The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Usability, aesthetics and emotions in human–technology interaction
Abstract
In the past, research on human–technology interaction has almost exclusively concentrated on aspects of usefulness and usability. Despite the success of this line of research, its narrow perspective has recently become a target for criticism. To explain why people prefer some systems over others, factors such as aesthetic qualities and emotional experiences play an important role in addition to instrumental aspects. In the following, we report three experiments that illustrate the importance of such factors. In the first experiment, we study the role of emotions in human–technology interaction by using Scherer's (1984) component theory of emotions as a theoretical foundation. A combination of methods is derived from that theory and employed to measure subjective feelings, motor expressions, physiological reactions, cognitive appraisals, and behaviour. The results demonstrate that the manipulation of selected system properties may lead to differences in usability that affect emotional user reactions. The second experiment investigates the interplay of instrumental and non‐instrumental system qualities. The results show that users' overall appraisal of a technical device is influenced by both groups of qualities. In the third experiment, we join the approaches of the first two studies to analyse the influence of usability and aesthetics within a common design. The results indicate that systems differing in these aspects affect the perception of instrumental and non‐instrumental qualities as well as the users' emotional experience and their overall appraisal of the system. Summarizing our results, we present a model specifying three central c omponents of u ser e xperience and their interrelations (CUE‐Model). The model integrates the most important aspects of human–technology interaction and hints at a number of interesting issues for future research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Russell, J. A. (1980) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0077714 · Cited by 16,334
Picard, R. W. (1997) · MIT Press · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1140.001.0001 · Cited by 7,382
Looking at pictures: Affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions
LANG, P. J., GREENWALD, M. K., BRADLEY, M. M., & HAMM, A. O. (1993) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb03352.x · Cited by 3,190
The Usability Engineering Lifecycle
NIELSEN, J. (1993) · Usability Engineering · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-052029-2.50007-3 · Cited by 2,657
Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1016/s0953-5438(00)00031-x · Cited by 1,376
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
Cited by
Hertzum (2017) · doi:10.1145/3127358 · Cited by 307
Usability, user experience and accessibility: towards an integrative model
Sauer, J., Sonderegger, A., & Schmutz, S. (2020) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2020.1774080 · Cited by 195
The influence of age in usability testing
Sonderegger, A., Schmutz, S., & Sauer, J. (2016) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.06.012 · Cited by 152
Trust and distrust in information systems at the workplace
Thielsch, M. T., Meeßen, S. M., & Hertel, G. (2018) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.5483 · Cited by 80
Patterson, V. C., Rossi, M. A., Pencer, A., & Wozney, L. (2022) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/33374 · Cited by 11
“Furthermore, engaging mental health–informed peers (eg, people with lived experience of mental health challenges or peer counselors) in program development and evaluation could further illuminate usability characteristics (ie, aspects that contribute to the technical effectiveness and efficiency of a program) [20,21]…”
User experience of mixed reality applications for healthy ageing: A systematic review
Lim, K. J., McGuckian, T. B., Cole, M. H., Duckworth, J., & Wilson, P. H. (2023) · Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace · doi:10.5817/cp2023-4-5 · Cited by 5
“This review adopts the Component of User Experience (CUE) model of UX developed by Thüring and Mahlke (2007), which posits three main aspects of user experience: (i) the perception of the application’s instrumental quality (e.g., usability), (ii) the emotional reactions triggered by the application…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential(2018) · NCSU Libraries Repository (North Carolina State University Libraries) · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Thüring, M., & Mahlke, S.
- Venue
- International Journal of Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-08
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 253-264
- ISSN
- 0020-7594 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-066X
- OpenAlex
- W2006046124
- Cited by
- 622
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 17.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.