Refine
Year of publication
- 2012 (3) (remove)
Language
- English (3) (remove)
Keywords
- Benutzerverhalten (1)
- Bewertungskriterien (1)
- Einstellung (1)
- Einstellungen gegenüber bestimmten Filmeigenschaften (1)
- Ekel (1)
- Filmbewertung (1)
- Hedonic (1)
- Hedonisch (1)
- IAT (1)
- Implicit Association Test (1)
Institute
- Fachbereich 8 (3) (remove)
Based on dual process models of information processing, the present research addressed how explicit disgust sensitivity is re-adapted according to implicit disgust sensitivity via self-perception of automatic behavioral cues. Contrary to preceding studies (Hofmann, Gschwendner, & Schmitt, 2009) that concluded that there was a "blind spot" for self- but not for observer perception of automatic behavioral cues, in the present research, a re-adaption process was found for self-perceivers and observers. In Study 1 (N = 75), the predictive validity of an indirect disgust sensitivity measure was tested with a double-dissociation strategy. Study 2 (N = 117) reinvestigated the hypothesis that self-perception of automatic behavioral cues, predicted by an indirect disgust sensitivity measure, led to a re-adaption of explicit disgust sensitivity measures. Using a different approach from Hofmann et al. (2009), the self-perception procedure was modified by (a) feeding back the behavior several times while a small number of cues had to be rated for each feedback condition, (b) using disgust sensitivity as a domain with clearly unequivocal cues of automatic behavior (facial expression, body movements) and describing these cues unambiguously, and (c) using a specific explicit disgust sensitivity measure in addition to a general explicit disgust sensitivity measure. In Study 3 (N = 130), the findings of Study 2 were replicated and display rules and need for closure as moderator effects of predictive validity and cue utilization were additionally investigated. The moderator effects give hints that both displaying a disgusted facial expression and self-perception of one- own disgusted facial expression are subject to a self-serving bias, indicating that facial expression may not be an automatic behavior. Practical implications and implications for future research are discussed.
Technical products have become more than practical tools to us. Mobile phones, for example, are a constant companion in daily life. Besides purely pragmatic tasks, they fulfill psychological needs such as relatedness, stimulation, competence, popularity, or security. Their potential for the mediation of positive experience makes interactive products a rich source of pleasure. Research acknowledged this: in parallel to the hedonic/utilitarian model in consumer research, Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) researchers broadened their focus from mere task-fulfillment (i.e., the pragmatic) to a holistic view, encompassing a product's ability for need-fulfillment and positive experience (i.e., the hedonic). Accordingly, many theoretical models of User Experience (UX) acknowledge both dimensions as equally important determinants of a product's appeal: pragmatic attributes (e.g., usability) as well as hedonic attributes (e.g., beauty). In choice situations, however, people often overemphasize the pragmatic, and fail to acknowledge the hedonic. This phenomenon may be explained by justification. Due to their need for justification, people attend to the justifiability of hedonic and pragmatic attributes rather than to their impact on experience. Given that pragmatic attributes directly contribute to task-fulfillment, they are far easier to justify than hedonic attributes. People may then choose the pragmatic over the hedonic, despite a true preference for the hedonic. This can be considered a dilemma, since people choose what is easy to justify and not what they enjoy the most. The present thesis presents a systematic exploration of the notion of a hedonic dilemma in the context of interactive products.
A first set of four studies explored the assumed phenomenon. Study 1 (N = 422) revealed a reluctance to pay for a hedonic attribute compared to a pragmatic attribute. Study 2 (N = 134) demonstrated that people (secretly) prefer a more hedonic product, but justify their choice by spurious pragmatic advantages. Study 3 (N = 118) confronted participants with a trade-off between hedonic and pragmatic quality. Even though the prospect of receiving a hedonic product was related to more positive affect, participants predominantly chose the pragmatic, especially those with a high need for justification. This correlation between product choice and perceived need for justification lent further support to the notion that justification lies at the heart of the dilemma. Study 4 (N = 125) explored affective consequences and justifications provided for hedonic and pragmatic choice. Data on positive affect suggested a true preference for the hedonic - even among those who chose the pragmatic product.
A second set of three studies tested different ways to reduce the dilemma by manipulating justification. Manipulations referred to the justifiability of attributes as well as the general need for justification. Study 5 (N = 129) enhanced the respective justifiability of hedonic and pragmatic choice by ambiguous product information, which could be interpreted according to latent preferences. As expected, enhanced justifiability led to an increase in hedonic but not in pragmatic choice. Study 6 (N = 178) manipulated the justifiability of hedonic choice through product information provided by a "test report", which suggested hedonic attributes as legitimate. Again, hedonic choice increased with increased justifiability. Study 7 (N = 133) reduced the general need for justification by framing a purchase as gratification. A significant positive effect of the gratification frame on purchase rates occurred for a hedonic but not for a pragmatic product.
Altogether, the present studies revealed a desire for hedonic attributes, even in interactive products, which often are still understood as purely pragmatic "tools". But precisely because of this predominance of pragmatic quality, people may hesitate to give in to their desire for hedonic quality in interactive products - at least, as long as they feel a need for justification. The present findings provide an enhanced understanding of the complex consequences of hedonic and pragmatic attributes, and indicate a general necessity to expand the scope of User Experience research to the moment of product choice. Limitations of the present studies, implications for future research as well as practical implications for design and marketing are discussed.
Audiences' movie evaluations have often been explored as effects of experiencing movies. However, little attention has been paid to the evaluative process itself and its determinants before, during, and after movie exposure. Moreover, until recently, research on the subjective assessment of specific film features (e.g., story, photography) has played a less important role. Adding to this research, this dissertation introduces the idea of subjective movie evaluation criteria (SMEC) and describes the scale construction for their measurement and its validation process. Drawing on social cognition theories, SMEC can be defined as standards that viewers use for assessing the features of films and conceptualized as mental representations of - or attitudes towards - specific movie features guiding cognitive and affective information processing of movies and corresponding evaluative responses. Studies were conducted in five phases to develop and validate scales for measuring and examining the structure of SMEC. In Phase I, open-ended data were categorized and content validated via a modified structure formation technique and items were developed. Subsequently in Phase II, participants completed an online questionnaire including revised and pilot-tested items. Exploratory factor analyses were iteratively applied to explore the latent structure and to select items. The resulting 8-factor model was cross-validated with different samples in Phase III applying confirmatory factor analyses which yielded good fit indices, thereby supporting structural validity. In Phase IV, latent state"trait analyses were carried out to examine the reliability, occasion specificity, common consistency, and method specificity of the eight dimensions. All factors - Story Verisimilitude, Story Innovation, Cinematography, Special Effects, Recommendation, Innocuousness, Light-heartedness, and Cognitive Stimulation - are reliable and are largely determined by stable individual differences, albeit some of them also show substantial systematic, but unstable effects due to the situation or interaction. These results provide evidence for the substantive validity of the SMEC scales. Finally, in Phase V the nomological network of SMEC was explored (external validity by examining correlations with related constructs like film genre preferences and personality traits). Taken together, whereas the SMEC concept - compatible with contemporary social cognition theories - provides a framework to theorize and address research questions about the role of movie evaluation criteria and evaluative processes, the SMEC scales are the proper tool for investigating the role of these criteria and the processes they are involved in.