Users’ Sense-Making of an Affective Intervention in Human-Computer Interaction
This qualitative interview study builds on an empirical experiment in which an affective intervention was given to users in a critical dialog situation of human-computer interaction (HCI). The applied intervention addressed users on a personal level by asking for their thoughts and feelings. Since this is still an unusual behavior for a technical system, the aim of the present study was to investigate how users reason about this. Three different kinds of individual sense-making processes regarding the intervention were worked out. These clarify that a personal level of interaction between system and user is only appropriate for some users, whereas it also can have adverse effects on others. By explicating users’ experiences and conceptions, this study contributes to research on affective interventions in HCI that in the past was mainly focused on measurements of effectiveness rather than on understanding users‘inner processes regarding such interventions.
KeywordsIntervention User experience Qualitative research Interviews Affective computing Human-Computer interaction
The present study is performed in the framework of the Transregional Collaborative Research Centre SFB/TRR 62 “A Companion-Technology for Cognitive Technical Systems” funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The responsibility for the content of this paper lies with the authors.
- 9.Krüger, J., Wahl, M., Frommer, J.: Making the system a relational partner: users’ ascriptions in individualization-focused interactions with companion-systems. In: Berntzen, L., Böhm, S. (eds.) CENTRIC 2015, The Eighth International Conference on Advances in Human-oriented and Personalized Mechanisms, Technologies, and Services, pp. 48–54. IARIA XPS Press/s.l (2015)Google Scholar
- 10.Wahl, M., Krüger, J., Frommer, J.: From anger to relief: five ideal types of users experiencing an affective intervention in HCI. In: Berntzen, L., Böhm, S. (eds.) CENTRIC 2015, The Eighth International Conference on Advances in Human-Oriented and Personalized Mechanisms, Technologies, and Services, pp. 55–61. IARIA XPS Press/s.l (2015)Google Scholar
- 12.Rösner, D., Frommer, J., Friesen R., Haase, M., Lange, J., Otto, M.: LAST MINUTE: a multimodal corpus of speech-based user-companion interactions. In: LREC Conference Abstracts, pp. 96–104. LREC, Istanbul (2012)Google Scholar
- 13.Frommer, J., Rösner, D., Haase, M., Lange, J., Friesen, R., Otto, M.: Project A3 prevention of Negative courses of dialogues: wizard of Oz experiment operator’s manual. In: Working Paper of the Collaborative Research Project/Transregio 62 “A Companion Technology for Cognitive Technical Systems”. Pabst Science Publication, Lengerich (2012)Google Scholar
- 14.Grawe, K.: Outline of a general psychotherapy. Psychotherapeut 40, 130–145 (1995)Google Scholar
- 15.Lange, J., Frommer, J.: Subjektives Erleben und intentionale Einstellung in Interviews zur Nutzer-Companion-Interaktion [Subjective experience and intentional stance in interveiws regarding user-companion interaction (in German)]. In: Heiß, H.-U., Pepper, P., Schlinghoff, H., Schneider, J. (eds.) Informatik 2011. LNI, vol. 192, p. 240. Köllen, Bonn (2011)Google Scholar
- 16.Kuckartz, U.: MAXQDA: qualitative data analysis. VERBI Softw., Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
- 17.Mayring, P.: Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution, p. 143 (2014). http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173
- 18.Tesch, R.: Qualitative research analysis types and software tools. Palmer Press, New York (1990)Google Scholar
- 19.Reeves, B., Nass, C.: The Media Equation. How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar