Influence of User Characteristics on Coping with Stress

  • Matthias HaaseEmail author
  • Martin Krippl
  • Swantje Ferchow
  • Mirko Otto
  • Jörg Frommer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9736)


There is still a lack of empirical evidence on the effects of user-characteristics on behavior towards computer systems. With regard to this, usage behavior has been surveyed intensively during the last few years by means of partial huge samples. However, most studies use secondary sources (e.g. questionnaires) rather than investigating actual behavior as the dependent measure. The present study therefore aims to examine the impact of individual user characteristics on dealing with situations experienced as challenging when interacting with a computer system. This process revealed that findings in personality research can be transferred to human-computer interaction.


Companion system User characteristics Personality traits Problem solving Wizard of Oz experiment 



The presented 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 remains with the authors.


  1. 1.
    Weizenbaum, J.: ELIZA: a computer programm for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Commun. ACM 9(1), 36–45 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rogers, C.R.: Client-centered psychotherapy. Sci. Am. 187, 1–7 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nass, C., Moon, Y., Carney, P.: Are people polite to computers? Responses to computer-based interviewing systems. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 5(29), 1093–1110 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reeves, B., Nass, C.: The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. CSLI Publications, Cambridge University Press, Stanford, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brandtzaeg, P.B.: Towards a unified Media-User Typology (MUT): a meta-analysis and review of the research literature on media-user typologies. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26, 940–956 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weinberg, G.M.: The Psychology of Computer Programming. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Svendsen, G.B., Johnsen, J.-A.K., Almås-Sørensen, L., Vittersø, J.: Personality and technology acceptance: the influence of personality factors on the core constructs of the Technology Acceptance Model. Behav. Inf. Technol. 32(4), 323–334 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Behrenbruch, K., Söllner, M., Leimeister, J.M., Schmidt, L.: Understanding diversity – the impact of personality on technology acceptance. In: Kotzé, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2013, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 8120, pp. 306–313. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wagner, N., Hassanein, K., Head, M.: Computer use by older adults: a multi-disciplinary review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26(5), 870–882 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Howard, G.S.: Computer Anxiety and Management Use of Microcomputers. UMI Research Press, Ann Arbor (1986)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    King, J., Bond, T., Blandford, S.: An investigation of computer anxiety by gender and grade. Comput. Hum. Behav. 18(1), 69–84 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Naumann, A., Hermann, F., Niedermann, I., Peissner, M., Henke, K.: Interindividuelle Unterschiede in der Interaktion mit Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie. In: Gross, T. (ed.) Mensch und Computer 2007: Interaktion im Plural. Oldenbourg, München (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dickhäuser, O., Stiensmeier-Pelster, J.: Erlernte Hilflosigkeit am Computer? Geschlechtsunterschiede in computerspezifischen Attributionen. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht 27, 486–496 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D’Amico, M., Baron, L.J., Sissons, M.E.: Gender differences in attributions about microcomputer learning in elementary school. Sex Roles 33(5–6), 353–385 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hassenzahl, M.: The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. In: Blythe, M., Overbeeke, C., Monk, A.F., Wright, P.C. (eds.) Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, pp. 31–42. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deng, L., Turner, D.E., Gehling, R., Prince, B.: User experience, satisfaction, and continual usage intention of IT. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 19(1), 60–75 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Loyd, B.H., Gressard, C.: The effects of sex, age, and computer experience on computer attitudes. AEDS J. 18(2), 67–77 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Igbaria, M., Iivari, J.: The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega 23(6), 587–605 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dörner, D.: Problemlösen als Informationsverarbeitung. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart (1976)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Funke, J.: Complex problem solving: a case for complex cognition? Cogn. Process. 11(2), 133–142 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schneider, T.R., Rench, T.A., Lyons, J.B., Riffle, R.R.: The influence of neuroticism, extraversion and openness on stress responses. Stress Health: J. Intl. Soc. Invest. Stress 28(2), 102–110 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Williams, P.G., Smith, T.W., Gunn, H.E., Uchino, B.N.: Personality and stress: individual differences in exposure, reactivity, recovery, and restoration. In: Contrada, R.J., Baum, A. (eds.) Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health, pp. 231–246. Springer, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ebstrup, J.F., Eplov, L.F., Pisinger, C., Jørgensen, T.: Association between the Five Factor personality traits and perceived stress: is the effect mediated by general self-efficacy? Anxiety Stress Coping 24(4), 407–419 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lindenberger, U., Kliegl, R., Baltes, P.B.: Professional expertise does not eliminate age differences in imagery-based memory performance during adulthood. Psychol. Aging 7(4), 585–593 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E., Teasdale, J.D.: Learned helplessness in humans: critique and reformulation. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 87(1), 49–74 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T.: A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Pers. Individ. Differ. 36(3), 587–596 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Frommer, J., Rösner, D., Haase, M., Lange, J., Friesen, R., Otto, M.: Project A3 - Detection and Avoidance of Failures in Dialogues. Pabst Science Publisher, Lengerich (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Haase, M., Lange, J., Rösner, D., Frommer, J.: Eigenschaften von Nutzern in der Mensch-Computer-Interaktion. In: Peters, S. (ed.) Die Technisierung des Menschlichen und die Humanisierung der Maschine: Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur Interdependenz von Mensch und Technik, pp. 54–74. Mitteldeutscher Verlag, Halle (2015)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grawe, K.: Grundriß einer Allgemeinen Psychotherapie. Psychotherapeut 40, 130–145 (1995)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bickmore, T., Gruber, A., Picard, R.: Establishing the computer–patient working alliance in automated health behavior change interventions. Patient Educ. Couns. 59(1), 21–30 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hone, K.: Empathic agents to reduce user frustration: the effects of varying agent characteristics. Interact. Comput. 18(2), 227–245 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tullis, T., Albert, B.: Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rösner, D., Frommer, J., Friesen, R., Haase, M., Lange, J., Otto, M.: LAST MINUTE: a multimodal corpus of speech-based user-companion interactions. In: Workshop abstracts, LREC 2012, Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 2559–2566. ELRA, Istanbul (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Haase
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Krippl
    • 2
  • Swantje Ferchow
    • 1
  • Mirko Otto
    • 3
  • Jörg Frommer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Medical FacultyOtto-von-Guericke University MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Psychology, Department Methodology, Psychodiagnostics and Evaluation ResearchOtto-von-Guericke University MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany
  3. 3.Computing CenterOtto-von-Guericke University MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations