Construct · 6 names · 10 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · six names, one construct Nearest construct by meaningperceived enjoymentcompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to hedonic motivation is perceived enjoyment.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The fun or pleasure derived from using a technology, Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu's 2012 definition, added to UTAUT when the model was carried from employees to consumers. They cited perceived enjoyment as the construct being renamed and measured it with three items on fun, enjoyment, and entertainment. Hedonic motivation predicted intention directly and, in their data, more strongly for younger men early in their experience. Tamilmani and colleagues' 2021 review found it among the most-retained UTAUT2 constructs in later extensions, usually with the 2012 items unchanged.[1][2]
The extent to which the activity of using the computer is perceived to be enjoyable in its own right, apart from any performance consequences that may be anticipated, Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw's 1992 construct, the intrinsic half of the intrinsic–extrinsic pair they imported from motivation psychology. Measured with three semantic-differential items on enjoyment, pleasantness, and fun, it predicted intention over and above usefulness in two studies. Van der Heijden showed in 2004 that for hedonic systems enjoyment outranks usefulness as a predictor. UTAUT2 adopted the construct with a new name and the same items.[3][4]
Doing an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than for some separable consequence, Deci and Ryan's 1985 construct, restated in Ryan and Deci's 2000 overview as the prototype of autonomous motivation, sustained by the satisfaction of needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Intrinsic motivation is a property of the person's relation to an activity, undermined by controlling rewards and supported by choice. It is the psychological parent of the IS constructs on this map, which borrowed the definition and left behind the theory of needs that explains where the enjoyment comes from.[5][6]
A state of deep involvement in which action and awareness merge, attention is fully invested, and time is distorted, Csikszentmihalyi's 1990 account, built from interviews with people describing what they do when they enjoy it most. Agarwal and Karahanna carried it into IS in 2000 as cognitive absorption, a five-dimension state of temporal dissociation, focused immersion, heightened enjoyment, control, and curiosity, and showed it predicts perceived usefulness and ease of use. Enjoyment is one dimension of the state, not the whole of it; the construct describes an experience while the technology is in use, not a belief about the technology.[7][8]
An individual's tendency to interact spontaneously, inventively, and imaginatively with microcomputers, Webster and Martocchio's 1992 construct, defined as a trait rather than a state and measured with seven adjectives the respondent applies to themselves. They showed it was stable across time, distinct from computer attitudes and anxiety, and predictive of learning and involvement in training. Agarwal and Karahanna later positioned playfulness as an antecedent of cognitive absorption. It is the one name on this map that describes the person rather than the technology or the episode.[9][8]
Those facets of consumer behaviour that relate to the multisensory, fantasy, and emotive aspects of product usage, Hirschman and Holbrook's 1982 definition, offered as a corrective to an information-processing view of consumers as problem-solvers. The paper is a manifesto rather than a scale: it argued that products such as novels, concerts, and sports are consumed for the experience and that the experience, not the product's attributes, is the object of choice. The hedonic–utilitarian split that later marketing scales operationalize begins here, and UTAUT2's decision to add hedonic motivation for consumers is its downstream echo.[10]
Next
Combine items across the hedonic motivation scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct