汽車產業由於歷史悠久，是一個極端成熟和競爭激烈的市場。為了增加產品的差異性，汽車的造形設計往往扮演著重要的角色。過往研究顯示，汽車造形的評價主要是依賴人類大腦情感部分的處理。無論如何，汽車作為一個高端複雜的工業產品，同時又是主要的交通工具。在人類的社會文化脈絡上，有著相當的影響。汽車可以表達使用者的生活型態和自我形象，這樣的自我代表性也是汽車和人情感交流上重要的一部分。而目前國內關於汽車造型的情感研究，大部分研究者都嘗試利用感性工學的方法去了解汽車造形和人類情感的關聯性，然而對於汽車造形在自我代表性上對情感產生的影響卻較少著墨。
近年來，有些學者則是透過產品個性(product personality)的研究做為了解產品情感的一個方向。起源於人們往往會用描述人性格的特質去形容產品，藉著這樣做，人在與產品互動的過程中，能夠更容易了解產品，也從中得到較多樂趣。研究也顯示消費者較偏好和自我形象(self concept)相似的產品，也就是與消費者族群自我一致性(self-congruity)高的產品，受到青睞的機率較高。本研究目的在於驗證汽車造型所形成的個性特質，和消費者的自我一致性是否真的會影響喜愛度。藉以證明汽車造型有對於消費者者除了美觀評價上之外的情感脈絡，還有透過汽車表達自我的渴望。而這樣的渴望會影響對汽車的喜好。
由於研究目的希望針對假設進行驗證，因此採用問卷調查的方式來得到一個量化的資料。參考了近年來關於產品個性以及自我一致性的研究方法。並利用焦點團體法篩選汽車圖片樣本和個性特質形容詞。讓受測者使用產品個性特質形容詞對刺激物樣本進行產品個性的評價，再進行自我一致性和喜愛度的評價，最後透過結果分析來驗證假設。
研究結果顯示汽車造型展現的個性特質，與受測者的自我一致性越高。在喜愛度評價上也會出現正面影響。而同一款品牌或是相同級距的汽車，因為外觀上的類似，有可能出現相同的產品個性特質。除此之外，對於汽車的知識背景並不會影響產品個性的評價以及自我一致性的影響力。因此，本研究證明了在汽車造型上進行產品個性的研究是有價值的。一方面補足了感性工學所無法描述到的情感面，另外則是提供了設計師另外一個了解消費者的途徑。

The automobile industry, a long establish history and mature market which is. In order to make differentiation from other trademarks, there is no manufacturers not dedicating their effort on create unique styling on their product variants. Some researchers indicated that car styling is an emotional affair. As a high-end industrial product and probably most popular transportation tools, it is easy to understand the importance of automobile in our social context and how it affects our emotion. Moreover, Cars represent user’s life style and self-image. Beyond the aesthetic side, there are more complicated emotional interactions on car styling with human mind. Carrying and presenting the information with styling, automobile itself act as driver’s avatar. However, the emotional design researches of car styling nowadays more focus on the aesthetic part.
Recently studies show a new perspective of emotional design research, with the concept of product personality. It origins from how human deal with product in a humanly way. It’s easier and happier for people viewing product as human during the interaction. Some researches reveal that consumers prefer the products fit with their self-concept. This self congruence concept may help us figuring out the emotional context on car styling, more than just aesthetic part. This research focused on the product personalities of cars from the styling. We want to verify if the self-congruity concept also valid in car styling field or not. It may offer car designers a new way to understand consumers.
In order to have a general result, this study adopted quantitative way to investigate. In accordance, we use constructive questionnaire in the research. Referred from past studies about product personality and self-congruity we designed the structure of questionnaire. First, the participants were asked to evaluate the stimuli’s personality character. It helps participant being in the mental process we want. Then, they are asked to evaluate the self-congruity and preference.
The result shows that the consumers prefer the automobile with high self-congruity on product personality. It may infer that people indeed favor cars which share the similar personalities with themselves. Moreover, the result of product personality evaluation seems affected by the different styling feature from brand identity and segment. Nevertheless, the knowledge background of automotive reveals no effect on the result. It may refer to the evaluation of car styling is an emotional affair. However, this study indicates that the concept of product personality on car styling is valid. It could not only be used as the complement of the Kansei engineering research, but also help car designers understand the mental model of consumers.

英文文獻
1.Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research 34(3), pp. 347-356.
2.Aaker, J. L. (1999). The malleable self: the role of selfexpression in persuasion Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), pp. 45-57.
3.AOL. (2010, Sep, 13 2010). What Your Car Says About You. Retrieved Oct, 2010, from http://autos.aol.com/gallery/car-personality/
4.Belk, R. W. (1988). Possesions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), pp. 139-168.
5.Bove, L. (2009). Economic crisis and Design opportunities Retrieved Oct, 2010, from http://lucianobove.blogspot.com/2009/04/economic-crisis-and-design.html
6.Bove, L. (2010). Emotional Car Design and good talents. Retrieved Oct, 2010, from http://hubpages.com/hub/Emotional-Design-and-good-talents
7.Burgess, S. C., & King, A. M. (2004). The application of animal forms in automotive styling. Design Journal, 7(3), pp. 41-52.
8.Burnette, C. (1995). Designing products to afford meanings. Paper presented at the Design - Pleasure or Responsibility?
9.Ching, I.-L. (2005). Exterior Design of the Automobile and Consumer Perception. National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu.
10.Chu, S., & Geary, K. (2005). Physical stature influences character perception in women. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, pp. 1927–1934.
11.Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. (2005). The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1), pp. 63-81.
12.Desmet, P. M. A. (2002a). Designing Emotions. Delft University of Technology, Delft.
13.Desmet, P. M. A. (2002b). From Disgust to Desire: How products Elicit Emotions. Paper presented at the International Conference on Design and Emotion, Loughborough University, U.K.
14.Desmet, P. M. A., Nicola´s, J. C. O. z., & Schoormans, J. P. (2008). Product personality in physical interaction. Design Studies, 29, pp. 458-477.
15.Govers, P., Hekkert, P., & Schoormans, J. P. (2004). Happy, cute and tough: can designers create a product personality that consumers understand? Design and Emotion, The Design of Everyday Things (pp. pp. 345-349). London: Taylor & Francis.
16.Govers, P.(2004). Product Personality. Delft University of Technology, Delft.
17.Govers, P.& Mugge, R. (2004). ‘I love my jeep, because its tough like me’: the effect of productepersonality congruence on product attachment. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Design and Emotion, Ankara, Turkey.
18.Govers, P., & Schoormans, J. P. (2005). Product personality and its influence on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4), pp. 189-197.
19.Harada, M. (1998). Analysis of Recognition of Car's Front View Design. Bulletin of JSSD, 45(2), pp.79-86.
20.Hull, N. (2007). Essay: Interpreting the Faces of Cars. Retrieved Oct, 2010, from http://www.cardesignnews.com/site/process/design_essays/display/store4/item81023
21.Hustwit, G. (Writer). (2009). Objectified. In G. Hustwit (Producer). USA.
22.Janlert, L., & Stolterman, E. (1997). The character of things. Design Studies, 18(3), pp. 297-314.
23.John E., & Kwoka, J. (1993). THE SALES AND COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF STYLING AND ADVERTISING PRACTICES IN THE U.S. AUTO INDUSTRY The Review of Economics and Statistics 75(4), pp. 649-656.
24.Jordan, P. W. (1997). Producst as Personalities. Paper presented at the Comtemporary Ergonomics, Hanson,M.A.
25.Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing Pleasurable Products: an Introduction to the New Human Factors. London: Taylor & Francis.
26.Jordan, P. W. (2002). The personalities of Products Pleasure with products: beyond usability (pp. pp.19-47).
27.Lee, S., Stappers, P. J., & Harada, A. (1999). Extending of Design approach based on Kansei by Dynamic Manipulation of 3D Objects Paper presented at the 1999 4th Asian Design Conference.
28.Lewalski, Z. (1988). Product Esthetics -- an interpretation for designers. Carson city, Nevada: Design & Development Engineering Press.
29.Macey, S., & Wardle, G. (2009). H-point:The Fundamentals of Car Design & Package. Culver city, CA: Design Studio Press.
30.McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Busch, C. M. (1986). Evaluating Comprehensiveness Personality Systems: The California Q-test and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 54, pp.430-446.
31.Minsky, M. (1988). The Society of Mind: Simon & Schuster; Pages Bent edition
32.Mugge, R., Govers, P, & Schoormans, J. P. (2009). The development and testing of a product personality scale. design Studies, 30, pp. 287-302.
33.Mullen, M. R. (1995). Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-nationalresearch. Journal of International Business Studies, 26, pp.573-596.
34.Nagamachi, M. (1995). Kansei engineering: a new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15, pp. 3-11.
35.Naumann, P. (2009). RESTARTING CAR DESIGN. Retrieved Oct, 2010, from http://www.icsid.org/feature/current/articles835.htm
36.Norman, D. (2005). Emotional Design New York: Basic Books.
37.Park, S. h., Mitsuo, K., & Toru, N. (2003). A Study of the Expression in the Front View Design of a Passenger Car. Journal of the Asian Design International Conference, 1, pp. 22
38.Peter, J. P., Churchill, G. A., & Brown, T. J. (1993). Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), pp.655.
39.Plummer, J. T. (1985). How Personality Makes a Difference. Journal of Advertising Research, 24(6), pp.27-31.
40.Renault. (2011). RENAULT'S DESIGN STRATEGY. 2011, from http://www.renault.com/en/innovation/l-univers-du-design/pages/strategie-design-renault.aspx
41.Simpson, J. (2007). Essay: The Art of Electric Car. Retrieved Oct, 2010, from http://www.cardesignnews.com/site/process/design_essays/display/store4/item86215/
42.Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), pp. 287-300.
43.Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F., Park, J., Chon, K. S., Claiborn, C. B., et al. (1997). Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(3), pp.229.
44.Sjodell, C. (2003). How Design Can Change Brand Perception GLOBAL AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURING & TECHNOLOGY: Touch Briefings.
45.TED (Producer). (2010, Oct, 2010) Fabian Hemmert:The shape-shifting future of the mobile phone. film retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/fabian_hemmert_the_shape_shifting_future_of_the_mobile_phone.html
46.Tovey, M. (1997). Styling and design: intuition and analysis in industrial design. Design Studies, 18(1), pp. 5-31.
47.Windhager, S., Slice, D., Schaefer, K., Oberzaucher, E., Thorstensen, T., & Grammer, K. (2008). Face to Face- The Perception of Automotive Design. Human Nature, 19(4), pp. 331-346.
中文文獻
1.周世玉, 陳麒文, & 張為詩. (2004). 人格特質與品牌個性關係之研究：以運動鞋產品為例. 中華管理學報, 5(3), pp. 1-16.
2.周君瑞. (2001). 複合感性意象之塑造-以造型特徵為基礎. 成功大學, 台南.
3.周天宇. (2009). 汽車背面之造形意象與視覺認知之研究. 大同大學, 台北.
4.康獻章. (2008). 汽車造形局部特徵置換對於感性意象認知之關係研究. 臺灣科技大學, 台北.
5.張信賢. (2005). 汽車特徵意象及其在視覺上的認知研究. 成功大學, 台南.
6.張華城, & 張育銘. (2000). 應用倒傳遞類神經網路於模擬產品造型類別認知之研究. Paper presented at the 設計與管理國際學術研討會.
7.徐崇展. (2008). 汽車品牌造型與喜好關係之研究. 台灣科技大學, 台北.
8.施懿芳. (2005). 汽車造形輪廓之意象認知與心智分類對應關係研究. 雲林科技大學, 雲林.
9.施皇旭. (2005). 系列車款造型風格演化之研究. 台灣科技大學, 台北.
10.李博涵. (2009). 類比汽車正面造形於臉孔表情之探討. 國立交通大學, 新竹.
11.林榮泰. (1984). 座車型態演進之研究. 明志工專學報, 12, pp. 32.
12.林銘煌. (2000). 產品造形中的符號與符碼. 設計學報, 5(2), pp.73-82.
13.林銘煌, 黃栢松, & 陳政祺. (2009). 經典車款的復古設計. 設計學報, 14(3), pp. 31-49.
14.楊壬慈. (2004). 生活型態與汽車車燈風格認知暨偏好模式研究. 成功大學, 台南.
15.楊敏英, & 游萬來. (2008). Alessi產品之產品個性. 設計學研究, 11(1), pp. 1-22.
16.楊淑晴. (1999). 麥布二氏心理類型量表（MBTI）之綜覽. 教育研究資訊, 7(2), pp. 100-110.
17.沈旻瑋. (2003). 多重感性語彙間之複合性探討. 雲林科技大學, 雲林.
18.翁嘉聲. (2004). 汽車造形形變對於意象認知與美感反應之關係研究. 台灣科技大學, 台北.
19.蔡子瑋. (1994). 產品意象語言研究--以本土意象為例. 成功大學, 台南.
20.蔡詩怡. (2003). 汽車造形輪廓之型態特徵辨識與認知之研究. 雲林科技大學, 雲林.
21.郭李靖. (2003). 人格特質與品牌個性對品牌偏好的影響. 交通大學, 新竹.
22.陳建昌. (2005). 汽車正面造形特徵與意象認知之關聯性研究. 華梵大學, 台北.
23.陳晉玄. (2003). 消費者對產品識別之視覺認知研究─以汽車造形為例. 國立台北科技大學, 台北.
24.陳順宇. (1996). 統計學. 台北: 華泰書局.
25.陳鴻源, & 張育銘. (2001). 汽車輪廓形態意象與區分特徵關係之研究. Paper presented at the 第六屆設計學術研究成果研討會.
26.馬志朋. (1995). 不同國別汽車造形意象研究. 成功大學, 台南.
27.黃栢松. (2004). 汽車外觀造型設計的復古表現形式. 台灣科技大學, 台北.