Measuring Intuitive Use: Theoretical Foundations

References

• Ackerman, R., & Thompson, V. (2017). Meta-reasoning: Monitoring and control of thinking and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(8), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agor, W. H. (1986). The logic of intuitive decision making: A research-based approach for top management. Quorum Books.
   Google Scholar
• Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 136(4), 569–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antle, A. N., Corness, G., & Droumeva, M. (2009). Human-computer-intuition? Exploring the cognitive basis for intuition in embodied interaction. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 2(3), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJART.2009.028927
   Google Scholar
• Asikhia, O. K. (2015). Evaluating intuitive interactions using image schemas [Doctoral thesis]. Cardiff University, ORCA. https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/89364
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baars, B. J. (1993). A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01538-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. (2001). The magic number and the episodic buffer. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 117–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01253928
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bakker, S., Antle, A. N., Hoven, E. V. D. (2009). Identifying embodied metaphors in children’s sound-action mappings. In E. Paolini & F. Garzotto (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 140–149). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1551788.1551812
   Google Scholar
• Baerentsen, K. B. (2000). Intuitive user interfaces. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), 29–60. https://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol12/iss1/4
   Google Scholar
• Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54(7), 462–479. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.462
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M. (1994). Environmental control of goal-directed action: Automatic and strategic contingencies between situations and behavior. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 41, pp. 71–124). University of Nebraska Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barrouillet, P., Portrat, S., & Camos, V. (2011). On the law relating processing to storage in working memory. Psychological Review, 118(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022324
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bastick, T. (1982). Intuition: How we think and act. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Bastick, T. (2003). Intuition: Evaluating the construct and its impact on creative thinking. Stoneman & Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Bazerman, M. H., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Wade-Benzoni, K. (1998). Negotiating with yourself and losing: Making decisions with competing internal preferences. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickerton, D. (1995). Language and human behavior. University of Washington Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blackler, A. (2006). Intuitive interaction with complex artefacts [Doctoral dissertation]. Queensland University of Technology, QUT ePrints. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/16219/
   Google Scholar
• Blackler, A. (2019a). Intuitive interaction: An overview. In A. Blackler (Ed.), Intuitive interaction (pp. 3–17). CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blackler, A. (Ed.). (2019b). Intuitive interaction: Research and application. CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blackler, A., Desai, S., McEwan, M., Popovic, V., & Diefenbach, S. (2019). Perspectives on the nature of intuitive interaction. In A. Blackler (Ed.), Intuitive interaction (pp. 19–39). CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blackler, A., & Hurtienne, J. (2007). Towards a unified view of intuitive interaction: Definitions, models and tools across the world. MMI-Interaktiv, 1(13), 36–54. https://www.mmi-interaktiv.de/uploads/media/04-Blackler_Hurtienne_02.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Blackler, A., & Popovic, V. (2015). Towards intuitive interaction theory. Interacting with Computers, 27(3), 203–209. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwv011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackler, A., Popovic, V., & Desai, S. (2019). Research methods for intuitive interaction. In A. Blackler (Ed.), Intuitive interaction (pp. 65–88). CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blackler, A., Popovic, V., Lawry, S., Reddy, R., Mahar, D. P., Kraal, B., Chamorro-Koc, M. (2011). Researching intuitive interaction. In Proceedings of the 4th IASDR (the International Association of Societies of Design Research Congress), IASDR 2011. Delft University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Blackler, A., Popovic, V., Mahar, D. P. (2002). Intuitive use of products. In Design Research Society (DSR) International Conference: Common Ground (pp. 1–15). Staffordshire University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blackler, A., Popovic, V., & Mahar, D. P. (2003). Designing for intuitive use of products: An investigation [Paper presentation]. In T. Yamanaka, M. Kubo, & K. Sato (Eds.), Asian Design International Conference, Tsukuba, Japan (pp. 1–16).
   Google Scholar
• Blackler, A., Popovic, V., & Mahar, D. (2010). Investigating users’ intuitive interaction with complex artefacts. Applied Ergonomics, 41(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2009.04.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blair, S. (2020). How lacking control drives fluency effects in evaluative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 156, 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2014). A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34, 257–286. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03412
   Google Scholar
• Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2015). On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews in IS. Journal of Information Technology, 30(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.26
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowers, K. S., Farvolden, P., & Mermigis, L. (1995). Intuitive antecedents of insight. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 27–51). Bradford Books.
   Google Scholar
• Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2001). Fuzzy-trace theory: Dual processes in memory, reasoning, and cognitive neuroscience. In H. W. Reese & R. Kail (Eds.), Advances in child development and behaviour (Vol. 28, pp. 41–100). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, A. S. (1991). A review of the tip-of-the-tongue experience. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullinger, H.-J., Ziegler, J., & Bauer, W. (2002). Intuitive human-computer interaction: Toward a user-friendly information society. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 14(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327590IJHC1401_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cave, A., Blackler, A., Popovic, V., Kraal, B. (2014). Examining intuitive navigation in airports. In Y. K. Lim & K. Niedderer (Eds.), Proceedings of the Design Research Society 2014 Conference (pp. 293–311). Design Research Society.
   Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (vol. 5, pp. 3–39). Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Charles, R. L., & Nixon, J. (2019). Measuring mental workload using physiological measures: A systematic review. Applied Ergonomics, 74, 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.08.028
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chattopadhyay, D., Bolchini, D. (2014). Touchless circular menus: Toward an intuitive UI for touchless interactions with large displays. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (pp. 33–40). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598153.2598181
   Google Scholar
• Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, R., & Shallice, T. (2006). Hierarchical schemas and goals in the control of sequential behavior. Psychological Review, 113(4), 887–916. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.887
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowley, B., Filetti, M., Lukander, K., Torniainen, J., Henelius, A., Ahonen, L., Barral, O., Kosunen, I., Valtonen, T., Huotilainen, M., Ravaja, N., & Jacucci, G. (2016). The psychophysiology primer: A guide to methods and a broad review with a focus on human–computer interaction. Foundations and Trends in Human–Computer Interaction, 9(3), 151–308. http://doi.org/10.1561/1100000065
   Google Scholar
• Cox, D., & Cox, A. D. (2002). Beyond first impressions: The effects of repeated exposure on consumer liking of visually complex and simple product designs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(2), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/03079459994371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez Cruz, A. L., Arango-Muñoz, S., & Volz, K. G. (2016). Oops, scratch that! Monitoring one’s own errors during mental calculation. Cognition, 146, 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cyr, D., Head, M., & Ivanov, A. (2006). Design aesthetics leading to m-loyalty in mobile commerce. Information & Management, 43(8), 950–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.08.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. HarperCollins.
   Google Scholar
• Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2009). Conceptualizing and measuring intuition: A review of recent trends. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1–40). John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• De Neys, W., Cromheeke, S., & Osman, M. (2011). Biased but in doubt: Conflict and decision confidence. PloS One, 6(1), e15954. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015954
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desai, S., Blackler, A., Popovic, V. (2015). Intuitive use of tangible toys. In Proceedings of the 6th IASDR (the International Association of Societies of Design Research Congress), IASDR 2015 (pp. 522–540). IASDR.
   Google Scholar
• Desai, S., Blackler, A., & Popovic, V. (2019). Children’s embodied intuitive interaction—design aspects of embodiment. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 21, 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.06.001
   Google Scholar
• Desmet, P., & Fokkinga, S. (2020). Beyond Maslow’s pyramid: Introducing a typology of thirteen fundamental needs for human-centered design. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 4(3), 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti4030038
   Google Scholar
• Diefenbach, S., & Hassenzahl, M. (2017). Psychologie in der nutzerzentrierten Produktgestaltung [Psychology in user-centered product design]. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Diefenbach, S., & Ullrich, D. (2015). An experience perspective on intuitive interaction: Central components and the special effect of domain transfer distance. Interacting with Computers, 27(3), 210–234. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwv001
   Google Scholar
• Dijksterhuis, A., & Aarts, H. (2010). Goals, attention, and (un)consciousness. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 467–490. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100445
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijksterhuis, A., & van Olden, Z. (2006). On the benefits of thinking unconsciously: Unconscious thought can increase post-choice satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5), 627–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorfman, J., Shames, V. A., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1996). Intuition, incubation, and insight: Implicit cognition in problem solving. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Implicit cognition (pp. 257–296). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. The American Psychologist, 49(8), 709–724. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.49.8.709
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. (1984). Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 75(4), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1984.tb01915.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 378–395. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193858
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. (2007). Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgement. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. (2009). How many dual-process theories do we need? One, two, or many? In J. S. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 33–54). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. (2010). Thinking twice: Two minds in one brain. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. (2011). Dual-process theories of reasoning: Contemporary issues and developmental applications. Developmental Review, 31(2–3), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Theory and metatheory in the study of dual processing: Reply to comments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613483774
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B., & Wason, P. C. (1976). Rationalization in a reasoning task. British Journal of Psychology, 67(4), 479–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1976.tb01536.x
   Google Scholar
• Fazendeiro, T., Winkielman, P., Luo, C., & Lorah, C. (2005). False recognition across meaning, language, and stimulus format: Conceptual relatedness and the feeling of familiarity. Memory & Cognition, 33(2), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195314
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischbein, H. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics: An educational approach. Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, S., Itoh, M., & Inagaki, T. (2015a). Prior schemata transfer as an account for assessing the intuitive use of new technology. Applied Ergonomics, 46(Part A), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, S., Itoh, M., & Inagaki, T. (2015b). Screening prototype features in terms of intuitive use: Design considerations and proof of concept. Interacting with Computers, 27(3), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwv002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frankish, K. (2010). Dual-process and dual-system theories of reasoning. Philosophy Compass, 5(10), 914–926. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00330.x
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, J. B. (2018). Doing psychological science by hand. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(5), 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417746793
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 271–340). Consulting Psychologists Press.
   Google Scholar
• Galy, E., Paxion, J., & Berthelon, C. (2018). Measuring mental workload with the NASA- TLX needs to examine each dimension rather than relying on the global score: An example with driving. Ergonomics, 61(4), 517–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2017.1369583
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gangemi, A., Bourgeois-Gironde, S., & Mancini, F. (2015). Feelings of error in reasoning—in search of a phenomenon. Thinking & Reasoning, 21(4), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2014.980755
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 692–731. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2008). Multiple-reason decision making based on automatic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(5), 1055–1075. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.5.1055
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gooding, P., Isaac, C., & Mayes, A. (2005). Prose recall and amnesia: More implications for the episodic buffer. Neuropsychologia, 43(4), 583–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.07.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gore, J., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2011). Unpacking intuition: A process and outcome framework. Review of General Psychology, 15(4), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graf, L. K. M., & Landwehr, J. R. (2015). A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics: The Pleasure-Interest Model of aesthetic liking. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 19(4), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315574978
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graf, L. K., Mayer, S., & Landwehr, J. R. (2018). Measuring processing fluency: One versus five items. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(3), 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greifeneder, R., & Bless, H. (2018). The interplay of cognition and feelings: Fluency. In R. Greifeneder, H. Bless, & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Social cognition (pp. 145–164). Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grier, R. A. (2015). How high is high? A meta-analysis of NASA-TLX global workload scores. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 59, pp. 1727–1731). Sage. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591373
   Google Scholar
• Hacker, W. (1986). Arbeitspsychologie [Work psychology]. Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Hacker, W. (2009). Arbeitsgegenstand Mensch: Psychologie dialogisch-interaktiver Erwerbsarbeit [Humans as work objects: Psychology of dialogic-interactive work]. Pabst Science Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hacker, W., & Sachse, P. (2013). Allgemeine Arbeitspsychologie: Psychische Regulation von Tätigkeiten [General work psychology: Psychological regulation of activities]. Huber.
   Google Scholar
• Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamm, R. M. (1985). Moment by moment variation in the cognitive activity of experts. Colorado University at Boulder Center for Research on Judgment and Policy. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA159466
   Google Scholar
• Hammond, K. R. (1993). Naturalistic decision making from a Brunswikian viewpoint: Its past, present, future. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 205–227). Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Harmon-Jones, E., & Allen, J. J. (2001). The role of affect in the mere exposure effect: Evidence from psychophysiological and individual differences approaches. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(7), 889–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201277011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, S., Tatar, D., Sengers, P. (2007). The three paradigms of HCI. Alt.Chi. Session at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems San Jose, CA. https://people.cs.vt.edu/∼srh/Downloads/TheThreeParadigmsofHCI.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hart, J. T. (1965). Memory and the feeling-of-knowing experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56(4), 208–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022263
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, S. G. (2006). NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 50, 9, pp. 904–908). Sage. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605000909
   Google Scholar
• Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Nord Holland Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hodgkinson, G. P., Langan-Fox, J., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2008). Intuition: A fundamental bridging construct in the behavioural sciences. British Journal of Psychology (London, England: 1953), 99(Pt 1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712607X216666
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hogarth, R. M. (2001). Educating intuition. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Horn, A.-M. (2008). Validierung des „Questionnaire for Intuitive Use “am Beispiel der Benutzung zweier Versionen des BVG- Fahrkartenautomaten [Validation of the "Questionnaire for Intuitive Use" using the example of the use of two versions of the BVG ticket vending machine] [Unpublished Diploma thesis]. Technische Universität Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• Horstmann, N. (2012). Intuition und Deliberation bei der Entscheidungsfindung: Eine Betrachtung der Prozessebene [Intuition and deliberation in decision making: A process level view]. [Doctoral dissertation]. Universität Mannheim, MADOC. https://madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/32134/
   Google Scholar
• Hurtienne, J. (2011). Image schemas and design for intuitive use: Exploring new guidance for user interface design [Doctoral dissertation]. Technische Universität Berlin, DepositOnce Repository for Research Data and Publications. https://doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-2753
   Google Scholar
• Hurtienne, J. (2017). How cognitive linguistics inspires HCI: Image schemas and image-schematic metaphors. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 33(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2016.1232227
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurtienne, J., & Blessing, L. (2007). Metaphors as tools for intuitive interaction with technology. metaphorik.de, (12), 21–52. https://www.metaphorik.de/sites/www.metaphorik.de/files/journal-pdf/12_2007_hurtienneblessing.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hurtienne, J., Dinsel, C., & Sturm, C. (2009). Project documentation QUESI. FG Mensch-Maschine Systeme, TU Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• Hurtienne, J., Klöckner, K., Diefenbach, S., Nass, C., & Maier, A. (2015). Designing with image schemas: Resolving the tension between innovation, inclusion and intuitive use. Interacting with Computers, 27(3), 235–255. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwu049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hußlein, S., Hurtienne, J., Israel, J. H., Mohs, C., Kindsmüller, M. C., Meyer, H. A., Naumann, A., & Pohlmeyer, A. E. (2007). Intuitive Nutzung - nur ein Schlagwort? [Intuitive use – only a buzzword?]. Design Report, 7(11), 26–27.
   Google Scholar
• Im, H., & Ha, Y. (2018). Attract, captivate, and make them return: Processing fluency effect on estimated shopping time and loyalty intention. International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing, 9(2), 126–144. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEMR.2018.090889
   Google Scholar
• Ishii, H. (2008). Tangible bits: Beyond pixels. In A. Schmidt, H. Gellersen, E. van den Hoven, A. Mazalek, P. Holleis, & N. Villar (Eds.), TEI’08. Second International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (pp. xv–xxv). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• ISO (2018). ISO 9241-11: Ergonomics of human-system interaction. Usability: Definitions and concepts. ISO.
   Google Scholar
• Israel, J. H., Hurtienne, J., Pohlmeyer, A., Mohs, C., Kindsmüller, M. C., & Naumann, A. (2009). On tangible user interfaces, physicality and intuitive use. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 2(4), 348–366. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJART.2009.029240
   Google Scholar
• Jacob, R. J. K., Girouard, A., Hirshfield, L. M., Horn, M. S., Shaer, O., Solovey, E. T., Zigelbaum, J. (2008). Reality-based Interaction: A framework for post-WIMP interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 201–210). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357089
   Google Scholar
• Jacoby, L. L., & Whitehouse, K. (1989). An illusion of memory: False recognition influenced by unconscious perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 118(2), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.118.2.126
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jurado, M. B., & Rosselli, M. (2007). The elusive nature of executive functions: A review of our current understanding. Neuropsychology Review, 17(3), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-007-9040-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded ratio- nality. The American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan US.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.004
   Google Scholar
• Kaltenbacher, B. (2008). Intuitive interaction: Steps towards an integral understanding of the user experience in interaction design [Doctoral dissertation]. Goldsmiths, University of London, Research Online. https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/28677/
   Google Scholar
• Klaczynski, P. A. (2000). Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory polarization: A two-process approach to adolescent cognition. Child Development, 71(5), 1347–1366. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00232
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, G. (1993). A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50(3), 456–460. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288385
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch, A. S., & Forgas, J. P. (2012). Feeling good and feeling truth: The interactive effects of mood and processing fluency on truth judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 481–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. Psychological Review, 100(4), 609–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.100.4.609
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koriat, A. (2000). The feeling of knowing: Some metatheoretical implications for consciousness and control. Consciousness and Cognition, 9(2 Pt 1), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.2000.0433
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kostyk, A., Leonhardt, J. M., & Niculescu, M. (2021). Processing fluency scale development for consumer research. International Journal of Market Research, 63(3), 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785319877137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landwehr, J. R., & Eckmann, L. (2020). The nature of processing fluency: Amplification versus hedonic marking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, 103997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103997
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landwehr, J. R., Wentzel, D., & Herrmann, A. (2013). Product design for the long run: Consumer responses to typical and atypical designs at different stages of exposure. Journal of Marketing, 77(5), 92–107. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawry, S. (2012). Identifying familiarity to facilitate intuitive interaction for older adults [Doctoral dissertation]. Queensland University of Technology, QUT ePrints. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/53410/
   Google Scholar
• Lawry, S., Popovic, V., Blackler, A., & Thompson, H. (2019). Age, familiarity, and intuitive use: An empirical investigation. Applied Ergonomics, 74, 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.08.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J. D., Wickens, C. D., Liu, Y., & Boyle, L. N. (2017). Designing for people: An introduction to human factors engineering. CreateSpace.
   Google Scholar
• Lieberman, M. D. (2000). Intuition: A social cognitive neuroscience approach. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 109–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberman, M. D. (2003). Reflective and reflexive judgment processes: A social cognitive neuroscience approach. In J. Forgas, K. Williams, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), Social judgments: Implicit and explicit processes (pp. 44–67). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 272–292. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Löffler, D., Hess, A., Maier, A., Hurtienne, J., & Schmitt, H. (2013). Developing intuitive user interfaces by integrating users’ mental models into requirements engineering [Paper presentation]. The 27th International British Computer Society Human Computer Interaction Conference. Brunel University.
   Google Scholar
• Macaranas, A. (2013). The effects of intuitive interaction mappings on the usability of body-based interfaces. [Master’s thesis]. Simon Fraser University. http://summit.sfu.ca/item/12635
   Google Scholar
• Mangan, B. (2015). The uncanny valley as fringe experience. Interaction Studies, 16(2), 193–199. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.16.2.05man
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markovits, H., Thompson, V. A., & Brisson, J. (2015). Metacognition and abstract reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 43(4), 681–693. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0488-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matvey, G., Dunlosky, J., & Guttentag, R. (2001). Fluency of retrieval at study affects judgments of learning (JOLs): An analytic or nonanalytic basis for JOLs? Memory & Cognition, 29(2), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194916
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, S., & Landwehr, J. R. (2018). Quantifying visual aesthetics based on processing fluency theory: Four algorithmic measures for antecedents of aesthetic preferences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(4), 399–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000187
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAran, D. (2019). Development of the technology acceptance intuitive interaction model. In A. Blackler (Ed.), Intuitive interaction (pp. 129–149). CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• McEwan, M. W., Blackler, A., Johnson, D. M., Wyeth, P. A. (2014). Natural mapping and intuitive interaction in videogames. In Proceedings of the First ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (pp. 191–200). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048850
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.106.1.3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metcalfe, J., Schwartz, B. L., & Joaquim, S. G. (1993). The cue-familiarity heuristic in metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(4), 851–861. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.9.4.851
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metcalfe, J., & Wiebe, D. (1987). Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 15(3), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03197722
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. Henry Holt and Co.
   Google Scholar
• Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohs, C., Hurtienne, J., Kindsmüller, M. C., Israel, J. H., & Meyer, H. A. (2006). IUUI–Intuitive Use of User Interfaces: Auf dem Weg zu einer wissenschaftlichen Basis für das Schlagwort „Intuitivität” [IUUI – Intuitive Use of User Interfaces: On the way towards a scientific basis for the buzzword “intuitivity”]. MMI-Interaktiv, 1(11), 75–84. https://www.mmi-interaktiv.de/uploads/media/07-Mohs_et_al.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Morewedge, C. K., & Kahneman, D. (2010). Associative processes in intuitive judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 435–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.07.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mueller, M. L., Tauber, S. K., & Dunlosky, J. (2013). Contributions of beliefs and processing fluency to the effect of relatedness on judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(2), 378–384. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0343-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naumann, A., Hurtienne, J. (2010). Benchmarks for intuitive interaction with mobile devices. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (pp. 401–402). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1851600.1851685
   Google Scholar
• Naumann, A., Hurtienne, J., Israel, J. H., Mohs, C., Kindsmüller, M. C., Meyer, H. A., & Hußlein, S. (2007). Intuitive use of user interfaces: Defining a vague concept. In D. Harris (Ed.), Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics (pp. 128–136). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73331-7_14
   Google Scholar
• Naumann, A., Pohlmeyer, A. E., Husslein, S., Kindsmüller, M. C., Mohs, C., & Israel, J. H. (2008). Design for intuitive use: Beyond usability. In CHI’08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2375–2378). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1358628.1358688
   Google Scholar
• Nee, D. E., Brown, J. W., Askren, M. K., Berman, M. G., Demiralp, E., Krawitz, A., & Jonides, J. (2012). A meta-analysis of executive components of working memory. Cerebral Cortex, 23(2), 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, E. (2017). Metacognition and mindfulness: The role of fringe consciousness. Mindfulness, 8(1), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0494-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation (pp. 1–18). Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, E., Price, M. C., & Duff, S. C. (2010). Fringe consciousness: A useful framework for clarifying the nature of experience-based metacognitive feelings. In A. Efklides & P. Misailidi (Eds.),Trends and Prospects in Metacognition Research (pp. 63–80). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien, M. A. (2019). Lessons on intuitive usage from everyday technology interactions among younger and older people. In A. Blackler (Ed.), Intuitive interaction (pp. 89–111). CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien, M. A., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2008). Developing a framework for intuitive human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 52, pp. 1645–1649). Sage. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120805202001
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien, M. A., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2010). Developing an organizational model for intuitive design (Techn. Report Nr. HFA-TR-1001). Georgia Institute of Technology. https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/40563/HFA-TR-1001-IntuitiveDesignConceptualOverview.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Okimoto, M. L. L., Silva, C. M. A., & Miranda, C. (2012). Approaches to the intuitive use in emergency situations. In F. Rebelo & M. M. Soares (Eds.), Advances in usability evaluation part II (pp. 316–324). CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(6), 237–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, B., & Brünken, R. (2015). The Rhythm Method: A new method for measuring cognitive load – an experimental dual-task study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(2), 232–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patterson, R. E. (2017). Intuitive cognition and models of human–automation interaction. Human Factors, 59(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816659796
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plessner, H., & Czenna, S. (2008). The benefits of intuition. In H. Plessner, C. Betsch, & T. Betsch (Eds.), Intuition in judgment and decision making (pp. 251–265). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Pollock, J. L. (1989). OSCAR: A general theory of rationality. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 1(3), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/09528138908953702
   Google Scholar
• Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. (2004). Attention and cognitive control. In D. A. Balota & E. J. Marsh (Eds.), Cognitive psychology: Key readings (pp. 205–223). Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Price, M. C., & Norman, E. (2008). Intuitive decisions on the fringes of consciousness: Are they conscious and does it matter? Judgment and Decision Making, 3(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raskin, J. (1994). Intuitive equals familiar. Communications of the ACM, 37(9), 17–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/182987.584629
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raskin, J. (2000). The Humane Interface: New directions for designing interactive systems. Addison-Wesley Professional.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, J. (1983). Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-13 (3), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1983.6313160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information processing and human-machine interaction: An approach to cognitive engineering. North Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.118.3.219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reber, R., Fazendeiro, T., & Winkielman, P. (2002). Processing fluency as the source of experiences at the fringe of consciousness. Psyche, 8(10), 1–21. https://journalpsyche.org/files/0xaaa6.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Reber, R., Wurtz, P., & Zimmermann, T. D. (2004). Exploring “fringe” consciousness: The subjective experience of perceptual fluency and its objective bases. Consciousness and Cognition, 13(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00049-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reinhardt, D. (2020). IntuiBeat: Formative und summative Evaluation intuitiver Benutzung [IntuiBeat: Formative and summative evaluation of intuitive use]. [Doctoral dissertation]. Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, OPUS. https://doi.org/10.25972/OPUS-21759
   Google Scholar
• Reinhardt, D., Haesler, S., Hurtienne, J., & Wienrich, C. (2019). Entropy of controller movements reflects mental workload in virtual reality. In 26th IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (pp. 802–808). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2019.8797977
   Google Scholar
• Reinhardt, D., Hurtienne, J. (2017). Interaction under pressure: Increased mental workload makes issues of intuitive interaction visible. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 67–71). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064857.3079121
   Google Scholar
• Reinhardt, D., Hurtienne, J. (2018). Cursor entropy reveals decision fatigue. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces Companion (pp. 31:1–31:2). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3180308.3180340
   Google Scholar
• Reinhardt, D., Hurtienne, J., Wienrich, C. (2020). Measuring mental effort via entropy in VR. In IUI’20: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces Companion (pp. 43–44). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3379336.3381493
   Google Scholar
• Reinhardt, D., Kuge, J., & Hurtienne, J. (2018). CHAI: Coding heuristics for assessing intuitive interaction. In A. Marcus & W. Wang (Eds.), Design, user experience, and usability: Theory and practice. DUXU 2018 (pp. 528–545). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91797-9_38
   Google Scholar
• Reyna, V. F. (2008). A theory of medical decision making and health: Fuzzy trace theory. Medical Decision Making: An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 28(6), 850–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X08327066
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubio, S., Díaz, E., Martín, J., & Puente, J. M. (2004). Evaluation of subjective mental workload: A comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods. Applied Psychology, 53(1), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00161.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A Self-Determination Theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 344–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saifoulline, P., & Hemberger, C. (2011). Kognitive Kernkompetenzen zum Aufbau fundierter mentaler Modelle für die Bearbeitung komplexer Planungsprobleme [Core cognitive skills to build grounded mental models for dealing with complex planning problems]. Journal Psychologie des Alltagshandelns/Psychology of Everyday Activity, 4(2), 31–44. http://www.allgemeine-psychologie.info/cms/images/stories/allgpsy_journal/Vol%204%20No%202/saifoulline_hemberger.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sauro, J. (2015). SUPR-Q: A comprehensive measure of the quality of the website user experience. Journal of Usability Studies, 10(2), 68–86. https://uxpajournal.org/supr-qm-measure-mobile-ux/
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauro, J., & Dumas, J. S. (2009). Comparison of three one-question, post-task usability questionnaires. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1599–1608). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518946
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332–348. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, N. (2015). Metacognition. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, E. Borgida, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, volume 1: Attitudes and social cognition (pp. 203–229). American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, N., Jalbert, M., Noah, T., & Zhang, L. (2021). Metacognitive experiences as information: Processing fluency in consumer judgment and decision making. Consumer Psychology Review, 4(1), 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1067
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, N., Sanna, L. J., Skurnik, I., & Yoon, C. (2007). Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: Implications for debiasing and public information campaigns. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 127–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)39003-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaer, O., & Hornecker, E. (2010). Tangible user interfaces: Past, present, and future directions. Foundation and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 3(1–22), 1–137. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000026
   Google Scholar
• Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons, J. P., & Nelson, L. D. (2006). Intuitive confidence: Choosing between intuitive and nonintuitive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 135(3), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.3.409
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (1980). Intuition and analysis: A predictive and explanatory model. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 102(1), 3–60.
   Google Scholar
• Singer, M., & Tiede, H. L. (2008). Feeling of knowing and duration of unsuccessful memory search. Memory & Cognition, 36(3), 588–597. https://doi.org/10.3758/mc.36.3.588
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, E. R., & DeCoster, J. (2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 108–131. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spool, J. M. (2005). What makes a design seem ‘intuitive’? Center Centre – UIE. https://articles.uie.com/design_intuitive/
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (2005). The robot’s rebellion: Finding meaning in the age of Darwin. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory. In J. S. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 55–88). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (2011). Rationality and the reflective mind. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & Toplak, M. E. (2012). Defining features versus incidental correlates of Type 1 and Type 2 processing. Mind & Society, 11(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-011-0093-6
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00003435
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2014). Rationality, intelligence, and the defining features of Type 1 and Type 2 processing. In J. W. Sherman, B. Gawronski, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories of the social mind (pp. 80–91). Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Still, M. L., & Still, J. D. (2019). Cognitively describing intuitive interactions. In A. Blackler (Ed.), Intuitive interaction (pp. 41–61). CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stillman, P. E., Shen, X., & Ferguson, M. J. (2018). How mouse-tracking can advance social cognitive theory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(6), 531–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.03.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220–247. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thaler, R. H., & Shefrin, H. M. (1981). An economic theory of self-control. Journal of Political Economy, 89(2), 392–406. https://doi.org/10.1086/260971
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, V. A. (2009). Dual-process theories: A metacognitive perspective. In J. S. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 171–195). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, V., Evans, J. S. B., & Campbell, J. I. (2013). Matching bias on the selection task: It’s fast and feels good. Thinking & Reasoning, 19(3), 431–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.820220
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, V., & Morsanyi, K. (2012). Analytic thinking: Do you feel like it? Mind & Society, 11(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-012-0100-6
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, V., Turner, J. A. P., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63(3), 107–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, V., Turner, J. A. P., Pennycook, G., Ball, L. J., Brack, H., Ophir, Y., & Ackerman, R. (2013). The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking. Cognition, 128(2), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toates, F. (2006). A model of the hierarchy of behaviour, cognition, and consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition, 15(1), 75–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2005.04.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topolinski, S. (2011). A process model of intuition. European Review of Social Psychology, 22(1), 274–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2011.640078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topolinski, S., Likowski, K. U., Weyers, P., & Strack, F. (2009). The face of fluency: Semantic coherence automatically elicits a specific pattern of facial muscle reactions. Cognition and Emotion, 23(2), 260–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930801994112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topolinski, S., & Strack, F. (2009). The architecture of intuition: Fluency and affect determine intuitive judgments of semantic and visual coherence and judgments of grammaticality in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 138(1), 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014678
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tretter, S., Diefenbach, S., & Ullrich, D. (2019). Intuitive interaction from an experiential perspective: The intuitivity illusion and other phenomena. In A. Blackler (Ed.), Intuitive interaction (pp. 151–169). CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tscharn, R., Latoschik, M. E., Löffler, D., Hurtienne, J. (2017). “Stop over There”: Natural gesture and speech interaction for non-critical spontaneous intervention in autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (pp. 91–100). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3136755.3136787
   Google Scholar
• Turner, P. (2008). Towards an account of intuitiveness. Behaviour & Information Technology, 27(6), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290701292330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science (New York, N.Y.), 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulich, E. (1994). Arbeitspsychologie [Work psychology]. Poeschel.
   Google Scholar
• Ullrich, D. (2013). Komponenten und Einflussfaktoren der intuitiven Interaktion: Ein integratives Modell [Components and influencing factors of intuitive interaction: An integrative model]. i-com, 12(3), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1515/icom.2013.0024
   Google Scholar
• Ullrich, D. (2014). Intuitive Interaktion Eine Exploration von Komponenten, Einflussfaktoren und Gestaltungsansätzen aus der Perspektive des Nutzererlebens [Intuitive interaction: An exploration of components, influencing factors and design approaches from a user experience perspective] [Doctoral dissertation]. Technische Universität Darmstadt. https://tuprints.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/id/eprint/4195
   Google Scholar
• Ullrich, D., Diefenbach, S. (2010a). From magical experience to effortlessness: An exploration of the components of intuitive interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries (pp. 801–804). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1868914.1869033
   Google Scholar
• Ullrich, D., & Diefenbach, S. (2010b). INTUI. Exploring the facets of intuitive interaction. In J. Ziegler & A. Schmidt (Eds.), Mensch & computer 2010: Interaktive Kulturen (pp. 251–260). Oldenbourg.
   Google Scholar
• Ullrich, D., & Diefenbach, S. (2011). Erlebnis intuitive Interaktion – ein phänomenlogischer Ansatz [Experience intuitive interaction - a phenomenological approach]. i-com, 10(3), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1524/icom.2011.0036
   Google Scholar
• Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0
   Google Scholar
• Wennberg, A., Åhman, H., & Hedman, A. (2018). The intuitive in HCI: A critical discourse analysis. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 505–514). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3240167.3240202
   Google Scholar
• Whittlesea, B. W., & Leboe, J. P. (2003). Two fluency heuristics (and how to tell them apart). Journal of Memory and Language, 49(1), 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00009-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickens, C. D., Gordon, S. E., & Liu, Y. (1998). An introduction to human factors engineering. Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Wigdor, D., & Wixon, D. (2011). Brave NUI world: Designing natural user interfaces for touch and gesture. Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, T. D. (2004). Strangers to ourselves. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 989–1000. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.989
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 195–223). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Winkler, A., Baumann, K., Huber, S., Tscharn, R., & Hurtienne, J. (2016). Evaluation of an application based on conceptual metaphors for social interaction between vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 1148–1159). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901876
   Google Scholar
• Young, M. S., Brookhuis, K. A., Wickens, C. D., & Hancock, P. A. (2015). State of science: Mental workload in ergonomics. Ergonomics, 58(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.956151
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zacher, H. (2017). Action regulation theory. In O. Braddick (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of psychology. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zacher, H., & Frese, M. (2018). Action regulation theory: Foundations, current knowledge, and future directions. In D. Ones, N. Anderson, C. Viswesvaran, & H. K. Sinangil (Eds.), The Sage handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 80–102). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Zander, T., Öllinger, M., & Volz, K. G. (2016). Intuition and insight: Two processes that build on each other or fundamentally differ? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1395. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01395
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zapf, D., Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., Peters, H., & Prümper, J. (1992). Errors in working with office computers: A first validation of a taxonomy for observed errors in a field setting. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 4(4), 311–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447319209526046
   Google Scholar
• Zelazo, P. D., Moscovitch, M., & Thompson, E. (2007). The Cambridge handbook of consciousness. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zempel, J. (2003). Strategien der Handlungsregulation [Strategies of action regulation]. [Doctoral dissertation]. Universität Gießen, PsyDok. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11780/364
   Google Scholar
• Zijlstra, F. R. H. (1993). Efficiency in work behaviour: A design approach for modern tools. Delft University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zijlstra, F. R. H., & Van Doorn, L. (1985). The construction of a subjective effort scale. Delft University of Technology.
   Google Scholar