Results on emotional feeling measures showed slightly higher pleasure levels for the not novel cases and significantly higher arousal for the relative novelty cases. For the quality of experience evaluation; the highest scores for the no novelty cases were “practical”; “useful”; “predictable” and “easy to understand”; the relative novelty cases were “interesting”; “creative”; “satisfying” and “like”; and the absolute novelty cases were for “interesting”; “creative”; “new” and “innovative”. These findings suggest that visual stimulation prior the first use interaction has an arousal enhancing effect in the experience of use; accompanied by qualities related to novelty.
Keywords: Novelty; Typicality; User Experience; Emotion.
KEER2014. Proceedings of the 5th Kanesi Engineering and Emotion Research; International Conference; Linköping; Sweden; June 11-13
Barsalou; L. W. (1985). Ideals; central tendency; and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning; Memory; and Cognition; 11(4); 629-654.
Desmet; P.M.A. and Hekkert P. (2007). ‘Framework of product experience’. International Journal of Design 1; no. 1: 57–66.
Hassenzahl; M. (2003). The Thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. In Blythe; M.; Overbeeke; C.; Monk; A.F.; Wright; P.C. Eds.; Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment; Dordrecht; Kluwer.
Hassenzahl; M. (2007). The hedonic/pragmatic model of user experience. In Towards a UX Manifesto; COST294-MAUSE affiliated workshop; Lancaster; U.K.
Hekkert; P.; & van Wieringen; P. C. W. (1990). Complexity and prototypicality as determinants of the appraisal of cubist paintings. British Journal of Psychology; 81(4); 483-495.
Hekkert; P.; Snelders; D. and Van Wieringen; P. C. W. (2003). ‘Most advanced; yet acceptable’: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology; 94: 111–124.
Hekkert; P. (2006). Design aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in product design. Psychology Science; 48(2);157-172.
Jordan; P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products. London; Taylor and Francis.
Karapanos; E.; Hassenzahl M.; Martens JB. (2008). User experience over time; Computer Human Interaction CHI; Florence; Italy.
Loewy; R. (1951). Never leave well enough alone. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Roseman; I.; Smith C. (2001). Appraisal Theory – Overview; assumptions; varieties; controversies; In K.R.
Sakairi; Y.; Nakatsuka; K.; Shimizu; T. (2013). Development of the Two-Dimensional Mood Scale for self-monitoring and self-regulation of momentary mood states; Japanese Psychological Research; 55(4)/pp.1-12; 2013-06.
Sanabria; J.C. (2012) The Role of Familiarity and Creativity in the Generation of Affective Responses to Advertising : Proposal and Evaluation of a Pairing-Congruity Method; Doctoral thesis; University of Tsukuba; Tsukuba; Japan.
Scherer; A. Schorr; & T. Johnstone Eds. (1984) Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory; Methods; Research; New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith; Craig A.; & Kirby; Leslie D. (2009). Putting appraisal in context: Toward a relational model of appraisal and emotion. Cognition and Emotion; 23 (7); 1352-1372.
Tversky; B.; Hemenway; K. (1984). Objects; parts; and categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General; Vol 113(2); Jun; 169-193.
Whitfield; T. W. A.; & Slatter; P. E. (1979). The effects of categorization and prototypicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task. British Journal of Psychology; 70(1); 65-75.
Zajonc; R.B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Monograph Supplement; 9; 1-27.