Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Hedonomics
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Hedonomics

2,121

Published on

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,121
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
55
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. An Hedonomic Evaluation of the Effect of Repeated System-Exposure on Pleasurable Human-System Experience Lauren L. Murphy, Ph.D. , Ernst & Young Kip Smith, Ph.D. , Linköping University Peter A. Hancock, Ph.D. , University of Central Florida
  • 2.  
  • 3.  
  • 4. EHH Framework
  • 5. EHH Framework
  • 6. EHH Framework
  • 7. Flow <ul><li>Challenging Activity that Requires Skills </li></ul><ul><li>Clear Goals and Feedback </li></ul><ul><li>Concentration on the Task at Hand </li></ul><ul><li>The Transformation of Time </li></ul><ul><li>Loss of Self-Consciousness </li></ul><ul><li>Loss of Sense of a Self Separate from the Environment </li></ul><ul><li>The Merging of Action and Awareness </li></ul><ul><li>Feeling in Control </li></ul><ul><li>Autotelic Experience </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Jackson and Marsh, 1996) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  • 8. Overview <ul><li>Experiment One </li></ul><ul><li>Experiment Two </li></ul><ul><li>Experiment Three </li></ul><ul><li>Concluding Remarks about the Findings </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations for the Application of Hedonomics </li></ul><ul><li>Suggestions for Future Research Directions in Hedonomics </li></ul>
  • 9. Experiment One <ul><li>Purpose </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The purpose of experiment 1 was to investigate the mere exposure effect on Flow </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Logic </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The logic of the study is that by increasing the exposure to technology, positive affect (or liking) toward the technology will increase as well. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Positive affect has been linked strongly to the occurrence of flow, therefore by increasing the exposure to the technology the result should be an increase of positive affect toward the technology and the occurrence of flow. </li></ul></ul>
  • 10. Research Questions/Hypotheses <ul><li>1) What is the effect of repeated exposure on flow? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Flow State Scale </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Jackson and Marsh, 1996 </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Flow was expected to increase linearly with each exposure. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bossard, 1932; Dion, 1972; Zajonc, 1980; Bornstein, 1989 </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  • 11. Method <ul><li>Repeated Measures Design </li></ul><ul><li>32 Participants </li></ul><ul><li>Exposed to eight 20-min sessions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>four per day for two days </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Their task was to control a forest fire using C3Fire </li></ul><ul><li>After each exposure they took the: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>FSS: Jackson and Marsh, 1996 </li></ul></ul>
  • 12. C3fire Interface <ul><li>The domain of fire fighting is of subsidiary interest and was chosen because the task itself incorporates the essential ‘ingredients’ believed to be conducive to the experience of flow. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li> (Granlund, 2002) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  • 13. Repeated Measures ANOVA Flow per Exposure <ul><li>Day 1, exposures: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1 &lt; 2* and 3* </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>4 &gt; 1*, 2* and 3* </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2=3 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Day 2, exposures: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>5 &lt; 6* and 7* </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>8 &gt; 5*, 6* and 7* </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>6 = 7 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>* p =.01 </li></ul></ul></ul>
  • 14. Experiment Two <ul><li>Purpose: </li></ul><ul><li>To determine if the nature of flow is linear or cyclic by extending the number of exposure. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>RQ: Will the same trend occur for flow and exposure as seen in results from experiment one? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Method </li></ul><ul><ul><li>5 Participants </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Exposed to 10-min sessions of Frogger 3D </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>four per day for a four days, 16 exposures </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Their task was to get the frog safely across the street and river </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>After each exposure they took the Flow State Scale </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(Jackson and Marsh, 1996) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  • 15. Repeated Measures ANOVA Flow per Exposure <ul><li>Day 1,Exposures: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1 &lt; 2*, 3* and 4* </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>4 &gt; 1* and 2* </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2=3, 3=4 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Day 2, Exposures: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>5 &lt; 6*, 7* and 8* </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>6=7=8 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Day 3, </li></ul><ul><ul><li>9 &lt; Day 4* </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>* p =.01 </li></ul></ul></ul>
  • 16. Mean Flow per Day
  • 17. Slope of Flow per Day <ul><li>Slopes from the four means of flow from the four exposures were calculated for each day. </li></ul><ul><li>Notice the decrease of slope over the four days reveals an habituation effect for flow. </li></ul>
  • 18. EHH Framework
  • 19. Experiment Three <ul><li>Purpose: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To investigate the 4 th level of the HH of N called ‘pleasurable experience.’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To use the Kansei Engineering Method to examine user needs and aesthetics. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Logic </li></ul><ul><ul><li>By taking two versions of a video game that are identical in all other aspects expect for the Hedonomic aspects: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>aesthetics, graphics, and perspective </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>it was possible to observe the effect on the users caused by the changes in the Hedonomic aspects of the system. </li></ul></ul>
  • 20. Research Questions/Hypotheses <ul><li>1) Are user needs (Kansei word ratings) affected by aesthetics? </li></ul><ul><li>User needs as defined by the Kansei words were expected to be rated higher, and more positively in the high aesthetic condition compared to the low aesthetic condition. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(Schutte, Eklund, Axelsson, &amp; Nagamachi, 2004; Schutte, Schutte, &amp; Eklund, 2005) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  • 21. &nbsp;
  • 22. Step one: Word Collection <ul><ul><li>These words were collected from different sources such as: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>advertisements, web sites, customers in arcade rooms, game chat rooms, customers in game stores, and ‘gamers’ in order to achieve the most complete semantic description possible. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Video games were described in short phrases or one-word adjectives. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Over 60 semantic descriptions were collected </li></ul></ul>
  • 23. Step Two: Reduction of the Number of Words. <ul><li>Using an affinity diagram: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The semantic descriptions were grouped according to their affinity (Bergman and Klefsjo, 1994) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This was done by a panel of four expert gamers that were graduate students in Human Factors, Simulation and Training, and Computer Science at University of Central Florida </li></ul></ul>
  • 24. Affinity Diagram of Kansei Words <ul><li>The affinity diagram conveyed groups of words belonging together in several aspects. From this, representative words were chosen and are called Kansei words. </li></ul>
  • 25. Collection and Reduction of Kansei Words <ul><li>The final set resulted in a total of 12 Kansei words for video games </li></ul><ul><li>Each Kansei word was rated on a Likert scale. </li></ul><ul><li>Innovative </li></ul><ul><li>Engaging </li></ul><ul><li>Challenging </li></ul><ul><li>Control </li></ul><ul><li>Story </li></ul><ul><li>Social Interaction </li></ul><ul><li>Strategic </li></ul><ul><li>Immersive </li></ul><ul><li>Rejuvenate </li></ul><ul><li>Intuitive </li></ul><ul><li>Depth </li></ul><ul><li>Balance </li></ul>
  • 26. &nbsp;
  • 27. Identification of Product Properties Partial- World 3D High Detail 32 colors New Entire-World 2D Low Detail 6 colors Old Perspective Graphics Frogger
  • 28. Frogger Original 1981
  • 29. Frogger 3D 1991
  • 30. Frogger 3D 1991
  • 31. Method <ul><li>Pilot </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Collection and reduction of semantic descriptions resulting in 12 Kansei words. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Indentifying the product properties. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Experiment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>58 Participants (30 F, 28 M) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Participants played both versions of the game counterbalanced </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>FSS (Jackson and Marsh, 1996) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Rated the Kansei Words using a Likert scale </li></ul></ul></ul>
  • 32. &nbsp;
  • 33. &nbsp;
  • 34. Discussion <ul><li>Findings from experiment three revealed that: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The incorporation of three-dimensional graphics, increased color variety, and partial-world perspective increased user’s feelings of ‘depth,’ ‘immersion,’ ‘challenge,’ and ‘engagement’ during video game play. </li></ul></ul>
  • 35. Implications <ul><li>The habituation effect can be used as an indicator of (or criteria to distinguish between) good and poor design. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A poor design reveals an habituation of flow </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A good design reveals a minimum habituation, indicating a relatively linear increase of flow over time </li></ul></ul>
  • 36. Implications <ul><li>Designers should use data from Kansei Engineering to inform them on how different product properties elicit certain feelings in the users. </li></ul><ul><li>During the ‘collection of Kansei words’ stage, designers should: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Collect the descriptors only from users that fit the user profile, in order to better gage the needs of the users. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Survey the profile users by asking them to provide descriptors on what their needs are for the product and using these as kansei words. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  • 37. <ul><ul><li>Principle of Aesthetic Longevity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hancock et al, 2005 </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Individuation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(Cziksentmihalyi, 1997; Hancock, 2003; Hancock et al, 2005; Jordan, 2000) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Seamless Interaction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hancock, 2003; Hancock et al, 2005 </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>Design principles
  • 38. <ul><li>Future research should focus on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ways of mitigating the effect of habituation of flow. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The effect of repeated exposure on flow, when the technology is disliked and/or unpleasant to use. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improving the Kansei Engineering method </li></ul></ul>Future research
  • 39. Making Hedonomics a Reality <ul><li>It must be demonstrated numerically that by incorporating these guidelines and principles at the early stages of design that it will: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure a pleasurable experience with our work applications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increase the well-being of our workers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure financial returns for our companies. </li></ul></ul>
  • 40. Thank You

×