# The Extended Likeability Framework: A Theoretical Framework for and a Practical Case of Designing Likeable Media Applications for Preschoolers

Authors: Vero vanden Abeele; Bieke Zaman
Journal: Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
 (2008)

---

## Abstract

A theoretical framework and practical case for designing likeable interactive media applications for preschoolers in the home environment are introduced. First, we elaborate on the theoretical framework. We introduce the uses and gratifications paradigm (U&G). We argue that U&G is a good approach to researching likeability of media applications. Next, we complete the U&G framework with expectancy-value (EV) theory. EV theory helps us move from theoretical insights to concrete design guidelines. Together, the U&G framework and the EV model form the foundation of our extended likeability framework for the design and evaluation of interactive media applications, for preschoolers in the home environment. Finally, we demonstrate a practical case of our extended likeability framework via the research project CuTI. The CuTI project aims at revealing those particular user gratifications and design attributes that are important to support playful behaviour and fun activities of preschoolers in the home environment.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Digital media are increasingly moving into everyday life. As a consequence, designers no longer exclusively
focus on applications with productivity goals in a work-related context.
Instead, the focus has also shifted towards design for entertainment, aiming at
delivering a more social or emotional experience. Human-computer interaction
(HCI) research has responded to this new trend and moved from the “second wave”
to the “third wave” of HCI methods and theories. The first wave adapted methods
and theories from cognitive psychology whereas the second wave was influenced
by sociological principles and “situated” research methods. More particularly,
second wave research still focused on technologies in a work-related context
with explicit rational (i.e., instrumental) purposes. In contrast, third wave
research is centred on emotional and cultural technologies in a more entertaining
and everyday context [1]. Often, the third wave is equated with “user experience”
research or the “new usability” of affective factors such as “fun'” and “trust”
[2]. The recent shift within HCI from second to third wave research made the
need for new or adapted research methods and theories more explicit, resulting
in a move to ground human-centred research on user experience. Stelmaszewska et
al. [3] also cite: “HCI lacks theories and methods to facilitate approaches to
design products which allow for pleasurable, enjoyable, and entertaining
Interaction.”In [4], we came to the same conclusion,
namely, that HCI and child-computer interaction (CCI) lack a solid framework
for likeability research with preschoolers. The need for theories to gain
insight into the meanings that children give to new media has been acknowledged
within HCI and CCI. For instance, Learning and Teaching Scotland [5, page 8]
points out: “There is no detailed analysis of how children make meanings with
interactive media and a conspicuous lack of evidence about what actually
happens in social, cognitive, and affective domains.” Hassenzahl [6] stresses
that there is still a lack of successful methods to reveal experience-oriented product
requirements: “…there are no specialized analysis techniques used in the
industry. Therefore, it is important to develop appropriate analytical
techniques to help product designers or usability engineers to gather hedonic
requirements in a certain context of use.”In Section2 of this article, we
detail our theoretical foundations. We first elaborate on the uses and gratifications
paradigm, well known in mass communications science, and promising for researching
fun and likeability of media. Next, we introduce expectancy value theory,
originating from social psychology. The EV theory helps us move from user
gratifications to product attributes. The combination of the U&G framework
and the EV model forms the blueprint for our extended likeability framework for the evaluation
and design of interactive media applications.In Section3 of the article, we apply
our extended likeability framework to fun media applications, for preschoolers
in the home environment. Via the CuTI
research project we demonstrate how high-level user gratifications can
be translated into product attributes.


## 2. The Extended Likeability Framework

### 2.1. Uses and Gratifications, a Communication Science Perspective

#### 2.1.1. The Uses and Gratifications Paradigm Outlined

The lack of available frameworks,
theories, and models in HCI on likeability research for children explains why
we turned our attention to communication sciences in order to find an appropriate
framework that is “human-” centered. The uses and gratifications (U&G)
paradigm, well known in mass communication science, is such a human-centered
framework. The uses and gratifications paradigm accepts that users actively
seek media, according to their needs and expectations, and give meaning to
these media. The basic premise of the U&G paradigm is that people actively
choose media to fulfil specific gratifications. U&G research is interested
in what uses and gratifications the audience derives from media and what appeal
media have for the audience. More particularly, the uses and gratifications (U&G)
paradigm focuses onhow frequently and especially why certain types of (genres within) media are used
and by whom [7–9]. Rosengren [10, 11] presented a U&G model in which basic needs, individual differences, and
contextual societal factors interact and result in a variety of gratifications
that are sought from the media. People then use media in the hope that the
gratifications they seek can actually be obtained.Figure1 shows a simplified model of
the U&G paradigm, presented by Lucas and Sherry [12] and based on Rosengren
[10]. The U&G model does not specify how exactly the mix of societal
factors, individual characteristics, and basic needs leads to certain types of
media behaviour; rather, it calls on researchers to fill in these details.
However, it does acknowledge that no single factor drives media use; it is only
the mix and the interaction among needs, contextual factors, and individual
characteristics that can predict media use.Figure 1
A simplified model of the uses
and gratifications paradigm, by Lucas and Sherry [12] based on Rosengren’s
outline [10].For our research, we find this
all-encompassing view interesting because it is similar to the multiparadigmatic
view in human-computer interaction. HCI researchers also stress the interplay
between social/contextual, individual/psychological, and tool/media
characteristics. Nevertheless, models or theories that are employed to research
enjoyment or fun are often narrowed down to physio/psychological parameters
[13, 14]. In contrast, the U&G framework allows for a global approach that
does not only incorporate basic biological influences and psychological
dispositions but also addresses the social context. The influence and importance of context for product experiences can be
found with different HCI researchers and theorists. Goffman [15], for example, refers
to “situated experience”; Overbeeke et al. [16], Hummels et al. [17], and Dourish
[18] emphasize the importance of “context for experience”; Hassenzahl [6] mentions
“context of use.”


#### 2.1.2. Three Assumptions for Adopting the U&g Framework

In order to be able to use the U&G framework as a foundation for our
likeability framework, we need to accept the following assumptions [4].(1) Assumption 1: Interactive Artefacts Can Be Seen as Media
The choice
for the U&G framework implies that we abandon paradigms that are current in
work on human computer interaction, such as the “tool perspective” or the “usability
perspective.” These perspectives are attuned to an adaptation of information
and communication technologies to users’ cognitive competences. Such
adaptations result in a more efficient and effective performance of predefined
tasks. Technologies are also often conceptualized as “tools” within the HCI
community. These “tools” then function as an extension of the human body and/or
mind, compensating for human shortcomings [20]. However, we no longer view
artefacts as “tools,” neither do we follow the “usability perspective”; instead
we look upon applications as “media” [20]. The adaptation of the U&G framework in
likeability research demands acceptance of the view that artefacts like
interactive toys and games can be considered as media. The “media perspective” in HCI resembles the way communication sciences
define the concept “media.” Media are then defined as bridges that make
communication and information possible between people [20]. This leads us to
the first assumption: the U&G framework requires us to accept that interactive toys, games, and
other artefacts that support play activities can be thought of as media.(2) Assumption 2: Children are Active in Their Choice of Media
U&G starts from the premise that
the audience is active; an important part of mass media use is assumed to be
goal directed [7]. Instead of being passive bystanders, people choose to
engage in a medium and their choice reflects their need for gratifications.
Thus, need gratification and media choice lie within the audience member. The perspective of
an active audience is illustrated by Schramm et al. [21, page 169] who
state that “in order to understand television’s impact and effect on children,
we have first to get away from the unrealistic concept of what television does
to children and substitute the concept of what children do with television.”
Clearly, this idea, that one
actively chooses to deal with a certain medium based on particular needs and
the need for gratifications, is very similar to the user-centred approaches
that prevail in HCI. For instance, we can refer to the goal-directed design
approach of Cooper and Reimann [22], where design requirements are based on needs in order
to fulfil goals, wishes, and dreams. Similarly to communication scholars that
follow a U&G perspective, we posit that children are active in their
choice to use or not to use media/applications for certain reasons.(3) Assumption 3: Likeable Products Fulfil Gratifications
Finally, similarly to HCI
researchers that approach users as purposeful and task oriented, U&G
researchers make the assumption that people use media in order to serve their
needs and fulfil their gratifications. This is an interesting perspective, especially
in the context of designing for fun or for playful interaction, where the goal
is not to produce output or accomplish productivity tasks but rather enjoying
the process. With regard to the U&G paradigm, a distinction is made betweengratifications that are sought (GS) and those that are obtained (GO) from media use. To meet
the user needs, gratifications obtained should correspond with gratifications
sought. In this respect, we formulate our final assumption: in order to design likeable products for children, we need to fulfil
those gratifications that children seek in specific media.


#### 2.1.3. Uses and Gratifications of Games and Play

Typically, research in the U&G
tradition begins with the identification of the gratifications that are sought
or the motivations for media use in relation to the traits of the audience. These
studies tend to show no universal set of motivations or gratifications sought
from media. Motivations vary across media, genres and user groups, and cultures
[11]. However, several U&G studies (cf. [23, 24]) on traditional media with
adults reveal the existence of four gratifications clusters that repeatedly
occur:(1)
information/surveillance,(2)
personal identity,(3)
integration/social interaction/personal relationships,(4)
entertainment/division/escapism.
Recently,
interesting studies have been conducted on video games and gratifications for
young players. Sherry
et al. [25], for example, conducted a survey (from elementary scholars to
university students) in order to determine the uses and gratifications of playing
video games. Sherry and Lucas [26] defined six gratifications that could explain
why young people play video games:(1)
competition:
to be the best player of the game;(2)
challenge: to push yourself to beat the game or to get to the next
highest level;(3)
social
interaction: to play as a social experience with friends;(4)
diversion: to pass time or
alleviate boredom;(5)
fantasy:
to do things that one cannot do in real life;(6)
arousal:  to play for excitement.
Many more
U&G studies exist and are carried out; in fact U&G is also seen as an
excellent way to study new media [27]. New media credit users with even more
control over their own activities. The active audience paradigm prevalent in
U&G aligns well with new interactive media such as the internet or video
games. In this respect, mass media scholars promote an adaptation of the
U&G framework to new technologies: “A challenge is for researchers to adapt
and mould the current conceptual framework to deal with new communications
technologies” [28, page 241].


### 2.2. Expectancy Value Theory: From High Level Gratifications to Low Level Attributes

Typically, U&G studies result in
a set of motives or gratifications that are still quite general or abstract.
Let us recall the game gratifications that Sherry and Lucas defined:
competition, challenge, social interaction, diversions, fantasy, and arousal. A
designer might point out that these gratifications are interesting but do not
provide useful operational guidelines for designing actual media products.
Consequently, the U&G framework can be perceived as too abstract to offer
concrete guidelines for designing interactive applications. Therefore, to
understand the relationship between the design of a media application and the
gratifications of that media user, we rely on an extension/addition to the
U&G framework. To make this transition, we rely on expectancy value theory,
first introduced by Fishbein and Ajzen [29, 30] in the nineteen seventies and adopted and
refined by many scholars and disciplines in later years.


#### 2.2.1. Expectancy Value Theory

Expectancy value (EV) theory is
based on the premise that all human behaviour (including media use) is shaped
by behavioural intentions or attitudes. These attitudes are shaped by the expectations
(beliefs) one holds about an object. In turn, these expectations are based upon
specific attributes of the object. An expectation or belief then is the
subjective (for the user) probability that an object has a given attribute.
Furthermore, each attribute has either a positive or negative value associated
with this expectation,(1)Ao=∑i=1nbiei. As seen in the formal expression by
Fishbein and Ajzen [29], the attitude towards an object (Ao) is a
function of a belief about the object attributes (bi) and the
evaluation of an attribute (ei). Expectancy value theory acknowledges
that users learn to choose a product (or medium) because they expect (believe)
that the product contains attributes that are instrumental to achieving desired
consequences.


#### 2.2.2. Expectancy Value Theory and Uses and Gratifications

EV theory was first linked to
U&G by Palmgreen. “A fundamental
assumption of U&G models, that of an active audience, is in fact founded
upon the even more basic precept that audience members do have perceptions of
the gratifications available from various alternatives, and that they act upon
these perceptions.” [8].User gratifications are shaped by (1)
the expectancy or the perceived probability that using a media application will
have a certain consequence and by (2) the evaluation or the positive or
negative affect towards the consequence.U&G researchers Palmgreen and
Rayburn [8] explain this relationship. They see gratifications as a function
of the user evaluation of a media object. More particularly, Palmgreen and
Rayburn base themselves on Fishbein and Ajzen’s formal expression [29] and
state that the gratifications sought (GSo) in an object “o” are a
function of (the weighted sum of) the beliefs (bi) and evaluations
(ei) about the attributes “i” that object “o” possesses. More
specifically, the gratifications that users seek (or avoid) from a media object
“o” depend on the belief or the expectancy (=perceived probability) that “o”
has a particular attribute “i” and the positive or negative evaluation of that
attribute.The expression results in the
following formula:(2)GSo=∑i=1nbiei. The expectancies or beliefs about
the product attributes can be learned and modified through direct experience,
but might also be the result of communication and/or processes of induction and
deduction [8].One child might, for example ask his
parents to buy a computer game about Peter Pan (i.e., object, “o”) because he
believes that he will like it (gratification sought or “GSo”).
Although the child has never played this computer game before, he nevertheless
expects the game to be fun because of the central character (i.e., belief associated
with a certain game attribute, “bi”). Through previous experiences
of watching the Peter Pan movie, the child learned that the adventures of Peter
Pan are always fun and exciting (i.e., positive evaluation of game attribute,  “ei”).
However, if the child does not expect positive attributes or if he is convinced
that the object only induces negative attributes, then he would not ask to buy
it. The child may also, for instance, choose to quit playing the computer game
because it is too difficult and frustrating (beliefs with negative evaluations)
which makes him loose control of the game (“GS”).


#### 2.2.3. Means-End Theory

In contrast to our
simple Peter Pan example, in real life the gratifications sought are mostly
determined by more than one belief about a positive or negative attribute. Each
gratification is indeed determined by a set of beliefs and evaluations of
attributes.Unfortunately,
Palmgreen’s elaboration of U&G with EV theory did not generate many
research projects within the U&G tradition that focus on how media
attributes influence the audience behavioural intentions. Nor did Palmgreen
elaborate on methods to extract these beliefs from the audience. However, EV
theory has not only been linked to social psychology and communication
sciences. In consumer research, EV theory parallels research based upon means-end
theory [6, 31, 32].The common
premise of means-end theory and expectancy value theory is that users learn to choose
a product (or medium) because it contains attributes that are instrumental to
achieving desired consequences and fulfilling values. The common generic means-end
chain consists of attributes (A), consequences or benefits (C), and values (V)
[32].  The consequences of using a
product in this case correspond to the “gratifications sought” within U&G
research. In consumer research, means-end chains are used to explain what
motivated consumers to desire certain products or product attributes. In human
computer interaction, Subramony [33] and Zaman [34] successfully used means-end
chains and consequently “laddering” as a qualitative research method to create
design recommendations.Means-end analysis is preferably
done via laddering [31]. Laddering refers to an in-depth, one-on-one
interviewing technique, used to develop an understanding of how users translate
the attributes of a product into meaningful associations with the “self” [32].
Laddering involves a tailored interviewing format using primarily a series of
directed probes, typified by the following question: “why is that important to
you?” The goal is to identify linkages between key perceptual elements across
the range of attributes, consequences, and values. These association networks
or ladders, ranging from the concrete to the abstract, provide an understanding
of the relations between a product’s attributes and the user motivational
perspective to acquire this product. Laddering
allows discovering the underlying reasons why an attribute is important, in
relation to the underlying gratification.


### 2.3. Combining Uses and Gratifications with Expectancy Value Theory

To conclude the first section of
this article, we posit that we should combine U&G and EV theory in order to
research and design likeable products for a given audience in a given context.
In Figure2 we illustrate how basic needs, society and context, and individual
characteristics lead to gratifications. We should also understand how these
gratifications are based upon expectancies and evaluations of attributes. In
order to design likeable toys and interactive applications for preschoolers in
the home environment, we need to understand how basic needs, society and
context, and individual characteristics lead to preschoolers’ gratifications
that need to be fulfilled. Next, we need to understand which beliefs
preschoolers hold with regard to the medium attributes and how these attributes
are related to the gratifications of preschoolers. In the following section, we
will discuss how we applied this underlying theoretical structure to a
practical case for preschoolers.Figure 2
The extended likeability
framework.


## 2.1. Uses and Gratifications, a Communication Science Perspective

### 2.1.1. The Uses and Gratifications Paradigm Outlined

The lack of available frameworks,
theories, and models in HCI on likeability research for children explains why
we turned our attention to communication sciences in order to find an appropriate
framework that is “human-” centered. The uses and gratifications (U&G)
paradigm, well known in mass communication science, is such a human-centered
framework. The uses and gratifications paradigm accepts that users actively
seek media, according to their needs and expectations, and give meaning to
these media. The basic premise of the U&G paradigm is that people actively
choose media to fulfil specific gratifications. U&G research is interested
in what uses and gratifications the audience derives from media and what appeal
media have for the audience. More particularly, the uses and gratifications (U&G)
paradigm focuses onhow frequently and especially why certain types of (genres within) media are used
and by whom [7–9]. Rosengren [10, 11] presented a U&G model in which basic needs, individual differences, and
contextual societal factors interact and result in a variety of gratifications
that are sought from the media. People then use media in the hope that the
gratifications they seek can actually be obtained.Figure1 shows a simplified model of
the U&G paradigm, presented by Lucas and Sherry [12] and based on Rosengren
[10]. The U&G model does not specify how exactly the mix of societal
factors, individual characteristics, and basic needs leads to certain types of
media behaviour; rather, it calls on researchers to fill in these details.
However, it does acknowledge that no single factor drives media use; it is only
the mix and the interaction among needs, contextual factors, and individual
characteristics that can predict media use.Figure 1
A simplified model of the uses
and gratifications paradigm, by Lucas and Sherry [12] based on Rosengren’s
outline [10].For our research, we find this
all-encompassing view interesting because it is similar to the multiparadigmatic
view in human-computer interaction. HCI researchers also stress the interplay
between social/contextual, individual/psychological, and tool/media
characteristics. Nevertheless, models or theories that are employed to research
enjoyment or fun are often narrowed down to physio/psychological parameters
[13, 14]. In contrast, the U&G framework allows for a global approach that
does not only incorporate basic biological influences and psychological
dispositions but also addresses the social context. The influence and importance of context for product experiences can be
found with different HCI researchers and theorists. Goffman [15], for example, refers
to “situated experience”; Overbeeke et al. [16], Hummels et al. [17], and Dourish
[18] emphasize the importance of “context for experience”; Hassenzahl [6] mentions
“context of use.”


### 2.1.2. Three Assumptions for Adopting the U&g Framework

In order to be able to use the U&G framework as a foundation for our
likeability framework, we need to accept the following assumptions [4].(1) Assumption 1: Interactive Artefacts Can Be Seen as Media
The choice
for the U&G framework implies that we abandon paradigms that are current in
work on human computer interaction, such as the “tool perspective” or the “usability
perspective.” These perspectives are attuned to an adaptation of information
and communication technologies to users’ cognitive competences. Such
adaptations result in a more efficient and effective performance of predefined
tasks. Technologies are also often conceptualized as “tools” within the HCI
community. These “tools” then function as an extension of the human body and/or
mind, compensating for human shortcomings [20]. However, we no longer view
artefacts as “tools,” neither do we follow the “usability perspective”; instead
we look upon applications as “media” [20]. The adaptation of the U&G framework in
likeability research demands acceptance of the view that artefacts like
interactive toys and games can be considered as media. The “media perspective” in HCI resembles the way communication sciences
define the concept “media.” Media are then defined as bridges that make
communication and information possible between people [20]. This leads us to
the first assumption: the U&G framework requires us to accept that interactive toys, games, and
other artefacts that support play activities can be thought of as media.(2) Assumption 2: Children are Active in Their Choice of Media
U&G starts from the premise that
the audience is active; an important part of mass media use is assumed to be
goal directed [7]. Instead of being passive bystanders, people choose to
engage in a medium and their choice reflects their need for gratifications.
Thus, need gratification and media choice lie within the audience member. The perspective of
an active audience is illustrated by Schramm et al. [21, page 169] who
state that “in order to understand television’s impact and effect on children,
we have first to get away from the unrealistic concept of what television does
to children and substitute the concept of what children do with television.”
Clearly, this idea, that one
actively chooses to deal with a certain medium based on particular needs and
the need for gratifications, is very similar to the user-centred approaches
that prevail in HCI. For instance, we can refer to the goal-directed design
approach of Cooper and Reimann [22], where design requirements are based on needs in order
to fulfil goals, wishes, and dreams. Similarly to communication scholars that
follow a U&G perspective, we posit that children are active in their
choice to use or not to use media/applications for certain reasons.(3) Assumption 3: Likeable Products Fulfil Gratifications
Finally, similarly to HCI
researchers that approach users as purposeful and task oriented, U&G
researchers make the assumption that people use media in order to serve their
needs and fulfil their gratifications. This is an interesting perspective, especially
in the context of designing for fun or for playful interaction, where the goal
is not to produce output or accomplish productivity tasks but rather enjoying
the process. With regard to the U&G paradigm, a distinction is made betweengratifications that are sought (GS) and those that are obtained (GO) from media use. To meet
the user needs, gratifications obtained should correspond with gratifications
sought. In this respect, we formulate our final assumption: in order to design likeable products for children, we need to fulfil
those gratifications that children seek in specific media.


### 2.1.3. Uses and Gratifications of Games and Play

Typically, research in the U&G
tradition begins with the identification of the gratifications that are sought
or the motivations for media use in relation to the traits of the audience. These
studies tend to show no universal set of motivations or gratifications sought
from media. Motivations vary across media, genres and user groups, and cultures
[11]. However, several U&G studies (cf. [23, 24]) on traditional media with
adults reveal the existence of four gratifications clusters that repeatedly
occur:(1)
information/surveillance,(2)
personal identity,(3)
integration/social interaction/personal relationships,(4)
entertainment/division/escapism.
Recently,
interesting studies have been conducted on video games and gratifications for
young players. Sherry
et al. [25], for example, conducted a survey (from elementary scholars to
university students) in order to determine the uses and gratifications of playing
video games. Sherry and Lucas [26] defined six gratifications that could explain
why young people play video games:(1)
competition:
to be the best player of the game;(2)
challenge: to push yourself to beat the game or to get to the next
highest level;(3)
social
interaction: to play as a social experience with friends;(4)
diversion: to pass time or
alleviate boredom;(5)
fantasy:
to do things that one cannot do in real life;(6)
arousal:  to play for excitement.
Many more
U&G studies exist and are carried out; in fact U&G is also seen as an
excellent way to study new media [27]. New media credit users with even more
control over their own activities. The active audience paradigm prevalent in
U&G aligns well with new interactive media such as the internet or video
games. In this respect, mass media scholars promote an adaptation of the
U&G framework to new technologies: “A challenge is for researchers to adapt
and mould the current conceptual framework to deal with new communications
technologies” [28, page 241].


## 2.1.1. The Uses and Gratifications Paradigm Outlined

The lack of available frameworks,
theories, and models in HCI on likeability research for children explains why
we turned our attention to communication sciences in order to find an appropriate
framework that is “human-” centered. The uses and gratifications (U&G)
paradigm, well known in mass communication science, is such a human-centered
framework. The uses and gratifications paradigm accepts that users actively
seek media, according to their needs and expectations, and give meaning to
these media. The basic premise of the U&G paradigm is that people actively
choose media to fulfil specific gratifications. U&G research is interested
in what uses and gratifications the audience derives from media and what appeal
media have for the audience. More particularly, the uses and gratifications (U&G)
paradigm focuses onhow frequently and especially why certain types of (genres within) media are used
and by whom [7–9]. Rosengren [10, 11] presented a U&G model in which basic needs, individual differences, and
contextual societal factors interact and result in a variety of gratifications
that are sought from the media. People then use media in the hope that the
gratifications they seek can actually be obtained.Figure1 shows a simplified model of
the U&G paradigm, presented by Lucas and Sherry [12] and based on Rosengren
[10]. The U&G model does not specify how exactly the mix of societal
factors, individual characteristics, and basic needs leads to certain types of
media behaviour; rather, it calls on researchers to fill in these details.
However, it does acknowledge that no single factor drives media use; it is only
the mix and the interaction among needs, contextual factors, and individual
characteristics that can predict media use.Figure 1
A simplified model of the uses
and gratifications paradigm, by Lucas and Sherry [12] based on Rosengren’s
outline [10].For our research, we find this
all-encompassing view interesting because it is similar to the multiparadigmatic
view in human-computer interaction. HCI researchers also stress the interplay
between social/contextual, individual/psychological, and tool/media
characteristics. Nevertheless, models or theories that are employed to research
enjoyment or fun are often narrowed down to physio/psychological parameters
[13, 14]. In contrast, the U&G framework allows for a global approach that
does not only incorporate basic biological influences and psychological
dispositions but also addresses the social context. The influence and importance of context for product experiences can be
found with different HCI researchers and theorists. Goffman [15], for example, refers
to “situated experience”; Overbeeke et al. [16], Hummels et al. [17], and Dourish
[18] emphasize the importance of “context for experience”; Hassenzahl [6] mentions
“context of use.”


## 2.1.2. Three Assumptions for Adopting the U&g Framework

In order to be able to use the U&G framework as a foundation for our
likeability framework, we need to accept the following assumptions [4].(1) Assumption 1: Interactive Artefacts Can Be Seen as Media
The choice
for the U&G framework implies that we abandon paradigms that are current in
work on human computer interaction, such as the “tool perspective” or the “usability
perspective.” These perspectives are attuned to an adaptation of information
and communication technologies to users’ cognitive competences. Such
adaptations result in a more efficient and effective performance of predefined
tasks. Technologies are also often conceptualized as “tools” within the HCI
community. These “tools” then function as an extension of the human body and/or
mind, compensating for human shortcomings [20]. However, we no longer view
artefacts as “tools,” neither do we follow the “usability perspective”; instead
we look upon applications as “media” [20]. The adaptation of the U&G framework in
likeability research demands acceptance of the view that artefacts like
interactive toys and games can be considered as media. The “media perspective” in HCI resembles the way communication sciences
define the concept “media.” Media are then defined as bridges that make
communication and information possible between people [20]. This leads us to
the first assumption: the U&G framework requires us to accept that interactive toys, games, and
other artefacts that support play activities can be thought of as media.(2) Assumption 2: Children are Active in Their Choice of Media
U&G starts from the premise that
the audience is active; an important part of mass media use is assumed to be
goal directed [7]. Instead of being passive bystanders, people choose to
engage in a medium and their choice reflects their need for gratifications.
Thus, need gratification and media choice lie within the audience member. The perspective of
an active audience is illustrated by Schramm et al. [21, page 169] who
state that “in order to understand television’s impact and effect on children,
we have first to get away from the unrealistic concept of what television does
to children and substitute the concept of what children do with television.”
Clearly, this idea, that one
actively chooses to deal with a certain medium based on particular needs and
the need for gratifications, is very similar to the user-centred approaches
that prevail in HCI. For instance, we can refer to the goal-directed design
approach of Cooper and Reimann [22], where design requirements are based on needs in order
to fulfil goals, wishes, and dreams. Similarly to communication scholars that
follow a U&G perspective, we posit that children are active in their
choice to use or not to use media/applications for certain reasons.(3) Assumption 3: Likeable Products Fulfil Gratifications
Finally, similarly to HCI
researchers that approach users as purposeful and task oriented, U&G
researchers make the assumption that people use media in order to serve their
needs and fulfil their gratifications. This is an interesting perspective, especially
in the context of designing for fun or for playful interaction, where the goal
is not to produce output or accomplish productivity tasks but rather enjoying
the process. With regard to the U&G paradigm, a distinction is made betweengratifications that are sought (GS) and those that are obtained (GO) from media use. To meet
the user needs, gratifications obtained should correspond with gratifications
sought. In this respect, we formulate our final assumption: in order to design likeable products for children, we need to fulfil
those gratifications that children seek in specific media.


## 2.1.3. Uses and Gratifications of Games and Play

Typically, research in the U&G
tradition begins with the identification of the gratifications that are sought
or the motivations for media use in relation to the traits of the audience. These
studies tend to show no universal set of motivations or gratifications sought
from media. Motivations vary across media, genres and user groups, and cultures
[11]. However, several U&G studies (cf. [23, 24]) on traditional media with
adults reveal the existence of four gratifications clusters that repeatedly
occur:(1)
information/surveillance,(2)
personal identity,(3)
integration/social interaction/personal relationships,(4)
entertainment/division/escapism.
Recently,
interesting studies have been conducted on video games and gratifications for
young players. Sherry
et al. [25], for example, conducted a survey (from elementary scholars to
university students) in order to determine the uses and gratifications of playing
video games. Sherry and Lucas [26] defined six gratifications that could explain
why young people play video games:(1)
competition:
to be the best player of the game;(2)
challenge: to push yourself to beat the game or to get to the next
highest level;(3)
social
interaction: to play as a social experience with friends;(4)
diversion: to pass time or
alleviate boredom;(5)
fantasy:
to do things that one cannot do in real life;(6)
arousal:  to play for excitement.
Many more
U&G studies exist and are carried out; in fact U&G is also seen as an
excellent way to study new media [27]. New media credit users with even more
control over their own activities. The active audience paradigm prevalent in
U&G aligns well with new interactive media such as the internet or video
games. In this respect, mass media scholars promote an adaptation of the
U&G framework to new technologies: “A challenge is for researchers to adapt
and mould the current conceptual framework to deal with new communications
technologies” [28, page 241].


## 2.2. Expectancy Value Theory: From High Level Gratifications to Low Level Attributes

Typically, U&G studies result in
a set of motives or gratifications that are still quite general or abstract.
Let us recall the game gratifications that Sherry and Lucas defined:
competition, challenge, social interaction, diversions, fantasy, and arousal. A
designer might point out that these gratifications are interesting but do not
provide useful operational guidelines for designing actual media products.
Consequently, the U&G framework can be perceived as too abstract to offer
concrete guidelines for designing interactive applications. Therefore, to
understand the relationship between the design of a media application and the
gratifications of that media user, we rely on an extension/addition to the
U&G framework. To make this transition, we rely on expectancy value theory,
first introduced by Fishbein and Ajzen [29, 30] in the nineteen seventies and adopted and
refined by many scholars and disciplines in later years.


### 2.2.1. Expectancy Value Theory

Expectancy value (EV) theory is
based on the premise that all human behaviour (including media use) is shaped
by behavioural intentions or attitudes. These attitudes are shaped by the expectations
(beliefs) one holds about an object. In turn, these expectations are based upon
specific attributes of the object. An expectation or belief then is the
subjective (for the user) probability that an object has a given attribute.
Furthermore, each attribute has either a positive or negative value associated
with this expectation,(1)Ao=∑i=1nbiei. As seen in the formal expression by
Fishbein and Ajzen [29], the attitude towards an object (Ao) is a
function of a belief about the object attributes (bi) and the
evaluation of an attribute (ei). Expectancy value theory acknowledges
that users learn to choose a product (or medium) because they expect (believe)
that the product contains attributes that are instrumental to achieving desired
consequences.


### 2.2.2. Expectancy Value Theory and Uses and Gratifications

EV theory was first linked to
U&G by Palmgreen. “A fundamental
assumption of U&G models, that of an active audience, is in fact founded
upon the even more basic precept that audience members do have perceptions of
the gratifications available from various alternatives, and that they act upon
these perceptions.” [8].User gratifications are shaped by (1)
the expectancy or the perceived probability that using a media application will
have a certain consequence and by (2) the evaluation or the positive or
negative affect towards the consequence.U&G researchers Palmgreen and
Rayburn [8] explain this relationship. They see gratifications as a function
of the user evaluation of a media object. More particularly, Palmgreen and
Rayburn base themselves on Fishbein and Ajzen’s formal expression [29] and
state that the gratifications sought (GSo) in an object “o” are a
function of (the weighted sum of) the beliefs (bi) and evaluations
(ei) about the attributes “i” that object “o” possesses. More
specifically, the gratifications that users seek (or avoid) from a media object
“o” depend on the belief or the expectancy (=perceived probability) that “o”
has a particular attribute “i” and the positive or negative evaluation of that
attribute.The expression results in the
following formula:(2)GSo=∑i=1nbiei. The expectancies or beliefs about
the product attributes can be learned and modified through direct experience,
but might also be the result of communication and/or processes of induction and
deduction [8].One child might, for example ask his
parents to buy a computer game about Peter Pan (i.e., object, “o”) because he
believes that he will like it (gratification sought or “GSo”).
Although the child has never played this computer game before, he nevertheless
expects the game to be fun because of the central character (i.e., belief associated
with a certain game attribute, “bi”). Through previous experiences
of watching the Peter Pan movie, the child learned that the adventures of Peter
Pan are always fun and exciting (i.e., positive evaluation of game attribute,  “ei”).
However, if the child does not expect positive attributes or if he is convinced
that the object only induces negative attributes, then he would not ask to buy
it. The child may also, for instance, choose to quit playing the computer game
because it is too difficult and frustrating (beliefs with negative evaluations)
which makes him loose control of the game (“GS”).


### 2.2.3. Means-End Theory

In contrast to our
simple Peter Pan example, in real life the gratifications sought are mostly
determined by more than one belief about a positive or negative attribute. Each
gratification is indeed determined by a set of beliefs and evaluations of
attributes.Unfortunately,
Palmgreen’s elaboration of U&G with EV theory did not generate many
research projects within the U&G tradition that focus on how media
attributes influence the audience behavioural intentions. Nor did Palmgreen
elaborate on methods to extract these beliefs from the audience. However, EV
theory has not only been linked to social psychology and communication
sciences. In consumer research, EV theory parallels research based upon means-end
theory [6, 31, 32].The common
premise of means-end theory and expectancy value theory is that users learn to choose
a product (or medium) because it contains attributes that are instrumental to
achieving desired consequences and fulfilling values. The common generic means-end
chain consists of attributes (A), consequences or benefits (C), and values (V)
[32].  The consequences of using a
product in this case correspond to the “gratifications sought” within U&G
research. In consumer research, means-end chains are used to explain what
motivated consumers to desire certain products or product attributes. In human
computer interaction, Subramony [33] and Zaman [34] successfully used means-end
chains and consequently “laddering” as a qualitative research method to create
design recommendations.Means-end analysis is preferably
done via laddering [31]. Laddering refers to an in-depth, one-on-one
interviewing technique, used to develop an understanding of how users translate
the attributes of a product into meaningful associations with the “self” [32].
Laddering involves a tailored interviewing format using primarily a series of
directed probes, typified by the following question: “why is that important to
you?” The goal is to identify linkages between key perceptual elements across
the range of attributes, consequences, and values. These association networks
or ladders, ranging from the concrete to the abstract, provide an understanding
of the relations between a product’s attributes and the user motivational
perspective to acquire this product. Laddering
allows discovering the underlying reasons why an attribute is important, in
relation to the underlying gratification.


## 2.2.1. Expectancy Value Theory

Expectancy value (EV) theory is
based on the premise that all human behaviour (including media use) is shaped
by behavioural intentions or attitudes. These attitudes are shaped by the expectations
(beliefs) one holds about an object. In turn, these expectations are based upon
specific attributes of the object. An expectation or belief then is the
subjective (for the user) probability that an object has a given attribute.
Furthermore, each attribute has either a positive or negative value associated
with this expectation,(1)Ao=∑i=1nbiei. As seen in the formal expression by
Fishbein and Ajzen [29], the attitude towards an object (Ao) is a
function of a belief about the object attributes (bi) and the
evaluation of an attribute (ei). Expectancy value theory acknowledges
that users learn to choose a product (or medium) because they expect (believe)
that the product contains attributes that are instrumental to achieving desired
consequences.


## 2.2.2. Expectancy Value Theory and Uses and Gratifications

EV theory was first linked to
U&G by Palmgreen. “A fundamental
assumption of U&G models, that of an active audience, is in fact founded
upon the even more basic precept that audience members do have perceptions of
the gratifications available from various alternatives, and that they act upon
these perceptions.” [8].User gratifications are shaped by (1)
the expectancy or the perceived probability that using a media application will
have a certain consequence and by (2) the evaluation or the positive or
negative affect towards the consequence.U&G researchers Palmgreen and
Rayburn [8] explain this relationship. They see gratifications as a function
of the user evaluation of a media object. More particularly, Palmgreen and
Rayburn base themselves on Fishbein and Ajzen’s formal expression [29] and
state that the gratifications sought (GSo) in an object “o” are a
function of (the weighted sum of) the beliefs (bi) and evaluations
(ei) about the attributes “i” that object “o” possesses. More
specifically, the gratifications that users seek (or avoid) from a media object
“o” depend on the belief or the expectancy (=perceived probability) that “o”
has a particular attribute “i” and the positive or negative evaluation of that
attribute.The expression results in the
following formula:(2)GSo=∑i=1nbiei. The expectancies or beliefs about
the product attributes can be learned and modified through direct experience,
but might also be the result of communication and/or processes of induction and
deduction [8].One child might, for example ask his
parents to buy a computer game about Peter Pan (i.e., object, “o”) because he
believes that he will like it (gratification sought or “GSo”).
Although the child has never played this computer game before, he nevertheless
expects the game to be fun because of the central character (i.e., belief associated
with a certain game attribute, “bi”). Through previous experiences
of watching the Peter Pan movie, the child learned that the adventures of Peter
Pan are always fun and exciting (i.e., positive evaluation of game attribute,  “ei”).
However, if the child does not expect positive attributes or if he is convinced
that the object only induces negative attributes, then he would not ask to buy
it. The child may also, for instance, choose to quit playing the computer game
because it is too difficult and frustrating (beliefs with negative evaluations)
which makes him loose control of the game (“GS”).


## 2.2.3. Means-End Theory

In contrast to our
simple Peter Pan example, in real life the gratifications sought are mostly
determined by more than one belief about a positive or negative attribute. Each
gratification is indeed determined by a set of beliefs and evaluations of
attributes.Unfortunately,
Palmgreen’s elaboration of U&G with EV theory did not generate many
research projects within the U&G tradition that focus on how media
attributes influence the audience behavioural intentions. Nor did Palmgreen
elaborate on methods to extract these beliefs from the audience. However, EV
theory has not only been linked to social psychology and communication
sciences. In consumer research, EV theory parallels research based upon means-end
theory [6, 31, 32].The common
premise of means-end theory and expectancy value theory is that users learn to choose
a product (or medium) because it contains attributes that are instrumental to
achieving desired consequences and fulfilling values. The common generic means-end
chain consists of attributes (A), consequences or benefits (C), and values (V)
[32].  The consequences of using a
product in this case correspond to the “gratifications sought” within U&G
research. In consumer research, means-end chains are used to explain what
motivated consumers to desire certain products or product attributes. In human
computer interaction, Subramony [33] and Zaman [34] successfully used means-end
chains and consequently “laddering” as a qualitative research method to create
design recommendations.Means-end analysis is preferably
done via laddering [31]. Laddering refers to an in-depth, one-on-one
interviewing technique, used to develop an understanding of how users translate
the attributes of a product into meaningful associations with the “self” [32].
Laddering involves a tailored interviewing format using primarily a series of
directed probes, typified by the following question: “why is that important to
you?” The goal is to identify linkages between key perceptual elements across
the range of attributes, consequences, and values. These association networks
or ladders, ranging from the concrete to the abstract, provide an understanding
of the relations between a product’s attributes and the user motivational
perspective to acquire this product. Laddering
allows discovering the underlying reasons why an attribute is important, in
relation to the underlying gratification.


## 2.3. Combining Uses and Gratifications with Expectancy Value Theory

To conclude the first section of
this article, we posit that we should combine U&G and EV theory in order to
research and design likeable products for a given audience in a given context.
In Figure2 we illustrate how basic needs, society and context, and individual
characteristics lead to gratifications. We should also understand how these
gratifications are based upon expectancies and evaluations of attributes. In
order to design likeable toys and interactive applications for preschoolers in
the home environment, we need to understand how basic needs, society and
context, and individual characteristics lead to preschoolers’ gratifications
that need to be fulfilled. Next, we need to understand which beliefs
preschoolers hold with regard to the medium attributes and how these attributes
are related to the gratifications of preschoolers. In the following section, we
will discuss how we applied this underlying theoretical structure to a
practical case for preschoolers.Figure 2
The extended likeability
framework.


## 3. CuTI: Applying the Extended Likeability Framework to Preschoolers in the Home Environment

Although many U&G studies are
conducted on the gratifications for traditional media, and recently for digital
media and games, no recent U&G or EV studies, to our knowledge, have been
done on preschoolers and interactive media in the home environment. Therefore,
we decided to take up a new research project, which we called CuTI [35]. CuTI is the acronym for “Cuddle Toy Interface,”
an on-going project aimed at revealing those particular user gratifications and design attributes that support
playful behaviour and fun activities of preschoolers within the context of the
home environment.The
gratifications and attributes we find can inform the design of interactive toys
and games in later stages. We emphasize that CutTI is an on-going project. The case here is
offered to provide insight into how to apply the theoretical framework.  We wish to emphasize that the specific
gratifications and attributes uncovered in this initial study are preliminary
insights, needing further validation with confirmatory research modes.


### 3.1. CuTI Research Method

Researching five years old children in the
home environment calls for appropriate research methods. A survey of what
preschoolers prefer, and for what reasons, would not provide the in-depth
information we were looking for, nor would this approach be effective with our
young audience. Consequently, in [4, 34, 36, 37] we explain our child-centered
methodology for researching the likeability framework.Briefly stated, we first combined
the existing literature on child-computer interaction and uses and
gratifications research on games. Armed with this information and with a
preliminary and theoretical classification of gratifications [4], we conducted
qualitative user research in order to refine our findings. More specifically,
we combined user diaries and cultural probe packages followed by participant
observations and depth interviews [36, 37].As research participants, we
selected 8 households with five years old children. During a time span of one week, we
researched these preschoolers and their families at home. At the beginning of
the week, the researcher explained the purpose of the project and handed over
the package consisting of user diaries and cultural probes to the preschoolers
and their parents. A first observation of the child and his/her social and
physical environment was made. At the end of the week, the researcher collected
the diary and probes. These user diaries and probes allowed refining and
validating the gratifications [4]. Next, the researcher conducted an interview
with and observation of the child, guided by the diary and the results of the
probing activities. The goal was to better understand “why” these activities
were considered fun, and to attempt to link attributes to the gratifications.
Hence, for each of the activities listed in the diary we asked the preschooler
to explain “why it was fun.” Because of the cognitive limitations of
preschoolers, we converted the “laddering” method as listed in [33, 34] to “reflection
in action.” Basically, we asked children to elaborate on why something was fun,
while demonstrating the activity or playing the fun activity.At the end of the interview session,
the researcher completed the data collection by interviewing the parent(s),
asking additional information on the fun activities and also on the parental
attitude and influence towards these fun activities. For more detailed
information on the specific adapted research methodology for preschoolers in
the home environment, we refer to [4, 34, 36, 37].


### 3.2. Applying the Extended Likeability Framework

To illustrate the practical use of
the extended likeability framework (ELF), we now “fill it in” with the findings
of the CuTI project. The aim is not only to discuss the exploratory
gratifications and attributes found but also to demonstrate how the ELF can
easily be filled in and used as a concrete design guide.Figure3 presents our extended likeability
framework. It illustrates how an interaction between basic needs, contextual
societal factors, and individual characteristics influences the gratifications
children get or seek. In total, we discern five different gratification areas
that make things fun and likeable. We hereby assume that the more a product
fulfils these gratifications and possesses the related positively evaluated
attributes, the more the product will be likeable for preschoolers.Figure 3
The extended likeability
framework as applied to preschoolers in the home environment.In the following paragraphs, we will
discuss each part of the extended likeability framework. First, preschoolers’
basic needs, social and physical environment, and individual characteristics
are dealt with (the left column of Figure3). Then, we go into more detail on
preschoolers’ gratifications (the middle column).  For every gratification, we will discuss how
these gratifications are connected with the products’ attributes (the right
column).


### 3.3. Basic Needs, Contextual Influences and Individual Characteristics of Likeable Applications for Preschoolers in the Home Environment

#### 3.3.1. Basic Needs

With “basic needs,” universal biological
and psychological motives are meant [9]. Often in this context, the needs
pyramid of Maslow [28, 38] is referred to. In his needs pyramid, Maslow [38] mentions
organic and physical needs, the need for security and safety, the need for
social experiences, the need for recognition and appreciations as well as the
need for self-actualization [28]. Besides basic needs mentioned by Maslow,
there is a general consensus that play from a functional perspective is
necessary for learning and development. Based upon the work of several
developmental psychologists and ludologists [39–43] we add the need
to play as a universal, basic need for children.


#### 3.3.2. Society and Context

With “society,” we refer to the
prevailing social, political, cultural, economic, and media structures. Since young
children are our main target group, insight in their social and cultural
context is crucial. Adults inevitably forget what it is to be a child. The
contextual landscape has changed, so that adults no longer understand what it
is to grow up as a child today. Moreover, each child differs from eachother and
may have grown up in a different social and physical environment. For our
research in the context of the CuTI programme we limited ourselves to the
nuclear family, consisting of two adults of both sexes, and one or more own or adopted
children.


#### 3.3.3. Individual Characteristics

Individual characteristics typically
refer to the psychological nature and demographic characteristics of the
audience. Rosengren [10] makes a distinction between intra- and extraindividual
characteristics. The intraindividual characteristics encompass, for example,
the personality traits and developmental stages, whereas someone’s social
position is an example of an extra individual characteristic.


### 3.4. Gratifications and Attributes of Likeable Applications for Preschoolers in the Home Environment

We now focus on the high level
gratifications and low level attributes of likeable products. To arrive at the
gratifications, we first combined the existing literature on child-computer interaction
and uses and gratifications research to derive a preliminary list of
hypothetical uses and gratifications. Next, we conducted qualitative user
research that allowed us to refine our list of gratifications and to come up with
our definitive list of hypothetical gratifications. To arrive at the attributes
we defined gratifications as a function of beliefs and evaluations of
particular attributes.We emphasize that we do not contend
that our list of attributes is exhaustive (more research is needed to be able
to claim reasonable exhaustiveness), nor do we pretend that one media
application should try to incorporate all these attributes. Yet we do think
that a list of attributes, such as the one derived from initial research such
as ours, can inform the research community and help to understand the diverse
gratifications and the ways to translate these into design solutions.


#### 3.4.1. Gratification “Challenge and Control”

With “challenge and control,” we
adopt Csikszentmihalyi’s theory of flow [44]. Flow theory deals with the fact that, in order to be truly
challenging and “absorbing,” an activity or task needs to address the right
skill level. If the task is too easy it becomes boring; if it is too hard it becomes
frustrating. If the challenge is tuned right, however, activities become so
rewarding that they are done just for the sake of “doing it.” Challenge is thus
intertwined with development, with learning new information and mastering new
skills. This gratification is also well researched and addressed in the
research on child-computer interaction [45–48]. In our framework, “surprise”
is conceptualized in the category of challenge. Surprise, control, and
challenge are indeed important catalysts for likeability [49, 50].


#### 3.4.2. Attributes of “Challenge and Control”

Addressing the right skill level,  not too hard, not too easy, was very
important for our preschoolers. Learning is part of this category and often
mentioned as fun, for example, learning about dinosaurs. In our CuTI project,
children often stressed that something was “very hard” in a proud way. To them,
it was important that things were “not for babies.” Being “cool” often involved
a challenge or “danger.” Children with younger siblings stressed that they
could do things younger siblings could not. The other way around, children with
older siblings really wanted to be able to do the same thing as their older
brother or sister.  Part of the challenge
was also that things are unpredictable and satisfy curiosity. Fun activities
that surprised or provided suspense (slimy worms, jack-in-the box, etc.) were
popular. However, being scared could quickly turn aversive and become really
scary. Especially because of the (sometimes) blurred boundary between the real
and the magic world, we observed that some activities were on the edge of
offering too much suspense at the expense of loosing “control.”We conclude that likeable media
objects that focus on fulfilling the “challenge and control gratification”
should consider the following attributes: (a) offering the right challenge, not
too easy, not too hard; (b) appearing “cool” (as for older children or a little
dangerous) and not for “babies”; (c) satisfying curiosity, offer something new;
(d) Provide suspense while not being too scary.


#### 3.4.3. Gratification “Social Experiences”

With this category, we refer to fun
activities that occur in the presence of others. Rice offers the classification
of play according to the degree of social involvement: unoccupied play,
solitary play, onlooker, play, parallel play, associative play and finally
cooperative play. All these different types of play indeed came up during our
research.Based on Schutz’ interpretation [51],
we distinguish between activities that point towards “inclusion” (being a
member of a social group), “affection” (expression of being accepted), and “control
of others” (being able to have an influence on others). Stelmaszewska et al.
[3] and Jansz and Tanis [52] also refer to the positive relation between social
experiences and likeability. Offering social experiences is important for the
likeability of a media application.


#### 3.4.4. Attributes of “Social Experiences”

With “social experiences,” we denote
activities that refer to being together with/ or in the presence of others.
Although preschoolers have an egocentric worldview, this certainly does not
mean a lack of interest in social experiences. In our project, the activities
that were mentioned as most fun by our subjects often implied the cooperation
of a parent, sibling, or friend. However, playing together did not always
literally mean playing “together” (associative or cooperative play). Often,
playing together pointed to individual play, but still within the presence of a
family member or friend (onlooker play, parallel play). Clearly, “playing alone
together” was still preferred over “playing alone” (solitary play). We noticed
that siblings were eagerly present to “disturb” or “facilitate” play, and again
affected the fun activity profoundly. Furthermore, we noticed that the (undivided)
attention of a parent or other adult was of particular value. Such activity
often ended up as the most fun of the day. Also activities that involved no
direct social experience but ensured inclusion in a social group indirectly
were popular, for example, watching a television show in order to be part of
the group. Finally, control over others was an important issue; being “the boss”
or having a “dominant” role in playing was important, for example, being able to
decide “who’s next.”We conclude that likeable media
objects that focus on fulfilling the “social experience gratification” should
consider the following attributes: (a) allowing playing together or if not
possible allowing playing “alone together”; (b) stimulating playing/attention
of adults; (c) considering the siblings in the environment; (d) providing a
sense of control over others.


#### 3.4.5. Gratification “Fantasy”

With “fantasy,” we include all
activities that address role-playing, pretense play (also referred to as dramatic
play or symbolic play), mimicry, and make-believe [39, 41]. Make-believe
concerns the imagination of objects and events without any immediate link to
the real world. According to developmental psychologists such as Berk [39, pages 217, 224], fantasy is a very
important activity for preschoolers. With preschoolers, make-believe becomes
more and more complex. From the age of three year, children can easily imagine
objects or situations without an immediate link with real life. Through fantasy
experiences, children can go beyond the boundaries of normal experience. This
can make them feel more than what they really are. We found that fantasy and
role-playing are extremely important and often precede the other components of
fun activities, or coordinate the diverse other components of fun activities.


#### 3.4.6. Attributes of “Fantasy”

With “fantasy,” all activities that
address role-playing, pretense play, mimicry, and make-believe are concerned.
As for our project, we found that dressing up and objects that support fantasy
roles (e.g., fairies or pirates) as well as everyday roles (e.g., construction
worker, caregiver) were very popular. Offering a story that stimulated children
to enter into a world of fantasy seemed to guarantee “fun.” We noticed a strong
gender disparity, where it was important that children could stay within
consistent gender roles. Girls want to be princesses, boys want to be knights.
Gender neutrality is accepted, but inverse gender roles inhibit play (e.g., a
girl refused to play with a “male pirate” pawn).Together with “fantasy,” we
encountered the magical thinking that is a characteristic of children of this
age. While we observed role-playing, the boundaries between the real and the
fictional world often disappeared,for example, snapping out of a role was often
found difficult. Children placed a great weight on their imaginary lives and
roles and liked to keep on their dresses and makeup when switching to another
activity, they liked to stay in their “magic circle.”We conclude that likeable media
objects that focus on fulfilling the “Fantasy gratification” should consider
the following attributes: (a) fostering dressing up; (b) offering a story; (c) offering
gender-sensitive or neutral roles; (d) allowing for staying in their magic
circle.


#### 3.4.7. Gratification “Creative and Constructive Expressions”

Important to preschoolers is the
need for self-expression and self-disclosure, materialized or expressed in a noticeable
way. This gratification concerns activities such as drawing, painting,
modelling, constructing, storytelling, singing, and so on. Creating or
constructing something is especially common between the ages of three and six
years  [39, page 251]. As preschoolers get
older, their creative skills develop. Not only the process matters but also the
end product. Five years old children are aware that they can create something and are
proud of it. They have a need for appreciation and recognition of this.  Artefacts of preschoolers become an
alternative way to express feelings and thoughts.


#### 3.4.8. Attributes of “Creative and Constructive Expressions”

In the CuTI project, we noticed that
children could really be absorbed into expressive activities such as drawing,
painting, handicrafts, but also constructing, carpentry, storytelling, and so
on. Our preschoolers even liked simply sorting objects according to colour or
shape. We found that activities that allow expression should contain attributes
that both inspire and guide the activity. On the one hand, one should provide an
example of what can be made (such as a mould or a picture), but on the other
hand the child should be given enough flexibility to still “own” the creation.
If the activity merely consists of putting an object in the right place, then it
does not allow the child to demonstrate his/her creativity. Whether it is
drawing, building, modelling, and so forth, it is very important that there is a clear
result that can somehow be demonstrated. The prospect of having created
something that can be shown or that can “last” is part of the pleasure of
creation.We conclude that likeable media
objects that focus on fulfilling the “creative and constructive expressions
gratification” should consider the following attributes:
(a) allowing
self-expression in a myriad of ways; (b) allowing a result that lasts and can
be displayed; (c) providing sources of inspiration.


#### 3.4.9. Gratification “Body and Senses”

Finally, “senses” refers to all
behaviours in which the senses are involved such as eating, tickles, watching
colour patterns, making strange noises, and so on [41]. Besides, these sensory
stimulations, children are also keen on physical sensations (“body”) such as
jumping and running very fast. Roger Callois addressed this category of play
based on bodily action as “vertigo” [53]. According to Berk [39], even simple
repetitive motor movement can be considered the earliest form of play. We found
that sensory stimulation in all its forms (not just motor movements) is
important and considered fun for our preschoolers; it is not essential to
distinguish between input or sensory perception (senses), and output via the
motor system (body), as these blend into each other.


#### 3.4.10. Attributes of “Body and Senses”

When focusing on current games, certainly
on video games, the gratification “body and senses” is often not addressed, or
narrowed down to impressive graphics, sound, and “button bashing.” However, we
found that “all” senses are important. Our preschoolers loved things that move
around, make noises, have bright lights, and have a soft touch or nice smell. Further,
games that involved tickling, massaging, cuddling, or touching were very
popular. To our surprise, many fun activities also included eating; something
we did not expect to find, but that appeared in the observations of most
children. Finally, not surprisingly, children loved activities that involved
running around, jumping, tumbling, which we summarize as “vertigo.”We conclude that likeable media
objects that focus on fulfilling the “creative and constructive expressions
gratification” should consider the following attributes:  (a) addressing vertigo; (b) addressing senses,
also nontrivial senses such as smelling or tasting (eating).


#### 3.4.11. Combining Attributes

It is important to realize that most
activities involved several gratifications and many attributes, for example,  “taking a bath with mom” both involved “body and
senses” and “social experiences.”  “sorting out pearls”
was about  “creative and
constructive expression” but preschoolers also liked the activity because the colours
or shapes were in attractive colours, which points to “body and senses” and is
related to the “fantasy” gratification. “Walking in between sheep”
involved “body
and senses” but also “challenge and control.” In fact, none of the activities
that were listed could be narrowed down to one gratification, but oftentimes
involved two or three of them.


### 3.5. Summarizing Gratifications and Attributes

To summarize, we believe that when
designing likeable applications for preschoolers, we need to fulfil the
gratifications mentioned in our likeability framework:challenge and control,
social experiences, fantasy, creative and constructive expressions and body and
senses. As for the CuTI case,
the framework implies that an object will be likeable if preschoolers can
obtain these gratifications from it. More particularly, we found that if the
attributes mentioned in our extended likeability framework (see Figure3) are
provided, then the gratifications sought by preschoolers can be obtained.
Because preschoolers will evaluate these attributes positively, they will also actively
engage in using the media object and perceive the media object as “likeable.”
The more gratifications that can be obtained, the more likeable an object seems
to be.


## 3.1. CuTI Research Method

Researching five years old children in the
home environment calls for appropriate research methods. A survey of what
preschoolers prefer, and for what reasons, would not provide the in-depth
information we were looking for, nor would this approach be effective with our
young audience. Consequently, in [4, 34, 36, 37] we explain our child-centered
methodology for researching the likeability framework.Briefly stated, we first combined
the existing literature on child-computer interaction and uses and
gratifications research on games. Armed with this information and with a
preliminary and theoretical classification of gratifications [4], we conducted
qualitative user research in order to refine our findings. More specifically,
we combined user diaries and cultural probe packages followed by participant
observations and depth interviews [36, 37].As research participants, we
selected 8 households with five years old children. During a time span of one week, we
researched these preschoolers and their families at home. At the beginning of
the week, the researcher explained the purpose of the project and handed over
the package consisting of user diaries and cultural probes to the preschoolers
and their parents. A first observation of the child and his/her social and
physical environment was made. At the end of the week, the researcher collected
the diary and probes. These user diaries and probes allowed refining and
validating the gratifications [4]. Next, the researcher conducted an interview
with and observation of the child, guided by the diary and the results of the
probing activities. The goal was to better understand “why” these activities
were considered fun, and to attempt to link attributes to the gratifications.
Hence, for each of the activities listed in the diary we asked the preschooler
to explain “why it was fun.” Because of the cognitive limitations of
preschoolers, we converted the “laddering” method as listed in [33, 34] to “reflection
in action.” Basically, we asked children to elaborate on why something was fun,
while demonstrating the activity or playing the fun activity.At the end of the interview session,
the researcher completed the data collection by interviewing the parent(s),
asking additional information on the fun activities and also on the parental
attitude and influence towards these fun activities. For more detailed
information on the specific adapted research methodology for preschoolers in
the home environment, we refer to [4, 34, 36, 37].


## 3.2. Applying the Extended Likeability Framework

To illustrate the practical use of
the extended likeability framework (ELF), we now “fill it in” with the findings
of the CuTI project. The aim is not only to discuss the exploratory
gratifications and attributes found but also to demonstrate how the ELF can
easily be filled in and used as a concrete design guide.Figure3 presents our extended likeability
framework. It illustrates how an interaction between basic needs, contextual
societal factors, and individual characteristics influences the gratifications
children get or seek. In total, we discern five different gratification areas
that make things fun and likeable. We hereby assume that the more a product
fulfils these gratifications and possesses the related positively evaluated
attributes, the more the product will be likeable for preschoolers.Figure 3
The extended likeability
framework as applied to preschoolers in the home environment.In the following paragraphs, we will
discuss each part of the extended likeability framework. First, preschoolers’
basic needs, social and physical environment, and individual characteristics
are dealt with (the left column of Figure3). Then, we go into more detail on
preschoolers’ gratifications (the middle column).  For every gratification, we will discuss how
these gratifications are connected with the products’ attributes (the right
column).


## 3.3. Basic Needs, Contextual Influences and Individual Characteristics of Likeable Applications for Preschoolers in the Home Environment

### 3.3.1. Basic Needs

With “basic needs,” universal biological
and psychological motives are meant [9]. Often in this context, the needs
pyramid of Maslow [28, 38] is referred to. In his needs pyramid, Maslow [38] mentions
organic and physical needs, the need for security and safety, the need for
social experiences, the need for recognition and appreciations as well as the
need for self-actualization [28]. Besides basic needs mentioned by Maslow,
there is a general consensus that play from a functional perspective is
necessary for learning and development. Based upon the work of several
developmental psychologists and ludologists [39–43] we add the need
to play as a universal, basic need for children.


### 3.3.2. Society and Context

With “society,” we refer to the
prevailing social, political, cultural, economic, and media structures. Since young
children are our main target group, insight in their social and cultural
context is crucial. Adults inevitably forget what it is to be a child. The
contextual landscape has changed, so that adults no longer understand what it
is to grow up as a child today. Moreover, each child differs from eachother and
may have grown up in a different social and physical environment. For our
research in the context of the CuTI programme we limited ourselves to the
nuclear family, consisting of two adults of both sexes, and one or more own or adopted
children.


### 3.3.3. Individual Characteristics

Individual characteristics typically
refer to the psychological nature and demographic characteristics of the
audience. Rosengren [10] makes a distinction between intra- and extraindividual
characteristics. The intraindividual characteristics encompass, for example,
the personality traits and developmental stages, whereas someone’s social
position is an example of an extra individual characteristic.


## 3.3.1. Basic Needs

With “basic needs,” universal biological
and psychological motives are meant [9]. Often in this context, the needs
pyramid of Maslow [28, 38] is referred to. In his needs pyramid, Maslow [38] mentions
organic and physical needs, the need for security and safety, the need for
social experiences, the need for recognition and appreciations as well as the
need for self-actualization [28]. Besides basic needs mentioned by Maslow,
there is a general consensus that play from a functional perspective is
necessary for learning and development. Based upon the work of several
developmental psychologists and ludologists [39–43] we add the need
to play as a universal, basic need for children.


## 3.3.2. Society and Context

With “society,” we refer to the
prevailing social, political, cultural, economic, and media structures. Since young
children are our main target group, insight in their social and cultural
context is crucial. Adults inevitably forget what it is to be a child. The
contextual landscape has changed, so that adults no longer understand what it
is to grow up as a child today. Moreover, each child differs from eachother and
may have grown up in a different social and physical environment. For our
research in the context of the CuTI programme we limited ourselves to the
nuclear family, consisting of two adults of both sexes, and one or more own or adopted
children.


## 3.3.3. Individual Characteristics

Individual characteristics typically
refer to the psychological nature and demographic characteristics of the
audience. Rosengren [10] makes a distinction between intra- and extraindividual
characteristics. The intraindividual characteristics encompass, for example,
the personality traits and developmental stages, whereas someone’s social
position is an example of an extra individual characteristic.


## 3.4. Gratifications and Attributes of Likeable Applications for Preschoolers in the Home Environment

We now focus on the high level
gratifications and low level attributes of likeable products. To arrive at the
gratifications, we first combined the existing literature on child-computer interaction
and uses and gratifications research to derive a preliminary list of
hypothetical uses and gratifications. Next, we conducted qualitative user
research that allowed us to refine our list of gratifications and to come up with
our definitive list of hypothetical gratifications. To arrive at the attributes
we defined gratifications as a function of beliefs and evaluations of
particular attributes.We emphasize that we do not contend
that our list of attributes is exhaustive (more research is needed to be able
to claim reasonable exhaustiveness), nor do we pretend that one media
application should try to incorporate all these attributes. Yet we do think
that a list of attributes, such as the one derived from initial research such
as ours, can inform the research community and help to understand the diverse
gratifications and the ways to translate these into design solutions.


### 3.4.1. Gratification “Challenge and Control”

With “challenge and control,” we
adopt Csikszentmihalyi’s theory of flow [44]. Flow theory deals with the fact that, in order to be truly
challenging and “absorbing,” an activity or task needs to address the right
skill level. If the task is too easy it becomes boring; if it is too hard it becomes
frustrating. If the challenge is tuned right, however, activities become so
rewarding that they are done just for the sake of “doing it.” Challenge is thus
intertwined with development, with learning new information and mastering new
skills. This gratification is also well researched and addressed in the
research on child-computer interaction [45–48]. In our framework, “surprise”
is conceptualized in the category of challenge. Surprise, control, and
challenge are indeed important catalysts for likeability [49, 50].


### 3.4.2. Attributes of “Challenge and Control”

Addressing the right skill level,  not too hard, not too easy, was very
important for our preschoolers. Learning is part of this category and often
mentioned as fun, for example, learning about dinosaurs. In our CuTI project,
children often stressed that something was “very hard” in a proud way. To them,
it was important that things were “not for babies.” Being “cool” often involved
a challenge or “danger.” Children with younger siblings stressed that they
could do things younger siblings could not. The other way around, children with
older siblings really wanted to be able to do the same thing as their older
brother or sister.  Part of the challenge
was also that things are unpredictable and satisfy curiosity. Fun activities
that surprised or provided suspense (slimy worms, jack-in-the box, etc.) were
popular. However, being scared could quickly turn aversive and become really
scary. Especially because of the (sometimes) blurred boundary between the real
and the magic world, we observed that some activities were on the edge of
offering too much suspense at the expense of loosing “control.”We conclude that likeable media
objects that focus on fulfilling the “challenge and control gratification”
should consider the following attributes: (a) offering the right challenge, not
too easy, not too hard; (b) appearing “cool” (as for older children or a little
dangerous) and not for “babies”; (c) satisfying curiosity, offer something new;
(d) Provide suspense while not being too scary.


### 3.4.3. Gratification “Social Experiences”

With this category, we refer to fun
activities that occur in the presence of others. Rice offers the classification
of play according to the degree of social involvement: unoccupied play,
solitary play, onlooker, play, parallel play, associative play and finally
cooperative play. All these different types of play indeed came up during our
research.Based on Schutz’ interpretation [51],
we distinguish between activities that point towards “inclusion” (being a
member of a social group), “affection” (expression of being accepted), and “control
of others” (being able to have an influence on others). Stelmaszewska et al.
[3] and Jansz and Tanis [52] also refer to the positive relation between social
experiences and likeability. Offering social experiences is important for the
likeability of a media application.


### 3.4.4. Attributes of “Social Experiences”

With “social experiences,” we denote
activities that refer to being together with/ or in the presence of others.
Although preschoolers have an egocentric worldview, this certainly does not
mean a lack of interest in social experiences. In our project, the activities
that were mentioned as most fun by our subjects often implied the cooperation
of a parent, sibling, or friend. However, playing together did not always
literally mean playing “together” (associative or cooperative play). Often,
playing together pointed to individual play, but still within the presence of a
family member or friend (onlooker play, parallel play). Clearly, “playing alone
together” was still preferred over “playing alone” (solitary play). We noticed
that siblings were eagerly present to “disturb” or “facilitate” play, and again
affected the fun activity profoundly. Furthermore, we noticed that the (undivided)
attention of a parent or other adult was of particular value. Such activity
often ended up as the most fun of the day. Also activities that involved no
direct social experience but ensured inclusion in a social group indirectly
were popular, for example, watching a television show in order to be part of
the group. Finally, control over others was an important issue; being “the boss”
or having a “dominant” role in playing was important, for example, being able to
decide “who’s next.”We conclude that likeable media
objects that focus on fulfilling the “social experience gratification” should
consider the following attributes: (a) allowing playing together or if not
possible allowing playing “alone together”; (b) stimulating playing/attention
of adults; (c) considering the siblings in the environment; (d) providing a
sense of control over others.


### 3.4.5. Gratification “Fantasy”

With “fantasy,” we include all
activities that address role-playing, pretense play (also referred to as dramatic
play or symbolic play), mimicry, and make-believe [39, 41]. Make-believe
concerns the imagination of objects and events without any immediate link to
the real world. According to developmental psychologists such as Berk [39, pages 217, 224], fantasy is a very
important activity for preschoolers. With preschoolers, make-believe becomes
more and more complex. From the age of three year, children can easily imagine
objects or situations without an immediate link with real life. Through fantasy
experiences, children can go beyond the boundaries of normal experience. This
can make them feel more than what they really are. We found that fantasy and
role-playing are extremely important and often precede the other components of
fun activities, or coordinate the diverse other components of fun activities.


### 3.4.6. Attributes of “Fantasy”

With “fantasy,” all activities that
address role-playing, pretense play, mimicry, and make-believe are concerned.
As for our project, we found that dressing up and objects that support fantasy
roles (e.g., fairies or pirates) as well as everyday roles (e.g., construction
worker, caregiver) were very popular. Offering a story that stimulated children
to enter into a world of fantasy seemed to guarantee “fun.” We noticed a strong
gender disparity, where it was important that children could stay within
consistent gender roles. Girls want to be princesses, boys want to be knights.
Gender neutrality is accepted, but inverse gender roles inhibit play (e.g., a
girl refused to play with a “male pirate” pawn).Together with “fantasy,” we
encountered the magical thinking that is a characteristic of children of this
age. While we observed role-playing, the boundaries between the real and the
fictional world often disappeared,for example, snapping out of a role was often
found difficult. Children placed a great weight on their imaginary lives and
roles and liked to keep on their dresses and makeup when switching to another
activity, they liked to stay in their “magic circle.”We conclude that likeable media
objects that focus on fulfilling the “Fantasy gratification” should consider
the following attributes: (a) fostering dressing up; (b) offering a story; (c) offering
gender-sensitive or neutral roles; (d) allowing for staying in their magic
circle.


### 3.4.7. Gratification “Creative and Constructive Expressions”

Important to preschoolers is the
need for self-expression and self-disclosure, materialized or expressed in a noticeable
way. This gratification concerns activities such as drawing, painting,
modelling, constructing, storytelling, singing, and so on. Creating or
constructing something is especially common between the ages of three and six
years  [39, page 251]. As preschoolers get
older, their creative skills develop. Not only the process matters but also the
end product. Five years old children are aware that they can create something and are
proud of it. They have a need for appreciation and recognition of this.  Artefacts of preschoolers become an
alternative way to express feelings and thoughts.


### 3.4.8. Attributes of “Creative and Constructive Expressions”

In the CuTI project, we noticed that
children could really be absorbed into expressive activities such as drawing,
painting, handicrafts, but also constructing, carpentry, storytelling, and so
on. Our preschoolers even liked simply sorting objects according to colour or
shape. We found that activities that allow expression should contain attributes
that both inspire and guide the activity. On the one hand, one should provide an
example of what can be made (such as a mould or a picture), but on the other
hand the child should be given enough flexibility to still “own” the creation.
If the activity merely consists of putting an object in the right place, then it
does not allow the child to demonstrate his/her creativity. Whether it is
drawing, building, modelling, and so forth, it is very important that there is a clear
result that can somehow be demonstrated. The prospect of having created
something that can be shown or that can “last” is part of the pleasure of
creation.We conclude that likeable media
objects that focus on fulfilling the “creative and constructive expressions
gratification” should consider the following attributes:
(a) allowing
self-expression in a myriad of ways; (b) allowing a result that lasts and can
be displayed; (c) providing sources of inspiration.


### 3.4.9. Gratification “Body and Senses”

Finally, “senses” refers to all
behaviours in which the senses are involved such as eating, tickles, watching
colour patterns, making strange noises, and so on [41]. Besides, these sensory
stimulations, children are also keen on physical sensations (“body”) such as
jumping and running very fast. Roger Callois addressed this category of play
based on bodily action as “vertigo” [53]. According to Berk [39], even simple
repetitive motor movement can be considered the earliest form of play. We found
that sensory stimulation in all its forms (not just motor movements) is
important and considered fun for our preschoolers; it is not essential to
distinguish between input or sensory perception (senses), and output via the
motor system (body), as these blend into each other.


### 3.4.10. Attributes of “Body and Senses”

When focusing on current games, certainly
on video games, the gratification “body and senses” is often not addressed, or
narrowed down to impressive graphics, sound, and “button bashing.” However, we
found that “all” senses are important. Our preschoolers loved things that move
around, make noises, have bright lights, and have a soft touch or nice smell. Further,
games that involved tickling, massaging, cuddling, or touching were very
popular. To our surprise, many fun activities also included eating; something
we did not expect to find, but that appeared in the observations of most
children. Finally, not surprisingly, children loved activities that involved
running around, jumping, tumbling, which we summarize as “vertigo.”We conclude that likeable media
objects that focus on fulfilling the “creative and constructive expressions
gratification” should consider the following attributes:  (a) addressing vertigo; (b) addressing senses,
also nontrivial senses such as smelling or tasting (eating).


### 3.4.11. Combining Attributes

It is important to realize that most
activities involved several gratifications and many attributes, for example,  “taking a bath with mom” both involved “body and
senses” and “social experiences.”  “sorting out pearls”
was about  “creative and
constructive expression” but preschoolers also liked the activity because the colours
or shapes were in attractive colours, which points to “body and senses” and is
related to the “fantasy” gratification. “Walking in between sheep”
involved “body
and senses” but also “challenge and control.” In fact, none of the activities
that were listed could be narrowed down to one gratification, but oftentimes
involved two or three of them.


## 3.4.1. Gratification “Challenge and Control”

With “challenge and control,” we
adopt Csikszentmihalyi’s theory of flow [44]. Flow theory deals with the fact that, in order to be truly
challenging and “absorbing,” an activity or task needs to address the right
skill level. If the task is too easy it becomes boring; if it is too hard it becomes
frustrating. If the challenge is tuned right, however, activities become so
rewarding that they are done just for the sake of “doing it.” Challenge is thus
intertwined with development, with learning new information and mastering new
skills. This gratification is also well researched and addressed in the
research on child-computer interaction [45–48]. In our framework, “surprise”
is conceptualized in the category of challenge. Surprise, control, and
challenge are indeed important catalysts for likeability [49, 50].


## 3.4.2. Attributes of “Challenge and Control”

Addressing the right skill level,  not too hard, not too easy, was very
important for our preschoolers. Learning is part of this category and often
mentioned as fun, for example, learning about dinosaurs. In our CuTI project,
children often stressed that something was “very hard” in a proud way. To them,
it was important that things were “not for babies.” Being “cool” often involved
a challenge or “danger.” Children with younger siblings stressed that they
could do things younger siblings could not. The other way around, children with
older siblings really wanted to be able to do the same thing as their older
brother or sister.  Part of the challenge
was also that things are unpredictable and satisfy curiosity. Fun activities
that surprised or provided suspense (slimy worms, jack-in-the box, etc.) were
popular. However, being scared could quickly turn aversive and become really
scary. Especially because of the (sometimes) blurred boundary between the real
and the magic world, we observed that some activities were on the edge of
offering too much suspense at the expense of loosing “control.”We conclude that likeable media
objects that focus on fulfilling the “challenge and control gratification”
should consider the following attributes: (a) offering the right challenge, not
too easy, not too hard; (b) appearing “cool” (as for older children or a little
dangerous) and not for “babies”; (c) satisfying curiosity, offer something new;
(d) Provide suspense while not being too scary.


## 3.4.3. Gratification “Social Experiences”

With this category, we refer to fun
activities that occur in the presence of others. Rice offers the classification
of play according to the degree of social involvement: unoccupied play,
solitary play, onlooker, play, parallel play, associative play and finally
cooperative play. All these different types of play indeed came up during our
research.Based on Schutz’ interpretation [51],
we distinguish between activities that point towards “inclusion” (being a
member of a social group), “affection” (expression of being accepted), and “control
of others” (being able to have an influence on others). Stelmaszewska et al.
[3] and Jansz and Tanis [52] also refer to the positive relation between social
experiences and likeability. Offering social experiences is important for the
likeability of a media application.


## 3.4.4. Attributes of “Social Experiences”

With “social experiences,” we denote
activities that refer to being together with/ or in the presence of others.
Although preschoolers have an egocentric worldview, this certainly does not
mean a lack of interest in social experiences. In our project, the activities
that were mentioned as most fun by our subjects often implied the cooperation
of a parent, sibling, or friend. However, playing together did not always
literally mean playing “together” (associative or cooperative play). Often,
playing together pointed to individual play, but still within the presence of a
family member or friend (onlooker play, parallel play). Clearly, “playing alone
together” was still preferred over “playing alone” (solitary play). We noticed
that siblings were eagerly present to “disturb” or “facilitate” play, and again
affected the fun activity profoundly. Furthermore, we noticed that the (undivided)
attention of a parent or other adult was of particular value. Such activity
often ended up as the most fun of the day. Also activities that involved no
direct social experience but ensured inclusion in a social group indirectly
were popular, for example, watching a television show in order to be part of
the group. Finally, control over others was an important issue; being “the boss”
or having a “dominant” role in playing was important, for example, being able to
decide “who’s next.”We conclude that likeable media
objects that focus on fulfilling the “social experience gratification” should
consider the following attributes: (a) allowing playing together or if not
possible allowing playing “alone together”; (b) stimulating playing/attention
of adults; (c) considering the siblings in the environment; (d) providing a
sense of control over others.


## 3.4.5. Gratification “Fantasy”

With “fantasy,” we include all
activities that address role-playing, pretense play (also referred to as dramatic
play or symbolic play), mimicry, and make-believe [39, 41]. Make-believe
concerns the imagination of objects and events without any immediate link to
the real world. According to developmental psychologists such as Berk [39, pages 217, 224], fantasy is a very
important activity for preschoolers. With preschoolers, make-believe becomes
more and more complex. From the age of three year, children can easily imagine
objects or situations without an immediate link with real life. Through fantasy
experiences, children can go beyond the boundaries of normal experience. This
can make them feel more than what they really are. We found that fantasy and
role-playing are extremely important and often precede the other components of
fun activities, or coordinate the diverse other components of fun activities.


## 3.4.6. Attributes of “Fantasy”

With “fantasy,” all activities that
address role-playing, pretense play, mimicry, and make-believe are concerned.
As for our project, we found that dressing up and objects that support fantasy
roles (e.g., fairies or pirates) as well as everyday roles (e.g., construction
worker, caregiver) were very popular. Offering a story that stimulated children
to enter into a world of fantasy seemed to guarantee “fun.” We noticed a strong
gender disparity, where it was important that children could stay within
consistent gender roles. Girls want to be princesses, boys want to be knights.
Gender neutrality is accepted, but inverse gender roles inhibit play (e.g., a
girl refused to play with a “male pirate” pawn).Together with “fantasy,” we
encountered the magical thinking that is a characteristic of children of this
age. While we observed role-playing, the boundaries between the real and the
fictional world often disappeared,for example, snapping out of a role was often
found difficult. Children placed a great weight on their imaginary lives and
roles and liked to keep on their dresses and makeup when switching to another
activity, they liked to stay in their “magic circle.”We conclude that likeable media
objects that focus on fulfilling the “Fantasy gratification” should consider
the following attributes: (a) fostering dressing up; (b) offering a story; (c) offering
gender-sensitive or neutral roles; (d) allowing for staying in their magic
circle.


## 3.4.7. Gratification “Creative and Constructive Expressions”

Important to preschoolers is the
need for self-expression and self-disclosure, materialized or expressed in a noticeable
way. This gratification concerns activities such as drawing, painting,
modelling, constructing, storytelling, singing, and so on. Creating or
constructing something is especially common between the ages of three and six
years  [39, page 251]. As preschoolers get
older, their creative skills develop. Not only the process matters but also the
end product. Five years old children are aware that they can create something and are
proud of it. They have a need for appreciation and recognition of this.  Artefacts of preschoolers become an
alternative way to express feelings and thoughts.


## 3.4.8. Attributes of “Creative and Constructive Expressions”

In the CuTI project, we noticed that
children could really be absorbed into expressive activities such as drawing,
painting, handicrafts, but also constructing, carpentry, storytelling, and so
on. Our preschoolers even liked simply sorting objects according to colour or
shape. We found that activities that allow expression should contain attributes
that both inspire and guide the activity. On the one hand, one should provide an
example of what can be made (such as a mould or a picture), but on the other
hand the child should be given enough flexibility to still “own” the creation.
If the activity merely consists of putting an object in the right place, then it
does not allow the child to demonstrate his/her creativity. Whether it is
drawing, building, modelling, and so forth, it is very important that there is a clear
result that can somehow be demonstrated. The prospect of having created
something that can be shown or that can “last” is part of the pleasure of
creation.We conclude that likeable media
objects that focus on fulfilling the “creative and constructive expressions
gratification” should consider the following attributes:
(a) allowing
self-expression in a myriad of ways; (b) allowing a result that lasts and can
be displayed; (c) providing sources of inspiration.


## 3.4.9. Gratification “Body and Senses”

Finally, “senses” refers to all
behaviours in which the senses are involved such as eating, tickles, watching
colour patterns, making strange noises, and so on [41]. Besides, these sensory
stimulations, children are also keen on physical sensations (“body”) such as
jumping and running very fast. Roger Callois addressed this category of play
based on bodily action as “vertigo” [53]. According to Berk [39], even simple
repetitive motor movement can be considered the earliest form of play. We found
that sensory stimulation in all its forms (not just motor movements) is
important and considered fun for our preschoolers; it is not essential to
distinguish between input or sensory perception (senses), and output via the
motor system (body), as these blend into each other.


## 3.4.10. Attributes of “Body and Senses”

When focusing on current games, certainly
on video games, the gratification “body and senses” is often not addressed, or
narrowed down to impressive graphics, sound, and “button bashing.” However, we
found that “all” senses are important. Our preschoolers loved things that move
around, make noises, have bright lights, and have a soft touch or nice smell. Further,
games that involved tickling, massaging, cuddling, or touching were very
popular. To our surprise, many fun activities also included eating; something
we did not expect to find, but that appeared in the observations of most
children. Finally, not surprisingly, children loved activities that involved
running around, jumping, tumbling, which we summarize as “vertigo.”We conclude that likeable media
objects that focus on fulfilling the “creative and constructive expressions
gratification” should consider the following attributes:  (a) addressing vertigo; (b) addressing senses,
also nontrivial senses such as smelling or tasting (eating).


## 3.4.11. Combining Attributes

It is important to realize that most
activities involved several gratifications and many attributes, for example,  “taking a bath with mom” both involved “body and
senses” and “social experiences.”  “sorting out pearls”
was about  “creative and
constructive expression” but preschoolers also liked the activity because the colours
or shapes were in attractive colours, which points to “body and senses” and is
related to the “fantasy” gratification. “Walking in between sheep”
involved “body
and senses” but also “challenge and control.” In fact, none of the activities
that were listed could be narrowed down to one gratification, but oftentimes
involved two or three of them.


## 3.5. Summarizing Gratifications and Attributes

To summarize, we believe that when
designing likeable applications for preschoolers, we need to fulfil the
gratifications mentioned in our likeability framework:challenge and control,
social experiences, fantasy, creative and constructive expressions and body and
senses. As for the CuTI case,
the framework implies that an object will be likeable if preschoolers can
obtain these gratifications from it. More particularly, we found that if the
attributes mentioned in our extended likeability framework (see Figure3) are
provided, then the gratifications sought by preschoolers can be obtained.
Because preschoolers will evaluate these attributes positively, they will also actively
engage in using the media object and perceive the media object as “likeable.”
The more gratifications that can be obtained, the more likeable an object seems
to be.


## 4. Discussion and Future Work

With the emergence
of new technologies, the HCI community is fully aware of the need for theories
and methods for likeability research. In this article, we aimed at
demonstrating how the uses and gratifications paradigm together with expectancy
value theory could fill in one of the blanks in designing likeable applications
for preschoolers.The paper
remains exploratory, at best hypothesis-generating, in the methods used to
elicit responses, in the list of attributes and gratifications derived and in
the proposed structure linking these. At the same time, this outlines the
further efforts are needed to achieve progress in this area.As for the model
structure and links, further inquiry into means-end analysis might help us to
refine or to validate the ELF. As for the attributes and gratifications
mentioned in our applied model, they should be considered as inputs for further
confirmatory and structured research, provided that appropriate structured
research tools can be found or developed to study and interview our young
target audience. This brings us to our last endeavour. We are dealing with younger,
not yet literate children, and we need to further investigate methods
appropriate for eliciting responses from our young targets. Adapting research
methods to preschoolers, such as the laddering technique, is a challenging but
necessary condition in order to conduct further research.Therefore, although we are convinced of the
possibility of the ELF, we do not pretend that this framework is already fully established.
However, we are convinced that the blueprint of the ELF can serve as a
practical guide in many third-wave research projects dealing with broad
issues.  Furthermore, we hope that the
list of gratifications and attributes, such as the one derived from our “initial”
research, can inform the community and help to understand the diverse
gratifications and the ways to translate these into design solutions.



---

*Source: 719291-2008-12-21.xml*