Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 277–294 | Cite as

The determinants of library and information science undergraduate students’ first impression of university library websites

  • Adeyinka TellaEmail author


This study examined determinants of library and information science undergraduate students’ first impression with the university library websites. A total enumeration method was used to involve 54 year 4 undergraduate students of Library and Information Science from two selected universities. Undergraduate Students’ Determinants of First Impression with University Library Websites Questionnaire was used to gather data. The results obtained demonstrate that there is significant correlation between LIS students’ Perception of Website quality, Website interactivity, Website aesthetic perception, Website prototypicality, and Website satisfaction with first impression toward the university library website. The five independent variables (Website quality, Website interactivity, Website aesthetic perception, Website prototypicality, and Website satisfaction) jointly (as indicated by the R-square value) explained or predicted 66% of the variation in LIS students’ first impression towards university library website. Aesthetic perception of library website contributed most to the prediction of LIS students’ first impression towards library website, followed in declining order of strength by library website interactivity, library website satisfaction, and library website quality. However, prototypicality though correlated with first impression, its contribution is not significant. Notable limitation of this study is that, data was collected from undergraduate students in only two universities focusing only Library and Information Science students. The results call for formidable efforts to improve the users experience on the web, because the first impression counts. This study has implications for the users patronizing the university library websites. The results show that Aesthetic perception of library website contributed mostly to the prediction of LIS students’ first impression towards university library website, followed by library website interactivity. These findings may not be applicable to other university library websites but this depend on the experience of the users.


Library websites Determinants First impression Website quality Website interactivity Website aesthetic perception Website prototypicality Website satisfaction University library websites Undergraduates 



  1. Babbie, E. (2013). The basics of social research. 6th Edition, Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  2. Bargas-Avila, J., Hornb_k, K. (2011). Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: a critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. In: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp. 2689–2698.Google Scholar
  3. Beronius, G., & Andrén, S. (2016). E-commerce web design - the importance of a first impression. Unpublished Thesis in Informatics, University of Boras.Google Scholar
  4. Billy, B., Rob, L., & Ivan, W. (2008). The Impact of Website Quality on Customer Satisfaction and Purchase Intentions: Evidence from Chinese Online Visitors. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boonle, L.L.C. (2017). Understanding visual rhetoric and website design. Retrieved
  6. Brady, E. (2013). The Sublime in Modern Philosophy: Aesthetics, Ethics, and Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casalo, L., Flavian, C., & Guinaliu, M. (2008). The role of usability and satisfaction in the consumer's commitment to a financial services website. International Journal of Electronic Finance, 2(1), 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, K., & Yen, D. C. (2004). Improving the quality of online presence through interactivity. Information Management, 42(1), 217–226.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cookson, R.L. (2011). The Moderating Effect of Leader Prototypicality on the relationship between LMX and follower attitudes. An Unpublished M.Sc. Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  10. Creswell, W. J. (2014). Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Cristobal, E., Flavian, C., & Guinalıu, M. (2007). Measurement validation and effects on consumer satisfaction and web site loyalty. Management Service Quarterly, 17(3), 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Chernatony, L. (2010). From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation (3rd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  13. Douneva, M., Jaron, R., & Thielsch, M. T. (2016). Effects of different website designs on first impressions, aesthetic judgments, and memory performance after short presentation. Interacting with Computers, 28(4), 552–567. Scholar
  14. Everard, A., & Galletta, D. (2006). (2006). How presentation flaws affect perceived site quality, trust, and intention to purchase from an online store. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 5595.Google Scholar
  15. Flavian, C., Guinalıu, M., & Gurrea, R. (2006). The role played by perceived usability, satisfaction and consumer trust on web site loyalty. Information & Management: The International Journal of Information Systems Applications, 43(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geissler, G., Zinkhan, G., & Watson, R. (2006). The Influence of Home Page Complexity on Consumer Attention, Attitudes. and Purchase Intent. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 69–80.Google Scholar
  17. Hatcher, R. L. (2012). Professional identity development in online Christian theological education: a case study of preparing pastoral practice through discursive activity. Theses and Dissertations--Curriculum and Instruction. 3. Retrieved from: Accessed 10 June 2018.
  18. Hekkert, P. & Leder, H. (2008). Product Aesthetics. In R. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.). Product Experience, pp. 259–286.Google Scholar
  19. Jiang, Z., Chan, J., Tan, B. C., & Chua, W. S. (2010). Effects of interactivity on Website involvement and purchase intention. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(1), 34–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jiang, Z. J., Weiquan Wang, W., Tan, B. C. Y., & Yu, J. (2016). The Determinants and Impacts of Aesthetics in Users’ First Interaction with Websites. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(1), 229–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kabango, C. M., & Asa, A. S. (2015). Factors Influencing E-commerce Development: Implications for the Developing Countries. International Journal of Innovation and Economic. Development, 1(1), 59–66.Google Scholar
  22. Kothari, C. R. (2013). Research methodology: theory and techniques, 2nd Revised Edition. New Delhi: New Age, Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Landwehr, J. R., Wentzel, D., & Herrmann, A. (2013). Product design for the long run: Consumer responses to typical and atypical designs at different stages of exposure. Journal of Marketing, 77(5), 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, C. (2018). Aesthetics of Interaction and Value Co-Creation between User and Smart Service Artefact: Investigating the Moderation Effect of Emotion. Proceedings of 10th SERVSIG on Opportunities for Services in a Challenging World, June 14 – June 16, 2018 Paris. pgs. 596–600.Google Scholar
  26. Lee, J., Park, H., & Wise, K. (2013). Brand interactivity and its effects on the outcomes of advergame play. New Media & Society, 1461444813504267.Google Scholar
  27. Lim, Y. S., Heng-Tuan, P. C., Chew, H. N., & Cheah, S. (2016). Customers' online website satisfaction in online apparel purchase: A study of Generation Y in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Management Review, 21(2), 74–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindgaard, G. (2007). Aesthetics, visual appeal, usability, and user satisfaction: What do the user’s eyes tell the user’s brain? Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society (AJETS), 5(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  29. Lindgaard, G., & Dudek, C. (2003). User satisfaction, aesthetics and usability: Beyond reductionism. Usability gaining a competitive edge, Proceedings IFIP 17th World Computer Congress. Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  30. Lindgaard, G., Fernandes, G., Dudek, C., & Brown, J. (2006). Attention web designers: Youhave 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindgaard, G., Dudek, C., Sen, D., Sumegi, L., & Noonan, P. (2011). An exploration of relations between visual appeal, trustworthiness and perceived usability of homepages. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, 18(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liu, Y., Li, K. J., Chen, H. A., & Balachander, S. (2017). The Effects of a Product's Aesthetic Design on Demand and Marketing Mix Effectiveness: The Role of Segment Prototypicality and Brand Consistency. Journal of Marketing, 81(1), 83–102.
  33. Liu, Y., Li, K. J., Chen, H. A., & Balachander, S. (2018). The Ideal Look: Managing Aesthetics in Product Design.
  34. Loiacono, E., Watson, R., & Goodhue, D. (2002). WebQual(tm): A Web Site Quality Instrument. American Marketing Association: Winter Marketing Educators’ Conference, Austin.Google Scholar
  35. Lowry, P. B., Spaulding, T., Wells, T., Moody, G., Moffit, K., & Madariaga, S. (2006). A Theoretical Model and Empirical Results Linking Website Interactivity and Usability Satisfaction. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’06), IEEE (2006), 123a–123a.Google Scholar
  36. Lynch, P. D., Kent, R. J., & Srinivasan, S. S. (2001). The Global Internet Shopper: Evidence from Shopping Tasks in Twelve Countries. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(3), 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maditinos, D., Mitsinis, N., & Sotiriadou, D. (2008). Measuring user satisfaction with respect to websites. Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business (ZIREB), 12(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  38. Maujood, M. (2016). Prototypal Object-Oriented Programming using JavaScript.
  39. McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. S. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Neelotpaul, B. (2011). A study on interactivity and online branding. Advances in Management, 4(1), 20–29.Google Scholar
  41. Raganathan, C., & Ganapathy, S. (2002). Key dimensions of business-to-consumers websites. Information Management, 39(1), 457–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ramasubbu, N., Mithas, S., & Krishnan, M. S. (2008). High tech, high touch: the effect of employee skills and customer heterogeneity on customer satisfaction with enterprise system support services. Decision Support Systems, 44, 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rawsthorn, A. (2009). Does the iPhone have “it”? Early signs are promising. International Herald Tribune.Google Scholar
  44. Reinecke, Katharina, Tom Yeh, Luke Miratrix, Rahmatri Mardiko, Yuechen Zhao, Jenny Liu, & Krzysztof Z. Gajos. (2013). Predicting Users First Impressions of Website Aesthetics with a Quantification of Perceived Visual Complexity and Colorfulness. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France, 2049–2058. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  45. Roth, S., Schmutz, P., Pauwels, S., Bargas-Avila, J., & Opwis, K. (2010). Mental models for web objects: Where do users expect to and the most frequent objects in online shops, news portals, and company web pages? Interacting with Computers, 22(2), 140–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Song, J. H., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2003). Features of web site design, perceptions of website quality, and patronage behavior. ACME Proceedings, 106–114.Google Scholar
  47. Song, J. H., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2008). Determinants of perceived Website interactivity. Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tella, A. (2012). System Related Factors that Predict Students’ Satisfaction with the Blackboard Learning System at the University of Botswana. African Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science, 22(1), 41–52.Google Scholar
  49. Tella, A., & Bashorun, M. T. (2012). Undergraduate Students Satisfaction with Web Portal. International Journal of Web Portal, 4(4), 56–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. The Interaction Design Foundation (2018). Prototyping: Learn Eight Common Methods and Best Practices. Retrieved from
  51. Thielsch, M.T. & Moshagen, M. (2015). Visual Aesthetics of Websites Inventory - Short Version 1.0. Retrieved from: (Accessed 23 April, 2017).
  52. Touch, A. N., Presslaber, E. E., Stöcklin, M., Opwis, K., & Bargas-Avila, J. A. (2012). The role of visual complexity and prototypicality regarding first impression of websites: Working towards understanding aesthetic judgments. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 70(11), 794–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tractinsky, N. (2004). Towards the Study of Aesthetics in Information Technology. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual International. Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Washington, DC, December 12–15, pp. 771–780.Google Scholar
  54. Vernuccio, M., Pagani, M., Barbarossa, C., & Pastore, A. (2015). Antecedents of brand love in online network-based communities. A social identity perspective. Journal of Product. Brand Management, 24, 706–719.Google Scholar
  55. Voorveld, H. A., van Noort, G., & Duijn, M. (2013). Building brands with interactivity: The role of prior brand usage in the relation between perceived Website interactivity and brand responses. Journal of Brand Management, 15(3), 25–40.Google Scholar
  56. Wagga, A. J., Callananb, M. M., & Hassett, A. (2018). The use of computer mediated communication in providing patient support: A review of the research literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 82(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ye, L., Chen, Z., & Li, X. (2012). A study of impacts on online purchase behavior: information richness and website interactivity perspectives. International Journal of Services, Technology and Management, 18(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zviran, M., Glezer, C., & Avni, I. (2006). User satisfaction from commercial web sites: The effect of design and use. Information Management, 43(2), 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information ScienceUniversity of South AfricaPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of Library and Information ScienceUniversity of IlorinIlorinNigeria

Personalised recommendations