User, Customer and Consumer Experience: Highlighting the

Heterogeneity in the Literature

Quentin Sellier

, Ingrid Poncin

and Jean Vanderdonckt

Louvain Research Institute in Management and Organizations, UCLouvain, Place des Doyens, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Keywords: Consumer Experience, Customer Experience, Multidisciplinary Communication, Usability, User Experience,

Systematic Literature Review.

Abstract: The notion of experience has gained in popularity both in management and in computer science. To assess

the quality of an information system, specialists in human-computer interaction are now referring to the user

experience. On the marketing side, the concept of experience has also become key to describe the relationship

between an individual and a brand. Several streams of research exist, some privileging the notion of customer

experience and others of consumer experience. However, the multiplication of those works also created

fragmentation and theoretical heterogeneity, as emerged through our analyses. This situation is particularly

noxious to the communication between the disciplines of human-computer interaction and marketing,

becoming more and more necessary. In order to promote this multidisciplinary communication, we clearly

define and differentiate the constructs of experience. We also highlight the current heterogeneity in the

literature through a systematic literature review and we end by formulating some suggestions to researchers

and practitioners. This work contributes to a better communication between the disciplines of human-

computer interaction and marketing, and more particularly to the unification of the constructs of experience.

1 INTRODUCTION

The notion of experience has gained in popularity in

human-computer interaction and even became a

buzzword employed by practitioners and researchers

alike (Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006). A product

should no longer be seen as an object offering various

functionalities and benefits but rather an experience

(Hassenzahl et al., 2003). This also applies to

marketing where this notion has gained popularity

since its apparition 40 years ago (Holbrook &

Hirschman, 1982).

However, the multiplication of papers dealing

with the experience, especially through different

research fields, created fragmentations and

theoretical confusions (Becker and Jaakkola, 2020).

These confusions and this lack of a unified view

undermine the effectiveness of researching and

managing the experience (Law et al., 2008) but also

make it especially complicated to connect different

literatures.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1379-0780

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4225-0118

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3275-3333

This situation is particularly problematic as it is

now essential for the fields of marketing and human-

computer interaction to communicate, one of the

reasons being the complementarity of the points of

view. This communication challenge is crucial for

researchers but also for practitioners (De Keyser et

al., 2020). As an example of multidisciplinary work,

more and more large user-centered companies are

now incorporating user experience design into their

marketing and branding strategies (Lee et al., 2018).

The purpose of this work is thus to facilitate

multidisciplinary communication between the

disciplines of marketing and human-computer

interaction, and more precisely to help connect the

different constructs of the experience. In order to have

an in-depth understanding of the problem studied, we

first clarify the constructs of user, customer and

consumer experience, in particular by exposing their

particularities and how they are linked. Given the

multiplication of papers combining several constructs

of the experience, we then carry out a systematic

Sellier, Q., Poncin, I. and Vanderdonckt, J.

User, Customer and Consumer Experience: Highlighting the Heterogeneity in the Literature.

DOI: 10.5220/0010316202290236

In Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (VISIGRAPP 2021) - Volume 2: HUCAPP, pages

229-236

ISBN: 978-989-758-488-6

229

litterature review and highlight the ontological

heterogeneity in the literature. We finally formulate

some suggestions to researchers and practitioners.

2 CONSTRUCTS

This part aims to provide a clear vision of the

consumer, customer, and user experience. Each

construct will be defined individually with a brief

history of its evolution and an explanation of its

particularities. We will also see the articulations

between these constructs and how they influence each

other.

2.1 Consumer Experience

The construct appeared in the 80

with the emergence

of the consumer research as a new discipline. In the

latter, consumers began to be seen as non-rational

beings and researchers started to consider the

emotional aspect in the relationship between an

individual and a company. This later resulted in the

apparition of experiential marketing and, today,

different research streams exist, some preferring to

use the construct of customer experience and others

the consumer experience. The major authors for the

consumer experience are Holbrook and Hirschman

who, in 1982, developed the consumption experience.

They then carried out several works specifying this

postulate (Holbrook, 2006).

Although there is no widely accepted definition,

we can describe the consumer experience as directed

toward the pursuit of fantasies, affect, and fun

(Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). It depends on the

object with which we are interacting, the preferences

of the consumer, and the situation in which this

interaction occurs.

This construct has the particularity of focusing

more on the personal meanings of the consumption

experience and tends to be studied in naturalistic

settings. It is also very common to study its

antecedents and outcomes (Antéblian et al., 2013).

We are here in an approach of understanding the

consumer as an individual who is not necessarily a

rational, information-driven, utility-maximizing

decision makers.

2.2 Customer Experience

As previous explained, this construct originally

comes from the consumer experience of Holbrook

and Hirschman (1982). However, the specific term

“customer experience” was first introduced by Pine

and Gilmore (1998). Although it is traditionally

related to service marketing, it is now starting to be

used in human-computer interaction (Rusu et al.,

2018).

A popular definition of the customer experience is

the one from Lemon & Verhoef (2016), developing

that it is the totality of a person’s responses from

every interaction he has with a company during the

entire journey that takes him from discovering a

brand or product to any post-purchase interactions. It

is now considered an essential marketing tool to

handle to ensure the competitiveness of a company

(McCall, 2015).

The particularity of the customer experience is

that it integrates several points of contact during the

customer journey, and thus specific interactions. The

dimensions that compose this construct are the

sensorial, emotional, cognitive, pragmatic, lifestyle,

and relational (Gentile et al, 2007). A possible

measurement method is to use the customer’s

feedback and perceptions during his journey. There is

also a strong emphasis on the role of the brand as, for

the consumer experience, we seek to understand the

consumer.

2.3 User Experience

The user experience initially comes from the

construct of usability. The latter includes the

effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction (Sauro,

2015), therefore cognitive and rational dimensions.

However, these dimensions have become too

restrictive to assess users’ preferences, especially in

the context of gestural interaction (van Beurden et al.,

2012). To overcome this problem, specialists started

to use the user experience, which extends the

dimensions of the usability (Poushneh & Vasquez-

Parraga, 2017), and especially with emotional aspects

(Cruz et al., 2015).

This construct is officially defined by ISO 9241-

210 (2010) as “A person's perceptions and responses

that result from the use or anticipated use of a product,

system or service”. It is influenced by the context, the

user and the system (Roto et al., 2011). Important

elements for a good user experience are the pragmatic

quality, hedonic quality and global attractiveness

(Hassenzahl et al., 2003).

The main particularity of this construct is that it

focuses on one person-product interaction in a

specific context (Ceccacci et al., 2017). This enables

to be evaluated directly after the interaction, for

example via a multi-item questionnaire such as

AttrakDiff (Hassenzahl et al., 2003). Unlike the two

HUCAPP 2021 - 5th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

230

other constructs, the main focus here is on the product

and the assessment of its quality.

2.4 The Links between the Constructs

Our postulate is that these three constructs capture

different aspects of a same overall experience. They

are also linked and influence each other in several

ways. For example, we can consider that the user

experience is one particular point of contact in the

customer journey and therefore has an impact on the

customer experience, which in turn influences the

more holistic consumer experience. We can also have

the opposite logic since our past experiences

influence our future experiences (Lemon & Verhoef,

2016). In this scenario, the customer experience that

an individual has with a company will influence his

next user experience he will have with the company's

products.

Given these links, it sometimes becomes too

restrictive to take only one construct into account. It

is therefore essential to guarantee good

communication between these fields of research and

to combine the points of view. For some practitioners,

the customer experience is already considered to be

closely related to the user experience (Sirapracha &

Tocquer, 2012). On the researchers’ side, some

studies are also starting to move in this direction, such

as that of Lee et al., (2018) which empirically

validates a model combining elements of the user

experience, customer experience and brand equity.

For the marketing, we can cite Becker and Jaakkola

(2020) who carry out a systematic review of the

literature focusing on the customer experience and

involving the consumer experience. However, as we

will see in our analyses, these links have also given

rise to a certain heterogeneity in the literature.

3 RESEARCH METHOD

In order to analyse the multidisciplinary works on the

experience, we focus on the articles developing

several constructs in the same paper. To guarantee a

complete view, we adopt the PRISMA methodology

(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews

and Meta-Analyses). This approach, inspired by

Moher et al. (2009) and summed up in Figure 1,

enables to easily reproduce our study.

Figure 1: PRISMA diagram.

3.1 Identification

We searched for relevant papers by establishing four

different research scenarios, each leading to its own

query:

- Q = “User* Experience*” AND “Consumer*

Experience*” AND “Customer* Experience*”

- Q = “User* Experience*” AND “Consumer*

Experience*”

- Q = “User* Experience*” AND “Customer*

Experience*”

- Q = “Consumer* Experience*” AND

“Customer* Experience*”

The first one focus on the paper mentioning the

three constructs of experience. The other scenarios

cover the three possible pairs of terms. In order to

analyse a maximum of documents, no publication

date restriction has been established.

We ran those queries on the following major

digital libraries: (1) ACM Digital Library; (2) IEEE

Xplore; (3) Elsevier ScienceDirect; and (4)

SpringerLink. We also used (5) Ebsco as a multi-

publisher sources to ensure the completeness and

coherence of the references, validate independent

query results, and cover other publishers as well. At

User, Customer and Consumer Experience: Highlighting the Heterogeneity in the Literature

231

the end of this process, a total of 29 duplicates were

deleted.

3.2 Screening

This second phase consists in defining and applying

inclusion or exclusion criteria. Each paper was

evaluated with respect to its relevance and its form.

We only kept papers written in English that

underwent a peer-review process, and for which the

full text was available.

Another criterion being the quality, we also

evaluated the ranking of the journals or conferences

in which the articles are published. Given the use of

multiple publishers from different fields of research,

the UNIFI ranking was used in order to have the

widest possible scope for the classification of the

papers. At the end of this process, 18 D-ranked

documents were deleted.

3.3 Eligibility

To analyse the disciplines while keeping maximum

objectivity, the choice of the field of research

assigned to the articles was made via the journal’s

discipline, using the most recent Scopus ranking.

However, in our case, we would like to know how

several constructs are treated together, regardless of

the discipline. We thus decided to keep all the articles.

This phase is also dedicated to the verification of

the completeness of our corpus. We thus checked the

references cited in the papers of our corpus in order

to eventually add them. However, no article was

added during this phase.

As another verification, we used Scopus to extract

the 100 most cited articles for each of the 3 constructs

of the experience. Two articles were duplicated due

to the use of the three different queries and we thus

ended up with a total of 298 articles. These only two

duplicates were already present in our corpus, which

is another element ensuring its completeness.

3.4 Inclusion

This last phase consists in verifying quantitative and

qualitative aspects of our corpus of papers. These

analyses are detailed in the following chapter

developing the results.

Quantitative analysis: we employed Zotero - a

multi-platform bibliography management software

tool for collecting, organizing, and sharing research

sources - to create a collection of papers. The

collection of the references examined in this paper is

available here. We also used PaperMachines, a Zotero

extension for visualizations.

Qualitative analysis: qualitative classifications of

each paper were manually performed with regards to

various dimensions of analysis, e.g., definitions used,

dimensions evaluated, evaluation methods, etc.

4 RESULTS

As schematized in Figure 2, our final corpus includes

78 unique papers. During this chapter, we carry out

analyses on the full corpus, by construct of

experience, and by research scenario.

Figure 2: Part of the literature analysed.

Half of the documents in our corpus are published

in management journals or conferences and the third

in computer science. The remaining references are

mainly in social sciences and engineering. Figure 3

details this repartition and shows that the majority of

the articles have been published in the last 5 years.

Figure 3: Years of publication and disciplines of the articles

from our final corpus.

4.1 Differentiation of the Constructs

Although all the articles of our corpus mention

several constructs, not all of them make a concrete

distinction between them. For example, some are in

HUCAPP 2021 - 5th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

232

fact papers that focus on the customer experience but

once use the term "user experience" as a synonym. In

this analyse, we observe what proportion of articles

properly develop several constructs at the same time.

The results are summed up in Table 1.

Table 1: Classification of the references based on the main

construct(s) they develop, per research scenario.

User & Customer

(n = 22)

User & Customer &

Consume

(n = 1)

Only Use

11 (50%)

The only reference of

this scenario is

considered as “Only

Consumer”.

Only

Custome

5 (23%)

Neither

User nor

Custome

4 (18%)

User &

Custome

2 (9%)

User & Consumer

(

n = 20

)

Customer & Consumer

(

n = 35

)

Only User 12 (60%)

Only

Custome

17 (48%)

Only

Consume

3 (15%)

Only

Consume

9 (26%)

Neither

User nor

Consumer

5 (25%)

Neither

Customer

nor

Consume

9 (26%)

User &

Consumer

0 (0%)

Customer

Consume

0 (0%)

It appears that the majority of the articles are

focusing on just one construct. Whatever the scenario,

about a quarter of the papers are not focusing on the

experience. By analysing their content, we see that

these are articles sometimes using the experience to

illustrate their main point but without giving a

definition and leaving it a marginal place in the

article. Only the "User Experience & Customer

Experience" scenario includes articles developing

both of the terms. In these, we can cite the article of

Lee et al. (2018) whose goal is to create a model

unifying the constructs of the experience. This

illustrates the fact that the customer experience is

starting to be used in human-computer interaction, as

stated by Rusu et al. (2018). We thus observe

variabilities in the use of the constructs of experience.

A possible explanation for this is developed in the

next analyses.

4.2 Theoretical Foundations

We use CiteSpace - a tool to visualize and analyse

trends and patterns in scientific literature (Chen,

2006) - to analyse the networks of the references cited

by the articles of our full corpus. We notice that the

networks are little concentrated, with the largest one

regrouping only 7% of the references. By analysing

in details the references of these networks, we

observe that they are grouped by sub-subjects

disconnected from each other. For example, some

major networks focus on the consumer experience in

retailing context, the brand equity, or the experience

in tourism and hospitality industry.

These analyses enable us to observe that there are

indeed important disparities in the theoretical

foundations of the different constructs of experience.

Moreover, this variability is sometimes observed

within the same constructs.

4.3 Precision of the Constructs

In this part, we focus on the treatment accorded to the

different constructs in the papers. We look at whether

a definition is given, what dimensions are eventually

mentioned and how they are measured. The details of

these analyses are available in Table 2.

It appears that whatever the construct, the articles

refer to different definitions. For the customer

experience, the definitions of Pine and Gilmore

(1998) and Lemon and Verhoef (2016) are slightly

more popular, even if their use is far from

generalized. The situation is similar for the

dimensions composing the constructs. In terms of

evaluation, the use of questionnaire is the most

popular method, although the measurement items are

also different. These analyses, showing a

heterogeneity in the definitions and dimensions used,

illustrate that the theory is not stabilized yet.

Table 2: Precision given to the constructs.

Consumer

Experience

Customer

Experience

User

Experience

Total

number of

articles

56 (100%) 58 (100%) 43 (100%)

Nb. defining

the construct

7 (12,5%) 13 (22,4%) 8 (18,6%)

Number

incorporating

dimensions

of the

construct

7 (12,5%) 8 (13,8%) 13 (30,2%)

Number

evaluating

dimensions

4 (7,1%) 4 (6,9%) 11 (25,6%)

User, Customer and Consumer Experience: Highlighting the Heterogeneity in the Literature

233

4.4 Topics Covered in the Corpus

We use PaperMachines to analyse the topics of the

papers using the word frequencies. The articles

involving the user and consumer experience tend to

deal with the topics of mobile apps and, more

generally, technologies, models and data. For the user

and customer experience scenario, the topics are

similar but focus slightly more on the logistics and

delivery aspect. In the last scenario – “Customer

Experience & Consumer Experience” – the situation

is also similar, but the keywords “brand” and

“product” have a slightly higher importance than in

the two other scenarios. We thus observe slight

differences even though the topics remain largely

similar.

We can also ask ourselves if there are more

significant differences in the topics if we don’t make

the analyse per research scenarios but rather on the

full corpus and per construct. For this, we use again

CiteSpace to perform an analysis of the networks of

the keywords used in the papers of our full corpus.

The main network alone includes 69% of the

keywords. When analysing it, we can observe that the

network is organized according to the initial research

area of the constructs. However, just like in the

previous analysis, the topics remain connected.

In order to ensure that our corpus of 78 documents

isn’t a biased sample, we used the 100 most cited

articles for each of the 3 constructs of the experience

to process the same CiteSpace analysis. It enables us

to observe that this sample of 298 articles behaves in

the same way as our 78-documents corpus, whether

at the level of the topics or of the theoretical

foundation.

5 DISCUSSION

This work aimed to improve communication between

the fields of human-computer interaction and

marketing, and more particularly to unify the

constructs of experience. To this end, the constructs

were delimited, and a systematic literature review

was carried out.

5.1 Clarification of the Constructs

We exposed the peculiarities of the different

constructs of experience. The user experience has the

particularity of being specific to one human-product

interaction in a given context while the customer

experience includes several interactions during the

customer journey. The consumer experience aims to

understand consumers as non-rational beings.

Despite these peculiarities, these constructs

capture different aspects of the same overall holistic

experience and thus influence each other. It therefore

becomes crucial to enable effective communication

between human-computer interaction and marketing.

Some studies are starting to move in this direction,

but some work is still necessary.

5.2 Current Heterogeneity

We looked at the articles developing several

constructs in the same paper and highlighted the

heterogeneity in the literature. To identify these

references, we went through the PRISMA

methodology via 4 different research scenarios. At

the end of the 4 stages of the process - identification,

screening, eligibility and inclusion - we ended up with

78 articles.

It appears that the majority of the articles of our

corpus do not differentiate the constructs. Rather,

these are articles focusing on a particular construct, or

even none, and sometimes using other terms as

synonyms. Only the scenario where we were looking

for articles mentioning both user experience and

customer experience revealed references that

properly develop these constructs together.

These variabilities were explained via several

analyses. First, we saw that the theoretical

foundations are disparate, sometimes within the same

constructs. Moreover, there is neither reference

definitions nor dimensions widely used for each of

the constructs, which shows that the theory is not

stabilized yet. However, even if there are some minor

particularities, the topics are strongly linked.

5.3 Design Considerations

Following the work we performed, we can formulate

some suggestions to researchers and practitioners

working with the constructs of the experience:

- We suggest opting for a multi-constructs

approach whenever possible, to benefit from the

complementarity of points of view. From a

managerial perspective, the implementation of

management strategies consistent with the user

experience creates an increased level of customer

experience and brand equity (Lee et al., 2018).

For example, Apple is known to have a strong

competitive advantage in terms of user

experience (Wan et al., 2013).

- We advise to first link the user experience to the

customer experience, without taking into account

HUCAPP 2021 - 5th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

234

the consumer experience. These first two

constructs are naturally closer, which was felt

throughout our analyses. This is probably why

some works linking these constructs already exist

(Lee et al., 2018). In addition, by its nature, it is

harder to measure the consumer experience,

unlike the other two constructs that emerge

through points of interaction.

- Given the important variability in the definitions

and dimensions used, we suggest limiting to a

few popular works that are already well

established, such as Pine and Gilmore (1998),

Lemon and Verhoef (2016), Hassenzahl et al.

(2003) and ISO 9241-210 (2010). This would

also enable to start creating a certain

homogeneity in the literature.

- We advise specialists to familiarize themselves

with these other constructs even if it is outside

the scope of their discipline. The present work

and the few references cited above are, we

believe, a good starting point.

5.4 Limitations & Future Work

Despite our systematic and rigorous approach to this

analysis, some limitations persist. We had to make

choices in the keywords used during the identification

of articles in order not to disperse. For example, we

carried out research with the "consumer experience"

but not the "consumption experience". We also had to

put aside other concepts that could potentially be

considered as constructs of experience but without

specifically mentioning the term "experience" in their

name.

In addition, this work mainly focuses on papers at

the crossroads between several constructs of the

experience. It would be interesting to focus on all the

papers specific to each single construct, as for

example Becker and Jaakkola (2020) did for the

customer experience. Another interesting aspect to

explore, highlighted by the paper by Lee et al. (2018),

is the role of the brand experience in the 3 constructs

that we analysed.

Finally, in order to continue this work of

multidisciplinary link between constructs, it becomes

necessary to create and validate quantitative models

as the one of Lee et al. (2018). This step is essential

to enable the unification of the experience.

6 CONCLUSION

We have seen that the notion of experience has gained

in popularity in multiple disciplines of research.

However, this popularity has also created

fragmentation and theoretical confusion, which is

particularly problematic when trying to connect

different literatures. In order to promote

multidisciplinary communication, we clearly defined

and differentiated the constructs of experience. We

also showed that, even if the topics covered are

connected, there are important differences between

the constructs, and particularly in their theoretical

foundations.

The major theoretical contribution of this research

consists in the highlighting of the current

heterogeneity in the literature developing several

constructs of the experience. It is particularly

problematic as it deteriorates good communication

between the fields of human-computer interaction

and marketing, which becomes crucial for researchers

and practitioners alike. From a practical point of

view, this study encourages practices combining user

experience and marketing aspects and provides

guidelines to this effect.

REFERENCES

Antéblian, B., Filser, M., & Roederer, C. (2013).

Consumption experience in retail environments: A

literature review. Recherche et Applications En

Marketing (English Edition), 28(3), 82-109.

Becker, L., & Jaakkola, E. (2020). Customer experience:

Fundamental premises and implications for research.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science: Online.

Ceccacci, S., Giraldi, L., & Mengoni, M. (2017). From

customer experience to product design: Reasons to

introduce a holistic design approach. Proceedings of the

21st International Conference on Engineering Design,

August 21-25, Vancouver.

Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing

emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific

literature. Journal of the American Society for

Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359-377.

Cruz, Y. P., Collazos, C. A., & Granollers, T. (2015). The

Thin Red Line Between Usability and User

Experiences. Proceedings of the XVI International

Conference on Human Computer Interaction -

Interacción ’15, 1-2.

https://doi.org/10.1145/2829875.2829915

De Keyser, A., Verleye, K., Lemon, K., Keiningham, T., &

Klaus, P. (2020). Moving the Customer Experience

Field Forward: Introducing the Touchpoints, Context,

Qualities (TCQ) Nomenclature. Journal of Service

Research.

Gentile, C., Spiller, N., & Noci, G. (2007). How to Sustain

the Customer Experience. European Management

Journal, 25(5), 395-410.

User, Customer and Consumer Experience: Highlighting the Heterogeneity in the Literature

235

Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience

- A research agenda. Behaviour & Information

Technology, 25(2), 91-97.

Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., & Koller, F. (2003)

AttrakDiff : Ein Fragebogen zur Messung

wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer

Qualität. Mensch & Computer 2003, 187-196.

Holbrook, M. B. (2006). Consumption experience,

customer value, and subjective personal introspection:

An illustrative photographic essay. Journal of Business

Research, 59(6), 714-725.

Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982) The

Experiential Aspects of Consumption Consumer

Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun. Journal of Consumer

Research, 9(2), 132-140.

ISO 9241-210:2010 (2010). Ergonomics of human-system

interaction – Part 210: Human centered design for

interactive systems. International Organization for

Standardization (ISO).

Law, E., Roto, V., Vermeeren, A. P. O. S., Kort, J., and

Hassenzahl, M. (2008). Towards a shared definition of

user experience. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth

Annual CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human

Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’08, April 5-10,

Florence.

Lee, H., Lee, K. K., & Choi, J. (2018). A structural model

for unity of experience : Connecting user experience,

customer experience, and brand experience. Journal of

Usability Studies, 14(1), 8-34.

Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding

Customer Experience Throughout the Customer

Journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69-96.

McCall, T. (2015). Gartner predicts a customer experience

battlefield. Gartner.

https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/customer

-experience-battlefield/.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G.

(2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic

Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement.

PLoS Medicine, 6(7), 1-6.

Pine, B. J. & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the

Experience Economy. Harvard Business Review, 76(4),

97-105.

Poushneh, A., & Vasquez-Parraga, A. Z. (2017).

Discernible impact of augmented reality on retail

customer’s experience, satisfaction and willingness to

buy. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34,

229-234.

Roto, V., Effie, L., Vermeeren, A. P. O. S., & Hoonhout, J.

(2011). User experience white paper. Bringing clarity

to the concept of user experience. Proceedings of the

Dagstuhl Seminar on Demarcating User Experience,

September 15-18, Demar.

Rusu, V., Rusu, C., Botella, F., & Quiñones, D. (2018).

Customer eXperience: Is This the Ultimate

eXperience? Proceedings of the XIX International

Conference on Human Computer Interaction,

September, Palma.

Sauro, J. (2015). SUPR-Q: A Comprehensive Measure of

the Quality of the Website User Experience, 10(2), 68-

86.

Sirapracha, J., & Tocquer, G. (2012). Branding and

Customer Experience in the Wireless

Telecommunication Industry. International Journal of

Trade, Economics and Finance., 103-108.

van Beurden, M. H. P. H., Ijsselsteijn, W. A., & de Kort, Y.

A. W. (2012). User Experience of Gesture Based

Interfaces: A Comparison with Traditional Interaction

Methods on Pragmatic and Hedonic Qualities. Gesture

and Sign Language in Human-Computer Interaction

and Embodied Communication, 7206, 36-47.

Wan, J., Zhu, Y., & Hou, J. (2013). Research on user

experience quality assessment model of smart mobile

phone. Technology and Investment, 4(2), 107-112.

HUCAPP 2021 - 5th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

236