User experience - A research agenda

Abstract

Over the last decade, 'user experience' (UX) became a buzzword in the field of human – computer interaction (HCI) and interaction design. As technology matured, interactive products became not only more useful and usable, but also fashionable, fascinating things to desire. Driven by the impression that a narrow focus on interactive products as tools does not capture the variety and emerging aspects of technology use, practitioners and researchers alike, seem to readily embrace the notion of UX as a viable alternative to traditional HCI. And, indeed, the term promises change and a fresh look, without being too specific about its definite meaning. The present introduction to the special issue on 'Empirical studies of the user experience' attempts to give a provisional answer to the question of what is meant by 'the user experience'. It provides a cursory sketch of UX and how we think UX research will look like in the future. It is not so much meant as a forecast of the future, but as a proposal – a stimulus for further UX research.

Full text

User experience – a research agenda
MARC HASSENZAHL*{and NOAM TRACTINSKY**{
{Darmstadt University of Technology, Department of Psychology, Social Psychology and
Decision-Making, Darmstadt, Germany
{Information Systems Engineering, Ben-Gurion University, Israel
Over the last decade, ‘user experience’ (UX) became a buzzword in the field of human–
computer interaction (HCI) and interaction design. As technology matured, interactive
products became not only more useful and usable, but also fashionable, fascinating things to
desire. Driven by the impression that a narrow focus on interactive products as tools does not
capture the variety and emerging aspects of technology use, practitioners and researchers
alike, seem to readily embrace the notion of UX as a viable alternative to traditional HCI.
And, indeed, the term promises change and a fresh look, without being too specific about its
definite meaning. The present introduction to the special issue on ‘Empirical studies of the
user experience’ attempts to give a provisional answer to the question of what is meant by ‘the
user experience’. It provides a cursory sketch of UX and how we think UX research will look
like in the future. It is not so much meant as a forecast of the future, but as a proposal – a
stimulus for further UX research.
1. Introduction
User experience (UX) is a strange phenomenon: readily
adopted by the human – computer interaction (HCI)
community – practitioners and researchers alike – and at
the same time critiqued repeatedly for being vague, elusive,
ephemeral. The term ‘user experience’ is associated with a
wide variety of meanings (Forlizzi and Battarbee 2004),
ranging from traditional usability to beauty, hedonic,
affective or experiential aspects of technology use.
UX has gained momentum in recent years, mostly as a
countermovement to the dominant, task- and work-related
‘usability’ paradigm. Ideas represented by UX are im-
portant, but by no means original. Early writings on
usability already expressed the notion that manifestations
of usability such as productivity or learnability are not
primary. Primary is the person’s experience at the moment
experienced (Whiteside and Wixon 1987). Or consider
Carroll and Thomas (1988), who close their article on
‘fun’ with:
‘We realize that many people will read this article as a
joke. To this extent, we are the victims of our own
analysis: there are risks in being serious about fun. Still
though, we continue to see, without humor, the prospect
of a decade of research analysis possibly failing to
provide the leverage it could on designing systems
people will really want to use by ignoring what could be
a very potent determinant of subjective judgments of
usability – fun’ (p. 23).
It indeed took the field about a decade to absorb those
ideas. Consequently, first writings on aspects of UX were
mainly programmatic (e.g. Alben 1996, Hassenzahl et al.
2001, Overbeeke et al. 2002), aimed at convincing the HCI
community to take issues beyond the task-related more
seriously. Gradually, this literature has been replaced by
more conceptual papers (e.g. Hassenzahl 2003, Wright et al.
2003; see Forlizzi and Battarbee 2004, for a recent
overview). These papers tried to establish a common
ground, a shared view of what constitutes a ‘good’ user
experience. But even now, while UX is well discussed
on conferences and symposia, it only rarely enters the
relevant academic journals. We believe that the lack of
empirical research is one of the reasons for this. The
absence of empirical research – whether qualitative or
Corresponding author. Email: *hassenzahl@psychologie.tu-darmstadt.de; **noamt@bgu.ac.il
Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 25, No. 2, March-April 2006, 91– 97
Behaviour & Information Technology
ISSN 0144-929X print/ISSN 1362-3001 online ª2006 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/01449290500330331

quantitative – impedes theoretical advancement and
restricts our understanding of UX as concept and its
further development.
The present special issue on ‘Empirical studies of the user
experience’ is meant as a contribution to the limited body
of empirical work on UX. Our objective was to collect a
series of original, high-quality empirical papers on various
(mainly positive) aspects that go beyond the purely
cognitive and task-oriented. This request was well received
by the community. All in all, 28 manuscripts were
submitted for review. Thirty-nine expert reviewers assessed
the manuscripts. Our emphasis as editors was not only on
the quality of the papers, but also on the diversity of the
resulting collection. We set out to demonstrate the richness
of UX research, the diversity of topics, approaches and
results.
The final issue contains seven papers. Kil-Soo Suh and
Sunjhe Chang (this issue) demonstrate how a technology
(i.e. virtual reality) leads to a particular experience (i.e.
telepresence), which mediates knowledge, attitudes, pur-
chase intentions and perceptions of product risk. In the
paper ‘Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds
to make a good first impression!’ (this issue), Gitte
Lindgaard, Gary Fernandez, Cathy Dudek and Judy
Brown show how fast impressions of the visual appeal of
a website are formed and how stable they are. Mark Blythe,
Josephine Reid, Peter Wright and Erik Geelhoed (this
issue) take an interdisciplinary approach to the empirical
study of UX. Their analysis of Riot!, a location-sensitive
interactive play, not only gives interesting insights into the
mechanics, problems and benefits of such a new technol-
ogy, it also reveals the way different conceptual and
methodological approaches lead to different perspectives,
which strongly benefit from each other. This article also
demonstrates the potential mismatch between designers’
intentions and users’ actual experiences. A group of papers
emphasises methods and tools: Regan Mandryk, Kori
Inkpen and Thomas Calvert (this issue) focus on using
physiological measures to study the UX with entertainment
technologies. With ‘affectemes and allaffects’, Lesley
Axelrod and Kate Hone (this issue) suggest and test a
novel approach to coding emotional expression during
experiences with technology. Ann Light (this issue) focuses
on interviewing techniques to gather insights into the
experiential. Finally, Marian Petre, Shaily Minocha and
Dave Roberts (this issue) transfer UX to the field and
demonstrate how a more holistic understanding of quality
in the context of business-to-consumer extends or alters
established tools and techniques.
We hope the present issue will encourage scientists and
practitioners to engage in empirical UX research and by
that to advance our understanding of UX. It is meant as
another starting point for rich research practices. But what
are promising topics to study beyond those already
addressed? Is there a ‘research agenda’ for UX? In the
remainder of this editorial, we attempt to provide a cursory
sketch of how we think UX research will look like in the
future. Our view is not meant to be an accurate forecast.
Rather, we intend it to be a proposal – a stimulus for
further UX research.
A glance at the literature on UX, such as the ‘Design and
Emotion’ conferences (e.g. McDonagh et al. 2003), the
‘Funology’ workshops and publications (Blythe 2003,
Blythe et al. 2004), Helander and Tham’s (2003) special
issue on ‘Hedonomics’, the emerging literature on ‘Aes-
thetics’ (e.g. Tractinsky in press), or the work of Pat Jordan
(e.g. Jordan 2000) and – recently – Don Norman (2004a),
reveals three major perspectives. One thread predominantly
deals with addressing human needs beyond the instru-
mental; a second thread stresses affective and emotional
aspects of the interaction; and a third thread deals with the
nature of experience. Let us briefly discuss each perspective
(see Hassenzahl in press, for a further overview) and the
most interesting related research questions.
2. Beyond the instrumental
Since its early days, HCI research focused almost exclu-
sively on the achievement of behavioural goals in work
settings. The task became the pivotal point of user-centred
analysis and evaluation techniques (e.g. usability testing).
To ensure the interactive product’s instrumental value
became the major endeavour of the field.
However, this narrow focus on the instrumental was
repeatedly challenged. In an early attempt to define UX,
Alben (1996), for example, identified beauty (i.e. aesthetics)
as an important quality aspect of technology (see Hassen-
zahl 2004b, Lavie and Tractinsky 2004). Beauty clearly
goes beyond the instrumental. It becomes important
because of its intrinsic value (Postrel 2002), which echoes
the fact that beauty satisfies a general human need (Maslow
1954). Beauty is an end rather than a means.
Gaver and Martin (2000) argued for the importance of a
whole range of specific non-instrumental needs, such as
surprise, diversion, or intimacy, to be addressed by
technology. These ideas begin to disseminate into HCI
research practice, as demonstrated by faMiliar (Mandic
and Kerne 2005), an addition to email, which visualizes
‘rhythms in social engagements’ (p. 1617). It builds on
intimacy as a core construct (see also Vetere et al. 2005).
Drawing upon the concept of emotional usability (Logan
et al. 1994), Hassenzahl (2003) argued that future HCI
must be concerned about the pragmatic aspects of
interactive products (i.e. its fit to behavioural goals) as
well as about hedonic aspect, such as stimulation (i.e.
personal growth, an increase of knowledge and skills),
identification (i.e. self-expression, interaction with relevant
others) and evocation (i.e. self-maintenance, memories).
92 M. Hassenzahl and N. Tractinsky

This multidimensional model explicitly links product
attributes with needs and values. A product’s novelty and
the challenges it provides, for example, contribute to its
hedonic quality, which is relevant because it promises
fulfilment of an underlying human need – a need for being
stimulated, to perfect one’s skills and knowledge, to grow.
Such means-end chains (e.g. Gutman 1997) provide insights
into the ‘meaning’ of products and by that, a better
understanding of how to address those meanings by design.
Albeit different in detail, all of these approaches have a
common goal: to enrich current models of product quality
with non-instrumental aspects to create a more complete,
holistic HCI.
What are the challenges of this perspective for future
research? Above all, non-instrumental needs must be better
understood, defined and operationalised. How do they
translate into product quality? Which product attributes
are linked to which needs? Based on a better understanding,
their interplay and importance can be studied. Perhaps the
most intriguing question is how the overall quality or the
‘goodness’ of an interactive product is formed, given
pragmatic and hedonic aspects and underlying needs
(Hassenzahl 2004b, Norman 2004b). Are instrumental
and non-instrumental quality perceptions related to each
other, as for example demonstrated for beauty and
usability by Tractinsky et al. (2000), or independent of
each other, as shown by Hassenzahl (2002) for hedonic and
pragmatic quality aspects? Are needs equally important, do
they form a hierarchy (as suggested by Jordan 2000) or
rather a particular, context-dependent prioritisation (Shel-
don et al. 2001), which may change with specific usage
situations, personal tastes or both? Can we create dynamic
quality models, which are able to prescribe an adequate
weighting of quality aspects (and the related needs) for a
given product and context of use? How do we design for
particular needs? And finally: What is the impact of
embedding non-instrumental needs into products in terms
of acceptance, valuation and choice? Tractinsky and Zmiri
(in press), for example, showed the choice of personalised
user interfaces (‘skins’) to be driven by aesthetic and
symbolic considerations. Is this finding generalisable or
does it depend on product ‘genre’ (e.g. ‘leisure’ versus
‘work’) and usage situation (e.g. ‘social’ versus ‘time
pressure’)?
3. Emotion and affect
Current research emphasises the importance of the affective
system for a wide range of central processes, such as human
decision-making (e.g. Loewenstein and Lerner 2003) or
subjective wellbeing (Suh et al. 1996). The ‘Affective
Computing’ project was one of the pioneering attempts to
address affect by HCI (Picard 1997). It called attention to
the importance of affect and emotions. However, affective
computing takes a ‘computer’ perspective. It predomi-
nantly deals with questions such as how computers can
sense user affect, adapt to it, or even express its own
affective response (see Picard and Klein 2002, Hudlicka
2003). In addition, humans interacting with technology are
depicted as having mostly negative emotions. Conse-
quently, affective computing deals with mechanisms that
detect and undo negative emotions – a substitute for human
and social care and friendship, close to an automated
version of anger management. For example, Interacting
with Computers’ Special Issue on Affective Computing
(Cockton 2002) is dominated by illustrations of how
interactive systems can aid irritated users, manage their
frustrations or prevent other negative emotions. In this
paradigm, the researchers envision computerised toys that
are ‘capable of soothing a crying child or of perhaps
artificially preventing strong feelings of loneliness, sadness,
frustration, and a host of other strong, negative emotions’
(Picard and Klein 2002, p. 23).
Although UX research shares Affective Computing’s
recognition of affect and emotions, it is rather concerned
with affective consequences on the human side than with
technology, which is able to have affect (see Hollnagel 2003,
for a critique of Affective Computing). UX takes a ‘human’
perspective. It is interested in understanding the role of affect
as an antecedent, a consequence and a mediator of technology
use. In addition, it is rather focused on positive emotions. To
prevent frustration and dissatisfaction had always been a core
objective even of the most cognitively driven perspective on
HCI. What is new in UX research is a focus on positive
emotional outcomes such as joy, fun and pride.
A design example that actually seeks to foster positive
emotional experiences is Gustbowl (van der Hoog et al.
2004), a communication tool designed to connect children
and parents. Analyses revealed children – parent commu-
nication to be predominantly emotional and built on
affective rituals. Both aspects are not supported by the
occasional phone-call, which makes the communication
sometimes awkward and slightly unpleasant, although
children and parents want the contact. Gustbowl is an
actual bowl, maybe placed in the hallway, which transmits
pictures of things thrown into it to its counterpart. The
other bowl acknowledges receipt with a wobble and an
image of the sender bowl’s content. Gustbowl exploits the
ritual of coming home. A father may have the habit of
depositing his keys, without much thinking, into the bowl
when coming home. A daughter living apart would receive
a slight wobble and a picture of the keys reminding her of
home, without the need for an explicit act of communica-
tion. Gustbowl enables the sending of affective messages in
an implicit, unobtrusive, effortless and continuous way,
which blends into day-to-day life.
A second example for an affective requirement addressed
by a technology comes from Millard et al.’s (1999)
User experience – a research agenda 93

motivational user interface for call-centre software. Call-
centre agents expressed the need to have an instant
overview of the quality of interaction they had so far with
their customers. Negative interactions tend to get more
weight in retrospective assessments. Thus, a single negative
interaction can have a significant negative impact on an
agent’s wellbeing, with no regard whether in fact the
majority of interactions had been positive. A common way
to avoid this type of bias is the use of diaries. Based on this
general idea, Millard and colleagues designed moodies,a
function that allowed collecting an electronic token for
each call, which represents the quality of the interaction
with the customer. This collection enables an agent to
produce an instant, unbiased image of the overall quality of
customer interaction during his shift.
Desmet et al. (2001) demonstrated, how affect could
become a design goal. They tried to fit a mobile phone to
the user’s preferred affective response. While all users –
naturally – required a positive response, some preferred an
exciting phone (i.e. high psychological arousal) while others
preferred a calming phone (i.e. low psychological arousal).
In a gradual process, Desmet and colleagues designed two
mobile phone prototypes, which indeed fitted the affective
requirements of the two different groups.
A slightly different line of research has it roots in the
Technology Acceptance literature. It studies the interplay
and causal links between user perceptions (e.g. perceived
usability) and intention to use or actual behaviour. Zhang
and Li (2004), for example, found the perceived affective
quality of a course management system to be an antecedent
of its perceived usability, usefulness and the intention to
use. This is in line with previous research (Davis et al. 1992,
Igbaria et al. 1994), which reported an impact of perceived
enjoyment on technology acceptance.
Generally speaking, there are two basic ways in dealing
with emotions in UX (Hassenzahl in press): One line of
research stresses the importance of emotions as conse-
quences of product use (e.g. Kim and Moon 1998, Desmet
and Hekkert 2002, Hassenzahl 2003, Tractinsky and Zmiri
in press). The other line concentrates on their importance
as antecedents of product use and evaluative judgments
(e.g. Singh and Dalal 1999, visceral level in Norman 2004a).
What are the challenges of this perspective for future
research? Obviously, individuals do have affective require-
ments. They must, for example, regulate their moods. This
is especially relevant for emotion work (Hochschild 1990),
where the display of affect (e.g. being friendly, being in a
good mood) becomes a central part of the job description
(e.g. flight attendant, hotel receptionist, call-centre agent).
A central question is, how resulting affective requirements
can be collected and translated into concrete products or
functions as shown by Gustbowl or the motivational
interface? Should technology be a vehicle for affect
maintenance and regulation? Another interesting question
concerns emotions as design goals. Is it possible to design
emotions? Or are emotions too ephemeral (see Hassenzahl
2004a)? In other words, if emotions are a product of many
different situational aspects, designers may not have the
ability to exert the amount of control needed for creating
particular emotions. Using an interactive product may not
be comparable to watching a movie in a cinema or visiting a
theme park. Thus, designers may settle for establishing the
context for an emotion rather than the emotion itself. And
further: What are the effects of addressing affect and
creating affective responses on judgements (e.g. liking,
willingness-to-pay) and behaviour (e.g. money or time
spent on product, performance). For example, is it possible
to trace the way beauty creates emotions and, more
generally, the way those emotions influence judgement
and decision-making, both immediately (Lindgaard et al.
this issue) and reflectively?
4. The experiential
The experiential perspective on UX emphasizes two aspects
of technology use: its situatedness and its temporality. In
this view, an experience is a unique combination of various
elements, such as the product and internal states of the user
(e.g. mood, expectations, active goals), which extends over
time with a definitive beginning and end. The experiential
assumes all these elements to be interrelated – to interact
and modify each other. The outcome of this process is the
actual experience. For example, consider the difference
between ‘a tomato in one’s fridge’ versus ‘the taste of a
marvelous tomato sauce on homemade gnocchi’ or ‘a
mystery thriller on one’s bookshelf ’ versus ‘being awake all
night because of the thrilling story, which unfolds while
reading’. The product (a tomato, a thriller) is used in a
particular situation, which then forms an experience.
Experiences have advantages. In contrast to material
outcomes (e.g. ‘to experience a concert of one’s favourite
pop star’ versus ‘a new watch’), experiential outcomes have
a more positive impact on one’s wellbeing (van Boven and
Gilovich 2003). They possess affective quality and help to
transform and regulate affective states. It seems, thus, a
good idea to emphasise the experiential in interactive
products rather than the material.
Forlizzi and Batterbee (2004, p. 263) go a step further
and distinguish between ‘An Experience’, which ‘can be
articulated or named, has a beginning and end, [and]
inspires behavioural and emotional change’ and ‘Experi-
ence’ as ‘a constant stream of ‘‘self-talk’’ that happens
when we interact with products’. The former acknowledges
the experiential as complex, unique and thus, outstanding
and hard to repeat. The latter view underlines the temporal
aspects of experiences, their subjectivity and dynamics.
Both perspectives raise many challenges and interesting
questions. How can we cope with the seeming complexity
94 M. Hassenzahl and N. Tractinsky

of experience? Similar to the question about our ability to
design for certain emotions, it is not clear whether we can
‘design’ an experience. Can designers exert enough control
over all relevant elements in a way that a positive
experience becomes certain? Or do we rather ‘design for
an experience’, that is, to take experiential aspects into
account while designing, without being able to guarantee a
particular experience. Another perspective would acknowl-
edge the ubiquity of experiences and rather ask how we
could design products in a way that positive experiences,
successes, joy are attributed to the quality of the product
rather than to other situational aspects? This perspective
may require UX to break one of the fundamental
assumptions of traditional HCI: interactive products must
step back, be transparent and blend into the context. A
good product is one that performs without being recog-
nised. But is it not the aspiration of all designers to gain
recognition for the positive experiences caused by their
products?
Another question arises from the ‘experience as stream of
self-talk’ – perspective. How is this stream transformed
into retrospective summary assessments (e.g. Ariely and
Carmon 2003)? Such assessments represent an experience.
They have an impact on future experiences. Moreover, they
form the basis for communicating about experiences.
Hassenzahl and Sandweg (2004), for example, showed
summary assessments of software’s usability to depend
heavily on problems encountered at the end of a usage
episode. This end-effect highlights the difference between an
experience and retrospective judgements about experiences
(see Kahneman 1999, for a thorough discussion of this idea
in the context of wellbeing). Judgements about experiences
and the experiences themselves are related, but not
identical.
5. Summary and conclusion
So, what is UX? We took a brief look at three prominent
perspectives. Each perspective contributes a facet to our
understanding of users’ interactions with technology, while
sharing some ideas and arguments with the other perspec-
tives (see figure 1).
Thus, none of these perspectives fully captures UX. UX
is about technology that fulfils more than just instrumental
needs in a way that acknowledges its use as a subjective,
situated, complex and dynamic encounter. UX is a
consequence of a user’s internal state (predispositions,
expectations, needs, motivation, mood, etc.), the character-
istics of the designed system (e.g. complexity, purpose,
usability, functionality, etc.) and the context (or the
environment) within which the interaction occurs (e.g.
organisational/social setting, meaningfulness of the activ-
ity, voluntariness of use, etc.). Obviously, this creates
innumerable design and experience opportunities.
The current strong interest in UX, which encompasses
both practice and research, is not accidental. Many
interactive products found their way into our daily lives.
State-of-the-art machinery (graphics, sound, networks,
miniaturisation, etc.) allows for more than mere function-
ality. At the same time, the growing and changing base of
users shifts the parameters of demand for interactive
products. The UX perspective takes this shift seriously.
Its focus on aspects beyond the functional, on the positive,
the experiential and emotional is no coincidence. It is
driven by commercial vendors, who are sensitive to the
changes in business climate, by designers who appreciate
new design opportunities, and by a scientific community
that shows renewed interest in the affective system and its
interplay with cognition.
Especially the focus on the positive aspects of technol-
ogy use mirrors a trend in psychology, where Seligman
and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) argued for a new millennium
psychology to be positive, i.e. to deal with human
strengths and the promotion of wellbeing rather than
with human weaknesses and healing alone (see also
Kahneman et al. 1999). UX in the sense of a positive
HCI would, thus, focus on how to create outstanding
quality experiences rather than merely preventing usability
problems. Again, this will question another implicit
assumption of traditional HCI, one that equates high
quality with the absence of problems. This may be
analogous to the notion that absence of illness equals
health. But just as there is much more to wellbeing than
the absence of malady, so must there be more to UX than
the absence of problems. From our perspective, one of
HCI’s main objectives in the future is to contribute to our
quality of life by designing for pleasure rather than for
absence of pain. UX is all about this idea.
Figure 1. Facets of UX.
User experience – a research agenda 95

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank our supportive expert reviewers:
Carol Barnum, Mark Blythe, Katrin Borcherding, Scott
Brave, Cindy Corritore, Pieter Desmet, BJ Fogg, Jodi
Forlizzi, Bill Gaver, Matthias Go
¨bel, Martin Graff, Kai-
Christoph Hamborg, Jeffrey Hancock, Tsipi Heart, Paul
Hekkert, Ben-Tzion Karsh, JinWoo Kim, Jim Lewis,
Clayton Lewis, Gitte Lindgaard, John McCarthy, Joachim
Meyer, Rolf Molich, Andrew Monk, Kees Overbeeke, Ant
Ozok, Nayna Patel, Whitney Quesenbery, Ginny Redish,
Josephine Reid, Harald Reiterer, Rick Schifferstein, Andrew
Sears, Jonathan Sykes, Hartmut Wandke, Terry Winograd,
Peter Wright, Ping Zhang, Martina Ziefle. Last but not least,
we would like to thank Ahmet Cakir and Tom Stewart for
encouraging us to put together the present special issue.
References
ALBEN, L., 1996, Quality of experience: defining the criteria for effective
interaction design. Interactions,3, pp. 11 – 15.
ARIELY, D. and CARMON, Z., 2003, Summary assessment of experiences: the
whole is different from the sum of its parts. In Time and decision.
Economic and psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice,
G. Loewenstein, D. Read and R.F. Baumeister (Eds), pp. 323 – 49
(New York: Russel Sage).
BLYTHE, M., HASSENZAHL, M. and WRIGHT, P.C. (Eds), 2004, More
Funology [Special Section]. Interactions,11, 36 – 77.
BLYTHE, M., OVERBEEKE, C., MONK, A.F. and WRIGHT, P.C. (Eds), 2003,
Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
BOVEN,L.V.andGILOVICH, T.D., 2003, To do or to have? That isthe question.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,85, pp. 1193 – 202.
CARROLL,J.M.andTHOMAS, J.C., 1988, Fun. SIGCHI Bulletin,19, pp. 21–4.
COCKTON, G. (Ed.), 2002, From doing to being: bringing emotion into
interaction [Special Issue]. Interacting with Computers,14.
DAVIS, F.D., BAGOZZI, R.P. and WARSHAW, P.R., 1992, Extrinsic and
Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology,22, pp. 1111 – 32.
DESMET, P.M.A. and HEKKERT, P., 2002, The basis of product emotions. In
Pleasure with products: beyond usability, W. Green and P. Jordan (Eds),
pp. 60 – 8 (London: Taylor & Francis).
DESMET, P.M.A., OVERBEEKE, C.J. and TAX, S.J.E.T., 2001, Designing
products with added emotional value: development and application of an
approach for research through design. The Design Journal,4, pp. 32 – 47.
FORLIZZI, J. and BATTARBEE, K., 2004, Understanding experience in
interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Designing
Interactive Systems (DIS 04): processes, practices, methods, and
techniques (New York: ACM), p. 261.
GAVER, W.W. and MARTIN, H., 2000, Alternatives. Exploring Information
Appliances through Conceptual Design Proposals. In Proceedings of the
CHI 2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing (New York:
ACM), pp. 209 – 16.
GUTMAN, J., 1997, Means-end chains as goal hierarchies. Psychology and
Marketing,14, pp. 545 – 60.
HASSENZAHL, M., 2002, The effect of perceived hedonic quality on product
appealingness. International Journal of Human – Computer Interaction,
13, pp. 479 – 97.
HASSENZAHL, M., 2003, The thing and I: understanding the relationship
between user and product. In Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment,
M. Blythe, C. Overbeeke, A.F. Monk and P.C. Wright (Eds), pp. 31 – 42
(Dordrecht: Kluwer).
HASSENZAHL, M., 2004a, Emotions can be quite ephemeral. We cannot
design them. Interactions,11, pp. 46 – 8.
HASSENZAHL, M., 2004b, The interplay of beauty, goodness and usability in
interactive products. Human Computer Interaction,19, pp. 319 – 49.
HASSENZAHL, M., in press, Hedonic, emotional, and experimental
perspectives on product quality. In Encyclopedia of Human Computer
Interaction, C. Ghaoui (Ed.) (Idea Group).
HASSENZAHL, M., BURMESTER, M. and BEU, A., 2001, Engineering Joy.
IEEE Software,1and 2, pp. 70 – 6.
HASSENZAHL, M. and SANDWEG, N., 2003, From Mental Effort to Perceived
Usability: Transforming Experiences into Summary Assessments. In
Proceedings of the CHI 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing.
Extended abstracts (New York: ACM), pp. 1283 – 6.
HELANDER, M.G. and THAM, M.P. (Eds), 2003, Hedonomics – affective
human factors design [Special issue]. Ergonomics,46.
HOCHSCHILD, A.R., 1990, Das gekaufte Herz. Zur Kommerzialisierung der
Gefu
¨hle [The managed heart], (Frankfurt/Main: Campus).
HOLLNAGEL, E., 2003, Is affective computing an oxymoron? International
Journal of Human – Computer Studies,59, pp. 65 – 70.
HUDLICKA, E., 2003, To feel or not to feel: The role of affect in human –
computer interaction. International Journal of Human – Computer
Studies,59, pp. 1 – 32.
IGBARIA, M., SCHIFFMAN,S.J.andWIECK OWSKI, T.J., 1994, The respective roles
of perceived usefulness and perceived fun in the acceptance of micro-
computer technology. Behaviour & Information Technology,13, pp. 349–61.
JORDAN, P., 2000, Designing pleasurable products. An introduction to the new
human factors (London, New York: Taylor & Francis).
KAHNEMAN, D., 1999, Objective happiness. In Well-being: The foundations
of hedonic quality, D. Kahneman, E. Diener and N. Schwarz (Eds),
pp. 3 – 25 (New York: Sage).
KAHNEMAN, D., DIENER, E. and SCHWARZ, N. (Eds), 1999, Well-being: The
foundation of hedonic psychology (New York: Sage).
KIM, J. and MOON, J.Y., 1998, Designing towards emotional usability in
customer interfaces – trustworthiness of cyber-banking system interfaces.
Interacting with Computers,10, pp. 1 – 29.
LAVIE, T. and TRACTINSKY, N., 2004, Assessing dimensions of perceived
visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Hum an – Computer
Studies,60, pp. 269 – 98.
LOEWENSTEIN,G.andLERNER, J.S., 2003, The role of affect in decision making.
In Handbook of affective science, R.J. Davidson, K.R. Scherer and H.H.
Goldsmith (Eds), pp. 619 – 42 (New York: Oxford University Press).
LOGAN, R.J., AUGAITIS, S. and RENK, T., 1994, Design of simplified
television remote controls: a case for behavioral and emotional usability.
In Proceedings of the 38th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual
Meeting (Santa Monica: HFES), pp. 365 – 9.
MANDIC, M. and KERNE, A., 2005, Using intimacy, chronology and
zooming to visualize rhythms in email experience. In Proceedings of the
CHI 2005 Conference on Human Factors in Computing. Extended
abstracts (New York: ACM), pp. 1617 – 20.
MASLOW, A.H., 1954, Motivation and personality (New York: Harper).
MCDONAGH, D., HEKKERT, P., VAN ERP, J. and GYI, D. (Eds), 2003, Design
and Emotion: The Experience of Everyday Things (London: Taylor &
Francis).
MILLARD, N., HOLE, L. and CROWLE, S., 1999, Smiling through: motivation
at the user interface. In Proceedings of the HCI International’99,Volume
2(pp. 824 – 8) (Mahwah, NJ, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
NORMAN, D., 2004a, Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday
things (New York: Basic Books).
NORMAN, D., 2004b, Introduction to this special section on beauty,
goodness, and usability. Human Computer Interaction,19, pp. 311 – 18.
OVERBEEKE, C.J., DJAJADININGRAT, J.P., HUMMELS, C.C.M. and WENSVEEN,
S.A.G., 2002, Beauty in Usability: Forget about ease of use! In Pleasure
with products: Beyond usability, W. Green and P. Jordan (Eds), pp. 9 –18
(London: Taylor & Francis).
96 M. Hassenzahl and N. Tractinsky

PICARD, R., 1997, Affective computing (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
PICARD, R. and KLEIN, J., 2002, Computers that recognise and respond to
user emotion: theoretical and practical implications. Interacting with
Computers,14, pp. 141 – 69.
POSTREL, V., 2002, The substance of style (New York: Harper Collins).
SELIGMAN, M.E.P. and CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M., 2000, Positive Psychology:
An Introduction. American Psychologist,55, pp. 5 – 14.
SHELDON, K.M., ELLIOT, A.J., KIM, Y. and KASSER, T., 2001, What is
satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological
needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,80, pp. 325 – 39.
SINGH, S.N. and DALAL, N.P., 1999, Web home pages as advertisements.
Communications of the ACM,42, pp. 91 – 8.
SUH, E., DIENER, E. and FUJITA, F., 1996, Events and subjective well-being:
Only recent events matter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
70, pp. 1091 – 102.
TRACTINSKY, N., in press, Aesthetics in Information Technology: Motiva-
tion and Future Research Directions. In Human – Computer Interaction
in Management Information Systems: Foundations, P. Zhang and
D. Galletta (Eds) (M.E. Sharpe).
TRACTINSKY, N. and ZMIRI, D., in press, Exploring attributes of skins
as potential antecedents of emotion in HCI. In Aesthetic computing,
P. Fishwick (Ed.) (Cambridge: MIT Press).
TRACTINSKY, N., KATZ, A.S. and IKAR, D., 2000, What is beautiful is usable.
Interacting with Computers,13, pp. 127 – 45.
VAN DER HOOG, W., STAPPERS, P.J. and KELLER, I., 2004, Connecting
mothers and sons: a design using routine affective rituals. Interactions,
11, pp. 68 – 9.
VETERE, F., GIBBS, M.A., KJELDSKOV, J., HOWARD, S., MUELLER, F., PEDELL,
S., MECOLES, K. and BUNYAN, M., 2005, Mediating intimacy: designing
technologies to support strong-tie relationships. Proceedings of the CHI
2005 Conference on Human Factors in Computing (New York: ACM),
pp. 471 – 80.
WHITESIDE, J. and WIXON, D., 1987, The dialectic of usability engineering.
In INTERACT 87 – 2nd IFIP International Conference on Human –
Computer Interaction. September 1 – 4, 1987, Stuttgart, Germany,
pp. 17 – 20.
WRIGHT, P.C., McARTHY, J. and MEEKISON, L., 2003, Making sense of
experience. In Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, M. Blythe,
C. Overbeeke, A.F. Monk and P.C. Wright (Eds.), pp. 43 – 53
(Dordrecht: Kluwer).
ZHANG, P. and LI, N., 2004, Love at first sight or sustained effect? The role
of perceived affective quality on user’s cognitive reactions to information
technology. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference
on Information Systems (ICIS), pp. 283 – 95.
User experience – a research agenda 97