隨著產品技術與科技發展的快速進步，即使是不同公司所生產的同類型產品，在功能上的表現對於消費者而言可能已大同小異，基本的產品物質功能對於消費者而言，不再是吸引其購買的絕對因素 ; 再進一步的產品美感需求，也因為現今對外觀設計的重視，基本上的產品美感均達一定水準。該如何加以突破，設計出能夠打動消費者的產品？便有待差異化設計的介入，來吸引不同審美觀、不同品味的消費者。故確實掌握不同族群審美品味的任務，在設計流程中已成為重要的步驟。本研究因此假定消費者對於偏好之產品形態有固定之偏好模式，若能剖析各審美族群之偏好模式，即能快速得知所設計之造形產出，是否滿足目標族群。
本研究以構成產品形態中最主要的因素：造形，作為探討消費者偏好的主要對象，利用“花瓶”作為探討造形的媒介。首先進行適用審美原則篩選，篩選出花瓶所適用的審美原則，包含：對稱、極簡、凝聚三種。並透過造形審美度評價模型的客觀量化計算，將不同造形花瓶所呈現的不同對稱、極簡及凝聚感受，作為構成花瓶造形的不同屬性水準，與消費者偏好結合，進行聯合分析，得知各受測者所重視之審美水準為何。
而根據聯合分析中Pearson’s R與Kendall’s tau兩指標，也證實受測者在挑選偏好的花瓶中，確實具有既定之偏好模式。接著，以市場區隔的概念，對於受測者看待三種審美原則的部分效用值的不同，利用集群分析劃分出了不同審美觀之六族群。並依此建構出各族群之造形偏好模式圖。偏好模式圖能以逆向工程的思維，檢測所設計出之花瓶造形對於各種審美品味的族群之偏好量值 ; 亦能應用於造形設計修繕上，讓造形設計的修改更有方向性、依據性。本研究最後並以一原本對於目標族群喜好度普通之花瓶為案例，將其以該族群最為偏好的審美量值為方向，加以調整與修改，使之變得更符合目標族群之偏好。

As product technological developments advance rapidly, products in the same category when being manufactured by different companies may seem to consumers that their functional performance is largely identical but with minor differences. For consumers, the essential physical functions of a product are no longer the decisive factor that attracts them to buy. As for further product aesthetic demands, the average product aesthetic perception has in general reached a certain level as well due to people's emphasis on appearance designs nowadays. How do designers overcome the hurdle and design products which strike a chord with consumers? This depends on the introduction of design differentiation which can attract consumers of different aesthetic perceptions or different tastes. Therefore it has already become an important procedure in the design process to fulfill the task of mastering the exact aesthetic tastes of people from different groups. It is therefore contemplated in this research that consumers have a fixed preference model for the preferred product forms. If the preference model of various aesthetic groups can be analyzed, designers can find out quickly whether the form designs which are generated satisfy the target group or not.
The factor of form, which is the major factor composes product styles, was selected as the major target in this research for the investigation of consumer preferences, and a variety of vases have been selected as the samples for the investigation of forms. The aesthetic principles which are applicable to vases have been firstly screened out and these principles are composed of Symmetry, Minimalist, and Cohesion. Via the calculation by objective quantization on the evaluation model of aesthetic measures, the different values of Symmetry, Minimalist, and Cohesion that are presented by different vases can serve as different attributes and levels which compose the vase forms. These attributes and levels can be further combined with consumer preferences for a conjoint analysis and the researchers can determine the aesthetic values which are emphasized by each subject.
Based on the two indexes of Pearson’s R and Kendall’s tau in the conjoint analysis, it has also been verified that the subjects indeed possess an established preference model when choosing the preferred vases. Followed by this finding, the concept of market segmentation was utilized to divide the subjects into six groups with different aesthetic perceptions based on the differences in the part-worth utilities perceived by the subjects on the three types of aesthetic principles. The result was further utilized to construct the figures of the form preference models of each group. With the figures of preference models, the preference values of vase forms which have been designed, can be detected in different group’s view with the thinking of reversed engineering. This approach can also be applied to the form design and renovation, and provides the modification of form designs with the right direction and a correct basis. In the final portion of this research, a vase with an ordinary preference to the target group was selected for the case study. It has been adjusted and modified in the direction of the group's most preferred aesthetic values and finally became a vase which caters more to the target group's preference.

王世彣（2013）.以聯合分析法探討平板電腦產品屬性之最佳化組合. 成功大學國際企業研究所。[Wang, S. W. (2013). An Application of Conjoint Analysis to the Optimal Combination of the Product Attributes of Tablet PC. Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, ROC.]
丘永福（1990）. 造形原理. 藝風堂出版社。[Chiu, Y. F. (1990). The principles of formation. Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC: Yi Fong Tang Publisher.]
呂旭宏（2003）. 應用感性工學與基因遺傳演算法於產品造形設計. 成功大學工業設計研究所。[Lu, X. H. (2003). Applying KE and GA to Product Form Design. Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, ROC.]
沈柔堅（1989）.中國美術辭典. 雄獅圖書。[Shen , R. J. (1989). Chinese art dictionary. Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC: Lion Publisher.]
吳家堯（2012）. 應用審美度理論與基因遺傳演算法於產品造形最佳化之研究. 成功大學工業設計研究所。[Wu, C. Y. (2012). Applying Aesthetics Theory and Genetic Algorithm in Product Form Optimization. Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, ROC.]
邱淑娟（2007）. 跨文化消費者感性研究-以手機為例. 成功大學工業設計研究所。[Chiu, S. J. (2007). Cross-Culture Consumers’ Kansei Research - A case study of Mobile phone. Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, ROC.]
周文賢, 張欽富（2000）.聯合分析在產品設計之運用, 台北：華泰文化事業股份有限公司。[Chou, W. C. & Zhang, Q. F. (2000). Conjoint analysis in the use of the product design. Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC: Hwa Tai Publisher.]
洪偉肯, 陳玲鈴（2010）. 如何量測產品的矛盾語意. 設計學報, 15(4), 41-58。[Hung, W. K. & Chan, L. L. (2010). How to Measure Product's Contradictory Semantics. Journal of Design, 15(4), 41-58.]
真城知己（2006）.聯合分析的SPSS使用手冊. 台北市：鼎茂圖書出版。[Sanagi, T. (1989). Conjoint analysis by SPSS. Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC: Ting Mao Publisher.]
倪于珺（2012）.運用魅力工學於產品創值研究_以專業型LED手電筒為例. 成功大學工業設計研究所。[Ni, Y. C. (2012). Research on Creating Product Value Based on Miryoku Engineering_A Case Study of Professional LED Flashlight. Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, ROC.]
黃台生（2007）. 產品造形意象元素設計系統之研究－以行動影音產品為例. 設計學報, 12(4), 59-77。[Huang, T. S. (2007). The Form Element System Design for Portable Multimedia Digital Products. Journal of Design, 12(4), 59-77.]
黃欣迪（2008）.消費者生活型態對產品外形喜好度之影響. 國立成功大學工業設計研究所。[Huang, C. D. (2008). The Effect of Consumer Lifestyles on Product Form Preference. Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, ROC.]
陳璽任（2006）消費者對不同相似程度產品觀察模式之探討以手機為例. 成功大學工業設計研究所。[Chan, H. J. (2006). A study on consumer’s observation pattern upon different level of similarity of product- using cell phone as example. Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, ROC.]
練季旺（2003）. 消費者對產品造形偏好之推論模式研究. 成功大學工業設計學研究所。[Lian, Z. W. (2003). A Research on Reasoning Model for Identifying the Consumer’s Preference to the Form. Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, ROC.]
鄭麗玉（1993）.認知心理學─理論與應用. 五南圖書。[Zheng, L. Y. (1993). Cognitive psychology-theory and application. Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC: Wu Nan Publisher.]
羅際鋐（2013）. 產品審美度評價模型建構之研究. 成功大學工業設計研究所。[Lo, C. H. (2013). A study on constructing an evaluation model for product aesthetic measure. Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, ROC.]
蘇志豪（2003）. 產品形態與使用者偏好之關係研究 -以牙刷為例. 雲林科技大學工業設計研究所。[Su, Z. H. (2003). Research on the Relationship between the Product’s form and the User’s preference－A Case Study of Toothbrush Design. Yun Lin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan, ROC.]
Ahamed, A., & Y, Lin. (2011). Objective and Subjective Measures of Visual Aesthetics of Website Interface Design: The Two Sides of the Coin. Human-Computer Interaction, Part I, 35–44.
Bar, Moshe., & Neta, Maital. (2007). Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation. Neuropsychologia, 45(10), 2191-2200.
Baxter, M. (1995). Product Design, Practical methods for the systematic development of new products. Chapman.
Best, R. J. (2009). Market-Based Management: Strategies for Growing Customer Value and Profitability (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Birkhoff, G.D. (1933). Aesthetic Measure. Harvard University Press.
Charlie, R., Ben, H., & Glen, M. (2012). A method for exploring similarities and visual references to brand in the appearance of mature mass-market products. Design Studies, 33, 496-520.
Demirbilek, O., & Sener, B. (2003). Product design, semantics and emotional response. Ergonomics, 46(13-14), 1346-1360.
Fenko, Anna., Schifferstein, Hendrik N. J., & Hekkert, Paul. (2010). Looking hot or feeling hot: What determines the product experience of warmth? Materials & Design, 31(3), 1325-1331.
J. M. Zain., & M. K. Tey. (2008). Using Aesthetic Measurement Application (AMA) to Measure Aesthetics of Web Page Interfaces. Fourth International Conference on Natural Computation.
J. R. Chou. (2011). A GestalteMinimalism-based decision-making model for evaluating product form design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 41, 607-616.
Kano, Noriaki. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality. Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), 39–48.
Keiko, S., & Masaomi, O. (2013, August). The Effect of Color and Shape on Aesthetic Evaluation of Colored Shape. The 22nd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication 
Gyeongju, Korea.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
M. M. Tseng., R. J. Jiao., & C. Wang. (2010). Design for mass personalization. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 59, 175–178.
Nagamachi, M. (1995). Kansei Engineering: A new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15, 3-11.
Nathan, C. (2010). The roles that artefacts play: technical, social and aesthetic functions. Design Studies, 31, 311-344.
Nathan, C., James, M., & John, C. (2009). Shaping things: intended consumer response and the other determinants of product form. Design Studies, 30, 224-254.
Oscar, P., Jan, S. & Dirk, S. (2008). Should new products look similar or different? The influence of the market environment on strategic product styling. Design Studies, 29, 30-48.
Paul, C. (2009). Style based automated graphic layouts. Design Studies, 31, 3-25.
Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Desmet, P.M.A. (2007). The effects of sensory impairments on product experience and personal well-being. Ergonomics, 50(12), 2026-2048.
S. J. Luo., Y. T. Fu., & P. Korvenmaa. (2012). A preliminary study of perceptual matching for the evaluation of beverage bottle design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42, 219-232.
S. J. Luo., Y. T. Fu., & Y. X. Zhou. (2012). Perceptual matching of shape design style between wheel hub and car type. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42, 90-102.
S. W. Hsiao., F. Y. Chiu., & S. H. Lu. (2010). Product-form design model based on genetic algorithms. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 40, 237-246.
S. W. Hsiao., & J. R. Chou. (2006). A gestalt-like perceptual measure for home page design using a fuzzy entropy approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 137-157.
S. W. Hsiao., & Y. C. Ko. (2013). A study on bicycle appearance preference by using FCE and FAHP. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 43, 264-273.
Y. Cho., J. P., S. Han., & S. Kang. (2011). Development of a web-based survey system for evaluating affective satisfaction. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 41, 247-254.
Y. X. Huang., C. H. Chen., & L. P. Khoo. (2012). Products classification in emotional design using a basic-emotion based semantic differential method. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42, 569-580.