Abstract
In this paper, we suggest Laddering as a promising empirical method to evaluate the impact of tangibility on young children’s user experiences. In the first part of this paper, we explain what Laddering is. We explicate the conceptual foundations of Laddering, discuss the typical Laddering interviewing technique and focus on the Laddering data treatment. Then, we argue why Laddering might be especially valuable in a context of UX evaluations of tangible and embedded interfaces with children. In the second part of this paper, we present a case study, comparing three cuddly toy interfaces, and we demonstrate how Laddering can be used with preschoolers to explain preferences between these tangible interfaces. The case study confirms that Laddering can contribute to verifying the assumed benefits of tangibility. Laddering revealed how specific cuddly toy attributes as opposed to non-cuddly toy attributes led to specific benefits for the young participants. However, contrary to research findings from developmental literature, only children aged 5 years and older proved to be capable of performing as full Laddering respondents.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In fact, Means-End Theory closely parallels Expectancy-Value theories, as put forward by Fishbein and Ajzen, and is built upon by communication media scholars via Uses &Gratifications paradigm. Readers that would like to read more about the similarities between these models, especially with relation to ‘likeability for preschoolers’ are referred to [14].
None of the children realized that a human Wizard steered their interaction, a pilot study revealed that even adults did not detect this.
References
Norman D (2007) The next UI breakthrough, part 2: physicality. Interactions 14:46–47
Fitzmaurice GW, Ishii H, Buxton WAS (1995) Bricks laying the foundations for graspable user interfaces. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, Denver, Colorado, USA, pp 442–449
Ullmer B, Ishii H (2001) Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces. In: Caroll BW (ed) Human-computer interaction in the new millennium. Addison-Wesley, MA, pp 579–601
Dourish P (2001) Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge
Djajadiningrat T, Wensveen S, Frens J, Overbeeke K (2004) Tangible products: redressing the balance between appearance and action. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 8:294–309
Wensveen SAG, Djajadiningrat JP, Overbeeke CJ (2004) Interaction frogger: a design framework to couple action and function through feedback and feedforward. Presented at the, Cambridge, MA, USA
Hornecker E, Buur J (2006) Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Montréal, Québec, Canada, pp 437–446
Antle AN (2007) The CTI framework: informing the design of tangible systems for children. Proceedings of the 1st international conference on tangible and embedded interaction. ACM, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, pp 195–202
Price S, Rogers Y, Scaife M, Stanton D, Neale H (2003) Using ‘tangibles’ to promote novel forms of playful learning. Interact Comput 15:169–185
Marshall P, Price S, Rogers Y (2003) Conceptualising tangibles to support learning. Presented at the, Preston, England
Xie L, Antle AN, Motamedi N (2008) Are tangibles more fun?: comparing children’s enjoyment and engagement using physical, graphical and tangible user interfaces. Presented at the, Bonn, Germany
Marshall P (2007) Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? Proceedings of the 1st international conference on tangible and embedded interaction. ACM, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, pp 163–170
Gutman J (1982) A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. J Mark 46:60–72
Vanden Abeele V, Zaman B (2008) The extended likeability framework: a theoretical framework for and a practical case of designing likeable media applications for preschoolers. Advances in human-computer interaction. p 11
Reynolds T, Gutman J (2001) Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. In: Reynolds T, Olsen J (eds) Understanding consumer decision making: the means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, London, pp 25–52
Olson JC, Reynolds TJ (1983) Understanding consumers’ cognitive structures: implications for advertizing strategy. Advertising and consumer psychology. Lexington Books, Lexington, pp 77–90
Grunert KG, Beckmann SC, Sorensen E (1996) Means-end chains and laddering: an inventory of problems and an agenda for research. understanding consumer decision-making: the means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy. Lawrence Earlbaum, Mahwah, pp 63–90
Reynolds T, Gutman J (1988) Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation
Bech-Larsen T (2000) Model-based development and testing of advertising messages â€. A comparative study of two campaign proposals based on the Meccas model and a conventional approach. University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, The MAPP Centre
Grunert KG, Bech-Larsen T (2005) Explaining choice option attractiveness by beliefs elicited by the laddering method. J Econ Psychol 26:223–241
Bech-Larsen T, Nielsen NA (1999) A comparison of five elicitation techniques for elicitation of attributes of low involvement products. J Econ Psychol 20:315–341
Reynolds TJ, Dethloff C, Westberg SJ (2001) Advancements in laddering. In: Reynolds TJ, Olson JC (eds) Understanding consumer decision-making: the means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy. Lawrence Elbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp 91–118
Kelly GA (1963) A theory of personality: the psychology of personal constructs. W.W.Norton & Co, NY
Hassenzahl M, Trautmann T (2001) Analysis of web sites with the repertory grid technique. CHI ‘01 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, Washington, pp 167–168
Karapanos E, Martens J (2008) The quantitative side of the repertory grid technique: some concerns. Proceedings of the workshop now let’s do it in practice: user experience evaluation methods in product development. Florence, Italy
Hawley M (2007) The repertory grid: eliciting user experience comparisons in the customer’s voice: UXmatters. http://www.zotero://attachment/613/
Fallman D (2004) Integrating user experience into the design process with the repertory grid technique: some preliminary notes. Presented at the
Hassenzahl M (2004) The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. In: Blythe M, Overbeeke K, Monk A, Wright P (eds) Funology: from usability to enjoyment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, pp 31–41
Obrist M, Roto V, Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K (2009) User experience evaluation: do you know which method to use? Proceedings of the 27th international conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, Boston, pp 2763–2766
Roto V, Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K, Law E, Vermeeren A (2009) User experience evaluation methods in product development (UXEM’09). Human-computer interaction—INTERACT 2009. pp 981–982
Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K, Roto V, Hassenzahl M (2008) Now let’s do it in practice: user experience evaluation methods in product development. CHI ‘08 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, Florence, Italy, pp 3961–3964
Law E, Roto V, Hassenzahl M, Vermeeren A, Kort J (2009) Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach. Proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, Boston, pp 719–728
Roto V, Vaananen-Vainio-Mattila, Law E, Vermeeren A (2009) User experience evaluation methods in product development (UXEM’09) Lecture Notes In Computer Science, vol 5727. ACM Press, NY, pp 981–982
Law E, Roto V, Vermeeren AP, Kort J, Hassenzahl M (2008) Towards a shared definition of user experience. CHI ‘08 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Florence, Italy, pp 2395–2398
Hassenzahl M (2004) The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product. Funology, from usability to enjoyment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 31–42
Cockton G (2008) Designing worth—connecting preferred means to desired ends. Interactions 15:54–57
Cockton G (2004) Value-centred HCI. Proceedings of the third Nordic conference on human-computer interaction. ACM, Tampere, Finland, pp 149–160
Cockton G (2004) From quality in use to value in the world. CHI ‘04 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Vienna, Austria, pp 1287–1290
International organization for standardization: ISO 9241-210:2010—Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Part 210: human-centred design for interactive systems, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=52075
Hassenzahl M (2008) Aesthetics in interactive products: correlates and consequences of beauty. In: Schifferstein H, Hekkert P (eds) Product experience. Elsevier, New York, pp 287–302
Kelly G (1955) The psychology of personal constructs. Norton, New York
Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, MA
Sluis-Thiescheffer W, Bekker T, Eggen B (2007) Comparing early design methods for children. Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Interaction design and children. ACM, Aalborg, Denmark, pp 17–24
Druin A (1999) Cooperative inquiry: developing new technologies for children with children. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit. ACM, Pittsburgh, pp 592–599
Sluis-Theischeffer W, Bekker T, Eggen B (2009) Adding user creativity to the UX toolbox: Exploring the use of Creative UX methods. Presented at the 13th CHI Netherlands, The Netherlands
Barendregt W (2006) Evaluating fun and usability in computer games with children. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven
Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1993) Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Als BS, Jensen JJ, Skov MB (2005) Comparison of think-aloud and constructive interaction in usability testing with children. Proceeding of the 2005 conference on Interaction design and children—IDC ‘05. Boulder, Colorado, pp 9–16
Höysniemi J, Hämäläinen P, Turkki L (2003) Using peer tutoring in evaluating the usability of a physically interactive computer game with children. Interact Comput 15:203–225
Kesteren IEHV, Bekker MM, Vermeeren APOS, Lloyd PA (2003) Assessing usability evaluation methods on their effectiveness to elicit verbal comments from children subjects. Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Interaction design and children. ACM, Preston, pp 41–49
Read JC, Markopoulos P (2008) Lifelong interactions. Understanding children’s interactions. Interactions 15:26
Read JC (2008) Validating the fun toolkit: an instrument for measuring children’s opinions of technology. Cogn Tech Work 10:119–128
ISO 9241-210:2010—Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Part 210: human-centred design for interactive systems, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=52075
Vanden Abeele V, Zaman B, Vanden Abeele M (2008) The unlikeability of a cuddly toy interface: an experimental study of preschoolers’ likeability and usability of a 3D game played with a cuddly toy versus a keyboard. In: Markopoulos et al. (eds) Fun and games 2008, LNCS 5294. Springer, Berlin, pp 118–131
Lemish D (2007) Preschoolers, media impact on developmental needs of. In: Arnett JJ (ed) Encyclopaedia of children, adolescents, and the media. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 407–410
Rice F (1998) Human development: a life-span approach. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Bukatko D (2001) Child development: a thematic approach. Houghton Mifflin, Boston
Irwin LG (2005) Interviewing young children: explicating our practices and dilemmas. Qual Health Res 15:821–831
Bretherton I, Beeghly M (1982) Talking about internal states: the acquisition of an explicit theory of mind. Dev Psychol 18:906–921
Dunn J, Bretherton I, Munn P (1987) Conversations about feeling states between mothers and their young children. Dev Psychol 23:132–139
Hickling A, Wellman H (2001) The emergence of children’s causal explanations and theories: evidence from everyday conversation. Dev Psychol 37:668–683
Miller P, Aloise P (1989) Young children’s understanding of the psychological causes of behavior: a review. Child Dev 60:257–285
Berk L (1999) Development through the lifespan, 3rd edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston
Bidell T, Fisher K (1992) Beyond the stage debate: action, structure, and variability in Piagetian theory and research. In: Sternberg R, Berg C (eds) Intellectual development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 100–140
Johnson MP, Wilson A, Blumberg B, Kline C, Bobick A (1999) Sympathetic interfaces: using a plush toy to direct synthetic characters. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit. ACM, Pittsburgh, pp 152–158
Paiva A, Andersson G, Höök K, Mourão D, Costa M, Martinho C (2002) SenToy in FantasyA: designing an affective sympathetic interface to a computer game. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 6:378–389
Zaman B, Vanden Abeele V (2007) How to measure the likeability of tangible interaction with preschoolers. Proceedings of CHI.NL. Infotec Nederland BV Woerden. Eindhoven, The Netherlands, pp 57–59
Andersson G, Höök K, Mourão D, Paiva A, Costa M (2002) Using a Wizard of Oz study to inform the design of SenToy. Proceedings of the 4th conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. ACM, London, England, pp 349–355
Höysniemi J, Hämäläinen P, Turkki L (2004) Wizard of Oz prototyping of computer vision based action games for children. Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Interaction design and children: building a community. ACM, Maryland, pp 27–34
Zaman B (2009) Introducing a pairwise comparison scale for UX evaluations with preschoolers. Human-computer interaction—INTERACT 2009. pp 634–637
LadderUX on line and freely available software tool for UX laddering, www.ladderux.org
Pieters R, Baumgartner H, Allen D (1995) A means-end chain approach to consumer goal structures. Int J Res Mark 12:227–244
Vanden Abeele V, Zaman B (2009) Laddering the user experience! User experience methods, interact 2009. Uppsala, Sweden
Reynolds TJ, Olson JC (2001) Understanding consumer decision making
Zaman B (2007) Introducing contextual laddering to evaluate the likeability of games with children. Cogn Tech Work 10:107–117
Acknowledgments
We like to thank all preschoolers who participated in the Laddering study. Furthermore, we like to thank the animators of the summer day camp Kattestroof and the community of Bertem, JITSOC for granting us the permission to conduct this research on their playgrounds. We like to thank master students Leonard Van Domselaer (for creating the penguin) and especially Michiel Van Minnebrugge (for his wizardly patience). We also like to thank the under or above the radar work of the TOEWIE team, namely technical artists Jelle Husson and Jeroen Wauters for kakatoewie and kangaroo, Maarten Vanoverveldt and Luc Geurts for the future signal processing and Frederik Windey for the aid in the game development… and finally Stef Desmet for his meticulous reading.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vanden Abeele, V., Zaman, B. & De Grooff, D. User eXperience Laddering with preschoolers: unveiling attributes and benefits of cuddly toy interfaces. Pers Ubiquit Comput 16, 451–465 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0408-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0408-y