Though aesthetics is generally acknowledged as an important aspect of website design, extant information systems (IS) research on web user experience has rarely studied what affects website aesthetics and how aesthetics influences users' perceptions of the website and the organization behind the website. In this paper, we synthesize prior literature from different academic domains and propose users' perceived quality of five design elements (i.e., unity, complexity, intensity, novelty, and interactivity) as determinants of website aesthetics. We further theorize the effects of aesthetics on users' attitudes toward the website and their perception of the corporate image. Two studies were conducted to test the research model. In Study 1, we adopted a card sorting method and the results provide substantial support to the determinants of website aesthetics. In Study 2, we conducted a survey using ten company portal websites that were unknown to survey respondents. Our analysis further confirms the effects of users' perceived quality of the five design elements on the perception of website aesthetics. The findings of Study 2 also show that users' perception of aesthetics has significant impacts on perceived utility and their attitudes toward the website, which further affects the corporate image exhibited via the website. In addition, we find that in users' first interaction with a website, perceived aesthetics has a larger impact on their attitudes toward the website than perceived utility. > >
competence, integrity, and benevolence are the three key trusting beliefs that are widely acknowledged in the trust literature. Drawing on users' different dispositional attribution of these trusting beliefs, we investigate the different influence of two sets of experiential reasons on the competence belief versus the benevolence and integrity beliefs in online recommendation agents (RAs). The two sets of experiential reasons encompass interactive reason, including three performance factors (namely, perceived cognitive effort, advice quality, and perceived strategy restrictiveness), and knowledge-based reason (i.e., perceived transparency of an RA). Data were collected through a laboratory experiment to test our hypotheses. Results demonstrate that the three performance factors affect only the competence belief, whereas perceived RA transparency influences all three trusting beliefs. In addition, the effects of perceived transparency on competence are partially mediated by perceived cognitive effort and advice quality. The research contributes to the trust literature by revealing the different antecedents of the three trusting beliefs and provides guidelines for designers to choose specific design elements to improve a particular trusting belief of the user toward an RA. > >
Interactive online decision aids often employ user-decision aid dialogues as forms of user-system interaction to help construct and elicit users' attribute preferences about a product type. This study extends prior research on online decision aids by investigating the effects of a decision aid's user-system interaction mode (USIM), which can be either user-guided or system-controlled, on users' effort-related (number of iterations of using the aid and perceived cognitive effort expended in using it) and quality-related (perceived quality of the aid and acceptance of the product advice it provides) assessments. A contingency approach with two moderating factors is employed. One factor is the decision strategy (additive-compensatory or elimination) employed by the aid, and the other is the users' product knowledge (high or low). A laboratory experiment was conducted to compare online decision aids with different USIMs. Although the results largely confirm that users assess the user-guided USIM more positively than the system-controlled USIM, the effects of USIM are stronger in two settings: for the elimination-based aid than for the additivecompensatory- based aid and for users with low product knowledge than for those with high product knowledge, especially in terms of effort assessments. This research advances the theoretical understanding of the effects of interaction between two critical components of online decision aids (USIMs and decision strategies) and the moderating role of user characteristics (product knowledge) in affecting users' evaluations. It also provides practitioners with design advice for developing these aids.
This paper extends the effort--accuracy framework of cognition by taking into account the perceived strategy restrictiveness of decision aids, and tests the extended framework in a context in which online decision aids are used to elicit consumers' preferences, automate the processing of the preferences, and provide product advice for consumers. Three types of decision aids with different decision strategy support capabilities (an additive-compensatory based aid, an elimination- based aid, and a hybrid aid supporting both strategies) are compared in terms of users' perceptions of strategy restrictiveness, advice quality, and cognitive effort. These comparisons are grounded on the properties of normativeness and complementarity of decision strategies employed by the aids. A normative strategy takes into account both the users' attribute preferences and the relative importance of such preferences, and allows for trade-offs among preferences (e.g., additive--compensatory). Strategy complementarity indicates support for decision rules based on multiple strategies (e.g., both additive--compensatory and elimination strategies). The experimental results support the validity of the extended effort--accuracy--restrictiveness framework and the effects of strategy normativeness, but not the effects of strategy complementarity. In addition to the perceptions of cognitive effort and advice quality, perceived strategy restrictiveness exerts a significant influence on consumers' intentions to use online decision aids. The additive--compensatory aid is perceived to be less restrictive, of higher quality, and less effortful than the elimination aid, whereas the hybrid aid is not perceived to be any different from the additive--compensatory aid.
As organizations increasingly utilize Web-based technologies to support customers better, trust in decision support technologies has emerged as an important issue in online environments. In this study, we identify six reasons users trust (or do not trust) a technology in the early stages of its use by extending the theories of trust formation in interpersonal and organizational contexts to that of decision support technologies. We study the particular context of decision support technologies for e-commerce: online recommendation agents (RAs), which facilitate users' decision making by providing advice on what to buy based on user-specified needs and preferences. A laboratory experiment is conducted using a multimethod approach to collect data. Both quantitative data about participants' trust in RAs and written protocols that explain the reasons for their levels of trust are collected. A content analysis of the written protocols identifies both positive and negative trust attributions that are then mapped to six trust reasons. A structural equation modeling analysis is employed to test the causal strengths of the trust reasons in explaining participants' trust in RAs. The results reveal that in the early stages of trust formation, four positive reasons (i.e., knowledge-based, interactive, calculative, and dispositional) are associated with higher trust in RAs and two negative reasons (i.e., calculative and interactive) are associated with lower trust in RAs. The results also demonstrate some distinctive features of trust formation with respect to decision support technologies. We discuss the research and practical implications of the findings and describe opportunities for future research.
We empirically test the effects of explanation facilities on consumers' initial trusting beliefs concerning online recommendation agents (RAs). RAs provide online shopping advice based on user-specified needs and preferences. The characteristics of RAs that may hamper consumers' trust building in the RAs are identified, and the provision of explanation facilities is proposed as a knowledge-based approach to enhance consumers' trusting beliefs by dealing with these obstacles. This study examines the effects of three types of explanations about an RA and its use--how, why, and trade-off explanations--on consumers' trusting beliefs in an RA's competence, benevolence, and integrity. An RA was built as the experimental platform and a laboratory experiment was conducted. The results confirm the important role of explanation facilities in enhancing consumers' initial trusting beliefs and indicate that consumers' use of different types of explanations enhances different trusting beliefs: the use of how explanations increases their competence and benevolence beliefs, the use of why explanations increases their benevolence beliefs, and the use of trade-off explanations increases their integrity beliefs.