ARTICLE IN PRESS

Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 409–418

www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo

Embracing diversity in user needs for affective design

Halimahtun M. Khalid
Damai Sciences Sdn Bhd, Jalan Stesen Sentral 5, 50470 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract

To develop product portfolios and affective design we need to understand the diversity in user needs. The challenge is how to predict
what users want and how they will behave. One approach is to understand user emotions and affective needs, and predict successful
product design that can match the needs. This paper discusses affect and its link to cognition. To provide a context, several theories are
presented. A framework is described that incorporates characteristics of users, tasks, products, and use environment. The goal is to
highlight the importance of emotions in enhancing the value of products. This research field, which we call Hedonomics, is new. There are
many challenges in developing valid and reliable measurements of affect, which can influence human factors research as well as design.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Affect; Needs diversity; Product design

1. Diversity and design 1.1. Needs diversity

Diversity can be defined as the characteristics which
differentiate people as individuals, as well as the character-
istics which make them alike. These oppositional defini-
tions can be traced to the term diversity; in Middle English,
divers(e) means ‘sundry’, ‘several’, ‘many’ and in Old
French divers and Latin diversus means ‘different’, ‘con-
trary’, ‘separate’, ‘to turn aside’, ‘divert’ (Bitterman
and Tauke, 2005). We have inherited a term with multiple
and contradictory interpretations. On the one hand,
diversity is considered to indicate variety and multiformity;
on the other, it is associated with the quality of being
different.
In product design, diversity assumes at least two roles in
these relationships: it can build assurances of variety and
choice into its processes and products, and it can also be
the source or catalyst for change.
There are many dimensions in human diversity. They go
beyond obvious differences such as race, gender, age,
physical abilities, and marital status. Less obvious dimen-
sions include: education, lifestyle, national origin, religious
or political affiliation, organizational culture, and operator
skills. Understanding diversity adds value in product
design and use.
User populations are becoming more diverse, and it is
difficult to identify a prototypical user. Diversity in this
sense refers to the variety in user needs. Needs diversity
involves accommodating users with different skills, knowl-
edge, age, gender, disabilities, disabling conditions (mobi-
lity, sunlight, noise), literacy, culture, income, and so on
(Schneiderman, 2000). For example, in designing a web site
interface, there is a need to consider the users computing
skills and knowledge. Design of search engines can include
basic and advanced dialogue boxes. Segmentation of web
pages can accommodate users with poor reading skills and
different languages, an e-commerce site can display multi-
ple language versions of a product catalogue and descrip-
tion tuned to regional requirements. A more difficult
problem is to accommodate differences in income, culture,
religion, as well as disabilities and different capabilities of
users. Cognitively impaired users with learning disabilities
and poor memory can be accommodated with modest
changes in layout and control vocabulary. Expert and
frequent users too have special needs. Enabling customiza-
tion that speeds high-volume users, macros to support
repeated operations, and inclusion of special-purpose
devices could benefit many.

0003-6870/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2006.04.005
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
410 H.M. Khalid / Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 409–418
1.2. User emotion in product design
Traditional cognitive approaches to product usability
tend to underestimate the influence of emotions. Not
surprisingly, the success of a product in the marketplace
may be determined by its aesthetic appeal, the pleasure it
creates and the satisfaction it brings to the user (Khalid
and Helander, 2004; Helander and Khalid, 2006). Conse-
quently, emotions and affect have received much attention
over the recent years. Because emotion is a necessary part
of life, affecting how we feel, behave and think; it has
gained significant attention in product design (Desmet,
2003; Khalid and Helander, 2006).
According to the theory of rhetoric (Buchanan, 1989), a
design argument comprises three interrelated elements
which provide the substance and form of design commu-
nication: technological reasoning, character, and emotion.
Technological reasoning is based on two premises: an
understanding of the natural and scientific principles
underlying the construction of objects for use, and knowl-
edge of the attitudes and values of potential users and the
physical conditions of actual use. It is developed with an
audience of potential users in mind. The second element,
character, reflects the way designers choose to represent
themselves in the objects they create. An object could have
an authoritative appearance, which can be achieved
through qualities such as intelligence, virtue, and trust-
worthiness.
The third element, emotion, is particularly important to
the semantics of products because it can be derived from
both physical contact with the product and from active
contemplation of it before, during, and after use.
Emotions are important in product semantics (e.g.,
Alcántara et al., 2005). Emotions in using an artifact
depend on what the artifact means or implies to the user.
This is called product semantics (Krippendorff, 2006). The
semantics of use could entail happy memories of the past
(from looking at a photograph) or for projections for
future events (such as a picnic basket).
Affective quality is the ability of a product to cause
changes in one’s core affect (Zhang and Li, 2005). Whereas
core affect exists within the person (Russell, 2003), affective
quality exists in the stimulus. That is, objects, places, and
events all have affective quality; they enter consciousness
only as they are affectively interpreted (Zhang and Li,
2005).
1.3. Aim of paper
The main purpose of this paper is to summarize human
factors issues in affective design. Affective design should be
theoretically driven and empirically grounded, with valid
and reliable measures of affect. However, space constraint
precludes discussion of methods, which are discussed in
Helander and Khalid (2006).
The paper is structured into four parts. First, the
concepts of affect and pleasure are defined. This requires
an understanding of the coupling between affect and
cognition. The terms ‘affect’ and ‘emotion’ are used
interchangeably throughout. Second, select theories from
the domains of psychology are discussed to understand the
theoretical bases of human emotion. Third, a systems
approach to evaluation of affective design is proposed that
considers characteristics of users, tasks, products, and use
environment. The last part highlights research issues that
warrant further investigation.
2. Affect and pleasure
There are various definitions and classifications of affect
and pleasure in marketing, product design, and psychology
(Khalid and Helander, 2006). Russell (2003) defined core
affect as a neurophysiological state that is consciously
accessible as a simple, non-reflective feeling. It is an integral
blend of hedonic/valence or pleasure/displeasure; and
arousal/activation; the extent to which one is feeling
engaged or energized.
Tiger (1992) identified four conceptually distinct types of
pleasure from a product; Helander and Khalid (2006)
extended the taxonomy to five. Whether they are used as a
source for pleasure depends on the needs of the individual.
1. Physical pleasure has to do with the body and the senses.
It includes things like feeling good physically (e.g.,
eating, drinking), pleasure from relief (e.g., sneezing,
sex), as well as sensual pleasures (e.g., touching a
pleasant surface).
2. Sociopleasures include social interaction with family,
friends and coworkers. This includes the way we are
perceived by others, our persona, and status.
3. Psychological pleasure has to do with pleasures of the
mind—reflective as well as emotional. It may come from
doing things that interest and engage us (e.g., playing in
an orchestra, or listening to a concert), including being
creative (e.g., painting) or enjoying the creativity of
other people.
4. Reflective pleasure has to do with reflection on our
knowledge and experiences. The value of many products
comes from this and includes aesthetics and quality.
5. Normative pleasure has to do with societal values such as
moral judgment, caring for the environment, and
religious beliefs. These can make us feel better about
ourselves when we act in line with the expectation of
others as well as our beliefs.
According to Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000),
pleasure is a good feeling coming from satisfaction of
homeostatic needs like hunger, sex, and bodily comfort.
This is different from enjoyment, which is a good feeling
coming from breaking through the limits of homeostasis of
people’s experiences, such as performing in an athletic
event, or playing in a string quartet. Enjoyment can lead to
more personal growth and long-term happiness than
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.M. Khalid / Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 409–418
pleasure, but people usually prefer pleasure over enjoy-
ment, maybe because it is less effortful.
Extending this to products, Jordan (2002) defined
pleasure as the emotional and hedonic benefits associated
with product use, while Coelho and Dahlman (2000)
defined displeasure as the emotional and hedonic penalties
associated with product use. This implies that to under-
stand pleasure we need to understand displeasure as well.
For example, chair comfort deals with feeling relaxed,
while chair discomfort is about poor biomechanics. The
two entities cannot be measured on a singular scale. In
understanding comfort there is little we can learn from
discomfort; they are two different dimensions (Helander
and Zhang, 1997). Similarly, displeasure operates like a
design constraint—we know what to avoid—but that does
not mean that we understand how to design a pleasurable
product. Getting rid of displeasure does not necessarily
generate pleasure.
Therefore, how does the brain give rise to positive
affective reactions to sensory pleasure? This requires
knowing which brain systems are activated by pleasant
stimuli, and which systems actually cause positive affective
properties (Berridge, 2003).
Contemporary affective neuroscience has been preoccu-
pied with negative affect over positive emotions. A review
of the psychological literature on emotions by Fredrickson
(1998) showed that positive emotions such as joy, interest,
contentment, and love that share a pleasant subjective
feeling have been marginalized in research as compared to
negative emotions. This is because positive emotions are
few in number and rather diffuse; while negative emotions
pose problems that demand attention. For example, anger
and its management have been implicated in the etiology of
heart disease.
Research has shown that even moderate fluctuations in
positive feelings (emotions) systematically affect cognitive
processing. Isen (1999) found that mild positive affect
improves creative problem solving, facilitates recall
of neutral and positive material, and systematically
changes strategies used in decision-making tasks. Despite
these documented effects, there are few theories of how
positive affect influences cognition. To form a theory of
positive affect, one must understand what makes people
happy.
2.1. Coupling of affect and cognition
The correlation between affect and cognition is well
documented, but has largely been dismissed by cognitive
psychology. Separating emotion from cognition is a major
weakness of psychology and cognitive science (Vygotsky,
1962).
The dopaminergic theory of positive affect postulated by
Ashby et al. (1999) assumes that during periods of mild
positive affect, there is a concomitant increased dopamine
release in the mesocorticlimbic system. The resulting
elevated dopamine levels improve performance on a variety
411
of cognitive functions and tasks including: episodic
memory, working memory and creative problem solving.
Emotional reactions typically involve extensive cognitive
processing (Ellsworth and Scherer, 2003). Fig. 1 denotes
the relationship between affect and cognition. While affect
refers to feeling responses, cognition is used to interpret,
make sense of, and understand user experience.
People perceive reality in at least two ways; one is
affective (intuitive and experiential) and the other is
cognitive (analytical and rational) (Epstein, 1994). Formal
decision-making relies on the analytical and cognitive
abilities; unfortunately, this mode is slow. The experiential/
affective system is much quicker. When a person seeks to
respond to an event, there will be an automatic search and
matching with the experiential data base. This is like
searching a memory bank for related events, including their
emotional valence and implications (Epstein, 1994).
Emotions are not a cause of irrational thinking; they can
motivate a passionate concern for objectivity. Rational
thinking entails feelings, and affective thinking entails
cognition. Rational thinking is more precise, comprehen-
sive, and insightful than irrational thinking. However, it is
also emotional.
New breakthroughs in neuroscience using functional
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) validate the asser-
tions that cognition and emotions are unified and
contribute to the control of thought and behaviour
conjointly and equally (LeDoux, 1995). Additionally,
cognition contributes to the regulation of emotion.
Contemporary views in artificial intelligence are also
embracing an integrated view of emotion and cognition.
In Emotion Machine, Minsky (2005) claimed: ‘‘Our
traditional idea is that there is something called ‘thinking’
and that it is contaminated, modulated or affected by
emotions. What I am saying is that emotions aren’t
separate.’’
3. Theoretical bases of affect
Several theories in psychology underlie affect, and can
provide directions for future research and methods
development. Below we present a select few.
Fig. 1. Coupling of affect and cognition (Helander and Khalid, 2006).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
412 H.M. Khalid / Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 409–418
3.1. Activity theory
In human activity theory, the basic unit of analysis is
work activity. Human activities are driven by needs, where
people wish to achieve a certain purpose (Bannon and
Bødker, 1991). An activity is usually mediated by one or
more instruments or tools, such as a photographer using a
camera. Thus, the concept of mediation is central to
activity theory. Leontjev (1978) distinguished between
three different types of cognitive activities: (1) simple
activity, which corresponds to automated stimulus-
response, (2) operational activity, which entails perception
and an adaptation to the existing conditions, and
(3) intellectual activity, which makes it possible to evaluate
and consider alternative activities. For each of the
cognitive stages there are corresponding emotional expres-
sions: affect, emotion, and sentiments.
Affect is an intensive and relatively short-lasting
emotional state. For instance, as I walk down colourful
Bukit Bintang Road in Kuala Lumpur and look at items
displayed in the shop windows, there are instantaneous
reactions to the displayed items. Most of these reactions
are unconscious, and I have no recollection of them
afterwards. Through affect, we can monitor routine events.
Many events are purely perceptual and do not require
decision making, but there is an affective matching to
events that are stored in memory. This helps in under-
standing and interpreting their significance.
Emotions are conscious. When I stop to look at an item
in the shop window, I am aware of why I stopped.
Emotions go beyond the single situation; there are
associations to other experiences. Emotions typically
remain in memory for one or several days.
Sentiments or attitudes are longer lasting and include
intellectual and aesthetic sentiments (Leontjev, 1978),
which affect my attitude to the items that are displayed. I
know from experience that some stores are impossible; on
the other hand, there are a few that are clearly very
interesting. Sentiments and attitudes are learned responses.
Predicting affect, which is a basic and simple response, is
likely to be easier than predicting emotions and sentiments,
which are more complex. To evoke affective reactions in a
user, an artifact can be designed to provide people with a
variety of sudden and unexpected changes (visual or
auditory) that cause excitement or alarm. Designing toys
for children has given us ideas about such design space.
This does not imply that there will be conscious emotions
or longer-lasting sentiments. The amusement park
environment, with a variety of visual and auditory stimuli,
is easy to design; that does not mean that people like it.
3.2. Pleasures of the mind
The notion of the pleasures of the mind dates back to
Epicurus (341–270 BC) who regarded pleasures of the mind
as superior to pleasures of the body because they are more
varied and durable. Kubovy (1999) argued that pleasures
of the mind are different from basic emotions. They are not
accompanied by any distinctive facial expression. Take for
example, a person viewing the painting of Mona Lisa. The
viewer may feel elated, but nothing is revealed on his/her
face, and there is no distinctive physiological response.
Likewise there are usually no physiological reactions from
pleasures of the mind. The heart does not beat faster; there
are no sympathetic or parasympathetic reactions.
This is quite different from social interaction, such as a
conversation with a colleague at work, where the message
is in the person’s face, and we can expect physiological
reactions. To measure reactions to pleasures-of-the-mind
one cannot use either physiological measures or facial
expressions; one is left with subjective measures. There is
nothing wrong with subjective methods such as interviews
and questionnaires. There is however a problem in
validating what questions should be asked to assess
product affect.
3.3. Reversal theory
Arousal is a general drive rooted in the central nervous
system. According to arousal theories, organisms fluctuate
slightly about a single preferred point. Reversal theory, on
the other hand, assumes that people have two preferred
states of arousal, and they frequently switch or reverse
between them (Apter, 1989). The theory therefore posits
bistability rather than homeostasis. In a low arousal
state—called telic—the low arousal condition is preferred,
and high arousal is experienced as unpleasant. In the high,
paratelic, arousal state—low arousal is experienced as
boring and unpleasant, and high arousal as exciting and
pleasant.
A given level of arousal may therefore be experienced as
either positive or negative. One may experience a quiet
Sunday afternoon as serene or dull. One may also
experience a crowded and noisy party as exciting or
anxiety provoking. The perceived level of pleasantness, or
hedonic tone, is different for the two states. The paratelic
state is characterized as arousal-seeking and the telic state
as arousal-avoiding. In the telic state, people are goal
oriented and serious-minded and try to finish their current
activity to attain their goal. On the other hand, to have
a good time, the paratelic state is appropriate. Goals
and achievements are not of interest; this is the time to
have fun.
The reversal theory may complicate design. Should we
design for the quiet, telic state or for the arousing paratelic
state? Will customers be in the appropriate state when we
ask them to evaluate products? How can a telic mind
appreciate a paratelic product?
3.4. Affect heuristic
There has been much research on how people make
decisions in real life. It turns out that people usually do not
try to maximize the outcome of the decisions by calculating
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.M. Khalid / Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 409–418
values and probabilities. The short-term memory cannot
hold all the figures and the memory capacity is exceeded.
There are common ways of coping with memory overload
in decisions—namely to use heuristics or rules-of-thumb;
people try to ‘‘wing’’ decisions. In most cases the quality of
this decision making is good enough; there is rarely a need
in daily life for exacting decisions (Gilovich et al., 2002).
Slovic et al. (2002) in proposing the ‘‘affect heuristic’’
claimed that many decisions are based on emotional
criteria. One example is the Prospect Theory (Kahneman
and Tversky, 1979), which postulates that the negative
utility of a monetary loss is large, but the positive utility of
a corresponding gain is fairly small; people hate to lose
money but gaining is not so important. This Nobel Prize
winning theory remains valid, but the argument for the
theory has now changed from logic to emotion (Slovic
et al., 2002).
The ‘‘analytic system’’ uses algorithms and normative
rules, such as probability calculations, formal logic, and
risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires
conscious control. The ‘‘experiential system’’ is not very
accessible to conscious awareness but is intuitive, fast, and
mostly automatic. One challenge is to understand how
information systems can be designed so that they appeal to
the emotional and experiential system with fast and
intuitive processing of information as a result, see Fig. 1.
3.5. Hierarchy of needs
According to Maslow (1968), people have a hierarchy of
needs that are ordered from physiological (e.g., eating),
safety, love/belonging, esteem, to self actualization. The
hierarchy is usually depicted as a pyramid, and it is used to
predict how needs are prioritized; once a person has
fulfilled a need at a lower level he or she can progress to the
next level. To satisfy the need for self actualization, a
person would have to fulfill the lower four needs, which
Maslow (1968) referred to as deficiency needs. These needs
are different in nature to self actualization. The hierarchy is
not a strict progression: individuals may deemphasize some
needs and emphasize others.
Hancock et al. (2005) presented a similar hierarchy of
needs for ergonomics and hedonomics. The ergonomic
needs address safety, functionality, and usability; in
Maslow’s reasoning these would be deficiency needs. The
two upper levels, pleasure and individuation, deal with self
actualization. Individuation, at the top of the pyramid, is
concerned with ways in which a person customizes his or
her engagement and priorities, thereby optimizing pleasure
as well as efficiency.
One may question if there is really a hierarchy, or if the
elements are independent of each other. If so, there would
not be a progression from bottom to top, but rather in
parallel. Helander and Zhang (1997) found that comfort
and discomfort are orthogonal concepts, and it is necessary
to use two different scales to measure them. Similarly, it
413
may be necessary to use several scales to measure each of
the five concepts in Hancock et al.’s (2005) model.
4. Framework for affective design evaluation
Affect encompasses mood, emotions, and feelings, and is
the customer’s psychological response to the design details
of the product. Pleasure is the emotion that accompanies
the acquisition or possession of something good or
desirable (Demirbilek and Sener, 2003). Affect is a
fundamental condition for development of beliefs, values,
and judgment. For this reason one can argue that to be
credible, a model of the design process must include affect.
Until recently, the affective aspects of designing and design
cognition have been largely absent from formal theories of
design process.
4.1. The affective user-designer model
The systems model in Fig. 2 provides a framework for
human factors issues that must be addressed in affective
design. The purpose of the model is to illustrate how a
designer may achieve affective design and how the user of
the design will perceive and react to the design.
There are two parts of the model: the designer’s
environment and the affective user. In the designer’s
environment there are three main subsystems: artifact,
context of use, and society trends. In the artifact subsystem
the designed object can incorporate several attributes that
can cause a change in user affect through its affective
quality (Zhang and Li, 2005). Design characteristics that
can lead to emotional responses include visceral, beha-
vioural, and reflective (Norman, 2004). The designer needs
to consider and if possible predict the user’s needs and
reaction to all three aspects.
Visceral design appeals to the perceptual senses. It deals
with appearance. Although there are no firm guidelines for
visceral design, much is known from arts and graphics
about what constitutes good design: the golden ratio,
symmetry, appropriate use of colors, and visual balance
(the use of white space). A beautiful face, a sunset, and
rolling hills are examples of this. Everybody seems to agree
on this aspect of affective design (Norman, 2004).
Behavioural design focuses on what a person can do with
an object. If the object affords manipulation, we can
develop good design rules. This is where most of the
activity in HCI and the usability community is directed.
Behavioural design also incorporates Csikszentmihalyi’s
(1990) concept of flow. An example is when a person
manipulates the controls in a computer game. While
turning a knob or touching a control the user feels fully
in control, and the device always responds as expected.
Artists rarely talk about this because their focus is on visual
appearance. To them the visual appearance of an interface
is more important than the smoothness of operating
controls.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
414 H.M. Khalid / Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 409–418
Fig. 2. Framework for affective design evaluation (After Helander and Khalid, 2006).
Reflective design considers a designer (or user’s) thoughts
and evaluations of the current design. This is intellectually
driven. It is influenced greatly by the knowledge and
experience of the designer (user), including the person’s
culture and idiosyncrasies. In judging taste and fashion,
people of different cultures think differently; it all depends
on upbringing, traditions, needs and expectations.
Some of the best reflective designs are loved by some and
hated by others. Such contrasts may be desirable, since
controversial designs have often proven to be very
successful. This is where the skills and intuition of designers
play a large part. One example is Volkswagen Bora; user
evaluations include: great looks, stupid looks, looks like a
baby, not masculine enough, no prestige, environmentally
friendly, beautiful symmetry.
Constraints and filters. The next issue in the designer’s
environment deals with design constraints and filters. These
are marked in Fig. 2, with dashed lines connecting the
‘‘context of use’’ and ‘‘society.’’ In the evaluation of
an artifact, a designer will consider the context of use and
the context of activity of the artifact. For example, will the
product be used at work or at home? At work, the
aesthetics of an office chair is less important than pleasant
interactions with colleagues. At home, however, a chair
with an inspired design may be a means to express one’s
personality through aesthetic preferences. In addition, the
designer must also consider society trends, norms and
fashions. These aspects operate like constraints and modify
the design of the artifact.
The context of use can be understood through a task
analysis. This is a tool often applied in human factors. For
example, the design team for the new Duet washer and
dryer, manufactured by Whirlpool, applied cognitive task
analysis to analyze the context of use and needs of
housewives. Although the product is twice as expensive
as other washers/dryers, it sells extremely well. The users
are very happy with the design, and housewives are getting
together for ‘‘laundry parties.’’
The context of use is sometimes difficult to predict—who
could have predicted the laundry parties? The context of
use is therefore not easy to consider in design. People’s
experiences result from motivated action in a context; as
such the designer can neither know nor control the user’s
experience. Similarly, it is not always possible to predict
needs, motivation, context, and action which are relevant
for the creation of user experience, leading to design
features of an artifact.
Moreover, people have different motivations and needs
for using a product. Take for example the mobile phone: to
keep in touch with loved ones, be efficient at work, and
avoid boredom. In addition, there are ‘‘value-added
characteristics’’ such as camera, games, short messaging
system (SMS), alarm clock, and Internet connections.
Besides, the phone is used in many different contexts: while
commuting to work, at home, in recreation, and so on. Use
of new digital products is like a scenario for ‘‘situated
cognition’’—the context of use will determine the user
experience (Suchman, 1987). It may be impossible to
predict the use of the artifact in the individual case. The
designer’s goal, then, should be to design products that
support user creativity in using the product. Equip the
mobile phone with many features; it is up to the user to test
them and decide what is important.
4.2. Needs structure of the affective user
In Fig. 2, there are two simultaneously operating systems
for evaluating design: an affective system and a cognitive
system. These are both influenced by differences in
needs and other idiosyncratic characteristics (knowledge,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.M. Khalid / Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 409–418
education, gender, etc.). An experienced person will see
things differently compared to an inexperienced person,
resulting in different decisions.
The need for affect varies greatly among people. Some
persons have a well-developed sense of aesthetics and will
seek opportunities to satisfy their needs for beautiful
things. Other people do not care about aesthetics. Some
individuals have a need to prove their virtuosity in games
and will take challenges as opportunities arise. They will
seek to develop great skills so that the game will ‘‘flow’’
effortlessly. Thus, a person’s need structure is essential for
purposeful activity. The needs of individuals therefore
drive design. Needs, however, are diverse among different
persons.
The need for virtuosity is a proven basic human need
(Kubovy, 1999). An act is performed with virtuosity when
it is difficult for most people to do but is carried out with
ease and economy. This is what drives many of us to play
computer games. However, virtuosity as a source of
pleasure does not require extraordinary performance.
Kubovy (1999) made reference to a situation where a
person learned to improvise jazz on the piano over a period
of six years; despite the slow development it was a very
satisfactory experience. Take another scenario, a skiing
resort. While waiting in the lift lines, the latest fashion in
skiing outfit and equipment will be much appreciated, but
the activity of skiing cannot be displayed, so it is not
relevant. While skiing downhill, a great skiing performance
with superb control and flow is admired, but in this case, a
trendy outfit is beside the point.
On the basis of customer needs, designers select,
organize, and size product design variables to satisfy these
needs. Information about the needs may be gauged from
different consumer groups. Nevertheless, customer needs
are difficult to capture. Based on sales patterns and
customer surveys, an existing product may be refined.
For seasoned products such as cars, radios, and mobile
phones, customer needs are well understood because of the
past sales record. Companies may improve such products
in incremental steps, and customers follow along. How-
ever, for a new product it may not be possible to predict
sales with any accuracy. One common example is software
design. A new software version 1.0 is put on the market
Fig. 3. The consumer process.
415
without many expectations, but there will be future
upgrades once the sales patterns and customer needs are
understood.
A common problem is that although prospective
customers may respond in a survey that they like to buy
a product, they may change their minds at the time of
purchase. There is a long mental step between intention
and behaviour (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1972). Hence, the
information on customer needs may be sketchy, and
designers may proceed by ignoring customer needs and
estimate functional requirements as well as they can. The
mapping from the designer’s environment to the affective
user (Fig. 2) will then be based on incomplete information.
4.3. The consumer process
In addition to affective evaluation, the process of
buying a product is influenced by two affective processes:
(1) affective matching of needs, and (2) affective matching
of personal utility, see Fig. 3.
In the first instance a customer compares the features of
alternative products to his/her perceived needs. At the
same time the customer considers constraints that eliminate
many products due to price, suitability, and aesthetics
design. Assume that you are buying a shirt for a friend.
You will consider the price, size, style, and colour. You will
try to imagine how well it fits to his personal needs and if
he will appreciate the shirt. This ‘‘emotional matching’’
also occurs when you buy a shirt or a blouse for yourself,
except the process may have become familiar to the extent
that it is automated, and you may not consciously reflect
on all the details; the evaluation process is quicker and
partly subconscious. While you are aware of why you like
something, you may not reflect on why you reject an item.
Consider going through a rack of blouses in a store. The
rejection of an item may take only a second. The affective
matching of a blouse is a pattern matching process with
well-developed criteria for aesthetics and suitability.
The constraint filter helps in decision making by
eliminating alternatives. Some products are rejected at an
early stage. This can happen for many reasons: the price is
too high, the colour is ugly, or the quality is poor. A quick
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
416 H.M. Khalid / Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 409–418
decision is made to reject the product and consider the next
product.
If the product is accepted, there will be a trial adoption.
A customer may try a blouse or a shirt. A second affective
matching takes place, where the personal utility and the
benefit-cost of the purchase are judged. There can be three
decision outcomes: reject (search for another product),
accept (pay and leave), or give up (walk out of the store).
5. Discussion
Products elicit emotions; some products elicit much
emotion, such as art and clothing, and others less, such as
groceries and consumer goods. Designers must consider
affect and emotion in design. Emotional responses induce
customers to select a particular product among many;
thereby influencing the purchase decision. In practice, user
emotions toward products are well established and some-
times difficult to manipulate. As such, emotion may be the
strongest differentiator in user experience. It triggers both
conscious and unconscious responses to a product or an
interface.
There are many important reasons to maximize positive
emotions and minimize negative emotions. Understanding
and reducing users’ anxiety and fears (negative emotions)
will help in increasing product satisfaction. Poor usability
will also induce negative responses such as frustration,
annoyance, anger, and confusion. In evaluating the effect
of emotions on purchase behaviour, we must also consider
that even a moderate increase in positive emotions will
improve cognitive processing. A happy person has an open
mind, while a negative person is restrained. Products with
positive user experiences and emotions can be more
important to the customer than gains in productivity and
effectiveness. Negative emotions from poor design and
poor usability must definitely be avoided in product design.
However, emotion is not an exclusive factor in defining a
successful user experience. Every single product feature
affects the ‘‘user experience’’ which is complex and multi-
faceted. Furthermore, emotions are culturally specific and
variable. There is no such thing as a neutral interface; any
design will elicit emotions from the user and the designer
(Gaver, 1996). The designer should aim to ‘‘control’’ the
user experience through a deliberate design effort, thus
bridging the gap between the affective user and the
designer’s environment, as outlined in the framework
(Fig. 2).
Providing flow. Much research and design experiences
bear witness to the fact that it does not make sense to
separate emotion from cognition. Instead, an integrated
view of emotion and cognition is taking hold; not only in
research but also in product design. A product should be
designed to support customer needs, including the custo-
mer’s persona and needs profile. This can be done in
several ways: by providing flow—or ease of use—in
interacting with the product. Application software with
intuitive and adaptive controls enables good flow; quick
moves and control, and situation awareness—the ability to
forecast what will happen next. Thereby, the software
induces positive emotions of fun, enjoyment, and satisfac-
tion. The pleasures derived from seamless interaction and
usable functions are hedonic benefits that enhance the
‘‘skillful’’ and ‘‘confident’’ user. They also enhance the
sense of virtuosity in interaction; a common need among
users.
A poorly designed application with complex user inter-
face and controls impedes natural interaction, inducing
negative emotions, a desire to quit, moodiness, and
sometimes swearing at the machine, or even kicking it.
Hedonic penalties lead to sentiments of anger and
frustration (Luczak et al., 2003). Pleasurable interaction
may be derived by integrating adaptability into designs and
providing design features that enhance user control.
In sum, customers tend to make decisions based on their
feelings, perceptions, values and reflections. These are
based on emotional evaluations rather than logic and
rational thinking.
5.1. Research issues
Affective appreciation is of course not new—just the
research. People have affective reactions toward tasks,
artifacts, and interfaces. These are caused by design
features that operate either through the perceptual system
(looking at) or from a sense of controlling (touching and
activating) or from reflection and experience. These
reactions are difficult if not impossible to control; the
limbic system in the brain is in operation whether we want
it or not. They are in operation whenever we look at
beautiful objects, and they are particularly obvious when
we try ‘‘emotional matching,’’ such as buying clothes or
selecting a birthday card for someone else.
Measuring affective responses to designed objects can be
problematic. Further research is needed to develop
measurement tools and to validate expressions of emotions
that are useful for design. Several issues warrant further
research, and below we summarize some of the earlier
points.
1. Lack of facial and physiological signals. Pleasures of the
mind are not accompanied by any distinctive facial
expression (Kubovy, 1999). This is different from social
interaction, where half of the message is in the person’s
face. Since it is problematic to use physiological
measures or facial expressions, one is left with subjective
measures. There is nothing wrong with subjective
methods; the data comes directly from the user. In
many instances, verbal or written reports provide the
most valuable information. The data is, however,
limited to what can be reported; sentiments concerning
automated action and user expertise are difficult to
solicit.
2. Design for context of use and activity. A product is used
in a context—an envelope of semantics of usage
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H.M. Khalid / Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 409–418
surrounds the product (Alcántara et al., 2005). Products
communicate with users and can never be contextually
neutral. To ensure human enjoyment, it would be a
good idea to analyze the entire setting, including
activities, tasks scenarios of usage. Designers must take
on a greater responsibility. It is not just about the
product; an ambitious design must also include the
semantics of usage.
3. Inspire the Users. Customer needs are chang-
ing: Functionality, attractiveness, ease of use, afford-
ability, and safety are taken for granted. The new trends
are for objects or artifacts that inspire users,
enhance their lives, and evoke emotions and dreams
(Demirbilek and Sener, 2003). This requires research
into conscious as well as unconscious processes that
are related to positive emotions and pleasurable
experiences.
4. The mechanics of hedonics. We have a poor under-
standing of what makes people happy (Loewenstein and
Schkade, 1999). The effects of satiation of objects and
ownership, and the relation to pleasure have been
reasonably well researched. Some studies have found
that subjects’ feelings did change substantially over time,
but the changes could not be predicted at the outset. If
we can learn to understand the mechanics of hedo-
nomics, there will be significant monetary rewards for
product designers, and there shall be many happy
customers and users.
5. Cultural diversity. Research has shown that cultural
diversity is of strategic interest for pleasurable design
(Ono, 2003). Information on cultural diversity will
consider identities of individual, social groups, and
context of use, thereby contributing to better under-
standing of user needs.
6. Affective product and Kansei engineering. Another
emerging area of study is the manipulation of product
shapes to elicit affective responses of consumers. Using a
sorting technique and Kohonen’s self-organizing
map, Chen et al. (2003) developed an affective design
system to transform different customer affect into a
specific product concept. These developments were
influenced by Nagamachi’s (1989) Kansei engineering
technology.
A different development is Citarasa Engineering (Khalid,
2005). Citarasa—a Malay word—refers to emotional
intent and aspirations. In this case we assume that the
customer understands how the product will fulfill his or her
emotional intentions. This is quite different from Kansei
engineering, where the point of departure is to describe
products using affective adjectives. In Citarasa Engineering
(CE), the starting point is a description of the customer’s
emotional needs. CE makes a great assumption—that
customers can indeed sense their emotions and understand
how the product can fulfill their needs. Future investiga-
tions of CE (e.g., CATER project) will confirm if this is a
realistic approach.
417
6. Conclusion
Affective evaluations provide a new and different
perspective in human factors engineering. It is not how to
evaluate users—it is how the user evaluates. The research
on hedonic values and seductive interfaces is a welcome
contrast to safety and productivity which have dominated
human factors and ergonomics. Approaches to emotions
and affect have been studied at many different levels, and
several models have been proposed for a variety of
domains and environments.
This article represents the beginning of a promising and
challenging research area. It opens a minefield of con-
ceptual and methodological issues for research and
development. Much needs to be done to develop predictive
models of affect and pleasure for design of products and
interfaces. The current methodology for generating valid
and reliable measures of affect is still immature.
Acknowledgement
I am grateful to Martin Helander for his comments on
this article.
References
Alcántara, E., Artacho, M.A., González, J.C., Garcı́a, A.C., 2005.
Application of product semantics to footwear design; Part I—
identification of footwear semantic space applying differential
semantics. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 35, 713–725.
Apter, M.J., 1989. Reversal Theory: Motivation, Emotion and Person-
ality. Routledge, London.
Ashby, F.G., Isen, A.M., Turken, U., 1999. A neuropsychological theory
of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychol. Rev. 106 (3),
529–550.
Bannon, L., Bødker, S., 1991. Beyond the interface: encountering artifacts
in use. In: Carroll, J.M. (Ed.), Designing Interaction: Psychology at the
Human-Computer Interface. Cambridge University Press, New York,
pp. 227–253.
Berridge, K.C., 2003. Pleasures of the brain. Brain and Cognition 53,
106–128.
Bitterman, A., Tauke, B., 2005. Diversity in design; http://www.
diversityindesign.org; Retrieved 18.10.05.
Buchanan, R., 1989. Declaration by design: rhetoric, argument, and
demonstration in design practice. In: Margolin, V. (Ed.), Design
Discourse: History, Theory, Criticism. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, pp. 91–109.
Chen, C.H., Khoo, L.P., Yan, W., 2003. An affective design system for
product conceptualization via sorting technique and kohonen self-
organizing map. In: Aoki, H. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th Asian
Design International Conference. Matsueda Printing Co., Ltd.,
Tsukuba, Japan.
Coelho, D.A., Dahlman, S., 2000. Comfort and pleasure. In: Jordan,
P.W., Green, B. (Eds.), Pleasure in Product Use. Taylor & Francis,
London, pp. 321–331.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1990. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience.
HarperCollins, New York.
Demirbilek, O., Sener, B., 2003. Product design, semantics, and emotional
response. Ergonomics 46 (13&14), 1346–1360.
Desmet, P.M.A., 2003. Measuring emotion; development and application
of an instrument to measure emotional responses to products. In:
Blythe, M.A., Monk, A.F., Overbeeke, K., Wright, P.C. (Eds.),
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
418 H.M. Khalid / Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 409–418
Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment. Kluwer Academic Press,
Dordrecht, pp. 111–123.
Ellsworth, P.C., Scherer, K.R., 2003. Appraisal processes in emotion. In:
Davidson, R.J., Goldsmith, H., Scherer, K.R. (Eds.), Handbook of the
Affective Sciences. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford,
pp. 572–595.
Epstein, S., 1994. Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic
unconscious. Am. Psychol. 49 (8), 709–724.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, L., 1972. Attitudes and opinions. Annu. Rev.
Psychol. 23, 487–554.
Fredrickson, B.L., 1998. What good are positive emotions? Rev. General
Psychol. 2 (3), 300–319.
Gaver, W., 1996. Affordances for interaction: the social is material for
design. Ecol. Psychol. 8 (2), 111–129.
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., Kahneman, D., 2002. Heuristics and Biases. The
Psychology of Intuitive Decision Making. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Hancock, P.A., Pepe, A.A., Murphy, L.L., 2005. Hedonomics: the
power of positive and pleasurable ergonomics. Ergon. Des. 13 (1),
8–14.
Helander, M.G., Khalid, H.M., 2006. Affective and pleasurable design. In:
Salvendy, G. (Ed.), Handbook on Human Factors and Ergonomics.
Wiley, New York, pp. 543–572 (Chapter 21).
Helander, M.G., Zhang, L., 1997. Field studies of comfort and discomfort
in sitting. Ergonomics 40 (9), 895–915.
Isen, A.M., 1999. On the relationship between affect and creative
problem solving. In: Russ, S. (Ed.), Affect, Creative Experience,
and Psychological Adjustment. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia,
pp. 3–17.
Jordan, P.W., 2002. How to Make Brilliant Stuff that People Love and
Make Big Money Out of It. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of
decisions under risk. Econometrica 47, 313–327.
Khalid, H.M., 2005. Computerized automotive technology reconfigura-
tion (CATER) system for reverse engineering and mass customization.
EuroMalaysia IST Call 5 FP6 Proposal, July 22, Damai Sciences,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Khalid, H.M., Helander, M.G., 2004. A framework for affective customer
needs in product design. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 5 (1), 27–42.
Khalid, H.M., Helander, M.G., 2006. Customer needs in emotional
design. Int. J. Concurrent Eng.: Res. Appl. 14(2), in press.
Krippendorff, K., 2006. The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for
Design. Taylor & Francis/CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Kubovy, M., 1999. On the pleasures of the mind. In: Kahneman, D.,
Diener, E., Schwarz, N. (Eds.), Well-Being: The Foundations
of Hedonic Psychology. Russell Sage Foundation, New York,
pp. 134–154.
LeDoux, J.E., 1995. Emotion: clues from the brain. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
46, 209–235.
Leontjev, A.N., 1978. Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Prentice-
Hall, London.
Loewenstein, G., Schkade, D., 1999. Wouldn’t it be nice? Predicting future
feelings. In: Kahneman, D., Diener, E., Schwarz, N. (Eds.), Well-
Being: Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. Russell Sage Foundation,
New York, pp. 85–105.
Luczak, H., Roetting, M., Schmidt, L., 2003. Let’s talk: anthropomor-
phization as means to cope with stress of interacting with technical
devices. Ergonomics 46 (13&14), 1361–1374.
Maslow, A., 1968. Towards a Psychology of Being. Van Nostrand,
Princeton, NJ.
Minsky, M., 2005. Emotion machine. http://web.media.mit.edu/minsky/
E1/eb1.html; Retrieved 23.04.05.
Nagamachi, M., 1989. Kansei Engineering. Kaibundo Publisher, Tokyo.
Norman, D.A., 2004. Emotional Design: Why Do We Love (or Hate)
Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York.
Ono, M.M., 2003. Cultural diversity as a strategic source for designing
pleasurable and competitive products. In: Aoki, H. (Ed.), Proceedings
of the 6th Asian Design International Conference. Matsueda Printing
Co., Ltd, Tsukuba, Japan.
Russell, J.A., 2003. Core affect and the psychological construction of
emotion. Psychol. Rev. 110 (1), 145–172.
Schneiderman, B., 2000. Universal usability. Commun. ACM 43 (5),
85–91.
Seligman, M.E.P., Csikszentmihalyi, M., 2000. Positive psychology: an
introduction. Am. Psychol. 55, 5–14.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., MacGregor, D.G., 2002. The affect
heuristic. In: Gilovic, T., Griffin, D., Kahneman, D. (Eds.), Intuitive
Judgment: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, pp. 397–420.
Suchman, L., 1987. Plans and Situated Cognition. The Problem of Human
Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
Tiger, L., 1992. The Pursuit of Pleasure. Little Brown, Boston.
Vygotsky, L., 1962. Thought and Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Zhang, P., Li, N., 2005. The importance of affective quality. Commun.
ACM 48 (9), 105–108.