Advertisement

The Journal of Supercomputing

, Volume 75, Issue 4, pp 1783–1830 | Cite as

The influence of textual and verbal word-of-mouth on website usability and visual appeal

  • Milica StojmenovicEmail author
  • Robert Biddle
  • John Grundy
  • Vivienne Farrell
Article

Abstract

Word-of-Mouth (WOM) may impact the perception and experience of website usability and visual appeal. This study aimed to highlight the effects of WOM, implemented textually and verbally, on subjective and objective usability and visual appeal in a web environment. This research was spread over three studies and was undertaken using an unfamiliar city council website to exclude the influence of past experiences and to allow for greater control of WOM implementation. The statistical results showed that both visual appeal and objective and subjective usability were influenced via text that established expectations around these and that the results were only more compelling when verbal WOM was added. The result implications show that when the message is simple, such as it usually is in communication on social media and advertising, then it does impact people’s perceptions of website visual appeal and usability, which may impact future intentions.

Keywords

Visual appeal Usability Websites Word-of-Mouth 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Milos Stojmenovic for creating the website data sample and thanks to Gitte Lindgaard for advice on previous related work.

References

  1. 1.
    Heidmann F (2009) Human–computer cooperation. In: Bullinger HJ (ed) Technology guide. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Litvin S, Goldsmith R, Pan B (2008) Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management. Tour Manag 29(3):458–468Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Forrester Research: The State of Retailing Online (2006) The 9th annual shop.org study. www.clickz.com/3611181
  4. 4.
    Burtuskova A, Krejcar O Evaluation framework for user preference research implemented as web application. In: Badica C, Nguyen NT, Brezovan M (eds) ICCCI, 201, LNCS, vol 8083, Heidelberg, pp 537–548Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO 9241/11 (1996) International organization for standardization. Retrieved June 2012Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feagin SF (1995) Beauty. In: Audi R (ed) The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 66Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blijlevens J (2011) Typically the best? Perceived typicality and aesthetic appraisal of product appearances. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub D (2003) Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integreated model. MIS Quart 27(1):51–90Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stojmenović M, Pilgrim C, Lindgaard G (2014) Perceived and objective usability and visual appeal in a website domain with a less developed mental model. In: The 26th ACM Australian Computer–Human Interaction Conference OZCHI’14, December 2–5, 2014, Sydney, NSW, Australia, pp 316–323Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stojmenović M, Grundy J, Farrell V, Biddle R, Hoon L (2016) Does textual word-of-mouth affect look and feel? In: The 28th ACM Australian Computer–Human Interaction Conference OZCHI’16, November 29–December 2, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia, pp 257–265Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harmon-Jones E, Amodio DM, Harmon-Jones C (2009) Action-based model of dissonance: a review, integration, and expansion of conceptions of cognitive conflict. In: Zanna MP (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 41. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 119–166Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tractinsky N, Katz AS, Ikar D (2000) What is beautiful is usable. Interact Comput 13(2):127–145Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dion KK, Berscheid E, Walster E (1972) What is beautiful is good. J Personal Social Psychol 24:285–290Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thorndike EL (1920) A constant error in psychological ratings. J Appl Psychol 4(1):25–29Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hall RH, Hanna P (2004) The impact of web page text-background colour combinations on readability, retention, aesthetics and behavioural intention. Behav Inf Technol 23(3):183–195Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hartmann J, Sutcliffe A, De Angeli A (2007) Investigating attractiveness in web user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p 396Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tractinsky N (1997) Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI, New York, ACM, pp 115–122Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Norman D (2004) Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Katz A (2010) Aesthetics, usefulness and performance in user-search-engine. Int J Appl Quant Methods 5(3):424–445Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tuch AN, Roth SP, Hornbæk K, Opwis K, Bargas-Avila JA (2012) Is beautiful really usable? Toward understanding the relation between usability, aesthetics, and affect in HCI. Comput Hum Behav 28(5):1596–1607Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Angeli A, Sutcliffe A, Hartmann J (2006) Interaction, usability and aesthetics: What influences users’ preferences?. University Park, ‎College Town, pp 271–280Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee S, Koubek RJ (2010) Understanding user preferences based on usability and aesthetics before and after actual use. Interact Comput 22(6):530–543Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sangwon L, Koubek RJ (2010) Understanding user preferences based on usability and aesthetics before and after actual use. Interact Comput 22(6):530–543Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Taebi O, Aldabbas H, Clarskon M (2013) Users’ perception towards usability and aesthetics design of travel websites. In: Proceedings of The International Conference on E-Commerce and Information Technology, vol 117, EcomIT & GBM, Sri LankaGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Quinn JM, Tran TQ (2010) Attractive phones don’t have to work better: independent effects of attractiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency on perceived usability. In: CHI’10: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, pp 353–362Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McLellan S, Muddimer A, Peres SC (2012) The effect of experience on system usability scale ratings. J Usability Stud 7(2):56–67Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ip C, Law R, Lee H (2011) A review of website evaluation studies in the tourism and hospitality fields from 1996 to 2009. Int J Tour Res 13(3):234–265Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sokkar A, Law E (2013) Validating an episodic UX model on online shopping decision making: a survey study with B2C e-commerce. IN: Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, pp 297–306Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78(6):1360–1380Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Herr PM, Kardes FR, Kim J (1991) Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. J Consum Res 17(4):454–462Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smith D, Menon S, Sivakumar K (2005) Online peer and editorial recommendations, trust, and choice in virtual markets. J Interact Market 19(3):15–37Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pavlou PA, Dimoka A (2006) The nature and role of feedback text comments in online marketplaces: implications for trust building, price premiums, and seller differentiation. Inf Syst Res 17(4):392–414Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ba S, Pavlou PA (2002) Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in electronic markets: price premiums and buyer behavior. MIS Q 26(3):243–268Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chevalier J (2006) The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book reviews. J Market Res 43(3):9Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vermeulen IE, Seegers D (2009) Tried and tested: the impact of online hotel reviews on consumer consideration. Tour Manag 30(1):123–127Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Voss B (1984) Slips of the ear: Investigations into the speech perception behaviour of German speakers of English. G. Narr, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chandy R, Gu H (2012) Identifying spam in the iOS app store. Paper Presented, pp 56–59.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2184305.2184317
  40. 40.
    Ellison G, Fudenberg D (1995) Word-of-mouth communication and social learning. Q J Econ 110(1):93–125.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2118512 zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Asch SE (1951) Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. In: Guetzkow H (ed) Groups, leadership and men. Carnegie Press, Pittsburgh, pp 177–190Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Asch SE (1955) Opinions and social pressure. Sci Am 193:31–35Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Asch SE (1956) Studies of independence and conformity. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol Monogr 70(9):1–70Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Svahnberg M, Aurun A, Wohlin C (2008) Using students as subjects—an empirical evaluation. In: Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement ESEM ‘08. 288-290Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Druckman JN, Kam CD (2009) Students as experimental participants: a defense of the “narrow data base”*. SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1498843
  46. 46.
    Brooke J (1986) System usability scale (SUS). © Digital Equipment Corporation, UKGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Moshagen M, Thielsch M (2012) A short version of the visual aesthetics of websites inventory. Behav Inf Technol 32(12):1305–1311Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kruskal W (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47(260):583–621zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kampstra P (2008) Beanplot: a boxplot alternative for visual comparison of distributions. J Stat Softw 28(1):1–9Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Razali NM, Wah YB (2011) Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. J Stat Model Anal 2(1):21–33Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52(3/4):591–611MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cramer D, Howitt D (2004) The SAGE dictionary of statistics. SAGE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Doane DP, Seward LE (2011) Measuring skewness. J Stat Educ 19(2):1–18Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Martin WE, Bridgmon K (2012) Quantitative and statistical research methods: from hypothesis to results. Wiley, SomersetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Nordstokke DW, Zumbo BD, Cairns SL, Saklofske DH (2011) The operating characteristics of the nonparametric Levene test for equal variances with assessment and evaluation data. Pract Assess Res Eval 1(5):1–8Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rettig M (1991) Nobody reads documentation. Commun ACM 34(7):19–24Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Felder RM (1993) Reaching the second tier: learning and teaching styles in college science education. J Coll Sci Teach 23:286–290Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Carleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Swinburne University of TechnologyMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations