Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:19:49.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring the Influence of the Level of Technology and Expected Functions in Product Semantic

Part of: User-Centred Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

SoJeong Kim ,
JungKyoon Yoon  and
Chajoong Kim
SoJeong Kim*
Affiliation:
Department of Creative Design Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST);
JungKyoon Yoon
Affiliation:
Department of Design and Environmental Analysis, Cornell University
Chajoong Kim
Affiliation:
Department of Creative Design Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST);
*
Contact: Kim, SoJeong, UNIST, CDE, Korea, Republic of (South Korea)gimso18@unist.ac.kr

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study attempted to explore how pragmatic and hedonic values are influenced by the level of technology and what particular functions have to be considered in the context of smart technology- driven design in terms of Pragmatic Value (PV) and Hedonic Value (HV). An on-line questionnaire survey was developed to answer the research questions. A total of 104 respondents participated in the survey. As target product for the study, analog watch and smart watch were selected as representative of low and high technology respectively. Semantic Differentials on PV and HV were used and expected functions were investigated via an open question. The results indicate that there are some differences between analog and smart watches in terms of PV and HV. Regarding expected functions, significant differences were identified in the study. The findings from the study could provide a better understanding of the relationship between PV and HV in terms of level of technology. If it is considered in product development process, it may contribute to an increase of user satisfaction with smart- technology based product and service.

Keywords

Case studySemantic data processingTechnology
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 3881 - 3890
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Batra, R. and Ahtola, O.T. (1991), “Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 159–170.10.1007/BF00436035Google Scholar
Berry, L. L., Lewis, P. C. and Haeckel, S. H. (2002), “Managing the Total Customer Experience”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Candi, M. (2007), “The role of design in the development of technology-based services”, Design Studies, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 559–583.10.1016/j.destud.2007.04.004Google Scholar
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R. and Mahajan, V. (2008), “DELIGHT BY DESIGN: The Role of Hedonic Versus Utilitarian Benefits”, Journal of Marketing Article, pp. 1–49.Google Scholar
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R. and Mahajan, V. (2007), “Form Versus Function:How the Intensities of Specific Emotions Evoked in Functional Versus Hedonic Trade-Offs Mediate Product Preferences”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 702–714.10.1509/jmkr.44.4.702Google Scholar
Crowley, A.E., Spangenberg, E.R. and Hughes, K.R. (1992), “Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of attitudes toward product categories”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 239–249.10.1007/BF00994132Google Scholar
Coskun, A., Kaner, G. and Bostan, I. (2017), “Is smart home a necessity or a fantasy for the mainstream user? A study on users’ expectations of smart household appliances”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 7–20.Google Scholar
Dhar, R. and Wertenbroch, K. (2000), “Consumer Choice Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 60–71.10.1509/jmkr.37.1.60.18718Google Scholar
Hassenzahl, M. (2004), “The Interplay of Beauty, Goodness, and Usability in Interactive Products”, Human Computer Interaction, Vol. 19, pp. 319–349.10.1207/s15327051hci1904_2Google Scholar
Hassenzahl, M. (2018), “The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product”, Funology, Vol. 2, Springer International Publishing, pp. 301–313.10.1007/978-3-319-68213-6_19Google Scholar
Higgins, E.T. (2001), Promotion and Prevention Experiences: Relating Emotions to Nonemotional Motivational States, In Forgas, J. P. (Ed.), Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition.Google Scholar
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 132–140.10.1086/208906Google Scholar
Hong, J.C., Lin, P.H. and Hsieh, P.C. (2017), “The effect of consumer innovativeness on perceived value and continuance intention to use smartwatch”, Computers in Human Behavior, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 67, pp. 264–272.10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.001Google Scholar
Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J. and Martens, J. (2009), “User experience over time”, CHI, pp. 729–738.Google Scholar
Krey, N., Rauschnabel, P., Chuah, S., Nguyen, B., Hein, D., Rossmann, A. and Lade, S. (2016), “Smartwatches: Accessory or Tool? The Driving Force of Visibility and Usefulness”, Mensch Und Computer, No. September 2016, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Norman, D. (2004). Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things, Basic Civitas Books.Google Scholar
Pamir, N. (2010), Smart products: technological applications vs user expectations, Master thesis, Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
Parasuraman, R. (2000), “Designing automation for human use: Empirical studies and quantitative models”, Ergonomics, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 931–951.10.1080/001401300409125Google Scholar
Roseman, I.J. (1991), “Appraisal determinants of discrete emotions”, Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 161–200.10.1080/02699939108411034Google Scholar
Saariluomaand, P. and Jokinen, J.P.P. (2014), “Emotional Dimensions of User Experience: A User Psychological Analysis”, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 303–320.10.1080/10447318.2013.858460Google Scholar
Sandström, S., Edvardsson, B., Kristensson, P. and Magnusson, P. (2008), “Value in use through service experience”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 112–126.10.1108/09604520810859184Google Scholar
Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R.S. (1990). Emotion and Adaptation., Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, Vol. 21, Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2075902.Google Scholar
Sweeney, J. and Soutar, G. (2001), “Consumer Perceived value: The developmetn of a multiple item scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77, pp. 203–220.10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0Google Scholar
Voss, K., Spangenberg, E. and Grohmann, B. (2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XL No. August 2003, pp. 159–170.Google Scholar