Attractive phones don't have to work better: independent effects of attractiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency on perceived usability

Participants sometimes rate products high in usability despite experiencing obvious usability problems (low effectiveness or efficiency). Is it possible that this occurs because high product attractiveness compensates for low effectiveness/efficiency? Previous research has not investigated the interplay between attractiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency to determine whether attractiveness accounts for additional variance in usability ratings beyond that which is explained by effectiveness and efficiency. The present research provides the first test of this idea. Using data from usability testing, we demonstrate that attractiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency each has an independent influence on usability ratings and, in the present research, attractiveness had the largest impact. We report results of quantitative analyses that suggest multiple mechanisms could be responsible for the relationship between attractiveness and usability.

[1]  G. Clore,et al.  The Influence of Affect on Attitude , 2005 .

[2]  Sebastiano Bagnara,et al.  Designers and Users: Two Perspectives on Emotion and Design , 2006 .

[3]  Kasper Hornbæk,et al.  Meta-analysis of correlations among usability measures , 2007, CHI.

[4]  P. Shrout,et al.  Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. , 2002, Psychological methods.

[5]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver's Processing Experience? , 2004, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[6]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  DISPOSITIONAL DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE MOTIVATION : THE LIFE AND TIMES OF INDIVIDUALS VARYING IN NEED FOR COGNITION , 1996 .

[7]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[8]  Roni Reiter-Palmon,et al.  Effects of Solution Elicitation Aids and Need for Cognition on the Generation of Solutions to Ill-Structured Problems , 2003 .

[9]  Jean Scholtz,et al.  Common industry format for usability test reports , 2000, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[10]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. , 1977 .

[11]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  Erik Frekjmr,et al.  Measuring Usability: Are Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Satisfaction Really Correlated? , 2000 .

[13]  James G. Phillips,et al.  Personality and self reported mobile phone use , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[14]  Joachim Meyer,et al.  Economic and subjective measures of the perceived value of aesthetics and usability , 2006, TCHI.

[15]  Noam Tractinsky,et al.  Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues , 1997, CHI.

[16]  S. Dollinger,et al.  Need for Uniqueness, Need for Cognition, and Creativity. , 2003 .

[17]  C. F. Kao,et al.  The efficient assessment of need for cognition. , 1984, Journal of personality assessment.

[18]  D. Norman.  Emotional design : why we love (or hate) everyday things , 2004 .

[19]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  A survey of what customers want in a cell phone design , 2007, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[20]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Data analysis in social psychology. , 1998 .

[21]  A. Isen,et al.  An Influence of Positive Affect on Decision Making in Complex Situations: Theoretical Issues With Practical Implications , 2001 .

[22]  Alexander von Eye,et al.  Race, Gender, and Information Technology Use: The New Digital Divide , 2008, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[23]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

[24]  G. Clore,et al.  Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. , 1983 .

[25]  Savoy Court,et al.  Do "Attractive Things Work Better"? An Exploration of Search Tool Visualisations , 2005 .

[26]  N. Tractinsky,et al.  What is beautiful is usable , 2000, Interact. Comput..

[27]  Kasper Hornbæk,et al.  Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[28]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Measuring usability: preference vs. performance , 1994, CACM.

[29]  Philip T. Kortum,et al.  Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale , 2009 .

[30]  Masaaki Kurosu,et al.  Apparent usability vs. inherent usability: experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability , 1995, CHI 95 Conference Companion.