45
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

User Experience (UX) with Mobile Devices: A Comprehensive Model to Demonstrate the Relative Importance of Instrumental, Non-Instrumental, and Emotional Components on User Satisfaction

ORCID Icon, , , &
Received 21 Mar 2023, Accepted 30 Apr 2024, Published online: 03 Jun 2024

References

  • Al-Emran, M. (2021). Evaluating the use of smartwatches for learning purposes through the integration of the technology acceptance model and task-technology fit. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(19), 1874–1882. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1921481
  • Al-Emran, M., Al-Maroof, R., Al-Sharafi, M. A., & Arpaci, I. (2022). What impacts learning with wearables? An integrated theoretical model. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(10), 1897–1917. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1753216
  • Andone, I., Błaszkiewicz, K., Eibes, M., Trendafilov, B., Montag, C., & Markowetz, A. (2016, September). How age and gender affect smartphone usage [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: adjunct (pp. 9–12), Heidelberg, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1145/2968219.2971451
  • Aranyi, G., & Van Schaik, P. (2016). Testing a model of user‐experience with news websites. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(7), 1555–1575. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23462
  • Attig, C., & Franke, T. (2020). Abandonment of personal quantification: A review and empirical study investigating reasons for wearable activity tracking attrition. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.025
  • Basha, N. K., Aw, E. C. X., & Chuah, S. H. W. (2022). Are we so over smartwatches? Or can technology, fashion, and psychographic attributes sustain smartwatch usage? Technology in Society, 69, 101952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101952
  • Bölen, M. C. (2020). Exploring the determinants of users’ continuance intention in smartwatches. Technology in Society, 60, 101209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101209
  • Bongard-Blanchy, K., Bouchard, C., Bonnardel, N., Lockner, D., & Aoussat, A. (2015). User experience dimensions in product design: A consolidation of what academic researchers know and what design practitioners do. Journal of Design Research, 13(2), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1504/JDR.2015.069754
  • Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.
  • Chin, W. W. (2009). How to write up and report PLS analyses. Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications (pp. 655–690). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  • 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/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/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.007
  • Chuah, S. H. W. (2019). Wearable XR-technology: Literature review, conceptual framework and future research directions. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 13(3–4), 205–259. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTMKT.2019.104586
  • Chuah, S. H. W., Rauschnabel, P. A., Krey, N., Nguyen, B., Ramayah, T., & Lade, S. (2016). Wearable technologies: The role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.047
  • Cvetković, B., Szeklicki, R., Janko, V., Lutomski, P., & Luštrek, M. (2018). Real-time activity monitoring with a wristband and a smartphone. Information Fusion, 43, 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.05.004
  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  • Deng, L., Turner, D. E., Gehling, R., & Prince, B. (2010). User experience, satisfaction, and continual usage intention of IT. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2009.50
  • Forlizzi, J., & Battarbee, K. (2004, August). Understanding experience in interactive systems [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (pp. 261–268), Cambridge, MA.
  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980
  • Gupta, M., Sinha, N., Singh, P., & Chuah, S. H. W. (2020). Gender differences in the wearable preferences, device and advertising value perceptions: Smartwatches vs. fitness trackers. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 14(2), 199–225. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTMKT.2020.110127
  • Goh, J. C. L., & Karimi, F. (2014). Towards the development of a ‘user-experience’technology adoption model for the interactive mobile technology. HCI in Business: First International Conference, HCIB 2014, Held as Part of HCI International 2014, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 22-27, 2014. Proceedings 1 (pp. 620–630). Springer International Publishing.
  • Gross, A., & Bongartz, S. (2012, October). Why do I like it? Investigating the product-specificity of user experience. Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense through Design (pp. 322–330). Association for Computing Machinery.
  • Hassenzahl, M. (2003). The thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and product. In M. A. Blythe, K. Overbeeke, A. F. Monk, & P. C. Wright (Eds.), Funology. Human-computer interaction series (Vol 3). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2967-5_4
  • Hassenzahl, M. (2006). Hedonic, emotional, and experiential perspectives on product quality. Encyclopedia of human computer interaction (pp. 266–272). IGI Global.
  • Hassenzahl, M. (2018). The thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and product. Funology 2: From usability to enjoyment (pp. 301–313). Springer.
  • Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S., & Göritz, A. (2010). Needs, affect, and interactive products–Facets of user experience. Interacting with Computers, 22(5), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.002
  • Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience-a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290500330331
  • Hedman, J., & Gimpel, G. (2010). The adoption of hyped technologies: A qualitative study. Information Technology and Management, 11(4), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-010-0075-0
  • Hubert, M., Blut, M., Brock, C., Backhaus, C., & Eberhardt, T. (2017). Acceptance of smartphone‐based mobile shopping: Mobile benefits, customer characteristics, perceived risks, and the impact of application context. Psychology & Marketing, 34(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20982
  • Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., Martens, J. B. (2009, April). User experience over time: An initial framework. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 729–738). Association for Computing Machinery.
  • Kim, S. H. (2014). A study on adoption factors of Korean smartphone users: A focus on TAM (Technology Acceptance Model) and UTAUT (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology). Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 57(1), 27–30. https://doi.org/10.14257/astl.2014.57.07
  • Koul, S., & Eydgahi, A. (2017). A systematic review of technology adoption frameworks and their applications. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 12(4), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242017000400011
  • Krey, N., Chuah, S. H. W., Ramayah, T., & Rauschnabel, P. A. (2019). How functional and emotional ads drive smartwatch adoption: The moderating role of consumer innovativeness and extraversion. Internet Research, 29(3), 578–602. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2017-0534
  • Kulviwat, S., Bruner, G. C., II., & Al-Shuridah, O. (2009). The role of social influence on adoption of high tech innovations: The moderating effect of public/private consumption. Journal of Business Research, 62(7), 706–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.04.014
  • Lacroux, A. (2011). Les avantages et les limites de la méthode «Partial Least Square»(PLS): UNE illustration empirique dans le domaine de la GRH. Revue de Gestion Des Ressources Humaines, N° 80(2), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.3917/grhu.080.0045
  • Lallemand, C., & Koenig, V. (2017, September). How could an intranet be like a friend to me? Why standardized UX scales don’t always fit. Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (pp. 9–16). Association for Computing Machinery.
  • Lallemand, C., Koenig, V., Gronier, G., & Martin, R. (2015). Création et validation d’une version française du questionnaire AttrakDiff pour l’évaluation de l’expérience utilisateur des systèmes interactifs. European Review of Applied Psychology, 65(5), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2015.08.002
  • Law, E. L. C., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A. P., & Kort, J. (2009, April). Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: A survey approach. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 719–728). Association for Computing Machinery.
  • Li, T., Xia, T., Wang, H., Tu, Z., Tarkoma, S., Han, Z., & Hui, P. (2022). Smartphone app usage analysis: Datasets, methods, and applications. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 24(2), 937–966. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2022.3163176
  • Liu, X., Chen, T., Qian, F., Guo, Z., Lin, F. X., Wang, X., & Chen, K. (2017, June). Characterizing smartwatch usage in the wild [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services (pp. 385–398), Niagara Falls, NY. https://doi.org/10.1145/3081333.3081351
  • Ma, Q., Chan, A. H., & Chen, K. (2016). Personal and other factors affecting acceptance of smartphone technology by older Chinese adults. Applied Ergonomics, 54, 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.11.015
  • Minge, M., & Thüring, M. (2018). Hedonic and pragmatic halo effects at early stages of user experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 109, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.07.007
  • Minge, M., Thüring, M., & Wagner, I. (2016, September). Developing and validating an English version of the meCUE questionnaire for measuring user experience. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 60, pp. 2063–2067). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601468
  • Nascimento, B., Oliveira, T., & Tam, C. (2018). Wearable technology: What explains continuance intention in smartwatches? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 43, 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.03.017
  • Nieroda, M. E., Mrad, M., & Solomon, M. R. (2018). How do consumers think about hybrid products? Computer wearables have an identity problem. Journal of Business Research, 89, 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.024
  • Norman, D., Miller, J., & Henderson, A. (1995, May). What you see, some of what’s in the future, and how we go about doing it: HI at Apple Computer [Paper presentation]. Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (p. 155), Denver, CO. https://doi.org/10.1145/223355.223477
  • 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/10.1080/10447318.2017.1404779
  • Park, Y., & Chen, J. V. (2007). Acceptance and adoption of the innovative use of smartphone. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(9), 1349–1365. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570710834009
  • Raptis, D., Papachristos, E., Bruun, A., & Kjeldskov, J. (2022). Why did you pick that? A study on smartwatch design qualities and people’s preferences. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(4), 827–844. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1836259
  • Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714
  • Scapin, D., Senach, B., Trousse, B., & Pallot, M. (2012, January). User experience: Buzzword or new paradigm? [Paper presentation] ACHI 2012, the Fifth International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions), Valencia, Spain.
  • Schrepp, M., Hinderks, A., & Thomaschewski, J. (2017). Design and evaluation of a short version of the user experience questionnaire (UEQ-S). International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 4(6), 103–108. https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2017.09.001
  • Shaw, H., Ellis, D. A., & Ziegler, F. V. (2018). The Technology Integration Model (TIM). Predicting the continued use of technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 204–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.001
  • Talukder, M. S., Chiong, R., Bao, Y., & Hayat Malik, B. (2019). Acceptance and use predictors of fitness wearable technology and intention to recommend: An empirical study. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 119(1), 170–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-01-2018-0009
  • Thüring, M., & Mahlke, S. (2007). Usability, aesthetics and emotions in human–technology interaction. International Journal of Psychology, 42(4), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590701396674
  • Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28( 4), 695–704. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148660
  • Van Der Linden, J., Amadieu, F., Vayre, E., & Van De Leemput, C. (2019). User experience and social influence: A new perspective for UX theory. Design, User Experience, and Usability. Design Philosophy and Theory: 8th International Conference, DUXU 2019, Held as Part of the 21st HCI International Conference, HCII 2019, Orlando, FL, USA, July 26–31, 2019, Proceedings, Part I 21 (pp. 98–112). Springer International Publishing.
  • Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
  • Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
  • Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1050.0042
  • Yogasara, T., Popovic, V., Kraal, B., & Chamorro-Koc, M. (2011). General characteristics of anticipated user experience (AUX) with interactive products. Diversity and unity: Proceedings of IASDR2011, the 4th World Conference on Design Research (pp. 1–11). Delft University of Technology.
  • Zarour, M., & Alharbi, M. (2017). User experience framework that combines aspects, dimensions, and measurement methods. Cogent Engineering, 4(1), 1421006. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2017.1421006

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.