Sensory importance and emotions at early stage of product experiences: a qualitative study of juice squeezer

ABSTRACT

Users build up their product experiences through all senses. To understand how these senses work together, how their importance change through time, and how senses evoke positive and negative emotions would be very helpful for designers to create more pleasant user experiences and improve user's evaluation about the product.

In the study, we base on Fenko et al.'s study (2010) and use three qualitative methods (observations, interviews, and diaries) to gather more detailed information from a female participant about the early stage of product usage, which is the key period for a user to evaluate a product. We ask participant to squeeze juice with an electric juicer for a month. We then discuss the multisensory experiences, the sensory dominance, and emotions evoked by senses at six different usage stages during the month.

The results suggest that vision is the most important sense when participant getting familiar with the product. However, the importance of each sense changes right at the first time of operation. Later from the first week to the fourth week of usage, touch becomes the most important sense, which is related to the main function of the product. Also, emotions evoked by senses are very likely to affect the importance of each sense. In this case, we find the emotional feelings of touch are unsatisfied and neglected. This reminds us most of the designers today still focus most on vision but little on other senses. Designers should pay more attention to which sense plays the most important role at different stages and try to bring users more positive emotions and experiences.

References

1. Bartoshuk, L. M., Duffy, V. B., Fast, K., Green, B. G., Prutkin, J., & Snyder, D. J. (2002). Labeled scales (e.g., category, Likert, VAS) and invalid across-group comparisons: what we have learned from genetic variation in taste. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 125--138.
2. BRAUN. Citromatic, MPZ 9, MPZ 8, MPZ 6, Type 4146. Retrieved 01/12, 2011, from http://www.service.braun.com/line/HH/H4161/H4161_1_MN.pdf
3. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). USA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
4. Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Hekkert, P. (2010). Shifts in sensory dominance between various stages of user - product interactions. Applied Ergonomics, 41, 34--40.
5. Gibson, J. J. (1962). Observations on active touch. Psychological Review, 69(6), 477--491.
6. Herz, R. S., & Schooler, J. W. (2002). A naturalistic study of autobiographical memories evoked by olfactory and visual cues: testing the Proustian hypothesis. American Journal of Psychology, 115, 21--32.
7. Jones, B., & O'Neil, S. (1985). Combining vision and touch in texture perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 66--72.
8. Lindstrom, M. (2005). Brand sense: build powerful brands through touch, taste, smell, sight, and sound.: New York: Free Press.
9. Ludden, G. D. S., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Hekkert, P. (2006). Sensory incongruity: comparing vision to touch, audition and olfaction. The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology
10. Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003). Individual differences in haptic information rocessing: the 'need for touch' scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 430--442.
11. Pedgley, O. (2007). Capturing and analysing own design activity. Design Studies, 28(5), 463--483.
12. Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2006). The perceived importance of sensory modalities in product usage: A study of self-reports. Acta Psychologica, 121, 41--64.
13. Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Cleiren, M. P. H. D. (2005). Capturing product experiences: a split-modality approach. Acta Psychologica, 118, 293--318.
14. Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Desmet, P. M. A. (2007). The effects of sensory impairments on product experience and personal well-being. Ergonomics, 50, 2026--2048.
15. Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Spence, C. (2008). Multisensory product experience. In H. N. J. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Product Experience (Vol. 5): Elsevier Ltd.
16. Spence, C. (2002). The ICI report on the secret of the senses. London: The Communication Group.
17. Tranel, D., Logan, C. G., Frank, R. J., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Explaining category-related eVects in the retrieval of conceptual and lexical knowledge for concrete entities: operationalization and analysis of factors. Neuropsychologia, 35, 1329--1339.
18. Wild, P. J., McMahon, C., Darlington, M., Culley, S., & Liu, S. (2010). A diary study of information needs and document usage in the engineering domain. Design Studies, 31(1), 46--73

Index Terms

• General and reference

  • Document types

    • General conference proceedings

• Human-centered computing

  • Interaction design

    • Interaction design process and methods

      • User centered design