Web Site Affective Quality and Features Quantity in relation to Customer Online Satisfaction: A Research Framework Serey-B...
Consumer Research Area  and Goal of study <ul><li>Evaluation of electronic service quality </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Extends t...
Research Relevance <ul><li>Understanding online behavior is crucial to Web site managers  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increasing...
Contributions <ul><li>Extension to the (T, H, & R, 2005) paper </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Theoretical contribution </li></ul></...
Usability (Ease of Use) <ul><li>Usability as “quality in use” for interactive systems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Confusion over...
Literature on CMC Complexity and Usability <ul><li>Computer-mediated communication (CMC) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Main distin...
Affective Quality Features  <ul><li>Affect and neuropsychology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>« Core affect (also known as affect, ...
Web Site Features: Quantity & Nature <ul><li>Capability of an electronic system </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Based on quantity of...
Satisfaction <ul><li>Traditional dominant conceptualization </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>difference between the consumers’ ex...
Research Framework PEOU Web site features Satisfaction Purchase intention Repurchase intention Attitude towards site Attit...
<ul><li>P1  : The  number of features  available in a system to help accomplish a goal-oriented task impacts online custom...
<ul><li>P2  : The  affective quality of a feature  available in a system to help accomplish a goal-oriented task impacts o...
<ul><li>P3  : The number and the affective quality nature of system features have a combined impact on the online customer...
Conclusion <ul><li>“ The more the better” heuristic for product evaluation does not always serve the consumer’s best inter...
Limitations and future research <ul><li>The affective quality of a feature requires refinement </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>B...
References (1) <ul><li>Bevan, Nigel (1999). “Quality in use: Meeting user needs for quality”,  Journal of Systems and Soft...
References (2) <ul><li>Oliver. Richard L. (1980). &quot;A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfact...
Questions? <ul><li>Thank you! </li></ul>
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Affective Quality Features&Features Quantityon Online Satisfaction Research Framework S Prom Tep Cerg2009

1,616 views

Published on

“The more the better” goes as a saying. Resorting to this quantity heuristic, consumers tend to decide on products which present more features than less, forgetting that features quantity comes with product complexity and less satisfaction in its use. In this paper we extend the construct of “feature fatigue” (Thompson, Hamilton and Rust, 2005), which derives from the cognitive complexity of a product with too many features, to Web sites usability. So far, previous research has investigated the impact of Web site quality as a key determinant to online success focusing on what makes a site “better than another” in general or for some type of industries. It has identified a large number of factors that have been found to influence the online experience satisfaction such as visual design, quality and quantity of information, personalization and last but not least: usability. Based on a literature review in marketing and human-computer interaction about affect and its interplay with cognition, we develop a model that link the affective dimension of a product and features quantity to satisfaction. The model is suggesting that perceived ease of use mediates the combined effect of the affective dimension and features quantity. We propose to test whether a task-related set of features would positively impact satisfaction via perceived ease of use when the features possess an affective quality, and if it would hold true even in a perceived case of complexity. In the proposed research framework, we would test whether a task-related set of features would positively impact satisfaction via perceived ease of use when the features possess an affective quality, and if it would hold true even in a perceived case of complexity. Hence, the purpose of this conceptual paper is to contribute to the field of electronic service quality product evaluation by incorporating both the affective and cognitive dimensions of evaluation in a single research model that could be empirically tested in the very specific context of a goal-oriented task and its related set of functionalities.

Published in: Design, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,616
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
51
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Affective Quality Features&Features Quantityon Online Satisfaction Research Framework S Prom Tep Cerg2009

    1. 1. Web Site Affective Quality and Features Quantity in relation to Customer Online Satisfaction: A Research Framework Serey-Bopha Sandrine Prom Tep PhD Candidate, HEC Montréal SCBR HEC Montréal, April 4th 2009
    2. 2. Consumer Research Area and Goal of study <ul><li>Evaluation of electronic service quality </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Extends the Thompson, Hamilton & Rust (T, H, & R) paper (2005) on « Feature fatigue: When Product Capabilities Become Too much of a Good Thing » to electronic service </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Balance between before and after use perceptions : </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Desires for capability: perceived usefulness (PU) before use </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Usability: perceived ease of use (PEOU) after use </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>when capability means complex usage of a product </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To introduce « The Importance of Affective Quality » (Zhang and Li, 2005) in the user evaluation of web sites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hedonic quality of an electronic system has positive impact on user’s perception of PU and PEOU  customer satisfaction </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    3. 3. Research Relevance <ul><li>Understanding online behavior is crucial to Web site managers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increasing importance of Internet in everyday life ( CEFRIO NETendances, 2008 ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Low visit-to-purchase conversion rates: < 2% (Sismeiro and Bucklin, 2004) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>More complete appraisal of the determinants of online behavior </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Strong dominant cognitive paradigm in marketing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>lack of interest and/or inherent limitations for non cognitive dimensions (Lambert, 2006) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Necessity to enlarge/enrich the classic theoretical general framework in CR </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>with recent findings in neuropsychology about role of affect in information processing (Norman, 2002 and 2004) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Contributions <ul><li>Extension to the (T, H, & R, 2005) paper </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Theoretical contribution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Number of features + nature of features = > features qualification </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Break-away from the « rational/logical information-based thinking user » assumption and economic attribute-based models </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Potential empirical contribution if the research framework is tested </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>External validation of the T, H, & R (2005) paper results applied to web site features </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Few experimental research on emotions/affect related to electronic system use ou user acceptance because hard to set-up (i.e., requires Web site conception) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Managerial implications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Focus on feature-level usability vs service/product global usability </li></ul></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Usability (Ease of Use) <ul><li>Usability as “quality in use” for interactive systems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Confusion over the actual meaning of usability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Defined narrowly and distinguished from utility (Nielsen, 1994) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Defined as a broad concept synonymous to quality in use (Bevan, 1995) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ISO 9126: “ Usability: the capability of the software product to be understood, learned, used and attractive to the user, when used under specified conditions » (i.e., context of use) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sine qua non condition of quality criteria </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Predictor of customer satisfaction for Interactive systems (Bressoles, 2004) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>« Feature fatigue » construct </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Effect of adding product features on product evaluations: when complexity exceeds flexibility in a usability perspective (T, H & R, 2005) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Literature on CMC Complexity and Usability <ul><li>Computer-mediated communication (CMC) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Main distinguishing characteristic of e-commerce interaction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Customer interacting with a system and not a person (Hoffman and Novak, 1996) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>At the heart of the dialogic paradigm of the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) field of study (Shneiderman, 1982) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CMC has undergone an interactive design revolution with direct manipulation interfaces about thirty years ago, but still implies a complex interactive process of communication (see Shopping cart abandonment, Rajamma, 2006) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li> Critical importance of usability and feature fatigue </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Affective Quality Features <ul><li>Affect and neuropsychology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>« Core affect (also known as affect, feeling, mood) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Neurophysiological state that is consciously accessible as a simple, non reflective feeling. » (Zhang & Li, 2005) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Integral blend of hedonic/valence (pleasure/displeasure), arousal/activation (sleepy/activated) and primitive, universal, ubiquitous and core of all emotion-laden events (Russell, 2003) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Affect and cognition are information processing systems: judgmental (+ and - valence) and interpretive (meaning) (Norman, 2004) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>« Affective quality » and web site (Zhang & Li, 2005) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>« The ability to cause a change in core affect » </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Web site presenting such quality features </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    8. 8. Web Site Features: Quantity & Nature <ul><li>Capability of an electronic system </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Based on quantity of features </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>e.g.; the digital video player’s playlist, play, record, and audio settings functions </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Usability sets a limit </li></ul><ul><ul><li>But no features qualification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>For instance: type, nature, or feature-level intrinsic usability vs global electronic product usability </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Few recent studies incorporating affect into user acceptance studies </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Anxiety emotions affect perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) (Venkatesh, 2000) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Enjoyment emotion: positive impact on PEOU and PU (Yi and Hwang, 2003) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Online experiences need to go beyond Hedonic/Instrumental gap </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Senecal, Gharbi and Nantel (2002) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Satisfaction <ul><li>Traditional dominant conceptualization </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>difference between the consumers’ expectations regarding a product/service and its performance (Oliver, 1980) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Customer satisfaction is a managerial imperative </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>driven by profitability rationale </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>established link between satisfaction and (re)purchase intention and customer retention (Zeithaml & al., 1996), even though strongly moderated by customer characteristics (Mittal and Kamakura, 2001) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Satisfaction is one of the most important consumer reactions in B2C online environments (Cheung and Lee, 2005). </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>80% highly satisfied online consumers would shop again within 2 months </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>90% would recommend the Internet retailers to others (N.DIRECT, 2002; Web Partner, 2002) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Limited e-satisfaction empirical studies (Szymanski and Hise, 2000; Hsu, 2006) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>have only focused on negative and positive Web site attributes performance on satisfaction (e.g., security, site design, information quality or convenience) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No link between “satisfaction with e-commerce framework” and traditional dominant marketing views of consumer satisfaction </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Research Framework PEOU Web site features Satisfaction Purchase intention Repurchase intention Attitude towards site Attitude towards company Mediating variable Quantity Low High Nature Instrumental Affective quality
    11. 11. <ul><li>P1 : The number of features available in a system to help accomplish a goal-oriented task impacts online customer satisfaction via perceived ease of use (PEOU) </li></ul><ul><li>P1a ) A system with lots of features impacts PEOU negatively </li></ul><ul><li>(i.e., HIGH level condition with many features leading to complexity in terms of usability evaluation) </li></ul><ul><li>P1b ) A system with Few features impacts PEOU positively </li></ul><ul><li>(i.e., LOW level condition with few features leading to flexibility in terms of usability evaluation) </li></ul>Proposition 1 Features quantity Features with affective quality P erceived E ase O f U se Satisfaction P1 P2 P3 Research model
    12. 12. <ul><li>P2 : The affective quality of a feature available in a system to help accomplish a goal-oriented task impacts online customer satisfaction via perceived ease of use </li></ul><ul><li>P2a) A system feature available in a system to help accomplish a goal-oriented task that presents an affective quality (i.e., PRESENCE) impacts PEOU positively. </li></ul><ul><li>P2b) A system feature available in a system to help accomplish a goal-oriented task that does not present an affective quality (i.e., ABSENCE) impacts PEOU less positively than one with an affective quality present in the system. </li></ul><ul><li>P2c) The impact of a system feature available in a system to help accomplish a goal-oriented task that presents affective quality is greater than the impact of a system feature that does not. </li></ul>Proposition 2 Features quantity Features with affective quality P erceived E ase O f U se Satisfaction P1 P2 P3 Research model
    13. 13. <ul><li>P3 : The number and the affective quality nature of system features have a combined impact on the online customer satisfaction via PEOU </li></ul><ul><li>A system with lots of features that also present an affective quality impacts PEOU positively </li></ul><ul><li>(i.e., HIGH level condition with many features leading to complexity in terms of usability evaluation and PRESENCE treatment condition for affective quality features) </li></ul>Proposition 3 Features quantity Features with affective quality P erceived E ase O f U se Satisfaction P1 P2 P3 Research model
    14. 14. Conclusion <ul><li>“ The more the better” heuristic for product evaluation does not always serve the consumer’s best interest </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Capability should lead to Usability </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The presence of affective quality features can help increase customer online satisfaction through positively impacting usability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Even when complexity prevails </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2 essential contributions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>H, T & R, 2005 paper extension to the context of Web site features </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research framework incorporating both the affective and cognitive dimensions of evaluation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Empirical testing of the research propositions is called forth </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Including other classic control variables </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Limitations and future research <ul><li>The affective quality of a feature requires refinement </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Basically associated to aesthetics dimensions (Zhang and Li, 2005) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Identify affective quality features from qualitative research with users/consumers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Other classic variables to take into consideration </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>For instance: Internet experience, domain expertise, involvement and consumer preferences </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Further theoretical linkage needed on affect and design and </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>the Social Response Theory (Reeves and Nass, 1996; Moon, 2002) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>the paradoxical nature of technology (Mick and Fournier, 1998) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>the increasing use of avatars in commercial Web sites (Holzwarth, Janiszewski & Neumann, 2006) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    16. 16. References (1) <ul><li>Bevan, Nigel (1999). “Quality in use: Meeting user needs for quality”, Journal of Systems and Software 49 (1 ) , 15 December 1999, 89-96. </li></ul><ul><li>Bevan, Nigel (1995). “Measuring usability as quality of use”, Software Quality Journal, 4, 115-150. </li></ul><ul><li>Bressoles, Gregory (2 004), “La qualité de service électronique, Netqu@l: Mesure, conséquences et variables modératrices”, Thèse pour l’obtention du titre de docteur ès Sciences de gestion, Université de Toulouse 1, Juin 2004. </li></ul><ul><li>CEFRIO, & Léger Marketing. (2006). NETendances 2005 : Utilisation d’Internet au Québec (version abrégée) : Québec : Cefrio, 2006. </li></ul><ul><li>Cheung, Christy M K and Matthew K O Lee. E (2005), “The Asymmetric Effect of Web Site Attribute Performance on Web Satisfaction: An Empirical Study”, e-Service Journal , (3.3), 65-86. </li></ul><ul><li>Fournier, Susan and David Glen Mick (1999), “Rediscovering satisfaction”, Journal of marketing , 63(4), 5-23. </li></ul><ul><li>Hoffman, Donna L. and Novak, Thomas P. (1996), “Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments: Coneptual Foundations”, Journal of Marketing , 60 (3), 50–68. </li></ul><ul><li>Hsu, Hsuehen (2006), “An Empirical Study of Web Site Quality, Customer Value, and Customer Satisfaction Based on E-Shop”,  The Business Review, Cambridge , 5(1), 190-193. </li></ul><ul><li>Lambert, Brice (2006). Ambiance Factors, Emotions, and Web Usage: A Model Integrating and Affective and Symbolical Approach, Cahiers de recherche, Centre de recherche ESSEC, France. </li></ul><ul><li>Mick, David Glen & Fournier, Susan (1998), &quot;Paradoxes of Technology: Consumer Cognizance, Emotions, and Coping Strategies,&quot; Journal of Consumer Research: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly , 25(2), 123-43. Nielsen, Jakob (1994). Usability Engineering . Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA. </li></ul><ul><li>Mittal, and Kamakura (2001), “Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent, and repurchase behavior: Investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics”, Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 131-142. </li></ul><ul><li>Mohammed, R., Fisher, R. J., Jaworski, B. J., & Paddison, G. (2004). Internet Marketing: Building Advantage in the Networked Economy: McGraw Hill College Division. </li></ul><ul><li>Norman, D. A.(2002). “Emotion and design: Why attractive things work better”. Interactions: New Visions of Human-Computer Interaction IX , 4, 36-42. </li></ul><ul><li>Norman, D. A.(2004), Emotional Design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things . New York. Basic Books. </li></ul>
    17. 17. References (2) <ul><li>Oliver. Richard L. (1980). &quot;A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions,&quot; Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (3), 460-469. </li></ul><ul><li>Sismeiro, C., & Bucklin, R. E. (2004). Modeling Purchase Behavior at an E-Commerce Web Site: A Task-Completion Approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (3), 306-323 </li></ul><ul><li>Thompson, Debora Viana, Rebecca W. Hamilton, and Roland T. Rust (2005), “Feature Fatigue: When Product Capabilities Become Too Much of a Good Thing”, Journal of Marketing Research , 42 (November), 431-442 </li></ul><ul><li>Rajamma, R. K. (2006). “Why Do e-Shoppers Abandon Shopping Carts - Perceived Waiting Time, Perceived Risk, and Transaction Inconvenience?” American Marketing Association. Conference - Proceedings. Chicago. Vol. 17; p. 38. </li></ul><ul><li>Sénécal, S., Gharbi, J., & Nantel, J. (2002). The Influence of Flow on Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Values. Paper presented at the Advances in Consumer Research </li></ul><ul><li>Spreng, Richard A., Scott B. Mackenzie and Richard W. Olshavsky (1996), “A Reexamination of the determinants of consumer satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing , 60(3), 15-32. </li></ul><ul><li>Szymanski, David M. and Richard T. Hise (2000), &quot; E-satisfaction: An initial examination&quot;, Journal of Retailing , 73 (3), 309-322. </li></ul><ul><li>Russell, J.A (2003). “Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion”, Psychological Review 110, 1, 145-172. </li></ul><ul><li>Venkatesh, V. (2000). “Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model, Information Systems Research 11 , 4, 342-355 </li></ul><ul><li>Yi, M.Y and Hwang, Y. (2003). “ Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model “ ,  International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 59, 4, 431-449 </li></ul><ul><li>Zeithaml Valarie A., Leonard L. Berry and A. Parasuraman (1996), &quot;The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality &quot;, Journal of Marketing ,60 (2), pp. 31-46. </li></ul><ul><li>Zhang, Ping and Na Li (2005). “ The importance of Affective Quality ” Communications of the ACM , 48 (9), 105-108. </li></ul>
    18. 18. Questions? <ul><li>Thank you! </li></ul>

    ×