Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Alice Moon

dblp:275/9837 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0003-1669-5858ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
User interface design and tools · 44% Design research and methods · 44% Collaborative and social computing · 13%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
User interface design and tools
customization
0.812024
The Illusion of Increased Customization: Framing Choices as a Creative Process Increases Perceived Customization · CHI 2024
Design research and methods › design process
problem framing
0.812024
The Illusion of Increased Customization: Framing Choices as a Creative Process Increases Perceived Customization · CHI 2024
Collaborative and social computing › collaborative design
co-creation
0.212024
The Illusion of Increased Customization: Framing Choices as a Creative Process Increases Perceived Customization · CHI 2024

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

experiment · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 The Illusion of Increased Customization: Framing Choices as a Creative Process Increases Perceived Customization
abstract
People are increasingly able to receive customized options. Despite this abundance of options, people may not view products as customized to their wants and needs. Across five experiments, we provide evidence for a possible solution. We find evidence for the Illusion of increased customization: Framing choices as a creative process increases a chosen option’s perceived customization. Even with a constant choice set, choosing by (creative) attributes rather than choosing from all available options produces the Illusion of increased customization. The Illusion of increased customization arises in part because people feel a greater sense of co-creation when choosing via a seemingly creative process. Consequently, the Illusion of increased customization extends to choices that express preferences (e.g., liking blue over red) but is significantly diminished with choices that describe objective needs (e.g., needing a small versus large T-shirt). Additionally, heightened perceived customization from the Illusion of increased customization results in greater willingness-to-pay for the chosen option.
Alice Moon, Maarten W. Bos
CHI1