Users’ Emotional Valence, Arousal, and Engagement Based on Perceived Usability and Aesthetics for Web Sites

REFERENCES

• Bagozzi, R. P., Davis, F. D., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Development and test a theory of technological learning and usage. Human Relations, 45, 660 –686.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Bassat, T., Meyer, J., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). Economic and subjective measures of the perceived value of aesthetics and usability. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction (TOCHI), 13, 210 –234.
   Google Scholar
• Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49 –59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human–computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297 –334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319 –340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Angeli, A., Sutcliffe, A., & Hartmann, J. (2006). Interaction, usability and aesthetics: what influences users’ preferences? Paper presented at the 6th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, University Park, PA, June 26–28.
   Google Scholar
• Dillon, A. (2001). Beyond usability: process, outcome and affect in human computer interactions. Canadian Journal of Information Science, 26(4), 57 –69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubé, L., & Menon, K. (2000). Multiple roles of consumption emotions in post-purchase satisfaction with extended service transations. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11, 287 –304.
   Google Scholar
• Hartmann, J., Sutcliffe, A., & de Angeli, A. (2008). Towards a theory of user judgment of aesthetics and user interface quality. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction (TOCHI), 15(4), Article 15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, M. (2004). The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. Human–Computer Interaction, 19, 319 –349.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, M. (2008). Aesthetics in interactive products: Correlates and consequences of beauty. In H. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert ( Eds.), Product experience ( pp. 287 –302). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience—A research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25, 91 –97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISO. (1998). ISO 9241-11, Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs)—Part 11: Guidance on usability
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins, S., Brown, R., & Rutterford, N. (2009). Comparing thermographic, EEG, and subjective measures of affective experience during simulated product interactions. International Journal of Design, 3(2), 53 –65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2007). Research note—Investigating the influence of the functional mechanisms of online product presentations. Information Systems Research, 18, 454 –470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keinonen, T. (1997). Expected usability and product preference. Paper presented at the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, August 18–20.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J., Lee, J., & Choi, D. (2003). Designing emotionally evocative homepages: an empirical study of the quantitative relations between design factors and emotional dimensions. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 59, 899 –940.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J., Lee, J., Han, K., & Lee, M. (2002). Business as buildings: Metrics for the architectural quality of Internet businesses. Information Systems Research, 13, 239 –254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J., & Moon, J. Y. (1997). Emotional usability of customer interfaces: focusing on cyber banking system interfaces. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA, March 22–27.
   Google Scholar
• Kirakowski, J., & Corbett, M. (1993). SUMI: The software Usability Measurement Inventory. British Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 210 –212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang, P. J. (1980). Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assessment: Computer applications. In J. B. Sidowski, H. Johnson, & T. A. Williams ( Eds.), Technology in mental health care delivery systems ( pp. 119 –137). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Lang, P. J., Greenwald, M. K., Bradley, M. M., & Hamm, A. O. (1993). Looking at pictures: Affective, facial, visceral and behavioral reactions. Psychophysiology, 30, 261 –273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavie, T., & Tractinsky, N. (2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 60, 269 –298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, S., & Koubek, R. J. (2010). Understanding user preferences based on usability and aesthetics before and after actual use. Interacting with Computers, 22, 530 –543.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, S., & Koubek, R. J. (2011). The impact of cognitive style on user preference based on usability and aesthetics for computer-based systems. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 27, 1083 –1114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, S., & Koubek, R. J. (2012). Users’ perceptions of usability and aesthetics as criteria of pre- and post-use preferences. European Journal of Industrial Engineering, 6, 87 –117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, J. R. (1995). IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 7, 57 –78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, J. R. (2002). Psychometric evaluation of the PSSUQ using data from five years of usability studies. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 14, 463 –488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindgaard, G., & Dudek, C. (2003). What is this evasive beast we call user satisfaction? Interacting with Computers, 15, 429 –452.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahlke, S., & Thüring, M. (2007). Studying antecedents of emotional experiences in interactive contexts. Paper presented at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, April 28--May 3.
   Google Scholar
• Moshagena, M., Muscha, J., & Goritzb, A. (2009). A blessing, not a curse: Experimental evidence for beneficial effects of visual aesthetics on performance. Ergonomics, 52, 1311 –1320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity. Indianapolis, IN: New Rider.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien, H. L., & Toms, E. G. (2010). The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 50 –69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porat, T., & Tractinsky, N. (2012). It’s a pleasure buying here: The effects of web-store design on consumers’ emotions and attitudes. Human–Computer Interaction, 27, 235 –276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rafaeli, A., & Vilnai-Yavetz, I. (2004). Instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism of physical artifacts as triggers of emotion. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5, 91 –112.
   Google Scholar
• Schenkman, B. N., & Jönsson, F. U. (2000). Aesthetics and preferences of web pages. Behaviour & Information Technology, 19, 367 –377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multi-level sequential checking. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone ( Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research ( pp. 92 –120). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schrepp, M., Held, T., & Laugwitz, B. (2006). The influence of hedonic quality on the attractiveness of user interfaces of business management software. Interacting with Computers, 18, 1055 –1069.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutcliffe, A. (2001). Heuristic evaluation of website attractiveness and usability. Proccedings of the 8th International Workshop on Interactive Systems: Design, Specification, and Verification-Revised Papers, 183 –198.
   Google Scholar
• Thüring, M., & Mahlke, S. (2007). Usability, aesthetics and emotions in human–technology interaction. International Journal of Psychology, 42, 253 –264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13, 127 –145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tractinsky, N., & Zmiri, D. (2008). Exploring attributes of skins as potential antecedents of emotion in HCI. In P. Fishwick ( Ed.), Aesthetic computing ( pp. 405 –422). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tselios, N., Avouris, N., Dimitracopoulou, A., & Daskalaki, S. (2001). Evaluation of distance-learning environments: Impact of usability on student performance. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7, 355 –378.
   Google Scholar
• van der Heijden, H. (2003). Factors influencing the usage of websites: The case of a generic portal in the Netherlands. Information & Management, 40, 541 –549.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Schaik, P., & Ling, J. (2008). Modelling user experience with web sites: Usability, hedonic value, beauty and goodness. Interacting with Computers, 20, 419 –432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldstein, S. R., Kop, W. J., Schmidt, L. A., Haufler, A. J., Krantz, D. S., & Fox, N. A. (2000). Frontal electrocortical and cardiovascular reactivity during happiness and anger. Biological Psychology, 55, 3 –23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar