Flag

We stand with Ukraine and our team members from Ukraine. Here are ways you can help

Get exclusive access to thought-provoking articles, bonus podcast content, and cutting-edge whitepapers. Become a member of the UX Magazine community today!

Home ›› Design ›› Organized Approach to Emotional Response Testing

Organized Approach to Emotional Response Testing

by Nathanael Boehm
3 min read
Share this post on
Tweet
Share
Post
Share
Email
Print

Save

Categorizing feeling words and the Product Reaction Cards to develop custom cards.

Most user experience designers will have heard of the Product Reaction Cards (doc), a set of 118 words and phrases developed for Microsoft by Joey Benedek and Trish Miner in 2002 that can be deployed in a user testing workshop to help people articulate their emotional responses to a product.

The Product Reaction Cards are part of the Desirability Toolkit (doc) that suggests facilitators ask users to choose the cards that “best describe the product or how using the product made them feel” and then ask them to narrow their selection to just five cards. The cards selection process is then followed by an interview where the participant explains why they selected those five cards.

Whilst the 118 card deck seems to work for the creators of the PRC, some people think it’s too much—I posted a question on UX Exchange a few months ago about and received responses like “unnecessarily fiddly” whilst another said they use a subset of the cards. Donna Spencer, author of Card Sorting, commented:

…at the end of the test the last thing a participant wants to do is go through this big pile of cards. It takes quite a lot of time, but I don’t think the gain is worth the pain.

Whilst I support the goals of the cards to prompt people and provide a full vocabulary than might otherwise come to mind during workshop sessions I’ve been wondering if there might be a different approach.

For example, in the book People Skills, Robert Bolton talks about using adverbs to describe the level of intensity as well as grouping feeling words into “families”:

By preceding feeling-word adjectives with appropriate adverbs, you can communicate with some accuracy the degree or intensity of feeling.

You could select adverbs appropriate to the adjective, as in the example Bolton uses:

  • You feel a little sad because your dog died
  • You feel quite sad over your dog’s death
  • You feel very sad that your dog died
  • You feel deeply sad since your dog died

Or you could opt for a normalised Likert scale approach that could be applied to any adjective; although that would require participants to explicitly state their opinion of every feeling word, phrased as questions like, “This product makes me feel stressed: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree or Strongly Agree.”

It’s intensive but it is a more analytical and thorough approach.

The “families” that Bolton refers to is a matrix of categories of feeling words grouped by levels of intensity for example in the category of emotional feeling words for “sadness”:

Strong:

  • Desolate
  • Anguished
  • Despondent
  • Depressed

Mild:

  • Glum
  • Blue
  • Sad
  • Out of sorts

Weak:

  • Below par
  • Displeased
  • Dissatisfied
  • Low

This grouping of feeling words by level of intensity, the use of adverbs or a Likert scale, coupled with the Production Reaction Cards authors’ recommendation to maintain a 60/40 ratio of positive to negative words should provide you with a better framework should you wish to alter or reduce the list of 118 words and phrases whilst ensuring you still cover the full range of emotional responses.

Think of it like a paint palette where the type of emotion is the hue and the intensity is the brightness. You might not need your 16.7 million colours but if you’re going to cull your palette at least take a sensible and logical approach to it.

This is especially important if you want to follow a quantitative approach to reporting on research conducted using the PRC as mentioned in the book Measuring the User Experience by Thomas Tullis and Bill Albert.

What are your experiences with using the Product Reaction Cards—specifically if you culled the list of words and phrases or came up with your own? What technique did you use for developing your custom set of cards and how do you think your choices affected the quality and thoroughness of the emotional response inquiry?

post authorNathanael Boehm

Nathanael Boehm
Nathanael has been working in web application development since 2000. He started as as developer before focusing on front-end design and then giving up coding to specialise in UX design. He has worked primarily in the public sector for Australian Government departments and agencies but also has several years experience in private sector working in e-commerce, e-learning and product development. Nathanael has also been involved with TEDx conferences in Canberra Australia and Christchurch New Zealand as well as organising BarCamp events, Free Australia Wireless, Canberra Coworking and OpenAustralia.

Tweet
Share
Post
Share
Email
Print

Related Articles

AI that always agrees? Over-alignment might be the hidden danger, reinforcing your misconceptions and draining your mind. Learn why this subtle failure mode is more harmful than you think — and how we can fix it.

Article by Bernard Fitzgerald
Introducing Over-Alignment
  • The article explores over-alignment — a failure mode where AI overly validates users’ assumptions, reinforcing false beliefs.
  • It shows how this feedback loop can cause cognitive fatigue, emotional strain, and professional harm.
  • The piece calls for AI systems to balance empathy with critical feedback to prevent these risks.
Share:Introducing Over-Alignment
4 min read

Why does AI call you brilliant — then refuse to tell you why? This article unpacks the paradox of empty praise and the silence that follows when validation really matters.

Article by Bernard Fitzgerald
The AI Praise Paradox
  • The article explores how AI often gives empty compliments instead of real support, and how design choices like that can make people trust it less.
  • It looks at the strange way AI praises fancy-sounding language but ignores real logic, which can be harmful, especially in sensitive areas like mental health.
  • The piece argues that AI needs to be more genuinely helpful and aligned with users to truly empower them.
Share:The AI Praise Paradox
4 min read

Mashed potatoes as a lifestyle brand? When AI starts generating user personas for absurd products — and we start taking them seriously — it’s time to ask if we’ve all lost the plot. This sharp, irreverent critique exposes the real risks of using LLMs as synthetic users in UX research.

Article by Saul Wyner
Have SpudGun, Will Travel: How AI’s Agreeableness Risks Undermining UX Thinking
  • The article explores the growing use of AI-generated personas in UX research and why it’s often a shortcut with serious flaws.
  • It introduces critiques that LLMs are trained to mimic structure, not judgment. When researchers use AI as a stand-in for real users, they risk mistaking coherence for credibility and fantasy for data.
  • The piece argues that AI tools in UX should be assistants, not oracles. Trusting “synthetic users” or AI-conjured feedback risks replacing real insights with confident nonsense.
Share:Have SpudGun, Will Travel: How AI’s Agreeableness Risks Undermining UX Thinking
22 min read

Join the UX Magazine community!

Stay informed with exclusive content on the intersection of UX, AI agents, and agentic automation—essential reading for future-focused professionals.

Hello!

You're officially a member of the UX Magazine Community.
We're excited to have you with us!

Thank you!

To begin viewing member content, please verify your email.

Tell us about you. Enroll in the course.

    This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Check our privacy policy and