International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 107122

A study of cognitive human factors in mascot design

Rungtai Lin!,*, P.C. Lin", K.J. Ko"
! Industrial Design Department, Mingchi Institute of Technology, 86, Gungjuan Rd., Taishan, Taipei 24306, Taiwan
" Graduate School of Industrial Design, University of Science and Technology Taipei, Taiwan

Received 15 September 1996; received in revised form 22 January 1997; accepted 22 January 1997

Abstract

Although understanding of the cognitive factors affecting subjects is critical in design, such objective methods to assist
designers are rare. Mascots have been widely used for corporate identity and to arouse public attention. Despite their
increasingly important usage, effective design is certainly a worthwhile topic. This paper presents a cognitive approach to
study human factors affecting mascot design. Multidimensional scaling analysis is also performed to transform subjects
similarity judgment and preference rating score into geometric distance for a multidimensional configuration. The
meanings associated with dimensions are then interpreted and discussed, along with subject preference and individual
differences analyzed as well. Results presented herein provide designers with a valuable reference for designing
a successful mascot.
Relevance to industry
The mascot has been widely used as a symbol for visual identity. Designers must know what the primary factors users
need to recognize the mascot. Results in this study provide a direction for designers to concentrate their efforts on
designing a good mascot for corporate identity. ( 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cognitive human factors; Multidimensional scaling; Mascot design

1. Introduction posed the usage of physical, cognitive, social, and

A strong identity is an essential marketing tool in
the global business environment for both a com-
pany and the products it sells. Whitney (1994) pro-
* Corresponding author. Tel: 011-886-2-9014490; Fax: 011-
886-2-9041914; e-mail: rtlin@ccsun.mit.edu.tw.
cultural human factors to measure quality beyond
the users expectation. This application not only
broadens the field of traditional ergonomics, but
also links design strategies of market segmentation
and product positioning. In United States during
the mid-1980s, cognitive human factors was suc-
cessfully applied to areas in design such as product
semantics (Burden, 1984; Krippendorff and Butter,
1984; Krippendorff, 1989, 1991; Lannoch, 1989;

0169-8141/99/$19.00 Copyright ( 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

PII S 0 1 6 9 - 8 1 4 1 ( 9 7 ) 0 0 1 0 6 - 6
108 R. Lin et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 107122
McCoy, 1987). Whitney (1994) also stated that
cultural human factors, which emphasize prefer-
ences and subtleties of meaning, must be under-
stood and accounted for in areas such as products,
messages, and services; otherwise, companies
would fail to connect with a diverse market. There-
fore, in lieu of global competition, investigating
a products features and visual identity is becoming
a conventional practice.
Businesses must develop and nurture their
corporate identities, which can be emphasized
through mascots. Such images have been
widely used as symbols for visual identity in athletic
contests such as the Olympic Games, subse-
quently arousing public attention and establishing
corporate identity. By paralleling mascot design
with communication process, the mascot can be
equated with sign vehicles in the symbolic envi-
ronment. To be visually effective, the vehicles must
be properly designed, satisfying both the viewers
preferences and perceptions. While mascot usage
plays an increasingly prominent role in corporate
identity, methods for adequate design are clearly
lacking.
Due to its potential to perceive a humans psy-
chological state, multidimensional scaling (MDS)
offers a promising approach to study the symbolic
interaction between users and designed objects (Lin
et al., 1996). MDS is a process whereby the psycho-
logical or physical distance matrix of a set of ob-
jects can be translated into cognitive space. MDS
appears to excel the subjective interpretation of
cognition in mascot design since dimensions ex-
tracted in the process attributed to the subjects
perceptions of the stimulus. Therefore, this study
proposes a cognitive approach using MDS analysis
to understand mascot design.
Herein, MDS analysis is performed to identify
the useful cognitive factors when designing a
mascot. According to similarity perception and
preference evaluation, psychological distance
data can be expressed in a multidimensional space
by MDS analysis. Through subsequent objective
interpretation, designers can grasp the main factors
in cognition of mascot design. With knowledge
of the symbolic interaction between users and
mascots, designers can demonstrate more creativity
in their products. Results presented herein pro-
vide designers with a direction toward which
they can concentrate their efforts on mascot
design.
2. Method
This study involves projection experiments, sem-
antic differential ratings and MDS analysis to study
the cognitive human factors that influence mascot
design (Lin, 1992; Lin et al., 1996). Subjects were
asked to rate 18 mascots against 14 attributes (ad-
jectives) associated with mascot design collected in
the projection experiment, as well as compare the
similarities among mascots using pair comparison.
Finally, similarity judgment and semantic differen-
tial rating data are used as inputs for INDSCAL
and MDPREF analyses (Smith, 1990).
2.1. Stimulus materials
Eighteen mascots previously used in different
athletic contests were selected as the stimulus ma-
terials (Fig. 1). S1, S2, S7, and S8 were taken from
previous Olympic Games to examine the interna-
tional features of mascot design. S3, S4, S5, and S6
were from the Japanese Athletic Meeting for
studying cultural differences in mascot design. The
remaining 10 were screened from the design com-
petition of the Taiwan District Sports Games 96
to study localization in mascot design.
2.2. Subjects
One hundred and ten subjects voluntarily par-
ticipated in the various phases of the study. Table 1
displays the subject profile, including students,
teachers and professional designers in the Taipei
region. In the projection experiment, twenty sub-
jects were divided by gender and educational back-
ground into design and non-design groups. In the
MDS analysis, another ninety volunteers par-
ticipated in the data collection. These subjects were
differentiated into three groups. Group I subjects
had both a design background and experience in
designing mascots; Group II subjects had a design
 R. Lin et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 107122 109

Fig. 1. Eighteen mascots for this study.

background but no experience in designing
mascots; Group III subjects had no design back-
ground. Each group consisted of 30 individuals,
making a total of 90 people.
2.3. Procedures
1. In the projection experiment, subjects were
asked in a questionnaire to rate a set of 29
adjectives related to mascot design. After a two-
stage verification process, 14 adjectives were
summed up for the semantic differential rating
(Lin, 1992).
2. In the data collection phase, the subjects were
given a test book consisting of two parts:
similarity judgment and semantics differential
rating. In the first part, 172 mascot pairs were
randomly arranged for pair comparisons. The
second part contained rating scales for the 14
adjectives and 18 mascots. Before the experi-
ment, subjects were briefed on the purpose and
procedures of the study. Initially, they were
asked to compare the similarity of each mascot
pair, and then rate each mascot with 14 at-
tributes according to the degree of association.
The test had no time limit.
110 R. Lin et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 107122

Table 1
Experimental subjects

Subject Profile PROJ. MDS

Gender Male 10 45
Female 10 45
Age 1519 4 22
2030 11 43
3140 4 23
4145 1 2
Education High school 4 25
Undergraduate 8 43
Graduate 4 22
Design 15 yr 6 38
Experience 610 yr 2 20
1115 yr 2 2
Non-design 10 30
background

3. In the MDS analysis stage, INDSCAL and

MDPREF analyses (Smith, 1990) were applied
to the similarity judgment and preference rating
data. The MDS solution produced various
multidimensional configurations for use
in studying the cognition of mascot design. Fi-
nally, the optimum cognitive space for mascot
design was constructed, followed by discussion Fig. 2. Similarity judgment and semantic differential scales.
and interpretation of the meaning for each di-
mension.

figuration, focusing on the study of individual dif-

3. Results
In the Projection Experiment, all the 20 subjects
completed their interviews within 30 min. Gener-
ally, subjects with a design background preferred
connotative adjectives such as subject-related, cre-
ative, and symbolic; meanwhile subjects without
a design background were concerned more with
denotative adjectives such as attractive, artistic,
and cute. Fourteen adjectives were selected after
a two-stage analysis, as shown in Fig. 2. The 14
attributes and 18 mascots were used as the stimulus
materials for MDS analysis. INDSCAL and
MDPREF analyses were used to transfer the sim-
ilarity judgment data into a multidimensional con-
ferences. Finally, results were analyzed and
discussed.
3.1. Individual differences scaling analysis
INDSCAL analysis attempts to transfer the sim-
ilarity judgment data matrix for each subject into
a multidimensional configuration that can be used
to study the cognitive space, to interpret the dimen-
sions, and to analyze the weighted proportion
of subjects individual differences. How well the
configuration adheres to the actual difference be-
tween pair objects depends on the dimensions with
the correlation. The higher the number of dimen-
sions and the correlation implies the better the
 R. Lin et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 107122
Table 2
Stimulus coordinates on the INDSCAL dimensions
configuration adheres to the similarities of the
stimulus. The correlation between the actual and
estimated scalar products from one- to three-di-
mensional configurations are 0.50, 0.69, and 0.78,
respectively. Although evidence suggests that at
least three dimensions are necessary, it suffices for
our illustrative purposes to focus on the two-di-
mensional INDSCAL solution. Table 2 and Fig. 3
present the Stimulus coordinates on the INDSCAL
dimensions.
As Fig. 3 indicates, the distance between any two
plotted mascots can be interpreted as an indicator
of similarity or dissimilarity. According to Fig. 4,
six mascot groups are clustered according to fea-
tures. Three mascot groups are separated by di-
mension I and dimension II, while the other groups
are clustered primarily around the center. The fea-
tures for each group are similar in pose (mascot 1,
111
4), similar in style (mascot 5, 8), similar in drawing
skill (mascot D, F), similar in background (mascot
G, H, I), similar in part (mascot 2, 3), and similar in
stripes (mascot 6, 7, 9, B, E). In addition, no evid-
ence suggests that similarities in international, cul-
tural, and local style is formed in the cognitive
space.
The meaning of the dimensions can be inter-
preted directly according to the relationship of
mascots in the configuration. Fig. 5 illustrates 18
mascots aligned in the direction of the X- and
-axis. For dimension I (X-axis), the mascot style
seems to be a progression: from complex with neat
lines to simple with casual lines. Thus, dimension
I can be interpreted as Design Style. Dimension II
(-axis) reflects the change in pose of the mascots
from running, jogging, walking, to standing, and
can be regarded as Motion Alignment.
Fig. 6 graphically represents the subject space.
The subjects were classified into three groups ac-
cording to design background and gender. In
general, the patterns of dimension weights are sim-
ilar for each group, slightly preferring Design Style
over Motion Alignment, and only a few female
subjects in group III placed a significantly higher
weight on the design style dimension. The subjects
weight of the dimensions is an extremely useful
indicator of the cognitive factors affecting mascot
design and the differences among individuals or
groups. The subject space reveals that design style
is more important than other factors to the mascot
design.
3.2. Multidimensional analysis of preference data
MDPREF is another process, by way of evaluat-
ing preference data, to understand average prefer-
ence evaluations. Similar to factor analysis,
MDPREF analysis determines the number of
dimensions (factors) by referring to the relation-
ship between the cumulative proportion of variance
and the number of dimensions. The cumulative
proportions of variance for one to three dimensions
are 77.2%, 89.2%, and 95.1%, respectively. For
easy visualization and juxtaposition with the IN-
DSCAL solution, two dimensions are used to con-
struct a preference space. Table 3 lists stimulus
112 R. Lin et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 107122

Fig. 3. Group stimulus space from a two-dimensional INDSCAL analysis.

 R. Lin et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 107122 113

Fig. 4. Features of six mascot group.

coordinates for the MDPREF solution for at-
tributes, in Table 4 for mascots, and plotted in
Fig. 7.
MDPREF is known as a vector model attempt-
ing to identify a perceptual map displaying at-
tribute vectors. Table 5 displays the correlation of
the 14 attributes, which is the inverse cosine of
the angle between any two attributes. Values of 1, 0,
or !1 indicate an angle of 0, 90, or 180, respec-
tively, between vectors representing the relation-
ships of the attributes. Fig. 7 shows the preference
space with three vectors: K (active), M (artistic), and
R (regional). The vector of attributes K and R inter-
sects at nearly a right angle (87.41), forming two
orthogonal attribute dimensions, while the vector
M (artistic) is aligned with the X-axis. From the
above data, the main factors affecting subjects pre-
ference evaluation in mascot design are identified
114 R. Lin et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 107122

Fig. 5. Dimension interpretation of INDSCAL analysis.

Fig. 6. Subject space of INDSCAL analysis.

 R. Lin et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 107122 115

Table 3 as Active (attribute K), Artistic (attribute M)

Stimulus coordinates of 14 attributes on the MDPREF dimen- and Regional (attribute R). The above figures
sions demonstrated that by rotating the MDPREF di-
Property adjectives DIM 1 DIM 2
mensions, we have virtually the same solution as
those found previously by the INDSCAL analysis.
J.Subject-centered 0.8942 0.4477 Thus, Design Style can be compared with Re-
K.Active 0.5882 0.8087 gional and Motion Alignment compared with
L.Attractive 1.0000 !0.0062 Active. The third attribute Artistic is discussed
M.Artistic 1.0000 0.0026
N.nique 0.9025 !0.4306
later.
O.Cute 0.9999 !0.0110 Fig. 7 plots the stimulus points (mascots). Each
P.Striking 0.9909 !0.1348 stimulus point can be projected onto the 14 at-
Q.Creative 0.9320 !0.3625 tribute vectors which show the average subjects
R.Regional 0.8669 !0.4985 metric preference of the mascots with respect to the
S.Energetic 0.9654 0.2607
T.Memorable 0.9774 !0.2116
attribute. Table 6 presented the projections of the
U.Merry 0.9938 0.1112 18 mascots on each attribute, average rating score
V.Symbolic 0.9909 !0.1347 of the subject in the preference evaluation and their
W.Modern 0.9731 !0.2303 rank order. This rank order can be used to confirm
the appropriateness of the preference space.
Table 7 displays the five most preferred mascots
and the five least preferred mascots in each
attribute. Tables 6 and 7 suggest that the most
Table 4
popular mascots are D, 7 and 2; the least popular
Stimulus coordinates of 18 mascots on the MDPREF dimen-
sions ones are 4, A, C and G. For the subject groups,
we find that Group I preferred mascot 5 and 8
and vice versa for the other two groups (Fig. 8).
Above findings reveal that the Group I subjects
with design background and mascot design experi-
ence heavily emphasize design style trends. The
result is confirmed because most recent mascots
tend to be more casual and abstract, as shown in
Fig. 9.

4. Discussion

In this study, the stimulus mascots are selected

from different athletic games to study the differences
in international, cultural and local mascot design.
Two dimensions, Design Style and Motion Align-
ment, are formed in the INDSCAL solution with
no indication of clustering by international, cul-
tural or local features. However, the MDPREF
solution gives three attributes. Artistic, and the
orthogonal dimension of Active and Regional.
In two dimensions, whether the two configura-
tions agree each other can be easily observed.
However, with more dimensions, one may fail
to see the agreement between these two highly
116 R. Lin et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 107122

Fig. 7. Preference space from a two-dimensional MDPREF analysis.

 R. Lin et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 107122 117

related space. Nevertheless, the attribute Active

W.Modern
matches the Motion Alignment dimension, and
the Design Style dimension is more closely re-
sembles the attribute Artistic than the attribute

V.Symbolic
Regional.

0.8975
In the MDS analysis, differences can arise be-
tween the spaces obtained from analyzing matrices

U.Merry
for individuals and for rating scales. The correla-

0.8904
0.8806
tion of attributes in Table 5 and Fig. 7 suggests
that the attribute vectors Active and Regional are
T.Memorable

independent and separated by a right angle, nearly

bisected by the vector Artistic, angled 43(with the
0.8821
0.9558
0.9695

vector Regional. In addition, the vector Artistic is

S.Energetic

related to attribute Cute (0.96), Striking (0.93),

Symbolic (0.93), Merry (0.92), and Attractive
0.9198
0.8936
0.7862
0.8253

(0.92) which are features of Design Style. From

these findings we can infer that the Artistic at-
R.Regional

tribute matches the Design Style dimension and

0.6213

0.5812
0.8592
0.6593
0.774

Regional is the third dimension missing in the

INDSCAL solution. Therefore, as shown in
Q.Creative

Fig. 10, a three-dimensional configuration with

0.6177

0.7234
0.7788
0.9464
0.5565

0.8877

Design Style, Motion Alignment, and Regional

Features, is appropriate to study the subjects pref-
P.Striking

erence in evaluating mascot design.

0.8932

0.8612

0.9042
0.9394
0.9596
0.7113

0.9514
O.Cute
0.9226

0.8404

0.9382
0.8869
0.8904
0.8845
0.766
0.627

5. Conclusions
N.nique

This paper outlines a cognitive human factors

0.7004
0.8426
0.9828

0.5529

0.6646
0.7231
0.9031
0.5106

0.8439

approach using MDS analysis to examine differ-

ences in mascot design. A two-dimensional config-
M.Artistic

uration is confirmed by the INDSCAL and

0.9585
0.9272
0.7137

0.9021

0.9204
0.9276
0.8575
0.6373

0.7324

0.8808

MDPREF solutions, and the third dimension is

L.Attractive

extended to study the differences of cognitive space,

user perception and preference. These three dimen-
0.9137

0.9051

0.8853

0.8706

0.8915
0.9135
0.9389
0.6559

0.9298
0.977
0.84

sions, Design Style, Motion Alignment, and Re-

gional Feature, can provide designers directions in
K.Active

designing mascots. The MDS analysis used in this

0.5902
0.4952

0.4608
0.3121

0.6705

0.5801
0.4197
0.2553

0.0452

0.3964
Correlation of 14 attribute vectors

0.502

0.391

study is a test of its utility as an approach to

understanding the cognitive factors of mascot de-
J.Subject
centred

sign. These results, based on a small sample, should

0.7516
0.7628
0.8036

0.7312
0.7329
0.4615

0.8031
0.8167
0.6459
0.3609

0.5961

0.7275
0.907

be regarded only as a preliminary. Further studies

involving more subjects and more mascots are
necessary. Future works should examine the
J.Subject centred

T.Memorable

expression of mascot (Fig. 11), the design element

L.Attractive

S.Energetic

V.Symbolic
R.Regional
Q.Creative

W.Modern
M.Artistic

P.Striking
N.nique
Table 5

U.Merry

of mascot (Fig. 12), and the motion of mascot

K.Active

O.Cute

(Fig. 13).
118 R. Lin et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 107122

Table 6
The rank order of projections and rating scores in 14 attributes
 R. Lin et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 107122 119

Table 6 (Continued)

Table 7
The most and least preferred mascots of 14 attributes
120 R. Lin et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 107122

Fig. 8. Differences among subject groups in mascots 5 and 8.

Fig. 9. The recent mascot design in Olympic Games.

 R. Lin et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 107122 121

Fig. 10. The three dimensions for the subjects preference from MDPREF analysis.

Fig. 11. The different expressions of mascot design.

Fig. 12. The different stripes of mascot design.

122 R. Lin et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 107122

Fig. 13. The different motions of mascot design.

References Lin, R.T., 1992. An application of the semantic differential to

Burden, G., 1984. The effect of color, graphics and form a pilot
study. Innovation 2324.
Krippendorff, K., Butter, R., 1984. Product semantics: exploring
the symbolic qualities of form. Innovation 49.
Krippendorff, K., 1989. Product semantics: a triangulation and
four design theories. Product Semantics 89, Helsinki, UIAH,
13pp.
Krippendorff, K., 1991. Transcending Semiotics. Objects and
Images, Helsinki, UIAH, pp. 2447.
Lannoch, H.J., 1989. Towards a semantic notation of space.
Product Semantics 89, Helsinki, UIAH, pp. c3c11.
icon design. Proceedings of Human Factors Society 36th
Annual Meeting, pp. 336340.
Lin, Rungtai, Lin, C.Y., Wong, J., 1996. An application of MDS
in product semantics. International Journal of Industrial
Design 18, 193204.
McCoy, M., 1987. Interpreting technology through product
form. Industrial Design 139, 69.
Smith, S.M., 1990. PC-MDS Multidimensional Statistic Pack-
age. Institute of Business MGT, Brigham Young U., Provo.,
Utah., pp. 2732, 6378,
Whitney, P., 1994. Design and global competition. 1994 Pan-
Pacific Design Conference, Taiwan, pp. 923.