以往許多研究中說明人們較喜好典型的物品，具有高典型的物件讓人感到熟悉，而獲得人們的偏好，然而科技與手法日新月異，「形隨機能」而生的產品已不能滿足人類更高的心理需求，消費者進一步追尋的是感覺層面的需求，近年來可以發現設計師開始利用手法改變消費者原來熟悉的東西，在典型作為具體的設計原則下，運用不同手法改變典型產品，試圖引起消費者的情緒；研究顯示產品在典型中與新穎達到平衡會得到消費者相當程度的喜好，更加證明此手法的重要性。由上述內容可以了解到典型變形的手法漸漸受到設計者的重視，利用典型產品進行手法演繹與變形引起消費的情緒起伏。
本研究以典型變形樣本為題，由設計手法切入討論，由開放式問卷探討受測者心目中典型的印象，再焦點團體法以了解其特質和運用手法，近一步利用數量化I類探討典型變形的產品手法與人們情緒感受的關聯性，以做為日後設計手法的應用依據。
本研究結果發現，不論是設計背景受測者或是非設計背景受測者皆認為典型變形椅子最基本的特質為四支椅腳，典型變形椅子設計手法由三構面所組成，符號、結構與裝飾三構面；透過數量化I類分析後，以資訊傳達的分析方式可將變異程度、愉悅程度和喚起程度的正負得點區分成七個模式；藉此透過模式中手法的呈現，提供設計師在運用手法時的參考。

There are many previous researches show that people like typical products, and products that have highly typical will let people feel familiar so that they will prefer the products. However, there are so many new products and technology, the products with only the feeling of familiar will not attract users. Now, more and more designers use different techniques to change the products that we are familiar with. Based on the images of typical products, designers use method to change typical products that people still can recognize that they are from typical products, and in this research we called them as "Typical Distortion Products". Designers do this to arouse users' emotion which is a major factor when they buying products. In particular, emotion has negative and positive effects. Hence, this research tries to understand and conclude different techniques and emotion of typical distortion products through focus group.
The results of this study found that, regardless of the subjects are non-design background or design background think that the most characteristics of typical chairs are four legs and made by wood. Typical distortion chairs are constructed by three dimensions, symbols, and structure. Through Quantification I analyzing, it can be explained in 7 modes according the points of the difference degree, pleasant degree, and arousal degree
In sum, these 7 modes of this study can provide designer reference to design products and prevent to create products that will arouse native emotion.

外文文獻
Brave, S. & Nass, C. (2003). Emotion in Human-computer interaction.
Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. (1979). Prototypes in Person Perception1. Advances in experimental social psychology, 12, 3.
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547-577.
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain.New York, NY, Grosset/Putnam.
Gardner, M. P. (1985). Mood states and consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 281-300.
Geruschat, D., & Smith, A. (1997). Low vision and mobility. Foundations of orientation and mobility, 2, 60-101.
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & Wieringen, P. C. W. (2003). ‘Most advanced, yet acceptable’: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 111-124.
Knodel, J. 1993 The Design and Analysis of Focus Group Studies in Social Science Research. In Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art. David Morgan, ed. pp. 35-50. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage.
Lindsay, P. H., & Norman, D. A. (1977). {Human Information Processing}.
Loken, B., & Ward, J. (1990). Alternative approaches to understanding the determinants of typicality. Journal of Consumer Research, 111-126.
Martin-Emerson, R., & Wickens, C. D. (1992). The vertical visual field and implications for the head-up display.
Martindale, C., & Moore, K. (1988). Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(4), 661.
Martindale, C., Moore, K., & West, A. (1988). Relationship of preference judgments to typicality, novelty, and mere exposure. Empirical Studies of the Arts.
Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual review of psychology, 32(1), 89-115.
Nedungadi, P., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1985). The prototypicality of brands: Relationships with brand awareness, preference and usage. Advances in consumer research, 12(1), 498-503.
Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis: Harper & Row New York.
Reed, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization* 1,* 2. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 382-407.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories* 1. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573-605.
Russell, J. A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 311.
Schoormans, J. P. L., & Robben, H. S. J. (1997). The effect of new package design on product attention, categorization and evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(2-3), 271-287.
Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. (1987). Emotion Knowledge: Further Exploration of a Propotype Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1061-1086.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological review, 84(4), 327.
Whitfield, T. (1983). Predicting preference for familiar, everyday objects: an experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(3), 221-237.
Zajonc, R., & Kunst-Wilson, W. (1980). Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 207(4430), 557-558.
 
中文文獻
Robinette S., Brand C. & Lenz V.(2002). 情緒行銷(陸劍豪譯)原著。台北：商周出版:城
邦文化。
林崇宏. (1999). 造形・設計・藝術: 田園城市文化事業有限公司.
黃毓仁. (2009). 產品命名方式對產品態度與購買意願之影響.
劉香伶. (2010). 矛盾設計與驚奇之關係探討—以燈具為例.
伊彬, & 林演慶. (2008). 近一世紀審美實徵研究趨勢. 設計學報 (Journal of Design), 13(2).
邵靖惠. (2004). 產品新增屬性之特質與產品典型性對消費者評價之影響. 臺灣大學商學研究所學位論文(2004 年).
吳清山、林天祐（2005），教育新詞書（New Dictionary of Education），高等教育文化事業有限公司
林崇宏. (1999). 造形・設計・藝術: 田園城市文化事業有限公司.
張宗祐. (1998). 產品造形風格辨識閾之探討--以包浩斯風格為例.
張春興(1994)，教育心理學。台北：東華書局。
柯連田. (2000). 由空間認知能力探討實際產品與影像圖片之意象差異研究.
呂清夫（1984）造型原理，臺北市：雄獅。
吳清山、林天祐（2005），教育新詞書（New Dictionary of Education），高等教育文化事業有限公司。
莊修田. (2008). 單椅設計之創意因素構成研究.
謝茜羽. (2011). 美學原則影響使用者愉悅情感之探討：椅子造型線條的一致性.
曾國雄.(1991)多變量解析與應用，華泰書局，頁167-188。