ArticlePloS one2026
Practical research on the boundaries of MAYA design principles with ceramic products as the carrier.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Both typicality and novelty shape aesthetic preference-typicality as conformity to a product's prototype, and novelty as perceived difference and originality. While prior research has highlighted the tension and balance between these two factors, few studies have examined how product category structure moderates their effects. This study aims to investigate the roles of typicality and novelty in shaping consumer preferences, as well as whether product type (poor vs. rich categories) influences the relative impact of these factors. To achieve this, we conducted a within-subjects experiment using 20 ceramic product stimuli: 10 ceramic vases(poor categories) and 10 ceramic lighting items (rich categories). A total of 200 Chinese participants evaluated the typicality, novelty, and liking of each product using 7-point Likert scales. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA, partial correlation, generalized estimating equations (GEE), and hierarchical regression. Findings revealed that typicality was more predictive in poor categories, while novelty played a greater role in rich categories. Moreover, product category structure significantly moderated these effects, confirming and refining the boundary conditions of the MAYA (Most Advanced Yet Acceptable) principle. Furthermore, regression analyses revealed that typicality and novelty together explained 21.8% of the variance in aesthetic preference for ceramic vases and 20.3% for ceramic lighting items. This research deepens theoretical understanding of aesthetic judgment by highlighting the contextual role of category structure. It also provides practical design guidance, emphasizing typical features in poor categories and prioritizing novelty in rich categories to optimize consumer appeal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.