2007 - Framework For Product Experience
2007 - Framework For Product Experience
2007 - Framework For Product Experience
In this paper, we introduce a general framework for product experience that applies to all affective responses that can be experienced
in human-product interaction. Three distinct components or levels of product experiences are discussed: aesthetic experience,
experience of meaning, and emotional experience. All three components are distinguished in having their own lawful underlying
process. The aesthetic level involves a product’s capacity to delight one or more of our sensory modalities. The meaning level
involves our ability to assign personality or other expressive characteristics and to assess the personal or symbolic significance
of products. The emotional level involves those experiences that are typically considered in emotion psychology and in everyday
language about emotions, such as love and anger, which are elicited by the appraised relational meaning of products. The framework
indicates patterns for the processes that underlie the different types of affective product experiences, which are used to explain the
personal and layered nature of product experience.
Relevance to Design Practice – The theoretical framework discussed in this paper can be of value for designers because it can
facilitate the designers’ structured attempts to ‘design for experience,’ that is, attempts to deliberately influence the experiential
impact of new designs.
Citation: Desmet, P. M. A., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 57-66.
Human-Product Interaction who buy an auto-bronzing lotion will be dissatisfied when the
product does not tan their skin.
In this paper, ‘product experience’ is used to refer to all possible
affective experiences involved in human-product interaction. Experience is shaped by the characteristics of the user
Note that with human-product interaction we do not only refer to (e.g., personality, skills, background, cultural values, and
(1) instrumental interaction, but also to (2) non-instrumental, and motives) and those of the product (e.g., shape, texture, colour,
even to (3) non-physical interaction. Examples of instrumental and behaviour). All actions and processes that are involved,
interaction are using, operating, and managing products. One such as physical actions and perceptual and cognitive processes
can, for example, experience irritation when the TV does not (e.g., perceiving, exploring, using, remembering, comparing,
respond to the remote control or pleasure when a well-designed and understanding), will contribute to the experience (see also
online booking system proves to be easy to operate. With Dewey, 1980). In addition, the experience is always influenced
non-instrumental interaction, we refer to the interactions that by the context (e.g., physical, social, economical) in which the
do not directly serve a function in operating a product, such interaction takes place.
as playing with or caressing the product. Someone can be
delighted by the soft touch of a seat or inspired by the brilliant Experience
shine of a car. Non-physical interaction refers to fantasising The words ‘affect’ and ‘experience’ have been used
about, remembering, or anticipating usage. One can anticipate interchangeably in the introduction, because we use ‘product
interaction (“I expect this handle to break when I push it too experience’ to refer to an experience that is affective. In
hard”) or fantasise about interaction (“My computer thinks it psychology, the term affect, or affective state, is generally used
knows what I want, but it does not have a clue.”). One can also to refer to all types of subjective experiences that are valenced,
imagine, anticipate, or fantasise about possible consequences that is, experiences that involve a perceived goodness or
of interaction. For instance, a person may feel desire towards a badness, pleasantness or unpleasantness. In experimental
new abdominal work-out device because he or she anticipates research, valence is traditionally used as a bipolar dimension to
that with this device the perfect body is within reach. Not describe and differentiate between affective states (e.g., Bradley
only the anticipation of, but also the actual consequences of & Lang, 1994; Plutchik, 1980; Wundt, 1905). Russell (1980,
human-product interaction, can elicit affective responses. The 2003) introduced the concept of ‘core affect’ by combining the
consequence of wearing a fashionable new suit may be positive affect dimension with physiological arousal into a circular two-
remarks from colleagues; the consequence of using a laptop dimensional model. According to Russell, the experience of
may be that the work is done more efficiently; the consequence core affect is a single integral blend of those two dimensions,
of eating too much ice cream may be a stomach ache. Each describable as a position on the circumplex structure in Figure
of these consequences can generate affective responses. Note 1. The horizontal axis represents valence (from unpleasant to
that the absence of an expected consequence can also elicit an pleasant), and the vertical axis represents arousal (from calm to
affective experience. Those who expect a friend for dinner will excitement). The various positions on the circumplex structure
be disappointed when the friend does not show up, and those are illustrated with examples of affective responses that can be
experienced in the user-product interaction.
Pieter Desmet is an assistant professor in the Department of Industrial
Design Engineering at Delft University of Technology. He has a background
in industrial design, and in 2002 he obtained his Ph.D. for research on
emotional product experience. His main research interest is in the field of
design and emotion. In cooperation with several international companies
he studies why and how consumer products evoke emotions. In addition,
he develops tools and methods that can facilitate emotion-driven design.
His award winning research has been published in several journals and
presented at international platforms. He is an executive board member
of the International Design for Emotion Society, and is a currently guest
researcher in the School of Design at the Polytechnic University in Hong
Kong.
Dr. Paul Hekkert is a full professor of form theory in the Department of
Industrial Design Engineering at Delft University of Technology. There he
chairs the design aesthetics section and supervises a research group that
carries out innovative research on our sense perception and (emotional)
experience of products. Much of this research is done in cooperation
with industrial partners. Paul has published several articles on product
experience and aesthetics in major international journals and is the co-editor
of “Design and Emotion: The experience of everyday things” [2004]. He
is the co-founder and chairman of the Design and Emotion Society [www.
designandemotion.org] and has co-organized four consecutive international Figure 1. Circumplex model of core affect with product
Design & Emotion conferences. Together with a colleague/designer, he also relevant emotions (Desmet, 2008; adapted from Russell, 1980).
developed an interaction-centred design approach, called Vision in Product
design (ViP) that is widely applied in both education and industry. They are We constantly experience core affect: from the moment
presently working on a book in which this approach is laid out. Paul is a we wake up to the moment we fall asleep, our core affect
board member of the European Academy of Design and serves as a member
of the editorial boards of The Design Journal, Empirical Studies of the Arts, moves about in Figure 1, responding to a wide variety of
and International Journal of Design. internal (e.g., hormonal changes, nutritional deficiencies) and
external causes (e.g., events, people, objects, weather). Core
affect can be neutral (the central point), moderate, or extreme he or she is sad, grumpy, or cheerful. Behavioural reactions
(the periphery). Changes can be short lived or long lasting, and (e.g., running or seeking contact) are the actions one engages
can be in the focus of attention (in the case of intense core in when experiencing a change in core affect. Affective
affect), or a part of the background of a person’s experience (in experiences initiate behavioural tendencies like approach,
the case of mild core affect). inaction, avoidance, and attack. For example, with respect to the
Core affect theory offers a simple, yet powerful, way to experience of attachment, Mugge, Schifferstein and Schoormans
organize product experience, because all possible experiences (2004, p. 1) propose that “when a person is attached to an
involved in the user-product interaction can be described in object, (s)he is more likely to handle the product with care, to
terms of core affect. The activated unpleasantness from the repair it when it breaks down, and to postpone its replacement
heated irritation in response to a failing computer, the calm as long as possible.” This behavioural tendency (i.e., keeping
pleasantness from the soothing experience of sliding into a the product) is the consequence of attachment that signifies
warm bath, the activated pleasantness from the exhilaration of the extraordinary relationship between a user and a product.
ice skating, and the calm unpleasantness from the sadness in Frijda (1986) proposes that all emotions involve a particular
remembering a broken crystal vase, can all be plotted on the action tendency that prepares the individual to contend with the
circumplex model. adaptational implications of the eliciting situation. Fear comes
with a tendency to flee, anger with the tendency to attack, and
fascination with the tendency to explore. A product that evokes
Product Experience
anger will be pushed aside, one that evokes fascination will be
Core affect can be experienced without relating to a particular explored, and one that evokes boredom will be ignored.
stimulus. Moods, for example, are typically not elicited by Note that feelings are often expressed in terms of one
a particular stimulus but by combinations of internal and of the other manifestations of affect. One can express the
external causes, like, for example, being grumpy because of behavioural impact of an experience (“I was so angry: I felt like
the bad weather, a lack of sleep, and the traffic jam. We usually throwing my computer out of the window.”), the expression
undergo these types of changes in core affect without knowing (“The game was so boring: I couldn’t stop yawning.”), or the
why. In other cases, the change in core affect is elicited by physiological reaction (“I was trembling from fear when I
a single and identifiable cause. When someone offends a noticed the smoke emerging from my kitchen.”).
person, the offended person’s anger is clearly elicited by the
behaviour of the offender. Also, human-product interaction can
be (or involve) a cause of change in core affect. Interacting
Three Types of Product Experience
with a stimulating computer game can cause the experience Following Hekkert (2006), we distinguish three components
of exhilaration, whereas interacting with a slow computer can or levels of product experience: aesthetic pleasure, attribution
cause the experience of frustration. In line with these examples, of meaning, and emotional response. We thus define product
we define product experience as a change in core affect that experience as “the entire set of affects that is elicited by the
is attributed to human-product interaction. We use the word interaction between a user and a product, including the degree
‘attributed’ instead of ‘caused’ because a change in core affect to which all our senses are gratified (aesthetic experience), the
due to a particular cause is sometimes misattributed to another, meanings we attach to the product (experience of meaning)
imagined, cause (see Schwarz & Clore, 1983). One can, for and the feelings and emotions that are elicited (emotional
example, be disappointed with a colleague for a mistake for experience)” (Hekkert, 2006, p. 160). These three components
which he was actually not responsible. Or, one can be angry or levels of experience can be distinguished in having their
with the television set, because it appears to be broken as it own, albeit highly related, lawful underlying processes. Figure
shows a white signal, when in fact one should actually blame 2 shows the three levels of product experience.
oneself for accidentally disconnecting the signal cable. The Let us take a personal example to illustrate how a product
anger experienced in this situation is considered to be a product can be experienced at each of the three levels. One of the
experience because it is believed to be caused by, or attributed authors recently purchased a Chinese teacup during a visit to
to, the television. China. An example of an aesthetic experience is the enjoyment
he experiences from hearing the sound produced by the fragile
Manifestations of Product Experience porcelain lid when it is placed on the mug. He is attached to
the cup, because it is a memento that represents his visit to
Product experience is a multi-faceted phenomenon that China, in which the attachment is an experience of meaning.
involves manifestations such as subjective feelings, behavioural An example of the third level of product experience, that is,
reactions, expressive reactions, and physiological reactions. an emotional experience, is the satisfaction he experienced
The subjective feeling of experience is a conscious awareness when he found that the size of the cup perfectly matches his
of the change in core affect. When we are irritated by a package tea drinking needs. Each of the three levels is discussed in the
that is difficult to open, we also feel irritated. Physiological following sections.
manifestations, such as pupil dilatation and sweat production,
are caused by the changes of activity in the autonomic nervous
Aesthetic Experience
system that accompany affective experiences. Expressive
reactions (e.g., smiling or frowning) are the facial, vocal, and At the aesthetic level, we consider a product’s capacity to
postural expressions that accompany affective experiences. delight one or more of our sensory modalities. A product can be
We can tell by a persons’ facial and bodily expression that beautiful to look at, make a pleasant sound, feel good to touch,
Experience of Meaning
Figure 3. Chinese teacup souvenir. At the level of meaning, cognition comes into play. Through
cognitive processes, like interpretation, memory retrieval,
or even smell nice. The degree to which a perceptual system and associations, we are able to recognize metaphors, assign
manages to detect structure, order, or coherence and assess a personality or other expressive characteristics, and assess the
product’s novelty/familiarity typically determines the affect personal or symbolic significance of products. This component
that is generated (e.g., Gaver and Mandler, 1989; Hekkert, of the experience corresponds with Crilly et al.’s (2004)
Snelders, & van Wieringen, 2003). As some authors argue, such cognitive response categories ‘semantic interpretation’ and
effects can be explained by examining the evolutionary basis of ‘symbolic association.’ It is clear that the cognitive processes
our perceptual systems (e.g., Ramachandran & Hirstein, 1999; involved are vulnerable to individual and cultural differences.
see Hekkert, 2006 for an overview). It is this level of sensory Recently it has been shown that our body also plays a major
pleasure that Norman (2004) is referring to in discussing the role in understanding linguistic expressions (e.g., Gibbs, 2003;
visceral level of emotional design and that Crilly, Moultrie, Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) and figurative expressions of products
and Clarkson (2004) treat as the cognitive response category (Van Rompay, Hekkert, Saakes, & Russo, 2005).
‘aesthetic impression.’ Note that some researchers propose Examples of experiences of meaning are luxury and
that besides basic affect, there are no emotions or cognitive attachment. The experience of luxury represents a symbolic
processes at stake at this level (e.g., Norman, 2004). value of a comfortable lifestyle that is associated with
Even though the main body of research on aesthetic particular consumer products (see e.g., Reinmoeller, 2002). The
experience of attachment is represented by products that have joy in response to a mobile phone that we appraise as matching
some profound and sustained meaning to us. Savas (2004), with our concern of being in touch with our friends, desire
for example, identifies feelings of confidence, independence, towards a new car model that we appraise as matching with our
relaxation, achievement, security, friendship, and control. concern of mobility, frustration in response to a chair that we
Both product characteristics and user characteristics influence appraise as mismatching with the concern for comfort, etc.
the experience of luxury and attachment. Govers and Mugge In short, appraisal is an evaluation of the significance
(2004), for example, indicated that people become more of a stimulus for one’s personal well-being. It is this personal
attached to products with a personality that is similar to their significance of a product, rather than the product itself, which
own personality than to products with a dissimilar personality. causes the emotion. Because appraisals mediate between
Likewise, Uotila et. al (2005) identified product, user, and products and emotions, different individuals who appraise
context as influential factors of the luxury experience. the same product in different ways will experience different
According to Reinmoeller (2002), luxury products are created emotions. One who is stressed may respond with irritation
by the use of material, processes, packaging, distribution, and to the ring tone of his or her mobile phone, because he or
promotion that exceeds the level of standard products to allow she appraises it as undesirable, whereas another person may
for pleasure. appraise the same event as desirable.
Meaning and Emotion that it is cold and impersonal may experience dissatisfaction.
Likewise, one can, for example, be attracted to a record player,
Following the tradition of appraisal theory, Desmet (2002)
because it represents a childhood memory, or feel contempt
introduced a basic model of product emotions, as shown in
towards a pair of shoes, because the brand is associated with
Figure 4. The model is basic, because it applies to all possible
hooligans. Like all meaning, relational meaning can be related
emotional responses elicited by human-product interaction
to the actual design (such as the material and shape) but also to
and identifies the three universal key variables in the process
other determinants, such as price, advertisements, opinions of
of emotion elicitation: (1) concern, (2) stimulus, and (3)
others, and prior experiences.
appraisal.
Meaning is also involved in emotions elicited by
anticipated usage. One has certain expectations about the
consequence of owning or using products. One can, for
example, be attracted to an exclusive pen, because it touches
on his concern for being special. In this case, it is the meaning
of exclusiveness that elicits the emotion.
experiences restricted to the here and now. Once the interaction a fourth level of product experience? Because usability is not
comes to an end, the experience also stops (see Norman, 2004). an affective experience, that is, a change in core affect that is
In addition, these experiences have in common that they are attributed to product-human interaction, as product experience
elicited independent of the motivational state of the person was defined in Section 1.3. Rather than a product experience
(i.e., particular goals or motives). This may result in conflicting itself, we consider usability to be a source of product experience.
emotions in cases of conflicting concerns. We all know from In fact, usability can most likely generate and influence all
experience that an inherently pleasant product can block goal three levels of product experience. Usability involves goal
achievement, since something pleasant (like chocolate cake) attainment, which, in appraisal theory, is one of the main
can obstruct us in reaching a goal (trying to lose weight). The dimensions of emotion eliciting appraisal (see e.g., Scherer
resulting experience combines both pleasant and unpleasant 2001). Events that are appraised as facilitating goal attainment
responses. elicit positive emotions, such as satisfaction and happiness,
whereas those that are appraised as frustrating goal attainment
Discussion evoke negative emotions, such as frustration and anger.
Hence, products that are usable will more likely elicit positive
The above described framework illustrates the complex and emotions than products that are not usable. For that reason, the
layered nature of product experience. Because it focuses on level of experienced satisfaction (which is a pleasant emotion)
levels or components of experience, we have not systematically is often used as a measure for usability (see e.g., Lindgaard &
discussed the sources that elicit or influence them. Note, Dudek, 2002). The relationship between usability and aesthetic
however, that the discussion of experience is related to, and experience is explored by several researchers. In a review,
partly overlaps with, some of the other recent discussions Hassenzahl (in press) concluded that usability and aesthetics
in design research that focus on sources and influencers correlate because of several reasons. Users may infer a higher
of experience. Two of the topics that have received much quality of a product from its beauty which in turn implies a
attention are usability and culture. Given their salient role in better usability. An additional cause is that good designers may
design research, we will briefly discuss how they relate to the provide in general better quality than bad designers; that is,
proposed framework of product experience. someone who cares about beauty may also care about usability.
The same can also apply to experience of meaning. People
Product Experience and Usability attribute meaning to products, and perceived (lack of) usability,
or pragmatic quality, can correlate with attributed meanings,
Consumer products are bought and used to serve particular like elegance and innovativeness, inferiority, rudeness, etc.
purposes: they are used to achieve specific goals, such as
pincers that are used to repair a bicycle, an oven to bake a cake,
a computer to edit a letter, and an audio system to enjoy music. Individual and Cultural Differences
Product usage involved in satisfying these product-specific Clearly, different people can respond differently to a given
goals relates to what we identified as instrumental interaction product. Experience is not a property of the product but the
in Section 1.1. Whether a user is able to achieve the particular outcome of human-product interaction, and therefore dependent
goal depends both on (the properties of) the product, and on on what temporal and dispositional characteristics the user
(the skills of) the user. In some cases goals are not achieved brings into the interaction. People can differ from one another
because the user has difficulties operating the product. A with respect to their concerns, motives, abilities, preferences,
product example to which many readers may be able to relate goals, and etc., and thus with respect to their affective responses
is a DVD recorder: a product that typically has many unused to a given event. Desmet, Hekkert, and Hillen (2003) found
functionalities. Exactly what is the use of functionalities that a correlation between personal life values (like security,
are too complex for an average user to understand and operate? challenge, and family life) and emotional responses elicited
This question is especially relevant for products that require by automotive designs. The relationship between product
complex interfaces to operate a multitude of functionalities, experience and values is particularly interesting in the context
like mobile phones and computers. Designers and researchers of cultural studies, because implicit and explicit values are
interested in this question have introduced the concept of often seen as key determinants of culture (see Williams, 1961).
‘usability,’ a term that is used to denote the extent to which Kim and Lee (2005) performed a study that indicated between-
a user can employ a product in order to achieve a particular culture differences in responses to mobile phone interface
goal (see e.g., Norman, 2002). Often used dimensions to designs. Similarly, in a study on emotional responses elicited
operationalise usability are effectiveness (the degree to which by automotive design, Desmet, Hekkert, and Jacobs (2000)
the particular goal can be satisfied), efficiency (the amount of found differences in emotional responses both between and
time it takes to satisfy the goal), and ease of use (the amount of within cultures.
effort it takes to satisfy the goal). Although these studies show a correlation between culture
The concept of usability is relevant for user-centred design and experience, the precise relationship remains inconclusive.
approaches, because it focuses on the relationship between the Like experience, culture is a complex and layered construct.
user (and his or her skills and abilities) and the product. In that In following Xing-Liang He (1992), Leong and Clarck (2003)
sense, the construct of usability is similar to the construct of identified three structural levels of culture: the external, tangible,
experience: they are both relational, i.e., an outcome of the and visible ‘outer level;’ the ‘middle level’ of human behaviour,
human-product interaction instead of a property of either the rites, and regulations in the form of words and language; and
user or the product. Why then do we not include usability as
18. Hekkert, P., & Leder, H. (2008). Product aesthetics. In H. 34. Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary
N. J. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Product experience synthesis. New York: Harper & Row.
(pp. 259-286). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. 35. Ramachandran, V. S., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The science
19. Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & van Wieringen, P. C. W. of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience.
(2003). Most advanced, yet acceptable: Typicality and Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(6/7), 15-51.
novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in 36. Reinmoeller, P. (2002). Emergence of pleasure:
industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94(1), Communities of interest and new luxury products. In W.
111-124. S. Green & P. W. Jordan (Eds.), Pleasure with products:
20. Helander, M. G., & Tham, M. P. (2003). Hedonomics - Beyond usability (pp. 125-134). London: Taylor &
Affective human factors design. Ergonomics, 46(13/14), Francis.
1269-1272.
37. Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. (1987). A perspective on disgust.
21. Jordan, P. W. (1999). Pleasure with products: Human
Psychological Review, 94(1), 23-41.
factors for body, mind and soul. In W. S. Green & P. W.
Jordan (Eds.), Human factors in product design: Current 38. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect.
practice and future trends (pp. 206-217). London: Talyor Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6),
& Francis. 1161-1178.
22. Kim, J. H., & Lee, K. P. (2005). Cultural difference 39. Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological
and mobile phone interface design: Icon recognition construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110(1),
according to level of abstraction. In Proceedings of the 145-172.
7th International Conference on Human Computer 40. Savaş, Ö. (2004). A perspective on the person-product
Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (pp. 307- relationship: Attachment and detachment. In D.
310). New York: ACM Press. McDonagh, P. Hekkert, J. Van Erp, & D. Gyi (Eds.),
23. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Design and emotion: The experience of everyday things
Chicago: Chicago University Press. (pp. 317-321). London: Taylor & Francis.
24. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford: 41. Scherer, K. R. (1984). On the nature and function of
Oxford University Press. emotion: A component process approach. In K. R. Scherer
25. Leong, B. D., & Clark, H. (2003). Culture-based & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 293-318).
knowledge towards new design thinking and practice: A Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
dialogue. Design Issues, 19(3), 48-58. 42. Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process
26. Lindgaard, G., & Dudek, C. (2002). User satisfaction, of multi-level sequential checking. In K. R. Scherer,
aesthetics and usability: Beyond reductionism. In A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal process in
Proceedings of the 17th International Federation for emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 92-120). New
Information Processing World Computer Congress (pp. York: Oxford University Press.
231-246). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
43. Schifferstein, H. N. J., Mugge, R., & Hekkert, P.
27. Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2004). Designing consumer-product attachment. In D.
(2004). Personalizing product appearance: The effect on
McDonagh, P. Hekkert, J. Van Erp, & D. Gyi (Eds.),
product attachment. In A. Kurtgözü (Ed.), Proceedings
Design and emotion: The experience of everyday things
of 4th International Conference on Design and Emotion.
(pp. 327-331). London: Taylor & Francis.
Ankara, Turkey.
44. Schmitt, B. H. (1999). Experiential marketing: How to
28. Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things.
New York: Basic Books get customers to sense, feel, think, act and relate to your
company and brands. New York: Free Press.
29. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design. New York:
Basic Books. 45. Schultz, S. E., Kleine, R. E., & Kernan, J. B. (1989). These
30. Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute are a few of my favorite things: Toward an explication of
bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer attachment as a consumer behavior construct. In T. Scrull
Research, 20(3), 418-430. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 16, pp. 359-
31. Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The 366). Provo: UT: Association for Consumer Research.
cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge 46. Schütte, R. (2006). Developing an expert program software
University Press. for Kansei Engineering. Sweden: Linköping University.
32. Overbeeke, K. C. J., & Wensveen, S. A. G. (2003) From 47. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution,
perception to experience, from affordances to irresistibles. and judgment of well-being: Informative and directive
In B. Hannington & J. Forlizzi (Eds.), Proceedings of functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and
International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Social Psychology, 45(3), 513-523.
Products and Interfaces (pp. 92-97). New York: ACM 48. Smith, C. A., & Kirby, L. D. (2001). Toward delivering the
Press. promise of appraisal theory. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr,
33. Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge: & T. Johnson (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion (pp.
MIT Press. 121-140). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49. Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and 53. Vink, P. (2005). Comfort and design. London: CRC
adaptation. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Press.
Theory and research (pp. 609-637). New York: Guilford 54. Wensveen, S. A. G. (2005). A tangibility approach to
Press. affective interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
50. Tractinsky, N., Katz, A., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands.
beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 55. Williams, R. (1991). The long revolution.
127-145. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
51. Uotila, M., Falin, P., & Aula, P. (2005). Experience of 56. Wundt, W. (1905). Fundamentals of psychology (7th ed.).
luxury and pleasure with products. In S. Wensveen (Ed.), Liepzig: Engelman.
Proceedings of International Conference on Designing 57. Zimmerman, J. A. K., Hurst A. K., & Peeters, M. M.
Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (pp. 91-104). R. (2005). Fabric-circle-slider: Prototype exploring
Eindhoven: Technical University of Eindhoven. the interaction aesthetic of contextual integration. In S.
52. Van Rompay, T., Hekkert, P., Saakes, D., & Russo, B. Wensveen (Ed.), Proceedings of International Conference
(2005). Grounding abstract object characteristics in on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces
embodied interactions. Acta Psychologica, 119(3), 315- (pp. 271-282). Eindhoven: Technical University of
351. Eindhoven.