Why Engagement Matters 2016
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-27446-1_1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Theoretical Perspectives on User Engagement

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
66
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 101 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
1
66
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The late 2000s has seen an emphasis on the necessity of models and methods for holistic understanding, evaluation and improvement of experience (Hassenzahl 2008;Kort, Vermeeren, and Fokker 2007). The recent studies are focused more on investigating users' experiences with specific products and systems (Cruz Mendoza et al 2015;Haug 2016;Kuru 2016;Michalco, Simonsen, and Hornbaek 2015;O'Brien 2016). A common understanding of what user experience is or should be is still distant (Hassenzahl et al 2015;Law, van Schaik, and Roto 2014); the disagreement even makes it hard to decide whether we should design the experience or design for experience.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The late 2000s has seen an emphasis on the necessity of models and methods for holistic understanding, evaluation and improvement of experience (Hassenzahl 2008;Kort, Vermeeren, and Fokker 2007). The recent studies are focused more on investigating users' experiences with specific products and systems (Cruz Mendoza et al 2015;Haug 2016;Kuru 2016;Michalco, Simonsen, and Hornbaek 2015;O'Brien 2016). A common understanding of what user experience is or should be is still distant (Hassenzahl et al 2015;Law, van Schaik, and Roto 2014); the disagreement even makes it hard to decide whether we should design the experience or design for experience.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This appears to contradict the results of Harbich and Hassenzahl [32]. However, in their study engagement was conceptualized as a work-related product's ability to support motivation and persistence at a task, whereas in ours and Limerick's study [9], it was assessed using the UES-SF [41], consisting of items assessing aesthetic appeal, focused attention, perceived usability, and reward [20] [21]. Clearly, those two engagement conceptualizations tap into different qualities and were assessed in different contexts, which could explain the diverging results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…User engagement is described as a UX quality involving the depth of the user's cognitive, temporal, affective and behavioral investment during interaction. Engagement consists of items that assess aesthetic appeal, focused attention, perceived usability, and reward [20] [21]. A recent study observed evidence for significantly higher engagement with digital kiosks when MAH feedback was present versus absent [9].…”
Section: A the User Experience Of Mah Feedbackmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This content was piloted with 31 nurses [ 9 , 28 ]. Moreover, the E_MOTIV A intervention incorporates content based on an integrative theoretical framework including (1) the TPB [ 15 ]; (2) Cognitive Load Theory [ 29 ]; (3) the concept of engagement [ 25 ] ( Figure 1 ). The TPB posits that sociocognitive determinants (ie, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) influence participants’ intentions , which in turn, with actual behavioral control (eg, external factors), influences participants’ behavior in clinical practice.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two main cognitive processes have been studied to optimize human-computer interaction in the context of adaptive e-learning: engagement and cognitive load. Engagement, the learner’s investment when interacting with an e-learning program, should be maximized [ 25 ]. The cognitive load refers to how much the learner’s working memory is solicited during learning [ 26 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%