Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study assesses the influence of product aesthetics and user cognitive style on perceived usability. It also attempts to determine whether the two effects are independent of one another. It was predicted that the strength of the relationship between aesthetics and perceived usability depends on individual differences in cognitive style. To test this hypothesis, two functionally identical but aesthetically different computer applications were created. Participants took a test that assessed their cognitive styles, interacted with one of the two applications, and subjectively rated the application on both usability and aesthetic quality. Results showed a significant relationship between perceived aesthetic quality and perceived usability, and also between perceived aesthetic quality and objectively-defined aesthetic quality. No relationship was observed between objectively-defined aesthetic quality and perceived usability or between cognitive style and perceived usability, and no interaction between aesthetics and cognitive style was evident.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Benbasat

Dexter

A.S.

(1985). An Experimental Evaluation of Graphical and Color-Enhanced Information Presentation. Management Science 31(11), 1348–1364.

Bloch

P.H.

(1995). Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response. Journal of Marketing 59(3), 16–29.

Dion

Berscheid

Walster

(1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24(3), 285–290.

Dwyer

F.M.

Moore

D.M.

(1991). Effect of Color Coding on Visually Oriented Tests With Students of Different Cognitive Styles. The Journal of Psychology, 125(6), 677–680.

Ekstrom

R.B.

French

J.W.

Harman

H.H.

Dermen

(1976). Manual for Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Hassenzahl

(2001). The Effect of Perceived Hedonic Quality on Product Appealingness. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13(4), 481–499.

Hassenzahl

(2004). The Interplay of Beauty, Goodness, and Usability in Interactive Products. Human-Computer Interaction, 19, 319–349.

Kurosu

Kashimura

(1994). Apparent Usability vs. Inherent Usability; Experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 2, 292–293. Retrieved March 28, 2005, from http://sigchi.org/chi95/Electronic/documnts/shortppr/mk_bdy.htm.

Lewis

J.R.

(1995). IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 7(1), 57–78.

10.

Lewis

J.R.

(2002). Psychometric Evaluation of the PSSUQ Using Data from Five Years of Usability Studies. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 14(3&4), 463–488.

11.

Ocvirk

O.G.

Stinson

R.E.

Wigg

P.R.

Bone

R.O.

Cayton

D.L.

(2002). Art Fundamentals: Theory and Practice. (9th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

12.

Stewart

(2002). Launching the Imagination: A Comprehensive Guide to Basic Design. (1st ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

13.

Tractnsky

Katz

A.S.

Ikar

(2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13, 127–145.

14.

Tractinsky

(1997). Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 115–122, March 22–27, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.

15.

Witkin

H.A.

Goodenough

D.R.

(1981). Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins. New York: International Universities Press.

16.

Wong

(1993). Principles of Form and Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The Effects of Aesthetics and Cognitive,Style on Perceived Usability

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References