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

Angelina Krupp

dblp:374/3624 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0000-6045-8935ORCID · 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
Collaborative and social computing · 50% Human-robot interaction · 50%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Human-robot interaction
psychological needs
1.012026
The Challenge to Design for Relatedness Experiences: An Explorative Investigation of Five Relatedness Technologies from a Psychological Needs Perspective · CHI 2026

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

quantitative analysis · 1.0qualitative analysis · 1.0online study · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 The Challenge to Design for Relatedness Experiences: An Explorative Investigation of Five Relatedness Technologies from a Psychological Needs Perspective
abstract
So-called relatedness technologies aim to create relatedness experiences between people over distance. Typically, such technologies focus on implicit or expressive interaction, as opposed to the explicit, information-focused interaction of conventional communication technologies. Based on psychological theory, previous research has identified different design strategies for relatedness technologies such as awareness, expressivity, or gift giving. However, despite this profound theoretical understanding, designing for a fulfilling relatedness experience remains a challenging task and often conflicts with other psychological needs, such as autonomy or security. This research explores the specific potentials and barriers to the use and acceptance of relatedness technologies. Based on a comparative evaluation of five different relatedness concepts in an online study (N = 221) combining quantitative and qualitative data, we identified overarching patterns of promising design strategies for particular user groups and revealed overall need fulfillment as a central predictor of the intention to use the technology.
Angelina Krupp, Daniel Ullrich, Sarah Diefenbach
CHI1