The Hedonic in Human-Computer Interaction History,

Contributions, and Future Research Directions

Sarah Diefenbach
Folkwang University of Arts
Universittsstrasse 12
45141 Essen, Germany
sarah.diefenbach
@folkwang-uni.de

Nina Kolb
Darmstadt University
of Technology
Alexanderstrae 10
64283 Darmstadt, Germany
nina.kolb@stud.tu-darmstadt.de

ABSTRACT

Over the recent years, the notion of a non-instrumental,

hedonic quality of interactive products received growing
interest. Based on a review of 151 publications, we
summarize more than ten years research on the hedonic to
provide an overview of definitions, assessment tools,
antecedents, consequences, and correlates. We highlight a
number of contributions, such as introducing experiential
value to the practice of technology design and a better
prediction of overall quality judgments and product
acceptance. In addition, we suggest a number of areas for
future research, such as providing richer, more nuanced
models and tools for quantitative and qualitative analysis,
more research on the consequences of using hedonic
products and a better understanding of when the hedonic
plays a role and when not.
Author Keywords

Hedonic; review; definitions; assessment; antecedents;

correlates; consequences; contributions.
ACM Classification Keywords

H.5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI):

Miscellaneous.
INTRODUCTION

About fifteen years ago, Human-Computer Interaction

(HCI) expanded its perspective on the quality of interactive
products. While originally being driven by a strong
emphasis on tasks and usability, research then began to
focus on pleasure [28], beauty [49, 48], emotions [12], and
experience [40]. Along with this, the hedonic appeared as a
new concept around 2000 [21], and was soon picked up by
HCI research (e.g., [2, 15, 41, 48]). The notion of hedonic
and pragmatic (or utilitarian) quality has its origin in
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full
citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others
than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise,
or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific
permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
DIS 2014, June 2125, 2014, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Copyright ACM 978-1-4503-2902-6/14/06...$15.00.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598549

Marc Hassenzahl
Folkwang University of Arts
Universittsstrasse 12
45141 Essen, Germany
marc.hassenzahl
@folkwang-uni.de

consumer research (e.g., [47]) and was applied to

interactive products by Hassenzahl et al [21]. In their view,
instrumental, task-oriented, pragmatic attributes (e.g.,
'useful, controllable) primarily relate to behavioral goals,
whereas hedonic attributes (e.g., exciting, impressive,
presentable) emphasize psychological well-being through
non-instrumental, self-oriented product qualities [17].
When first introducing the hedonic, Hassenzahl et al [21]
suggested an expanded concept of usability that
incorporates key factors for designing appealing, enjoyable
software interfaces and systems, thereby challenging the at
that time widespread notion of computers as tools that
must be taken seriously [21, p. 202]. They concluded that
the results look promising and should stimulate further
research [21, p. 207]. Now, more than a decade later, we
deem it proper to explore the impact of the hedonic on HCI
research and the design of interactive products, and to see
how the concept was used and further developed. Of
course, there are also many other valuable approaches in
HCI that focus on experiential qualities and the modeling or
formalization of experience (e.g., [10, 40], see [5] for an
overview). However, our analysis takes a specific scope and
exclusively focuses on research referring to the concept of
hedonic quality. To this end, we reviewed 151 hedonicrelated publications (published by the end of 2012). Besides
a portrait of the history of the hedonic in HCI, this revealed
many further insights about the concept itself and its
relation to other User Experience (UX) concepts.
The present paper provides a number of contributions. It
summarizes the application and relevance of the hedonic,
provides a broad overview of the research landscape,
highlights its consequences, and points out why it should be
considered and how it can be addressed in design. In
addition, it maps the meanings of the hedonic in HCI,
highlights different connotations, and relations to other
fields and disciplines. It further provides practical
overviews for UX researchers such as a summary of
methods to assess and manipulate the hedonic. Finally, it
highlights answered and yet unanswered questions around
the hedonic and suggests routes of future research.
We start with describing the literature review and steps of
analysis. The results are organized around the questions of
how the hedonic is defined, applied, and assessed, as well

as its possible antecedents, correlates, and consequences.

We close with a discussion of contributions to HCI theory
and practice plus implications for future research.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

The review covered HCI-related international publications

by the end of 2012. We searched the ACM digital library,
main HCI journals, and Google Scholar for publications
discussing the hedonic as a quality aspect of interactive
products. We excluded our own work to avoid any selfreferential bias. 151 publications met our criteria (a
complete list can be obtained from the first author). A large
part (103 of 151, 68%) was published in conference or
workshop proceedings, 41 (26%) were publications in
journals or magazines, the remaining were books, theses or
working papers. With more than 10% the CHI conference
proceedings were the most prominent source of hedonic
related publications in HCI, see Table 1 for more examples.
Sources of hedonic-related publications in HCI
Journals/magazines
Interacting with Computers
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
Behaviour & Information Technology
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
Conference/workshop proceedings
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
COST294-MAUSE International open Workshop
INTERACT Conference on Human-Computer Interaction
DPPI Conf. on Design. Pleasurable Products and Interfaces
OZCHI Australian Conf. on Computer-Human Interaction
MUM Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia
ECCE European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics

We performed several steps of analysis, each relating to

specific questions. (1) The first was a review and
categorization of provided definitions of the hedonic, to
reveal its central characteristics, areas of shared
understanding as well as more individual positions. The
goal was to understand the hedonic as a theoretical concept.
(2) The second step was to analyze the application of the
concept, highlighting its role within different types of
publications and typically studied product domains. The
goal was to better understand where, when, and how the
hedonic is applied to interactive products. (3) Third, we
categorized different ways to analyze the hedonic, such as
measurement scales and qualitative approaches. (4) Finally,
we took a closer look at studies reporting empirical research
on the hedonic. This provided additional information about
the nature of the hedonic and its relevance and overlap with
other UX aspects. The goal was to reveal the concepts so
far contributions and research questions yet to be answered.

%
HOW THE HEDONIC IS DEFINED
6%
6%
4%
3%
11%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%

Table 1: Sources of hedonic-related publications in HCI.

The analysis of publication dates revealed a rising interest

in the hedonic, especially within the last years (see Figure
1). More than a third (56 of 151, 37%) were published in
2011/12, but only 10 (7%) before 2005.

Figure 1: Increase of hedonic related publications in HCI.

For defining the concept of hedonic quality, 98 of the 151

publications (65%) referred to Hassenzahl, with [16] and
[17] being the most cited. In [16, p.34] Hassenzahl
described attributes referring to manipulation of the
environment by relevant functionality (utility) and ways to
access this functionality (usability) as pragmatic (e.g.,
supporting, useful and controllable) and all other
remaining product attributes as hedonic (outstanding,
impressive, exciting and interesting). He further
differentiated between hedonic attributes providing
stimulation, communicating identity, and provoking valued
memories (i.e., evocation). Moreover, he assumed that
hedonic attributes have a much stronger potential for
pleasure, also referring to the American Heritage Dictionary
of the English Language, which defines the hedonic as "of,
relating to, or marked by pleasure".
Seventeen of 151 (11%) referred to the origins in consumer
research with Hirschman and Holbrook [25] being the most
cited reference. In their view, hedonic consumption refers
to the esthetic, intangible, and subjective aspects of
consumption and designates those facets of consumer
behavior that relate to the multisensory, fantasy and
emotive aspects of ones experience with products [25, p.
92]. 14 of 151 (9%) referred to van der Heijden [51] and his
article on user acceptance of hedonic information systems,
stating that Hedonic information systems aim to provide
self-fulfilling rather than instrumental value to the user and
encourage prolonged rather than productive use. [51, p.
695]. The remaining publications either referred to other
literature from diverse fields (e.g., psychology, architecture,
management) or used the term without further definition.
To gain an overview of commonly shared elements within
different authors understanding of the hedonic, we listed the
definition related keywords within each publication. These
formed seven broad categories (see Table 2, multiple
categories per publication possible).

Category
contrast with the
pragmatic

Keywords
(non-) instrumental, utilitarian,
functional, ergonomic, task-related

stimulation

stimulation, fun, entertainment

59%

positive affect

affect, emotion, pleasure,

enjoyment, happiness

45%

identification

identification, self-expression

42%

meta-definitions

psychological needs, end in itself,

be-goals, beyond the instrumental

32%

visual beauty

beauty, aesthetics, visual appeal

22%

social aspects

social value, social interaction,

relatedness

12%

other

imagination, fantasy, memories,

long-term use

42%

85%

Table 2: Keywords related to definitions of hedonic quality.

First of all, the majority of publications defines the hedonic

by contrasting it with the pragmatic (see also Figure 2).
Also the relevance of stimulation and identification as well
as the relation to positive affect is shared by many
definitions. Only one third define the hedonic by metainformation, linking it to other concepts and theories (e.g.,
human needs, goal theory, action theory), and thereby
putting it into a larger context. Also only about 20%
understand the hedonic in terms of visual beauty. In fact,
there are different positions in the HCI literature, either
subsuming beauty under hedonic qualities (e.g., [33, p. 65],
or subsuming beauty under global evaluations (e.g., [17]).
Finally, despite the high agreement on some aspects of the
hedonic, the high percentage of keywords classified as
other demonstrates that the term still leaves room for
individual association and interpretation.

Figure 2: Keywords related to hedonic quality (top) and

pragmatic quality (bottom). Note: font size represents
frequency, visualization created by wordle.net.

HOW AND WHERE THE HEDONIC IS APPLIED

The analysis of the specific application of the hedonic

revealed six broad categories (some papers were classified
in multiple categories):
11 of 151 (7%) referred to the hedonic in literature
reviews, listing the hedonic-pragmatic-dichotomy as
one relevant perspective in UX research (but not
necessarily representing the authors own position, e.g.,
[5]).
27 of 151 (18%) presented methods to assess users
perceived hedonic quality such as questionnaires or data
categorization schemes (e.g., [56]).
33 of 151 (22%) focused on antecedents, correlates and
consequences of the hedonic (e.g., [50]).
37 of 151 (25%) suggested their own UX framework or
model where the hedonic is part of (e.g., [53]).
For 46 of 151 (30%) referred to the hedonic in relation
to an entertainment related product domain (e.g., video
gaming [31]).
50 of the 151 publications (33%) only (once) referred to
the hedonic as part of background literature but not as a
central issue (e.g., [9]).
123 publications explored the hedonic in a specific product
domain, with websites (28%), mobile devices (e.g., mobile
phones, smartphones; 25%), software (15%), and video
games/virtual worlds (12%) being the most studied. The
remaining 28% did not focus on a specific product domain.
For example, Partala and Kallinen [45] deliberately
explored diverse products and instructed their participants
to report about their most satisfying and unsatisfying user
experiences which could be any experience related to a
single event, in which your usage of a technological system
formed a substantial part [45, p. 27].
About half (83 of 151, 55%) of the publications reported
empirical results. Some of these studies (19 of 83, 23%)
were primarily focusing on the testing/validation of a
method (e.g., questionnaire, scale, categorization scheme)
to assess hedonic quality, often as one besides other quality
aspects (e.g., [33, 37, 56]). Another set of studies (31 of 83,
37%) used hedonic quality as evaluation criterion (besides
others), however, with an exclusive interest in the users
experience of the product under study and not the hedonic
as a concept in itself (e.g., [54, 59]. If reports on the
hedonic went beyond the mere scale values, interpretations
were closely tied to the specific object of evaluation, and,
thus, offered limited insights about the concept as such.
Nevertheless, some of these findings highlighted interesting
starting points for future research. Finally, another third of
studies (33 of 82, 40%) addressed more substantial and
general questions about the hedonic (e.g., [9, 50, 52]).
These referred to factors creating and influencing the
hedonic (i.e., antecedents), overlapping with and
differences to other UX constructs (i.e., correlates), and
later consequences of more or less hedonic quality.

HOW THE HEDONIC IS ASSESSED

The vast majority (74 of 83, 89%) uses numerical scales to

assess hedonic quality (see Table 3 for sample items).
Scale
Sample items
AttracDiff and its adaptions
AttracDiff;
typical vs. original [S]
HQ [17]
conservative vs. innovative [S]
unpresentable vs. presentable [I]
isolating vs. integrating [I]
AttrakWork,
HQ [56]

limits vs. enables creativity [S]

constricts vs. enables professional ambition [S]
lowers vs. raises trust [I]
lowers vs. promotes professional image [I]

Consumer research inspired scales

HED/UT
exciting
(short form)
amusing
HQ [44]
thrilling
Web
performance,
HQ [27]

frustrating vs. fun

unenjoyable vs. enjoyable
boring- vs. interesting

Hedonic
shopping
motivations
[4,43]

I find shopping stimulating [AD]

I go shopping to keep up with trends [ID]

Hedonic
product
meaning [23]

I prefer a product that reflects my self.

The product of my choice should feel pleasant to the
senses.
I look for products that are fun to use.

Shopping with others is a bonding experience [SO]

Scales in context of TAM

Perceived
I find using the system to be enjoyable.
Enjoyment
The actual process of using the system is pleasant.
[57]
I have fun using the system.
Hedonic
factors [38]

I have fun interacting with the technology. [C]

If I heard about a new technology, I would look for
ways to experiment with it. [P]

Product specific scales

Hedonics [6]
I think it is great fun to browse this site.
I enjoy sharing comments and experiences from
other travelers.
HQ [26]

Other
Hedonic
response [42]
UEQ, HQ
[33]

The program was fun to use.

The program presented music in a novel way.
The program looked impressive.
pleasant
enjoyable
interesting
boring vs. exciting [S]
demotivating vs. motivating [S]
dull vs. creative [N]
conventional vs. inventive [N]

Table 3: Sample items to assess hedonic quality in HCI

[HQ=hedonic quality; subscales: AD=adventure, C=cognitive
absorption, I=identification, ID=idea, N=novelty, S=stimulation,
SO=social, P=personal innovativeness].

Besides making use of more established measurement tools,

some authors (20 of 74, 27%) make use of single items or
self-developed scales. One of the first measures of hedonic
quality in HCI was suggested by Mundorf et al [42]. They
used a list of (primarily affect-related) adjectives to capture
hedonic response. Other researchers applied selfdeveloped measures with a reference to the specific product
under evaluation (e.g., travelling website [6], music
recommendation system [26]). In the following, we present
the most commonly used measurement scales, discuss
examples of application plus their theoretical background
and validation. At the end of this chapter we present
examples of qualitative approaches (e.g., [29, 32]).
The AttracDiff questionnaire and its adaptions

Among 74 publications applying numerical measures, the

most used questionnaire (43 of 74, 58%) was the AttracDiff
[17] (or its short form AttracDiff mini, see [20]). The
AttracDiff has two subscales of hedonic quality, i.e.,
stimulation (HQS) and identification (HQI), and one scale
of pragmatic quality (PQ). Each subscale is represented by
seven 7-point semantic differential items, some being
specifically tailored to interactive products and interaction
such
as
undemanding-challenging
(HQS)
or
unpredictable-predictable (PQ). The AttracDiff has been
applied to a variety of product domains and technologies
(e.g., computer games, websites, mobile phones, business
software, video games, 3D environments, gesture based
systems, speech command systems). An online version is
available via www.attrakdiff.de. Hassenzahl [16, 17]
suggests possible interpretations of specific combinations of
HQ and PQ (e.g., a matrix of four quadrants of product
character). The embedding in a theoretical model and the
support of differentiated interpretation may have supported
the strong dissemination of the AttracDiff in the HCI
community. Unfortunately, only few publications making
use of the AttracDiff report statistical data beyond mere
scale values. Only eight publications (consisting of 13
independent studies) report on internal consistency,
intercorrelations of subscales, or correlations to evaluative
constructs, such as goodness (i.e., badgood). Reports on
internal consistency were satisfactory for all subscales
(mean Cronbachs Alphas: PQ: 0.87; HQS: 0.74; HQI:
0.82). Table 4 shows the average scale intercorrelations. All
quality perceptions contribute to overall goodness.
However, while the original model [21] assumed generally
equal contributions, later studies showed that the particular
relevance of hedonic and pragmatic quality is moderated,
by, for example, product type or usage mode (see following
sections for more details). Moreover, while PQ and HQS
appear as uncorrelated, distinct concepts, the high overlap
between PQ and HQI (even higher than that between HQIHQS) makes the representation of the hedonic through
stimulation and identification appear questionable. This
finding accords to the approach reported by [19], where the
originally proposed subscales identification and stimulation
were combined into a single scale of hedonic quality.

PQ
HQS
HQI

Goodness
0.73
0.39
0.76

PQ

HQS

0.10
0.62

0.35

Table 4: Mean correlations between AttracDiff Subscales.

Note: Correlation coefficients were Fisher transformed,
averaged, and retransformed (not weighted by N).

Other authors suggested adaptions of the original AttracDiff

questionnaire for specific contexts. Liu et al [37] suggested
an adaption for the East Asian culture, i.e., the Chinese UX
questionnaire. Given that Eastern cultures put less value on
the individual they argued that the identification subscale
was not applicable to Chinese users. Instead they suggested
a conformity subscale, referring to the need to conform to
others opinion about product value. To our knowledge, the
Chinese UX questionnaire has been applied in the domain
of mobile phones/smartphones only. Vtj et al [56]
suggested a questionnaire for UX evaluation in the working
context (here: mobile news journalism). Like the original
AttracDiff, it differentiates between a stimulation and
identification component of hedonic quality but suggests a
set of different items, explicitly tailored to the professional
context. So far areas of application have been smartphones
and mobile journalism systems. The authors claimed that
the AttrakWork may be applied to any type of mobile work
tool in the context of journalism (e.g., a camera, laptop,
audio recorder, pen and paper). However, since these
adaptions of the AttracDiff have been published only
recently, insights on reliability, validity, and reports on the
application of these instruments are still limited.
Laugwitz et al [33, p. 65] criticized the AttracDiffs higher
emphasis on hedonic than on pragmatic quality, since this
was not appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of
professional software. Accordingly, they developped the
UEQ (User Experience Questionnaire). It includes three
subscales of pragmatic quality (Perspicuity, Efficiency,
Dependability), and two subscales related to the stimulation
aspect of hedonic quality (Stimulation, Novelty). Like the
AttracDiff, it makes use of 7-point semantic differential
items. The validation studies reported in [33] confirmed the
assumed relations between the UEQ and the AttracDiff
questionnaire and also showed satisfying internal
consistency (Cronbachs Alphas values all above .70). An
online version is available via www.ueq-online.org.
Hedonic measurement scales adapted from consumer
research

Six (8%) of the 74 publications used quantitative measures

of the hedonic inspired by consumer research. Compared to
the AttracDiff, consumer research based scales typically ask
for more global, less specific judgments (e.g., HQ: fun,
enjoyable, PQ: functional, helpful [27, 44]). Most of
the scales have been adapted and validated within a
particular domain of HCI (e.g., mobile information
services, websites, online shopping). This limits their
generalizability and implies a need for further exploration.

Ogertschnig and van der Heijden [44] suggested a short

form of the HED/UT Scale borrowed from marketing
literature [47]. It consists of ten items, five representing
hedonic and five representing utilitarian product value. The
original semantic differential items were dropped in favor
of a seven-point intensity scale, ranging from neutral to
extreme. The area of application in the reported validation
study was a mobile information service (an SMS translation
service). Factor analysis confirmed the assumed two
dimensions, however, the two dimensions were still
strongly correlated (r=.64).
Huang [27] suggested a Web performance scale, consisting
of seven semantic differential items, three representing
hedonic and four representing utilitarian quality. Areas of
application were different websites (e.g., online bookstores,
online clothing stores, computer hardware and software
sites). A Multi-TraitMulti-Method examination confirmed
the assumed two factor structure. Internal consistency was
satisfactory (mean Cronbachs Alphas: HQ: .87; UQ: .85).
Helfenstein (e.g., [23]) explored hedonic versus utilitarian
product meaning in the domain of mobile phones based on
Allens questionnaire on consumer values and product
meaning [1]. In the final scale, hedonic product meaning is
represented by three items, assessed on a 7-point-Likert
scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree), with
satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbachs Alpha .78).
OBrien [43] built her conception of hedonic versus
utilitarian online shopping motivations on according scales
from consumer research (e.g., [4]). The total of 16 items
form six subscales labelled Adventure, Gratification,
Value, Social, Role and Idea shopping. OBrien [43]
argued that applications should not be limited to shopping
experiences, but could also be expanded to other types of
interactive products such as e-learning platforms,
messaging services, or online/video games. The application
of the hedonic shopping motivation scale in consumer
research showed satisfying reliability and validity [4], but
its pilot application to an online bookstore brought up
mixed results, and the assumed factor structure could not be
replicated [see 43].
Hedonic measurement scales
technology acceptance model

in

context

of

the

Another set of studies (6 of 74, 8%) used measures of

hedonic quality in the context of the technology-acceptance
model (TAM) [11] and its later adaptions (e.g., [57]), with
Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), Perceived Usefulness (PU),
and Perceived Enjoyment (PE) as central components. In
HCI research, PE is often set in parallel to hedonic quality
whereas PU and PEOU parallel pragmatic/utilitarian quality
(e.g., [8, 36]). TAM and its adaptions provide
representations of the psychological processes and
intermediating factors underlying technology acceptance,
but are not so closely related to the perceived qualities of
the product itself. In contrast to the scales discussed so far,

most of the hedonic measures applied in TAM ask for the

users perceptions of ones own (emotional) state rather
than product qualities. For example, Magni et al [38]
referred to cognitive absorption and personal
innovativeness as measures of hedonic quality.
Qualitative approaches

There are only few approaches which pick up the hedonicpragmatic model for the analysis of qualitative data (e.g.,
[29, 32]). Kujala et al [32] suggested UX curve, i.e., a
method for the retrospective report of user experiences and
critical changes over time. Experiences are categorized as
positive and negative, as well as hedonic and pragmatic
experiences, with stimulation, identification, and evocation
as hedonic sub-categories (based on [16, 17]). Karapanos et
al [29] studied user experiences over time by means of
qualitative content analysis. They revealed 15 main
categories, among them also hedonic quality aspects
(stimulation, identification). Other approaches focus on
specific facets of the hedonic. For example, Arrasvuori et al
[3] focused on playfulness as a specific kind of hedonic
experience and suggested the PLEX (playful experience)
framework. It consists of 22 categories (e.g., competition,
thrill, exploration, fantasy), to capture core elements of
experience reports. The PLEX cards are available online via
www.funkydesignspaces.com/plex/.
ANTECEDENTS OF THE HEDONIC

Studies of antecedents of the hedonic explored potential

sources of hedonic quality within experience reports (e.g.,
[48, 55]), presented design examples with a specific focus
on the hedonic (e.g., [54, 2]), or general design related
recommendations (e.g., [9, 29]). For example,
Stelmaszewska et al [48] explored constituents of hedonic
experiences, aiming at a better understanding and design of
such experiences. They identified four sets of determinants
of hedonic experiences in general (challenge/achievement,
interactivity-social element, feel good, novelty) and two
additional sets for technology-specific hedonic experiences
(usability/functionality, appealingness). Not surprisingly,
there is a striking parallel to psychological needs theories
(e.g., competence, relatedness, physical thriving,
stimulation, [18, 46]). Vnnen-Vainio-Mattila et al [55]
followed a similar approach but focused on drivers of social
user experience in web services. They identified selfexpression, reciprocity and curiosity as main drivers. Both
sets [48, 55] might be used as a blueprint or inspiration for
design, evoking reflections on how a product or service
could foster such an experience. Vnnen-Vainio-Mattila
[54] and Andrzejewki [2] both present validated design
examples with an explicit focus on the creation of hedonic
quality. However, insights on concrete strategies or design
decisions to create hedonic quality are still limited.
One of the few publications aiming at general strategies for
creating hedonic quality focused on the stimulation aspect
[9]. The authors highlighted the need for a balance between

new, unknown, stimulating elements and going too far

beyond current interaction styles and designs, which then
may damage the identification aspect of hedonic quality.
This parallels the widely discussed design principle of
most advanced, yet acceptable [22]. Also the work by
Karapanos et al [29] highlighted potential starting points to
design for the hedonic. Based on their study on long term
UX, they promote a set of design strategies, each focusing
on specific aspect of long-term positive experience (i.e.,
meaningful mediation, daily rituals, the self).
CORRELATES OF THE HEDONIC

Many of the empirical studies focused on correlates of the

hedonic. Among these, a large part explored the relation to
pragmatic quality (e.g., [50, 52]), often referring back to the
discussion on "what is beautiful is usable" (see [49]). The
emerging debate has demonstrated the limitations of mere
correlational studies. Despite typically small to medium
sized correlations between the two (as between HQ and PQ,
cf. Table 4), later experimental studies and mediation
analyses (e.g., [19, 20, 50]) revealed that the claimed
relation between beauty on usability was due to a haloeffect: a perception of high quality on one dimension (e.g.,
beauty, hedonic quality) led to an overall positive
impression, which, then, was transferred to judgments on
other dimensions (e.g., pragmatic quality).
In sum, empirical results were in line with model
assumptions: hedonic and pragmatic formed two distinct
factors with independent contributions to the global
evaluation (e.g., [27, 44, 52]. Examples of variables with
positive correlations to the hedonic but not the
pragmatic/functional were flow [27] and involvement [23].
Correlations between perceived hedonic quality and
objective parameters of system use (e.g., click rates, success
in task fulfillment, time spent) showed mixed results. For
example, Huang [27] reported a positive correlation (r=.20)
between hedonic quality and task duration whereas other
studies reported no such relation [15, 59]. This finding
becomes clearer when considering the type of task, which,
in the former case, was more hedonic per se. Here [27] the
time parameter represented dwell time on a preferred
website (e.g., entertainment sites, news sites). If one
appreciates its hedonic value, one may spend more time
there, which explains the correlation between the two
measures. This is in line with other researchers measures
of the hedonic in context of websites, such as When
interacting with this site, I do not realize how much time
has elapsed. [6], or Sometimes I lose track of time. [38].
The free, non-goal related instruction may have additionally
fostered the relevance of the hedonic. In other studies,
where hedonic quality was not correlated to task time,
participants had to perform clear defined tasks (e.g.,
increasing the volume, saving a document [15, 59]).
Actually, a number of studies explicitly induced explorative
versus task-oriented usage modes through framing
instructions (e.g., [30, 53, 58]). They found that users

assigned more relevance to the hedonic in explorative

modes, compared to task-oriented modes. However, the
effect of induced usage mode was limited, and became less
relevant for product types at the extremes of the hedonicpragmatic continuum, with a preset focus on one of the
dimensions (e.g., [30], see next section for more results on
hedonic versus pragmatic product types).

[36] contrasted a (pragmatic) vacuum cleaning robot and a

(hedonic) dinosaur robot. However, when studying existing
products, hedonic quality is often confounded with other
factors. This allows less accurate conclusions than the first,
strictly experimental approach, which limits differences
between test objects to the very factor of interest (here:
variations in hedonic quality).

Some researchers also draw connections to other models

such as the technology-acceptance model (e.g., [30, 53]).
Van Schaik and Ling [53] promoted an integrated
experience-acceptance model, combining HQI, HQS, PQ,
goodness, and beauty (as suggested in [16, 17]) and the
TAM constructs PU, PEOU, PE, mode of use, and intention
to use (e.g., [9, 57]), and thereby clarifying the role of
interaction experience within technology acceptance. In a
similar vein, Kauer et al [30] suggested the Balanced
TAM, which combines the technology acceptance model
(e.g., [11, 57]) and the need-based UX approach by
Hassenzahl et al [18], thereby integrating psychological
needs and an overall measure of technology acceptance into
one model. In both cases [30, 53]), the integrated models
provided an improved prediction of technology acceptance.

One of the most studied effects in relation to contrasts and

manipulations of hedonic quality were emotional
consequences. While applying different measures (e.g.,
Self-assessment manikin SAM [7], the TAM-construct
perceived enjoyment, single measures like fun,
pleasure), studies basically showed that hedonic products
created more positive affect than less hedonic/more
pragmatic products (e.g., [14, 36]). Not surprisingly, users
expectation and, thus, the assigned relevance of hedonic
versus pragmatic quality also vary with the type of product.
Accordingly, several studies reported a moderating effect of
product type on the relevance of emotional value for global
evaluation (higher for hedonic product types, e.g., [14, 60]).

Finally, some studies explored relations to person factors

such as professional background or gender (e.g., [2, 41,
42]). All in all, effects were small and hedonic quality
perceptions relatively independent from person factors.
Regarding professional background, no general conclusion
can be drawn, due to the different types of studied
professions. Concerning gender, some researchers reported
gender-specific differences regarding preferred design
elements [41]. But altogether, there was no incidence for
differences with regard to the value of hedonic quality per
se.
CONSEQUENCES OF THE HEDONIC

Most studies of the hedonic were correlational and did not

allow causal statements a fact already criticized by others
(e.g., [50]). Only eight publications reported a systematic
manipulation or explicit contrast of hedonic quality (e.g.,
[50, 58]). One strategy is to change single potentially
hedonic-related product features (e.g., color, background
texture, graphic elements [42, 50]) and assure differences in
perceived hedonic quality by a pre-test or later
manipulation check. Another strategy is the pre-testing of
existing products. For example, Xu et al [60] contrasted
primarily hedonic smartphone functions (e.g., camera)
against primarily pragmatic functions (e.g., organizer). A
third strategy is to contrast hedonic versus pragmatic
product types (as defined by their inherent primary usage
goals). Products either have a strong relation to one of the
dimensions (e.g., gaming console: hedonic, dish washer:
pragmatic) or a more ambiguous position in between (e.g.,
mobile phone). For example, Gross and Bongartz [14]
contrasted mobile applications such as an online content
sharing tool (Box, pragmatic) and a guitar playing
application (Guitar Solo Lite, hedonic). Similarly, Lee et al

Studies on additional consequences such as product

bonding or the relevance of hedonic quality over time are
rare [23, 29, 32, 38]. Karapanos et al [29] studied UX over
time on the example of the Apple iPhone. They revealed
three distinct temporal phases (i.e., orientation,
incorporation, identification) and a changing relevance of
hedonic quality aspects between initial experiences and
prolonged use. While early experiences related mostly to
the stimulation aspect of hedonic quality, later on,
identification and reflections about the product meaning in
ones life became more important. Kujala et al [32] studied
the consequences of hedonic qualities within long-term use
of mobile phones and Facebook. Hedonic quality was
altogether more associated with positive change (improving
experience)
than
negative
change
(deteriorating
experience). For example, identification was supported by
expressing ones ideas and thoughts and joining according
groups (Facebook) or visual design and admiring comments
by others (mobile phones). Interesting new content and
discovering new functions supported sustained stimulation
in the case of Facebook, whereas in the case of mobile
phones, the potential for stimulation was limited. All
functions were soon discovered and did not seem special
anymore, especially compared to new phones on the
market. Thus, most mobile phone UX curves were
deteriorating over time. Referring back to design strategies,
the findings on long term UX [29, 32] highlight the
problem of building on novelty as a main source of hedonic
quality, especially in the case of non-changing products
without new content. Per definition, the potential of
stimulation is limited in time (if its not new, its not
stimulating). Instead UX designers need to consider other
needs as well, which provide potential for more sustained
meaningful experience.

THE HEDONICS CONTRIBUTIONS TO HCI

As the present review shows, the introduction of the

hedonic to HCI drew considerable interest. It has evoked a
substantial and increasing number of publications about the
concept, assessing it, exploring its antecedents, correlates,
and consequences. Our review highlights a number of
contributions to HCI theory and practice. One was the
conceptualization of experiential value (e.g., feeling
motivated, feeling connected to others) in terms of
attributed product qualities (motivating, connective). While
the general shift of focus in HCI to experience [40],
pleasure [28], and emotions [12] paved the way, the
concept of hedonic quality provides a more concrete idea of
product attributes related to positive experience. It created a
bridge between the general experiential claim on the one
side and product design and especially evaluation on the
other side. This was further supported by different
approaches to making the hedonic quantifiable, including
general approaches [17, 33] and instruments for specific
contexts and domains [37, 43, 56]. Our own experiences in
industry projects suggest that including hedonic quality in
research studies often prompted an integration of the
experiential perspective into the development process.
Introducing experiential value to the practice of technology
design thus forms another valid contribution. Moreover, the
concept of hedonic quality fostered the integration of
knowledge from different fields and disciplines. The first
introduced hedonic-pragmatic model of UX [16, 17, 21]
already connected HCI and insights from psychology on
human emotion, motivation, and action; later models
integrated concepts from information systems literature and
psychological need theories (e.g., [18, 30, 53]). Finally, the
integration of the hedonic enabled a better understanding of
human experience in HCI. It has been identified as relevant
for interaction experience (e.g., [20, 53], long term positive
experience (e.g., [29]) but also hard measures such as
website dwell time (e.g., [27]), and allowed new models of
UX with better predictive power of judgment, preference
and acceptance of technology [17, 18, 30, 53].
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Besides these valid contributions, the concept of the

hedonic still inspires further questions. In light of the
present overview, we want to highlight four aspects:
First, we need new methods to assess and explore the
hedonic: The focus on stimulation and identification was a
valuable first step, but especially the problematic
intercorrelations of the AttracDiff subscales call for a more
differentiated model and measurement (see [18] for a first
approach). Besides, most empirical studies focus on
quantitative data, reducing the hedonic to predefined terms
and subcategories. This finding is in line with the analysis
of Law [34], who described UX research as being split into
two camps: quantitative model-based versus qualitative
design-based approaches. We hope for more studies that
overcome this separation and complement model-based UX

research by more open qualitative approaches (and vice

versa). Especially for a concept like the hedonic, built on
experiential value and the subtle and subjective facets of
HCI, a solely quantitative perspective appears too narrow.
Second, we need more elaborated approaches to design for
hedonic quality. A number of recent approaches make use
of psychological needs as a starting point for design, which
is one way to design for hedonic quality indeed (e.g., [19,
39]). But still, these are more exemplary and not that
formalized to be applied by other researchers. This is
exemplified by reflections on the integration of the hedonic
in the design process such as requirements are intangible
and thereby hard to grasp. It was, however, known (or felt
more likely) what should and what shouldnt be [2, p. 46].
Third, it still requires a clearer concept of the hedonic itself.
While the term is well established a closer look at how it
was used and defined revealed differing and sometimes
even contradictory notions. For example, while most
publications contrast the hedonic against the pragmatic [16,
23, 27, 33, 44, 51], others subsume one among the other,
speaking of hedonic usability [24], the hedonic
dimension of usability [2] or usability/functionality as a
determinant of hedonic experience [48].
Forth, we need a better understanding of the hedonic in a
larger context and more substantial research into related
phenomena. Single studies already indicated that the
consequences of the hedonic are complex and have to be
considered along several dimensions, such as the
differentiation between experience and choice [13] or early
interactions versus long term use [29, 32, 38]. As already
argued by others [29], the predominant focus on early
interactions represents a potential neglect of those product
qualities which are actually in the long run. Obviously, we
should not only use the hedonic as a part of models or as a
standard evaluation routine, but engage into further
developing, clarifying, empirically substantiating, and
critically reexamining the concept and its claims.
REFERENCES

1. Allen, M.W.A practical method for uncovering the

direct and indirect relationships between human values
and consumer purchases. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 16 (2001), 102-120.
2. Andrzejewski, J. Designing a User Interface for
Smartphone. A Balance Between the Pragmatic and the
Hedonic Dimension of Usability. Thesis, Linkping
University, 2003.
3. Arrasvuori, J., Korhonen, H. and Vnnen-VainioMattila, K. (2010). Exploring playfulness in user
experience of personal mobile products. In Proc.
OZCHI 2010, ACM Press (2010), 8895.
4. Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K.E. Hedonic shopping
motivation, Journal of Retailing, 79 (2003), 7795.

5. Bargas-Avila, J.A. and Hornbk, K. Old wine in new

bottles or novel challenges: a critical analysis of
empirical studies of user experience. In Proc. CHI 2011,
ACM Press (2011), 2689-2698.

19. Hassenzahl, M., Eckoldt, K., Diefenbach, S., Laschke,

M., and Lenz, E. Designing moments of meaning and
pleasure Experience Design. International Journal of
Design, 7, 3 (2013), 21-31.

6. Bernardo, M., Marimon, F., and Alonso-Almeida, M.

Functional quality and hedonic quality: A study of the
dimensions of e-service quality in online travel
agencies. Information & Management, 49, 7-8 (2012),
342347.

20. Hassenzahl, M. and Monk, A. The Inference of

Perceived Usability From Beauty. Human-Computer
Interaction 25, 3 (2010), 235260.

7. Bradley, M. M., and Lang, P. J. Measuring emotion: the

self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential.
Journal of behavior therapy and experimental
psychiatry, 25, 1 (1994), 49-59.
8. Brecht, F., Berger, C., Eckhardt, A., and Gnther, O.
(2012). Corporate Career Presences on Social Network
Sites: An Analysis of Hedonic and Utilitarian Value. In
Proc. CHI 2012, ACM Press (2012), 24412450.
9. Burmester, M. and Dufner, A. Designing the stimulation
effect of hedonic quality - an exploratory study. In
Pivec, M. (Ed.). Affective and Emotional Aspects of
Human-Computer-Interaction. IOS (2006), 217-233.
10. Cockton, G. Designing worth---connecting preferred
means to desired ends. interactions, 15, 4 (2008), 54-57.
11. Davis, F.D. A technology acceptance model for
empirically testing new end-user information systems:
Theory and results. MIT, 1986.
12. Desmet, P.M.A., Overbeeke, C.J., and Tax, S.J.E.T.
Designing products with added emotional value:
development and application of an approach for research
through design. The Design Journal, 4 (2001), 32-47.

21. Hassenzahl, M., Platz, A., Burmester, M., and Lehner,

K. Hedonic and ergonomic quality aspects determine a
softwares appeal. In Proc. CHI 2000, ACM Press
(2000), 201208.
22. Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., and van Wieringen, P.C.W.
Most advanced, yet acceptable: Typicality and novelty
as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial
design. British Journal of Psychology, 94 (2003), 111124.
23. Helfenstein, S. Increasingly emotional design for
growingly pragmatic users? A report from Finland.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 31, 2(2012),
185204.
24. Hertzum, M. Images of Usability. International Journal
of Human-Computer Interaction, 26, 6 (2010), 567600.
25. Hirschman, E.C., and Holbrook, M.B. Hedonic
consumption: emerging concepts, methods and
propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46 (1982), 92-101.
26. Holm, J., Lehtiniemi, A., and Eronen, A. Evaluating an
Avatar-Based User Interface for Discovering New
Music. In Proc. MUM 2010, ACM Press (2010), Art. 9.
27. Huang, M.-H. Web performance scale. Information &
Management 42, 6 (2005), 841852.

13. Diefenbach, S. and Hassenzahl, M. The dilemma of the

hedonicAppreciated, but hard to justify. Interacting
with Computers, 23, 5 (2011), 461-472.

28. Jordan, P. Designing Pleasurable Products: An

Introduction to the New Human Factors. CRC Press,
London, England, 2002.

14. Gross, A., and Bongartz, S. Why do I like it?

Investigating the Product-Specificity of User
Experience. In Proc. NordiCHI 2012, ACM Press
(2012), 322330).

29. Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., and Martens,

J.-B. User experience over time: an initial framework. In
Proc. CHI 2009, ACM Press (2009), 729738.

15. Harbich, S. and Auer, S. Rater bias: The influence of

hedonic quality on usability questionnaires. In Proc.
INTERACT 2005, Springer (2005), 1129-1133.
16. Hassenzahl, M. The Thing and I: Understanding the
Relationship Between User and Product. In Blythe, M.,
Overbeeke, K., Monk, A., and Wright, P. (Eds.).
Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 2005, 3142.
17. Hassenzahl, M. The Interplay of Beauty, Goodness, and
Usability in Interactive Products. Human-Computer
Interaction 19, 4 (2004), 319349.
18. Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S., and Gritz, A. Needs,
affect, and interactive products - Facets of user
experience. Interacting with Computers, 22, 5 (2010),
353-362.

30. Kauer, M., Theuerling, H., and Bruder, R. The

importance of identification for the acceptance of
consumer electronics on the example of the Wii.
Behaviour & Information Technology (2012), 115.
31. Knickmeyer, R.L. and Mateas, M. Preliminary
evaluation of the interactive drama facade. In Proc. CHI
2005, ACM Press (2005), 15491552.
32. Kujala, S., Roto, V., Vnnen-Vainio-Mattila, K., and
Sinnel, A. Identifying Hedonic Factors in Long-Term
User Experience. In Proc. DPPI 2011, ACM Press
(2011), Article 17.
33. Laugwitz, B., Held, T., and Schrepp, M. Construction
and Evaluation of a User Experience Questionnaire.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5298 (2008), 63
76.

34. Law, E. The measurability and predictability of user

experience. In Proc. EICS 11, ACM Press (2011), 1-10

attitude: a generally applicable scale. Advances in

Consumer Research, 24 (1997), 235-241.

35. Law, E. and van Schaik, P. Modelling user experience

An agenda for research and practice. Interacting with
Computers, 22, 5 (2010), 313322.

48. Stelmaszewska, H., Fields, B., and Blandford, A.

Conceptualising user hedonic experience. In Proc.
ECCE 12, EACE (2004), 1215.

36. Lee, N., Shin, H., and Sundar, S. S. (2011). Utilitarian

vs. hedonic robots: role of parasocial tendency and
anthropomorphism in shaping user attitudes. In Proc.
HRI 2011, ACM Press (2011), 183184.

49. Tractinsky, N., Katz, A.S., and Ikar, D. What is

beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13
(2000), 127145.

37. Liu, S., Zheng, X.S., Liu, G., Jian, J., Liu, Z., and Peng,
K. Assessing User Experience of Interactive Products: A
Chinese Questionnaire. In Proc. VINCI 2012, ACM
Press (2012), 104109.
38. Magni, M., Susan Taylor, M., and Venkatesh, V. To
play or not to play: A cross-temporal investigation
using hedonic and instrumental perspectives to explain
user intentions to explore a technology. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68, 9 (2010), 572
588.
39. Marcus, A., Schieder, T.K., and Cantoni. L. The travel
machine: mobile UX design that combines information
design with persuasion design. In Proc. DUXU 2013,
Springer (2013), 696-705.
40. McCarthy, J. and Wright, P. C. Technology as
Experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004.
41. Moss, G., Horvath, G., and Gunn, R. Refining our
understanding of men and womens design preferences.
In Proc. "Towards a UX Manifesto", HCI 2007, (2007),
71-76.
42. Mundorf, N., Westin, S., and Dholakia, N. Effects of
hedonic components and users gender on the
acceptance of screen-based information services.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 12, 5 (1993),
293303.
43. OBrien, H.L. The influence of hedonic and utilitarian
motivations on user engagement: The case of online
shopping experiences. Interacting with Computers 22, 5
(2010), 344352.

50. Tuch, A.N., Roth, S.P., Hornbk, K., Opwis, K., and
Bargas-Avila, J.A. Is beautiful really usable? Toward
understanding the relation between usability, aesthetics,
and affect in HCI. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 5
(2012), 15961607.
51. van der Heijden, H. User acceptance of hedonic
information systems. MIS Quarterly 28, 4, (2004), 695
704.
52. van Schaik, P. and Ling, J. Modelling user experience
with web sites: Usability, hedonic value, beauty and
goodness. Interacting with Computers, 20, 3 (2008),
419-432.
53. van Schaik, P. and Ling, J. An integrated model of
interaction experience for information retrieval in a
Web-based encyclopaedia. Interacting with Computers
23, 1 (2011), 1832.
54. Vnnen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Suhonen, K., Gonsalves,
T., Schrader, M., and Jrvenp, T. Carpe diem:
exploring user experience and intimacy in eye-based
video conferencing. In Proc. MUM 10, ACM Press
(2011), 113-122.
55. Vnnen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Wljas, M., Ojala, J., and
Segersthl, K. Identifying drivers and hindrances of
social user experience in web services. In Proc. CHI
2010, ACM Press (2010), 2499-2502.
56. Vtj, H., Koponen, T., and Roto, V. Developing
practical tools for user experience evaluation: a case
from mobile news journalism. In Proc. ECCE 2009,
VTT (2009), Art. 23.

44. Ogertschnig, M., and Heijden, H.V.D. A Short-Form

Measure Of Attitude Towards Using A Mobile
Information Service. In Proc. BLED 2004, Paper 2.

57. Venkatesh, V. Determinants of perceived ease of use:

Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion
into the technology acceptance model. Information
systems research, 11, 4 (2000), 342-365.

45. Partala, T. and Kallinen, A. Understanding the most

satisfying and unsatisfying user experiences: Emotions,
psychological needs, and context. Interacting with
computers, 24, 1 (2012), 25-34.

58. Wechsung, I., Naumann, A., and Mller, S. The

Influence of the Usage Mode on Subjectively Perceived
Quality. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6392
(2010), 188193.

46. Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., and Kasser, T.

What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10
candidate psychological needs. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 80, 2 (2001), 325-339.

59. Wechsung, I., and Schleicher, R. Modelling Modality

Choice Using Task Parameters and Perceived Quality.
In Proc. Speech Communication, VDE (2012), 1-4.

47. Spangenberg, E.R., Voss, K.E., and Crowley, A.E.

Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of

60. Xu, L., Lin, J., and Chan, H.C. The Moderating Effects
of Utilitarian and Hedonic Values on Information
Technology Continuance. ACM Transactions on
Computer-Human Interaction, 19, 2 (2012), 126.