Motivation and emotion/Book/2025/Emotional usability

Imagine this... You step into your local bank on your lunch break, half expecting the usual long wait or rushed service. Instead you are greeted as soon as you walk in, the teller makes eye contact, smiles and asks how your day is going before moving onto your request. The counter is at a comfortable height, with no intimidating glass barrier between you and the staff. The signage is clear, the lighting is warm, and there's even a small dish of mints available to customers. When you mention you're in a hurry, the teller processes your request quickly without making you feel dismissed. You leave not just with your task completed, but with a small lift in mood - and the thought that you'd happily return her next time. That emotional ease, paired with efficient service, turns a routine errand into a positive experience

Emotional usability refers to the degree to which a product, system, or environment elicits positive emotional responses, reduces negative affect, and supports motivation during interaction. Unlike traditional usability, which emphasises efficiency and ease of use, emotional usability focuses on how design feels to the user (Norman, 2004).

Key questions:

• Does the design make the user feel competent, supported, and valued?
• Does it reduce frustration, anxiety, or confusion?
• Does it motivate users to continue engaging over time?

According to Richard Lazarus’s cognitive appraisal theory (1991), emotions arise from the way individuals appraise situations in relation to their goals and well-being. Put simply, people experience positive emotions when they appraise a situation as beneficial, and negative emotions when they perceive it as threatening or obstructive. For example, if a learning platform provides clear feedback and makes a student feel prepared for assessment, the appraisal is positive, leading to relief or satisfaction. However, if the platform repeatedly crashes during submission, the appraisal becomes negative, resulting in anxiety or anger.

This theory is relevant because digital systems and environments constantly present users with situations that need to be appraised. Design elements such as error messages, loading speeds, or feedback cues become “events” that users evaluate in relation to their goals (Mahlke & Thüring, 2007). When usability supports goal achievement, emotions are positive and motivation is strengthened (Lazarus, 1991; Norman, 2004). Conversely, when usability hinders progress, negative emotions can decrease motivation and reduce engagement (Bargas-Avila & Hornbæk, 2011). Thus, emotional usability can be understood as the careful design of appraisal opportunities that foster supportive emotional responses rather than obstructive ones (Minge, Thüring, Wagner, & Kuhr, 2017).

Self-determination theory (SDT), developed by Deci and Ryan (2000), emphasises that human motivation is driven by the satisfaction of three innate psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy refers to feeling in control of one’s own actions, competence is the sense of being effective and capable, and relatedness is the feeling of connection to others. When these needs are met, intrinsic motivation and well-being flourish.

Emotional usability draws heavily on SDT because systems and products can either support or frustrate these needs. For example, an educational app that allows learners to customise their pathway (autonomy), provides immediate feedback on progress (competence), and includes collaborative features like peer discussion boards (relatedness) will evoke positive emotional responses and promote sustained motivation. On the other hand, overly restrictive apps that limit choice, give little feedback, or isolate users socially risk eliciting negative emotions such as frustration, boredom, or disengagement. Designers who prioritise emotional usability therefore act as facilitators of basic psychological needs, ensuring that user interactions feel empowering, effective, and socially supportive.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory (1990) describes the optimal psychological state in which people are fully absorbed in an activity, losing track of time and experiencing deep enjoyment. Flow occurs when there is a balance between the challenge of a task and the individual’s skill level, combined with clear goals and immediate feedback. Too much challenge without skill leads to anxiety, while too little challenge produces boredom. The “sweet spot” inbetween creates flow.

Emotional usability can be seen as a design principle that helps foster flow. For instance, video games are classic examples of emotionally usable systems because they adapt difficulty levels, provide continuous feedback, and reward progress in ways that sustain immersion. In workplace software, flow can be encouraged by designing dashboards that present achievable tasks with clear markers of success, while avoiding unnecessary interruptions that break concentration. When emotional usability supports flow, users not only achieve their goals but also enjoy the process, which enhances long-term engagement and loyalty.

A growing body of research demonstrates that emotional usability is not just a nice feature but a central predictor of user engagement, learning, and long-term adoption. Four areas of evidence are particularly well documented:

Poor usability provokes strong negative emotional responses such as irritation, confusion, or helplessness. Research by Bargas-Avila and Hornbæk (2011) shows that emotional reactions to usability problems often predict whether users will abandon a product more strongly than technical performance alone. In other words, a system may function correctly on a technical level, but if it feels clumsy or frustrating, users are more likely to disengage. This finding highlights that emotional usability is a key determinant of whether products are integrated into daily routines or quickly discarded.

Interfaces that evoke positive affect can directly enhance motivation and persistence. For example, Um, Plass, Hayward, and Homer (2012) found that incorporating humour, praise, or aesthetically pleasing elements in multimedia learning environments improved learning outcomes. Learners who felt good during the process were more likely to stay engaged and remember the material. From an emotional usability perspective, this suggests that the “look and feel” of design is not superficial decoration, but rather a motivational tool that can strengthen cognitive processing.

Emotional usability also plays a critical role in the success of digital health interventions. Schueller, Tomasino, and Mohr (2017) demonstrated that emotionally supportive features—such as encouraging notifications, empathetic tone, or personalised messages significantly increase adherence to fitness and mental health programs. For instance, a fitness app that provides cheerful reminders and celebrates milestones tends to sustain user motivation more effectively than one that delivers purely functional prompts. These findings illustrate that behaviour change technologies must address not only rational self-regulation but also the emotional journey of users.

Fnally, emotional design influences whether users continue engaging with platforms in the long term. Cyr, Head, and Ivanov (2006) found that design aesthetics and emotional resonance predicted loyalty in mobile commerce by fostering feelings of trust and satisfaction. Users who experience emotionally positive interactions are more likely to return, recommend the product to others, and maintain brand attachment. This reinforces the idea that emotional usability is not simply about momentary delight—it builds the emotional foundations of sustainable user relationships.

Taken together, these findings confirm that by integrating these insights into design, practitioners can create systems that feel supportive and enjoyable, thereby promoting both short-term engagement and long-term commitment

Emotional usability is particularly visible in everyday digital tools that people use for health, learning, and productivity.

• Fitness apps. Research shows that gamification features such as badges, progress visualisations, and supportive notifications can enhance user motivation by providing a sense of competence and achievement (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014). These emotionally positive reinforcements encourage users to persist with exercise routines, making them more likely to achieve long-term health goals.
• Education platforms. In digital learning environments, quizzes that offer immediate and friendly feedback reduce anxiety, foster a growth mindset, and promote retrying after errors. Studies suggest that emotionally supportive design improves not only learner satisfaction but also performance outcomes (Plass & Kaplan, 2016; Um et al., 2012). This highlights that emotional usability is central to sustaining motivation and preventing disengagement in e-learning.
• Work tools. Productivity software can also integrate emotional usability by celebrating milestones, providing encouraging prompts, or acknowledging team achievements. Research in organisational psychology indicates that recognition and positive feedback improve morale, increase intrinsic motivation, and strengthen engagement in workplace tasks (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Thus, small emotional design elements can transform routine work into a more motivating and rewarding experience.

Emotional usability extends beyond digital products, also practical in environmental tuning and curating certain user experiences.

• Hospitals: Healthcare research demonstrates that calming colours, access to natural light, and clear, comforting signage reduce patient anxiety and improve emotional well-being (Ulrich et al., 2008). These design elements support a sense of safety and comfort during stressful medical procedures.
• Public transport: Clear, empathetic announcements and accessible information in transport systems increase rider confidence and reduce stress, particularly for those navigating unfamiliar environments. Studies on wayfinding show that emotionally supportive communication fosters trust and perceived control (van Hagen & Bron, 2014).
• Workplaces: Collaborative and welcoming physical spaces promote feelings of relatedness and belonging, satisfying basic psychological needs described by self-determination theory. Research suggests that emotionally supportive work environments enhance both well-being and productivity, as employees feel more socially connected and motivated (Vischer, 2007).

Alex, a university student, logs into an online learning portal to submit an assignment. The interface is cluttered, error messages are vague, and the upload freezes repeatedly. Alex feels anxious and frustrated, questioning their own competence. In contrast, when using a different platform that provides clear instructions, empathetic error messages, and celebratory confirmation of submission, Alex feels relieved, confident, and motivated to engage again.

This case highlights how emotional usability directy affects motivation and persistence in everyday tasks.

Assessing emotional usability requires both subjective and objective measures to capture the complex ways design influences feelings and motivation.

Subjective measures rely on user self-report and can provide rich insights into how individuals evaluate their experiences. One widely used tool is the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM), a non-verbal pictorial scale that allows participants to quickly rate their emotional reactions along dimensions of valence (pleasant-unpleasant), arousal (calm-excited), and dominance (controlled-in control). Because SAM avoids reliance on verbal descriptions, it is accessible across cultures and literacy levels, making it particularly useful in usability testing (Bradley & Lang, 1994). In addition, interviews provide deeper qualitative data, giving researchers and designers a chance to explore not only what emotions are felt, but why they are triggered by particular design features. These subjective measures help reveal the user’s lived emotional experience and highlight areas of frustration, delight, or disengagement.

Objective measures, in contrast, capture physiological and behavioural responses that may not be consciously reported by users. Eye-tracking technologies allow researchers to examine patterns of visual attention, such as how long a user dwells on confusing interface elements or whether emotionally salient features capture their gaze (Poole & Ball, 2006). Physiological indicators such as galvanic skin response (GSR) provide another layer of insight by detecting changes in sweat gland activity that accompany arousal, offering a real-time measure of emotional intensity (Cacioppo et al., 2007). Together, these objective methods can uncover subtle affective reactions—like heightened stress or excitement—that may go unnoticed in self-report. By combining subjective and objective approaches, researchers gain a fuller picture of emotional usability, ensuring that both felt experiences and underlying physiological signals are considered in evaluating how designs impact motivation and emotion.

While emotional usability highlights the importance of designing for positive emotional experiences, several critiques and challenges complicate its application.

• Overemphasis on positive affect.Focusing exclusively on cheerfulness, bright colours, or constant praise may create experiences that feel inauthentic or even manipulative. Research in affective computing and design warns that “forced positivity” can backfire, reducing trust and engagement if users perceive the design as superficial (Fokkinga & Desmet, 2012). For example, a banking app that uses overly playful messages to announce financial penalties may frustrate users, as the emotional tone conflicts with the seriousness of the event. Effective emotional usability must therefore balance positive affect with authenticity and contextual sensitivity.
• Cultural differences. Emotional triggers are not universal. What elicits joy, trust, or calm in one culture may evoke confusion or even negativity in another. For instance, bright colours may be associated with celebration in some contexts, but with mourning or danger in others (Marcus & Gould, 2000). Cross-cultural research in user experience design highlights the importance of tailoring emotional design elements to cultural values and norms, rather than assuming a “one size fits all” model. This means emotional usability testing must be sensitive to cultural variation in symbolism, aesthetics, and communication styles.
• Measuring emotions. A major challenge in emotional usability is methodological: emotions are inherently subjective and often fleeting. Self-report methods such as questionnaires or interviews may not fully capture real-time affective states (Bradley & Lang, 1994). At the same time, physiological measures like galvanic skin response or eye-tracking provide valuable insights but can be resource-intensive and may not always directly indicate specific emotions (Cacioppo et al., 2007). This creates difficulties for researchers and designers in accurately evaluating emotional responses during usability testing, underscoring the need for multi-method approaches.
• Ethical considerations. Perhaps the most pressing concern lies in the ethics of emotionally persuasive design. While emotional usability can foster motivation and well-being, the same techniques may be exploited in manipulative ways, often referred to as “dark patterns.” These are design strategies that exploit users’ emotions—such as fear of missing out or guilt—to drive behaviours like overspending or involuntary subscriptions (Gray et al., 2018). Ethical frameworks emphasise that emotional usability should enhance user autonomy and well-being, rather than coerce or exploit. Designers must carefully distinguish between supportive emotional persuasion and manipulative emotional exploitation.

Emotional usability highlights that design is never neutral: every interaction shapes how users feel, which in turn influences motivation, learning, and behaviour. By grounding design in psychological theories such as self-determination theory, flow, and appraisal models, and by drawing on empirical research, we can create emotionally intelligent systems that foster well-being.

The idea is this: when design feels good, motivation follows. By prioritising emotional usability, frustration can be transformed into confidence, indifference into engagement, and fleeting use into lasting commitment.

• Usability
• Self-determination theory
• Flow theory
• Positive psychology

• Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
• Bargas-Avila, J. A., & Hornbæk, K. (2011). Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges? A critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2689-2698. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979336
• Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9
• Cacioppo, J. T., Tassinary, L. G., & Berntson, G. G. (2007). Handbook of psychophysiology (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
• Cyr, D., Head, M., & Ivanov, A. (2006). Design aesthetics leading to m-loyalty in mobile commerce. Information & Management, 43(8), 950-963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.08.009
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? - A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3025-3034. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377
• Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.
• Mahlke, S., & Thüring, M. (2007). Studying antecedents of emotional experiences in interactive contexts. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 915-918. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240760
• Minge, M., Thüring, M., Wagner, I., & Kuhr, C. V. (2017). The meCUE questionnaire: A modular tool for measuring user experience. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2017, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1589680
• Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books.
• Plass, J. L., & Kaplan, U. (2016). Emotional design in digital media for learning. In S. Tettegah & M. Gartmeier (Eds.), Emotions, technology, design, and learning (pp. 131-161). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801856-9.00007-4
• Poole, A., & Ball, L. J. (2006). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Current status and future prospects. In C. Ghaoui (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human computer interaction (pp. 211-219). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-562-7.ch034
• Schueller, S. M., Tomasino, K. N., & Mohr, D. C. (2017). Integrating human support into behavioral intervention technologies: The efficiency model of support. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 24(1), 27-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12173
• Ulrich, R. S., Zimring, C., Zhu, X., DuBose, J., Seo, H. B., Choi, Y. S., Quan, X., & Joseph, A. (2008). A review of the research literature on evidence-based healthcare design. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 1(3), 61-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/193758670800100306

• Um, E., Plass, J. L., Hayward, E. O., & Homer, B. D. (2012). Emotional design in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 485-498. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026609
• van Hagen, M., & Bron, P. (2014). Enhancing the Experience of the Train Journey: Changing the Focus from Satisfaction to Emotional Experience of Customers. Transportation Research Procedia, 1(1), 253-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.07.025

• Vischer, J. C. (2007). The effects of the physical environment on job performance: Towards a theoretical model of workspace stress. Stress and Health, 23(3), 175-184. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1134