JEM: A Motivational Model of Evaluation for Information Environments - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

JEM: A Motivational Model of Evaluation for Information Environments

Description:

The user's hedonic (emotional or affective) state changes as a result of making ... The model focuses on the hedonic experience a user has during goal driven use of ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:36
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 24
Provided by: infor93
Learn more at: http://melody.syr.edu
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: JEM: A Motivational Model of Evaluation for Information Environments


1
JEM A Motivational Model of Evaluation for
Information Environments
  • Jeff Stanton, Ping Zhang, Gisela von Dran
  • Syracuse University

2
Information Environments (IE)
  • An Information Environment (IE) is an artifact
    that encompasses information content and
    organization or structure in support of access to
    information content (Davern, Teeni, Moon 02)
  • Examples are
  • Websites, Web pages, databases, palm PDAs (info
    access), smart-phones (address book, access to
    other sources), kiosks (interface), handheld GPS
    mapping systems (map, info, control), Information
    Systems
  • Excludes
  • The technical infrastructure (e.g. hardware,
    supporting software, network, connection, etc.)
    of an artifact
  • Other artifacts that may have an user interface
    but not for information seeking purposes
    (dishwasher, a cars dashboard)
  • Supports goal-driven (information seeking)
    activities

3
Problems w/ Existing Studies
  • Many studies lack theoretical foundations for
    user evaluation of IEs
  • For those that are theoretically based (80
    empirical studies in IS literature),
  • Most are generally about beliefs and attitude
    changes,and their impact on subsequent intention
    and use
  • Few on the affect changes of user experience
    evaluation

4
Individual Level IS Evaluation Dominating
Theories, Constructs, Emphases
5
Objectives of the Study
  • To understand the affective experience a user has
    when using and evaluating an IE.
  • To synthesize current theories from behavioral
    science literature into a workable
    process-oriented framework of user evaluation
  • To use the framework to gain a better
    understanding of processes underlying user
    evaluation of an artifact as well as the likely
    future behavior toward that artifact
  • After testing and pruning, to use the framework
    as a guide to evaluation and assessment for IEs
  • To use good, theory-driven evaluation tools to
    provide guidance to IE designers about how to
    improve the experience of users

6
Basic Working Assumptions
  • A given users evaluation of an IE is a function
    of both
  • The artifact itself, and
  • The person who is using it.
  • A users ultimate judgments about an IE accrue
    neither solely from person characteristics nor
    solely from the characteristics of the IE but
    from the intersection of the two that occurs as
    the user uses the artifact to conduct and
    possibly complete some goal oriented tasks.

7
JEM Joint Evaluation Model
  • Jointly scaling artifact and person
  • Artifact brings observable features to the
    interaction
  • Static visible without interaction (color,
    layout of a web page)
  • Dynamic aspects of performance (loading time,
    search results, operation of controls)
  • Person brings both stable and transient
    characteristics to the interaction
  • Stable general /- outlook (affectivity), prior
    experience with and knowledge of similar
    artifacts
  • Transient specific goals for using the artifact,
    mood (state affect)

8
Our Strategy for Framework Synthesis
  • Try to shift the focus from attitudes (cold) to
    emotions (warm) by integrating Regulatory Focus
    Theory
  • Include the notion of discrepancy or matching or
    confirmation of expectations and reality by
    incorporating elements of Expectation-Confirmation
    Theory
  • Describe a process model that provides details
    about what happens during the actual process of
    evaluation (rather than simply post-evaluation)

9
Existing Theories Part I Regulatory Focus
Theory (RFT)
  • Higgins 1997, 1998 Brockner Higgins 2001
    developed an emotion-centered motivation theory
    that overarches several popular precursor
    theories
  • Goal setting theory, expectancy-valence theory,
    behavioral decision theory
  • RFT posits two self-regulatory (internal)
    systems through which individuals exert control
    over their emotional state via behavior
  • Promotion focused Exert effort towards achieving
    an ideal goal or standard
  • Cheerful when goal achieved, dejected when goal
    not achieved
  • Prevention focused Exert effort towards
    vigilance and loss avoidance
  • Quiescent when goal achieved, agitated when goal
    not achieved
  • Individual difference situational component
  • Stable trait Predisposition toward promotion or
    prevention focus
  • Situational factors Shift regulatory focus
    depending upon whether one perceives
    situationally specific outcomes as potential
    gains or losses
  • Extensive psychological literature supporting
    theory predictions

10
Existing Theories Part II Expectation-Confirmati
on Theory
  • Expectation confirmation/disconfirmation from the
    customer satisfaction literature on consumer
    satisfaction post-purchase behavior
  • E.g., Cardozo (1965), Anderson (1973), Oliver
    (1980, 93), Dabholkar (2000)
  • Bhattacherjee 01 IS Continuance
  • Key constructs initial expectation, initial
    consumption/use and perceptions about
    performance, confirmation, satisfaction,
    continuing intention.
  • Consistent with Fishbein/Ajzen Theory of Reasoned
    Action with the addition of an attitude
    discrepancy construct

11
Pre-Evaluation Phase
Evaluation Phase
Post-Evaluation Phase
Similar Artifacts
This Artifact
ApproachIntentions
Artifact Confirmation
Artifact expectation
Circumplex Evaluation
Regulatory Focus
Quiescence
GoalProgress
Elation
Goal Cognition
AffectChange
State Trait Affect
AvoidanceIntentions
12
Pre-Evaluation Phase
  • Conditions that exist prior to the users
    experience with the artifact
  • Prior experience with similar artifacts
  • Regulatory focus Whether ones purpose in use of
    the artifact is pursuit of a gain or avoidance of
    a loss.
  • Goal cognition Specifically what the user hopes
    to achieve in using the artifact and something
    about his/her strategy or plan for achieving it.
  • Affect (Emotion) The users emotional and mood
    status just prior to the use of the artifact
    (important to establish a baseline for assessing
    subsequent change)

13
Evaluation Phase
  • What occurs during the time the user uses the
    artifact
  • Three processes (with iterations)
  • The user, guided by previous experience with
    similar artifacts, makes sense of the artifact by
    understanding its features, then compare the
    perceived performance with expectation
  • Meanwhile, the user attempts to pursue a
    particular goal, thus cognitively evaluating
    whether s/he is achieving that goal
  • The users hedonic (emotional or affective) state
    changes as a result of making progress toward
    that goal and also a result of making sense of
    the artifact
  • We suggest that reaching a goal or making
    progress toward a goal has a positive influence
    on hedonic state as does recognizing the presence
    of a desired feature that would facilitate goal
    progress

14
Circumplex Affect
  • Following recent psychological research on the
    structure of affect (e.g., Watson and Tellegen)
  • Also consistent with RFT
  • Affect/Emotion has two distinct and orthogonal
    dimensions to it
  • Elation The positive/negative dimension, where
    one falls on the cheerfulness-dejectedness
    dimension
  • Quiescence The activated/inactivated dimension,
    where one falls on the quiescence-agitation
    dimension

15
Post-Evaluation Phase
  • The user reaches a final hedonic state as a
    result of his or her experience with the artifact
  • A memory of this hedonic state will guide his/her
    future behavioral intentions and thereby
    influence subsequent behavior
  • Because RFT and Circumplex describe two distinct
    emotive conditions, the behavioral intentions may
    be separable into
  • Approach intentions
  • Avoidance intentions

16
Examples Using Websites
Person A Person B
Artifact expectation Normal search engines Normal info intensive sites
Regulatory focus Pursue a gain Avoid a loss
Goal Find best airfare for vacation Find info on breast cancer
Affect trait Positive Positive
Affect state Happy, calm Sad, agitated
Artifact confirmation Below expectation Equal to or higher than expectation
Goal progress Not be able to find a decent fare during a reasonable time A comprehensive coverage
Affect change Yes Yes
Elation affect Dejected Sad
Quiescence affect Agitated Calm
Intention Weak approach strong avoidance user will actively seek for alternatives and criticize it when prompted Strong approach and weak avoidance user will actively and frequently reuse or recommend it if opportunities arise
17
Examples (contd) Affect Changes
Person A Bad Travel Site
Person B Good Breast Cancer Site
Happy
Happy
Start
Elation
Elation
End
End
Start
Sad
Sad
Agitated
Calm
Agitated
Calm
Quiescence
Quiescence
18
Preliminary Propositions (1/2)
  • A user, dependent upon the goal (or mood at the
    time of evaluation) may evaluate the same IE
    differently at different times.
  • The users hedonic state can be improved during
    the evaluation process by facilitating goal
    achievement (or matching the artifact toward the
    expectation).
  • Positive changes in Elation component of the
    hedonic state will increase the likelihood of
    subsequence approach behavior may not strongly
    affect subsequent avoidance behavior.
  • Changes in Quiescence (Activation) component of
    the hedonic state toward the agitated end will
    increase the likelihood of subsequent avoidance
    behavior, but will not strongly affect subsequent
    approach behavior.

19
Preliminary Propositions (2/2)
Positive Elation Negative Elation
High Activation Strong approach and strong avoidance user will actively and frequently reuse or recommend IE in an effort to avoid lost opportunities. Weak approach and strong avoidance user will actively seek alternatives and criticize IE in order to help prevent own or others losses due to wasted time or frustration.
Low Activation Strong approach and weak avoidance intentions user may use, revisit, or recommend IE if opportunity arises. Weak approach and weak avoidance user will forget about IE or criticize it if prompted.
20
Pilot Study
  • Designed to explore the salience of various IE
    features
  • E.g., how important were the navigational
    features versus the credibility of the
    information versus the layout, and so forth
  • 150 working people in Spring 2002 a pre-measure
    and a post-measure of mood using Watson and
    Tellegens Positive Affect, Negative Affect
    Survey (PANAS)
  • We found that a brief use of a web-based
    encyclopedia showed changes in both positive and
    negative affect
  • Additionally we found that both person variance
    and artifact variance influenced affect

21
Potential Contributions
  • With more testing, we may have a process model
    that elucidates the processes underlying user
    evaluation of an artifact as well as the likely
    future behavior toward that artifact
  • The model focuses on the hedonic experience a
    user has during goal driven use of an IE.
  • The model tries to clarify constructs and their
    relationships, as well as provide a model-driven
    basis for measurement

22
Potential Practical Contributions
  • May contribute to efforts to change and improve
    the design of IEs identify and cater to users
    potential motivations of using the IEs and
    improve their emotional experiences of using IEs
  • May provide useful strategies for understanding
    and predicting why user evaluations of IEs change
    over time, why users do not agree among
    themselves about the quality of an IE, and how
    strategies/contexts of evaluation may influence
    the outcomes

23
Limitations
  • A preliminary conceptual model needs empirical
    support
  • Quite complex needs trimming in order to include
    just the most important mechanisms and constructs
  • Did not specifically consider repeated use of the
    same IE and the evaluation of it
  • Does not reflect the social context of artifact
    evaluation
  • May have no applicability to evaluation of other
    kinds of products or user interfaces

24
Future Research
  • Operationalize the JEM model
  • Develop research propositions
  • Develop specific hypotheses for empirical testing
  • Complete a preliminary verification
  • Revise the model as needed
  • Confirm the revised model
  • Publish validated assessment tools
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com