Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The relation between time, effort and excitement in digital gifting.
Martijn ten Brinke
Technische Universiteit
Eindhoven
Eindhoven, Netherlands
1241106
Bas Heuvelmans
Technische Universiteit
Eindhoven
Eindhoven, Netherlands
1265245
Lies Fliervoet
Technische Universiteit
Eindhoven
Eindhoven, Netherlands
1258389
Mathias Verheijden
Technische Universiteit
Eindhoven
Eindhoven, Netherlands
123406
Tyana Hendriksma
Technische Universiteit
Eindhoven
Eindhoven, Netherlands
0959147
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses the influence of the effort that needs to
be put in opening a gift and the positive emotions perceived
by the receiver. This concept is applied to a physical
representation of a digital gift named ‘Dono’. This leads to
the following question: Does increasing the effort needed to
receive a digital gift, by using a physical representation,
positively influence the emotion of the receiver? Participants
were introduced to the concept and then tried to catch the
gift. Afterwards data was collected about the emotion that
the participants perceived during this experience and when
receiving a digital gift in a, for them, regular situation. This
data was later on analysed, and the main conclusion is that
participants did experience a positive difference in
emotion compared to a, for them, regular setting.
Key words Digital gifting; level of excitement; time and effort.
INTRODUCTION
Bits and bytes flow through the Internet. Together they form
something that pops up on your computer and there you go:
your “birthday present” that took someone about 1 minute of
effort. This is the image that is usually attached to digital
gifting.
The use of digital gifting is increasing significantly and not
about to stop. Digital gifting grew 20 percent, from $5 billion
in 2013 to $6 billion in 2014, and is continuing to grow today
(Badole, Kamble, Sawakar, & Chinhorkar, 2017). Even
though some say digital gift cards will never replace their
physical counterparts (Kasavana, 2013), often the digital
gifting experience does not live up to the physical gifting
experience (Kwon, Koleva, Schnädelbach, & Benford,
2017). As stated by multiple studies, these are not the only
problems related to digital gifting.
Results (Naquin, Kurtzberg, & Lewin, 2016) indicate that
participants were equally satisfied to receive either a digital
or a physical gift certificate; however, they redeemed them
in unequal amounts. The present research explores the
reaction to unexpected opportunities as a function of how the
communications are received - either via email or as a hard-
copy. People who received a physical gift card were more
likely to redeem their gifts and were more likely to spend a
greater amount of the total gift card than those who received
a digital one.
Another issue with digital gifting is that they are not
considered gifts but rather last-minute throw-aways. Since
digital gifts are not carried in a physical body like a card, the
receiver might have a tendency to forget about the gift, or not
consider it a gift (Kwon, Koleva, Schnädelbach, & Benford,
2017).
Previous research in Computer Supported Collaborative
Work (CSCW) and related fields have addressed (digital)
gifting, however, there is little research on physical
interaction within digital gifting. Cheal (Taute & Sierra,
2015) wrote that gifts help create and maintain social
relationships in a number of ways: providing material
support for recipients, creating normative obligations
between individuals and groups, symbolizing the nature of
the relationship and the social identities of donor and
recipient, as well as communicating personal feelings and
beliefs. It is found that these emotional values and overall
excitement strongly decrease with digital gifting (Kwon,
Koleva, Schnädelbach, & Benford, 2017).
This last issue mentioned regarding digital gifting is covered
far less than other, more practical, issues around digital
gifting. It is even less elaborately mentioned in what relation
this emotional difference between physical and digital
gifting exists. Therefore this study will be focussed towards
A quantitative research through design study
the level of perceived positive emotion throughout the
digital gifting experience compared to physical gifting. This
leads to the following research question: Does increasing the
effort needed to receive a digital gift, by using a physical
representation, positively influence the emotion of the
receiver? The hypothesis accompanying this questions is,
that when increasing the time and effort the excitement,
which is considered a positive emotion, of the receiver will
increase.
The purpose of this study is to research the relationship
between the effort it takes to receive a digital gift and the
experienced level of excitement related to that gift. The
independent variable of effort will be defined as the time it
takes to receive the gift, starting from the moment of
becoming aware of the gift. This is the variable that will be
altered throughout the research. The dependent variable of
excitement will be defined as the experienced level of
excitement of the receiver of the gift, measured on a 7-Point
Likert Scale (Dawes, 2008). This is the variable that will be
measured throughout the research.
RELATED WORK
When looking at the research done on digital gifting, a lot
can be determined. Multiple research, for example, discusses
the increasing popularity of gift cards. This research is
helpful because from that, it can be seen, what causes gift
cards to be so popular. Research has shown that gift cards are
very popular due to the fact that they are more memorable
than regular cash money (Kasavana, 2013). In order to make
a special digital gifting experience, which is what this
research is about, it is aimed at making digital gifting more
memorable as well. The advantage of the research about gift
cards is that a lot is being compared to physical money. The
positive differences in gift cards in relation to physical
money can be helpful to implement in our research. A
disadvantage, on the other hand, is that a lot of the times, it
is difficult to relate this difference directly to digital gifting
which is what we want discuss in our research.
Other research about digital gifting is about the rise of it, why
it is rising, and what it is exactly (Kwon, Koleva,
Schnädelbach, & Benford, 2017). A lot of this research gives
clear information about the positive aspects of digital gifting,
for example, the practical uses for consumers as well as
companies. This information is very helpful because it
allows us to bring these elements forward in our product as
well. A disadvantage of this type of research is the fact that
it does not talk about digital gifting compared to physical
gifting/physical gift cards. Which is information that can be
helpful in order to implement a physical representation into
a digital gift in the right way.
Research by School of Computer Science at the University
of Nottingham has written a paper called: “It’s not yet a
gift”: Understanding Digital Gifting (Kwon, Koleva,
Schnädelbach, & Benford, 2017). This research has
concluded that digital gifting is actually lacking from what a
physical gift has: It has shown that there is a weaker
engagement between the gift giver and receiver and defining
a digital gift as “not yet a gift”. This is a research paper that
is quite the opposite of the pro-physical and-digital gift card
research papers. This has to do with the fact that it states all
the problems of digital gifting when comparing to physical
gifting. An advantage of this is that it can be seen what is
lacking when looking at digital gifting, like a collocated
exchange, and learn from that with our research. A
disadvantage of this type of research is that it often does not
go into detail about the different types of digital gifting and
the origin of it, which could be helpful.
DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN
We developed a concept named Dono, which integrates the
creation of excitement in digital gifting. This is achieved by
creating a sense of curiosity. The curiosity is achieved by
requiring the user to “catch” the gift. The gift is catchable
while the device is lit up, which will become easier over time.
When the gift is “caught” a screen on Dono shows what kind
of gift has been received by virtually unboxing the present.
The design that is created has a cylinder-like shape of
approximately ten centimeters long with a diameter of five
centimeters. The shape will have a small screen at the top of
the cylinder that will display the kind of gift and video
connection when the gift has been “caught” as described. On
the side of the screen, circular digital LED strip will be
placed that will show animations and add aesthetic appeal to
the product. The bottom of the cylinder will have a firm base
with rubber grips in order for the cylinder to stay fixed and
to make sure it won’t slide.
Figure 1: DONO design
The product will be made completely out of wood with a
hollow inside to make the design light enough to be easily
lifted by people of all ages. The electronics needed for the
LED strip and the screen will be able to fit into the inside of
the product as well because of the hollow structure. The
design of the ‘Dono’ is very simple and unobtrusive to
minimise any side effect, e.g. biased answers, the design may
have on the participant’s perception of the product. The main
goal of the Dono within this research is just to show the
participant when they can catch the gift and indicate the time
frame in which the present is catchable.
METHODS
In order to investigate how the effort needed to receive a
digital gift affects the receivers excitement, an experimental
comparison of young adults excitement/enjoyment was
designed by manipulating the amount of effort needed. To
eliminate the order effect, each participant will only
experience one level of effort (Creswell, 2014). Three
different time intervals were chosen in which the ‘Dono’
would lit up. These intervals represent three different amount
of effort. In interval 1 the ‘Dono’ lit up after 30, 25, 20, 15,
10, 5 and 0 seconds. In interval 2 the ‘Dono’ lit up after 50,
40, 30, 20, 10 and 5 second. In interval 3 the ‘Dono’ lit up
after 20, 16, 12, 8, 4 and 2 second. In all intervals the ‘Dono’
becomes easier to catch over time. The time ‘Dono’ was lit
up was the same in all intervals, and becoming longer
overtime. in this case 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 5 and 4 seconds. Between-subjects design will be used since the study
compares different groups with different conditions
(Greenwald, 1976). Between-subjects design minimizes the
learning and transfer across conditions since the participants
are never exposed to several levels of the same independent
variable. The dependent variable in the study is the receiver’s
level of excitement measured directly after completing the
task.
PARTICIPANTS The target population exists of 18 to 25-year-old young
adults. The choice was made for this particular age group
since it is thought that they will be the most open to the
addition of new types of technology in their life. It is
assumed that they don’t need an introduction to technology
like older or younger age groups because they grew up in a
world which is continually being filled with technology
(Statistiek, 2018). In the Netherlands, there are roughly 1.7
million people who fit this age category. 20 participants will
be recruited as the sample. These will be people aged
between 18 and 25, experienced with digital gifting and gift
cards. The participants will be sampled randomly, within our
inclusion criteria, and the population will not be stratified.
The participants do not know about the purpose of the
experiment beforehand. STUDY PROTOCOL The population is sampled following the inclusion criteria.
The sample consists of young adults 18-25, with experience
in digital gifting or with gift cards. The participants will be
randomly assigned to groups. There will be six groups of three people. In each group three
different intervals will be tested. So there will be a total of
18 results. Controlling for the same setting. The participants
will shortly be introduced to the main setup of the research.
The purpose of the Dono will be briefly explained to avoid
any confusion for the participant. In addition to this the
participant will be asked to complete a 7-point Likert scale
(Dawes, 2008) about their experience with digital gifting
and/or gift cards. The participant sits behind a desk and is asked to work on a
medium level sudoku (task 1). ‘Dono’ is set in the same room
two metres away on the same desk. The participant is also
asked to catch a gift: picking up ‘dono’ when the light is on
(task 2). The experiment ends when they complete task 2. The study will take place in a space in Laplace, which is a
building at the Technical University of Eindhoven. There
will be a table and a chair. The table and chair will be
arranged in such a fashion that the Dono will be set across
the table, with a distance of roughly two metres. Next to the
Dono there will be a laptop but this is only used for a power
source.
Figure 2: Study setup
Pretest Session Protocol Posttest - Questionnaire to
collect
demographic
information and
the consent form
- Introduction - Questionnaire
about previous
experience with
digital gifting - Brief
explanation of
the task - Tasks [observation]
- Questionnaire
about
experience with
the task - interview
Table 1: Study Protocol
Two researchers will guide the study. One of these
researchers will observe, take notes on visible emotions and
keep track of time. The second researcher will make the
participants feel at ease, give an introduction to the
experiment and conduct the pre- and posttest survey. The materials used for this experiment are the ‘Dono’, a
stopwatch, a laptop, printed out sudokus, printed out survey
questions, printed out consent forms, pen and paper. This can
all be found in Appendix 5.
A complete test run with 3 participants will be conducted as
a pilot. During this pilot experiment, there will be checked
whether the participants off all groups, with different
conditions, can complete the task of catching the gift. How
much time the entire experiment takes. Whether all the
participants understand the tasks, if all the data can be
gathered and whether the set-up is complete. Any problems
that come up while conducting the pilot are noted and dealt
with before the start of the study. An examples of a change
that was made in the setup was adapting the introduction to
make it understandable for the participant.
MEASUREMENTS
A Pre Questionnaire will be conducted, to collect
demographic information and experience level in digital
gifting. After each session, the participants are given a post-
questionnaire, one-time cross-sectional, based on a modified
version of two subscales measuring positive emotions,
happiness and desire, of the Discrete Emotions
Questionnaire (DEQ) (Harmon-Jones, Bastian, & Harmon-
Jones, The Discrete Emotions Questionnaire: A New Tool
for Measuring State Self-Reported Emotions, 2016), to
provide a numeric description of emotions. The DEQ is
proven to be more sensitive than PANAS at detecting self-
reported emotions to discrete events (Harmon-Jones,
Bastian, & Harmon-Jones, 2016). The rating scale used is
based on the 7-point Likert scale (Dawes, 2008). The time it takes each participant to complete the second task
of ‘catching the gift’ will be measured as well. Additionally,
there will be taken observational notes.
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
In total 18 participants, 10 male and 8 female, were recruited
to conduct this test individually. The age of these participants
was between 18 and 23 years old. All participants were
studying at the TU/e and were located in LaPlace. Of all
participants, one did not study Industrial Design, the rest did.
The test was in English and all the participant were skilled
enough to partake in this test. All participants had some
experience with receiving gift cards. For the two subscales, happiness and desire, of the Discrete
Emotions Questionnaire questionnaire, “Not at all” is coded
as one and “An extreme amount” is coded as seven (Harmon-
Jones, Bastian, & Harmon-Jones, The Discrete Emotions
Questionnaire: A New Tool for Measuring State Self-
Reported Emotions, 2016). Descriptive statistics by the different intervals are shown in
table 1. Individual averages were used since the responses
are independent.
Table 2: Descriptive statistics for the three intervals
The data is normally distributed, which allows for
calculations. The relationship between the different intervals
and the participant's responses on the two subscales of the
DEQ questionnaire was analysed using a MANOVA test.
There were no significant differences found between the
different interval groups. Both for perceived desire (p =
.795), and for perceived happiness (p = .571). The output
table for these results can be found in appendix 6. The relationship between the presence of ‘Dono’ and the
perceived happiness and desire was analyzed for each
interval using T-tests. The output tables can be found in
appendix 6. In interval 1 there was a significant effect for the
presence of ‘Dono’ t(10) = 2.8, p = .018, with perceived
desire receiving higher scores with the presence of ‘Dono’
compared to a more regular gifting experience which means
without the presence of ‘Dono’. Similarly, in interval 2 there
was found a significant effect for the presence of ‘Dono’
t(10) = 4.3, p = .002 and in interval 3 this effect was t(10) =
4.3, p = .002.
Figure 3: Perceived desire for the three intervals
compared to the regular situation
There was no significant effect found in any of the intervals
for the presence of ‘Dono’ on perceived happiness. (p >.05)
Figure 4: Perceived happiness for the three intervals
compared to the regular situation
Moreover, it is important to note that the results may have
been influenced by the participant's previous experiences
with digital gifting.
DISCUSSION The Dono will be bought by the consumer. This is how the
Dono will reach the majority of the society that is interested
in elevating their digital gifting experience. As stated in the
related work section, receivers see digital gifts as impersonal
and as a rather quick solution. From this study it can be seen
that the level of excitement increases for the receiver when
receiving a digital gift after having to perform more effort.
This study therefore has grander societal purpose since this
could help others to improve the digital gifting experience of
the receiver. There are several limitations to the study. The first concerns
the chosen time interval. Three intervals were chosen to
conduct a test with, the choice was made based on own
interpretation of ‘long’, ‘medium’ and ‘short’. A difference
between the level of desire and happiness between the
concept and the normal situation is found, this means that the
chosen intervals do lie within an acceptable time/effort ratio
for the participants. However, if this interval is big or small
compared to the covering interval, is unknown. Also, the
placing of this chosen interval compared to the covering
interval is unknown.
Figure 5: Visualization of the location of the chosen
interval compared to the covering interval
A second limitation is the way participants were recruited. A
legit way would make a list of all people who would fit our
target group. The next step would be to select every tenth
person to conduct the test with. This to eliminate a
convenience sample, in which respondents are chosen based
on their convenience and availability (Crewswell, 2014).
Besides that, the small sample size of 18 participants leads to
a larger margin of uncertainty. Which would mean that this
data would generalize a bigger user group. However, the
participants who did conduct the test are real users with real
opinions. The extent to which these users are representative
for a wider target group is still questionable, but they do
provide insights into their experience. Yet, it is simply
outside the scope of the course to conduct a study which has
the quality to be representative of a whole population.
Besides the fact that the study has limitations, there were also
some mistakes made during the study. The first one concerns
the setting. When involving a user three categories are
important: the setting, user involvement and the level of
control (Wiley, 2015). Of the three settings, controlled,
natural and any setting, the choice is made to go for a natural
setting. This because the primary goal of a natural setting is
to identify opportunities for new technology, establish the
requirements for a new design and facilitate the introduction
of technology or inform deployment of existing technology
in new context. This setting is typically used when testing
social processes (Wiley, 2015). Since the study was
conducted at the University and the product would be a
product which people use when they are at home, a minimum
reconstruction of a living room is created. To imitate a
natural setting for the participants. However, this
reconstruction is not interpreted the same for all participants,
due to the fact that everyone has their own placing of
furniture.
The second mistake is there was an interaction between the
participant and the researcher who was leading the interview.
This interaction arose because there was unclarity about the
questionnaire. Since there were four words describing
happiness and four describing desirabilities, people had
trouble answering these questions because some participants
thought it was weird that four of the eight questions were the
same. From this, a question and therefore an interaction
arose. This interaction could have influenced the
participant’s answer which might have lead to a different
outcome of the questionnaire compared to no interaction.
Besides the interaction during filling in the questionnaire,
interaction arose also during the task which the participants
had to execute. Questions like “Was that the cue?” or
remarks from the researcher, who lead the interview, like
“Did you see that?” when the ring lit up might have
influenced the participant’s behavior and therefore the
outcome of the study. However, reflecting on the chosen
environment ‘natural setting’, an interaction between people
cannot be avoided. Since some kind of interaction cannot be
avoided, it should have been established what could be said
and what couldn’t. An example is that before the participant
will fill out the questionnaire, it is said that no questions can
be asked and that he/she has to fill in the questionnaire after
own interpretation. Another could be that if the person did
not see the LED ring light up for the first time, it is allowed
to mention this. However, all this interaction should be noted
and evaluated to see if it could have led to other answers. The
last mistake in the study setup, which influenced the data
analysis of the study, is that the time of some tests were not
recorded. This data would have been used to undermine
choices to maybe excluded data from the analysis. The data
was not collected out of miscommunication between the
team members.
CONCLUSION
This study looks into the impact of the amount of effort
needed to receive a digital gift, on the emotions experienced
by the receiver. Although there were no significant
differences found between the different intervals, there was
found a significant effect in perceived desire compared to the
regular gift card experience, meaning an increase in effort
does have a positive effect on the perceived emotion of the
receiver. We found an interval which will most likely lie
within a bigger interval, but the placing of this interval is not
yet known. More research is required to be able to elaborate
on this and to be able to use this knowledge to enrich the
digital gifting experience. In conclusion this study
contributes knowledge on the implementation of physical
interaction within the domain of digital gifting.
REFERENCES
[1] Badole, A., Kamble, M., Sawakar, H., &
Chinhorkar, B. (2017). Comparative Analysis of
Digital Gift Card and Physical Gift Card. IJESC.
[2] Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design,
Qualitative: Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc.
[3] Dawes, J. (2008, January 1). Do Data
Characteristics Change According to the Number
of Scale Points Used? An Experiment Using 5-
Point, 7-Point and 10-Point Scales. Retrieved
from SAGE journals:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1470
78530805000106?journalCode=mrea&
[4] Giesler, M. (2014). Consumer Gift Systems.
Journal of Consumer Research, 283-290.
[5] Greenwald, A. G. (1976). Within-subjects designs:
To use or not to use? Psychological Bulletin, 314-
320. Retrieved from APA PsycNET.
[6] Harmon-Jones, C., Bastian, B., & Harmon-Jones,
E. (2016). Detecting transient emotional responses
with improved self-report measures and
instructions.
[7] Harmon-Jones, C., Bastian, B., & Harmon-Jones,
E. (2016, August 8). The Discrete Emotions
Questionnaire: A New Tool for Measuring State
Self-Reported Emotions. Retrieved from NCBI:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4
976910/#pone.0159915
[8] Hornecker, E., & Buur, J. (2006). Getting a Grip
on Tangible Interaction: A Framework on
Physical Space and Social Interaction.
[9] Kasavana, M. L. (2013, June 1). Digital Gifting Is
Trending in the Hospitality Industry. Retrieved
from Hospitality Upgrade:
https://www.hospitalityupgrade.com/_magazine/m
agazinearticles/digital-gifting-is-trending-in-the-
hospitality-industry.asp
[10] Kristensen, E. (2017, November 22). Why are gift
cards better than cash? Retrieved from Huuray!:
http://huuray.com/why-are-gift-cards-better-than-
cash/
[11] Kwon, H., Koleva, B., Schnädelbach, H., &
Benford, S. (2017). "It's Not Yet A Gift":
Understanding Digital Gifting. Nottingham:
Mixed Reality Lab, School of Computer Science,
University of Nottingham, UK.
[12] Naquin, C. E., Kurtzberg, T. R., & Lewin, L.
(2016). High Tech Versus High Touch:
Comparing Electronic and Hard-Copy Gift Cards.
High Tech Versu High Touch, 108-113.
[13] Oey, M. (2017, January 16). Digital Gifting: A
new revenue generator for retailers. Retrieved
from Medium: https://medium.com/a-gardener-of-
life/digital-gifting-a-new-revenue-generator-for-
retailers-607ae53a1faa
[14] Statistiek, C. B. (2018, July 17). Bevolking;
geslacht, leeftijd en burgerlijke staat, 1 januari.
Retrieved from StatLine:
https://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T
&DM=SLNL&PA=7461BEV&D1=0&D2=a&D3
=1-27,101-105,121-123,131&D4=l&HD=110621-
1139&HDR=T,G3,G1&STB=G2
[15] Taute, H. A., & Sierra, J. J. (2015). An
Examination of Emotional Information
Management in Gift Giving and Receipt.
Psychology&Marketing, 203-218.
APPENDIX 1. Appendix Introduction
Qualitative (Screen): This paper starts with giving context
about the topic after that it gives a few examples/studies
regarding the topic. Next, the importance of the research is
stated (As topic becomes more important because reason,
research has to be conducted to find the best way of
implementation). Their solution is explained and why this is
the solution within the topic. Lastly a quick explanation of
the results are drawn and a soft conclusion is given.
Quantitative (Tangibles): This paper starts with giving
context about the topic. After that, previously conducted
research is mentioned, and shortly described, and the niche
is determined. Then, it is explained why this particular
research is necessary and why it will be useful. Lastly a quick
overview of the upcoming paper is given regarding
participants, test setup and the goal(s). This scopes the
research.
Combined Methods (Communication): This paper starts
with giving context about the topic, next it gives a short
overview of what has already been investigated. This paper
also describes the malfunctioning of certain, similar
products. Based on this, the importance of the research is
defined. Next, the new device is being explained and how it
works. It also scopes the research to a user. A quick comparison between these three different types of
papers results to the following. All three papers had remotely
the same structure for the introduction: First the context in which the topic is placed is being
described. Next it is being investigated what research has
already been done and what its shortcomings are. The niche
and scope of the paper is being described based on this
previous research. Lastly, some papers mention already a bit
of the setup of the tests which will follow in the paper
whereas others do not. By giving the reader more insight in
what kind of method is being used, it informs the reader what
type of research has been done (qualitative, quantitative or
mixed methods).
2. Appendix Related Work
Qualitative (Screen): First, examples are given of how
certain similar elements of the new product are already
introduced in the current society. This is undermined with
research and other studies regarding these similar products.
This frames the niche the researchers want to work in. Next,
new sections are created in which certain aspects of the
design/research question are highlighted and revised with
some extra studies.
Quantitative (Tangibles): First it is explained what
different facets of the research there are and what their
advantages/disadvantages are. Next, the niche is being
established and different variables from the research are
being highlighted with new studies.
Combined Methods (Communication): First, examples are
given of how certain similar elements of the new product are
already introduced in the current society. This is undermined
with research and other studies regarding these similar
products. This frames the niche the researchers want to work
in. In this paper also other, commercial products are being
analysed. This to make the niche stronger. At the end of this
section the design is being scoped towards the user which is
done through research. A quick comparison between these three different types of
papers results to the following: The global approach of the three papers is the same,
however, some papers give a different completion than
others. All three papers start with highlighting different
aspects of their design. This is undermined with literature
studies and other research that has been conducted. This
extra research creates an even stronger framework for the
niche of the research that is to be conducted. Some papers
also analyze other, commercial products and highlights the
main advantages and disadvantages.
3. Appendix (Description of design +) Methods
Qualitative (Screen): All aspects of the design are
highlighted and elaborated clearly. As well on why a certain
choice is being made, as why a certain material is chosen
(due to characteristics on a physics based level). Besides that,
the way the prototype is being assembled is also explained to
give the reader a whole insight in how the research has been
conducted. The paper goes within two directions, broad and
deep. It explores on different weaving methods as well on
different densities, on colour and patterns. This is typically
for a qualitative study, to gain knowledge by exploring with
the prototype. Both parties (fashion designers and wearers) within this topic
are being included. It is mentioned what type of data is
gathered and how, but no specific about what type of
questions. It is noticeable that the opinion of the user is key
within the methods since the researchers keep asking
questions to the participants why the make certain choice or
why they give certain answers. Participants are being asked
to compare the prototype to existing, similar products.
Quantitative (Tangibles): The design choice is being
explained and described. Certain elements which could
influence the outcome of the research are being highlighted
and explained how to overcome. It is being explained what
part of the setup will be the same and where the setups differ
from each other. There is overlap between the different
prototypes, this makes the research rather deep than broad.
Each prototype is clearly explained in quantitative means and
the results and adjustments made based on the pilot test are
quickly mentioned. The elements that were being measured
and the method how are being mentioned. These methods
point in the direction of quantitative data due to the chosen
variables (like time, demographic information, level of
experience, etc.). The setting of the study is being described
and the number of participant and the information they were
provided with. Lastly the procedure of the test is being
described mentioning the duration and the types of tests.
Combined Methods (Communication): When defining the
design a combination is used of going broad as well as going
deep. Several variables are being used and for each variable,
two contrasting options are given. Since only two contrasting
options are given, and no range in between, can this be
interpreted as a combined methods approach. Remaining
elements of the design are being mentioned and the choices
are being explained. Why did the team make certain choices.
Lastly a final list of device specifications is given including
preferences for the user. Finally, a list of components for the
technical prototype is given including specifications of these
certain components. A pilot test was conducted and the setup
of this test is being explained. For the final test, the goal and
the hypothesis are stated. Next, it is explained that the test
will consist of two different task. As the paper continues, the
different tasks are being explained. The explanation includes
specifics about the test setup e.g. time and tasks. In the test
setups one can see that qualitative as well as quantitative data
can be obtained. Lastly, specifics on the participants are
being mentioned. Who were these participants, did they work
in pairs or alone, what was the testing environment, how did
they react when first interacting with the product. When comparing the three papers, the difference in research
approach becomes more clear in this part of the paper. While
coming to a final design, the qualitative research method
takes a broad approach and elaborates on a lot of different
aspect of the design. For the quantitative research method
only a few elements of the design are being changed and
these differences are being analyzed. Lastly, the combined
methods paper combines the previously described
approaches, but only takes the baseline of the two. In other
words, it broadens up a bit but not too much which makes
that the research tries to gain knowledge which is deep and
broad at the same time. The methods that are being used are also typical for the
chosen research method. Different types of data can be
obtained by conducting different types of tests, each paper
chooses it test setup according to the data that is wanted. This
is also being explained in the paper, what the data is for.
4. Appendix Data analysis + Results
Qualitative (Screen): The amount of participants is stated
including some demographic information. A global
overview is given of differences and similarities. Then, some
meaningful insights are highlighted and undermined with an
example or statements of the participants. Next, certain key
points of the design are isolated and analyzed based on the
participants sayings. Likes and dislikes about these key
points are being mentioned. Quoting statements of
participants is appears common. When analyzing the
retrieved data, the researchers point out various aspects of
the design and analyze these by mentioning quotes from the
participants. In each section soft conclusions are being drawn. The
conclusions are soft because of the small number of
participants and it is an interpretation of the answers of the
participants by the researchers.
Quantitative (Tangibles): A quick overview on what type
of type data was being collected. The data is being analyzed
the same way as the test was conducted, so first an
introduction of the participant based on the demographic
information of the first interview. Although this is a
quantitative paper, qualitative data is being gathered and thus
there are two different paragraphs within this section. Quantitative: Analyzing methods are being mentioned for
different facets of the research and statistical conclusions are
drawn based on statistics. Qualitative: Analyzing different qualitative facets of the
research on a soft statistical level and stating observations. Each type of product is being evaluated, in a quantitative
manner, and a comparison between these three products is
being made. The previously stated hypothesis is being tested
and the level of significance is being computed. From these
results a conclusion is drawn per section and per aspect.
Combined Methods (Communication): Qualitative
elements (e.g. empathy and turn-taking) of the test are being
observed and summarized but also transformed into
quantitative results. Of these elements graphs and soft
statistic are given from which soft conclusion are being
drawn. When comparing the three papers it is seen that both types of
data (qualitative and quantitative) are questionable when
analyzing them. Qualitative data tends to make more use of
what people say, which becomes less reliable due to the own
interpretation of the researchers. Whereas quantitative data
needs a significance test in order to accept or reject an
hypothesis.
5. Appendix materials used for experiment
Consent form
Research With this research we are trying to gain insight in the way
how users will be interacting with our device. You will be
asked to perform some tasks related to our device. After that
you will be asked some questions about the experience. Permission I hereby indicate that I voluntarily participate in this research
on interaction techniques, which is executed by
___________________________ . The research consists of
executing a finite amount of interactions according to
instructions given by the researcher and displayed on the
screen. I understand that I am not responsible for any damage
or defects that might occur. I understand that the risks I take
during this research are no additions to risks I take every day.
I understand that for research purposes movement data is
recorded during the study. I hereby give permission to use
this data to evaluate the study. I also give permission to be recorded on a photograph or
video. I understand that this media is use by the researchers
to revisit the study at hand. I give permission that media in
which I am unrecognisable could be used in publications and
presentations to be visible for a limited audience. I
understand that my answers on the questions will be
documented and used in the reports. I understand that the
data will be anonymized, after which it will not be possible
to trace back to my participation. I understand that my name
will never be named in reports of this research. Participation I understand that participation is voluntarily. With any
question I do not want to answer I have the right not to
answer. I can refrain from participation at any moment.
Abstinence from my participation in this study has no effect
on the relationship with the researchers. I have been given
the opportunity to ask any questions I have regarding the
study before participation. Contact If you have any questions during or after the study feel free
to contact the researchers at any time given. The first contact
is___________________________ , reachable at
___________________________. I have read and understood the above:
Signature
___________________________________________ Date______/_______/______ Name ___________________________________________
Agreement by researcher Signature
___________________________________________ Date______/_______/______
Questionnaire Thank you for agreeing to take part in this experiment.
Today we will be gaining your thoughts and opinions for
research purposes. This experiment should only take 10-15
minutes.
Name:
Age:
Experience with (receiving) gift cards: Yes
/ No
(optional) E-mail:
(optional) Notes:
The Discrete Emotions Questionnaire (1)
Please indicate your response using the scale provided.
While receiving the gift card, to what extent did you
experience these emotions?
1. Wanting
1
N
ot
at
all
2
Slight
ly
3
Somew
hat
4
Moderat
ely
5
Qui
te a
bit
6
Ver
y
muc
h
7
An
extre
me
amou
nt
2. Satisfaction
1
N
ot
at
all
2
Slight
ly
3
Somew
hat
4
Moderat
ely
5
Qui
te a
bit
6
Ver
y
muc
h
7
An
extre
me
amou
nt
3. Craving
1
N
ot
at
all
2
Slight
ly
3
Somew
hat
4
Moderat
ely
5
Qui
te a
bit
6
Ver
y
muc
h
7
An
extre
me
amou
nt
4. Happy
1
N
ot
at
all
2
Slight
ly
3
Somew
hat
4
Moderat
ely
5
Qui
te a
bit
6
Ver
y
muc
h
7
An
extre
me
amou
nt
5. Longing
1
N
ot
at
all
2
Slight
ly
3
Somew
hat
4
Moderat
ely
5
Qui
te a
bit
6
Ver
y
muc
h
7
An
extre
me
amou
nt
6. Enjoyment
1
N
ot
at
all
2
Slight
ly
3
Somew
hat
4
Moderat
ely
5
Qui
te a
bit
6
Ver
y
muc
h
7
An
extre
me
amou
nt
7. Desire
1
N
ot
at
all
2
Slight
ly
3
Somew
hat
4
Moderat
ely
5
Qui
te a
bit
6
Ver
y
muc
h
7
An
extre
me
amou
nt
8. Liking
1
N
ot
at
all
2
Slight
ly
3
Somew
hat
4
Moderat
ely
5
Qui
te a
bit
6
Ver
y
muc
h
7
An
extre
me
amou
nt
The Discrete Emotions Questionnaire (2)
Please indicate your response using the scale provided.
While receiving the gift card, to what extent did you
experience these emotions?
9. Wanting
1
N
ot
at
all
2
Slight
ly
3
Somew
hat
4
Moderat
ely
5
Qui
te a
bit
6
Ver
y
muc
h
7
An
extre
me
amou
nt
10. Satisfaction
1
N
ot
at
all
2
Slight
ly
3
Somew
hat
4
Moderat
ely
5
Qui
te a
bit
6
Ver
y
muc
h
7
An
extre
me
amou
nt
11. Craving
1
N
ot
at
all
2
Slight
ly
3
Somew
hat
4
Moderat
ely
5
Qui
te a
bit
6
Ver
y
muc
h
7
An
extre
me
amou
nt
12. Happy
1
N
ot
at
all
2
Slight
ly
3
Somew
hat
4
Moderat
ely
5
Qui
te a
bit
6
Ver
y
muc
h
7
An
extre
me
amou
nt
13. Longing
1
N
ot
at
all
2
Slight
ly
3
Somew
hat
4
Moderat
ely
5
Qui
te a
bit
6
Ver
y
muc
h
7
An
extre
me
amou
nt
14. Enjoyment
1
N
ot
at
all
2
Slight
ly
3
Somew
hat
4
Moderat
ely
5
Qui
te a
bit
6
Ver
y
muc
h
7
An
extre
me
amou
nt
15. Desire
1
N
ot
at
all
2
Slight
ly
3
Somew
hat
4
Moderat
ely
5
Qui
te a
bit
6
Ver
y
muc
h
7
An
extre
me
amou
nt
16. Liking
1
N
ot
at
all
2
Slight
ly
3
Somew
hat
4
Moderat
ely
5
Qui
te a
bit
6
Ver
y
muc
h
7
An
extre
me
amou
nt
Sudoku
6. Appendix tables
(SPSS) Manova output table
(SPSS) T-test output table Desire
(SPSS) T-test output table Happiness
