Do Hedonic and Utilitarian Apps Differ
in Consumer Appeal?
Bidyut Hazarika ✉ , Jiban Khuntia, Madhavan Parthasarathy,
and Jahangir Karimi
(
)
Business School, University of Colorado Denver, 1475 Lawrence Street,
Denver, CO 80202, USA
{bidyut.hazarika,jiban.khuntia,madhavan.parthasarathy,
jahangir.karimi}@ucdenver.edu
Abstract. This research in progress suggests that hedonic and utilitarian mobile
applications (apps) differ in consumer appeal. We operationalize consumer appeal
through addiction, frustration and consumer value perception. The interplay of
frustration in the presence of a set of addicted customers is interesting, as many
apps may have an addicted consumer baser-specifically for games, communica‐
tions of or entertainment apps. Consumer frustration may act as a negative
complementing factor to consumer addiction, and this substitution effect is argued
to be higher for hedonic products than utilitarian products. Hypotheses are drawn
and a methodology is suggested. Possible implications and contributions are
discussed.
Keywords: Consumer addiction · Consumer frustration · Digital products ·
Apps · Hedonic · Utilitarian · Consumer evaluation
1
Introduction
Continuous development in mobile technologies and related applications (apps) has
emerged to converge in the apps market space. Starting with a handful of apps in 2008,
the Apple Store has more than a million apps for sale in 2015. Similar trends are observed
in the Android and Microsoft apps stores as well. Many companies are using mobile
apps as traditional trade channels. Revenue from app users is projected to increase from
$10.3 billion in 2013 to $25.2 billion in 2017 [5].
In this study, we propose to explore how hedonic and utilitarian apps differ in
consumer appeal. We posit that consumer appeal is reflected by addiction, frustration
and value perception, amongst other factors. We ask the research question how the
relationships of consumer addiction and frustration on consumer evaluation is differen‐
tiated by hedonic and utilitarian apps. Based on prior studies [13], we denote the term
hedonic to those apps that “aim to provide self-fulfilling value to the user”; whereas
utilitarian apps “aim to provide instrumental value to the user”. A conceptual model is
suggested with possible avenues for data collection and research execution. Possible
contributions and implications are discussed.
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
V. Sugumaran et al. (Eds.): WEB 2015, LNBIP 258, pp. 233–237, 2016.
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-45408-5_28
234
2
B. Hazarika et al.
Conceptual Development and Hypotheses
Existing information systems has differentiated the hedonic and utilitarian use of infor‐
mation technology, through the lens of usage behavior as a result from a reasoned
appraisal of pre-adoption beliefs of the IT artifact [9]. A few studies have extended the
hedonic and/or utilitarian lens to mobile computing (e.g. [11]) and other general IT
products (e.g. [8]).
Addiction is the use of something for relief, comfort, or simulation, and which often
continues in part, due to cravings when it is absent and has affected people’s life in
various ways and some people may require treatment [14]. When someone becomes
dependent on a certain type of technology and have to use it repeatedly, it becomes a
behavioral addiction [4]. The existence of such addiction to digital artifacts has been
proven by Turel and Serenko [10].
Addiction is a trait when a consumer gets obsessed with a certain product and keeps
using it repeatedly over and over again. In case of apps, if a consumer keeps checking
an app repeatedly to check its content, we can classify them as addiction. This repeated
use of the app leads to eventual addiction of the consumer. Consumer addiction indicates
not only the liking of consumers for an app due to its appeal, function or on the attribute
to meet a specific unique need; but also that the app has the potential to be sustained in
the market due to a set of addicted consumers. For example, a fitness app would have a
good appeal for the consumer segment that want to stay fit, and hence, would have
generated a set of consumers who use and get addicted to it. These addicted consumers
would then derive higher benefits, be testers, will work towards the improvement of the
app by providing feedback and in general help in mitigating the aspects related to the
frustration technology issues. The features such as an app having a great design, inte‐
gration, functionality contributes towards the addiction. An app in a work place works
smoothly as advertised can lead to greater productivity and utilization from its workers
resulting in good evaluations, leading to positive word of mouth and better customer
evaluation.
Consumer frustration is the result of the failure a consumer faces when a technology
fails to achieve its desired task. In an individual level, consumer frustration can be
defined as the negative emotion due to an unsuccessful use of a technology [1]. In case
of an app, the main cause of consumer frustration is inaccurate description, not enough
engagement, not user friendly, crash and other usage problems. Consumer frustration
leads to dissatisfaction, and loss of self-efficacy and eventually lead to consumer unin‐
stalling the app and leaving a bad review. Consumer frustration may also lead to disrup‐
tion in workplace, slow functionalities and not using the app [6] or also may lead to high
levels of anxiety and anger on part of the user [12] eventually leading the user to stay
away from the technology [7]. As pointed out by Guchait and Namasivayan [2], all the
above mentioned factors create a bad response for the technology in the market.
Consumer frustration deals with the negative emotions that individuals feel with the
use of technology. In the context of apps, if an app doesn’t perform as it is supposed to,
it leads to consumers discontinuing the app, or being dissatisfied by the app. The
performance of the app in this study is based on the factors such as crash, design, usage,
integration and functionality issues. Prior studies note that consumer frustration leads
Do Hedonic and Utilitarian Apps Differ in Consumer Appeal?
235
to loss of the users’ self-efficacy and subsequent personal dissatisfaction. For example,
when the user used an app for a game or to stream a movie, and the app fails or crashes;
then it leads to discontinuation of the game or the movie, leading to dissatisfaction of
the user. Similarly, an apartment finder app, or a business networking app, if do not work
properly as desired, lead to failure of the business and loss of productivity and revenue.
Often the resulting negative word-of-mouth from dissatisfied users will lead to less
adoption of the app which in turn will lead to decrease the consumer evaluation of the
app, finally leading to the death of the app. Prior studies (e.g. [2, 3]) note that the frus‐
tration felt by consumers when shared in a public forum creates a negative image of the
product in the market.
Based on the discussions in the existing literature, as elaborated in previous para‐
graphs, we develop a conceptual model for this study. Figure 1 below shows the
proposed conceptual model. We posit that addiction and frustration have direct effects
on consumer evaluation of an app. However, these direct effects being not so surprising,
we do not hypothesize those, and focus on the differentiating hypotheses of hedonic and
utilitarian apps.
Fig. 1. Conceptual model
When people decide to use an app, it can be due to two values: utilitarian and hedonic
behavior. Utilitarian behavior is more relational and task related. We classify utilitarian
apps as those apps that are used by consumers in an effective manner. For example, apps
that are downloaded to track finances, medical records are all classified as utilitarian
apps: apps that are used to achieve certain tasks. Hedonic apps on the other hand are
apps that are used for fun and playfulness vs. task completion. Thus, we posit that
hedonic apps are mostly used by consumers for entertainment value such as: arousal,
heightened involvement, perceived freedom, fantasy fulfillment and escapism.
Hedonic apps will have more success as they are more likely to be used more often
compared to utilitarian apps. The degree of addiction will also be high for these apps as
well. If hedonic apps works seamlessly, the consumer evaluation will be much higher
as people would have greater evaluation for these apps. In case of utilitarian apps, people
use them only to achieve certain task and not for its enjoyment value. So, if a utilitarian
app crashes or have technical glitches, consumer will be more forgiving compared to a
hedonic app. Based on these arguments, we hypothesize that:
236
B. Hazarika et al.
H1a: The positive effect of consumer addiction on consumer evaluation is higher for
hedonic apps than utilitarian apps.
H1b: The negative effect of consumer frustration on consumer evaluation is higher for
hedonic apps than utilitarian apps.
3
Proposed Method and Discussion
This research in progress suggests to collect secondary data for several weeks, code the
variables using text mining and analyze the data using econometric methods. We expect
to find support for the hypotheses. We also plan to conduct a set of robustness tests to
validate our findings.
This study aims to report the findings on whether consumer frustration has a negative
association on consumer evaluation, whether the interaction of addiction and frustration
has differentiating effects on consumer evaluation for hedonic and utilitarian apps.
The findings would inform managers to focus on design aspects, such as app designs
can be oriented to have more “hedonist” design aspects, even though they have utilitarian
value. Further, the study would inform managers that technical design and integration
plays a highly valuable role in consumer acceptance of the app. Finally, as much as an
app’s release is important, taking feedback from consumers and tracking evaluation
regularly (almost on a daily basis) is critical for an app’s success.
In terms of research contributions, this study as of now is the first one to explore the
comparative effects of consumer behavioral factors associated with apps adoption; with
a set of nuanced variables such as addiction, frustration associated with hedonic and
utilitarian apps. Further, indirectly this study identifies the important role of design and
evaluation factors associated with IT business value, specifically in the apps market
context. Moreover, it also informs to the vast literature in the marketing on the product
feature or aspects that influences consumer evaluation of products.
In conclusion, the objective of this study is to explore to what extent consumer
addiction and consumer frustration influences consumer evaluation of apps; and how
these effects differ across utilitarian and hedonic apps. We propose to analyze secondary
data for android apps and to validate the model and hypotheses. This study contributes
to the research on the digital business strategy for apps markets.
References
1. Bessière, K., Newhagen, J.E., Robinson, J.P., Shneiderman, B.: A model for computer
frustration: the role of instrumental and dispositional factors on incident, session, and postsession frustration and mood. Comput. Hum. Behav. 22(6), 941–961 (2006)
2. Guchait, P., Namasivayam, K.: Customer creation of service products: role of frustration in
customer evaluations. J. Serv. Market. 26(3), 216–224 (2012)
3. Hazarika, B., Karimi, J., Khuntia, J., Parthasarathy, M.: Consumer Frustration and Consumer
Valuation Shift for Mobile Apps: An Exploratory Study (2015)
4. Holden, C.: ‘Behavioral’ addictions: do they exist? Science 294(5544), 980–982 (2001)
5. IDC.: Worldwide and U.S. Mobile applications download and revenue 2013–2017 forecast:
The app as the emerging face of the internet (2013)
Do Hedonic and Utilitarian Apps Differ in Consumer Appeal?
237
6. Lazar, J., Jones, A., Hackley, M., Shneiderman, B.: Severity and impact of computer user
frustration: a comparison of student and workplace users. Interact. Comput. 18(2), 187–207
(2006)
7. Lenhart, A.: The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look At Access and the Digital
Divide. Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, D.C. (2003)
8. Lin, C.P., Bhattacherjee, A.: Extending technology usage models to interactive hedonic
technologies: a theoretical model and empirical test. Inf. Syst. J. 20(2), 163–181 (2010)
9. Mallat, N.: Exploring consumer adoption of mobile payments–a qualitative study. J. Strateg.
Inf. Syst. 16(4), 413–432 (2007)
10. Turel, O., Serenko, A., Bontis, N.: User acceptance of hedonic digital artifacts: a theory of
consumption values perspective. Inf. Manag. 47(1), 53–59 (2010)
11. Wakefield, R.L., Whitten, D.: Mobile computing: a user study on hedonic/utilitarian mobile
device usage. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15(3), 292–300 (2006)
12. Wilfong, J.D.: Computer anxiety and anger: the impact of computer use, computer experience,
and self-efficacy beliefs. Comput. Hum. Behav. 22(6), 1001–1011 (2006)
13. Wakefield, R.L., Whitten, D.: Mobile computing: a user study on hedonic/utilitarian mobile
device usage. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15(3), 292–300 (2006)
14. Young, K.S.: Internet addiction: the emergence of a new clinical disorder. Cyber Psychol.
Behav. 1(3), 237–244 (1998)
