to determine how
much to trust the indicator, whether it be the meter reading or the low
fuel warning light in some cars, or for those with trip computers, the
miles of driving the computer predicts can be done with the remaining
fuel. With sufficient experience, people learn how to interpret the read
ings and, thus, how much to trust the gauge. Trust has to be earned.
Living in an Untrustworthy World
It's human nature to trust our fellow man, espe-

cially when the request meets the test of being
reasonable. Social engineers use this knowledge
to exploit their victims and to achieve their goals.
—K. D. Mitnick and W. L. Simon,

The Art of Deception
Trust is an essential ingredient in cooperative, human interaction. Alas,
this also makes it a vulnerability, ready for exploitation by what is called
TLFeBOOK
"social engineering," the crooks, thieves, and terrorists who exploit and
manipulate our trust and good nature for their gain. As more and more
of our everyday objects are manufactured with computer chips inside,
with intelligence and flexibility, and with communication channels to
the other devices in our environment and to the worldwide network of
information and services, it is critical to worry about those who would
do harm, whether by accident, for the sake of mischief, for fun, or with
malicious intent to defraud or harm. Crooks, thieves, criminals, and ter
rorists are experts at exploiting the willingness of people to help one
another, both to figure out how to use onerous technology and when
someone appears to be in urgent need of assistance.
A common approach to improved safety and security is to tighten
up on procedures and to require redundant checking. But as more
people are involved in checking a task, safety can decrease. This is
called "bystander apathy," a term that came from studies of the 1964
murder of Kitty Genovese on the streets of New York City. Although
numerous people witnessed that incident, no one helped. At first the
lack of response was simply blamed on the callousness of New York
City residents, but social psychologists Bibb Latane and John Darley
were able to repeat the bystander behavior, both in their laboratory
and in field studies. They concluded that the more people watching,
the less likely anyone would help. Why?
Think about your own reaction. If you were by yourself, walking
along the streets of a large city and encountered what looked like a
crime, you might be frightened and, therefore, reluctant to intervene.
Still, you probably would try to call for help. But suppose a crowd of
people were watching the incident? What would you do then? You
probably would assume that you weren't witnessing anything serious,
because if it were, people in the crowd would be doing something.
The fact that nobody is doing anything must mean that nothing bad is
happening. After all, in a large city, anything might happen: maybe it's
actors making a movie.
Bystander apathy works in security as well. Suppose that you are
working as a technician at a power plant. Among your jobs, you are
TLFeBOOK
Five: People, Places, and T h i n g s 145
supposed to check the meter readings with one of your colleagues,

another technician at the plant, a person you know and trust.
Moreover, when you have finished, your supervisor will also do a
check. The result is that you don't have to exert extra care on the task.
After all, how could a mistake get through with so many people? The
problem is that everyone feels this way. As a result, the more people
that check on something, the less carefully each person performs the
task. As more people are responsible, security may diminish: trust gets
in the way.
The commercial aviation community has done an excellent job of
fighting this tendency with its program of "Crew Resource
Management." All modern commercial aircraft have two pilots. One,
the more senior, is the captain, who sits in the lefthand seat, while the
other is the firstofficer, who sits in the righthand seat. Both are
qualified pilots, however, and it is common for them to take turns
piloting the aircraft. As a result, they are referred to by the terms
"pilot flying" and "pilot not flying." A major component of crew
resource management is that the pilot who is not flying be an active
critic, continually checking and questioning the actions taken by the
pilot who is flying. The pilot flying is supposed to thank the other for
the questions, even when they are unnecessary, or even wrong.
Obviously, getting this process in place was difficult, for it involved
major changes in the culture, especially when one pilot was junior.
After all, when one person questions another's behavior, it implies a
lack of trust; and when two people are supposed to work together,
especially when one is superior to the other, trust is essential. It took a
while before the aviation community learned to take the questioning
as a mark of respect, rather than a lack of trust, and for senior pilots
to insist that junior ones question all of their actions. The result has
been increased safety.
Criminals and terrorists take advantage of misplaced trust. One
strategy to break into a wellguarded place is to trigger the alarms
repeatedly over the course of a few days, and then hide so that the
security personnel cannot find any cause for the trigger. Eventually, in
TLFeBOOK
frustration over the repeated false alarms, the security people will no

longer trust them. It is then the criminals break in.
Not everyone is untrustworthy, just a few—but those few can be so
severely disruptive that we have little choice but to relinquish trust
and be suspicious of everyone, everything. There is a terrible tradeoff
here: the very things that make security tighter are often those that
make our lives more difficult or, in some cases, impossible. We need
more realistic security that is cognizant of human behavior.
Security is more of a social or human problem than a technological
one. Sure, put in all the technology you like. Those who wish to steal,
corrupt, or disrupt will find a way to take advantage of human nature
and bypass the security. Indeed, excessive technology gets in the way
of security, because, by making the task of conscientious, everyday
workers more difficult, it makes the job of bypassing the security
measures even easier. When the security codes or procedures become
too complex, people can't remember them, so they will write them
down and post them on their computer terminals, under their key
boards or phones, or in their desk drawer (on top, though, where they
are easy to get to).
As I was writing this book, I served on a committee of the United
States National Research Council investigating information technol
ogy and counterterrorism. For my section of the report, I studied the
social engineering practices used by terrorists, criminals, and other
troublemakers. Actually, it's not difficult to find this information. The
basic principles have been around for centuries and there are many
books by excriminals, lawenforcement officers, and even guides to
writing crime novels that provide relevant information. The internet
makes the research easy.
Want to break into a secure facility? Walk up to the door carrying
an armload of computers, parts, and dangling cords. Ask someone to
hold open the door, and thank them. Carry the junk over to an empty
cubicle, look for the password and login name, which will be posted
somewhere, and log in (figure 5.2). If you can't log in, ask someone
for help. Just ask.As one handbook that I found on the internet puts
TLFeBOOK
Five: People, P l a c e s , and T h i n g s 147
FIGURE 5.2a and b

How not to safeguard a password.
Figure a shows a note posted on the side of the computer display; figure
b is an enlargement of the note. This is the sort of behavior that social
engineers count on. But it is bad password policies that make us have to
resort to this. Even if the password wasn't attached to the computer, a
good social engineer could have guessed it: this computer is at the cor-
porate headquarters of a major manufacturer of office furniture. "Chair"?
Who WOUld ever guess? (Photograph by author.)
it: Just shout, "Does anyone remember the password for this termi

nal?" You would be surprised how many people will tell you.
In the end, security is a systems problem, where the human is the
most important component. When security procedures get in the way
of wellmeaning, dedicated workers, they will find workarounds to
avoid disruption, thus defeating the whole point of the procedure.
The very attributes that make us effective, cooperative, creative work
ers, able to adapt to the unexpected and to provide assistance to others,
make us vulnerable to those who would take advantage of us.
TLFeBOOK
Communications That Serve Emotion

Everywhere is nowhere. When a person spends all
his time in foreign travel, he ends by having many
acquaintances, but no friends.
—Lucius Annaeus Seneca (5 BC-AD 65)
In my consulting work, I am often called upon to predict the next
"killer application," to discover the next product that will be so popu
lar that everyone will have to own it. Unfortunately, if I have learned
anything, it is that precise predictions of this sort are simply not possi
ble. The field is littered with the bodies of those who have tried.
Moreover, it is possible to be correct about a prediction, but very far
off as to its time frame. I predict that automobiles will drive them
selves. When? I have no idea: it might be twenty years, it might be one
hundred. I predict that video telephones will become so popular that
they will be everywhere, and we will simply take them for granted. In
fact, people might complain if there weren't any video. When?
Forecasters have been predicting widespread adoption of video
phones "in just a few years" for the last fifty years. Even successful
products can take decades before they catch on.
But even if exact prediction of successful products is not possible,
we can be certain of one category that almost always guarantees suc
cess: social interaction. Throughout the last one hundred years, as
technologies have changed, the importance of communication has
remained high on the list of essentials. For individual communication,
this has meant mail, the telephone, email, cell phones, and instant mes
saging and text messaging on computers and cell phones. For organi
zations, add the telegraph, the corporate memo and newsletter, the fax
machine, and the intranet, that specialization of the internet for intra
company communication and interaction. And for societal groups,
add the town crier, the daily newspaper, radio, and television.
TLFeBOOK
Five: People, P l a c e s , and T h i n g s 149
Up to a few years ago,the increasing ease and lowered cost of trav

el had the unfortunate side effect of weakening the bonds that hold
people together. Yes, through letters and telephone people could still
be somewhat in touch, but this touch was limited. Two thousand years
ago the Roman philosopher Seneca complained that travel led to many
acquaintances but few friends, and up to recently this complaint still
held true. Distance used to matter. Move away from family and
friends, and the contact waned. Sure, one could use mail and tele
phone, but these were sparse communications amidst the busy activi
ties of the day. People who separated physically would often separate
socially and emotionally as well.
No more: today we can be in continual contact with friends and rel
atives no matter where we are, no matter the time of day. Today's
technology makes it possible to stay in touch with friends and family
on a continual basis. Email, instant messaging, text messages, and
voice mail have no barriers in time or distance. Travel is relatively
easy by auto, train, or airplane. The mail system reliably traverses the
earth. The telephone is readily available and, with the cellular phone,
always with us, always on. Email is ubiquitous. Billions of short mes
sages are sent daily among the cell phones of the world. The isolation
once imposed by distance and separation is no longer true. Today we
can easily keep in touch with one another to an amount undreamed of
earlier. Moreover, the communication revolution has barely begun: if
it is so pervasive now, at the start of the twentyfirst century, what will
it be in one hundred years?
Most of the short text messages appear to be contentfree. Among
teenagers, they are apt to say: "What are you doing?"—or, in the
highly abbreviated form they often take, "watrudoin"; "Where are
you? (wru)"; "Seeyou later (culSr)." Among business people during
the business day, they differ slightly: "Boring meeting"; "What are
you doing?"; "Want a drink after work?" Occasionally, of course,
they have real substance, as in business negotiations or in arranging
meeting times or the details of a contract. But, on the whole, the point
TLFeBOOK
of the frequent messages is not information sharing; it is emotional

connecting. They are ways of saying to one another, "I'mhere,""you
are there," "we still like each other." People need to communicate
continually, for comfort, for reassurance.
The real advantage of text messaging is that it can be used while you
are doing other things. As long as your hands are free and you can
sneak an occasional look at the screen, you can send and receive mes
sages: in class, at business meetings, or even while conversing with oth
ers. There seem to be no bounds. Stick the device in your shirt pocket.
Then, when bored, or when that pleasant vibrating sensation on the
chest signifies the arrival of a new message, take it out and peek. Read
the latest words and surreptitiously type a reply, using two thumbs on
the tiny keyboard. Surreptitiously, because this is probably taking place
at a meeting, where you are supposed to be attending to the speaker.
The ability to use short text messages so effortlessly has become a
strong, emotional component of many people's lives. Numerous peo
ple who responded to my Internet request for experiences of bonding
used the opportunity to tell me about their attachment to Instant
Messaging (IM). Here are two responses:
Instant messenger (IM) is an integrated part of my life. With it I

have a sense of connection to many of my friends and colleagues
around the world. Without it, I feel as though a window to part of my
world is bolted shut.
Another example is IM. I am so attached to my IM at work. I can't
imagine my life without it. The real power of IM isn't the message
(though that is a key attribute), but it's the presence detection.
Knowing that someone "is there." Imagine knowing that every time
you pick up the phone to dial someone there is going to be a realper
son to answer, and the person you want. That is the power of instant
messaging.
The cell phone shares much of the emotional power of text mes

saging. It is much more than a simple communication device. Oh,
TLFeBOOK
sure, business thinks of it as a way of keeping in touch, of getting crit

ical information to people when they need it, but that misses the whole
point of these devices. It is fundamentally an emotional tool and a
social facilitator. It keeps people in touch with one another. It lets
friends chat: even if the formal, reflective content is vague, the emo
tional content is high. But although it lets us all share thoughts and
ideas, music, and pictures, what it really lets us share is emotion. The
ability to keep in touch throughout the day maintains a relationship,
whether it be business or social.
Speech is a powerful social and emotional vehicle because it enables
communication of emotional state through its natural prosody—
pauses, rhythm, pitch inflections, hesitations, and repeats. Although
text messaging is not as effective as speech at communicating emotion,
it is superior as a tool for communication because it is unobtrusive. It
can be kept private and it can be done secretly. I am always amused at
business meetings by the sneaky, but skillful, use of text messaging. I
watch otherwise serious, staid executives glance furtively down at
their laps so as to read screens and type responses, all the while pre
tending to be listening to the meeting. Text messaging lets friends
keep in touch, even when they should be attending to something else.
Isn't it strange that, although telephone service is an emotional
tool, the appliance itself is not? People love the power of cell phone
interaction, but do not seem to love any of the devices that make it
possible. As a result, the turnover of devices is high. There is no prod
uct loyalty, no commitment to company or service provider. The cell
phone, one of the most fundamentally emotional services, garners lit
tle attachment to its products.
Vernor Vinge, one of my favorite science fiction writers, wrote A
Fire Upon the Deep, in which the planet Tines is populated by animals
with a collective intelligence. These doglike creatures travel in packs,
whose members are in continuous acoustical communication with
one another, giving rise to a powerful, distributed consciousness.
Individuals leave the pack because of death, illness, or accident, and
new, young members are recruited to replace them, so that the pack
TLFeBOOK
maintains its identity far beyond that of any single individual. Each

individual member of a pack lacks intelligence when all alone: the pack
gains its intelligence through the collaboration of the many individuals.
As a result, if an individual strays too far from the pack, the communi
cation path is lost—for sound has limited range—and the resulting
"singleton" is devoid of intelligence. Singletons rarely survive, and
those that do are doomed to a mindless existence—literally mindless.
Walk down the street of any large city in any country of the world
and watch the people who are talking on their cell phones: they are in
their own space, physically adjacent to one location and one set of
people but emotionally somewhere else. It is as if they fear beingsin
gletons in the crowd of strangers and opt instead to maintain connec
tion with their pack, even if the pack is elsewhere. The cell phone
establishes its own private space, removed from the street. Were the
two people together, walking down the street, they would not be so
isolated, for they would both be aware of one another, of the conver
sation and of the street. But with the cell phone, you enter into a pri
vate place that is virtual, not real, one removed from the surrounds,
the better to bond with the other person and the conversation. And so
you are lost to the street even while walking along it. Truly a private
space in a public place.
Always Connected, Always Distracted
I H A V E watched phones ring and be answered in the most amazing

places. In the movie theater, in the middle of board meetings. I once
attended a meeting at the Vatican where I was part of a scientific dele
gation presenting our findings to the Pope. Cell phones were every
where: each cardinal wore a gold chain upon which was hung a gold
cross, each bishop had a gold chain upon which was hung a silver
cross, but the head usher, who seemed to be the real person in charge,
wore a gold chain upon which was hung a cell phone. The Pope may
have been the center of attention, but I heard cell phones ringing con
TLFeBOOK
Five: People, P l a c e s , and Things 153
tinually throughout the ceremony. "Scusi," they would whisper into

their phones, "I can't talk right now, I'm listening to the Pope."
On another occasion I was a member of a discussion panel in
front of a large audience, when the moderator's cell phone rang just
as he was in the middle of asking a question of one of the panelists.
Yes, he answered it, disconcerting the panel members, but amusing
the audience.
H U R R A H FOR the communication technologies that allow us con

tinuous contact with our colleagues, friends, and families, no matter
where we are, no matter what we are doing! But, however powerful
text and voice messages, phone calls, and emails are as tools for main
taining relationships or supervising work, note that one person's
"keeping in touch" is another person's interruption. The emotional
impact reflects this discrepancy: positive to the person keeping in
touch, but negative and disturbing to the person being subjected to
interruption.
There is a lack of symmetry in the perceived impact of an interrup
tion. When I have lunch with friends who spend a considerable frac
tion of our time responding to calls on their cell phones, I consider
this a distraction and an interruption. From their point of view, they
are still with me, but the calls are essential to their lives and emotions
and not at all an interruption. To the person taking the call, the time is
filled, with information being conveyed. To me, it is empty unfilled
time. The lunchtime conversation is now on hold. I have to wait for
the interruption to end.
How much time does the interruption seem to take? To the person
being interrupted, forever. To the person taking the call, just a few
seconds. Perception is everything. When one is busy, times flies
quickly. When there is nothing to do, it seems to drag. As a result, the
person engaged in the cell phone conversation feels emotionally satis
fied, while the other feels ignored and distanced, emotionally upset.
Human conscious attention is a component of the reflective level of
the mind. It has limited capability. On the one hand, it limits the focus
TLFeBOOK
of consciousness, primarily to a single task. On the other hand, atten

tion is readily distracted by changes in the environment. The result of
this natural distractibility is a short attention span: new events contin
ually engage attention. Today it is customary to argue that short
attention spans are caused by advertisements, video games, music
videos, and so on. But, in fact, the ready distractibility of attention is a
biological necessity, developed through millions of years of evolution
as a protective mechanism against unexpected danger: this is the pri
mary function of the visceral level. This is probably why one byprod
uct of the negative affect and anxiety that results from perceived
danger is a narrowing and focusing of attention. In danger, attention
must not become distracted. But in the absence of anxiety, people are
easily distracted, continually shifting attention. William James, the
famous philosopher/psychologist, once said that his attention span
was approximately ten seconds, and this in the late 1800s, far before
the advent of modern distractions.
We carve out our own private spaces where needed. At home in our
private study or bedroom, door locked if need be. At the office, in a
private room or, struggling to accomplish privacy, in cubicles or
shared space. In the library, helped by the notalking rules andcon
vention, or by private carrels for the privileged few. In streets, where
people will gather to form clusters of conversations, seemingly oblivi
ous to those around them, if only temporarily.
But the real problems of modern communication come from the
limitations of human attention.
The limits on conscious attention are severe. When you are on a
telephone call, you are doing a very special sort of activity, for you are
a part of two different spaces, one where you are located physically,
the other a mental space, the private location within your mind where
you interact with the person on the other end of the conversation.
This mental partitioning of space is a very special facility and it makes
the telephone conversation, unlike other joint activities, demand a spe
cial kind of mental concentration. The result is that you are partially
away from the real, physical space, even as you inhabit it. This divi
TLFeBOOK
sion into multiple spaces has important consequences for the human

ability to function.
Do you talk on a cell phone while driving an automobile? If so, you
are dividing your conscious attention in a dangerous fashion, reducing
your capacity to plan and anticipate. Yes, your visceral and behavioral
levels of processing still function well, but not the reflective, the home
of planning and anticipating. So driving is still possible, but primarily
through the automatic, subconscious visceral and behavioral mecha
nisms. The part of driving that suffers is the reflective oversight, the
planning, the ability to anticipate the actions of other drivers and any
special conditions of the environment. That you can still appear to drive
normally blinds you to the fact that the driving is less skillful, less able to
cope with unexpected situations. Thus, the driving becomes dangerous,
the cause being that distracting mental space. The danger does not stem
from any requirement to hold the cell phone to your ear with one hand
while steering with the other: a handsfree cell phone, where speaker
and microphone are fixed to the car so that no hands are required, does
not eliminate the distracting mental space. This is a new area of
research, but the early studies seem to show that handsfree phones are
just as dangerous as handheld ones. The decrease in driver perform
ance results from the conversation, not the telephone instrument.
Drive a car and hold a conversation with the passengers and, yes,
some of the same distraction is present, especially because our social
nature means that we tend to look at the person with whom we are
conversing. Once again, the safety research is still at an early stage,
but I predict that a conversation with real passengers will prove to be
not as dangerous as one with faraway people, for the mental space
we create for real passengers includes the auto and its surround,
whereas the other one distances us from the auto. After all, we
evolved to interact with others in the midst of other activities, but
the evolutionary process could not anticipate communication at a
distance.
We cannot take part in two intense conversations at the same time,
at least not without degrading the quality and speed of each. Of
TLFeBOOK
course, we can and do take part in multiple instant and textmessag

ing conversations "simultaneously," but the quote marks around
"simultaneously" reflect that we don't really do the operations at the
same instant, but rather interweave the two. Conscious, reflective
attention is only necessary for reading and for formulation of new
messages, but once formulated, the automatic behavioral level mecha
nisms can guide the actual keystrokes while reflection switches over to
the other conversation.
Because most activities do not require continual, fulltime conscious
attention, we are able to go about our daily activities continually divid
ing attention among multiple diversions. The virtue of this division of
attention is that we keep in touch with the environment: we are contin
ually aware of the things around us. Walking down the street chatting
with a friend, we still have considerable resources left for a multitude of
activities: to notice the new stores that have opened on the block; to
glance at the newspaper headlines; even to eavesdrop upon neighbor
ing conversations. The difficulties arise only when we are forced to
engage in mechanical activities, such as driving an automobile, where
the technological demands can require immediate response. Here is
where the apparent ease with which we can often do these tasks mis
leads us into thinking that full attention is never required. Our ability
to handle distractions and to divide attention is essential to social inter
action. Our ability to timeshare, to do multiple activities, enhances
these interactions. We are aware of others around us. We keep in touch
with a large number of people. The continual switching of attention is
normally a virtue, especially in the world of social interaction. In the
mechanical world, it can be a peril.
By continually being in communication with friends across a life
time, across the world, we risk the paradox of enhancing shallow
interactions at the expense of deep ones. Yes, we can hold continual,
short interactions with numerous people, thus keeping friendships
alive. But the more we hold short, brief, fleeting interactions and
allow ourselves to interrupt ongoing conversations and interactions,
the less we allow any depth of interaction, any depth to a relationship.
TLFeBOOK
"Continuously divided attention" is the way Linda Stone has

described this phenomenon, but no matter how we may deplore it, it
has become a commonplace aspect of everyday life.
The Role of Design
Technology often forces us into situations where we can't live without

the technology even though we may actively dislike its impact. Or we
may love what the technology provides us while hating the frustra
tions encountered while trying to use it. Love and hate: two conflict
ing emotions, but commonly combined to form an enduring, if
uncomfortable, relationship. These lovehate relationships can be
amazingly stable.
Lovehate relationships offer promise, if only the hate can be dissi
pated, retaining the love. The designer has some power here, but only
to a limited extent, for although some of the irritation and dislike is a
result of inappropriate or impoverished design, much is a result of
societal norms and standards, and these can only be changed by socie
ty itself.
Much of modern technology is really the technology of social
interaction: it is the technology of trust and emotional bonds. But nei
ther social interaction nor trust were designed into the technology or
even thought through: they came about through happenstance,
through the accidental byproducts of deployment. To the technolo
gist, the technology provides a means of communication; for us, how
ever, it provides a means for social interaction.
There is much that can be done to enhance these technologies. We
have already seen that lack of trust comes about from lack of under
standing, from situations where we feel out of control, unaware of
what has happened, or why, or what we should do the next time. And
we have seen how the unscrupulous, the thief and the terrorist can
take advantage of the normal trust people have for one another, a trust
that is essential if normal civilization is to exist.
TLFeBOOK
In the case of the personal computer, the frustrations and irritations
that lead to "computer rage" are indeed the domain of design. These
are caused by design flaws that exacerbate the problems. Some have to
do with the lack of reliability and bad programming, some with the
lack of understanding of human needs, and some the lack of fit
between the operation of the computer and the tasks that people wish
to do. All these can be solved. Today, communication seems always to
be with us, whether we wish it to or not. Whether at work or play,
school or home, we can make contact with others. Moreover, the dis
tinctions among the various media are disappearing, as we send voice
and text, words and images, music and video back and forth with
increasing ease and frequency. When my friend in Japan uses his cell
phone to take a photograph of his new grandchild and sends it to me
in the United States, is this email, photography, or telephony?
The good news is that the new technologies enable us always to feel
connected, to be able to share our thoughts and feelings no matter
where we are, no matter what we are doing, independent of the time
or time zone. The bad news is, of course, those very same things. If all
my friends were always to keep in touch, there would be no time for
anything else. Life would be filled with interruptions, twentyfour
hours a day. Each interaction alone would be pleasant and rewarding,
but the total impact would be overwhelming.
The problem, however, is that the ease of short, brief communica
tion with friends around the world disrupts the normal, everyday social
interaction. Here, the only hope is for a change in social acceptance.
This can go in two directions. We could all come to accept the inter
ruptions as a part of life, thinking nothing of it when the several mem
bers of a group continually enter their own private space to interact
with others—friends, bosses, coworkers, family, or perhaps their video
game, where their characters are in desperate need of help. The other
direction is for people to learn to limit their interactions, to let the tele
phone take messages by text, video or voice, so that the calls can be
returned at a convenient time. I can imagine solutions designed to help
facilitate this, so that the technology within a telephone might negoti
TLFeBOOK
ate with a caller, checking the calendars of each party and setting up a
time to converse, all without bothering any of the individuals.
We need technologies that provide the rich power of interaction
without the disruption: we need to regain control over our lives.
Control, in fact, seems to be the common theme, whether it be to
avoid the frustration, alienation, and anger we feel toward today's
technologies, or to permit us to interact with others reliably, or to keep
tight the bonds between us and our family, friends, and colleagues.
Not every interaction has to be done in real time, with participants
interrupting one another, always available, always responding. The
storeandforward technologies—for example email and voice mail—
allow messages to be sent at the sender's convenience, but then lis
tened to or viewed at the receiver's convenience. We need ways of
intermixing the separate communication methods, so that we could
choose mail, email, telephone, voice, or text as the occasion demands.
People need also to set aside time when they can concentrate without
interruption, so that they can stay focused.
Most of us already do this. We turn off our cell phones and deliber
ately do not carry them at times. We screen our telephone calls, not
answering unless we see—or hear—that it is from someone we really
wish to speak to. We go away to private locations, the better to write,
think, or simply relax.
Today, the technologies are struggling to ensure their ubiquitous
presence, so that no matter where we are, no matter what we are
doing, they are available. That is fine, as long as the choice of whether
to use them remains with the individual at the receiving end. I have
great faith in society. I believe we will come to a sensible accommoda
tion with these technologies. In the early years of any technology, the
potential applications are matched by the alltooapparent drawbacks,
yielding the lovehate relationship so common with new technologies.
Love for the potential, hate for the actuality. But with time, with
improved design of both the technology and the manner in which it is
used, it is possible to minimize the hate and transform the relationship
to one of love.
TLFeBOOK
TLFeBOOK
CHAPTER Six
Emotional Machines
Dave, stop . . . Stop, will you . . . Stop, Dave . . . Will
you stop, Dave . . . Stop, Dave . . . I'm afraid. I'm
afraid ... I'm afraid, Dave . . . Dave ... My mind is
going ... I can feel it ... I can feel it ... My mind is
going . . . There is no question about it ... I can feel
it ... I can feel it ... I'm a. .. fraid.
—HAL, the all-powerful computer,

in the movie 2001
HAL IS C O R R E C T TO BE A F R A I D : Dave is about to shut

him down by dismantling his parts. Of course, Dave is afraid, too:
HAL has killed all the other crew of the spacecraft and made an
unsuccessful attempt on Dave's life.
But why and how does HAL have fear? Is it real fear? I suspect not.
HAL correctly diagnoses Dave's intent: Dave wants to kill him. So
fear—being afraid—is a logical response to the situation. But human
emotions have more than a logical, rational component; they are tight
ly coupled to behavior and feelings. Were HAL a human, he would
fight hard to prevent his death, slam some doors, do something to sur
l6l
TLFeBOOK
vive. He could threaten, "Kill me and you will die, too, as soon as the
air in your backpack runs out." But HAL doesn't do any of this; he
simply states, as a fact, "I'm afraid." HAL has an intellectual knowl
edge of what it means to be afraid, but it isn't coupled to feelings or to
action: it isn't real emotion.
But why would HAL need real emotions to function? Our
machines today don't need emotions. Yes, they have a reasonable
amount of intelligence. But emotions? Nope. But future machines will
need emotions for the same reasons people do: The human emotional
system plays an essential role in survival, social interaction and coop
eration, and learning. Machines will need a form of emotion—
machine emotion—when they face the same conditions, when they
must operate continuously without any assistance from people in the
complex, everchanging world where new situations continually arise.
As machines become more and more capable, taking on many of our
roles, designers face the complex task of deciding just how they shall
be constructed, just how they will interact with one another and with
people. Thus, for the same reason that animals and people haveemo
tions, I believe that machines will also need them. They won't be
human emotions, mind you,but rather emotions that fit the needs of
the machines themselves.
Robots already exist. Most are fairly simple automated arms and
tools in factories, but they are increasing in power and capabilities,
branching out to a much wider array of activities and places. Some do
useful jobs, as do the lawnmowing and vacuumcleaning robots that
already exist. Some, such as the surrogate pets, are playful. Some sim
ple robots are being used for dangerous jobs, such as fire fighting,
searchandrescue missions, or for military purposes. Some robots
even deliver mail, dispense medicine, and take on other relatively sim
ple tasks. As robots become more advanced, they will need only the
simplest of emotions, starting with such practical ones as viscerallike
fear of heights or concern about bumping into things. Robot pets will
have playful, engaging personalities. With time, as these robots gain
in capability, they will come to possess fullfledged emotions: fear and
TLFeBOOK
Six: Emotional Machines 163
FIGURE 6.1
C3PO (left) and R2D2 (right) of Star Wars fame.
Both are remarkably expressive despite R2D2's lack of body and facial structure.
(Courtesy of Lucasfilm Ltd.)
anxiety when in dangerous situations, pleasure when accomplishing a
desired goal, pride in the quality of their work, and subservience and
obedience to their owners. Because many of these robots will work in
the home environment, interacting with people and other household
robots, they will need to display their emotions, to have something
analogous to facial expressions and body language.
Facial expressions and body language are part of the "system
image" of a robot, allowing the people with whom it interacts to have
a better conceptual model of its operation. When we interact with
other people, their facial expressions and body language let us know if
they understand us, if they are puzzled, and if they are in agreement.
We can tell when people are having difficulty by their expressions.
The same sort of nonverbal feedback will be invaluable when we
interact with robots: Do the robots understand their instructions?
TLFeBOOK
When are they working hard at the task? When are they being suc
cessful? When are they having difficulties? Emotional expressions
will let us know their motivations and desires, their accomplishments
and frustrations, and thus will increase our satisfaction and under
standing of the robots: we will be able to tell what they are capable of
and what they aren't.
Finding the right mix of emotions and intelligence is not easy. The
two robots from the Star Wars films, R2D2 and C3PO, act like
machines we might enjoy having around the house. I suspect that part
of their charm is in the way they display their limitations. C3PO is a
clumsy, wellmeaning oaf,pretty incompetent at all tasks except the
one for which he is a specialist: translating languages and machine
communication. R2D2 is designed for interacting with other machines
and has limited physical capabilities. It has to rely upon C3PO to talk
with people.
R2D2 and C3PO show their emotions well, letting the screen char
acters—and the movie audience—understand, empathize with, and, at
times, get annoyed with them. C3PO has a humanlike form, so he can
show facial expressions and body motions: he does a lot of hand wring
ing and body swaying. R2D2 is more limited, but nonetheless very
expressive, showing how able we are to impute emotions when all we
can see is a head shaking, the body moving back and forth, and some
cute but unintelligible sounds. Through the skills of the moviemakers,
the conceptual models underlying R2D2 and C3PO are quite visible.
Thus, people always have pretty accurate understanding of their
strengths and weaknesses, which make them enjoyable and effective.
Movie robots haven't always fared well. Notice what happened to
two movie robots: HAL, of the movie 2001 and David, of the movie
Al (Artificial Intelligence}. HAL is afraid, as the opening quotation of
this chapter illustrates, and properly so. He is being taken apart—basi
cally, being murdered.
David is a robot built to be a surrogate child, taking the place of a
real child in a household. David is sophisticated, but a little too per
fect. According to the story, David is the very first robot to have
TLFeBOOK
"unconditional love." But this is not a true love. Perhaps because it is
"unconditional," it seems artificial, overly strong, and unaccompanied
by the normal human array of emotional states. Normal children may
love their parents, but they also go through stages of dislike, anger,
envy, disgust, and just plain indifference toward them. David does not
exhibit any of these feelings. David's pure love means a happy devoted
child, following his mother's footsteps, quite literally, every second of
the day. This behavior is so irritating that he is finally abandoned by
his foster mother, left in the wilderness, and told not to come back.
The role of emotion in advanced intelligence is a standard theme of
science fiction. Thus, two of the characters from the Star Trek televi
sion shows and films wrestle with the role of emotion and intelligence.
The first, Spock, whose mother is human but whose father is Vulcan,
has essentially no emotions, giving the story writers wonderful oppor
tunities to pit Spock's pure reason against Captain Kirk's human emo
tions. Similarly, in the later series, Lieutenant Commander Data is
pure android, completely artificial, and his lack of emotion provides
similar fodder for the writers, although several episodes tinker with
the possibility of adding an "emotion chip" into Data, as if emotion
were a separate section of the brain that could be added or subtracted
at will. But although the series is fiction, the writers did their home
work well: their portrayal of the role of emotion in decision making
and social interaction is reasonable enough that the psychologists
Robert Sekuler and Randolph Blake found them excellent examples of
the phenomena, appropriate for teaching introductory psychology. In
their book, Star Trek on the Brain, they used numerous examples from
the Star Trek series to illustrate the role of emotion in behavior
(among other topics).
Emotional Things
How will my toaster ever get better, making toast the way I prefer,

unless it has some pride? Machines will not be smart and sensible until
TLFeBOOK
they have both intelligence and emotions. Emotions enable us to

translate intelligence into action.
Without pride in the quality of our actions, why would we endeavor
to do better? The positive emotions are of critical importance to
learning, to maintaining our curiosity about the world. Negative emo
tions may keep us from danger, but it is positive emotions that make
living worthwhile, that guide us to the good things in life, that reward
our successes, and that make us strive to be better.
Pure reason doesn't always suffice. What happens when there isn't
enough information? How do we decide which course of action to
take when there is risk, so that the possibility of harm has to be bal
anced against the emotional gain of success? This is where emotions
play a critical role and where humans who have had neurological dam
age to their emotional systems falter. In the movie 2001, the astronaut
Dave risks his life in order to recover the dead body of his fellow
astronaut. Logically this doesn't make much sense, but in terms of a
long history of human society, it is of great importance. Indeed, this
tendency of people to risk many lives in the effort to rescue a few—or
even to retrieve the dead—is a constant theme in both our real lives
and our fictional ones, in literature, theater, and film.
Robots will need something akin to emotion in order to make these
complex decisions. Will that walkway hold the robot's weight? Is
there some danger lurking behind the post? These decisions require
going beyond perceptual information to use experience and general
knowledge to make inferences about the world and then to use the
emotional system to help assess the situation and move toward action.
With just pure logic, we could spend all day frozen in place, unable to
move as we think through all the possible things that could go
wrong—as happens to some emotionally impaired people. To make
these decisions we need emotions: robots will,too.
Rich, layered systems of affect akin to that of people are not yet a
part of our machines, but some day they will be. Mind you,the affect
required is not necessarily a copy of humans'. Instead, what is needed
is an affective system tuned to the needs of the system. Robots should
TLFeBOOK
be concerned about dangers that might befall them, many of which

are common to people and animals, and some of which are unique to
robots. They need to avoid falling down stairs or off of other edges,
so they should have fear of heights. They should get fatigued, so they
do not wear themselves out and become low on energy (hungry?)
before recharging their battery. They don't have to eat or use a toilet,
but they do need to be serviced periodically: oil their joints, replace
worn parts, and so on. They don't have to worry about cleanliness and
sanitation, but they do need to pay attention to dirt that might get into
their moving parts, dust and dirt on their television lenses, and com
puter viruses that might interfere with their functioning. The affect
that robots require will be both similar to and very different from that
of people.
Even though machine designers may have never considered that
they were building affect or emotion into their machines, they have
built in safety and survival systems. Some of these are like the visceral
level of people: simple, fastacting circuits that detect possible danger
and react accordingly. In other words, survival has already been a part
of most machine design. Many devices have fuses, so that if they sud
denly draw more electric current than normal, the fuse or circuit
breaker opens the electrical circuit, preventing the machine from dam
aging itself (and, along the way,preventing it from damaging us or
the environment). Similarly, some computers have noninterruptible
power supplies, so that if the electric power fails, they quickly and
immediately switch to battery power. The battery gives them time to
shut down in an orderly and graceful fashion, saving all their data and
sending notices to human operators. Some equipment has temperature
or waterlevel sensors. Some detect the presence of people and refuse
to operate whenever someone is in a proscribed zone. Existing robots
and other mobile systems already have sensors and visual systems that
prevent them from hitting people and other objects or falling down
stairs. So simple safety and survival is already a part of many designs.
In people and animals, the impact of the visceral system doesn't
cease with an initial response. The visceral level signals higher levels
TLFeBOOK
of processing to try to determine the causes of the problem and to

determine an effective response. Machines should do the same.
Any system that is autonomous—that is intended to exist by itself,
without a caretaker always guiding it—continually has to decide
which of many possible activities to do. In technical terms, it needs a
scheduling system. Even people have difficulty with this task. If we
are working hard to finish an important task, when should we take a
break to eat, sleep, or to do some other activity that is perhaps
required of us but not nearly so urgent? How do we fit the many
activities that have to be done into the limited hours of the day, know
ing when to put one aside, when not to? Which is more important:
The critical proposal due tomorrow morning or planning a family
birthday celebration? These are difficult problems that no machine
today can even contemplate but that people face every day. These are
precisely the sorts of decisionmaking and control problems for which
the emotional system is so helpful.
Many machines are designed to work even though individual com
ponents may fail. This behavior is critical in safetyrelated systems,
such as airplanes and nuclear power reactors, and very valuable in
systems that are performing critical operations, such as some comput
er systems, hospitals, and anything dealing with the vital infrastruc
ture of society. But what happens when a component fails and the
automatic backups take over? Here is where the affective system
would be useful.
The component failure should be detected at the visceral level and
used to trigger an alert: in essence, the system would become "anx
ious." The result of this increased anxiety should be to cause the
machine to act more conservatively, perhaps slowing down or post
poning noncritical jobs. In other words, why shouldn't machines
behave like people who have become anxious? They would be cau
tious even while attempting to remove the cause of anxiety. With peo
ple, behavior becomes more focused until the cause and an
appropriate response are determined. Whatever the response for
machine systems, some change in normal behavior is required.
TLFeBOOK
Animals and humans have developed sophisticated mechanisms for
surviving in an unpredictable, dynamic world, coupling the appraisals
and evaluations of affect to methods for modulating the overall sys
tem. The result is increased robustness and error tolerance. Our artifi
cial systems would do well to learn from their example.
Emotional Robots
The 1980s was the decade of the PC,

the 90s of the Internet, but I believe the
decade just starting will be the decade
of the robot.
—Sony Corporation Executive
Suppose we wish to build a robot capable of living in the home, wan

dering about, fitting comfortably into the family—what would it do?
When asked this question, most people first think of handing over
their daily chores. The robot should be a servant, cleaning the house,
taking care of the chores. Everyone seems to want a robot that will do
the dishes or the laundry. Actually, today's dishwashers and clothes
washers and dryers could be considered to be very simple, special
purpose robots, but what people really have in mind is something that
will go around the house and collect the dirty dishes and clothes, sort
and wash them, and then put them back to their proper places—after,
of course, pressing and folding the clean clothes. All of these tasks are
quite difficult, beyond the capabilities of the first few generations of
robots.
Today, robots are not yet household objects. They show up in sci
ence fairs and factory floors, searchandrescue missions, and other
specialized events. But this will change. Sony has announced this to be
the decade of the robot, and even if Sony is too optimistic, I do pre
dict that robots will blossom forth during the first half of the twenty
first century.
TLFeBOOK
1 70 Emotional Design
FIGURE 6.2a and b

Home robots of the early twenty-first century.
Figure a, ER2, a prototype of a home robot from Evolution Robotics.
Figure b, Sony's Aibo, a pet robot dog.
(Image of ER2 courtesy of Evolution Robotics. Image of "Three Aibos on a wall"
courtesy of Sony Electronics Inc., Entertainment America, Robot Division.)
Robots will take many forms. I can imagine a family of robot appli

ances in the kitchen—refrigerator, pantry, coffeemaker, cooking, and
dishwasher robots—all configured to communicate with one another
and to transfer food, dishes, and utensils back and forth. The home
servant robot wanders about, picking up dirty dishes, delivering them
to the dishwasher robot. The dishwasher, in turn, delivers clean dishes
and utensils to the robot pantry, which stores them until needed by
person or robot. The pantry, refrigerator, and cooking robots work
smoothly to prepare the day's menu and, finally, place the completed
meal onto dishes provided by the pantry robot.
Some robots will take care of children by playing with them, read
ing to them, singing songs. Educational toys are already doing this,
and the sophisticated robot could act as a powerful tutor, starting with
the alphabet, reading, and arithmetic, but soon expanding to almost
any topic. Neal Stephenson's science fiction novel, The Diamond Age,
TLFeBOOK
does a superb job of showing how an interactive book, The Young

Lady's Illustrated Primer., can take over the entire education of young
girls from age four through adulthood. The illustrated primer is still
some time in the future, but more limited tutors are already in exis
tence. In addition to education, some robots will do household chores:
vacuuming, dusting, and cleaning up. Eventually their range of abili
ties will expand. Some may end up being built into homes or furniture.
Some will be mobile, capable of wandering about on their own.
These developments will require a coevolutionary process of adap
tation for both people and devices. This is common with our technolo
gies: we reconfigure the way we live and work to make things possible
for our machines to function. The most dramatic coevolution is the
automobile system, for which we have altered our homes to include
garages and driveways sized and equipped for the automobile, and
built a massive worldwide highway system, traffic signaling systems,
pedestrian passageways, and huge parking lots. Homes, too, have been
transformed to accommodate the multiple wires and pipes of the ever
increasing infrastructure of modern life: hot and cold water, waste
return, air vents to the roof, heating and cooling ducts, electricity, tele
phone, television, internet and home computer and entertainment net
works. Doors have to be wide enough for our furniture, and many
homes have to accommodate wheelchairs and people using walkers.
Just as we have accommodated the home for all these changes, I expect
modification to accommodate robots. Slow modification, to be sure,
but as robots increase in usefulness, we will ensure their success by
minimizing obstacles and, eventually, building charging stations,
cleaning and maintenance places, and so on. After all, the vacuum
cleaner robot will need a place to empty its dirt, and the garbage robot
will need to be able to carry the garbage outside the home. I wouldn't
be surprised to see robot quarters in homes, that is, specially built nich
es where the robots can reside, out of the way, when they are not
active. We have closets and pantries for today's appliances, so why not
ones especially equipped for robots, with doors that can be controlled
by the robot, electrical outlets, interior lights so robots can see to clean
TLFeBOOK
themselves (and plug themselves into the outlets), and waste recepta

cles where appropriate.
Robots, especially at first, will probably require smooth floors,
without obstacles. Door thresholds might have to be eliminated or
minimized. Some locations—especially stairways—might have to be
especially marked, perhaps with lights, infrared transmitters, or sim
ply special reflective tape. Barcodes or distinctive markers posted here
and there in the home would enormously simplify the robot's ability
to recognize its location.
Consider how a servant robot might bring a drink to its owner.
Ask for a can of soda, and off goes the robot, obediently making its
way to the kitchen and the refrigerator, which is where the soda is
kept. Understanding the command and navigating to the refrigerator
are relatively simple. Figuring out how to open the door, find the can,
and extract it is not so simple. Giving the servant robot the dexterity,
the strength, and the nonslip wheels that would allow it to pull open
the refrigerator door is quite a feat. Providing the vision system that
can find the soda, especially if it is completely hidden behind other
food items, is difficult, and then figuring out how to extract the can
without destroying objects in the way is beyond today's capabilities
in robot arms.
How much simpler it would be if there were a drink dispenser
robot tailored to the needs of the servant robot. Imagine a drinkdis
pensing robot appliance capable of holding six or twelve cans, refrig
erated, with an automatic door and a pusharm. The servant robot
could go to the drink robot, announce its presence and its request
(probably by an infrared or radio signal), and place its tray in front of
the dispenser. The drink robot would slide open its door, push out a
can, and close the door again: no complex vision, no dexterous arm,
no forceful opening of the door. The servant robot would receive the
can on its tray, and then go back to its owner.
In a similar way, we might modify the dishwasher to make it easier
for a home robot to load it with dirty dishes, perhaps give it special
trays with designated slots for different dishes. But as long as we are
TLFeBOOK
doing that, why not make the pantry a specialized robot, one capable
of removing the clean dishes from the dishwasher and storing them
for later use? The special trays would help the pantry as well. Perhaps
the pantry could automatically deliver cups to the coffeemaker and
plates to the home cooking robot, which is, of course, connected to
refrigerator, sink, and trash. Does this sound farfetched? Perhaps,
but, in fact, our household appliances are already complex, many of
them with multiple connections to services. The refrigerator has con
nections to electric power and water. Some are already connected to
the internet. The dishwasher and clothes washer have electricity,
water and sewer connections. Integrating these units so that they can
work smoothly with one another does not seem all that difficult.
I imagine that the home will contain a number of specialized
robots: the servant is perhaps the most general purpose, but it would
work together with a cleaning robot, the drink dispensing robot, per
haps some outside gardening robots, and a family of kitchen robots,
such as dishwasher, coffeemaking, and pantry robots. As these
robots are developed, we will probably also design specialized objects
in the home that simplify the tasks for the robots, coevolving robot
and home to work smoothly together. Note that the end result will be
better for people as well. Thus, the drink dispenser robot would allow
anyone to walk up to it and ask for a can, except that you wouldn't use
infrared or radio, you might push a button or perhaps just ask.
I am not alone in imagining this coevolution of robots and homes.
Rodney Brooks, one of the world's leading roboticists, head of the
MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and founder of a company that
builds home and commercial robots, imagines a rich ecology of envi
ronments and robots, with specialized ones living on devices, each
responsible to keep its domain clean: one does the bathtub, another the
toilet; one does windows, another manipulates mirrors. Brooks even
contemplates a robot dining room table, with storage area and dish
washer built into its base so that "when we want to set the table, small
robotic arms, not unlike the ones in a jukebox, will bring the required
dishes and cutlery out onto the place settings. As each course is fin
TLFeBOOK
ished, the table and its little robot arms would grab the plates and

devour them into the large internal volume underneath."
What should a robot look like? Robots in the movies often look like
people, with two legs, two arms, and a head. But why? Form should
follow function. The fact that we have legs allows us to navigate irreg
ular terrain, something an animal on wheels could not do. The fact
that we have two hands allows us to lift and manipulate, with one hand
helping the other. The humanoid shape has evolved over eons of
interaction with the world to cope efficiently and effectively with it.
So, where the demands upon a robot are similar to those upon people,
having a similar shape might be sensible.
If robots don't have to move—such as drink, dishwasher, or pantry
robots—they need not have any means of locomotion, neither legs
nor wheels. If the robot is a coffeemaker, it should look like acof
feemaker, modified to allow it to connect to the dishwasher and
pantry. Robot vacuum cleaners and lawn mowers already exist, and
their appearance is perfectly suited to their tasks: small, squat devices,
with wheels (see figure 6.3). A robot car should look like a car.It is
only the generalpurpose home servant robots that are apt to look like
animals or humans. The robot dining room table envisioned by
Brooks would be especially bizarre, with a large central column to
house the dishes and dishwashing equipment (complete with electric
power, water and sewer connections). The top of the table would have
places for the robot arms to manipulate the dishes and probably some
stalk to hold the cameras that let the arms know where to place and
retrieve the dishes and cutlery.
Should a robot have legs? Not if it only has to maneuver about on
smooth surfaces—wheels will do for this; but if it has to navigate
irregular terrain or stairs, legs would be useful. In this case, we can
expect the first legged robots to have four or six legs: balancing is far
simpler for four and sixlegged creatures than for those with only
two legs.
If the robot is to wander about a home and pick up after the occu
pants, it probably will look something like an animal or a person: a
TLFeBOOK
FIGURE 6.3
What should a robot look like?
The Roomba is a vacuum cleaner, its shape appropriate for running around
the floor and maneuvering itself under the furniture. This robot doesn't look
like either a person or an animal, nor should it: its shape fits the task.
(Courtesy of iRobot Inc.)
body to hold the batteries and to support the legs, wheels, or tracks for
locomotion; hands to pick up objects; and cameras (eyes) on top
where they can better survey the environment. In other words, some
robots will look like an animal or human, not because this is cute, but
because it is the most effective configuration for the task. These
robots will probably look something like R2D2 (figure 6.1): a cylin
drical or rectangular body on top of some wheels, tracks, or legs;
some form of manipulable arm or tray; and sensors all around to
detect obstacles, stairs, people, pets, other robots, and, of course the
objects they are supposed to interact with. Except for pure entertain
ment value, it is difficult to understand why we would ever want a
robot that looked like C3PO.
In fact, making a robot humanlike might backfire, making it less
acceptable. Masahiro Mori, a Japanese roboticist, has argued that we
are least accepting of creatures that look very human, but that per
TLFeBOOK
form badly, a concept demonstrated in film and theater by the terrify
ing nature of zombies and monsters (think of Frankenstein's monster)
that take on human form, but with inhuman movement and ghastly
appearance. We are not nearly so dismayed—or frightened—by non
human shapes and forms. Even perfect replicas of humans might be
problematic, for even if the robot could not be distinguished from
humans, this very lack of distinction can lead to emotional angst (a
theme explored in many a science fiction novel, especially Philip K.
Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and, in movie version,
Blade Runner). According to this line of argument, C3PO gets away
with its humanoid form because it is so clumsy, both in manner and
behavior, that it appears more cute or even irritating than threatening.
Robots that serve human needs—for example, robots as pets—
should probably look like living creatures, if only to tap into our vis
ceral system, which is prewired to interpret human and animal body
language and facial expressions. Thus, an animal or a childlike shape
together with appropriate body actions, facial expressions, and
sounds will be most effective if the robot is to interact successfully
with people.
Affect and Emotion in Robots
What emotions will a robot need to have? The answer depends upon

the sort of robot we are thinking about, the tasks it is to perform, the
nature of the environment, and what its social life is like. Does it inter
act with other robots, animals, machines, or people? If so, it will need
to express its own emotional state as well as to assess the emotions of
the people and animals it interacts with.
Think about the average, everyday home robot. These don't yet
exist, but some day the house will become populated with robots.
Some home robots will be fixed in place, specialized, such as kitchen
robots: for example, the pantry, dishwasher, drink dispenser, fooddis
penser, coffeemaker, or cooking unit robots. And, of course, clothes
TLFeBOOK
washer, drier, iron, and clothesfolding robots, perhaps coupled to

wardrobe robots. Some will be mobile, but also specialized, such as
the robots that vacuum the floors and mow the lawn. But probably we
will also have at least one generalpurpose robot: the home servant
robot, that brings us coffee, cleans up, does simple errands, and looks
after and supervises the other robots. It is the home robot that is of
most interest, because it will have to be the most flexible and
advanced.
Servant robots will need to interact with us and with the other
robots of the house. For the other robots, they could use wireless
communication. They could discuss the jobs they were doing,
whether or not they were overloaded or idle. They could also state
when they were running low on supplies and when they sensed diffi
culties, problems, or errors and call upon one another for help. But
what about when robots interact with people? How will this happen?
Servant robots need to be able to communicate with their owners.
Some way of issuing commands is needed, some way of clarifying the
ambiguities, changing a command in midstream ("Forget the coffee,
bring me a glass of water instead"), and dealing with all of the com
plexities of human language. Today, we can't do that, so robots that
are built now will have to rely upon very simple commands or even
some sort of remote controller, where a person pushes the appropriate
buttons, generates a wellstructured command, or selects actions from
a menu. But the time will come when we can interact in speech, with
the robots understanding not just the words but the meanings behind
them.
When should a robot volunteer to help its owners? Here, robots will
need to be able to assess the emotional state of people. Is someone
struggling to do a task? The robot might want to volunteer to help. Are
the people in the house arguing? The robot might wish to go to some
other room, out of the way. Did something bring pleasure? The robot
might wish to remember that, so it could do it again when appropriate.
Was an action poorly done, so the person showed disappointment?
Perhaps the action could be improved, so that next time the robot
TLFeBOOK
would produce better results. For all these reasons, and more, the robot
will need to be designed with the ability to read the emotional state of
its owners.
A robot will need to have eyes and ears (cameras and microphones)
to read facial expressions, body language, and the emotional compo
nents of speech. It will have to be sensitive to tones of voice, the
tempo of speech, and its amplitude, so that it can recognize anger,
delight, frustration, or joy. It needs to be able to recognize scolding
voices from praising ones. Note that all of these states can be recog
nized just by their sound quality without the need to recognize the
words or language. Notice that you can determine other people's
emotional states just by the tone of voice alone. Try it: Make believe
you are in any one of those states—angry, happy, scolding, or prais
ing—and express yourself while keeping your lips firmly sealed. You
can do it entirely with the sounds, without speaking a word. These are
universal sound patterns.
Similarly, the robot should display its emotional state, much as a
person does (or, perhaps more appropriately, as a pet dog or child
does), so that the people with whom it is interacting can tell when a
request is understood, when it is something easy to do, difficult to do,
or perhaps even when the robot judges it to be inappropriate.
Similarly, the robot should show pleasure and displeasure, an ener
getic appearance or exhaustion, confidence or anxiety when appropri
ate. If it is stuck, unable to complete a task, it should show its
frustration. It will be as valuable for the robot to display its emotional
state as it is for people to do so. The expressions of the robot will
allow us humans to understand the state of the robot, thereby learning
which tasks are appropriate for it, which are not. As a result, we can
clarify instructions or even offer help, eventually learning to take bet
ter advantage of the robot's capabilities.
Many people in the robotics and computer research community
believe that the way to display emotionsis to have a robot decide
whether it is happy or sad, angry or upset, and then display the appro
priate face, usually an exaggerated parody of a person in those states. I
TLFeBOOK
argue strongly against this approach. It is fake, and, moreover, it looks
fake. This is not how people operate. We don't decide that we are
happy, and then put on a happy face, at least not normally. This is
what we do when we are trying to fool someone. But think about all
those professionals who are forced to smile no matter what the cir
cumstance: they fool no one—they look just like they are forcing a
smile, as indeed they are.
The way humans show facial expression is by automatic innerva
tion of the large number of muscles involved in controlling the face
and body. Positive affect leads to relaxation of some muscle groups,
automatic pulling up of many facial muscles (hence the smile, raised
eyebrows and cheeks, etc.), and a tendency to open up and draw clos
er to the positive event or thing. Negative affect has the opposite
impact, causing withdrawal, to push away. Some muscles are tensed,
and some of the facial muscles pull downward (hence the frown).
Most affective states are complex mixtures of positive and negative
valence, at differing levels of arousal, with some residue of the imme
diately previous states. The resulting expressions are rich and inform
ative. And real.
Fake emotions look fake: we are very good at detecting false
attempts to manipulate us. Thus, many of the computer systems we
interact with—the ones with cute, smiling helpers and artificially
sweet voices and expressions—tend to be more irritating than useful.
"How do I turn this off?" is a question often asked of me, and I have
become adept at disabling them, both in my own computers or those
of others who seek to be released from the irritation.
I have argued that machines should indeed both have and display
emotions, the better for us to interact with them. This is precisely why
the emotions need to appear as natural and ordinary as human emo
tions. They must be real, a direct reflection of the internal states and
processing of a robot. We need to know when a robot is confident or
confused, secure or worried, understanding our queries or not, work
ing on our request or ignoring us. If the facial and body expressions
reflect the underlying processing, then the emotional displays will
TLFeBOOK
seem genuine precisely because they are real. Then we can interpret

their state, they can interpret ours, and the communication and inter
action will flow ever more smoothly.
I am not the only person to have reached this conclusion. MIT
Professor Rosalind Picard once said, talking about whether robots
should have emotions, "I wasn't sure they had to have emotions until I
was writing up a paper on how they would respond intelligently to our
emotions without having their own. In the course of writing that
paper, I realized it would be a heck of a lot easier if we just gave them
emotions."
Once robots have emotions, then they need to be able to display
them in a way that people can interpret—that is, as body language and
facial expressions similar to human ones. Thus, the robot's face and
body should have internal actuators that act and react like human mus
cles according to the internal states of the robot. People's faces are
richly endowed with muscle groups in chin, lips, nostrils, eyebrows,
forehead, cheeks, and so on. This complex of muscles makes for a
sophisticated signaling system, and if robots were created in a similar
way, the features of the face will naturally smile when things are going
well and frown when difficulties arise. For this purpose, robot design
ers need to study and understand the complex workings of human
expressions, with its very rich set of muscles and ligaments tightly
intertwined with the affective system.
Displaying full facial emotions is actually very difficult. Figure 6.4
shows Leonardo, Professor Cynthia Breazeal's robot at the MIT
Media Laboratory, designed to control a vast array of facial features,
neck, body, and arm movements, all the better to interact socially and
emotionally with us. There is a lot going on inside our bodies, and
much the same complexity is required within the faces of robots.
But what of the underlying emotional states? What should these
be? As I've discussed, at the least, the robot should be cautious of
heights, wary of hot objects, and sensitive to situations that might lead
to hurt or injury. Fear, anxiety, pain, and unhappiness might all be
appropriate states for a robot. Similarly, it should have positive states,
TLFeBOOK
FIGURE 6.4
The complexity of robot facial musculature.
MIT Professor Cynthia Breazeal with her robot Leonardo.
(Photograph by author.)
including pleasure, satisfaction, gratitude, happiness and pride, which

would enable it to learn from its actions, to repeat the positive ones
and improve, where possible.
Surprise is probably essential. When what happens is not what is
expected, the surprised robot should interpret this as a warning. If a
room unexpectedly gets dark, or maybe the robot bumps into some
thing it didn't expect, a prudent response is to stop all movement and
figure out why. Surprise means that a situation is not as anticipated,
and that planned or current behavior is probably no longer appropri
ate—hence, the need to stop and reassess.
Some states, such as fatigue, pain, or hunger, are simpler, for they
do not require expectations or predictions, but rather simple monitor
ing of internal sensors. (Fatigue and hunger are technically not affec
tive states, but they can be treated as if they were.) In the human,
TLFeBOOK
sensors of physical states signal fatigue, hunger, or pain. Actually, in

people, pain is a surprisingly complex system, still not well under
stood. There are millions of pain receptors, plus a wide variety of
brain centers involved in interpreting the signals, sometimes enhanc
ing sensitivity, sometimes suppressing it. Pain serves as a valuable
warning system, preventing us from damaging ourselves and, if we
are injured, acting as a reminder not to stress the damaged parts fur
ther. Eventually it might be useful for robots to feel pain when motors
or joints were strained. This would lead robots to limit their activities
automatically, and thus protect themselves against further damage.
Frustration would be a useful affect, preventing servant robots
from getting stuck doing a task to the neglect of its other duties. Here
is how it would work. I ask the servant robot to bring me a cup of cof
fee. Off it goes to the kitchen, only to have the coffee robot explain
that it can't give any because it lacks clean cups. Then the coffeemaker
might ask the pantry robot for more cups, but suppose that it, too, did
n't have any. The pantry would have to pass on the request to the dish
washer robot. And now suppose that the dishwasher didn't have any
dirty ones it could wash. The dishwasher would ask the servant robot
to search for dirty cups so that it could wash them, give them to the
pantry, which would feed them to the coffeemaker, which in turn
would give the coffee to the servant robot. Alas, the servant would
have to decline the dishwasher's request to wander about the house: it
is still busy at its main task—waiting for coffee.
This situation is called "deadlock." In this case, nothing can be
done because each machine is waiting for the next, and the final
machine is waiting for the first. This particular problem could be
solved by giving the robots more and more intelligence, learning how
to solve each new problem, but problems always arise faster than
designers can anticipate them. These deadlock situations are difficult
to eliminate because each one arises from a different set of circum
stances. Frustration provides a general solution.
Frustration is a useful affect for both humans and machines, for
when things reach that point, it is time to quit and do something else.
TLFeBOOK
The servant robot should get frustrated waiting for the coffee, so it

should temporarily give up. As soon as the servant robot gives up the
quest for coffee, it is free to attend to the dishwasher's request, go off
and find the dirty coffee cups. This would automatically solve the
deadlock: the servant robot would find some dirty cups, deliver them
to the dishwasher, which would eventually let the coffeemaker make
the coffee and let me get my coffee, although with some delay.
Could the servant robot learn from this experience? It should add
to its list of activities the periodic collection of dirty dishes, so that the
dishwasher/pantry would never run out again. This is where some
pride would come in handy. Without pride, the robot doesn't care: it
has no incentive to learn to do things better. Ideally, the robot would
take pride in avoiding difficulties, in never getting stuck at the same
problem more than once. This attitude requires that robots have posi
tive emotions, emotions that make them feel good about themselves,
that cause them to get better and better at their jobs, to improve, per
haps even to volunteer to do new tasks, to learn new ways of doing
things. Pride in doing a good job, in pleasing their owners.
Machines That Sense Emotion

The extent to which emotional upsets can
interfere with mental life is no news to teach-
ers. Students who are anxious, angry, or
depressed don't learn; people who are caught
in these states do not take in information effi-
ciently or deal with it well.
—Daniel Goleman,
Emotional Intelligence
Suppose machines could sense the emotions of people. What if they

were as sensitive to the moods of their users as a good therapist might
be? What if an electronic, computercontrolled educational system
TLFeBOOK
FIGURE 6.5
MIT's Affective Computing program.
The diagram indicates the complexity of the human affective system and
the challenges required to monitor affect properly. From the work of Prof.
Rosalind Picard of MIT.
(Drawing courtesy of Roz Picard and Jonathan Klein.)
could sense when the learner was doing well, was frustrated, or was
proceeding appropriately? Or what if the home appliances and robots
of the future could change their operations according to the moods of
their owners? What then?
Professor Rosalind Picard at the MIT Media Laboratory leads a
research effort entitled "Affective Computing," an attempt to develop
machines that can sense the emotions of the people with whom they
are interacting, and then respond accordingly. Her research group has
made considerable progress in developing measuring devices to sense
fear and anxiety, unhappiness and distress. And, of course, satisfaction
TLFeBOOK
and happiness. Figure 6.5 is taken from their web site and demon

strates the variety of issues that must be addressed.
How are someone's emotions sensed? The body displays itsemo
tional state in a variety of ways. There are, of course, facial expres
sions and body language. Can people control their expressions? Well,
yes, but the visceral layer works automatically, and although the
behavioral and reflective levels can try to inhibit visceral reaction,
complete suppression does not appear to be possible. Even the most
controlled person, the socalled pokerface who keeps a neutral dis
play of emotional responses no matter what the situation, still has
microexpressions—short, fleeting expressions that can be detected
by trained observers.
In addition to the responses of one's musculature, there are many
physiological responses. For example, although the size of the eye's
pupil is affected by light intensity, it is also an indicator of emotional
arousal. Become interested or emotionally aroused, and the pupil
widens. Work hard on a problem, and it widens. These responses are
involuntary, so it is difficult—probably impossible—for a person to
control them. One reason professional gamblers sometimes wear tint
ed eyeglasses even in dark rooms is to prevent their opponents from
detecting changes in the size of their pupils.
Heart rate, blood pressure, breathing rate, and sweating are com
mon measures that are used to derive affective state. Even amounts of
sweating so small that the person can be unaware of it can trigger a
change in the skin's electrical conductivity. All of these measures can
readily be detected by the appropriate electronics.
The problem is that these simple physiological measures are indi
rect measures of affect. Each is affected by numerous things, not just
by affect or emotion. As a result, although these measures are used in
many clinical and applied settings, they must be interpreted with care.
Thus, consider the workings of the socalled lie detector. A lie detec
tor is, if anything, an emotion detector. The method is technically
called "polygraph testing" because it works by simultaneously record
TLFeBOOK
ing and graphing multiple physiological measures such as heart rate,
breathing rate, and skin conductance. A lie detector does not detect
falsehoods; it detects a person's affective response to a series of ques
tions being asked by the examiner, where some of the answers are
assumed to be truthful (and thus show low affective responses) and
some deceitful (and thus show high affective arousal). It is easy to see
why lie detectors are so controversial. Innocent people might have
large emotional responses to critical questions while guilty people
might show no response to the same questions.
Skilled operators of lie detectors try to compensate for these diffi
culties by the use of control questions to calibrate a person's responses.
For example, by asking a question to which they expect a lie in
response, but that is not relevant to the issue at hand, they can see
what a lie response looks like in the person being tested. This is done
by interviewing the suspect and then developing a series of questions
designed to ferret out normal deviant behavior, behavior in which the
examiner has no interest, but where the suspect is likely to lie. One
question commonly used in the United States is "Did you ever steal
something when you were a teenager?"
Because lie detectors record underlying physiological states asso
ciated with emotions rather than with lies, they are not very reliable,
yielding both misses (when a lie is not detected because it produces
no emotional response) and false alarms (when the nervous suspect
produces emotional responses even though he or she is not guilty).
Skilled operators of these machines are aware of the pitfalls, and
some use the lie detector test as a means of eliciting a confession:
people who truly believe the lie detector can "read minds" might
confess just because of their fear of the test. I have spoken to skilled
operators who readily agree to the critique I just provided, but are
proud of their record of eliciting voluntary confessions. But even
innocent people have sometimes confessed to crimes they did not
commit, strange as this might seem. The record of accuracy is
flawed enough that the National Research Council of the United
States National Academies performed a lengthy, thorough study and
TLFeBOOK
concluded that polygraph testing is too flawed for security screening

and legal use.
S U P P O S E WE could detect a person's emotional state, then what?
How should we respond? This is a major, unsolved problem.
Consider the classroom situation. If a student is frustrated, should we
try to remove the frustration, or is the frustration a necessary part of
learning? If an automobile driver is tense and stressed, what is the
appropriate response?
The proper response to an emotion clearly depends upon the situa
tion. If a student is frustrated because the information provided is not
clear or intelligible, then knowing about the frustration is important to
the instructor, who presumably can correct the problem through fur
ther explanation. (In my experience, however, this often fails, because
an instructor who causes such frustration in the first place is usually
poorly equipped to understand how to remedy the problem.)
If the frustration is due to the complexity of the problem, then the
proper response of a teacher might be to do nothing. It is normal and
proper for students to become frustrated when attempting to solve
problems slightly beyond their ability, or to do something that has
never been done before. In fact, if students aren't occasionally frus
trated, it probably is a bad thing—it means they aren't taking enough
risks, they aren't pushing themselves sufficiently.
Still, it probably is good to reassure frustrated students, to explain
that some amount of frustration is appropriate and even necessary.
This is a good kind of frustration that leads to improvement and
learning. If it goes on too long, however, the frustration can lead stu
dents to give up, to decide that the problem is above their ability. Here
is where it is necessary to offer advice, tutorial explanations, or other
guidance.
What of frustrations shown by students that have nothing to do
with the class, that might be the result of some personal experience,
outside the classroom? Here it isn't clear what to do. The instructor,
TLFeBOOK
whether person or machine, is not apt to be a good therapist.
Expressing sympathy might or might not be the best or most appro
priate response.
Machines that can sense emotions are an emerging new frontier of
research, one that raises as many questions as it addresses, both in how
machines might detect emotions and in how to determine the most
appropriate way of responding. Note that while we struggle to deter
mine how to make machines respond appropriately to signs of emo
tions, people aren't particularly good at it either. Many people have
great difficulty responding appropriately to others who are experienc
ing emotional distress: sometimes their attempts to be helpful make
the problem worse. And many are surprisingly insensitive to the emo
tional states of others, even people whom they know well. It is natural
for people under emotional strain to try to hide the fact, and most peo
ple are not experts in detecting emotional signs.
Still, this is an important research area. Even if we are never able to
develop machines that can respond completely appropriately, the
research should inform us both about human emotion and also about
humanmachine interaction.
Machines That Induce

Emotion in People
It is surprisingly easy to get people to have an intense emotional expe
rience with even the simplest of computer systems. Perhaps the earli
est such experience was with Eliza, a computer program developed by
the MIT computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum. Eliza was a simple
program that worked by following a small number of conversational
scripts that had been prepared in advance by the programmer (origi
nally, this was Weizenbaum). By following these scripts, Eliza could
interact with a person on whatever subject the script had prepared it
for. Here is an example. When you started the program, it would greet
you by saying: "Hello. I am ELIZA. How can I help you?" If you
TLFeBOOK
S i x : E m o t i o n a l M a c h i n e s 189
responded by typing: "I am concerned about the increasing level of

violence in the world," Eliza would respond: "How long have you been
concerned about the increasing level of violence in the world?" That's
a relevant question, so a natural reply would be something like, "Just
the last few months," to which Eliza would respond, "Please go on."
You can see how you might get captured by the conversation: your
concerns received sympathetic responses. But Eliza has no understand
ing of language. It simply finds patterns and responds appropriately
(saying "Please go on" when it doesn't recognize the pattern). Thus, it
is easy to fool Eliza by typing: "I am concerned about abc, def, and for
that matter, ghi," to which Eliza would dutifully reply: "How long
have you been concerned about abc, def, and for that matter, ghi?"
Eliza simply recognizes the phrase "I am concerned about X" and
replies, "How long have you been concerned about X?" with
absolutely no understanding of the words.
Because most people took Eliza seriously, they did not try to trick
it. Instead, they took each reply seriously, pondering their hidden
meanings. As a result, they would sometimes discover themselves in
deep, philosophical debate or, in the most popular version of Eliza that
was scripted to act like a psychotherapist, they would find themselves
discussing their most intimate secrets.
In the mid1960s, one of my longterm friends and research collab
orators, Daniel Bobrow, was a research scientist at BBN, a
Cambridge, Massachusetts company doing research in artificial intel
ligence, computer networks, and acoustics. Bobrow told me that a
programmer, having worked hard to get Eliza working on a BBN
computer, finally finished about 5:00 A.M. Saturday morning and then
went home, leaving the program running on the computer. (In those
days—this was 1966—personal computers were unheard of, and only
advanced companies, such as BBN, even had computers for its
employees to use, which is one reason programmers had to work at
night to get computer time.)
The vice president of Bobrow's division came in later that Saturday
morning to demonstrate the computer to some customers. Seeing that
TLFeBOOK
the computer was running, he assumed that Bobrow was using it from
home, and,according to Bobrow, "decided to use the 'obvious'com
munication link I must have left going" to chat with him. So the VP
typed some questions for Bobrow. But Bobrow was at home, asleep,
and what ensued was actually taking place between Eliza and the VP,
who assumed these responses came from Bobrow:
VP: Do you think that I can use the computer this morning?
Eliza: Why do you ask?
VP: I might be able to make some additional Telcom sales.
Eliza: Why aren't you so sure?
VP: My prospective customers have never seen a demonstration
of the system.
Eliza: Does this mean very much to you?
VP: Of course it does.
Eliza: You seem very positive about that.
VP: This is ridiculous.
Eliza: What do you mean, this is ridiculous?
VP: Is there any reason why I can't use the computer now?
Eliza: Tell me more about your prospective customers.
VP: Please dial me up on 4911850
In those days, computers were not very powerful, and the only way
that the Eliza program could tell when a person had finished a sen
tence was by noticing a period. Up to that last line, the VP had fin
ished each line with a period, but this time he neglected it. As a result,
the computer kept waiting for more typing and, therefore, didn't
answer. According to Bobrow, "This so infuriated the VP, who
thought I was playing games with him, that he called me up, woke me
from a deep sleep, and said: 'Why are you being so snotty tome?'
'What do you mean I am being snotty to you?,' I answered." Then,
Bobrow told me, "The VP angrily read me the dialog that 'we' had
been having, and couldn't get any response but laughter from me. It
took a while to convince him it really was a computer."
TLFeBOOK
As Bobrow told me when I discussed this interaction with him,
"You can see he cared a lot about the answers to his questions, and
what he thought were my remarks had an emotional effect on him."
We are extremely trusting, which makes us very easy to fool, and very
angry when we think we aren't being taken seriously.
The reason Eliza had such a powerful impact is related to the dis
cussions in chapter 5 on the human tendency to believe that any intel
ligentseeming interaction must be due to a human or, at least, an
intelligent presence: anthropomorphism. Moreover, because we are
trusting, we tend to take these interactions seriously. Eliza was written
a long time ago, but its creator, Joseph Weizenbaum, was horrified by
the seriousness with which his simple system was taken by so many
people who interacted with it. His concerns led him to write Computer
Power and Human Reason, in which he argued most cogently that these
shallow interactions were detrimental to human society.
We have come a long way since Eliza was written. Computers of
today are thousands of times more powerful than they were in the
1960s and, more importantly, our knowledge of human behavior and
psychology has improved dramatically. As a result, today we can write
programs and build machines that, unlike Eliza, have some true under
standing and can exhibit true emotions. However, this doesn't mean
that we have escaped from Weizenbaum's concerns. Consider Kismet.
Kismet, whose photograph is shown in figure 6.6, was developed
by a team of researchers at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
and reported upon in detail in Cynthia Breazeal's Designing Sociable
Robots.
Recall that the underlying emotions of speech can be detected with
out any language understanding. Angry, scolding, pleading, consol
ing, grateful, and praising voices all have distinctive pitch and
loudness contours. We can tell which of these states someone is in
even if they are speaking in a foreign language. Our pets can often
detect our moods through both our body language and the emotional
patterns within our voices.
Kismet uses these cues to detect the emotional state of the person
TLFeBOOK
FIGURE 6.6
Kismet, a robot designed for social interactions, looking surprised.
(Image courtesy of Cynthia Breazeal.)
with whom it is interacting. Kismet has video cameras for eyes and a
microphone with which to listen. Kismet has a sophisticated structure
for interpreting, evaluating, and responding to the world—shown in
figure 6.7—that combines perception, emotion, and attention to con
trol behavior. Walk up to Kismet, and it turns to face you, looking you
straight in the eyes. But if you just stand there and do nothing else,
Kismet gets bored and looks around. If you do speak, it is sensitive to
the emotional tone of the voice, reacting with interest and pleasure to
encouraging, rewarding praise and with shame and sorrow to scold
ing. Kismet's emotional space is quite rich, and it can move its head,
neck, eyes, ears, and mouth to express emotions. Make it sad, and its
ears droop. Make it excited and it perks up. When unhappy, the head
droops, ears sag, mouth turns down.
Interacting with Kismet is a rich, engaging experience. It is difficult
to believe that Kismet is all emotion, with no understanding. But walk
up to it, speak excitedly, show it your brandnew watch, and Kismet
TLFeBOOK
FIGURE 6.7
Kismet's emotional system.
The heart of Kismet's operation is in the interaction of perception,
emotion, and behavior.
(Figure redrawn, slightly modified with permission of Cynthia Breazeal,
from http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/sociable/emotions.html.)
responds appropriately: it looks at your face, then at the watch, then

back at your face again, all the time showing interest by raising its eye
lids and ears, and exhibiting perky, lively behavior. Just the interested
responses you want from your conversational partner, even though
Kismet has absolutely no understanding of language or, for that mat
ter, your watch. How does it know to look at the watch? It doesn't, but
it responds to movement so it looks at your rising hand. When the
motion stops, it gets bored, and returns to look at your eyes. It shows
excitement because it detected the tone of your voice.
Note that Kismet shares some characteristics of Eliza. Thus,
although this is a complex system, with a body (well, a head and
neck), multiple motors that serve as muscles, and a complex underly
ing model of attention and emotion, it still lacks any true understand
TLFeBOOK
ing. Therefore, the interest and boredom that it shows toward people
are simply programmed responses to changes—or the lack thereof—
in the environment and responses to movement and physical aspects
of speech. Although Kismet can sometimes keep people entranced for
long periods, the enhancement is somewhat akin to that of Eliza: most
of the sophistication is in the observer's interpretations.
Aibo, the Sony robot dog, has a far less sophisticated emotional
repertoire and intelligence than Kismet. Nonetheless, Aibo has also
proven to be incredibly engaging to its owners. Many owners of the
robot dog band together to form clubs: some own several robots.
They trade stories about how they have trained Aibo to do various
tricks. They share ideas and techniques. Some firmly believe that their
personal Aibo recognizes them and obeys commands even though it is
not capable of these deeds.
When machines display emotions, they provide a rich and satisfy
ing interaction with people, even though most of the richness and sat
isfaction, most of the interpretation and understanding, comes from
within the head of the person, not from the artificial system. Sherry
Turkic, both an MIT professor and a psychoanalyst, has summarized
these interactions by pointing out, "It tells you more about us as
human beings than it does the robots." Anthropomorphism again: we
read emotions and intentions into all sorts of things. "These things
push on our buttons whether or not they have consciousness or intelli
gence," Turkic said. "They push on our buttons to recognize them as
though they do. We are programmed to respond in a caring way to
these new kinds of creatures. The key is these objects want you tonur
ture them and they thrive when you pay attention."
TLFeBOOK
CHAPTER SEVEN
The Future of Robots
S C I E N C E F I C T I O N CAN BE a useful source of ideas and

information, for it is, in essence, detailed scenario development.
Writers who have used robots in their stories have had to imagine in
considerable detail just how they would function within everyday
work and activities. Isaac Asimov was one of the earliest thinkers to
explore the implications of robots as autonomous, intelligent crea
tures, equal (or superior) in intelligence and abilities to their human
masters. Asimov wrote a sequence of novels analyzing the difficulties
that would arise if autonomous robots populated the earth. He real
ized that a robot might inadvertently harm itself or others, both
through its actions or, at times, through its lack of action. He there
fore developed a set of postulates that might prevent these problems;
but, as he did so, he also realized that they were often in conflict with
one another. Some conflicts were simple: given a choice between pre
venting harm to itself or to a human, the robot should protect the
human. But other conflicts were much more subtle, much more diffi
cult. Eventually, he postulated three laws of robotics (laws one, two,
195
TLFeBOOK
and three) and wrote a sequence of stories to illustrate the dilemmas
that robots would find themselves in, and how the three laws would
allow them to handle these situations. These three laws dealt with the
interaction of robots and people, but as his story line progressed into
more complex situations, Asimov felt compelled to add an even more
fundamental law dealing with the robots' relationship to humanity
itself. This one was so fundamental that it had to come first; but,
because he already had a law labeled First, this fourth law had to be
labeled Zeroth.
Asimov's vision of people and of the workings of industry was
strangely crude. It was only his robots that behaved well. When I
reread his books in preparation for this chapter, I was surprised at the
discrepancy between my fond memories of the stories and my
response to them now. His people are rude, sexist, and naive. They
seem unable to converse unless they are insulting each other, fighting,
or jeering. His fictional company, the U.S. Robots and Mechanical Men
Corporation doesn't fare well either. It is secretive, manipulative, and
allows no tolerance for error: make one mistake and the company
would fire you. Asimov spent his entire life in a university. Maybe that
is why he had such a weird view of the real world.
Nonetheless, his analysis of the reaction of society to robots—and
of robots to humans—was interesting. He thought society would turn
against robots; and, indeed, he wrote that "most of the world govern
ments banned robot use on earth for any purpose other than scientific
research between 2003 and 2007." (Robots, however, were allowed for
space exploration and mining; and in Asimov's stories, these activities
are widely deployed in the early 2000s, which allow the robot industry
to survive and grow.) The Laws of Robotics are intended to reassure
humanity that robots will not be a threat and will, moreover, always be
subservient to humans.
Today, even our most powerful and functional robots are far from
the stage of Asimov's. They do not operate for long periods without
human control and assistance. Even so, the laws are an excellent tool
for examining just how robots and humans should interact.
TLFeBOOK
Seven: The Future of Robots 197
Asimov's Four Laws of Robotics

Zeroth Law:A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inac
tion, allow humanity to come to harm.
First law: A robot may not injure a human being, or, through
inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, unless this
would violate the Zeroth Law of Robotics.
Second Law: A robot must obey orders given it by human
beings, except where such orders would conflict with the
Zeroth or First Law.
Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as
such protection does not conflict with the Zeroth, First, or
Second Law.
Many machines already have key aspects of the laws hardwired

into them. Let's examine how these laws are implemented.
The Zeroth Law—that "a robot may not injure humanity, or,
through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm," is beyond current
capability, for much the same reasons that Asimov did not need this
law in his early stories: to determine just when an action—or lack of
action—will harm all humanity is truly sophisticated, probably
beyond the abilities of most people.
The first law—that "a robot may not injure a human being, or,
through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, unless this
would violate the Zeroth Law of Robotics," could be labeled "safety."
It isn't legal, let alone proper, to produce things that can hurt people.
As a result, all machines today are designed with multiple safeguards
to minimize the likelihood that they can harm by their action. Liability
laws guarantee that robots—and machines in general—are outfitted
with numerous safeguards to prevent their actions from harming peo
ple. Industrial and home robots have proximity and collision sensors.
Even simple machines such as elevators and garage doors have sensors
that stop them from closing on people. Today's robots try to avoid
bumping into people or objects. Lawn mower and vacuum cleaner
TLFeBOOK
robots have sensing mechanisms that cause them to stop or back away
whenever they bump into anything or come too close to an edge, such
as a stairway. Industrial robots are often fenced off, so that people
can't get near them when they are operating. Some have people detec
tors, so they stop when they detect someone nearby. Home robots
have many mechanisms to minimize the chance of damage; but at the
moment, most of them are so underpowered that they couldn't hurt
even if they tried to. Moreover, the lawyers are very careful to guard
against potential damage. One company sells a home robot that can be
used to teach children by reading books to them and that can also
serve as a home sentinel, wandering about the house, taking photo
graphs of unexpected encounters and notifying its owners, by email if
necessary (through its wireless internet connection, attaching the pho
tographs along with the message, of course). Despite these intended
applications, the robot comes with stern instructions that it is not to be
used near children, nor is it to be left unattended in the house.
A lot of effort has gone into implementation of the safety provision
of the first law. Most of this work can be thought of as applying to the
visceral level, where fairly simple mechanisms are used to shut down
the system if safety regulations are violated.
The second part of the law—do not allow harm through inac
tion—is quite difficult to implement. If determining how a machine's
actions might affect people is difficult, trying to determine how the
lack of an action might have an impact is even more so. This would be
a reflective level implementation, for the robot would have to do con
siderable analysis and planning to determine when lack of action
would lead to harm. This is beyond most capabilities today.
Despite the difficulties, some simple solutions to the problem do
exist. Many computers are plugged into "noninterruptible power sup
plies" to avoid loss of data in cases of power failure. If the power
failed and no action were taken, harm would occur, but in these cases,
when the power fails, the power supply springs into action, switching
to batteries, converting the battery voltage to the form the computer
requires. It can also be set to notify people and to turn off the comput
TLFeBOOK
Seven: The Future of R o b o t s 199
er gracefully. Other safety systems are designed to act when normal

processes have failed. Some automobiles have internal sensors that
watch over the path of the car, adjusting engine power and braking to
ensure that the auto keeps going as intended. Automatic speed control
mechanisms attempt to keep a safe distance from the car in front, and
lanechanging detectors are under investigation. All of these devices
safeguard car and passengers when inaction would lead to accident.
Today, these devices are simple and the mechanisms built in. Still,
one can see the beginnings of solutions to the inaction clause of the
first law, even in these simple devices.
The second law—that "a robot must obey orders given it by
human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the
Zeroth or First Law," is about obeying people, in contrast to the first,
which is about protecting them. In many ways, this law is trivial to
implement, but for elementary reasons. Machines today do not have
an independent mind, so they must obey orders: they have no choice
but to follow the commands given them. If they fail, they face the ulti
mate punishment: they are shut off and sent to the repair shop.
Can a machine disobey the second law in order to protect the first
law? Yes, but not with much subtlety. Command an elevator to take
you to your floor, and it will refuse if it senses that a person or object
is blocking the door. This, however, is the most trivial of ways to
implement the law, and it fails when the situation has any sophistica
tion. Actually, in cases where safety systems prevent a machine from
following orders, usually a person can override the safety system to
permit the operation to take place anyway. This has been the cause of
many an accident in trains, airplanes, and factories. Maybe Asimov
was correct: we should leave some decisions up to the machines.
Some automatically deployed safety systems are an example of the
"through inaction" clause of the law. Thus, if the driver of an auto
mobile steps on the brakes rapidly, but only depresses the brake pedal
halfway, most autos would only slow halfway. The Mercedes Benz,
however, considers this "harm through inaction," so when it detects a
rapid brake deployment, it puts the brakes on full, assuming that the
TLFeBOOK
owner really wants to stop as soon as possible. This is a combination

of the first and second laws: the first law, because it prevents harm to
the driver; and the second law because it is violating the "instructions"
to apply the brakes at half strength. Of course, this may not really be a
violation of the instructions: the robot assumes that full power was
intended, even if not commanded. Perhaps the robot is invoking a
new rule: "Do what I mean, not what I say," an old concept from some
early artificial intelligence computer systems.
Although the automatic application of brakes in an automobile is a
partial implementation of the second law, the correct implementation
would have the auto examine the roadway ahead and decide for itself
just how much speed, braking, or steering ought to be applied. Once
that happens, we will indeed have a full first and second law imple
mentation. Once again, this is starting to happen. Some cars automati
cally slow up if they're too close to the car in front, even if the driver
has not acted to slow the vehicle.
We don't yet have the case of conflicting orders, but soon we will
have interacting robots, where the requests of one robot might con
flict with the requests of the human supervisors. Then, determining
precedence and priority will become important.
Once again, these are easy cases. Asimov had in mind situations
where a car would refuse to drive: "I'm sorry, but the road conditions
are too dangerous tonight." We haven't yet reached that point—but
we will. Asimov's second law will be useful.
Least important of all the laws, so Asimov thought, was selfpreser
vation—"a robot must protect its own existence as long as such pro
tection does not conflict with the Zeroth, First, or Second Law "—so it
is numbered three, last in the series. Of course, given the limited capa
bility of today's machines, where laws one and two seldom apply, this
law is of most importance today, for we would be most annoyed if our
expensive robot damaged or destroyed itself. As a result, this law is
easy to find in action within many existing machines. Remember those
sensors that are built into robot vacuum cleaners to prevent them from
falling down stairs? Also how they—and robot lawn mowers—have
TLFeBOOK
S e v e n : T h e F u t u r e o f R o b o t s 201
bump and obstacle detectors to avoid damage from collisions? In

addition, many robots monitor their energy state and either go into
"sleep" mode or return to a charging station when their energy level
drops. Resolution of conflicts with the other laws is not well handled,
except by the presence of human operators who are able to override
safety parameters when circumstances warrant.
Asimov's Laws cannot be fully implementated until machines have a
powerful and effective capability for reflection, including metaknowl
edge (knowledge of its own knowledge) and selfawareness of its
state, activities, and intentions. These raise deep issues of philosophy
and science as well as complex implementation problems for engineers
and programmers. Progress in this area is happening, but slowly.
Even with today's rather primitive devices, having some of the
capabilities would be useful. Thus, in cases of conflict, there would be
sensible overriding of the commands. Automatic controls in airplanes
would look ahead to determine the implications of the path they are
following so that they would change if it would lead to danger. Some
planes have indeed flown into mountains while on automatic control,
so the capability would have saved lives. In actuality, many automated
systems already are beginning to do this kind of checking.
Even today's toy pet robots have some selfawareness. Consider a
robot whose operation is controlled both by its "desire" to play with
its human owner, but also to make sure that it doesn't exhaust its bat
tery power. When low on energy, it will therefore return to its charg
ing station, even if the human wishes to continue playing with it.
The greatest hurdles to our ability to implement something akin to
Asimov's Laws are his underlying assumptions of autonomous oper
ation and central control mechanisms that may not apply in today's
systems.
Asimov's robots worked as individuals. Give a robot a task to do,
and off it would go. In the few cases where he had robots work as a
group, one robot was always in charge. Moreover, he never had peo
ple and robots working together as a team. We are more likely to want
cooperative robots, systems in which people and robots or teams of
TLFeBOOK
robots work together, much as a group of human workers can work

together at a task. Cooperative behavior requires a different set of
assumptions than Asimov had. Thus, cooperative robots need rules
that provide for full communication of intentions, current state, and
progress.
Asimov's main failure, however, was his assumption that someone
had to be in control. When he wrote his novels, it was common to
assume that intelligence required a centralized coordinating and con
trol mechanism with a hierarchical organizational structure beneath it.
This is how armies have been organized for thousands of years:
armies, governments, corporations, and other organizations. It was
natural to assume that the same principle applied to all intelligent sys
tems. But this is not the way of nature. Many natural systems, from
the actions of ants and bees, to the flocking of birds, and even the
growth of cities and the structure of the stock market, occur as a natu
ral result of the interaction of multiple bodies, not through some cen
tral, coordinated control structure. Modern control theory has moved
away from this assumption of a central command post. Distributed
control is the hallmark of today's systems. Asimov assumed a central
decision structure for each robot that decided how to act, guided by his
laws. In fact, that is probably not how it will work: the laws will be part
of the robot's architecture, distributed throughout the many modules
of its mechanisms; lawful behavior will emerge from the interactions of
the multiple modules. This is a modern concept, not understood while
Asimov was writing, so it is no wonder he missed this development in
our understanding of complex systems.
Still, Asimov was ahead of his time, thinking far ahead to the
future. His stories were written in the 1940s and '50s, but in his novel
I, Robot^ he quotes the three laws of robotics from the 2058 edition of
the Handbook of Robotics; thus, he looked ahead more than 100 years.
By 2058, we may indeed need his laws. Moreover, as the analyses indi
cate, the laws are indeed relevant, and many systems today follow
them, even if inadvertently. The difficult aspects have to do with dam
age due to lack of action, as well as with properly assessing the rela
TLFeBOOK
tive importance of following orders versus damage or harm to one

self, others, or humanity.
As machines become more capable, as they take over more and
more human activities, working autonomously, without direct super
vision, they will get entangled in the legal system, which will try to
determine fault when accidents arise. Before this happens, it would be
useful to have some sort of ethical procedure in place. There already
are some safety regulations that apply to robots, but they are very
primitive. We will need more.
It is not too early to think about the future difficulties that intelli
gent and emotional machines may give rise to. There are numerous
practical, moral, legal, and ethical issues to think about. Most are still
far in the future, but that is a good reason to start now—so that when
problems arrive, we will be ready.
The Future of Emotional Machines and

Robots: Implications and Ethical Issues
The development of smart machines that will take over some tasks

now done by people has important ethical and moral implications.
This point becomes especially critical when we talk about humanoid
robots that have emotions and to which people might form strong
emotional attachments.
What is the role of emotional robots? How will they interact with
us? Do we really want machines that are autonomous, selfdirected,
with a wide range of behavior, a powerful intelligence, and affect and
emotion? I think we do, for they can provide many benefits.
Obviously, as with all technologies, there are dangers as well. We need
to ensure that people always maintain oversight and control, that they
serve human needs appropriately.
Will robot teachers replace human teachers? No, but they can com
plement them. Moreover, they could be sufficient in situations where
there is no alternative—to enable learning while traveling, or while in
TLFeBOOK
remote locations, or when one wishes to study a topic for which there
is not easy access to teachers. Robot teachers will help make lifelong
learning a practicality. They can make it possible to learn no matter
where one is in the world, no matter the time of day. Learning should
take place when it is needed, when the learner is interested, not
according to some arbitrary, fixed school schedule.
Many are bothered by these possibilities, so much so that they reject
them out of hand as unethical, immoral. Although I do not do so, I do
sympathize with their concerns. However, I see the development of
intelligent machines as both inevitable and beneficial. Where will
there be benefits? In such areas as doing dangerous tasks, driving
automobiles, piloting commercial vessels, in education, in medicine,
and in taking over routine work. Where might there be moral and
ethical concerns? Pretty much in the same list of activities. Let me
explore the beneficial aspects in more detail.
Consider some of the benefits. Robots could be—and to some
extent already are—used in dangerous tasks, where people's lives are
at risk. This includes such things as searchandrescue operations,
exploration, and mining. What are the problems? The major ones are
likely to come from the use of robots to enhance illegal or unethical
activities: robbery, murder, and terrorism.
Will robot cars replace the need for human drivers? I hope so.
Every year, tens of thousands of people are killed, and hundreds of
thousands seriously injured through motor vehicle accidents.
Wouldn't it be nice if automobiles were as safe as commercial avia
tion? Here is where automated vehicles can be a wonderful saving.
Moreover, automated vehicles could drive more closely to one anoth
er, helping to reduce traffic congestion, and they could drive more
efficiently, helping to solve some of the energy issues associated with
driving.
Driving an automobile is deceptively simple: most of the time it
takes little skill. As a result, many are lulled into a false sense of secu
rity and selfconfidence. But when danger arises, it does so rapidly,
and then the distracted, the semiskilled, the untrained, and those tern
TLFeBOOK
porarily impaired by drugs, alcohol, illness, fatigue, or sleep depriva
tion are often incapable of reacting properly in time. Even well
trained commercial drivers have accidents: automated vehicles will
not reduce all accidents and injuries, but they stand a good chance of
dramatically reducing the present toll. Yes, some people truly enjoy
the sport of driving, but these could be accommodated on special
roads, recreational areas, and race tracks. Automation of everyday
driving would lead to loss of jobs for drivers of commercial vehicles,
but with a saving of life, overall.
Robot tutors have great potential for changing the way we teach.
Today's model is far too often that of a pedant lecturing at the front of
the classroom, forcing students to listen to material they have no inter
est in, that appears irrelevant to their daily lives. Lectures and text
books are the easiest way to teach from the point of view of the
teacher, but the least effective for the learner. The most powerful
learning takes place when wellmotivated students get excited by a
topic and then struggle with the concepts, learning how to apply them
to issues they care about. Yes, struggle: learning is an active, dynamic
process, and struggle is a part of it. But when students care about
something the struggle is enjoyable. This is how great teaching has
always taken place—not through lecturing, but through apprentice
ship, coaching, and mentoring. This is how athletes learn. This is the
essence of the attraction of video games, except that in games, what
students learn is of little practical value. These methods are well
known in the learning sciences, where they are called problembased,
inquirylearning, or constructivist.
Here is where emotion plays its part. Students learn best when
motivated, when they care. They need to be emotionally involved, to
be drawn to the excitement of the topic. This is why examples, dia
grams and illustrations, videos and animated illustrations are so pow
erful. Learning need not be a dull and dreary exercise, not even
learning about what are normally considered dull and dreary topics:
every topic can be made exciting, every topic excites the emotions of
someone, so why not excite everyone? It is time for lessons to become
TLFeBOOK
alive, for history to be seen as a human struggle, for students to under
stand and appreciate the structure of art, music, science, and mathe
matics. How can these topics be made exciting? By making them
relevant to the lives of each individual student. This is often most
effective by having students put their skills to immediate application.
Developing exciting, emotionally engaging, and intellectually effec
tive learning experiences is truly a design challenge worthy of the best
talent in the world.
Robots, machines, or computers can be of great assistance in
instruction by providing the framework for motivated, problembased
learning. Computer learning systems can provide simulated worlds in
which students can explore problems in science, literature, history, or
the arts. Robot teachers can make it easy to search the world's libraries
and knowledge bases. Human teachers will no longer have to lecture,
but instead can spend their time as coaches and mentors, helping to
teach not only the topic, but also how best to learn, so that the students
will maintain their curiosity through life, as well as the ability to teach
themselves when necessary. Human teachers are still essential, but
they can play a different, much more supportive and constructive role
than they do today.
Moreover, although I believe strongly that we could develop effi
cient robot tutors, perhaps as effective as Stephenson's The Young
Lady's Illustrated Primer (see page 171), we would not have to abandon
human teachers: automated tutors—whether books, machines, or
robots—should act as supplements to human instruction. Even
Stephenson writes in his novel that his star pupil knew nothing of the
real world and of real people because she had spent far too much time
locked up in the fantasy world of the Primer.
Robots in medicine? Yes, they could be used in all its aspects. In
medicine, however, as in many other activities, I foresee this as a part
nership, where welltrained human medical personnel work with spe
cialized robotic assistants to increase the quality and reliability of care.
Laser surgery on eyes is now close to complete machine control,
and any activity where great precision is required is a candidate for
TLFeBOOK
machine operation. Machine diagnosis is trickier, and I suspect that

skilled physicians will always be involved, but that they will be aided
by dynamic, intelligent machines that can assess a large database of
prior cases, medical records, medical knowledge, and pharmaceutical
information. This assistance is already required, as the amount of
information and the rapid addition of new information becomes over
whelming to practicing physicians. Moreover, as we get better diag
nostic tools—more efficient analyses of body fluids and physiological
records, DNA analyses, and various body scans—where some of the
information will be routinely collected and sent from a patient's home
or even place of work to the medical office, only a machine could keep
up with the information. People are excellent at synthesis, at dynamic,
creative decisions, at seeing the whole, global picture, whereas
machines are superb at rapid search through large numbers of cases
and information files, without being subject to the biases that accom
pany human memory. The team of trained physician and robotic
assistant would be far superior to either working alone.
One common fear, of course, is that robots will take over many
routine jobs from people, therefore leading to great unemployment
and turmoil. Yes, more and more machines and robots will take over
jobs, not only of lowerskilled workers, but increasingly of much rou
tine work of all kinds, including some management. Throughout his
tory, each new wave of technology has displaced workers, but the
total result has been increased life span and quality of living for every
one, including, in the end, increased jobs—although of a different
nature than before. In transitional periods, however, people are dis
placed and unemployed, for the new jobs that result often require
skills very distant from those of the people who have been displaced.
This is a major social problem that must be addressed.
In the past, most of the jobs replaced by automation have been low
level jobs, jobs that did not require much skill or education to per
form. In the future, however, robots are apt to replace some highly
skilled jobs. Will film actors be replaced by computergenerated char
acters that sound and act just as realistic, but are much more under the
TLFeBOOK
control of the director? Will robot athletes compete, if not with
humans, then perhaps in their own leagues—but thereby leading to
the demise of human leagues? Such a situation might very well hap
pen with chess tournaments and leagues, now that computer chess
players can beat even the best human players. What about jobs such as
accounting, bookkeeping, drafting, stock keeping, or even simple
management jobs? Will these be replaced? Yes, all this is possible;
some of it has already started. Robot musicians? The list of potential
activities is large, along with the dangers of social upheaval.
When robots are used for activities such as space exploration,dan
gerous coal mining, or searchandrescue missions, or even when they
do simple things around the house, such as vacuum cleaning and other
chores, there is not apt to be much resistance. But when they starttak
ing over large numbers of jobs or displacing large amounts of people
from routine activities, then this does become a legitimate concern,
one that raises serious issues for society.
I believe that we should welcome machines that eliminate the drea
ry tedium of many jobs—the dull shuffling of paperwork probably
being even more demeaning than many of the lowpaid, routine serv
ice jobs. This welcome, of course, assumes that machines will free
people to engage in more creative activities, where they can apply
their abilities both more pleasurably and effectively.
I have visited many parts of the world where poverty, continual
hunger and starvation, and high death rates have made me doubt the
benefits of today's systems. I have seen silk factories in India where
young girls are locked into buildings, forced to weave from early
morning till evening, locked in so that they cannot leave—or even
escape the building if there is fire—without someone from the outside
unlocking the doors. My study of history has taught me that such
inequity, brutality, and callous treatment of so many is not unusual,
and long predates the development of modern technology.
Yes, I see the downside of the deployment of intelligent machines
and robots, but I also see the downside of no deployment. Call me an
optimist, if you wish, but I believe that in the end, the human ingenu
TLFeBOOK
S e v e n : T h e F u t u r e o f R o b o t s 209
ity that we show in creating these powerful devices will also serve us
in ways to create more enriching, more enlightened activities for all of
us. Optimism does not blind me to the inequities and problems of
today's life: optimism reflects my belief that we can overcome them in
the future. Yes, we still have poverty, starvation, political inequity, and
wars, but these result more from the evils of people than from our
technologies. I do not see why the introduction of smart, emotional
robots and machines will change this situation, either for the worse or
for the better. To change evil, we must confront it directly. It is a
social, political, and human problem, not a technological one. This, of
course, does not minimize this problem nor does it absolve us from
working toward a solution. But the solution must be social and politi
cal, not technological.
The story becomes even more complex if I expand the view beyond
the shortterm horizon. At some point, robots and other machines are
apt to become truly autonomous. This is a long time away, perhaps
centuries, but it will happen. Then, there will indeed be major disrup
tions of life when much or all human work can be done by robots:
farming, mining, manufacturing, distribution, and sales. Education
and medicine. Even many aspects of art, music, literature, and enter
tainment. Robots may manufacture themselves. At that point, the rela
tionship between natural animals and robots becomes exceedingly
complex. The complexity will be amplified because many humans will
actually be cyborgs—part human, part machine. Artificial implants
already exist, mostly as medical prostheses; but some people are talk
ing about having them implanted on demand, the better to enhance
natural capabilities. Strength, athletic ability, sensory capability, mem
ory, and decision making could all be aided by implanted, electronic,
chemical, mechanical, biological, or nanotechnology devices. Steroids
are used by athletes to enhance their existing strength, and laser treat
ment of the cornea has been done by some athletes and pilots to
enhance normal acuity. The artificial lenses in my eyes—implanted
after cataract removal—have provided me with far better vision than I
have ever had before, with the sole problem being that my eyes cannot
TLFeBOOK
change their focus. But someday, artificial lenses will be able to focus,

probably even better than natural ones, perhaps providing telescopic
in addition to normal vision. When this happens, even people who do
not have cataracts might wish to have their normal lenses replaced by
these more effective ones. Even more striking artificial enhancement
is possible. Such possibilities raise complex ethical issues, but these
truly go beyond the boundaries of this book.
But this book does focus upon emotions and their role in the devel
opment of artificial devices and the way that human beings emotion
ally attach themselves to their belongings, their pets, and to one other.
Robots might act like all of these. At first, robots will be belongings,
but ones with clear personal attachment, for if a robot is with you for a
large part of your life, able to interact, to remind you of your experi
ences, to give advice, or even just comic relief, there will be strong
emotional attachments. Even today's robot pets, crude though they
may be, have already evoked strong emotions among their owners. In
the decades to come, robot pets may take on all the attributes of real
pets and, in the minds of many people, be superior. Today people
abuse and abandon their pets. Many communities have bands of stray
cats or abandoned dogs scavenging. Might the same happen with
robotic pets? Who is legally responsible for their care and mainte
nance? What if a robot pet injures someone? Who is legally responsi
ble? The robot? The owners? The designer or manufacturer? With
real pets, the owner is responsible.
And finally, what happens when robots act as independent, sentient
beings, with their own hopes, dreams, and aspirations? Will some
thing akin to Asimov's Laws of Robotics be necessary? Will they be
sufficient? If robot pets can cause damage, what might an autonomous
robot do; and if a robot causes damage, injury, or death, who is to
blame, and what is the recourse? Asimov concluded in his novel /,
Robot, that robots will indeed take over, that mankind will lose its own
say in its future. Science fiction? Yes, but all future possibilities are
fiction before they are fact.
TLFeBOOK
Seven: The Future of Robots 211
We are in a new era. Machines are already smart, and they are get
ting smarter. They are developing motor skills, and soon they will
have affect and emotion. The positive impact will be enormous. The
negative consequences will also be significant. This is how it is with all
technology: it is a twoedged sword always combining potential bene
fits with potential deficits.
TLFeBOOK
TLFeBOOK
EPILOGUE
We Are All Designers
I T R I E D AN E X P E R I M E N T . I posted a request to some internet
discussion groups for examples of products and web sites that they
loved, hated, or had a love/hate relationship with. I received around
150 email responses, many passionate, and each listing several items.
The responses were highly biased toward technology, not surprising
ly, because this is the area in which most of the respondents worked;
but technology did not receive high marks.
One of the problems with such a survey is the "too obvious to
notice" effect, as reflected by the old folk tale that a fish is the last to
notice water. Thus, if you ask people to describe what they see in the
room in which they are sitting, they are apt to leave out the obvious:
floor, walls, ceiling, and sometimes even windows and doors. People
may not have reported what they truly liked because that might have
been too close to them, too enmeshed in their lives. Similarly, they
might have missed the disliked things because they were absent. Still, I
found the responses interesting. Here are three examples:
213
TLFeBOOK
Global chef's knives—beautiful, functional and simple. They are

delightful to hold and use. I keep mine under my pillow (youch! just
kidding).
The piece de resistance is my watch. A George Jensen: sterling, large

mirror face with two arms but no markings for numbers, the arm band
is incomplete, only covers 3/4 of your wrist. Out of the ordinary,
beautiful. (The design is in the Museum of Modern Art.) P.S. I stared
at it, at least six years in Paris before I bought it.
My VW Bug: love it—it's simple, utilitarian, gets great gas mileage,

small enough to park just about anywhere and just plain fun to drive.
But I can't get past that stupid seatlifthandle thing—it drives me
bonkers. (The lifttheseat handle on the front seats—they're in the
"wrong" spot. Not one person has ever "gotten it right.")
Love it, hate it, indifferent to it. Our interaction with our everyday

things reflects the three levels of design in very different ways. Loved
objects ranged the gamut of all possible combinations of the three
forms of design. Many an item was enjoyed solely for the visceral
impact of its appearance:
After plunking down $400 for an iPod I almost wouldn't have cared

about the product after having unwrapped the packaging, it was that
nice. [The iPod is Apple Computer's music player.]
I bought a VW Passat because the controls inside the car were pleasur
able to use and look at. (Get in one at night—the dashboard lights are
blue and redorange.) It makes driving more fun.
Remember the person in chapter 3 who bought water simply

because the bottle looked so great? That response certainly belongs in
this category:
TLFeBOOK
I remember deciding to buy Apollinaris, a German mineral water, sim
ply because I thought it would look so good on my shelves. As it
turned out, it was a very good water. But I think I could have bought it
even though it was not all that great.
Many products were loved for their behavioral design alone—that
is, their function and utility, usability and understanding, and physi
cal feel:
I like my OXO vegetable peeler, too. It handles eggplant, broccoli

stems and anything else I throw at it. They make those nice comfy han
dles.
LieNielsen hand planes: I can plane tiger maple and produce a smooth,
glassy, surface where most planes would tear out chunks of wood.
Can opener: You may recall Victor Papanek's short book How Things

Don't Work. In it he mentions a can opener. I finally found it a few
years back—it's been reproduced by Kuhn Rikon as their LidLifter
Can Opener. In brief, it opens the can by splitting the seam, rather
than cutting through the top. Lots of reasons why that's a good
thing, but it's an appliance I actually look forward to using. Hand
operated, needs little cleaning, fits my hand, does its job, stores in a
drawer, easily accessible. A dutiful servant, as a kitchen appliance
should be.
The Screwpull lever model wine opener. Push down and pull up: the

cork glides from the bottle. Push down again, squeeze and lift, and the
cork comes off the corkscrew. It's wonderful! The day I got it I
opened three bottles in a row, it was so much fun.
Reflective design also played a major role, with examples of trust,

service, and just plain fun:
TLFeBOOK
My Taylor 410 guitar. I trust my guitar. I know that it is not going to

buzz when I play notes high on the fret board; it will stay in tune; the
action on the neck will allow me to play chords and notes my hands
cannot reach on other instruments.
I still tell people about my experience, years ago, with the Austin Four
Seasons Hotel. I checked into my room to find a TV Guide on the bed,
with a bookmark placed on the current date.
How about simply fun? I just got a souvenir mug; its decoration only

becomes visible when it contains a hot drink, though: it's covered
with heatsensitive glazing that is dark purpleblue at room tempera
ture and below but becomes transparent when hot. It's even practical:
one look and I know when my coffee is no longer drinkable. Nice
shape, too. I wanted it for the combination of all those factors, it's
become my standard coffee mug now. Not exactly beautiful—but
close.
Something that puts a smile on my face every time I visit the site is that
the logo on the site "Google" is like a little cartoon that changes with
relevance to something current. They will have a little devil peeking
through the O for Halloween, or some snow caps on it during winter. I
just love that.
Perhaps the most enthusiasm, though, was shown for communica
tion services that enhanced social interaction and a sense of communi
ty. People loved their instant messenger tool:
I can't imagine my life without it.
Instant messenger is an integrated part of my life. With it I have a

sense of connection to many of my friends and colleagues around the
world. Without it, I feel as though a window to part of my world is
bolted shut.
TLFeBOOK
FIGURE Epi.1
The Google logo during the holiday season.
Google playfully transforms its logo during the end-of-the-year holiday season.
(Courtesy of Google.)
Email was seldom remarked upon—in part because it is like water
to these technologists, but when it was spoken of, it was a lovehate
response:
I feel cut off from the civilized world if I don't get email. The volume

of email I receive and feel obligated to answer almost puts this in the
love/hate column, but on reflection, I may hate the volume, but I love
the individual friends and family that comprise the unwieldy lot.
Household appliances and the personal computer (the pc) seem

universally disliked: "Almost every appliance in my house is so ill
designed," said one. "Almost nothing about the PC is pleasurable,"
said another. And, remember, these respondents were technologists,
most of them in the computer and internet business.
And, finally, some things were loved despite their faults. Hence, the
love of the VW despite what the writer called "that stupid seatlift
handle thing." Consider the following respondent's love for his
espresso maker even though it was difficult to use (mind you, this
response was from an expert on usability design). In fact, the lack of
usability had some reflective appeal: "only a true expert, such as me,
can use this properly."
TLFeBOOK
I love my espresso machine. Oddly not because of its easeofuse (it

hasn't got much!) but because it makes great coffee when you know
how. It requires skill and the successful application of that skill is
rewarding.
Over all, the responses showed that people can be passionate about

their belongings, the services they use, and their experiences in life.
Companies that provide extraordinary service reap the benefits: the
special personal touch of being at a Four Seasons Hotel and finding on
her bed the television guide, opened to the correct page, prompted
that respondent to tell all her friends. Some people had bonded to their
things: a guitar, their personal web site and the friends they had made
through it, the feel of kitchen knives, a special rocking chair.
In my informal study I got at some aspects of our love and hate of
things, but missed some of the truly loved items of the sort described
by Csikszentmihalyi and RochbergHalton in their study The Meaning
of Things that I discussed in chapter 2. They discovered such treas
ured items as a favorite set of chairs, family photographs, house
plants, and books. Both of us ignored activities, such as our love or
hate of cooking, sports, or class reunions. Both studies point to the
development of true passion about particular items and activities in
our lives—sometimes love, sometimes hate, but with strong emotion
al ties.
Personalization
How can massproduced objects have personal meaning? Is it even
possible? The attributes that make something personal are precisely
the sorts of things that cannot be designed ahead of time, especially in
mass production. Manufacturers try. Many provide customization
services. Many allow special orders and specifications. And many pro
vide a flexible product that, once it has been purchased, can be tuned
and tailored by the people who use it.
TLFeBOOK
Numerous manufacturers have tried to overcome the sameness of
their product offerings by allowing customers to "customize" them.
What this usually means is that the purchaser can choose the color or
select from a list of accessories and extracost features. Cell phones
can be equipped with different faceplates, so you can get one in differ
ent colors or designs—or paint it yourself. Some web sites advertise
that you can design your own shoes, although, in fact, the only real
alternatives you have are some choices among a fixed number of sizes,
styles, colors, and materials (e.g., leather or cloth).
It is possible to have clothes made individually. In the past, they
were made by tailors and seamstresses who would measure and fit a
garment to your particular size and preferences. The result was well
fitting clothes, but the process is extremely slow, labor intensive, and,
therefore, expensive. But what if technology were used to allow cus
tomization of everything—somewhat like the personal fit that one
gets from tailors and seamstresses, but without the delay and cost?
The idea is popular. Some believe that manufacturing to order—
mass customization—will extend to everything: clothes, computers,
automobiles, furniture. All would be manufactured specifically to
specification: specify the configuration, wait a few days, and there it
is. Several clothes manufacturers are already experimenting with the
use of digital cameras to determine a person's measurements, lasers
to cut the materials, and then computercontrolled manufacturing of
the items. Some computer manufacturers already work this way,
assembling products only after they have been ordered, allowing the
customer to configure the product according to their desires. This
has a benefit to the manufacturer as well: items are only manufac
tured after they have been purchased, which means that no stockpile
of finished products is required, dramatically reducing the cost of
inventory. When manufacturing processes are designed for masscus
tomization, individual orders can be made in hours or days. Of
course, this form of customization is limited. You can't design a radi
cally new form of furniture, automobile, or computer this way. All
you can do is to select from a fixed set of options.
TLFeBOOK
Are these customizations emotionally compelling? Not really. Yes,

clothes might fit better, and the furniture might better suit some
needs, but neither guarantees emotional attachment. Things do not
become personal because we have selected some alternatives from a
catalog of choices. To make something personal means expressing
some sense of ownership, of pride. It means to have some individual
istic touch.
We make our homes and places of work personal by the choice of
items we place in them, how we arrange them, and how they are used.
In the office, we arrange desk, table, and chairs, and post photo
graphs, drawings, and cartoons on walls and doors.
Even items we dislike can provide a personal, redeeming touch: for
example, a picture or a chair may be special because it is so detested—
a legacy, perhaps, of a family member or a gift, and now there is no
choice but to smile and keep it. Then, at family reunion after reunion,
a family may fondly recall just how some disliked picture or chair once
dominated a section of the house. It seems paradoxical, but the shar
ing of common negative feelings can lead to positive bonding of the
participants: yesterday's hated object drives today's loved experience.
Determining a desirable arrangement of belongings is often more a
process of evolution than of deliberate planning. We make continual
small adjustments. We might move a chair a bit closer to the light and
place the books and magazines we are reading near the chair. We bring
over a table to hold them. Over time, the furniture and the belongings
are adjusted to fit the inhabitants. The arrangement is unique to them
and their activities. As activities and inhabitants change, so, too,does
the arrangement of the house. Other people coming to live there may
not necessarily find it fits their needs—it has become personal, it fits a
person or a family—a quality that isn't transferable to others. Stuart
Brand, in How Buildings Learn, has shown that even buildings change:
as different occupants find their needs no longer met, they change the
structure to meet their new needs, often changing an otherwise name
less, faceless building into a distinctive structure with personal value
and meaning to its current inhabitants.
TLFeBOOK
Objects themselves change. Pots and pans get banged and burned.

Things are chipped and broken. But much as we may complain about
marks, dents, and stains, they also make the objects personal—ours.
Each item is special. Each mark, each burn, each dent, and each repair
all contain a story, and it is stories that make things special.
While writing this book, I met with Paul Bradley, studio chief of
IDEO, one of the largest industrial design firms in the United States.
Bradley wanted to be able to design things that would reflect the expe
riences of an owner. He was searching for materials that would age
gracefully, showing the dents and markings of use, but in a way that
was pleasant and that would transform a storebought, massproduced
item into a personal one, where the markings would add character and
charm that was unique to the owner. He showed me a photograph of a
pair of blue jeans, faded naturally through use, with a rectangular
faded patch in the front pocket where the wearer had always kept his
wallet. We discussed the bangs and markings on our own cooking
utensils in our homes, and how they added to their appeal. We talked
of favorite books made more comforting by the wear and marks of
reading, enhanced through marginal notes and highlighting. And he
showed me his Handspring Personal Digital Assistant (PDA)—which
IDEO had designed—and told how he had deliberately dropped and
banged it to see if the scuffs added personal history and charm (they
didn't).
The trick is to make objects that degrade gracefully, growing old
along with their owners in a personal and pleasurable manner. This
kind of personalization carries huge emotional significance, enriching
our lives. This is a far cry from the mass customization that allows a
consumer to choose one of a fixed set of alternatives, but has little or
no real personal relevance, little or no emotional value. Emotional
value—now that is a worthy goal of design.
TLFeBOOK
Customization
There is a tension between satisfying our needs by purchasing a
readymade object versus making it ourselves. Most of the time we are
unable to build the objects we need, for we lack the tools and expert
ise, to say nothing of the time. But when we buy someone else's
object, seldom does it fit our precise requirements. It is impossible to
build a massproduced item that fits every individual precisely.
There are five ways of dealing with this problem:
1. Live with it. Even if relatively inexpensive, massproduced

items are never quite what we need, we benefit from their lower cost.
2. Customize. Suppose everything was so flexibly designed that it
could be modified as needed, wouldn't that solve the problem? The
difficulty is that it is far more difficult to make something customiz
able than you might realize. Look at the modern computer software
system, and you will immediately see the problem. My software offers
a wide variety of customization options—so many that I can't even
find them when I want them. So many that just learning how to cus
tomize is itself a daunting task. Moreover, these customizations
invariably fail to satisfy. Everything I do is more complex because I
must always choose among numerous alternatives. The things I really
want to customize—my peculiar typing, spelling, and stylistic
habits—can't be customized.
Proper customization does not come by further complicating an
already complex system. No, proper customization comes about
through combining multiple simple pieces. Invariably, if something
is so complex that it requires the addition of multiple "preferences"
or customization choices, it is probably too complex to use, too com
plex to be saved. I don't customize my pen; I do customize how I use
it. I don't customize my furniture; I do customize through my choice
of which piece to buy in the first place, where I put it, when I use it,
and how.
TLFeBOOK
E p i l o g u e : W e A r e A l l D e s i g n e r s 223
3. Customized mass production. As I have just discussed, it is

possible to have items manufactured to order. Customers get some
thing configured to their tastes, and costs can be lower because there is
no need for expensive supplies of unsold items. However, because the
range of customization is limited to such things as choice of compo
nents, accessories, and color, this customization is far from personal
ization.
Still, this trend will continue. In the future, body parts, cases, and
other parts of a design could be stamped, pressed, cut, or molded to
order. Efficient assembly lines could put together customized struc
tures. The choice of alternatives could expand. Manufacturing tech
niques are making it possible to extend the range of customization.
This is the future.
4. Design our own products. In "the good old days," so it is said,
we either made all our own things or went to the local craftsperson
who would make something to our specifications, often as we
watched. Some people still cherish those old days of folk arts—see,
for example, John Seymour's wonderful description of them in his
Forgotten Arts and Crafts. But as our needs get more complex and spe
cialized in this evermore technological, informationrich age, it is an
impossible dream that many of us would possess the skills and time
required to design and construct the objects required in everyday life.
Nonetheless, it is not totally impossible to follow this route, and those
who do reap many benefits. Some make their own clothing and con
struct furniture. Many people create and maintain gardens. Some even
build their own airplanes or boats.
5. Modify purchased products. This is probably the favorite and
most widely followed method to make purchased items into personal
ones. Harley Davidson motorcycles are famous in this regard: people
buy one from the factory and then immediately send it off to a custom
detailer, who completely alters it, the alterations sometimes costing
more than the cycle itself (already expensive). Each Harley is there
fore unique, and owners pride themselves upon their special designs
and paint jobs.
TLFeBOOK
Similarly, building custom sound systems in automobiles is now a
major business, with proud owners showing off their sound systems in
regional meetings and contests. So, too, with customization of auto
mobiles, changing the electronics that control the acceleration and
performance, altering the shocks, the tires and rims, and paint.
Of course, the home is perhaps the biggest site of customization.
Newly constructed, identicallooking houses soon transform them
selves into individual homes as their occupants change furnishings,
paint, window treatments, lawn, and, over years, modify the house's
structure, adding rooms, changing garages, and so on.
We Arc All Designers

A space can only be made into a place by its
occupants. The best that the designer can do
is put the tools into their hands.
—Steve Harrison and Paul Dourish,

"Re-place-ing space."
We are all designers. We manipulate the environment, the better to
serve our needs. We select what items to own,which to have around
us. We build, buy, arrange, and restructure: all this is a form of design.
When consciously, deliberately rearranging objects on our desks, the
furniture in our living rooms, and the things we keep in our cars, we
are designing. Through these personal acts of design, we transform
the otherwise anonymous, commonplace things and spaces of every
day life into our own things and places. Through our designs, we
transform houses into homes, spaces into places, things into belong
ings. While we may not have any control over the design of the many
objects we purchase, we do control which we select and how, where,
and when they are to be used.
Sit down and decide where to put your coffee cup, your pencil, the
book you are reading, and the paper you wish to write on—you are
TLFeBOOK
E p i l o g u e : W e A r e A l l D e s i g n e r s 225
designing. Even if this seems trivial and superficial, the essence of

design is present: A set of choices, some better than others, perhaps
none fully satisfactory. Possibly a dramatic restructuring to make
everything work much better, but at some cost in effort, money, or
even skills. Maybe if the furniture were rearranged or a new table pur
chased, the cup, pencil, book, and paper would fit much more natural
ly or the aesthetics would become more pleasurable? Once this is
considered and a selection made, you are designing. Moreover, this
activity is preceded by other designs; namely, the design of the build
ing and the room, the selection of the furniture and its placement, and
the location of the lights and their controls.
The best kind of design isn't necessarily an object, a space, or a
structure: it's a process—dynamic and adaptable. Many a college stu
dent has made a desk by placing a flatsided door on top of two filing
cabinets. Boxes become chairs and book cases. Bricks and wood make
shelves. Rugs become wall hangings. The best designs are the ones we
create for ourselves. And this is the most appropriate kind of design—
functional and aesthetic. It is design that's in harmony with our indi
vidual lifestyles.
Manufactured design, on the other hand, often misses the mark:
Objects are configured and made according to particular specifications
that many users find irrelevant. Readymade, purchased items seldom
fit our precise needs, although they might be close enough to be satis
factory. Fortunately, each of us is free to buy different items and then
to combine them in whatever way works best for us. Our rooms fit our
lifestyles. Our possessions reflect our personalities.
We are all designers—and have to be. Professional designers can
make things that are attractive and that work well. They can create
beautiful products that we fall in love with at first sight. They can cre
ate products that fulfill our needs, that are easy to understand, easy to
use, and that work just the way we want them to. Pleasurable to
behold, pleasurable to use. But they cannot make something personal,
make something we bond to. Nobody can do that for us: we must do it
for ourselves.
TLFeBOOK
Personal web sites on the internet provide a powerful tool for peo

ple to express themselves, to interact with others all across the world,
and to find communities that value their contributions. Internet tech
nologies—such as newsletters, mailing lists, and chat rooms—allow
people to congregate and share ideas, opinions, and experiences.
Individual web sites and web logs allow personal expression, whether
for art, music, photographs, or daily musing about events. These are
allpowerful personal experiences that create strong emotional feel
ings. Here is how one person described her web site to me:
My own web site—I sometimes want to give it up because it places

great demands on my time, but it represents me online in such aper
sonal way that it is impossible to imagine life without it. It brings me
friends and adventures, travel and praise, humor and surprises. It has
become my interface to the world. Without it an important part of me
would not exist.
These personal web sites and web logs have become essential parts
of many people's lives. They are personal, yet shared. They are loved
and hated. They bring out strong emotions. These are truly exten
sions of the self.
Personal web sites, web logs, and other personal internet sites are
prime examples of personal, nonprofessional design statements. Many
people expend great amounts of time and energy in writing their
thoughts, in collecting their favorite photographs, music, and video
clips, and otherwise in presenting their personal face to the world. For
many people, as with my correspondent, these personal statements
represent them so intimately that it is inconceivable to imagine life
without them—they have become an essential part of their self.
We are all designers—because we must be. We live our lives,
encounter success and failure, joy and sadness. We structure our own
worlds to support ourselves throughout life. Some occasions, people,
places, and things come to have special meanings, special emotional
feelings. These are our bonds, to ourselves, to our past, and to the
TLFeBOOK
future. When something gives pleasure, when it becomes a part of our

lives, and when the way we interact with it helps define our place in
society and in the world, then we have love. Design is part of this
equation, but personal interaction is the key. Love comes by being
earned, when an object's special characteristics makes it a daily part of
our lives, when it deepens our satisfaction, whether because of its
beauty, its behavior, or its reflective component.
The words of William Morris provide a fitting close to the book,
just as they provided a fitting opening:
If you want a golden rule that will fit everybody, this is it: Have

nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or
believe to be beautiful.
TLFeBOOK
TLFeBOOK
Personal Reflections and
Acknowledgments
IN S O M E S E N S E , this book is George Mandler's fault—surrep

titiously sticking ideas in my head without my awareness. He hired me
into the nascent Psychology Department of the University of
California, San Diego, during the first year of the department's exis
tence: the University itself had not yet graduated any students. Before
I knew it, I had written a book (Memory and Attention} for his editorial
series; developed an introductory textbook (Human Information
Processing, written with Peter Lindsay), because of the course he had
Peter and me teach; reconsidered my research on memory; and then
entered the field of human error and accidents—whence my interest
in design (under the philosophy that most human error is, in actuality,
design error).
The Center for Human Information Processing—founded and run
by Mandler—was host to the perceptual psychologist J. J. Gibson for
a few summers, and these extended stays led to my many debates and
229
TLFeBOOK
2 3 0 P e r s o n a l R e f l e c t i o n s a n d A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s
continual disagreements with Gibson. These were delightful disagree
ments, enjoyed by both of us, disagreements of the most fruitful, sci
entific kind, the kind that teaches. The combination of my interest in
errors and my adaptation of Gibson's notion of affordances led to The
Design of Everyday Things. (Had Gibson not died, I'm certain he
would still be arguing with me, disagreeing with my interpretation of
his concept, ostentatiously disconnecting his hearing aid to show that
he wasn't listening to my rebuttals, but secretly smiling and enjoying
every minute.)
George was both a cognitive psychologist and a major figure in the
study of emotion. But even though I spent many hours debating and
discussing topics in emotion with him, reading all his works, I never
knew quite how to integrate emotion into my studies of human cogni
tion and, especially, into my studies of the design of products. I even
gave a talk at the very first conference on cognitive science, in 1979,
entitled "Twelve Issues for Cognitive Science," with emotion as num
ber twelve. But even though I said we should study it, I didn't myself
know how to go about doing it. My argument was convincing to at
least one person in the audience: Andrew Ortony, now a professor at
Northwestern University, tells me that he switched his area of
research to emotion as a result of that talk.
In 1993,1 left academia to join industry—serving as vice president
at Apple Computer and then as an executive in other hightechnology
companies, including Hewlett Packard and an online, educational
startup. In 1998, my colleague Jakob Nielsen and I established a con
sulting firm, the Nielsen Norman group, which has exposed me to a
wide variety of products in several different industries. Eventually,
though, academics drew me back, this time to the computer science
department at Northwestern University. I now spend half time at the
university, the other half with the Nielsen Norman group.
At Northwestern University, Andrew Ortony reawakened my dor
mant interest in emotion. In the decade that I was away from acade
mia, much progress had been made in understanding the neuroscience
and psychology of emotion. Moreover, while in industry, helping
TLFeBOOK
Personal R e f l e c t i o n s and Acknowledgments 231
bring out a wide variety of products, from computers to appliances to

web sites, I became sensitive to the powerful emotional impact that
designs can produce. People were often far less interested in how well
something worked, or even in what it did, than in how it looked and
how it made them feel.
Together with William Revelle, a personality theorist in the depart
ment of psychology, Ortony and I decided to reexamine the litera
ture on affect, behavior, and cognition to try to understand this
emotional attraction. As our work progressed, it became clear that
emotion and affect should not be separated from cognition—nor
those from behavior, motivation, and personality; all are essential to
effective functioning in the world. Our work forms the theoretical
background for this book.
At roughly the same period, Bill Gross of Idealab! started a new
company—Evolution Robotics—to create robots for the home. He
asked me to join their advisory board; before long, I was deeply
engrossed in the science of robots. Robots, I soon determined, need to
have emotions to survive; indeed, emotions are essential for all
autonomous creatures, humans or machine. To my pleasant surprise, I
discovered that a research paper I had written in 1986 with the neu
ropsychologist Tim Shallice, on "will" as a control system, was being
used in robotics. Aha! I began to see how it all fit together.
As these separate approaches coalesced, applications dropped out
naturally. Our scientific explorations led us to propose that effective
processing is best analyzed at three different levels. This insight clari
fied many issues. It soon became clear that many of the arguments
about the role of emotion, beauty, and fun versus marketing concerns,
advertising claims, and the positioning of products—along with the
difficulties of making a product usable and functional—were often
debates across the different levels of processing. All these issues are
important, but all have different levels of influence, with different
time courses, and at different places in the cycle of purchase and use.
My goal in writing this book is to put these apparently conflicting
themes into one coherent framework based upon the threelevel theo
TLFeBOOK
232 Personal R e f l e c t i o n s and Acknowledgments
ry of affect, behavior, and cognition. With this framework I aim to

provide a deeper understanding of the design process and the emo
tional impact of products.
So, thank you, George; thank you, Andrew; thank you, Bill.
T H I S B O O K , like all my works, owes its existence to many other
people. It started with the ever encouraging prods of both my patient
agent, Sandy Dijkstra, and my business partner, Jakob Nielsen. No, not
quite nagging, but continual reminders and encouragement. I'm always
writing, always jotting things down, so out of these notes I created a
manuscript entitled "The Future of Everyday Things." But when I
tried teaching this material to students at Northwestern University, I
discovered it lacked cohesion: the framework that tied the ideas togeth
er came from the new work on emotion that I was doing with Andrew
Ortony and Bill Revelle, and this was not part of the book.
Ortony, Revelle, and I were developing a theory of emotion, and as
we made progress, I realized that the approach could be applied to the
field of design. Moreover, the work finally enabled me to resolve the
apparent contradictions between my professional interest in making
things usable and my personal appreciation of aesthetics. So I discard
ed that first book manuscript and started anew, this time using the the
oretical work on emotion as a framework. Once again, I tried teaching
the material, this time with far better success. My students in that first
class, and then the ones who tried out the manuscript of this book,
were all most helpful in transforming unrelated notes into coherent
manuscript.
Along the way, my professional colleagues have provided consider
able advice and resources. Danny Bobrow, my longterm colleague,
with intelligent pokes, prods, and irritating questions where he would
find the flaws in any argument I attempted. Jonathan Grudin, with a
continuous flow of email, oftentimes from dawn to dusk, with com
ments, papers, and critiques. Patrick Whitney, head of the Institute of
Design in Chicago, who invited me to serve on his board and provided
TLFeBOOK
P e r s o n a l R e f l e c t i o n s a n d A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s 233
both insightful comments and access to the industrial design commu

nity. Many of the faculty of the Institute of Design have been most
helpful: Chris Conley, John Heskett, Mark Rettig, and Kei Sato.
Nirmal Sethia, from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona,
has been a continual source of contacts and information: Nirmal
seems to know everyone in the field of industrial design and has made
sure I was uptodate.
THE P O W E R F U L team of interaction designers Shelley Evenson

and John Rheinfrank always provide great insights (and John is a great
chef). I thank Paul Bradley, David Kelly, and Craig Sampson of IDEO
and Walter Herbst and John Hartman from Herbst LaZar Bell.
Cynthia Breazeal and Roz Picard from the MIT Media Laboratory
provided numerous useful interactions, including visits to their labo
ratories, which contributed considerably to chapters 6 and 7. Rodney
Brooks, head of the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at MIT and a
roboticist, was also a great source of information. Marvin Minsky, as
always, provided much inspiration, especially with the manuscript of
his forthcoming book, The Emotion Machine.
I tested many of my ideas on the several bulletin boards of the CHI
community (the international society for ComputerHuman
Interaction), and many respondents have been most helpful. The list
of correspondents is huge—hundreds—but I am especially indebted
to my fruitful conversations with and suggestions from Joshua Barr,
Gilbert Cockton, Marc Hassenzahl, Challis Hodge, William Hudson,
Kristiina Karvonen, Jonas Lowgren, Hugh McLoone, George Olsen,
Kees Overbeeke, Etienne Pelaprat, Gerard Torenvliet, and Christina
Wodtke. I thank Kara Pernice Coyne, Susan Farrell, Shuli Gilutz,
Luice Hwang, Jakob Nielsen, and Amy Stover of the Nielsen Norman
group for their lively discussions.
Jim Stewart from Microsoft's XBOX division provided discussions
of the game industry and the XBOX poster for my walls ("Go out
side. Get some air. Watch a sunset. Boy, does that get old fast.").
TLFeBOOK
234 Personal R e f l e c t i o n s and Acknowledgments
The book slowly transformed from eighteen disorganized chapters
into the present seven chapters, plus prologue and epilogue, through
two massive rewrites, guided by Jo Ann Miller, my editor at Basic
Books. She worked me hard—fortunately for you. Thanks, Jo Ann.
And thanks to Randall Pink for diligently gathering final photographs
and permissions.
Although I have left out many who helped during the long gesta
tion period for this book, my thanks to all, named and unnamed,
including all my students at both Northwestern University and the
Institute of Design who helped me clarify my thoughts through the
various revisions.
Don Norman
Northbrook, Illinois
TLFeBOOK
Notes
Prologue: Three Teapots

3 "If you want a golden rule" (Morris, 1882. Quotation is from Chapter 3, "The
Beauty of Life," originally delivered before the Birmingham Society of Arts and
School of Design, February 19, 1880.)
6—7 "no new vehicle in recent memory has provoked more smiles" (Swan, 2002)
7 "It starts out with slight annoyance" (HughesMorgan, 2002)
12 "The neuroscientist Antonio Damasio studied people" (Damasio, 1994)
13 Parts of this chapter were published in Interactions, a publication of The
Association for Computing Machines(Norman, 2002b)
Chapter One: Attractive Things Work Better

17 "two Japanese researchers, Masaaki Kurosu and Kaori Kashimura" (Kurosu &
Kashimura, 1995)
17—18 "Japanese culture is known for its aesthetic tradition" (Tractinsky, 1997)
18 "So Tractinsky redid the experiment" (Tractinsky, 1997; Tractinsky, Katz, & Ikar,
2000)
18 "It requires a somewhat mystical theory" (Read, 1953, p. 61)
19 "The psychologist Alice Isen and her colleagues" (Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999;
Isen, 1993)
235
TLFeBOOK
236 N o t e s to p a g e s 2 1 -60
21 "My studies of emotion, conducted with my colleagues" (Ortony, Norman, &

Revelle, 2004)
31 "two words in the mythical language Elvish." Tolkien's books are, of course, well
known (Tolkien, 1954a, b, c, 1956). This particular experiment was done in my class
room by Dan Halstead and Gitte Waldman (in 2002). They described the sound sym
bolism of Tolkien and, in a class demonstration, showed that people who had never
heard Elvish could still reliably determine the meaning of its words.
32 "a sound symbolism governs the development" (Hinton, Nichols, & Ohala,
1994)
Chapter Two: The Multiple Faces of Emotion and Design

41 "almost 20,000 in the United States alone." Magazine Publishers of America, fig
ures for the year 2001.
http://www.magazine.org/consumer_marketing/index.html
46 "kitsch." The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Copyright © 1999, Columbia
University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/
46 "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." (Berra & Horton, 1989)
47 The Meaning of Things (Csikszentmihalyi & RochbergHalton, 1981)
48 "They are the first two chairs me and my husband bought." (Csikszentmihalyi &
RochbergHalton, 1981, p. 60)
48 "Household objects," (Csikszentmihalyi & RochbergHalton, 1981, p. 187)
49 "when I walked through the exhibits on display at the San Francisco Airport."
The San Francisco Airport Museums: http://www.sfoarts.org/
49 "The marvel of souvenir buildings" Text from the exhibit (Smookler, 2002)
52 "With every photo there is a story" (Cowen, 2002)
53 "Frohlich describes the possibilities this way" (Cowen, 2002)
54 "But put Asians in an individualistic situation" (Kitayama, 2002)
55 "the Heathkit Company." The company has stopped making kits, although it still
makes electronic learning materials. See the history at http://www.heathkitmuse
um.com/history.shtml.
55 "As the market researchers Bonnie Goebert and Herma Rosenthal put it"
(Goebert & Rosenthal, 2001. The quotations are from Chapter 1: Listening 101, the
value of focus groups.)
57 "Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance " (Pirsig, 1974)
57 "The American Heritage Dictionary defines fashion ..." The American Heritage®
Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2000 by Houghton
Mifflin Company.
60 "Emotional branding is about building relationships." Sergio Zyman, Former
Chief Marketing Office of CocaCola. In the foreword to Emotional Branding
(Gobe,2001).
60 "Emotional branding is based on that unique trust that is established with an audi
ence." (Gobe, 2001. From the preface, page ix.)
TLFeBOOK
N o t e s t o p a g e s 6 3 9 9 237
Chapter Three: Three Levels of Design: Visceral, Behavioral,

and Reflective
63 "I remember deciding to buy Apollinaris." Email from Hugues Belanger, in
response to my query. May 6, 2002. To see the bottle, Belanger said: For a picture of
the bottle, check out http://www.apollinaris.de/english/index.html (mouse over
"Products" and click on "Apollinaris Classic").
64 "Walk down a grocery aisle." From the web site of "The Bottled Water Web":
http://www.bottledwaterweb.com/indus.html.
64 "Package designers and brand managers." From the "Prepared Foods.com" web
site: http://www.preparedfoods.com/archives/1998/9810/9810packaging.htm.
64 "Almost everyone who enjoys TyNant." From the TyNant web site:
http://www.tynant.com/clients.htm.
69—70 "The principles of good behavioral design are well known ... I laid them out
in my earlier book, The Design of Everyday Things" (Norman, 2002a). Also see:
(Cooper, 1999; Raskin, 2000).
74 "Understanding enduser unmet and unarticulated needs." From a Herbst LaZar
Bell case study of the "Penguin" platform stepladder, sent to me mid2002.
78 "Here, try this." The Tech Box is described in more detail in Tom Kelley's book
about IDEO (Kelley & Littman, 2001, pages 142146).
86 "Swatch Is Design" Student guide from the Swatch web site (Swatch Watch
Corporation)
87 "In his important book about" (Coates, 2003, pp. 2.)
91 "The main goal in designing the Coaches Headset." Steve Remy, senior mechani
cal engineer and project manager for HLB, quoted in a press release for PTC's
Pro/ENGINEER software that was used by HLB for the design. (July 23, 2001.
Found at http://www.loispaul.com.)
92 "To the uninitiated" Copyright © 2002 by The New York Times Co. Reprinted
with permission. (St. John, 2002)
93 "When you're wearing a thousanddollar suit" (Rushkoff, 1999, p. 24)
95 "Paco Underbill's book" (Underbill, 1999)
96 "a wildly ambitious, hugely expensive science fiction allegory" and also, "sym
bolism ran such riot." From A. O. Scott's New York Times review of the restored
movie (Scott, 2002).
98 "The brilliant conceptual artists Vitaly Komar and Alex Melamid" (Komar,
Melamid, & Wypijewski, 1997)
98 "Perfectly 'usercentered design.'" Taken from Lieberman's essay "The
Tyranny of Evaluation," available on his web site. I changed the phrase "usercen
tered interfaces" to "usercentered design" (with his permission) to make the point
apply much more generally. (Lieberman, 2003)
Chapter Four: Fun and Games

99 "Professor Hiroshi Ishii of the MIT Media Laboratory runs back and forth."
TLFeBOOK
2 3 8 N o t e s t o p a g e s 9 9 1 2 7
Ishii's work is best seen at his web site: http://tangible.media.mit.edu/index.html.

The bottles are described in (Ishii, Mazalek, & Lee, 2001; Mazalek, Wood, & Ishii,
2001).
99 "Imagine trying to play table tennis on a school of fish" (Ishii, Wisneski,
Orbanes, Chun, & Paradiso, 1999)
100 "funology" (Blythe, Overbeeke, Monk, & Wright, 2003)
102 "the cook ... would naturally be disappointed" (Ekuan, 1998, p. 18)
103 "A sense of beauty that lauds lightness" (Ekuan, 1998, pp. 79—81)
103 "with articles and books on 'positive psychology' and 'wellbeing' becoming
popular" (Kahneman, Diener, & Schwarz, 1999; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000;
Snyder& Lopez, 2001)
103 "positive emotions broaden people's thoughtaction repertoires" (Fredrickson &
Joiner, 2002). This quotation ends by referring the reader to other works by
Fredrickson, in particular (Fredrickson, 1998, 2000).
104105 "The book Emotional Branding" (Gobe, 2001)
105 "Patrick Jordan builds on the work of Lionel Tiger" (Jordan, 2000; Tiger,
1992)
108 "He picked up the hammer and ate it." See Coulson, King, & Kutas, 1998,
although the particular example I made up isn't in this study.
109 "Pattern 134: Zen View" (Alexander, Ishikawa, & Silverstein, 1977, pp. 641—3)
109 "the parable of a Buddhist monk." I thank Mike Stone (at www.yawp.com) for
reminding me of the parable. The quoted description of the parable comes from his
discussion group posting.
111 "The seductive power of the design" (Khaslavsky & Shedroff, 1999,p. 45)
113 "On the napkin." Text accompanying the "collector's edition" of the juicer
(Alessi, 2000).
113 "Fortunately, Khaslavsky and Shedroff have done the analysis for me." The
lengthy quotation is from Khaslavsky & Shedroff, 1999, their Figure 1, p. 47 © 1999,
Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. Reprinted by permission. (I have refor
matted the text, but the words are the same.)
115 "Music plays a special role." An excellent review of these issues—and the
source for this paragraph—is Krumhansl, 2002, especially note p. 46.
117 "All cultures have evolved musical scales." This section draws heavily from
Krumhansl (2002) and Meyer (1956, p. 67).
120 "The designers of the Segway." Descriptive material for the "Segway Human
Transporter." Amazon.com site. December 2002. Also, personal conversation with
Dean Kamen, the inventor of Segway, February 25, 2003.
123 "the passions aroused in film" (Boorstin, 1990, p. 110)
124 "The vicarious eye puts our heart in the actor's body" (Boorstin, 1990, p. 110)
125 "the social scientist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi" (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990)
126 "The word'voyeur'" (Boorstin, 1990, p. 12)
126 "The voyeur's eye demands." Boorstin (1990), pages 13, 61, and 67.
127 "It can ruin the most dramatic moment" (Boorstin, 1990, p. 13)
TLFeBOOK
N o t e s t o p a g e s 1 2 9 1 5 7 239
129130 "Overslept, woke at 8:00." From an interview with Will Wright, game devel

oper of the Sims, conducted by Amazon.com Computer Game Editor Mike Fehlauer:
http:/ / www.playcenter.com/ P C_G ames/ interviews/will_wright_the_sims.htm.
131 "Video games were once thought" (Klinkenborg, 2002)
131 "In The Medium of the Video Game" (Wolf, 2001). The list of categories was
taken from the excerpt at: http://www.robinlionheart.com/gamedev/genres.xhtml.
132 "As Verlyn Klinkenborg says" (Klinkenborg, 2002)
Chapter Five: People, Places, and Things

136 "Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass" (Reeves & Nass, 1996)
136 "B. J. Fogg shows how people think." The table is taken from his Table 5.1.
(Fogg, 2002)
138 "It starts out with slight annoyance" (HughesMorgan, 2002)
139—140 "Now we get into the complex emotions" The basic analysis presented
here comes from the work of the psychologists Andrew Ortony, Gerald Clore,
and Allan Collins (Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988), although I have modified
their interpretation somewhat, to fit the special emphasis on design in this book.
The modifications are also in line with the work that I have done with them, in
particular with Andrew Ortony and William Revelle. (Ortony, Norman, &
Revelle, 2004)
141 "My 10inch Wusthof chef knife." Email received in response to my query on the
CHI discussion group. May 2002. (CHI is the ComputerHuman Interaction society.)
143 "It's human nature to trust our fellow man" (Mitnick & Simon, 2002, p. 32.)
144 "social psychologists Bibb Latane and John Darley" and "Bystander apathy"
(Latane & Darley, 1970)
145 "Crew Resource Management" (Wiener, Kanki, & Helmreich, 1993)
146 "As I was writing this book" (Hennessy, Patterson, Lin, & National Research
Council Committee on the Role of Information Technology in Responding to
Terrorism, 2003)
148 "Everywhere is nowhere." Thanks to John King, Dean of the School of
Information at University of Michigan for the quotation from Seneca.
150 "Instant messenger." Responses to my request to an online discussion group on
design to tell me products they love or hate (Dec. 2002). The two paragraphs in this
example were written by different people.
151 "Vernor Vinge, one of my favorite" (Vinge, 1993)
154 "Attention span . . . ten seconds." I believe it is in James's Principles of
Psychology (James, 1890), but although I have relied on this quotation for more than
thirty years, it is also more than thirty years since I read it. Try as I might, I have
been unable to find it again in order to provide a proper bibliographic reference.
154 "We carve out our own private spaces." See William Whyte's book City:
Rediscovering the Center (Whyte, 1988).
157 "Continually divided attention." Linda Stone, then a vice president of
Microsoft. Personal communication, PopTech! Conference, Camden, ME, 2002.
TLFeBOOK
2 4 0 N o t e s t o p a g e s 1 6 1 1 9 2
Chapter Six: Emotional Machines

161 "Dave, stop . . ." Excerpt from the movie 2001, from Bizoni (1994), p. 60.
163 Photograph of C3PO and R2D2. Star Wars: Episode IV—A New Hope © 1977
and 1997 Lucasfilm Ltd. & ™. All rights reserved. Used under authorization.
Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable law.
165 "The psychologists Robert Sekuler and Randolph Blake" (Sekuler & Blake,
1998)
166 "as happens to some emotionally impaired people" (Damasio, 1994,1999)
169 "The 1980s was the decade of the PC." Toshitada Doi, president of Sony
Digital Creatures Laboratory. (Nov. 2000)
170—171 "Neal Stephenson's science fiction novel" (Stephenson, 1995)
173 "Rodney Brooks, one of the world's leading roboticists" (Brooks, 2002). The
quotation is from page 125.
175 "Masahiro Mori, a Japanese roboticist": The Buddha in the Robot (Mori, 1982).
The argument that we are more bothered when the robot is too close to human appear
ance comes from an essay by Dave Bryant (Bryant, not dated). Bryant attributes the
argument to Mori, but when I bought Mori's book and read it, although I enjoyed the
book, I found not even a hint of this argument. Nonetheless, it is a great point.
176 "Philip K. Dick's" (Dick, 1968)
180 "I realized it would be a heck of a lot easier if we just gave them emotions."
Picard's quote comes from Cavelos (1999, pp. 107—108), but she reaffirmed it to me
during my visit to her laboratory in 2002.
183 "The extent to which emotional upsets can interfere with mental life" (Goleman,
1995). The quote was taken from (Kort, Reilly, & Picard, 2001).
184 "Professor Rosalind Picard" (Picard, 1997)
185 "Even the most controlled person." The basic research was done by Paul Ekman
(Ekman, 1982,2003). An excellent popular description is in the New Yorker article by
Malcolm Gladwell (Gladwell, 2002).
186 "National Research Council" (National Research Council Committee to
Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, 2002)
188 "Perhaps the earliest such experience was with Eliza." The work on Eliza was
done in the 1960s. It is reviewed in Weizenbaum's book (Weizenbaum, 1976).
190 "Do you think that I can use" Conversation between Danny Bobrow, Eliza, and
the VP. A transcript of the conversation has been made available by Giiven
Giizeldere and Stefano Franchi: I copied it from their website (Giizeldere & Franchi,
1995). I also confirmed the details through conversation and email with Bobrow
(Dec. 27,2002).
191 " Computer Power and Human Reason " (Weizenbaum, 1976)
191 "Designing Sociable Robots" (Breazeal, 2002)
192 (Figure 6.6). The photograph of Kismet comes from
http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/sociable/ongoingresearch .html (with permis
sion). For more detailed description, see Cynthia Breazeal's book Designing Sociable
TLFeBOOK
N o t e s t o p a g e s 1 9 4 2 2 7 241
Robots (Breazeal, 2002).
194 "These things push on our buttons." Quotations of Turkic taken from an inter
view with L. Kahney, in Wired.com (but I corrected the grammar). (Kahney, 2001).
Chapter Seven: The Future of Robots

196 "most of the world governments banned robot use"(Asimov, 1950)
197 "Asimov's Four Laws of Robotics." Roger Clarke, in his writings and on his
authoritative web site (Clarke, 1993, 1994), dates the origins of laws one,two,and
three from Clarke's discussion with science fiction author and editor John Campbell
in 1940 (Asimov, 1950, 1983). The zeroth law was added 45 years later, in 1985
(Asimov, 1985).
200 "Do what I mean, not what I say." Note that DWIM (Do What I Mean) is a very
old concept: Warren Teitelman introduced it into the command interpretation system
of the LISP computer programming system in 1972. When it works, it is very, very
nice.
202 "Asimov's main failure" A good review of the work on emergent systems, that
is, against central control, is in Johnson's book Emergence (Johnson, 2001).
203 "There already are some safety regulations that apply to robots" {Industrial
Robots and Robot System Safety. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US
Department of Labor, OSHA Technical Manual (TED 1-0.15A), 1999)
Epilogue: We Are All Designers

215 "You may recall Victor Papanek's short book" (Papanek & Hennessey, 1977)
220 "Stuart Brand ... has shown" (Brand, 1994)
223 "John Seymour's wonderful description" (Seymour, 2001)
224 "Steve Harrison and Paul Dourish" (Harrison & Dourish, 1996)
226 "My own web site." Response to my query for people on an email discussion list
abut design to tell me of products or websites they love, hate, or have a lovehate
relationship with (Dec. 2002).
227 "If you want a golden rule" (Morris, 1882. Quotation is from chapter 3, "The
Beauty of Life," originally delivered before the Birmingham Society of Arts and
School of Design, February 19, 1880.)
TLFeBOOK
TLFeBOOK
References
Alessi, A. (2000). Creating Juicy salif. Product brochure accompanying the Special

Anniversary Edition 2000 of the Juicy Salif. Crusinallo, Italy: Alessi.
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language: Towns,
buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, A. U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of
positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529550.
Asimov, I. (1950). I, Robot. London: D. Dobson. (Reprinted numerous times; see:
Asimov, I. [1983]).
Asimov, I. (1983). The Foundation trilogy: Foundation, Foundation and empire, Second
foundation; The stars, like dust; The naked sun; I, robot. New York: Octopus/
Heinemann.
Asimov, I. (1985). Robots and empire (1st ed.). Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Berra, Y., & Horton, T. (1989). Yogi: It ain't over. New York: McGrawHill.
Bizony, P. (1994). 2001: Filming the Future. London: Arum Press.
Blythe, M. A., Overbeeke, K., Monk, A. R, & Wright, P. C. (2003). Funology: From
usability to enjoyment. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Boorstin, J. (1990). The Hollywood eye: What makes movies work. New York: Cornelia
& Michael Bessie Books.
243
TLFeBOOK
244 References
Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after they're built. New York:
Viking.
Breazeal, C. (2002). Designing sociable robots. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brooks, R. A. (2002). Flesh and machines: How robots will change us. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Bryant, D. (not dated). The uncanny valley: Why are monstermovie zombies so
horrifying and talking animals so fascinating? Retrieved, 2003, http://
www.arclight.net/~pdb/glimpses/valley.html.
Cavelos, J. (1999). The science of Star Wars (1sted.).New York: St. Martin's Press.
Clarke, R. (1993). Asimov's laws of robotics: Implications for information technolo
gy, Part 1. IEEE Computer, 26 (12), 53—61. http://www.anu.edu.au/people/
Roger.Clarke/SOS/Asimov.html.
Clarke, R. (1994). Asimov's laws of robotics: Implications for information technolo
gy, Part 2. IEEE Computer, 27 (1), 5766. http://www.anu.edu.au/people/
Roger.Clarke/SOS/Asimov.html.
Coates, D. (2003). Watches tell more than time: Product design, information, and the
quest for elegance. New York: McGrawHill.
Cooper, A. (1999). The inmates are running the asylum: Why high-tech products drive
us cra^y and how to restore the sanity. Indianapolis: Sams; Prentice Hall.
Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Eventrelated
brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes,
13(l),2158.
Cowen, A. (2002, June). Talking photos: Interview with David Frohlich. mpulse, a
Cooltown magazine, http://www.cooltown.com/mpulse/0602thinker.asp.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & RochbergHalton, E. (1981). The meaning of things:
Domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New
York: G. P. Putnam.
Damasio, A. R. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making
of consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Dick, P. K. (1968). Do androids dream of electric sheep? (1st ed.). Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
Ekman, P. (1982). Emotion in the humanface (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions revealed: Recognisingfaces andfeelings to improve commu-
nication and emotionallife. New York: Henry Holt & Co./Times Books.
Ekuan, K. (1998). The aesthetics of theJapanese lunchbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and
do. New York: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General
Psychology, 29, 300319.
TLFeBOOK
References 245
Fredrickson, B. L. (2000). Cultivating positive emotions to optimize health and well

being. Prevention & Treatment (an electronic journal), 3 (Article 000la).
Available online with commentaries and a response at http://journals.apa.org/
prevention/volume3/tocmar07—OO.html
Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals
toward emotional wellbeing. Psychological Science, A3 (2), 172175.
Gladwell, M. (2002, August 5). Annals of Psychology: The naked face: Can experts
really read your thoughts? The New Yorker, 3849.
Gobe, M. (2001). Emotional branding: The new paradigm for connecting brands to peo-
ple. New York: Allworth Press.
Goebert, B., & Rosenthal, H. M. (2001). Beyond listening: Learning the secret language
of focus groups. New York: J. Wiley. URL for Chapter 1: Listening 101: The value
of focus groups. http://www.wileyeurope.com/cda/cover/0,,0471395625%7C
excerpt,00.pdf.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Giizeldere, G., & Franchi, S. (1995). Constructions of the mind: Dialogues with col
orful personalities of early AI. Stanford Electronic Humanities Review, 4 (2).
http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/42/text/dialogues.html.
Harrison, S., & Dourish, P. (1996). Re-place-ing space: The role of place and space in
collaborative systems. ACM. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support
of Collaborative Work (CSCW). New York: ACM.
Hennessy, J. L., Patterson, D. A., Lin, H. A., & National Research Council
Committee on the Role of Information Technology in Responding to Terrorism
(Eds.). (2003). Information technology for counterterrorism: Immediate actions and
future possibilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Hinton, L., Nichols, J., & Ohala, J. J. (1994). Sound symbolism. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
HughesMorgan, M. (2002, February 25). Net effect of computer rage. This is
London, http://www.thisislondon.com/dynamic/news/story.html?in_review_
id=506466&in_review_text_id=469291.
Industrial Robots and Robot System Safety. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, US Department of Labor, OSHA Technical Manual (TED
1—0.15A). (1999). http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/machineguarding/publica
tions.html. Section V entitled "Control and Safeguarding Personnel" outlines
specific means for safeguarding robot systems.
Isen, A. M. (1993). Positive affect and decision making. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland
(Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 261—277). New York: Guilford.
Ishii, H., Mazalek, A., & Lee, J. (2001). Bottles as a minimal interface to access digital
information. Computer Human Interaction (CHI—2001), Extended Abstracts. ACM
Press http://tangible.media.mit.edu/papers/Bottles_CHl01/Bottles_CHl01.pdf.
Ishii, H., Wisneski, C., Orbanes, J., Chun, B., & Paradiso, J. (1999). PingPongPlus:
Design of an athletictangible interface for computersupported cooperative play.
Pittsburgh, PA. CHI 99: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
TLFeBOOK
246 References
http://tangible.media.mit.edu/papers/PingPongPlus_CHI99/PingPongPlus_
CHl99.html
James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: The connected lives of ants, brains, cities, and software.
New York: Scribner.
Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products: An introduction to the new human
factors. London: Taylor & Francis.
Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Well-being: The foundations of
hedonicpsychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kahney, L. (2001). Puppy love for a robot. Wired news, http://www.wired.com/
news/culture/0,1284,41680,00.html.
Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from
IDEO, America's leading design firm. New York: Currency/Doubleday.
Khaslavsky, J., & Shedroff, N. (1999). Understanding the seductive experience.
Communications of the ACM, 42 (5), 45—49. http://hci.stanford.edu/captol
ogy/Key_Concepts/Papers/CACMseduction.pdf.
Kitayama, S. (2002). Culturalpsychology of the self: A renewed look at independence and
interdependence. Stockholm, 2000. Proceedings of the XXVII international con
gress of psychology. Vol. II. Psychology Press. http://www.hi.h.kyoto
u.ac.jp/users/cpl/thesis/k2.pdf.
Klinkenborg, V. (2002, December 16). Editorial observer; Living under the virtual vol
cano of video games this holiday season. The New York Times, Section A, pp. 26.
Komar, V., Melamid, A., & Wypijewski, J. (1997). Painting by numbers: Komar and
Melamid's scientific guide to art. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux.
Kort, B., Reilly, R., & Picard, R. W. (2001). An affective model of interplay between
emotions and learning: Reengineering educational pedagogy—building a learn
ing companion. 1CALT—2001 (International Conference on Advanced Learning
Technologies).
Krumhansl, C. L. (2002). Music: A link between cognition and emotion. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 11 (2), 45—50.
Kurosu, M., & Kashimura, K. (1995, May 7—11). Apparent usability vs. inherent
usability: experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability.
Denver, Colorado. Conference companion on human factors in computing systems.
292293.
Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help?
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Lieberman, H. (2003). The Tyranny of Evaluation. Retrieved, 2003, http://
web.media.mit.edu/~lieber/Misc/TyrannyEvaluation.html.
Mazalek, A., Wood, A., & Ishii, H. (2001, August 12—17). GenieBottles: An interactive
narrative in bottles. Proceedings of SIGGRAPH. ACM Press, http://tangible.
media.mit.edu/papers/genieBottles_SG01/genieBottles_SG01.pdf.
Meyer, L. B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
TLFeBOOK
References 247
Mitnick, K. D., & Simon, W. L. (2002). The art of deception: Controlling the human
element of security. Indianapolis: Wiley.
Mori, M. (1982). The Buddha in the robot (S. T. Charles, Trans.). Boston: Charles E
Tuttle Co.
Morris, W. (1882). Hopes and fears for art: Five lectures delivered in Birmingham,
London, and Nottingham, 18781881. London: Ellis & White. http://etext.
Iibrary.adelaide.edu.au/m/m87hf/chap3.html. (Quotation is from chapter 3,
"The Beauty of Life," originally delivered before the Birmingham Society of
Arts and School of Design, February 19, 1880.)
National Research Council Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the
Polygraph. (2002). The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Norman, D. A. (2002a). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books. (The
reissue, with a new preface, of The psychology of everyday things.}
Norman, D. A. (2002b). Emotion and design: Attractive things work better.
Interactions Magazine, ix (4), 3642. http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/Emotionand
design.html
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ortony, A., Norman, D. A., & Revelle, W. (2004). The role of affect and protoaffect
in effective functioning. In J.M. Fellous & M. A. Arbib (Eds.), Who needs emo-
tions? The brain meets the machine. New York: Oxford University Press.
Papanek, V. J., & Hennessey, J. (1977). How things don't work (1st ed.). New York:
Pantheon Books.
Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pirsig, R. M. (1974). Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. New York: Bantam
Books.
Raskin, J. (2000). The humane interface: New directionsfor designing interactive systems.
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Read, H. E. (1953). Art and industry, the principles of industrial design (3rd. ed.).
London: Faber and Faber.
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, tel-
evision, and new media like realpeople and places. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications
(and New York: Cambridge University Press).
Rushkoff, D. (1999). Coercion: Why we listen to what "they" say. New York: Riverhead.
Scott, A. O. (2002, July 12).Critic's notebook: A restored German classic of futuris
tic angst. The New York Times, B, pp. B18. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/
07/12/movies/12METR.html.
Sekuler, R., & Blake, R. (1998). Star Trek on the brain: Alien minds, human minds.
New York: W. H. Freeman. http://www2.shore.net/~sek/STontheBrain.html.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An intro
duction. AmericanPsychologist, 55(1), 5—14.
Seymour, J. (2001). The forgotten arts & crafts. New York: Dorling Kindersley.
TLFeBOOK
248 References
Smookler, K. (2002). Text from the San Francisco Airport Museums exhibit on
Miniature Monuments: email.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of positive psychology. New
York: Oxford University Press.
St. John, W. (2002, July 14). A store lures guys who are graduating from chinos.
The New York Times, Sunday Styles, pp. 9—1, 9—8. http://www.nytimes.com/
2002/07/14/fashion/ 14jEAN.html.
Stephenson, N. (1995). The diamond age, or, A young lady's illustrated primer. New
York: Bantam Books.
Swan, T. (2002, Sunday, June 2). Behind the wheel/Mini Cooper: Animated short,
dubbed in German. The New York Times, Automobiles, pp. 12.
Swatch Watch Corporation. Swatch basics: Facts & figures from the world of Swatch
[Internet (PDF) White paper]. Retrieved, December 2002, http://www.swatch.
com/fs_index.php?haupt:=collections&unter:=.
Tiger, L. (1992). The pursuit of pleasure. Boston: Little Brown.
Tolkien, J. R. R. (1954a). The fellowship of the ring: being the first part of The lord of
the rings (Vol. pt. 1). London: George Allen & Unwin.
Tolkien, J. R. R. (1954b). The lord of the rings. London: Allen & Unwin.
Tolkien, J. R. R. (1954c). The two towers: being the second part of The lord of the rings
(Vol. pt. 2). London: G. Allen & Unwin.
Tolkien, J. R. R. (1956). The return of the king: being the third part of The lord of the
rings (Vol. v. 3). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Tractinsky, N. (1997). Aesthetics and apparent usability: Empirically assessing cul
tural and methodological issues. CHI 97 Electronic publications: Papers
http://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi97/proceedings/paper/nt.htm.
Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting
with Computers, A? (2), 127—145.
Underbill, P. (1999). Why we buy: The science of shopping. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Vinge, V. (1993). Afire upon the deep. New York: Tor.
Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason: Fromjudgment to calcula-
tion. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Whyte, W. H. (1988). City: Rediscovering the center (1st ed.). New York: Doubleday.
Wiener, E. L., Kanki, B. G., & Helmreich, R. L. (1993). Cockpit resource management.
San Diego: Academic Press.
Wolf, M. J. P. (2001). The medium of the video game (1st ed.). Austin: University of
Texas Press. See "Genre and the Video Game" at http://www.robinlionheart.
com/gamedev/genres.xhtml.
TLFeBOOK
Index
Accidents, 28, 78, 203, 204, 205, 229 See also Emotion

Advertising, 41, 42, 43, 45, 54, 78, 79, 87, 91, Aging of products, 213
92, 104, 105, 152 Al (Artificial Intelligence) (film), 164
Aesthetics, 4, 8, 18, 19, 87, 102, 103, 104, Aibo (robot dog), 170(fig.), 194
105, 120,225 Alarms (for security), 145,146
as culturally dependent, 18 Alessi, Alberto, 113
and usability, 19 Alessi (firm), 106, 107, 121
See also Beauty Alexander, Christopher, 109
Aesthetics of the Japanese Lunchbox, The American Heritage Dictionary, 46, 57
(Ekuan), 101, 102(fig.), 103 Amusement park rides, 88
Affect, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, Anger, 8, 11, 18, 77, 103, 138, 139, 140, 159,
29, 32, 36, 37, 38, 95, 103, 119, 124, 125, 165, 178
126, 135, 138, 140, 154, 166, 167, 169, Animals, 18, 21, 23, 30, 65, 66, 110, 111, 130,
176,179,182,184,185,203,211 136, 137, 151, 162, 167,
behavioral level of, 124, 125 169, 174, 176, 209
negative, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, Anthropomorphism, 136, 191, 194
36,95,119,138,154,179. See also Anxiety, 8, 18, 2728, 95, 103, 122, 139, 154,
Emotion, negative 163, 168,178,180, 184
positive, 26, 27, 29, 36, 37, 103, 119, 124, and machines/robots, 168, 178
179. See also Emotion, positive Apollinaris mineral water, 63, 215
and robots, 166, 182. See also Emotion, Apple/Macintosh computers, 9, 42, 68,214.
and robots See also Computers
249
TLFeBOOK
250 Index
Appliances, 136, 170,171,183, 184, 217. See Betty Crocker Company, 5556

also Robots, home robots Biel, Switzerland, 85
Art, 4, 5, 9,18, 21, 23, 46, 47, 48, 57, 63, 64, Birds, 6566
67, 84, 86, 87, 96,98,100,101, 102,107, Blade Runner (film), 176
110,133 Blake, Randolph, 165
Artificial lenses, 209210 Blaming, 138141
Asimov, Isaac, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200,201, Bobrow, Daniel, 189191
202, 210. See also Robots, Asimov's Body language, 135136, 163, 176, 178, 180,
laws of robotics 185, 191
ATMs, 17 Bonding, 150, 220
Attention, 152,153, 154, 155,156,157,167, Books,10,44,128,132,133,220
192, 193,194 Boorstin, Jon, 123126,127
divided, 157 Bottles, 6365, 87,99, 215
Attractiveness, 87 Bradley, Paul, 221
Audi TT design, 68 Brain, 8, 11, 20, 23, 2933,79, 115
Automation, 205, 207 bottomup/topdown processing of, 25—26
Automobiles, 23, 26, 41,45, 56, 67,68(fig.), and expectations, 108
68, 72, 73, 74,76, 87,93, 109,118,132, levels of brain mechanisms, 21, 53
136, 140,148,155,156,171, 187,199, Brainstorming, 19, 27
200, 204,219,224 Brand, Stuart,220
and cell phone vs. passenger conversa Brands, 54, 5960, 64, 65, 105
tions, 155156 Breazeal, Cynthia, 180,181 (fig.), 191
and coevolution, 171 Brooks, Rodney, 173
cup holders for, 7374 Bystander apathy, 144—145
customization of, 224
seat adjustment control for, 76,77(fig.), Cake mixes, 55—56
214 Can openers, 215
See also under Safety issues Carelman, Jacques, 3
Aviation, 145, 204 Causes, 139,140, 168
Cell phones, 71, 72,105,119120,121,122,
Banana Republic, 92,93 140,148,149155,158,159, 219
Batteries, 7273 as emotional tool, 150, 151, 152, 153
BBN (company), 189 handsfree phones, 155
Beauty, 4, 8,18, 47, 65, 67,102,103, Change, 220221
109110,227 Chess, 208
and reflective level, 87 Children, 165, 170,198
See also Aesthetics Children's items, 67
Beeps, 119 Choices, 225. See also Decision making
Behaviorallevel processing, 21, 22, 23, 26, Chrysler PT Cruiser, 68
30, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39,40, 56, 60, 82,90, Citizen Kane (film), 127
95,105,115,137,155,185 Citrus juicers, 112(fig.), 112115
components of good behavioral design, Clothing, 219,223.
6970 See also Fashion
and films, 124126, 127,129 Coates, Del, 87
and music, 115,116, 117 CocaCola, 41,60
and vicarious experience, 116 Coen brothers, 128
See also Design, behavioral Cognition, 67, 8,13, 20, 38, 80,115,126
TLFeBOOK
Index 251
and emotion/affect, 11, 18, 20, 139 Deakins, Roger, 128

Cognitive psychology/science, 8, 10 Decision making, 84,128, 202, 209. See also
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 125 under Emotion
Color(s), 910, 64, 66, 67, 124, 128 Design, 47, 224
Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 46 aesthetics' role in, 19—20
Communication technologies, 105, 148—153, behavioral, 5, 39, 46, 60, 6983, 85, 97,
159. See also Cell phones; Instant 105, 115, 215. See also Behavioral
Messaging; Internet; Text messaging level processing
Company size, 60 and changing affect, 27
Complex systems, 202 coevolution of, 66
Computer Power and Human Reason by committee vs. an individual, 96—98
(Weizenbaum), 191 components of, 4—5, 6
Computers, 41, 71, 136, 139140, 146, 148, and continual use, 107, 109, 111, 112
167, 178,189, 198, 206, 208, 217,219 devious side of, 9295
and absence of physical feel of objects, 80 essence of, 103
in automobiles, 143 failures, 8081
for business, 42 and focus vs. creativity, 27
color monitors for, 9 human/usercentered, 81, 92, 93, 97
computeraided drawing tools, 91 iterative design process, 83, 97
computer rage, 78, 138, 139, 158 and knowledge of the brain, 32
See also Eliza computer program; Instant as process, 225
Messaging; Internet; Software; Text as product, 64
messaging reactive, 123
Concentration, 25 reflective, 56, 38, 39, 44, 45, 58, 60, 67,
Conceptual models, 75, 77(fig.), 77, 142 8389, 91, 97, 104, 105, 215217. See
Consciousness, 11, 37, 38, 53, 110, 125, 137, also Reflectivelevel processing
151,194. See also Attention and tasks, 58, 71
Control theory, 202 and trust, 141143
Cooperation, 140, 162, 201202 Universal Design, 78
Cowen, Amy, 52 visceral, 5, 37, 39, 44, 60, 6569, 74, 97,
Creativity, 2529, 46, 86, 207 123,214215. See also Viscerallevel
Criminals, 144, 145146 processing
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, 4748, 125 Designing Pleasurable Products (Jordan), 105
Culture, 17, 38, 51, 54, 57, 59, 66, 67, 83, 87, Designing Sociable Robots (Breazeal), 191
115, 117 Design of Everyday Things, The (Norman),
Curiosity, 19, 26, 103, 113, 166, 206 3,8, 70, 75
Customer relationships, 8889 Desire, 103, 114,201
Customization of products, 218—220, Diamond Age, The (Stephenson), 170171
222224 Dick, Philip K., 176
Cuteness, 106, 107, 109, 111, 175 Diesel stores, 92, 93, 94, 95
Cyborgs, 209 Digestive system, 12
Digital cameras, 5051, 219. See also
Damasio, Antonio, 12 Photographs
Danger, 24, 25, 26, 28, 40, 89, 154, 155, 166, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
167,201,204,208 (Dick), 176
Darley, John, 144 Dourish, Paul, 224
Deadlock situations, 182, 183 DeWALT battery charger, 118(fig. 4.7a),
TLFeBOOK
252 Index
119 and speech, 178, 191, 194, 193(fig.)

Edison, Thomas, 71 Emotional Branding, 104—105
Eiffel Tower, 47(fig.), 46 Empathy, 137
Ekuan, Kenji, 102103 Engineers, 81, 119
Electronic equipment, 119, 209 Espresso machines, 218
Elegance, 114 Ethical/moral issues. See under Robots
Eliza computer program, 188191, 193, 194 Evil, 209
Email, 158, 159, 217. See also Instant Evolution, 2023, 6566, 137, 154
Messaging; Text messaging coevolution, 66, 170, 172
Embarrassment, 43 Expectations, 113, 117, 138139, 141142
Emotion, 5, 67, 8, 32, 43, 46, 49, 50, 52, 53,
56,80,86,87, 111, 113, 120, 135 Facial expressions, 133, 163, 164, 174, 178,
and affect, 11, 117 179, 180, 185
and beauty, 47 Fans, 122
and behavior, 1213 Fashion, 54, 57(fig.), 5758, 59, 67, 86
and brands, 5960, 64 and emotion, 93
and causes, 139 essence of, 108
and color use, 9 Fatigue, 181182
as communication, 20 Fear, 11, 18,24,30,33,88,103, 113,115,
and communication technologies, 148, 149 161, 162, 167, 180, 184
conflict among levels of, 36 Feedback, 26, 7677, 80, 142
and decision making, 10, 12, 13, 19, 165, Films, 9, 40, 43, 96, 97, 123129, 130, 131,
168 132, 174, 207
emotional things, 165169, 221 black and white, 128
and evolutionary advanced as business vs. art, 98
animals, 1819 Fire laws, 28
fake, 179 Fire Upon the Deep, A (Vinge), 151
and fashion, 93 Floorcleaning machines, 74
and learning, 203—204 Flow, concept of, 48, 125126, 132
lovehate relationships, 157, 159, 213 Fly, The (film), 123
machines that induce, 188194 Focus, 2529
machines that sense, 183—188 Fogg, B. ]., 136
and micromotions, 185 Foods, 40, 101,170, 172
and movies, 123—127 Forgotten Arts and Crafts (Seymour), 223
and music, 116, 117 Four Seasons Hotels, 216, 218
negative, 18, 37, 7778, 103, 122, 138, 166. Fredrickson, Barbara, 103
See also Affect, negative French Connection, The (film), 124
physiological responses to, 185—186 Freud, Sigmund, 137
positive, 7, 19, 20, 103, 166, 183. See also Frohlich, David, 52, 53
Affect, positive Frustration, 182183, 187189
reflective, 40, 65 Fun, 100,101, 102,103,104,214
and robots, 13, 162163, 164167, Function, 37, 7075, 86
176183, 184, 188, 203, 210. See also multifunctionality, 103
Robots See also Usability
robots assessing human emotions, Games, 45, 125. See also Video games
177178,184,188 Gap, 92, 93
in science fiction, 165 Genovese, Kitty, 144
TLFeBOOK
Index 253
George Jensen watch, 214 James, William, 154

Global Kitchen Knife, 112(fig.), 115 Jobs, 207208
Goebert, Bonnie, 55, 56 Joiner, Thomas, 103
Goff, Bruce, 49 Jordan, Patrick, 105
Goleman, Daniel, 183 Joy, 103
Google, 104, 216, 217(fig.) Judgments, 10, 11, 13, 20, 25, 60, 105, 137,
Graves, Michael, 4, 7 139
Juicy Salif, 112(fig.), 112114
Handspring Personal Digital Assistant
(PDA), 221 Kashimura, Kaori, 17
Handspring Treo, 120 Keys, 72
Hand tools, 82, 136,215 Khaslavsky, Julie, 111, 112, 113
Harley Davidson motorcycles, 223 Kismet (robot), 192(fig.), 191194, 193(fig.)
Harrison, Steve, 224 Kits, 55
Herbst, Walter, 89 Kitsch, 4647
Herbst Lazar Bell firm, 74, 89, 90, 91 Klinkenborg, Verlyn, 132
Hewlett Packard, 83 Knives, 112(fig.), 115, 141,214
Hobbies, 55 Komar, Vitaly, 98
Hollywood Eye, The: What Makes Movies Kuhn Rikon, 215
Work (Boorstin), 123127 Kurosawa, Akira, 127
Homemade objects, 48, 55, 222, 223 Kurosu, Masaaki, 17
How Buildings Learn (Brand), 220221
Humor, 100, 136 Lang, Fritz, 96
Hunger, 181182 Language, 3032, 42, 135136, 176
Laser surgery, 206
IDEO industrial design company, 78, 221 Latane, Bibb, 144
IM. See Instant Messaging Leaders, 58, 59, 91
Implants, 209 Learning, 19, 44, 45, 81, 87, 103, 111, 132,
India, 208 162, 166, 183,187, 203, 204206
Individualism, 54 in robots, 181, 183
Information displays, 101—102 and struggle, 205
Innovations, 7172, 73, 98, 114 Legal issues, 210
Instant Messaging (IM), 148149, 150, 156, Leonardo (robot), 180, 181 (fig.)
216 LidLifter Can Opener, 215
Internet, 146, 148, 150, 169, 171. See also Lieberman, Henry, 98
Web sites Lie detectors, 185187
Interpretation, 38, 136, 137, 138, 139, 143, LieNielsen hand plane, 215
180,185, 192,194 Lighting (in films), 124, 128
Interruptions, 158. See also under Social Literature, 101, 110
interactions Logos, 54, 91, 104
Inventories, 219 Lord of the Rings,
iPod music player, 214 The (Tolkien), 31
I, Robot (Asimov), 202, 210 Love, 157,159, 165,213,217,
Isen, Alice, 19 226, 227
Ishi, Hiroshi, 99, 100 Macintosh computers. See Apple/
Macintosh computers
Jaguar roadster (1963), 67, 68(fig.) Magazines, 41
TLFeBOOK
254 Index
Magnificent Seven, The (film), 127 and design failures, 8081

Maher, Niall, 92 unarticulated, 74
Mammals, 23 vs. wants, 42—43, 60
Manufacturing to order, 219 Neuroscience, 20, 115
Man Who Wasn't There (film), 128 Neurotransmitters, 10, 20, 25—26
Marketing/market segments, 41, 43, 45, 57, Newspapers, 9, 10
5859, 60,79 New York Times, 7
Meaning of Things, The (Csikszentmihalyi Noise, 122
and RochbergHalton), 4748 Novelty, 113
Meanings, 6, 25, 32, 48, 83, 218, 226
Mechanical drawing instruments, 35—36 Odors, 66, 80
Medical issues, 206207, 209210 Ortony, Andrew, 21
Medium of the Video Game, The (Wolf), 131 OXO vegetable peeler, 215
Melamid, Alex, 98
Memory, 36, 38, 39, 4653, 65, 8384, 88, 89, Packaging, 64
121,207,209 Pain, 180182
Mercedes Benz automobiles, 199—200 Paintings, 52, 87
"Metropolis" (film), 96 Paramount Films, 96
Miniaturization, 103 Pattern Language, A (Alexander), 109
MINI Cooper automobile, 6(fig.), 7, 26, 109 Pattern matching, 29
MIT Media Laboratory/Affective PDA. See Handspring Personal Digital
Computing Program, 180, 184(fig.), Assistant
184, 191 PepsiCola, 41
Mitnick, K. D., 143 Perception, 25, 115, 137, 153, 192, 193(fig.).
Mode, 5758 See also Sensation
Moods, 32,135, 183,185,192 Personality, 32, 39, 40, 86, 136
Mori, Masahiro, 175 of products, 5660
Morris, William, 3, 227 Personalization of products, 218221, 223
Motivation, 205 Persuasive Technology (Fogg), 136
Motorcycles, 223 Pets. See under Robots
Motorola, 8992 Phonographs, 71
Movies. See Films Photographs, 48, 5053, 89, 158, 198
MP3 player, 118(fig. 4.7b) Physical feel, 70, 7880
Muscles, 12, 20, 21, 26, 117, 135, 137, 179, Picard, Rosalind, 180, 184(fig.), 184
180, 193 Pilots (aviation), 145
Music, 27, 53, 87, 96,101,110,115119 Pirovano, Stefano, 106
and films, 124, 128 Places, 48, 50, 224
musical instruments, 7778, 216 Plants, 65, 66
Play, 104, 130
Nass, Clifford, 136 Pleasure, 39, 7980, 96, 100, 110, 116, 123,
National Football League headsets, 90(fig.), 138, 139, 163, 181
8992 four kinds of, 105
National Research Council of the United voyeuristic, 126129
States. See United States National Poetry, 32, 125
Research Council Point of purchase displays, 94
Needs, 41, 46, 70, 71, 72, 73, 83, 87, 9293, Pollock, Channing, 96
111,113,176,224 Polygraph Testing, 185187
TLFeBOOK
Index 255
Portrait paintings, 52 industrial, 197, 198

Practicality, 4, 5 in medicine, 206—207
Predictions, 148, 169, 181 as pets, 162, 170(fig.), 176, 191, 210
Predispositions, 30 as teachers, 203204, 205, 206
Preferences, 41, 59, 6667, 96, 136, 222 vacuum cleaners, 175(fig. 6.3a), 197198,
Prestige, 87 200
Prettiness, 6667, 87 See also under Emotion; Safety issues
Pride, 56, 87, 140, 163, 181, 183, 220 RochbergHalton, Eugene, 47—48
Privacy, 154 Ronnefeldt, 3
Problem solving, 18, 26, 125, 182, 205, 206 Roomba robotic vacuum cleaner, 175(fig.
alternative approaches to, 19, 20 6.3a)
Processing levels, 2124, 22(fig.), 33, 60, Rosenthal, Herma, 55, 56
116,123 Rhythm, 115, 116117
and emotional appeal of movies, 123—124
and time element, 38 Safety issues, 144, 145, 167, 168
See also individual processing levels and automobiles, 155, 198199, 204205
Product categories, 41 and robots, 197198
Productdevelopment/enhancement, 71 San Francisco Airport, exhibits at, 49—50
Product models, designer's/user's, 75, Sapper, Richard, 121 (fig.)
76(fig.) Sato, Keiichi, 106
Professional equipment, 82 Scenic views, 109—111
Prototypes, 83 Scheduling systems, 168
Psychic energy, 48 Science, 8, 101
Pupils (of eyes), 185 Science fiction, 195
Screwpull lever wine opener, 215
Read, Herbert, 18, 20 Security issues, 144, 145—147
Reeves, Byron, 136 Seduction, 111, 113114, 115
Reflectivelevel processing, 21, 23, 24, 25, Segway HT, 120
30, 33, 36, 3738, 40, 53, 64, 65, 66, 67, Sekuler, Robert, 165
84, 95, 114,137, 138,139, 153, 155,185, Self esteem, 55
198 Self identity, 38, 48
and films, 123, 124, 126 Self image, 24, 39, 53, 5455, 84, 87, 91, 92
and music, 115, 116 Seneca, Lucius Annaeus, 148, 149
and video games, 131 Sensation, 24, 25, 29, 79. See also Perception
See also Design, reflective Sentimentality, 46, 47, 49
Relaxation, 19, 22, 26, 179 Setting, appropriateness to, 41—42, 53, 56
Remy, Steve, 91 Seven Samurai, The (film), 127
Revelle, William, 21 Seymour, John, 223
Robots, 162164, 166, 169176, 170(fig.), Shedroff, Nathan, 111, 112, 113
181(fig.) Shopping, 95
appearance of, 174—176 Simon, W. L., 143
Asimov's laws of robotics, 195—201, 202 "Sims, The," (video game), 129
autonomous, 209 Simulations, 131, 206
cooperating teams of, 201—202 Social engineering, 144, 146
ethical /moral issues concerning, 203, 204, Social interaction, 138, 148, 156, 162
208210 interruptions in, 151152, 157158
home robots, 176177, 184, 197, 198 and robots, 192(fig.). See also Robots
TLFeBOOK
256 Index
role of emotion in, 165 Text messaging, 148, 150, 151, 156

technology of, 158, 216 Tiger, Lionel, 105
Software, 70, 80, 222. See also Computers Time by Design, 84
Sony Corporation, 169, 170(fig.), 194 Time issues, 38, 50, 51,112
Sophistication, 38, 67, 80, 81, 112 Tolkien, J.R.R., 31
Sounds, 27, 3132, 67,79, 119123, 124 Tools, 118. See also Hand tools
and photography, 5253, 118(fig. 4.7b) Tractinsky, Noam,17—18
revealing emotions, 178 Training, 28
See also Music Traits, 32
Souvenirs, 46,47,49, 89, 216 Travel, 148, 149
Special objects/occasions, 47—48, 65, 227 Trust, 140143, 144145, 157, 215
Speech, 177, 191, 194 Tunnel vision, 28
Spivas, Mort, 93 Turkic, Sherry, 194
Sports, 40, 82, 8992,125,130,131 2001: A Space Odyssey (film), 127, 164
Starck, Philippe, 112,114 C3PO and R2D2 in, 163(fig.), 164, 175
Star Trek, 165 HAL in, 161162, 164
Star Trek on the Brain TyNant Natural Mineral Water, 64
(Sekuler and Blake), 165
Stephenson, Neal, 170, 206 Underbill, Paco, 95
Stockholm syndroirie, 95 Understandability, 70, 7577, 95
Stone, Linda, 157 Unemployment, 207
Store layouts, 9495 United States National Research Council,
Stress, 18, 26, 28, 103, 122, 187 146, 186
Students, 187188, 205206, 225 Usability, 4, 8, 18, 37, 69, 70, 7778,
Sturges, John, 127 94,217
Style, 54, 5758
Supermarkets, 9495 Value/s, 25, 46, 54, 58, 105, 114, 221
Surprise, 181, 192(fig.) Vicarious experience, 116, 123, 124—125,127,
Survival systems, 167 128, 129, 130
Suspension of disbelief, 125, 128 Video games, 125, 129133, 154, 205
Swatch watch company, 86 categories of, 131
Symmetry, 66 consoles for, 4345, 56
System image of a product, 75—76,76(fig.) "God" games, 129, 130, 133
Video recorders, 82
Tangibility, 79. See also Physical feel Video telephones, 148
Tastes, pleasant/unpleasant, 12,40, 66 Vinge, Vernor, 151
acquired tastes, 67 Viscerallevel processing, 21, 22, 24, 29, 30,
Taylor 410 guitar, 216 33, 3637, 38, 40, 56, 64, 66, 67, 82, 89,
Teachers. See under Robots 91,105,113,115,137,154,155, 176,185,
Teapots/tea kettles, 2(fig), 36, 5(fig.), 7, 198
107, 121(fig.) and first impressions, 37, 68, 137
Telephones, 71, 148. and movies, 123—124
See also Cell phones and music, 115—116
Television, 9, 136 and safety and survival systems, 167168
Te 6 tea strainer, 106107, 107(fig.), and video games, 131
108(fig.) See also Design, visceral
Terrorists, 144, 145, 146 Visual appearance, 79. See also Aesthetics
TLFeBOOK
Index 257
Vogue, 5758 Wolf, Mark, 131
Volkswagen (VW)automobiles, 68, 214 Women, 43
Wright, Will, 129
Watches, 84(fig.), 8486, 85(fig.), 214 Wusthof chef knife, 141
Watches Tell More than Time (Coates), 87
Water bottles, 62(figs.), 6364, 214215 XBOX video game player, 40
WaterHaven Shower, 69(fig.), 70
Web sites, 81, 86, 104, 213, 216, 218, 219 Zen View, 109110, 111
personal web sites, 226 Zyman, Sergio, 60
See also Internet
Weizenbaum, Joseph, 188, 191
Wild Bunch, The (film), 123
TLFeBOOK

Emotional Design Donald Norman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emotional Design Donald Norman

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emotional Design Donald Norman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TLFeBOOK

The Invisible Computer

Things That Make Us Smart

Turn Signals Are the Facial Expressions of Automobiles

The Design of Everyday Things

The Psychology of Everyday Things

User Centered System Design: New Perspectives

Learning and Memory

Perspectives on Cognitive Science (Editor)

Human Information Processing (With Peter Lindsay)

Models of Human Memory (Editor)

Memory and Attention:

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING­IN­PUBLICATION DATA

Prologue: Three Teapots 3

Part I: The Meaning of Things

1 Attractive Things Work Better 17

Part II: Design in Practice

3 Three Levels of Design: Visceral, Behavioral,

6 Emotional Machines 161

Epilogue: We Are All Designers 213

Personal Reflections and Acknovledgments 229

FIGURE 0.3a, b, and c

I H A V E A C O L L E C T I O N OF T E A P O T S . One of them is

This is so despite the common tendency to pit cognition against

prickle and your hands begin to sweat. Soon you are banging your

these reactions are part of the experience of emotion. We literally feel

known for its aesthetic tradition," but Israelis? Nah,Israelis are

of negative affect leads people to focus upon the problematic details,

Three Levels of Processing:

Human beings are, of course, the most complex of all animals, with

is good or desirable, the animal can relax and take advantage of the

whose enjoyment derives from the reflective level, and requires study

Focus and Creativity

ous, whether through visceral or reflective processing, your affective

lowed by a considerable period of concentrated, focused effort. In the

cate its state. But as soon as any problem exists, the music should go

good example of how biological predispositions mix with experience.

sounds of a language and the meaning of words. At first glance, this

The Multiple Faces

tie all over the drawing, my books, and the table. India ink doesn't

level is pre­consciousness, pre­thought. This is where appearance

levels of feeling, emotions, and cognition reside. It is only here that

Working with the Three Levels

The ways in which the three levels interact are complex. Still, for

Visceral design > Appearance

Go outside. Get some air.

THE T E X T of Microsoft's ad campaign for XBOX appeals to teens

business meeting. Embarrassment is, of course, an emotion that

the potential sales to a fraction of the possible audience, excluding not

Objects That Evoke Memories

attributes, they are not what Although often denounced as "kitsch,"

and then, in the extensive interviews, explored what factors made

repaired with tape. Their surface appearance is less important than

The marvel of souvenir buildings is that the identical miniature sparks

Frohlich points out that today's technology allows us both to cap­

Yes, it was too easy to make the cake. Betty Crocker solved the

The Personality of Products

design, quoting from R. M.

IN THE world of products, a brand is an identifying mark, the sym­

T H I S C O N C L U D E S part I of the book: the basic tools of emo­

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGINGINPUBLICATION DATA

level is preconsciousness, prethought. This is where appearance

Frohlich points out that today's technology allows us both to cap

IN THE world of products, a brand is an identifying mark, the sym

T H I S C O N C L U D E S part I of the book: the basic tools of emo

Effective visceral design requires the skills of the visual and graph

er can often spot difficulties and solutions that even the person experi

even then, errors and poor performance are common among nonpro

" H E R E , TRY this." I am visiting IDEO, the industrial design com

skillet, smelling the odors released from the freshcut food. Or imag

it is about the meaning of things, the personal remembrances some

to talk with the folks at Swatch, the watch company that had trans

To the practitioner of humancentered design, serving customers

The brilliant conceptual artists Vitaly Komar and Alex Melamid con

positive emotions broaden people's thoughtaction repertoires, encour

have brought home excitedly and then, after the first use or two, ban

Espouses values or connections to personal goals. It trans

However compelling this analysis of the juicer as an item of seduc

bad name. Still sound, when used properly, is both emotionally satis

tion of softcore porn" as examples of the visceral side of movies.

B O O R S T I N ' S " V I C A R I O U S " level corresponds to my "behav

It can ruin the most dramatic moment with the most mundane con