An Implicit Test of UX: Individuals Differ in What They Associate with Computers

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings

Volumn 2013-April, Issue , 2013, Pages 2039-2048

  Schmettow, Martin ^a   Noordzij, Matthijs L ^a   Mundt, Matthias ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Geekism; Hedonism; Implicit method; Individual differences; Mixed effects models; Multi method; Need for cognition; Priming; Stroop task; Usability; User experience

Indexed keywords

HUMAN ENGINEERING;

GEEKISM; HEDONISM; IMPLICIT METHODS; INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES; MIXED EFFECTS MODELS; MULTI METHODS; NEED FOR COGNITIONS; PRIMING; STROOP TASK; USABILITY; USER EXPERIENCE;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION;

EID: 84897015948     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2468356.2468722     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (37)

1. Aykin, N. Individual differences in human-computer interaction. Computers & Industrial Engineering 20, 3 (1991), 373–379.
2. Balota, D. a. and Lorch, R.F. Depth of automatic spreading activation: Mediated priming effects in pronunciation but not in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 12, 3 (1986), 336–345.
3. Bargas-Avila, J.A. and Hornbæk, K. Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges. Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI’11, ACM Press (2011), 2689 – 2698.
4. Besner, D., Stolz, J. a, and Boutilier, C. The stroop effect and the myth of automaticity. Psychonomic bulletin & review 4, 2 (1997), 221–5.
5. Bolker, B.M., Brooks, M.E., Clark, C.J., et al. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in ecology & evolution 24, 3 (2009), 127–35.
6. Borgman, C.L. All users of information retrieval systems are not created equal: An exploration into individual differences. Information Processing & Management 25, 3 (1989), 237–251.
7. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Feinstein, J.A., and Jarvis, W.B.G. Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin 119, 2 (1996), 197–253.
8. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., and Kao, C.F. The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of personality assessment 48, 3 (1984), 306–7.
9. Diefenbach, S. and Hassenzahl, M. The dilemma of the hedonic – Appreciated, but hard to justify. Interacting with Computers 23, 5 (2011), 461–472.
10. Dillon, A. and Watson, C. User analysis in HCI — the historical lessons from individual differences research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 45, 6 (1996), 619–637.
11. Effler, M. Interference by Stroop items depending on word frequency training and reaction times of the word components. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie 18, 1 (1981), 54–79.
12. Egan, D. Individual differences in human-computer interaction. In M. Helander, ed., Handbook of Human Computer interaction. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1988, 543–568.
13. Evans, C.J., Kirby, J.R., and Fabrigar, L.R. Approaches to learning, need for cognition, and strategic flexibility among university students. The British journal of educational psychology 73, Pt 4 (2003), 507–28.
14. Freudenthal, D. Age differences in the performance of information retrieval tasks. Behaviour & Information Technology 20, 1 (2001), 9–22.
15. Gelman, A., Hill, J., and Yajima, M. Why We (Usually) Don’t Have to Worry About Multiple Comparisons. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 5, 2 (2012), 189–211.
16. Gueorguieva, R. and Krystal, J.H. Move Over ANOVA. Archives of General Psychiatry 61, (2004), 310–317.
17. Hadfield, J. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. Journal of Statistical Software 33, 2 (2010), 1–22.
18. Harbich, S. and Hassenzahl, M. Beyond Task Completion in the Workplace: Execute, Engage, Evolve, Expand. In C. Peter and R. Beale, eds., Affect and Emotion in Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 2008, 154–162.
19. Hassenzahl, M. and Monk, A. The inference of perceived usability from beauty. Human–Computer Interaction 25, 3 (2010), 235–260.
20. Hassenzahl, M. and Ullrich, D. To do or not to do: Differences in user experience and retrospective judgments depending on the presence or absence of instrumental goals. Interacting with Computers 19, 4 (2007), 429–437.
21. Hassenzahl, M. The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. Human-Computer Interaction 19, (2004), 319–349.
22. Hornbæk, K. Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64, 2 (2006), 79–102.
23. International Organisation for Standardisation. ISO 9241-11:1998 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) -- Part 11: Guidance on usability. 1998.
24. Kliegl, R., Masson, M.E.J., and Richter, E.M. A linear mixed model analysis of masked repetition priming. Visual Cognition 18, 5 (2010), 655–681.
25. Lucas, R.E. and Baird, B.M. Global Self-Assessment. In M. Eid and E. Diener, eds., Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology. Washington, DC, US, 2005, 29–42.
26. Macleod, C.M. Research on the Stroop Effect: An Integrative Review. Psychological Bulletin 109, 2 (1991), 163–203.
27. Porat, T. and Tractinsky, N. It’s a Pleasure Buying Here: The Effects of Web-Store Design on Consumers ' Emotions and Attitudes. Human Computer Interaction, September (2012), 37–41.
28. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2011.
29. Richard, L. and Charbonneau, D. An introduction to E-Prime. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 5, 2 (2009), 68–76.
30. Robinson, M.D. and Neighbors, C. Catching the mind in action: Implicit methods in personality research and assessment. In M. Eid and E. Diener, eds., Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology. APA American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, US, 2005, 115–125.
31. Ruiter, R.A.C., Verplanken, B., De Cremer, D., and Kok, G. Danger and Fear Control in Response to Fear Appeals: The Role of Need for Cognition. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 26, 1 (2004), 13–24.
32. Schwarz, N. Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist 54, 2 (1999), 93–105.
33. Schwarz, N. Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology 14, 4 (2004), 332–348.
34. Sparrow, B., Liu, J., and Wegner, D.M. Google effects on memory: cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science (New York, N.Y.) 333, 6043 (2011), 776–8.
35. Tractinsky, N., Cokhavi, a, Kirschenbaum, M., and Sharfi, T. Evaluating the consistency of immediate aesthetic perceptions of web pages. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64, 11 (2006), 1071–1083.
36. Tulving, E. and Schacter, D.L. Priming and human memory systems. Science 247, 4940 (1990), 301–6.
37. Zuur, A.F., Ieno, E.N., and Elphick, C.S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1, 1 (2010), 3–14.