📄 social_science

An Exploration of Categorization in Cognitive Aesthetics: Typicality and Novelty across Apparel Products

This study validates the "Most Advanced, Yet Acceptable" (MAYA) principle for both open-category (dresses) and closed-category (jackets) apparel while challenging the assumption that typicality is the primary driver of aesthetic preference for closed-category products by demonstrating how product categorization influences the relative impact of typicality and novelty.

Original authors: Qianhui Ren, Mohd Faiz Yahaya, Hui Chen, Lichen Tai, Qi Wu, Maszura binti Abdul Ghafar

Published 2026-07-07

📖 4 min read☕ Coffee break read

CC BY 4.0

Original authors: Qianhui Ren, Mohd Faiz Yahaya, Hui Chen, Lichen Tai, Qi Wu, Maszura binti Abdul Ghafar

Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). ✨ This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer

The Big Question: How Do We Decide What Clothes Look Good?

Imagine you are walking down a street and see a new style of clothing. Your brain instantly asks two questions:

"Do I recognize this?" (Is it familiar?)
"Is this exciting?" (Is it new and different?)

In the world of design, these two feelings are called Typicality (familiarity) and Novelty (newness).

For decades, designers have followed a rule called the MAYA Principle ("Most Advanced, Yet Acceptable"). Think of this like a Goldilocks zone. It suggests that the best-looking designs aren't the boring, old-fashioned ones, nor are they the weird, unrecognizable ones. The "sweet spot" is a mix: something that feels familiar enough to understand, but new enough to be interesting.

The Experiment: Dresses vs. Jackets

The researchers wanted to see if this "Goldilocks rule" works the same way for all clothes. They picked two very different types of clothing to test:

Dresses (The "Open" Category): Think of a dress like a blank canvas. There are wedding dresses, evening gowns, summer sundresses, and cultural robes. They can be any shape, color, or length. Because there are so many ways to make a dress, the "rules" are loose.
Jackets (The "Closed" Category): Think of a jacket like a specific puzzle piece. Whether it's a denim jacket, a blazer, or a bomber, they all have sleeves, a collar, and a front opening. They have to look like a jacket to be recognized as one. The "rules" are stricter.

The Hypothesis: The researchers guessed that for Dresses, people would love the "new and exciting" stuff more. But for Jackets, they guessed people would stick to the "familiar and safe" stuff because jackets have stricter rules.

What They Did

They didn't just ask people what they liked; they showed them real photos of 10 different dresses and 10 different jackets. They asked 272 regular people (no fashion designers, just everyday folks) to rate how "familiar" and how "new" each item looked, and then how much they liked it.

The Surprising Results

Here is where the story gets interesting. The results were a mix of "Yes, we were right" and "Wait, actually, no."

1. The "Goldilocks" Rule Works for Both
Just like the MAYA principle predicted, people liked both dresses and jackets best when they had a healthy mix of familiarity and newness. You don't want a jacket that looks like a potato sack (too weird), and you don't want a dress that looks like a potato sack either. You want the balance.

2. The "Newness" Factor Won Everywhere
The researchers thought that for Jackets (the strict category), people would care mostly about them looking "familiar."

The Reality: They were wrong. Even for jackets, newness (novelty) was actually the most important factor. People liked the jackets that were a bit more unique and different, even though jackets are supposed to be "closed" and strict.

3. The Difference Was Small
While people did like new dresses slightly more than new jackets, the difference wasn't huge. In both cases, being a little bit new and exciting was more important than being perfectly familiar.

The "Why" Behind the Results

The paper suggests a few reasons why the "strict" jackets still liked the "new" stuff:

Fashion Changes Over Time: What looks "weird" today might look "classic" in five years. Think of biker jackets or off-the-shoulder tops. They used to be super radical and new, but now they are everywhere. The researchers suggest that because we see new styles so often, our brains get used to them quickly.
The "Safe" Zone is Bigger Than We Thought: Even for something as structured as a jacket, people still crave a little bit of surprise. They don't want a boring, cookie-cutter jacket; they want one that stands out just enough.

The Takeaway

If you are a designer (or just someone picking out an outfit), here is the main lesson:

Don't assume that "strict" categories (like jackets) need to be boring and safe. Even when the rules are tight, people still prefer designs that are "Most Advanced, Yet Acceptable." They want to feel like they are wearing something new and cool, as long as they can still tell what it is.

In short: Whether it's a wild dress or a structured jacket, the secret to looking good is finding that perfect balance between "I've seen this before" and "Wow, I haven't seen that before."

Technical Summary: An Exploration of Categorization in Cognitive Aesthetics

Problem Statement
In cognitive aesthetics, the "Most Advanced, Yet Acceptable" (MAYA) principle posits that aesthetic preference arises from an optimal balance between typicality (familiarity) and novelty (deviation). While widely applied, existing research has not sufficiently explained how this balance operates across different product categories, particularly within apparel. Specifically, it remains unclear whether the relative weighting of typicality and novelty shifts based on the structural constraints of a product category. Drawing on the Categorical-Motivation (CM) model, which distinguishes between "open" categories (high structural diversity) and "closed" categories (limited subcategories and strong prototyping), this study investigates whether the MAYA principle holds universally or if category structure moderates the influence of typicality and novelty. The study addresses two primary research questions: (1) Does the MAYA principle apply to different apparel categories (dresses vs. jackets)? and (2) How does categorization influence the relative weighting of typicality and novelty in aesthetic evaluation?

Methodology
The study employed a two-stage experimental design involving 272 participants from non-design backgrounds recruited from universities in mainland China.

Stimuli Development: Two product categories were selected to represent open and closed categories: dresses (open) and jackets (closed). Unlike previous studies using line drawings, this research utilized real product images to simulate retail and digital environments. A team of design experts screened 100 initial images (50 per category) down to 20, and finally to 10 representative images per category, ensuring a systematic variation in typicality and novelty.
Validation: Ten fashion design experts validated the stimuli using a 3-point scale for typicality, novelty, and aesthetic preference. Inter-rater reliability was confirmed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), showing satisfactory agreement across all dimensions.
Procedure: Participants viewed the 20 stimuli (10 dresses, 10 jackets) and rated them on typicality, novelty, and aesthetic preference using a 7-point Likert scale.
Analysis: Data were analyzed using Pearson and partial correlation analyses, multiple regression (with mean-centered variables to test for interaction effects), and repeated-measures ANOVA. The study tested four hypotheses: H1 and H2 posited that typicality and novelty would independently and positively impact aesthetic preference for dresses and jackets, respectively. H3 and H4 predicted that novelty would dominate in open categories (dresses) and typicality in closed categories (jackets).

Key Results

MAYA Principle Validity: The results confirmed that the MAYA principle applies to both open-category (dresses) and closed-category (jackets) apparel. For both categories, typicality and novelty were significantly negatively correlated, yet both independently and positively predicted aesthetic preference. The interaction term (typicality × novelty) was not statistically significant for either category, suggesting the principle operates through additive rather than multiplicative mechanisms.
Relative Influence:
- Dresses (Open Category): Novelty exerted a significantly stronger influence on aesthetic preference ( $\beta = 0.432$ ) than typicality ( $\beta = 0.267$ ). The highest preference ratings occurred at stimuli with moderate typicality and high novelty.
- Jackets (Closed Category): Contrary to the expectation that typicality would dominate, novelty also exhibited a slightly stronger effect ( $\beta = 0.290$ ) than typicality ( $\beta = 0.260$ ), though the gap was narrower than in dresses. The preference curve for jackets peaked earlier, corresponding to higher typicality and lower novelty, indicating a more conservative acceptance of variation.
Hypothesis Outcomes: H1 and H2 were supported. H3 was supported (novelty dominates in dresses). H4 was not supported; typicality did not outweigh novelty in jackets, challenging the assumption that closed-category products rely primarily on typicality.
Demographics: No significant differences were found in aesthetic evaluations based on gender or age groups.

Key Contributions

Extension of the MAYA Principle: The study empirically demonstrates that the MAYA principle is robust across both open and closed apparel categories, challenging the notion that closed categories are governed solely by prototype preference.
Refinement of the CM Model: The findings suggest that while category structure moderates the relative weight of typicality and novelty, it does not reverse their directional effects. Even in closed categories, novelty remains a significant driver of aesthetic preference, albeit with a narrower range of acceptable variation compared to open categories.
Temporal and Contextual Insight: The authors note that the finding of novelty's dominance in jackets (contrary to earlier studies like Ceballos et al., 2019) may reflect temporal plasticity in aesthetic preferences, where previously novel designs become normalized over time.

Significance and Claims
The paper claims to advance design research by clarifying how categorization shapes the balance between typicality and novelty. It argues that aesthetic evaluation is not a static psychological outcome but a flexible process where the "optimal balance" shifts based on the specific product category. The study provides empirical evidence that designers must calibrate novelty to align with category-specific expectations to achieve designs that are "most advanced, yet acceptable."

The authors maintain a modest stance, acknowledging that their conclusions are grounded in visual evaluations of isolated images and do not account for functional attributes, expressive meanings, or situational contexts. They further note limitations regarding the specific range of apparel categories tested and the use of a university-based sample, suggesting that future research should broaden the scope of categories and incorporate consumer segmentation variables.