AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität
Abstract
Die Evaluation interaktiver Produkte ist eine wichtige Aktivität im Rahmen benutzerzentrierter Gestaltung. Eine Evaluationstechnik, die sich meist auf die Nutzungsqualität oder „Gebrauchstauglichkeit“ eines Produkts konzentriert, stellen Fragebögen dar. Zur Zeit werden allerdings weitere, sogenannte „hedonische“ Qualitätsaspekte diskutiert. Diese beruhen auf den menschlichen Bedürfnissen nach Stimulation und Identität, während bei Gebrauchstauglichkeit (bzw. „pragmatischer Qualität“) der Bedarf zur kontrollierten Manipulation der Umwelt im Vordergrund steht. In diesem Beitrag wird der „AttrakDiff 2“ Fragebogen vorgestellt, der sowohl wahrgenommene pragmatische als auch hedonische Qualität zu messen vermag. Ergebnisse zur Reliabilität und Validität werden vorgestellt und diskutiert. AttrakDiff 2 stellt einen ersten Beitrag zur Messung von Qualitätsaspekten dar, die über die reine Gebrauchstauglichkeit hinausgehen.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The custom questionnaire drew on established HCI evaluation tools, such as the Presence Questionnaire (PQ) and AttrakDiff, adapted for virtual production.
“Our custom-designed questionnaire drew on established HCI evaluation tools, such as the Presence Questionnaire (PQ) [56] for assessing immersion, and AttrakDiff [20] for measuring user satisfaction and engagement, but was adapted specifically to gauge the environments' ability to enhance previsualization and creativity in virtual production settings.”
From Understanding Creative Potential and Use Cases of AI-Generated Environments for Virtual Film Productions: Insights from Industry Professionals (2025) · cites this paper as [20]
Cites
The Thing and I: Understanding the Relationship Between User and Product
Hassenzahl, M. (2003) · Human-Computer Interaction Series · doi:10.1007/1-4020-2967-5_4 · Cited by 1,097 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gamification in theory and action: a survey
Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006 · Cited by 2,515 · see citing works
User acceptance of virtual reality: An extended technology acceptance model
Sagnier, C., Loup-Escande, E., Lourdeaux, D., Thouvenin, I., & Valléry, G. (2020) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2019.1708612 · Cited by 493 · see citing works
Draxler, F., Werner, A., Lehmann, F., Hoppe, M., Schmidt, A., Buschek, D., & Welsch, R. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3637875 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
“…antonymous adjective pairs: (1) the pragmatic quality or usability of a product, its hedonic quality or pleasantness in terms of (2) stimulation , i.e., being inspiring and facilitating personal development, (3) identity , i.e., communicating a desired identity, and (4) its overall appeal [48, 49].”
BackgroundMethodBrühlmann, F., Petralito, S., Aeschbach, L. F., & Opwis, K. (2020) · Methods in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.metip.2020.100022 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
Assistive Conversational Agent for Health Coaching: A Validation Study
Fadhil, A., Wang, Y., & Reiterer, H. (2019) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.1055/s-0039-1688757 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Understanding and Measuring User Experience in Conversational Interfaces
Kocaballi, A. B., Laranjo, L., & Coiera, E. (2019) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1093/iwc/iwz015 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Significant Productivity Gains through Programming with Large Language Models
Weber, T., Brandmaier, M., Schmidt, A., & Mayer, S. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3661145 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
“This survey contains ten questions resulting in measures for pragmatic quality , hedonic quality , and attractiveness , which are closely related to user satisfaction [18].”
BackgroundMethodMobile Conversational Agents for Context-Aware Care Applications
Griol, D., & Callejas, Z. (2016) · Cognitive Computation · doi:10.1007/s12559-015-9352-x · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Impact of Tactile and Visual Feedback on Breathing Rhythm and User Experience in VR Exergaming
Greinacher, R., Kojic, T., Meier, L., Parameshappa, R. G., Moller, S., & Voigt-Antons, J.-N. (2020) · 2020 Twelfth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX) · doi:10.1109/qomex48832.2020.9123141 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
UUX Evaluation of a Digitally Advanced Human–Machine Interface for Excavators
Lorenz, S., Helmert, J. R., Anders, R., Wölfel, C., & Krzywinski, J. (2020) · Multimodal Technologies and Interaction · doi:10.3390/mti4030057 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Comparing Moderation Strategies in Group Chats with Multi-User Chatbots
Wagner, N., Kraus, M., Tonn, T., & Minker, W. (2022) · Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Conversational User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3543829.3544527 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Brüggemeier, B., Breiter, M., Kurz, M., & Schiwy, J. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Conversational User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3405755.3406122 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Bellet, T., Banet, A., Petiot, M., Richard, B., & Quick, J. (2020) · Information · doi:10.3390/info12010013 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Ritschel, H., Janowski, K., Seiderer, A., Wagner, S., & André, E. (2019) · Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments · doi:10.1145/3316782.3322737 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Leininger, P., Weber, C. J., & Rothe, S. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences · doi:10.1145/3706370.3727853 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., & Koller, F.
- Affiliations
- Technische Universität Darmstadt (DE)
- Stuttgart Media University (DE)
- User Interface Design (Germany) (DE)
- Venue
- Berichte des German Chapter of the ACM
- Publisher
- Vieweg+Teubner Verlag
- Published
- 2003
- Pages
- 187-196
- ISSN
- 0724-9764 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1926036632
- Cited by
- 955
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 42 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 76 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 32
- FWCI
- 4.54
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- de
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Berichte des German Chapter of the ACM (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
- Keywords
- AttrakDiff, perceived quality, hedonic quality, pragmatic quality, usability, user-centered design, questionnaire development, reliability and validity, stimulation, identity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
