Developing an instrument to assess the impact of attitude and social norms on user selection of an interface design: a repertory grid approach Willem-Paul

Developing an instrument to assess the impact of attitude and social norms on user selection of an interface design: a repertory grid approach

Willem-Paul Brinkman Steve Love

Topics

Research Motivation

Repertory Grid Analysis – initial

instrument

Survey – validation instrument

Attitude, Social Norm and Design

Selection

Conclusions & Future Research

Ultimate aim is to understand why people select a specific design for their device.

Motivation

Motivation

User Personalit

y

Intention of selecting a

specific type of design

However, correlations were relatively small (Brinkman and Fine, 2005)

A less direct approach is needed as users might have different criteria to evaluate a design.

Because of colour or theme

Motivation

Attitude towards

selecting a specific design

type

Subjective Norm

Relative importance

Adoption of Theory of Reason Action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980)



User Personalit

y

Research questions1. What criteria do people use to

evaluate a design? 2. What impact do attitude and

social norm have on the selection of a design?

Motivation

Different social context

1. Public application (mobile phone)?

2. Private application (PC multimedia player)?

Motivation

Aim - Develop two evaluation instruments to assess people’s attitude and social norm towards:1. Mobile phone 2. PC Multimedia Player Skins

First question: what criteria do people use to evaluate a phone or Multimedia Player Skin?

Motivation

Repertory Grid Analysis

Personal Construct Theory: Everyone interprets (or constructs) events and their universe differently.

Constructs are bipolar, for example to describe friends: easy-going versus tense, reliable versus unreliable. etc

Repertory Grid Analysis: a method to elicit these specific constructs.

George Kelly

Repertory Grid AnalysisGeneral Procedure Split up triad into 2

groups Label the groups Rate the object on

construct Create Grid




Male

Female




Male Female




Looking for similarities between the constructs

Apply a Factor Analysis

Phone Ma

le-f

em

ale

Bo

y-G

irl

Co

mp

lex-

Sim

ple

Un

usa

ble

-Usa

ble

La

rge

-Ea

sy t

o u

se

1 7 6 3 2 1 2 5 5 7 7 6 3 2 2 6 7 6 4 3 2 3 4 2 5 1 2 7 6 5 6 2 3 1 2 3

Repertory Grid AnalysisMethod Participants Material Procedure

20 Participants Brunel University Students or

Staff members 10 males, 10 females Mean age of 26.5 years (SD =

4.84)


Photo of 15 mobile phones taken from Mobile Digest news website.


Screen prints from 15 skins taken from earlier study (Brinkman and Fine, 2005)


Two sessions: Mobile phone and Skins

Sequence of the sessions was counterbalanced

10 randomly drawn triads, with no repeating triads

Afterwards rating the phone and skins on the 10 constructs

Total interview took around 2 hours

Repertory Grid AnalysisAnalysis Data Rules Mobile Phone Skins

200 mobile phone and 200 skin constructs

Factor Analysis used principal-component extraction method and varimax rotation

Aim -> to identify common constructs themes used by multiple participants.

Phone Ma

le-f

em

ale

Bo

y-G

irl

Co

mp

lex-

Sim

ple

Un

usa

ble

-Usa

ble

La

rge

-Ea

sy t

o u

se

1 7 6 3 2 1 2 5 5 7 7 6 3 2 2 6 7 6 4 3 2 3 4 2 5 1 2 7 6 5 6 2 3 1 2 3


Selection criteria to select component

1. Factor loadings (correlations) below 0.69 were ignored.

2. Components should have constructs loading from at least 5 different participants

3. A clear semantic relationship between the labels of the construct should exist.


Gender G1 Feminine – Masculine

G2 Female – Male

G3 Girl - Boy

Maturity M1 Immature – Mature

M2 Childish – Sophisticated

M3 Playful – Serious

M4 Silly - Classy

Professionalism P1 Unprofessional –

Professional

P2 Fun – Technical

P3 Novelty – Business

P4 Amateur - Expert

Ease of use

Reliability R1 High failure rate - Low

failure rate

R2 Unreliable – Reliable

R3 Unsound – Robust

R4 Easy to break - Not easy to break

R5 Unprotected - Protected

E1 Complicated - Simple to use

E2 Difficult – Plain

E3 Hard to use - Easy to use

E4 Complex – Simple

E5 Difficult to carry - Easy to carry

3 Components / dimensions

Appearance of the mobile

phone

Appearance of the mobile

phone


Progressive PO1 Expected –

Unexpected

PO2 Standard – Fashionable

PO3 Conventional – Unconventional

PO4 Boring – Appealing

PO5 Plain – Interesting

Ease EA1 Complex – Simplistic

EA2 Scream – Peaceful

EA3 Complicated – Intuitive

EA4 Cluttered – Simple

EA5 Tension - Calm

Fun of use FO1 Serious – Humorous

FO2 Sombre – Lively

FO3 Dull – Relaxing

FO4 Depressing – Uplifting

FO5 Bland – Vibrant

Futuristic FU1 Outdated –

Ultramodern

FU2 Traditional – Futuristic

FU3 Basic – Creative

FU4 Natural – Techie

FU5 Old - Space age

4 Components / Dimensions

Survey Aim Procedure Participants Analysis Results

Validate the scales obtained from the Repertory Gird Analysis


To evaluate the middle mobile phone/skin with the scales provided


156 students of the School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics (Brunel, UK)

Average age 23.6 years (SD = 4.79)

57 female, 75 male (24 did not report gender)


Reliability analysis to examine the internal consistency of the scales within dimension

Dimension “Reliability” for mobile phone removed Cronbach’s alpha < 0.7

Factor Analysis Component with Eigen

value > 1 Scales loading > 0.7


Gender Feminine - Masculine Female - Male Girl - Boy

Sophistication Childish - Sophisticated Silly - Classy Novelty - Business

Ease of Use Hard to use - Easy to use Complex - Simple Complicated - Simple to use

Stimulation Boring – Appealing Depressing – Uplifting Bland – Vibrant Plain – Interesting

Ease Complicated – Intuitive Complex – Simplistic Cluttered – Simple

Scales for Mobile Phones

Scales for Multimedia Player skins

Attitude, Social Norm and Design Selection

Attitude towards


type

Subjective Norm



Second question: What impact do attitude and social norm have on the selection of a design?

Additional information collecting in Grid interviews

Additional information collecting in Grid interviews

Attitude Social Norm Intention Results

The evaluation (e) of a skin/phone on a scale.

The importance of an evaluation scale (w).

For me, having a skin that is “explaining”, or that is associated with this is?


Bad Good

10

1iijij ewA

10

1iijij ewA


Their belief (b) on how peers, family members, or authority figures would their (participants) phone or skin to score on a construct.

Their willingness (g) to comply with the peers, family members, or authority figure.


authorityfamilypeersOwhereby

ebgSNOk i

ijikkj

,,

10

1

authorityfamilypeersOwhereby

ebgSNOk i

ijikkj

,,

10

1


Behavioural intention to select a skin or mobile phone

I would try this on my media player?

I intend to obtain the following mobile phone?


unlikely likely


Social Norm has an impact on phone selection, but not skin selection.


Phone (public) Skin (private)

Mean (partial) correlation. *p.<.05.**p<.01.

Research questions1. What criteria do people use to evaluate

a design? 1. Mobile phone: Gender, Ease of Use and

Sophistication2. Multimedia Player skins: Stimulation and

Ease

2. What impact do attitude and social norm have on the selection of a design?

• Social Norm has an impact on phone (public device) selection, but not Multimedia Player (private device) selection.

Conclusions

Further research

Attitude towards


type

Subjective Norm

Relative importance



User properties

User Personalit

yGender

Questions

Thanks for your attention

Documents

Developing an instrument to assess the impact of attitude and social norms on user selection of an interface design: a repertory grid approach Willem-Paul