1. Using Monetary Incentives and Auctions to Elicit User Preferences between Systems that Differ in Usability and Aesthetics Tamar Ben-Bassat, Joachim Meyer and Noam Tractinsky Ben Gurion University of the Negev

2. June 27, 2015 Ben-Bassat, Meyer and Tractinsky2 Background Users’ evaluations of usability and aesthetics were positively correlated Tractinsky, Katz and Ikar (2000) Aesthetics were found to be correlated with overall user preferences of interactive systems Schenkman and Jonsson (2000); Van der Heijden (2003)

3. June 27, 2015 Ben-Bassat, Meyer and Tractinsky3 Evaluation Problems Stated preferences or evaluations will not necessarily be translated into actual choice Tractinsky and Lavie (2002) Lack of common measurement methods Meyer and Seagull (1996)

4. June 27, 2015 Ben-Bassat, Meyer and Tractinsky4 Method Competitive setting to elicit user preferences for systems that differ in usability and aesthetics Financial incentives based on performance Auctions - Users’ bids were used as the measure for their true preferences

5. June 27, 2015 Ben-Bassat, Meyer and Tractinsky5 Experimental Design Between-groups factor: 2 types of auctions (First-Price auction and Second-Price auction) Within-subject factors: Usability (medium, high), Aesthetics (low, high) Aesthetics HighLow Usability Baseline Low 21 Medium 43 High

6. June 27, 2015 Ben-Bassat, Meyer and Tractinsky6 Participants: Sixty engineering students volunteered to participate in the study (26 female, 34 male). The task: Entering data into a simulated computer-based phone book. Participants and Experimental Task

7. June 27, 2015 Ben-Bassat, Meyer and Tractinsky7 Procedure One system for each participant Data entry tasks Auctions – 5 successive auctions (Kagel, 1995) Data entry task with the winning system Questionnaire Financial compensation

8. June 27, 2015 Ben-Bassat, Meyer and Tractinsky8 name number Start button Time left The systems’ name and logo The system is operated using the mouse only

9. June 27, 2015 Ben-Bassat, Meyer and Tractinsky9 Low Aesthetics System

10. June 27, 2015 Ben-Bassat, Meyer and Tractinsky10 High Aesthetics System

11. June 27, 2015 Ben-Bassat, Meyer and Tractinsky11 Results Performance 10 15 20 25 30 Baseline1234 System Mean Performance LA MU LA LU HA MU LA HU HA HU

12. June 27, 2015 Ben-Bassat, Meyer and Tractinsky12 Results Average Bids – Across five auctions 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1234 System Average bids First-Price auctionSecond-Price auction LA MU HA MU LA HU HA HU

13. June 27, 2015 Ben-Bassat, Meyer and Tractinsky13 Results Average Bids – First-Price Auction 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1234 System Average bids Auction1 5 LA MU HA MU LA HU HA HU

14. June 27, 2015 Ben-Bassat, Meyer and Tractinsky14 Results Average Bids – Second-Price Auction 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1234 System Average bids Auction1 5 LA MU HA MU LA HU HA HU

15. June 27, 2015 Ben-Bassat, Meyer and Tractinsky15 Results Perceived Measures 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 AestheticsUsabilityFrustration System1 2 3 4 LA MU HA MU LA HU HA HU LA MU HA MU LA HU HA HU LA MU HA MU LA HU HA HU

16. June 27, 2015 Ben-Bassat, Meyer and Tractinsky16 FrustrationAestheticsUsability 1..245 2..179 3..080 4..038 1..098 2..075 3.-.255 4..070 1..106 2.-.004 3..167 4..170 Average bid 1.-.046 2.-.194 3.-.255 4.-.237 1..726** 2..275* 3..569** 4..674** Usability 1..037 2..213 3..052 4.-.117 Aesthetics * P < 0.05 (2-tailed); ** P < 0.01 (2-tailed). Results Correlations between bids and Perceived Measures

17. June 27, 2015 Ben-Bassat, Meyer and Tractinsky17 Conclusions Under competitive conditions and when monetary incentives are offered, users’ preferences are determined strictly by usability considerations Perceptions of aesthetics and usability were still found to be related

18. June 27, 2015 Ben-Bassat, Meyer and Tractinsky18 Future Research Separation between the effects of measurement method (i.e., auction) and existence of monetary incentives

19. June 27, 2015 Ben-Bassat, Meyer and Tractinsky19 Thank you!