Needs, affect, and interactive products - Facets of user experience
By Marc Hassenzahl, Sarah Diefenbach, Anja S. Göritz. Interacting with computers, 2010
825 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Human-Computer Interaction
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5b4c1480477fe2324a99fa032bec2834ef31efd6
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Cognitive Neuroscience
- Rafael A. Calvo
- Dorian Peters
- Sebastian Deterding
- Javier A. Bargas-Avila
- Kasper Hornbæk
- Donna L. Hoffman
- Richard M. Ryan
- Thomas P. Novak
In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
- Rafael A. Calvo
- Dorian Peters
- Sebastian Deterding
- Javier A. Bargas-Avila
- Eric N. Wiebe
- Kasper Hornbæk
- Richard M. Ryan
- Kirk Warren Brown
In Human-Computer Interaction
- Donna L. Hoffman
- Thomas P. Novak
- Javier A. Bargas-Avila
- Emilie Loup-Escande
- Thomas Olsson
- Rafael A. Calvo
- Eric N. Wiebe
- Camille Sagnier
Citations in the corpus
- The Lens of Intrinsic Skill Atoms: A Method for Gameful Design (2015, background): “Need satisfaction accounts not only for a significant part of gaming enjoyment and motivation (e.g., Przybylski et al., 2010; Reinecke et al., 2012) but also for positive experiences in life (Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, & Kasser, 2001) and with interactive products (Hassenzahl, Diefenbach, & Göritz, 2010).”
- User Acceptance of Virtual Reality: An Extended Technology Acceptance Model (2020, background): “Kauer et al. (2013) proposed a balanced TAM, combining, on the one hand, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and perceived enjoyment from the technology acceptance model, and, on the other hand, identification and stimulation from Hassenzahl, Diefenbach, and Göritz ’ s (2010) needs approach.”
- Expected user experience of mobile augmented reality services: a user study in the context of shopping centres (2011, background): “Overall, despite the research agenda of UX being still rather immature, some common key assumptions are widely accepted: the subjective nature, context-dependency and temporality [17, 27, 43].”
- Consumer and Object Experience in the Internet of Things: An Assemblage Theory Approach (2018, background): “Emergent capacities can also be exercised in imagined interaction (De Keyser et al. 2015; Helkkula, Kelleher, and Pihlstrom 2012; Honeycutt 2003, 2009).”
- Measuring engagement in video game-based environments: Investigation of the User Engagement Scale (2014, background): “…O'Brien and Toms (2008) provide a comprehensive review of the different theoretical sources of their identified facets of engagement, the work of Hassenzahl, Diefenbach, and Göritz (2010) can be used to provide a very succinct lens by organizing these experiences and motivations for engagement…”
- Designing for Motivation, Engagement and Wellbeing in Digital Experience (2018, methodology): “Among the contributions to this area is work on Positive Technologies (Riva et al., 2012), Experience Design (Hassenzahl, 2010), Positive Design (Desmet and Pohlmeyer, 2013), and Positive Computing (Calvo and Peters, 2014).”
- Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: a critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience (2011, background): “For many researchers, the emphasis on positive aspects of UX leads to a focus on human values and needs [24], because they ultimately determine why something is positive to users.”