Studying the effect of perceived hedonic mobile device quality on user experience evaluations of mobile applications

References

• Bargas-Avila, J.A. and Hornbæk, K., 2011. Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges? A critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. In: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’11), 7–12 May 2011, Vancouver. New York: ACM Press, 2689–2698.
   Google Scholar
• Bidwell, N.J., et al., 2010. Designing with mobile digital storytelling in rural Africa. In: Proceedings of the 2010 annual conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’10), 10–15 April 2010, Atlanta. New York: ACM Press, 1593–1602.
   Google Scholar
• Bolchini, D., Garzotto, F., and Sorce, F., 2009. Does branding need web usability? A value-oriented empirical study. In: Proceedings of the 12th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Part II (INTERACT ’09), 24–28 August, Uppsala. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 652–665.
   Google Scholar
• Chawda, B., et al., 2005. Do attractive things work better? An exploration of search tool visualizations. In: Proceedings of 19th BCS conference on human computer interaction: Volume 2 (British HCI ‘05), 5–9 September, Edinburgh. BCS Press, 46–51.
   Google Scholar
• Chong, M.K. and Gellersen, H., 2011. How users associate wireless devices. In: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI ’11), 7–12 May 2012, Vancouver. New York: ACM Press, 1909–1918.
   Google Scholar
• Clarkson, E., et al., 2005. An empirical study of typing rates on mini-QWERTY keyboards. In: CHI ’05 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (CHI EA ’05), 2–7 April, Portland. New York: ACM Press, 1288–1291.
   Google Scholar
• Coates, D., 2002. Watches tell more than time: Product design, information and the quest for elegance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Costanza, E., et al., 2010. Sensor tune: a mobile auditory interface for DIY wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 2010 annual conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’10), 10–15 April 2010, Atlanta. New York: ACM Press, 2317–2326.
   Google Scholar
• De Angeli, A., Hartmann, J., and Sutcliffe, A., 2009. The effect of brand on the evaluation of websites. In: Proceedings of the 12th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Part II (INTERACT ’09), 24–28 August, Uppsala. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 638–651.
   Google Scholar
• De Souza, C.S., 2005. The semiotic engineering of human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Alemán, J.L., 2001. Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 35 (12), 1238–1258. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000006475
   Google Scholar
• Diefenbach, S. and Hassenzahl, M., 2009. The ‘beauty dilemma’: beauty is valued but discounted in product choice. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’09), 4–9 April, Boston. New York: ACM Press, 1419–1426.
   Google Scholar
• Dion, K., Berscheid, E., and Walster, E., 1972. What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24 (3), 285–290. doi: 10.1037/h0033731
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durrant, A., et al., 2011. Automics: souvenir generating photoware for theme parks. In: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’11), 7–12 May 2012, Vancouver. New York: ACM Press, 1767–1776.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, A.L., 1951. Balanced Latin-square designs in psychological research. The American Journal of Psychology, 64 (4), 598–603. doi: 10.2307/1418200
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallnäs, L. and Redström J., 2002. From use to presence: on the expressions and aesthetics of everyday computational things. Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 9 (2), 106–124. doi: 10.1145/513665.513668
   Google Scholar
• Han, S.H., et al., 2004. Identifying mobile phone design features critical to user satisfaction. Human Factors and Ergonomics, 14 (1), 15–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartmann, J., De Angeli, A., and Sutcliffe, A., 2008. Framing the user experience: information biases on website quality judgement. In: Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’08), 5–10 April, Florence. New York: ACM Press, 855–864.
   Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, M., 2003. The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. In: M. Blythe, C. Overbeeke, A.F. Monk, and P.C. Wright, eds. Funology: from usability to enjoyment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press, 31–42.
   Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, M., 2004. The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. Human-Computer Interaction, 19 (4), 319–349. doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci1904_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, M. and Monk, A., 2010. The inference of perceived usability from beauty. Human-Computer Interaction, 25 (3), 235–260. doi: 10.1080/07370024.2010.500139
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, M. and Tractinsky, N., 2006. User experience – a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25 (2), 91–97. doi: 10.1080/01449290500330331
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, M. and Ullrich, D., 2007. To do or not to do. Difference in user experience and retrospective judgments depending on the presence or absence of instrumental goals. Interacting with Computers, 19 (4), 429–437. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2007.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S., and Göritz, A., 2010. Needs, affect and interactive products – facets of user experience. Interacting with Computers, 22 (5), 353–362. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornbæk, K., 2010. Dogmas in the assessment of usability evaluation methods. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29 (1), 97–111. doi: 10.1080/01449290801939400
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan, P.W., 1997. Products as personalities. In: M.A. Hanson, ed. Contemporary ergonomics 1997. London: Taylor & Francis, 449–453.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, P.W., 2000. Designing pleasurable products. An introduction to the new human factors. London: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Kardes, F.R., Posavac, S.S., and Gronley, M.L., 2004. Consumer inference: a review of processes, bases and judgment inference. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (3), 230–256. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1403_6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, K., Proctor, R.W., and Salvendy, G., 2012. The relation between usability and product success in cell phones. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31 (10), 969–982. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2011.596997
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruglanski, A.W. and Gigerenzer, G., 2011. Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118 (1), 97–109. doi: 10.1037/a0020762
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuutti, K., 2001. Hunting for the lost user: from sources of errors to active actors and beyond. In: Proceedings of cultural usability seminar, 24 April, Helsinki. Available from: http://mlab.uiah.fi/culturalusability/papers/Kuutti_paper.html [Assessed 19 July 2012].
   Google Scholar
• Lazar, J., Feng, J.H., and Hochheiser, H., 2010. Research methods in human-computer interaction. West Sussex: Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Lindgaard, G., et al., 2006. Attention web designers: you have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression! Behaviour & Information Technology, 25 (2), 115–126. doi: 10.1080/01449290500330448
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindgaard, G., et al., 2011. An exploration of relations between visual appeal, trustworthiness and perceived usability of homepages. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 18 (1), Article No. 1. doi: 10.1145/1959022.1959023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ling, C., Hwang, W., and Salventy, G., 2007. A survey of what customers want in cell phone design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26 (2), 149–163. doi: 10.1080/01449290500128214
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund, A., 2001. Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. Usability and User Experience Newsletter of the STC Usability SIG, 8 (2). Available from: http://www.stcsig.org/usability/newsletter/0110_measuring_with_use.html [Accessed 9 November 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Marathe, S. and Sundar, S.S., 2011. What drives customization? Control or identity? In: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’11), 7–12 May 2012, Vancouver. New York: ACM Press, 781–790.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy, J. and Wright, P., 2004. Technology as experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• McLellan, S., Muddimer, A., and Peres S.C., 2012. The effect of experience on system usability scale ratings. Journal of Usability Studies, 7 (2), 56–67.
   Google Scholar
• McLoughlin, M. and Ciolfi, L., 2011. Design interventions for open-air museums: applying and extending the principles of ‘assembly’. In: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’11), 7–12 May 2012, Vancouver. New York: ACM Press, 553–556.
   Google Scholar
• Moggridge, B., 2007. Interaction design (IDEO). Innovation Forum, Potsdam, Germany. Available from: http://interface.fh-potsdam.de/innoforum/english/09_videos.php [Accessed 19 July 2012].
   Google Scholar
• Nisbett, R.E. and Wilson, T.D., 1997. The halo effect: evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (4), 250–256. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, D.A., 2004. Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Phau, I. and Lau, K., 2001. Brand personality and consumer self-expression: single or dual carriageway? The Journal of Brand Management, 8 (6), 428–444. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540042
   Google Scholar
• Quinn, J.M. and Tran, T.Q., 2010. Attractive phones don't have to work better: independent effects of attractiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency on perceived usability. In: Proceedings of the 2010 annual conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’10), 10–15 April 2010, Atlanta. New York: ACM Press, 353–362.
   Google Scholar
• Raita, E. and Oulasvirta, A., 2011. Too good to be bad: favorable product expectations boost subjective usability ratings. Interacting with Computers, 23 (4), 363–371. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2011.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rondeau, D.B., 2005. For mobile applications, branding is experience. Communications of the ACM, 48 (7), 61–66. doi: 10.1145/1070838.1070867
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauer, J. and Sonderegger, A., 2010. The influence of product aesthetics and user state in usability testing. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30 (6), 787–796. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2010.503352
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saville, D.J., 1990. Multiple comparison procedures: the practical solution. The American Statistician, 44 (2), 174–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Schaik, P., Hassenzahl, M., and Ling, J., 2012. User experience from an inference perspective. ACM Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 19 (2), 1–25. doi: 10.1145/2240156.2240159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solomon, M., et al., 2010. Consumer behaviour: a European perspective. Essex: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Tossell, C.C., et al., 2012. An empirical analysis of smartphone personalisation: measurement and user variability. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31 (10), 995–1010. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2012.687773
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tractinsky, N., Katz, A.S., and Ikar, D., 2000. What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13 (2), 127–145. doi: 10.1016/S0953-5438(00)00031-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tullis, T. and Albert, B., 2008. Measuring the user experience: collecting, analysing and presenting usability metrics. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Tzou, R.C. and Lu, H.P., 2009. Exploring the emotional, aesthetic, and ergonomic facets of innovative product on fashion technology acceptance model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 28 (4), 311–322. doi: 10.1080/01449290701763454
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermeeren, A.P.O.S., et al., 2010. User experience evaluation methods: current state and development needs. In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ’10), 16–20 October 2010, Reykjavik, Iceland. New York: ACM Press, 521–530.
   Google Scholar