Bibliographic Information
Creator: Marschallek, Barbara E.; Jacobsen, Thomas
Contributor: Marschallek, Barbara E.; Jacobsen, Thomas
Funding:
Title: Primary data on the study “Materials aesthetics: A replication and extension study of the conceptual structure”.
Year of Publication: 2022
Citation: Marschallek, B.E., & Jacobsen, T. (2022). Primärdaten zu der Studie “Materials aesthetics: A replication and extension study of the conceptual structure” [Files auf CD-ROM]. Trier: Psychologisches Datenarchiv PsychData des Leibniz-Institut für Psychologie ZPID. DOI: 10.5160/psychdata.mkba20pr17
Abstract
The natural occurrence and choice of specific materials have a significant impact on our experience of the physical environment. In a recent verbal association study, adjectives describing the aesthetics of various materials were recorded. The results of this study indicated that this conceptual structure is primarily dominated by sensory, descriptive terms that are of neutral valence. Furthermore, it did not show a usual primacy of the beauty concept. In the present study, the conceptual structure of the aesthetics of different materials was also elicited, but using a different methodological approach. Following the semantic differential procedure, the final 272 subjects were asked to assess the applicability of the most listed terms in the previous study for the different materials. Furthermore, exploratory data analysis was used to investigate the role of products in the conceptual structure of material aesthetics. Overall, the results of multiple analyses showed a successful replication of the previous results. With regard to the influence of products, no significant results could be found. Taken as a whole, the results of the present study highlight the uniqueness of materials aesthetics and its distinction from the conceptual structures underlying most other (aesthetic) domains.
Codebook
Codebook_mkba20pr17_marschallek_0086_kb_en
| Position | Name | Label | Valid_values | Missing_values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ID | subjects' test-ID numbers | 1-275 "consecutive subjects' test-ID numbers" | -99 "missing value: not specified" |
| 2 | DOMAIN | material category | 1 "materials" 2 "glass" 3 "wood" 4 "ceramics" 5 "plastic" 6 "leather" 7 "metal" 8 "paper" 9 "stone" 10 "textiles" | -99 "missing value: not specified" |
| 3 | CONDITION | product or no-product condition | 1 "product condition" 2 "no-product condition" | -99 "missing value: not specified" |
| 4 | LEFT_RIGHT_ORIENTATION | alignment of the display of the scale poles for the assessment of the individual adjectives | 1 "left (does not fit at all) - right (fits extraordinarily well)" 2 "left (fits extraordinarily well) - right (does not fit at all) " | -99 "missing value: not specified" |
| 5 | GENDER | subjects' gender | 1 "male" 2 "female" 3 "diverse" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 6 | AGE | subjects' age in years | 18-58 "subjects' age in years" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 7 | NATIVE_LANGUAGE | subjects' native language/s | 1 "German" 2 "another language" 3 "German and one/multiple other language/s" 4 "multiple other languages" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 8 | NATIVE_LANGUAGE_DESCRIPTION | specification of native language/s, which is/are other than German | string "specification of native language/s, which is/are other than German" | 9999 "missing value: not specified" |
| 9 | STUDIES | subjects' current field of study at university | 1 "Psychology" 2 "Educational Science" 3 "other" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 10 | EXPERTISE | subjects' judgement whether they considered themselves as experts in the field of materials | 1 "yes" 2 "no" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 11 | PRODUCT_ASSOCIATION | associated product of participants in the product condition | string "associated product of participants in the product condition" | 9999 "missing value: not specified" |
| 12 | SMOOTH | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 13 | HARD | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 14 | ROUGH | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 15 | SOFT | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 16 | GLOSSY | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 17 | BUATIFUL | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 18 | SOLID | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 19 | COLD | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 20 | STABLE | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 21 | SEETHROUGH | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 22 | COLORFUL | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 23 | MATTE | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 24 | BRIGHT | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 25 | ROBUST | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 26 | BROWN | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 27 | ROUND | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 28 | HEAVY | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 29 | WHITE | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 30 | DARK | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 31 | NATURAL | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 32 | COLORED | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 33 | WARM | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 34 | GREY | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 35 | MALLEABLE | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 36 | LARGE | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 37 | FRAGILE | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 38 | FINE | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 39 | LIGHT | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 40 | COARSE | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 41 | SMALL | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 42 | PRECIOUS | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 43 | EDGED | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 44 | THIN | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 45 | BLACK | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 46 | HIGHQUALITY | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 47 | VERSATILE | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 48 | CORNERED | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 49 | THICK | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 50 | CLEAR | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 51 | FLUFFY | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 52 | ARTIFICIAL | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 53 | EXPENSIVE | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 54 | UGLY | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 55 | SPECULAR | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 56 | CHEAP | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 57 | TRANSPARENT | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 58 | SCRATCHY | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 59 | GRAINED | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 60 | ANIMAL | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 61 | SILKY | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 62 | FOLDABLE | subjects' ratings of the applicability of the respective adjectives (N = 51); scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "does not fit at all" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "fits extraordinarily well" | -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 63 | PLEASANTNESS | subjects' ratings of the pleasantness of the of their assigned material as incorporated in their associated product in the product condition; scale ranged from 1 to 7 | 1 "not at all pleasant" 2 "" 3 "" 4 "" 5 "" 6 "" 7 "very pleasant" | -77 "missing value: raised in no-product condition" -99 "missing value: not answered" |
| 64 | INCLUDE | Specification, whether subject was included in replication analysis | 1 "included" 2 "not included" | -99 "missing value: not specified" |
| 65 | INCLUDE_ROLE_OF_PRODUCTS | Specification, whether subject was included in post hoc analysis considering only participants who listed prototypical products | 1 "included" 2 "not included" | -99 "missing value: not specified" |
Study Description
Research Questions/Hypotheses:
Research Design: Mixed standardized survey instrument (combination of differently standardized parts); single measurement
Measurement Instruments/Apparatus:
A detailed description of the methods can be found in the associated publication. The study was conducted online via the web application “SoSci Survey”. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (product; no-product). Additionally, each participant was randomly assigned to one of the ten material categories. Participants in the product condition were first asked to write down a product with which they associated the respective material. All participants, that is, regardless of condition, were then asked to rate the applicability of the adjectives to their respective material. The specific instructions (exemplified by the material category glass) were as follows: “Please characterize the material glass. Rate the material glass using the scales below by ticking the value that you think is most applicable. Make your decision spontaneously and please assess all scales, even if some may seem inapplicable.” Participants could give their assessment on a 7-point bipolar scale (1 = does not fit at all to 7 = fits extraordinally well). Participants had the option to omit individual adjectives, but were kindly asked to answer all of them. The order of presentation of the adjectives, as well as the left-right orientation of the scale poles, were randomized. Finally, participants in the product condition were asked how pleasant they find the respective material when used for the product they mentioned at the beginning. Participants could give their assessment on a 7-point bipolar scale (1 = not at all pleasant to 7 = very pleasant). Finally, information on demographic data was requested.
Data Collection Method:
Survey in the absence of an investigator
- Online survey
Population: Students of Helmut Schmidt University/University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg
Survey Time Period:
The data collection took place between October and December 2020 inclusive. Participants could take part in the online survey at a time of their choosing via the link provided to “SoSci Survey”.
Sample: Convenience sample
Gender Distribution:
Age Distribution: 18-58 years
Spatial Coverage (Country/Region/City): Germany/-/-
Subject Recruitment:
The subjects were made aware of the study several times with the help of a university e-mail distribution list. The link for the online survey was also provided to them via this distribution list. They were remunerated with the help of subject hours.
Sample Size: 272 participants
Return/DropOut:
Literature
Publications Directly Related to the Dataset
| Publications Directly Related to the Dataset |
|---|
| Marschallek, B. E, & Jacobsen, T. (2022). Materials aesthetics: A replication and extension study of the conceptual structure. PLOS ONE, 17(11), e0277082. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277082 |
Further Reading
| Further Reading |
|---|
| Marschallek, B. E., Wagner, V., & Jacobsen, T. (2021). Smooth as glass and hard as stone? On the conceptual structure of the aesthetics of materials. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000437 |