Marcos Mendoza Vazquez
University of Tsukuba-Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, Japan
Toshimasa Yamanaka
University of Tsukuba-Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, Japan
Download article
Published in: KEER2014. Proceedings of the 5th Kanesi Engineering and Emotion Research; International Conference; Linköping; Sweden; June 11-13
Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 100:41, p. 503-516
Published: 2014-06-11
ISBN: 978-91-7519-276-5
ISSN: 1650-3686 (print), 1650-3740 (online)
This paper presents an experimental study that assesses the impact of novelty appraisal on user´s emotional feelings and in their evaluation of user experience with commercial products. After actual interaction with 4 products differing in two levels of design typicality of design in two categories of products (cameras and highlighters) participants used a SD method for the evaluation of user experience quality; and a two-dimensional mood scale survey for assessing their own emotional feeling. Likewise; participants were asked if they had seen and if they had used the products before; obtaining three cases: 1. who had already used it before (no novelty); 2. who had seen it but not used it (relative novelty) and 3. who had not seen it before (absolute novelty). The previous experience of participants with the particular product defined the degree of novelty appraisal; confirming that typical products were more likely to be appraised as known and atypical ones as novel.
Results on emotional feeling measures showed slightly higher pleasure levels for the not novel cases and significantly higher arousal for the relative novelty cases. For the quality of experience evaluation; the highest scores for the no novelty cases were “practical”; “useful”; “predictable” and “easy to understand”; the relative novelty cases were “interesting”; “creative”; “satisfying” and “like”; and the absolute novelty cases were for “interesting”; “creative”; “new” and “innovative”. These findings suggest that visual stimulation prior the first use interaction has an arousal enhancing effect in the experience of use; accompanied by qualities related to novelty.
Novelty; Typicality; User Experience; Emotion.
Barsalou; L. W. (1985). Ideals; central tendency; and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning; Memory; and Cognition; 11(4); 629-654.
Desmet; P.M.A. and Hekkert P. (2007). ‘Framework of product experience’. International Journal of Design 1; no. 1: 57–66.
Hassenzahl; M. (2003). The Thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. In Blythe; M.; Overbeeke; C.; Monk; A.F.; Wright; P.C. Eds.; Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment; Dordrecht; Kluwer.
Hassenzahl; M. (2007). The hedonic/pragmatic model of user experience. In Towards a UX Manifesto; COST294-MAUSE affiliated workshop; Lancaster; U.K.
Hekkert; P.; & van Wieringen; P. C. W. (1990). Complexity and prototypicality as determinants of the appraisal of cubist paintings. British Journal of Psychology; 81(4); 483-495.
Hekkert; P.; Snelders; D. and Van Wieringen; P. C. W. (2003). ‘Most advanced; yet acceptable’: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology; 94: 111–124.
Hekkert; P. (2006). Design aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in product design. Psychology Science; 48(2);157-172.
Jordan; P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products. London; Taylor and Francis.
Karapanos; E.; Hassenzahl M.; Martens JB. (2008). User experience over time; Computer Human Interaction CHI; Florence; Italy.
Loewy; R. (1951). Never leave well enough alone. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Roseman; I.; Smith C. (2001). Appraisal Theory – Overview; assumptions; varieties; controversies; In K.R.
Sakairi; Y.; Nakatsuka; K.; Shimizu; T. (2013). Development of the Two-Dimensional Mood Scale for self-monitoring and self-regulation of momentary mood states; Japanese Psychological Research; 55(4)/pp.1-12; 2013-06.
Sanabria; J.C. (2012) The Role of Familiarity and Creativity in the Generation of Affective Responses to Advertising : Proposal and Evaluation of a Pairing-Congruity Method; Doctoral thesis; University of Tsukuba; Tsukuba; Japan.
Scherer; A. Schorr; & T. Johnstone Eds. (1984) Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory; Methods; Research; New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith; Craig A.; & Kirby; Leslie D. (2009). Putting appraisal in context: Toward a relational model of appraisal and emotion. Cognition and Emotion; 23 (7); 1352-1372.
Tversky; B.; Hemenway; K. (1984). Objects; parts; and categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General; Vol 113(2); Jun; 169-193.
Whitfield; T. W. A.; & Slatter; P. E. (1979). The effects of categorization and prototypicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task. British Journal of Psychology; 70(1); 65-75.
Zajonc; R.B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Monograph Supplement; 9; 1-27.
