References
- Altaboli, A., & Lin, Y. (2011). Objective and subjective measures of visual aesthetics of website interface design: The two sides of the coin. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 35–44). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
- Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science, 17(8), 645–648. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01759.x
- Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
- Bernstein, I. H., & Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Oliva, TA, Oliver, RL, & MacMillan, IC (1992). A Catastrophe Model for Developing Service Satisfaction Strategies. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 83–95. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299205600306
- Bhandari, U., Chang, K., & Neben, T. (2019). Understanding the impact of perceived visual aesthetics on user evaluations: An emotional perspective. Information & Management, 56(1), 85–93. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.07.003
- Bhandari, U., Neben, T., Chang, K., & Chua, W. Y. (2017). Effects of interface design factors on affective responses and quality evaluations in mobile applications. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 525–534. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.044
- Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. Mis Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/3250921
- Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 551–565. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/346250
- Bölen, M. C. (2020a). Exploring the determinants of users’ continuance intention in smartwatches. Technology in Society, 60, 101209. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101209
- Bölen, M. C. (2020b). From traditional wristwatch to smartwatch: Understanding the relationship between innovation attributes, switching costs and consumers’ switching intention. Technology in Society, 63, 101439. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101439
- Bradley, S. (2013). Design fundamentals: Elements, attributes, & principles. Vanseo design.
- Chen, -C.-C., & Chuang, M.-C. (2008). Integrating the Kano model into a robust design approach to enhance customer satisfaction with product design. International Journal of Production Economics, 114(2), 667–681. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.02.015
- Chen, -C.-C., Wu, J.-H., & Wu, -C.-C. (2011). Reduction of image complexity explains aesthetic preference for symmetry. Symmetry, 3(3), 443–456. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/sym3030443
- Chipman, S. F. (1977). Complexity and structure in visual patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106(3), 269–301. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.106.3.269
- Cho, W.-C., Lee, K. Y., & Yang, S.-B. (2019). What makes you feel attached to smartwatches? The stimulus–organism–response (S–O–R) perspectives. Information Technology & People, 32(2), 319–343. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-05-2017-0152
- Choi, J., & Kim, S. (2016). Is the smartwatch an IT product or a fashion product? A study on factors affecting the intention to use smartwatches. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 777–786. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.007
- Creusen, M. E., Veryzer, R. W., & Schoormans, J. P. (2010). Product value importance and consumer preference for visual complexity and symmetry. European Journal of Marketing, 44(9/10), 1437–1452. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561011062916
- Dehghani, M. (2018). Exploring the motivational factors on continuous usage intention of smartwatches among actual users. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1424246
- Dehghani, M., & Tumer, M. (2015). A research on effectiveness of Facebook advertising on enhancing purchase intention of consumers. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 597–600. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.051
- Deng, L., & Poole, M. S. (2010). Affect in web interfaces: A study of the impacts of web page visual complexity and order. Mis Quarterly, 34(4), 711–730. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/25750702
- Eytam, E., &Tractinsky, N. (2010). The paradox of simplicity: effects of user interface design on perceptions and preference of interactive systems. MCIS, 2010, 30. http://aisel.aisnet.org/mcis2010/30
- Fornell, C., &Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.Journal of Marketing Research,18(1), 39–50.https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
- Frey, D. (1949). Zum Problem der Symmetrie in der bildenden Kunst. Verlag nicht ermittelbar.
- Gartus, A., & Leder, H. (2017). Predicting perceived visual complexity of abstract patterns using computational measures: The influence of mirror symmetry on complexity perception. PloS One, 12(11), e0185276. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185276
- Gerhart, N., & Ogbanufe, O. (2021). Disidentity and nonconsumption of smartwatches. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 1–17. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12666
- Graham, L. (2008). Gestalt theory in interactive media design. Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, 2(1), 1–12. http://www.guillaumegronier.com/2020-miashs/resources/Graham,-2008.pdf
- Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (Vol. 7). Pearson.
- Hassenzahl, M., Schöbel, M., & Trautmann, T. (2008). How motivational orientation influences the evaluation and choice of hedonic and pragmatic interactive products: The role of regulatory focus. Interacting with Computers, 20(4–5), 473–479. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2008.05.001
- Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
- Hon, G. (2005). Kant vs. Legendre on symmetry: Mirror images in philosophy and mathematics. Centaurus, 47(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0498.2005.00027.x
- Hong, J., Lee, O.-K. D., & Suh, W. (2013). A study of the continuous usage intention of social software in the context of instant messaging. Online Information Review, 37(5), 692–710. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2011-0144
- Hong, J.-C., Lin, P.-H., & Hsieh, P.-C. (2017). The effect of consumer innovativeness on perceived value and continuance intention to use smartwatch. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 264–272. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.001
- Hsiao, K.-L. (2017). What drives smartwatch adoption intention? Comparing Apple and non-Apple watches. Library Hi Tech, 35(1), 186–206. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-09-2016-0105
- Ichikawa, S. (1985). Quantitative and structural factors in the judgment of pattern complexity. Perception & Psychophysics, 38(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198846
- Jung, Y., Kim, S., & Choi, B. (2016). Consumer valuation of the wearables: The case of smartwatches. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 899–905. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.040
- Karahanoğlu, A., & Erbuğ, Ç. (2011). Perceived qualities of smart wearables: Determinants of user acceptance. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on designing pleasurable products and interfaces(pp. 1–8). Milano, Italy. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/2347504.2347533
- Karvonen, K. (2000). The beauty of simplicity. In Proceedings on the 2000 conference on Universal Usability (pp. 85–90). Virginia, VA. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/355460.355478
- Kim, K. J. (2016). Round or square? How screen shape affects utilitarian and hedonic motivations for smartwatch adoption. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(12), 733–739. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0136
- Kim, K. J. (2017). Shape and size matter for smartwatches: Effects of screen shape, screen size, and presentation mode in wearable communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(3), 124–140. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12186
- Kim, K. J., & Shin, D.-H. (2015). An acceptance model for smart watches. Internet Research, 25(4), 527–541. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-05-2014-0126
- Kim, K. J., & Sundar, S. S. (2014). Does screen size matter for smartphones? Utilitarian and hedonic effects of screen size on smartphone adoption. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(7), 466–473. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.0492
- Kim, K. J., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). Mobile persuasion: Can screen size and presentation mode make a difference to trust? Human Communication Research, 42(1), 45–70. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12064
- Kuru, A., & Erbuğ, Ç. (2013). Explorations of perceived qualities of on-body interactive products. Ergonomics, 56(6), 906–921. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.788737
- Lavie, T., & Tractinsky, N. (2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60(3), 269–298. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.09.002
- Luffarelli, J., Stamatogiannakis, A., & Yang, H. (2019). The visual asymmetry effect: An interplay of logo design and brand personality on brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243718820548
- Machado, P., Romero, J., Nadal, M., Santos, A., Correia, J., & Carballal, A. (2015). Computerized measures of visual complexity. Acta psychologica, 160, 43–57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.06.005
- Madan, C. R., Bayer, J., Gamer, M., Lonsdorf, T. B., & Sommer, T. (2018). Visual complexity and affect: Ratings reflect more than meets the eye. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2368. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02368
- Maier, A., & Berry, D. M. (2018). Improving the identification of hedonic quality in user requirements: A second controlled experiment. Requirements Engineering, 23(3), 401–424. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-018-0290-5
- Marin, M. M., & Leder, H. (2013). Examining complexity across domains: Relating subjective and objective measures of affective environmental scenes, paintings and music. PloS One, 8(8), e72412. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072412
- Marin, M. M., & Leder, H. (2016). Effects of presentation duration on measures of complexity in affective environmental scenes and representational paintings. Acta psychologica, 163, 38–58. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.10.002
- McManus, I. C. (2005). Symmetry and asymmetry in aesthetics and the arts. European Review, 13(S2), 157. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798705000736
- Merčun, T., & Žumer, M. (2017). Exploring the influences on pragmatic and hedonic aspects of user experience. Information Research, 22(1), 1621. http://informationr.net/ir/22-1/colis/colis1621.html
- Miniukovich, A., & De Angeli, A. (2014). Visual impressions of mobile app interfaces. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (pp. 31–40). Helsinki, Finland. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/2639189.2641219
- Miniukovich, A., & De Angeli, A. (2015). Computation of interface aesthetics. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1163–1172). Seoul, Republic of Korea. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702575
- Norman, D. A. (2007). Simplicity is highly overrated. Interactions, 14(2), 40–41. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/1229863.1229885
- Ogbanufe, O., & Gerhart, N. (2018). Watch it! Factors driving continued feature use of the smartwatch. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(11), 999–1014. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2017.1404779
- Palumbo, L., Ogden, R., Makin, A. D., & Bertamini, M. (2014). Examining visual complexity and its influence on perceived duration. Journal of Vision, 14(14), 3. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1167/14.14.3
- Park, K., Jeong, M., & Kim, K. (2020). Usability evaluation of menu interfaces for smartwatches. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 60(2), 156–165. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2018.1425644
- Pinna, B. (2011). What is the meaning of shape? Gestalt Theory, 33(3–4), 383–422. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-02844-008
- Rock, I., & Palmer, S. (1990). The legacy of Gestalt psychology. Scientific American, 263(6), 84–91. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1290-84
- Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster.
- Schmidt, T., & Wolff, C. (2018). The influence of user interface attributes on aesthetics. i-com, 17(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/icom-2018-0003
- Seckler, M., Opwis, K., & Tuch, A. N. (2015). Linking objective design factors with subjective aesthetics: An experimental study on how structure and color of websites affect the facets of users’ visual aesthetic perception. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 375–389. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.056
- Silvia, P. J., & Barona, C. M. (2009). Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.27.1.b
- Sundar, S. S., Tamul, D. J., & Wu, M. (2014). Capturing “cool”: Measures for assessing coolness of technological products. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72(2), 169–180. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.09.008
- Tinio, P. P., & Leder, H. (2009). Just how stable are stable aesthetic features? Symmetry, complexity, and the jaws of massive familiarization. Acta psychologica, 130(3), 241–250. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.01.001
- Tuch, A. N., Bargas-Avila, J. A., & Opwis, K. (2010). Symmetry and aesthetics in website design: It’sa man’s business. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1831–1837. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.016
- Turel, O., Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2010). User acceptance of hedonic digital artifacts: A theory of consumption values perspective. Information & Management, 47(1), 53–59. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2009.10.002
- Turoman, N., Velasco, C., Chen, Y.-C., Huang, P.-C., & Spence, C. (2018). Symmetry and its role in the crossmodal correspondence between shape and taste. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(3), 738–751. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1463-x
- Wang, J., & Hsu, Y. (2019). Does sustainable perceived value play a key role in the purchase intention driven by product aesthetics? Taking smartwatch as an example. Sustainability, 11(23), 6806. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236806
- Wang, J., & Hsu, Y. (2020). The relationship of symmetry, complexity, and shape in mobile interface aesthetics, from an emotional perspective—A case study of the smartwatch. Symmetry, 12(9), 1403. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12091403
- Wu, C. M., & Li, P. (2019). The visual aesthetics measurement on interface design education. Journal of the Society for Information Display, 27(3), 138–146. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/jsid.751
- Wu, K., Vassileva, J., Zhao, Y., Noorian, Z., Waldner, W., & Adaji, I. (2016). Complexity or simplicity? Designing product pictures for advertising in online marketplaces. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 28, 17–27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.08.009
- Wu, L.-H., Wu, L.-C., & Chang, S.-C. (2016). Exploring consumers’ intention to accept smartwatch. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 383–392. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.005
- Yoon, H., & Park, S.-H. (2020). A non-touchscreen tactile wearable interface as an alternative to touchscreen-based wearable devices. Sensors, 20(5), 1275. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/s20051275