Advertisement

Cognition, Technology & Work

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 403–414 | Cite as

Emotional and aesthetic attachment to digital artefacts

  • Phil TurnerEmail author
  • Susan Turner
Original Article

Abstract

We report a pair of repertory grid studies that explore the attachment people have for digital and non-digital artefacts. In the first study we found no clear distinctions between emotional attachment to digital and non-digital artefacts: people are attached to their mobile phones in much the same way as to a childhood teddy bear. There was also evidence that attachment and the physical availability or proximity of the artefact were associated. In the second study we examined the aesthetics of attachment to digital and non-digital artefacts. Again the proximity or availability of the artefacts appeared to be important. Items that were carried about or worn, such as wristwatches and laptops, were closely associated, while TVs and games consoles were not. In all, there does not appear to be any qualitative difference between the attachment people have for digital and non-digital artefacts. Nor do aesthetics appear to play a part in this attachment. However, the physical proximity of these artefacts is strongly associated with our (inward) feelings of attachment to them, while we can also recognise the importance of this relationship to how we (outwardly) present ourselves to the world and others.

Keywords

Qualitative study Attachment Aesthetics Repertory grids 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to our anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and to the students of the (MSc) User Experience and the (undergraduate) Interactive Media Design programmes at Edinburgh Napier University for their help with the data collection.

References

  1. Akah B, Bardzell S (2010) Empowering products: personal identity through the act of appropriation. In: Proceedings of CHI’10: work in progress. ACM Press, New York, pp 4021–4040Google Scholar
  2. Blevis E (2007) Sustainable interaction design: invention & disposal, renewal & reuse. In: Proceedings of CHI’08. ACM Press, New York, pp 503–512Google Scholar
  3. Blom J, Monk A (2003) A theory of personalisation: why people personalise their PCs and mobile phones. Human Comput Interact 18:193–228. doi: 10.1207/S15327051HCI1803_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgmann A (1984) Technology and the character of contemporary life. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowlby J (1969) Attachment and loss. Volume 1: attachment. Penguin, HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  6. Brinkman W-P, Love S (2006) Developing an instrument to assess the impact of attitude and social norms on user selection of an interface design: a repertory grid approach. In Proc. ECCE 2006, pp 129-136Google Scholar
  7. Csikszentmihalyi M, Halton-Roch E (1981) The meaning of things. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis M (2003) Theoretical foundations for experiential systems design. In: Proceedings of ETP’03: proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMM workshop on experiential telepresence, Berkeley, California, pp 45–52Google Scholar
  9. Dillon A, McKnight C (1990) Towards a classification of text types: a repertory grid approach. Int J Man Mach Stud 33:623–636. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dourish P (2001)Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards HM, McDonald S, Young SM (2009) The repertory grid technique: its place in empirical software engineering research. Inf Softw Technol 51:785–798. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2008.08.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fallman D, Waterworth J (2010) Capturing user experiences of mobile information technology with the repertory grid technique. Human Technol 6(2):250–268Google Scholar
  13. Fransella F, Bannister D (1977) A manual for repertory grid technique. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Hassard J (1987) FOCUS: as a phenomenological technique for job analysis: its use in multiple paradigm research (MPR). Int J Man Mach Stud 27:251–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hassenzahl M (2004) The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. Human Comput Interact 19(4):319–349. doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci1904_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hassenzahl M, Platz A, Burmester M, Lehner K (2011) Hedonic and ergonomic quality aspects determine a software’s appeal. CHI Lett 2(1):201–208. doi: 10.1145/332040.332432 Google Scholar
  17. Kagan J, Kearsley R, Zelago PR (1978) Infancy—its place in human development. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Kelly GA (1955) The psychology of personal constructs. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelly GA (1969) The role of classification in personality theory. In: Maher B (ed) Clinical psychology and personality: the selected papers of George Kelly. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Kleine SS, Baker SM (2004) An integrative review of material possession attachment. Acad Market Sci Rev 8(4). http://www.amsreview.org/articles/kleine01-2004.pdf. Accessed 15 March 2012
  21. Lorenz K (1935) The companion in the bird’s world. Auk 54:245–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McCarthy JC, O’Connor B (1999) The context of information use in a hospital as simultaneous similarity-difference relations. Cogn Technol Work 1(1):25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCarthy J, Wright P, Wallace J, Dearden AM (2005) The experience of enchantment in human-computer interaction. Pers Ubiquit Comput 10(6):369–378. doi: 10.1007/s00779-005-0055-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McWhinnie S, O’Neill SJ, Valentine L (2009) Random thinking, ordered doing: understanding group creative practice through repertory grid technique. In: Proceedings of ACM conference on creativity and cognition. ACM Press, New York, pp 137–146. doi: 10.1145/1640233.1640256
  25. Meschtscherjakov A (2009) Mobile attachment—emotional attachment towards mobile devices and services. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services. ACM Press, New York. doi: 10.1145/1613858.1613975
  26. Nelson HG, Stolterman E (2003) Design way: intentional change in an unpredictable world. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  27. Norman DA (2002) Emotion and design: attractive things work better. Interact Mag ix(4):36–42. doi: 10.1145/543434.543435 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Odom W, Pierce J (2009) Improving with age: designing enduring interactive products. In: Extended abstracts of CHI’09. ACM Press, New York, pp 3793–3798. doi: 10.1145/1520340.1520573
  29. Odom W, Pierce J, Stolterman E, Blevis E (2009) Understanding why we preserve some things and discard others in the context of interaction design. In: Proceedings of CHI’09. ACM Press, New York, pp 1053–1062. doi: 10.1145/1518701.1518862
  30. Schultz SE, Kleine RE, Kernan JB (1989) ‘These are a few of my favorite things’: toward an explication of attachment as a consumer behavior construct. In: Srull TK (ed) Advances in consumer research, vol 16. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, pp 359–366Google Scholar
  31. Shaw MLG, Gaines B (1987) KITTEN: knowledge elicitation and transfer tool for experts and novices. Int J Man Mach Stud 27:251–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shaw MLG, Gaines B (1992) Kelly’s “geometry of psychological space” and its significance for cognitive modelling. The New, Psychologist, pp 23–31Google Scholar
  33. Tan FB, Hunter MG (2002). The repertory grid technique: a method for the study of cognition in information systems. MIS Q 26:39–57. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132340. Accessed 15 March 2012
  34. Turner P (2000) Requirements are in the eyes of the beholders. In: People and computers XV—the proceedings of the BCS HCI conference, pp 33–44Google Scholar
  35. Turner P (2008) Being-with: a study of familiarity. Interact Comput 20:447–454. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2008.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Turner P, Sobolewska E (2009) Familiarity with mobile phones. In: Proceedings of European conference on cognitive ergonomics, pp 80–89Google Scholar
  37. Verbeek P-P (2005) What things do: philosophical reflections on technology, agency and design. The Pennsylvania State Pres, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  38. Wells M (2000) Office clutter of meaningful personal displays: the role of office personalization in employee and organizational well-being. J Environ Psychol 20:239–255. doi: 10.1006/jevp.1999.0166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Winograd T, Flores F (1986) Understanding Computers and Cognition. Ablex Corporation, Norwood, NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ComputingEdinburgh Napier UniversityEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations