Science of Emotion and Sensibility (감성과학)

Korean Society for Emotion and Sensibility (한국감성과학회)
권호 표지

The effect of behavioral and emotional change on usage mode and response-delay situation

사용 모드에 따른 반응지연 상황의 행동적, 정서적 효과

  • 주효민 (연세대학교 인지과학협동과정 인지공학심리학) ;
  • 김효선 (연세대학교 인지과학협동과정 인지공학심리학) ;
  • 김혜령 (연세대학교 인지과학협동과정 인지공학심리학) ;
  • 한광희 (연세대학교 인지과학협동과정 인지공학심리학)
  • Received : 2010.01.28
  • Accepted : 2010.03.12
  • Published : 2010.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

System response times(SRTs) are getting important while increasing the function of system. In the past, most research studied SRTs on situation of computer usage. There are lacking the research on simple domain. This study focuses on behavioral and emotional effect on situation of cell phone usage(experience 1; independent variables: degree of SRTs, dependent variables: behavioral and emotional evaluation). And this study investigates the behavioral and emotional effect in same SRTs on different situation(experience 2; independent variables: degree of SRTs, usage mode, dependent variables: behavioral and emotional evaluation, stress, mental strain). The result indicated that long SRTs increased problem solving time and negative emotion. User evaluated the system differently according to usage mode after they performed the same task. In other word, if user had a strong goal, then they felt more negative emotion and mental effort than the user don't have a strong goal. In the goal mode group, it was important there are being of delay or not. This study demonstrated that SRTs and usage mode influence user's emotion and behavior performance in same task.

시스템의 기능이 많아지면서 시스템의 반응시간은 중요한 요소로 인식되고 있다. 반응지연에 대한 기존의 연구들은 대부분 컴퓨터를 사용하는 상황을 바탕으로 이루어졌고 더 단순한 과제를 사용하는 기기를 바탕으로 이루어진 연구는 부족한 실정이다. 이에 본 연구는 휴대전화를 사용하는 상황에서 반응지연이 사용자들의 행동과 감정에 미치는 영향을 알아보고자 하였다(실험 1; 독립변인: 반응지연 정도, 종속변인: 행동적, 정서적 평가). 더 나아가 사용자가 제품을 사용하는 상황(활성화된 모드)에 따라 동일한 반응지연이 있을 경우 행동 및 감정 평가에서 차이가 나타나는지 알아보았다(실험 2; 독립변인: 반응지연 정도, 사용모드, 종속변인: 행동적, 정서적 평가, 스트레스, 정신적 노력). 그 결과, 반응지연이 있으면 과제를 수행하는 시간(효율성)이 길어지고 부정적인 감정이 유발됨을 알 수 있었다. 또한 상황(활성화된 사용 모드)에 따라서 동일한 과제를 수행하는 경우라도 그 평가에서 차이가 나타남을 알 수 있었다. 즉, 뚜렷한 목적을 가지고 과제를 했을 경우 반응지연이 있게 되면 그렇지 않은 경우보다 더 부정적인 감정을 느끼고 이 경우 반응지연의 유무가 큰 영향을 미친다는 결과가 나타났다. 또한 같은 과제를 수행함에 있어서도 정신적인 노력이 더 많이 소모된다고 느끼는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 휴대전화 상황에서 반응지연 정도가 사용자들의 감정뿐 아니라 수행에도 영향을 줌을 확인하였고 동일한 과제의 제시한 경우라도 사용 환경에 따라 제품 평가에 차이를 보임을 실험을 통하여 확인하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Agawal, R. & Karahanna, E. (2000). "Time Flies When You're Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs about Information Technology Usage,". MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 665-694. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250951
  2. Andre J. S. & Jan R. (2009). Behavioral and emotional consequences of brief delays in human-computer interaction, international journal of human-computer studies, 67(7), 561-570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.02.004
  3. Arnold, A. G. (1999). Mental effort and evaluation of user interfaces :a questionnaire approach. In: Bullinger, H-J., Zieger, J.(Eds.), proceedings of the HCII'99 international conference on human-computer inter- action, 1003-1007.
  4. Barber, E. R. & Lucas, C. H. (1983). System response time- operator productivity, and job satisfaction. Communi- cation of the ACM, 26(11), 972-986. https://doi.org/10.1145/182.358464
  5. Dannenbring, G. L. (1983). The effect of computer response time on user preference and satisfaction; A preliminary investigation. Behavior research methods & instrumentation, 15(2), 213-216. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203551
  6. Fredrickson, B. L. & Kahneman, D. (1993). Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(1), 45-55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.45
  7. Gaynor (1982). Stress coping and the Navy aircrew factor mishap. Aviation space and environ mental medicine, 53(11), 1112-1115.
  8. Guynes, J. L. (1988). Impact of system response time on state anxiety. Communication of the ACM, 31(3), 342-347. https://doi.org/10.1145/42392.42402
  9. Hassenzahl, M. (2001). The effect of perceived hedonic quality on product appealingness. International Journal of Human-Computer interaction, 13(4), 481-499. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327590IJHC1304_07
  10. Hassenzahl, M. (2003). Then thing and I:understanding the relationship between user and product. In: Blythe, M., Overbeeke, C., Monk, A., Wright,P(Eds.), Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment (pp. 31-42), Kluwer, Dordrecht.
  11. Hassenzahl, M. (2007). To do or not to do: Differences in user experience and retrospective judgments depending on the presence or absence of instrumental goals. Interacting with computers, 19(4), 429-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2007.05.001
  12. Hassenzahl, M. (2008). How motivational orientation influences the evaluation and choice of hedonid and pragmatic interactive prodeucts: the role of regulatory focus. Interacting with computers, 20(4), 473-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2008.05.001
  13. Michael, T. (2003). Stress response caused by system response time when searching for information on the internet. Human factors, 45(4), 615-621. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.45.4.615.27084
  14. Pavlou, P. A. (2003). "Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology Acceptance model," International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101-134.
  15. Russell(1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161-1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714
  16. Schleifer, L. M. & Amick III, B. C. (1989). System response time and method of pay: stress effects in computer- based tasks. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1(1), 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318909525955
  17. Smith, D. (1983). A business case for subsecond response time: Faster is better. Computer world, 17(16), 1-11.
  18. Thadhani, A. J. (1981). Interactive User Productivity. IBM Systems Journal 20(4), 407-421. https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.204.0407
  19. WEISS, S. M. (1982). Computer system responsetime and psychophysiologmal stress II. Human Factors and ergonomics Society annual meating Proceedings, 26(8), 698-702. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193128202600805