# Making Order in User Experience Research to Support Its Application in Design and Beyond
## 2 General Background
### Definitions and Interpretations of UX  
The term \"User Experience\" was coined by [PERSON], who introduced it in 1995. The original meaning of this concept was related to the experience as a consequence of the interaction between humans and systems beyond the idea of \"human interface\" and \"usability\" [25]. Subsequent revisions widened this definition including affective and behavioral factors, embedded in the idea of \"joy to use\" and \"joy to own\" [4]. Human-product interaction was of great interest even before the birth of the term \"User Experience\" itself. [PERSON] [26] interpreted it as the consumer-possession paradigm after looking at this relationship from a more marketing-oriented perspective, with a focus on consumer behaviors and choices. Other scholars gave to UX a wider or a narrower meaning depending on different approaches and dualisms. Two fundamental approaches are found in the literature: the holistic, and the reductive approach. The former considers the phenomenological aspect of UX. In particular [PERSON] and [PERSON] [27; 28; 29] claim that it is not possible to take thoughts, ideas, and emotions apart from each other because everything contributes in forming theexperience between humans and technology. The scholars refer to \"technology\" with a wider meaning including everything that can be considered a product, artifact, or a system. The complexity of UX is strongly stressed by the fact that factors such as perception, sensory engagement and emotions cannot be analyzed separately. On the other hand, the reductive approach attempts to reduce this complexity through the identifiable and measurable constructs that usually belong to cognitive psychology. These constructs are usability, aesthetics, emotions, and pleasure among the others [30]. However, other dualisms that juxtapose these constructs can be identified in the literature. These can be synthesized in the following approaches: hedonic or non-instrumental, contrasted to pragmatic or instrumental [31; 32]. * The hedonic or non-instrumental approach refers to the subjective qualities of the human-product interaction. This perspective considered UX definitions that include or stress the importance of emotions and the affective response of users [2; 3; 25; 27; 28; 33], or the consequent pleasure of using a product [29; 34]. In particular, the affective aspect related to memories and meaning triggered by the product are highlighted by [PERSON] [35] and [PERSON] and [PERSON] [33]. Some scholars consider as hedonic everything that goes beyond mere usability [1; 29; 36]. * Under the umbrella of pragmatic or instrumental approaches, it is possible to find aspects such as usability, ease of use [27; 34], usefulness, and effectiveness [27; 28; 29] in their definitions. These aspects are more easily measurable, and some can be assessed in an objective way. Section 2.4 provides major insights into the role played by utilitarian dimensions in UX. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [37] classified the UX components into three macro-categories: users' internal state and their previous experiences, the properties of the systems or interactive products, and the situation or usage context. Looking at the distinction between pragmatic and hedonic UX has parallels with approaching UX with a focus on different UX key components, i.e., user, product, and context. It is difficult to distinguish these two sides of the concept in the definitions provided in the literature. Thus, many scholars described these key components as influence factors while attempting to define the UX concept. This is evident from the definitions that follow. * Subjective aspects referred to the way a user can affect the UX, namely, users' expectations and their internal state or dispositions [1; 3; 28; 37; 38; 39]. UX can be influenced also by the meaning users give to the product and the feeling of stimulation and personal growth derived by that interaction [21].