Interacting with Computers Advance Access published March 12, 2015 c The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The British Computer Society. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email:
[email protected] doi:10.1093/iwc/iwv007
Exploring the Role of Ten Universal Values in Using Products and Services Timo Partala1,∗ and Sari Kujala2 1 Human-Centered Technology, Tampere University of Technology, P.O. Box 589, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland 2 Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, P.O. Box 15400, FI 00076 Aalto, Finland ∗Corresponding author:
[email protected]
The aim of this research was to explore the role of Schwartz’s ten universal human values in the context of using products and services. Seventy-five participants were asked to qualitatively describe a product or service especially well in line with their values and a product or service in conflict with their values, and to evaluate them on a number of rating scales. The scales included 30 statements (three statements per universal value) probing the presence of each value in user experiences related to products and services and 10 statements studying the perceived importance of each value. The results showed that all the ten universal values were relevant in the evaluations of products and services both in line with the users’ values and in conflict with the users’ values. In the current sample, hedonism and self-direction were rated as the values most frequently present and most important in the evaluations of products and services in line with values. Power was rated as a moderately important value for products in conflict with values, but significantly less important for products in line with values. Achievement values were frequently reported in the qualitative descriptions, but they were less prominent in the quantitative data. The results suggest that the model of ten universal values is promising in understanding the role of users’ value preferences in using products and services, and it seems to have potential for complementing the psychological needs approach in understanding user experience. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS • User values were explored from the viewpoint of Schwartz’s ten universal values. • Seventy-five participants described, and rated products and services in line and in conflict with their values. • All ten universal values were the most important for some products or services. • Hedonism and self-direction were rated as the most important values in the current sample. • The results highlight user values as a noteworthy complement to psychological needs in understanding user experience. Keywords: empirical studies in HCI; HCI design and evaluation methods; value-sensitive design; user values; user experience Editorial Board Member: Marc Hassenzahl Received 11 June 2014; Revised 10 January 2015; Accepted 25 January 2015
1.
INTRODUCTION
During the past few decades, there has been a growing interest in user experience among scholars and practitioners. The current user experience thinking is mainly in line with the ‘technology as experience’ paradigm (McCarthy and Wright, 2004), which shifts the focus of product design
from technological and pragmatic aspects toward subjective and emotional qualities of interaction. A number of other researchers have also attempted to define what user experience is and how to model it (e.g. Forlizzi and Battarbee, 2004; Hassenzahl, 2004; Hassenzahl and Tractinsky, 2006; Law and van Schaik, 2010). Even though there are differences between
Interacting with Computers, 2015
2
Timo Partala and Sari Kujala
definitions, most researchers and practitioners agree that user experience is dynamic, context-dependent and subjective (Law et al., 2009). In line with McCarthy and Wright (2004), it is widely thought that emotions are highly involved in user experience. The field of user experience has mostly been inclined toward studying positive emotions. For example, Tiger’s (1992) framework of four pleasures became well known in the field after it was popularized by Jordan (2000). Norman (2004) further developed ideas related to emotions in product design, and another line of research focused on the role of emotions in human–computer interaction (e.g. Partala and Surakka, 2004). There has also been an interest in understanding the antecedents of emotional user experiences in order to obtain a more holistic view of technology use. Shneiderman (2002) emphasized human needs as the basis when developing new computing technologies. Later, the fulfillment of human psychological needs has been found to be of high importance, as they can underlie both positive and negative user experiences (Hassenzahl et al., 2010; Partala and Kallinen, 2012). However, the existing user experience models and studies are not especially successful in explaining individual differences: what makes user experience good for a certain person in a specific context. Psychological needs are a useful concept for understanding user needs common to all people, but they do not focus on culturally influenced variations in user experiences. Therefore, the approach taken in this paper aims at obtaining information about what is perceived as important and valuable by certain users or user groups when using products and services. This is achieved by operationalizing the concept of human values that are personal, yet influenced by the social surroundings of the individual. Human values have already received quite a lot of attention in the field of human–computer interaction (Flanagan et al., 2005; Friedman, 1996; Friedman and Kahn, 2002; Isomursu et al., 2011; Kujala and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, 2009; Voida and Mynatt, 2005). In the last two decades, research approach called ‘value-sensitive design’ has emerged to consider human values in design (Friedman, 1996; Friedman and Kahn, 2002). Value-sensitive design has focused mostly on moral or ‘lasting’ values such as human well-being, human dignity, justice, welfare and human rights (Friedman and Kahn, 2002). In addition to identifying ‘lasting’ values, it has been more recently suggested that the perceived subjective value of new technology depends on different user groups and their personal values in different contexts (e.g. Flanagan et al., 2005; Friedman et al., 2006; Isomursu et al., 2011; Kujala and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, 2009; Nurkka et al., 2009). For example, Flanagan et al. (2005) pointed out that deciding what degree of anonymity to provide users in an email system depends on how much each user group values the capacity to speak freely without fear of retribution in comparison to the ability to hold speakers accountable for what they say.
In this paper, we focus on the personal values of users that are called ‘user values’. Kujala and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila (2009) define user values as users’ psychological values that they use to evaluate the goodness of user experience in a specific usage context. Identifying the users’ value settings is particularly critical when target users prioritize human values divergently from a general population or there are variant user groups with deviant and competing values. As Flanagan et al. (2005) point out an individual’s interpretation of the relative importance of certain values depends on the culture and socio-economic status of the person and many designers struggle to find a balance between their own values, those of users and other stakeholders and those of surrounding culture. As an example, Isomursu et al. (2011) found in a school technology adoption study that each group of school children, their parents and teachers prioritized different values. Also, Vasalou et al. (2012) found that location tracking concurrently supports parental values such as security, and threatens parental values such as trust. Although researchers have acknowledged the importance of values and though there are many general value surveys for personality assessment (Döring et al., 2010; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992, 2006; Schwartz et al., 2001), there are no established ways for applying the relevant theory for identifying user values and systematically incorporating them into the design process. Isomursu et al. (2011) used Schwartz’s (1992) value model from social psychology research in order to identify human values related to an educational attendance control system in primary school. The data collection methods were interviews, classroom observations and a questionnaire. On the basis of their case study, Isomursu et al. (2011) concluded that Schwartz’s (1992) value model can be a powerful tool for identifying and prioritizing the values that are relevant for each user group. They reported that the model helps articulating human values as it provides a vocabulary for describing value. However, collecting the data required a lot of effort and time and the analysis of the values from observations and interviews was challenging and required special expertise. In this paper, we aim at contributing to this research direction by taking Schwartz’s (1992) value model as starting point and using a systematic mixed-method approach consisting of qualitative and quantitative methods for studying user values. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the reader is given an overview of human values and user values. Section 3 presents the procedure for designing the current research approach, including the development of new quantitative statements, as well as a pilot study, in which the developed approach was tested. Section 4 presents the methods used in the main study of this paper, and Section 5 presents the quantitative and qualitative results from the main study. Finally, the results are discussed in detail in Section 6.
Interacting with Computers, 2015
Exploring the Role of Ten Universal Values 2.
FROM HUMAN VALUES TO USER VALUES
Users have personal or human values that affect their perception of a good user experience. Verplanken and Holland (2002) review that human values are conceptions of desirable ways of behaving or desirable end states—for example, friendship, respect for tradition, living healthily or preserving the natural environment. Bilsky and Schwartz (1994) characterize that values refer to the individual’s intentional goals that are available to consciousness. Verplanken and Holland (2002) state that individuals differ in how they rank the importance of specific values, but sometimes shared values constitute the basis of group, professional or cultural identities. Allen and Ng (1999) and Allen (2001) suggest that human values shape users’ evaluation of products in two ways. First, users are evaluating a product’s utilitarian meaning and making a piecemeal, attribute-by-attribute judgment. For example, a person who considers the human value of security important may decide to purchase products that are safe and compare different cars on their safety attributes. Secondly, users are evaluating symbolic meanings of products with an affective, intuitive and holistic judgment. Using questionnaires and statistical analysis, Allen (2001) showed that human values significantly predicted car preferences. Human values predicted product preference mainly by influencing which tangible car attributes were important, but human values also had a holistic influence on product preference. In everyday life, human values can be conflicting and people make trade-offs while making everyday decisions based on their values (Verplanken and Holland, 2002). Even though values are shown to guide behavior, people do not follow their values in a consistent way, but the priority of a value depends on the situation. Thus, values are context-dependent; a certain situation activates certain values (Verplanken and Holland, 2002). As varied products are used in different social contexts (e.g. family- or work-related), the same person may prioritize a different value set, for example, when using a washing machine compared with a mobile phone. This context dependency means that identifying the general human values may not help to design better product to users, but the values related to the specific product category and its context need to be identified. User values are not easy to express or talk about. Users do not necessarily possess the conceptual skills required for an in-depth analysis of their values. In addition, developers may be biased as they interpret the users’ values through their own set of values and assumptions (cf. Flanagan et al., 2005). Thus, as Boztepe (2007) suggests, specific tools are needed to identify user values for product development purposes. In psychology, there are existing survey methods that have been adopted for identifying user values. Voida and Mynatt (2005) used the Rokeach Value Survey (Rokeach, 1973), and tailored cultural probes for identifying values, but users found it complicated to use and the results were difficult to utilize
3
in development. Based on the theory of universal values, two main research instruments have been developed. The first such instrument is the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS; Schwartz, 1992). The SVS presents two lists of value items. The first contains 30 items that describe potentially desirable end states in noun form and the second contains 27 items that describe potentially desirable ways of acting in adjective form. The respondent’s task is to rate how important each value is, as a guiding principle in life. The Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ) is an alternative to the SVS developed in order to study the 10 basic values in samples of children, of the elderly and of persons not educated in western schools that emphasize abstract, context-free thinking. The PVQ includes short verbal portraits of 40 different people, gender-matched with the respondent (Schwartz et al., 2001). The challenge with the existing surveys is that they identify a person’s high-level values in life, while values are context-dependent and activate differently in varied product usage contexts. In marketing, List of values (Mowen and Minor, 1998) and the Values, Attitudes and Lifestyles (VALS, 2006) methodology of the Stanford Research Institute have been developed to identify values, but the focus is still on high-level classification of consumers. Krumm et al. (2013) presented the Munster Work Value Measure studying how important different values are for people in the context of their work. In addition, the laddering technique is a semi-structured interviewing technique, in which respondents are asked to describe why something is important to them (Reynolds and Gutman, 1988). Using the laddering technique, researchers can identify linkages between the key product elements and values. As pointed out by Allen (2001), the shortcoming of laddering is that it often focuses on tangible product properties, and does not systematically reveal implicit human values. In human–computer interaction, researchers have used interviewing, observing or open-ended survey questions to identify user values (Isomursu et al., 2011; Park and Han, 2013; Vasalou et al., 2012). In addition, a projective method called sentence completion has been applied to identify sensitive user values (Kujala and Nurkka, 2009; Kujala et al., 2014; Nurkka et al., 2009). User values are conceptually near psychological needs, which have already been found to be of central importance in the field of user experience (Hassenzahl et al., 2010; Partala, 2011; Partala and Kallinen, 2012). For example, Hassenzahl et al. (2010) have found that the fulfillment of ten universal psychological needs suggested by Sheldon et al. (2001) was the major source of positive experiences with interactive technologies. In psychology, the difference between needs and values has not traditionally been self-evident. As Jolibert and Baumgartner (1997) point out, values and needs are often used equivalently. However, needs were originally defined to be innate (Alderfer, 1972), but values are seen to reflect socialization (Bilsky and Schwartz, 1994). Also Sheldon et al. (2001) define needs as ‘particular qualities of experience that all people require to thrive’.
Interacting with Computers, 2015
4
Timo Partala and Sari Kujala
When the models of the psychological needs of Sheldon et al. (2001) and the values of Schwartz (1992) are compared, both overlapping and differing concepts can be recognized. For example, both models include stimulation, pleasure and security. The difference between the models is mostly in their standpoints. The psychological needs are viewed from the individual’s point of view. Values add cultural, societal and ideological perspective, and bring out learned preferences and value-related concepts such as respect for nature, tradition and honesty. From design point of view, both psychological needs and values are important, but the former puts more weight on what is common to all people, while the latter concentrates more on learned individual differences. As the relevant set of values can vary from product to product and from target group to another, we need to better understand how values influence experiences. In the current research, the aim was to explore the role of ten universal values systematically in using a range of different products and services. The goal was to clarify how values can support user experiences and what kinds of value conflicts create bad experiences. Examples of such cases for different values could act as insight or inspiration for interaction designers. Another important goal was to experiment with a mixed-method approach in studying user values, instead of the traditionally used qualitative methods. For that purpose, we developed a theory-based mixed-method survey, in which the participants analyzed their perceptions of user values so that they first described the overall user experience of using a product or service qualitatively and after that analyzed the user experience separately in relation to each of the ten universal values using both quantitative scales and optional qualitative comments. In order to be able to probe personal values in relation to product or service usage, the quantitative scales used were developed specifically for this research strictly based on the concepts in the theory of ten universal values (Schwartz, 2006). The qualitative data were gathered as textual descriptions, which were analyzed using standard procedures for qualitative data analysis.
3. 3.1.
DESIGNING THE CURRENT RESEARCH APPROACH Theoretical background
The current research is based on Schwartz’s theory of universal values, which has been validated in extensive large-scale empirical studies in multiple countries (Schwartz, 1992, 2006). The universal values theory has identified 10 basic, motivationally distinct values that people in virtually all cultures implicitly recognize. The ten universal values are power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity and security. They can be organized based on their theoretical relations
Figure 1. Universal values according to Schwartz (2006).
along two bipolar dimensions in a circular arrangement so that adjacent values share similar motivational emphases (Fig. 1). In this arrangement, power, achievement and (partly) hedonism constitute a group of self-enhancement values, in which one’s own interests and relative success and dominance are enhanced over others. At the opposite end of that dimension lie universalism and benevolence, which are called self-transcendence values. They emphasize concern for the welfare and interests of others. The other dimension ranges from openness to change to conservation. Stimulation, selfdirection and (partly) hedonism are openness to change values, which emphasize independence of thought, action and feelings and readiness for change, while security, tradition and conformity are conservation values, which emphasize order, self-restriction, preservation of the past and resistance to change.
3.2.
Item generation
The purpose was to generate questionnaire items in order to study to what extent different values are present in users’ experiences with products and services. The value items were formulated in the form of statements and a traditional symmetrical nine-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = fully disagree to 9 = fully agree) was used. Because the theory by Schwartz (1992, 2006) has identified at least three distinct value items within each basic value (e.g. for stimulation: exciting life, varied life, daring), three quantitative statements per universal value were included to form a set of 30 statements. The value items for the questionnaire were selected from the 59 value items and definitions by Schwartz (2006, see
Interacting with Computers, 2015
Exploring the Role of Ten Universal Values Appendix 1) based on: (i) Centrality of the value items in the theory of universal values, judged based on the empirical results and proposed value definitions from Schwartz (1992) and Schwartz (2006). (ii) The importance of the value items in the context of product/service usage. For example, the ‘World at peace’ value item was not included in the questionnaire because it is very seldom directly related to product or service evaluations. The theory of universal values adopts a conception of values, which specifies the following six main features of values (Schwartz, 2007): (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
Values are beliefs linked inextricably to affect. Values refer to desirable goals that motivate action. Values transcend specific actions and situations. Values serve as standards or criteria. Values are ordered by importance relative to one another. (vi) The relative importance of multiple values guides action.
Five of the six above-mentioned main features of values (Schwartz, 2007) could be explicitly taken into account when formulating the statements. The first main feature of values (values are beliefs linked inextricably to affect) was taken into account in that the statements probe values from the viewpoint of the users’ feelings. For example, the statement probing creativity became ‘This product/service supports feeling myself like a creative individual’ instead of something along the lines of ‘This product makes me a more creative individual’. The third feature (values transcend specific actions and situations) was taken into account by generating statements that have a clear object of evaluation, covering a wide range of situations. Thus, using the method, the users evaluate products and services by reflecting on their value-related feelings toward the product or service not just in a specific situation or in the context of a specific action, but spanning a wider range of possible uses and contexts relevant to the users. The fourth feature was considered by giving the users a possibility to qualitatively describe how each value can serve as a criterion for their product/service evaluations or usage (e.g. in the decision to use or not to use a product or service). Finally, features five and six were taken into account by adding specific importance ratings for each of the ten universal values. By analyzing the importance ratings, it is possible to get insight into how the users see the relative importance of the ten universal values in the context of the given product or service. The importance of the value items related to each universal value was studied on each questionnaire page by using a single statement: ‘I think that the above mentioned issues related to
5
are important for this product/service.’ and a similar 1–9 Likert scale as in the evaluations of the value items. By using two kinds of statements (three statements on perceived presence of values and one statement focusing on importance), it was possible to obtain information on both to what extent different values are present in the users’ feelings toward the product or service and how important the values are perceived to be for the particular product or service. For example, a social media service may score low in evoking feelings related to achievement, indicating a possible point for improvement, but if the important rating is also low, achievement is not perceived as important value for that service in the first place. Thus, the most relevant value conflicts are indicated by low agreement with value items and high importance ratings. At the end of each questionnaire page, the participant was instructed to write optional comments related to any of the quantitative questions probing the presence of values and to describe, in what way the product/service under evaluation supports or is in conflict with the particular universal value. Thus, the core of the present questionnaire consists of 10 pages (one page per value), with each page consisting of three value statements, one importance rating and the possibility to give qualitative comments. 3.3.
Pilot study and adjustment of the method
The statements and the instructions were first generated in English, and then literally translated to Finnish by the first author. Then, the second author suggested possible improvements to the translations. After that, the final wordings were based on negotiation between the first and the second author. When the first version of the questionnaire was ready, a pilot study was conducted with 33 Finnish university students, who had enrolled on a user experience course, as participants. The pilot study was made as final as possible with the aim of using the sample in the final data, if no needs for improvement emerged. The results of the pilot study suggested that overall the mixed-method structure of the questionnaire (each value studied on a page of its own with three statements, an importance rating and a possibility to give qualitative comments) worked well. However, the comments received from the students highlighted the need for rewording the terminology used in a few statements to improve the internal consistency of the questionnaire particularly for the universalism value category. Thus, we decided to make an improved version of the set of statements and not to include the data from the pilot study in the results presented in this paper. More instructions were also added to improve the understandability of the purpose of the questionnaire. The revised 30 statements probing the presence of different values, which were used in the main study and their respective value items, are shown in Appendix 2.
Interacting with Computers, 2015
6 4. 4.1.
Timo Partala and Sari Kujala METHOD
4.3.
Participants
The main study was carried out in the context of a university level user experience course and the participants consisted of Master’s students and doctoral students enrolled for the course. Most of the participants were majors in information technology-related disciplines, however, some of the Master’s students came from a variety of different backgrounds (e.g. humanistic disciplines). Seventy-five participants (54 males and 21 females) completed the questionnaire with satisfactory responses. Sixty participants fell into the 21–30 years age group, 14 participants into the 31–40 years age group and 1 participant into the 41–50 years age group. Most of the participants (56) were Finnish, and answered to the questionnaire in their native language with a verbatim translation from English. There were also 19 international students who answered to the questionnaire in English. All the participants were familiar with the basic concepts in the fields of usability and user experience and they had also been given a short general level introduction to values theories on the course. The participants received course credit for their participation.
4.2.
Tasks and materials
On the first page of the questionnaire, the participants were first instructed to choose their gender and age from the alternatives presented. To further promote anonymity, we did not ask the participants’ exact ages (because in theory, we might have recognized some students based on that information), but they were instructed to choose an age range (
