# Measuring Anticipated and Episodic UX of Tasks in Social Networks
## 6 Results  
Seven semantic pairs correspond to each dimension of AttrakDiff. The ratings go from one to seven, and the higher, the better. Table 3 contains the results from the 120 questionnaires, the means (\(\mu\)), and the standard deviations (\(\sigma\)) of each dimension for the three tasks.  
Figure 4 is the graphical representation of the results. For all plots, the X-axis contains the four dimensions of AttrakDiff, and the Y-axis measures their averages. As the legend indicates, clear bars are the measurements of AUX, while dark bars represent the results of EUX in our three tasks: Figure 4a contrasts the results for messages, Figure 4b does the same for publications, and Figure 4c for searches.  
Figure 3: Samples of prototypes from the pilot tests (**a**) and from the actual tests (**b–d**).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **Pragmatic Quality** & **Identity** & **Stimulation** & **Attractiveness** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Message} & \multirow{2}{*}{AUX} & \(\mu\) & 5.65 & 4.75 & 3.42 & 5.17 \\  & & \(\sigma\) & 0.29 & 0.95 & 0.53 & 0.29 \\ \cline{2-6}  & & \multirow{2}{*}{EUX} & \(\mu\) & 3.22 & 3.50 & 3.52 & 3.30 \\  & & \(\sigma\) & 0.49 & 0.44 & 0.51 & 0.31 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Publication} & \multirow{2}{*}{AUX} & \(\mu\) & 5.57 & 4.77 & 3.70 & 5.10 \\  & & \(\sigma\) & 0.44 & 0.69 & 0.45 & 0.48 \\ \cline{2-6}  & & \multirow{2}{*}{EUX} & \(\mu\) & 5.97 & 5.35 & 3.99 & 5.74 \\  & & \(\sigma\) & 0.23 & 1.08 & 1.19 & 0.29 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Search} & \multirow{2}{*}{AUX} & \(\mu\) & 5.51 & 4.67 & 2.98 & 4.96 \\  & & \(\sigma\) & 0.54 & 1.02 & 0.57 & 0.52 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & & \multirow{2}{*}{EUX} & \(\mu\) & 6.23 & 5.42 & 3.75 & 6.02 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & \(\sigma\) & 0.45 & 1.05 & 1.31 & 0.26 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: AttrakDiff dimensions results.  
In assessing these results, we also look at the reliability scores for the different dimensions. Table 4 shows the [PERSON]'s alpha values for the AttrakDiff dimensions in each task (\(\alpha\) level \(=0.05\)).  
To contrast the results of the tests, and given that the design we have is within-groups with an independent variable of two factors, the statistical analysis we performed was a paired-samples \(t\)-test [83]. In this way, we determined whether there are significant differences between the means of each dimension of AttrakDiff in the AUX and EUX tests for each task (see Table 5). To obtain all the statistical analyzes, we use the R language.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Message**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Publication**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Search**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Dimension} & AUX & EUX & AUX & EUX & AUX & EUX \\  & (0.82) & (0.87) & (0.83) & (0.83) & (0.78) & (0.83) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Pragmatic Quality} & 0.79 & 0.87 & 0.80 & 0.62 & 0.83 & 0.70 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Identity} & 0.56 & 0.65 & 0.53 & 0.67 & 0.62 & 0.57 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Stimulation} & 0.92 & 0.83 & 0.94 & 0.76 & 0.86 & 0.77 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Attractiveness} & 0.81 & 0.93 & 0.80 & 0.86 & 0.76 & 0.93 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: AttrakDiff dimensions reliability analysis ([PERSON]’s alpha values).  
Figure 4: AttrakDiff results for messages (**a**), publications (**b**), and searches (**c**).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline
**Dimension** & **Message** & **Publication** & **Search** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Pragmatic Quality} & 2.79 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) * & 0.18 & 0.01 * \\  & 3.08 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-5}\) * & 0.05 * & 0.003 * \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Attractiveness} & 0.82 & 0.53 & 0.08 \\  & 6.53 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) * & 0.06 & 0.0005 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: \(p\) values for paired-samples \(t\)-tests (comparisons between AUX and EUX in each dimension).