Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

How Quick Are We to Judge? A Case Study of Trust and Web Site Design

4,942 views

Published on

How Quick Are We to Judge? A Case
Study of Trust and Web Site Design

Presented by William Albert from Bentley University on June 6, 2012 for the New York Technology Council. Event was held at New York Institute of Technology.

Published in: Technology, Design

How Quick Are We to Judge? A Case Study of Trust and Web Site Design

  1. 1. How Quick Are We to Judge? A CaseStudy of Trust and Web Site Design Bill Albert, Ph.D. Executive Director, Design and Usability Center Bentley University June 6, 2012 walbert@bentley.edu 781.891.2500 | www.bentley.edu/usability
  2. 2. Agenda• Background• Trust and web design• Pre-attentive processing• Our research• What it means for you• Discussion 2
  3. 3. Background
  4. 4. About Me• I love the science behind the user experience• I am data driven!• I create connections between research and practice 4
  5. 5. Bentley DUC• Established in 1999• Independent center within the Human Factors in Information Design graduate program at Bentley’s McCallum School of Business• Dual mission to support the university and provide an education experience to graduate students• Solutions delivered for over 200 clients 5
  6. 6. Motivation Trust is the foundation of the user experience Trust is not always conscious 6
  7. 7. Trust and Web Design
  8. 8. Do you trust this person? Trustworthiness in motionhttp://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S21/79/44O45/ 8
  9. 9. Do you trust these websites? 9
  10. 10. What about these sites? 10
  11. 11. What does trust with technology look like?• The system must act in a reliable and predictable way• The system must be transparent about intentions and goals• The system must not take advantage of the user• The system must be truthful – delivering promises• There must be an element of risk on behalf of the user 11
  12. 12. 10 design elements that impact trust1. Content • Tone • Relevance • Timeliness • Typos • Clarity2. Consistency • Visual • Interaction (navigation and forms)3. Color4. Layout • Information density www.georgehutchins.com • White space 12
  13. 13. 10 design elements that impact trust5. Design elements • Buttons/links/call to action • Images • Visual treatment6. Changing behavior • Default selections • Visual prominence7. Ads • Type (especially animated) www.lingscars.com • Location • Content 13
  14. 14. 10 design elements that impact trust8. Contact information • Clarity • Ease of use • Comprehensiveness9. Community • Photos • Testimonials • Affiliations10. Logo / Brand /Company www.bostonbizlab.com 14
  15. 15. Work by BJ Fogg perceived perceived perceived trustworthiness expertise credibility Presumed credibility Reputed credibility Surface credibility Earned credibility 15
  16. 16. Questions about trust and design • When do we begin to form opinions about trust? • How dynamic is trust? • Are their “design primitives” that impact trust? 16
  17. 17. Pre-Attentive Processing
  18. 18. What is pre-attentive processing? • Precedes “focused attention” • “Effortless” or “automatic” • < 200ms • Basic features that are processed pre-attentively include: colors, closure, contrast, size, flicker, orientation • Judgments about faces such as attractiveness, trustworthiness, and sexual orientation (men) 18
  19. 19. Lindgaard et al (2006) 19
  20. 20. Lindgaard et al (2006)• In Experiment 1 participants judged attractiveness of 100 web pages at 500ms in two phases – very highly correlated• Experiment 2 focused on 50 of the most/least visually appealing pages, and included other dimensions of visual attractiveness – same results as Experiment 1• In Experiment 3 there were two group who judged 40 pages at either 50ms or 500ms – both groups were consistent in their judgment of visual appeal• They conclude that people form reliable opinions about visual appeal after only a brief exposure Lindgaard, Fernandez, Dudek & Brown (2006). Attention web designers: You have 50ms to make a good first impression! Behavior & Information Technology, 25(2), 115-126. 20
  21. 21. Our Research
  22. 22. Experiment 1• Based on HFES paper with Dr. Bill Gribbons• Does trust form on a pre-attentive level?• A total of 72 participants took part in the study • Recruited through the uTest panel, compensated $10 • Reside in US, UK, Canada, India, and The Netherlands • 8 participants were removed due to satisficing behavior• 50 home page screenshots (25 financial, 25 healthcare)• Within-subjects design • Each participant rated trust on the same screenshot in two trials • Screenshots presented randomly in each trial 22
  23. 23. Experiment 1 Procedure Trust Blank BlankScreenshot Mask Assessment Screen Screen (50 ms) (150 ms) (Up to 10 (1000 ms) (1000 ms) seconds) 23
  24. 24. Experiment 1 Results• Significant correlation between the average trust assessments in trials 1 and 2 (r = 0.81, p < .001) Trust Assesments for all 50 Web Sites by Trial (Expt 1) 6.5 6.0 Trial 2 (avg) 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 Trial 1 (avg) 24
  25. 25. Experiment 1 Results (contd)• 48% of participants (31 out of 64) exhibited a significant correlation in their trust assessments Significance # of Participants % of Participants p<.01 21 32.8% p<.05 10 15.6% p<.10 5 7.8% p>.10 28 43.8% Correlation Coefficient # of Participants % of Participants <.10 11 17.2% .10 - .19 13 20.3% .20 - .29 12 18.8% .30 - .39 13 20.3% .40 - .49 4 6.3% .50 - .59 6 9.4% .60 - .69 3 4.7% .70 - .79 1 1.6% .80 - .89 1 1.6% .90 - 1.0 0 0.0% 25
  26. 26. Experiment 2 • Concerns about satisficing behavior in Experiment 1 • Experiment 2 was conducted in a classroom setting • Same procedure as Experiment 1 • Eleven participants • Graduate students in the Human Factors & Information Design Program at Bentley University 26
  27. 27. Experiment 2 Results• Significant Trust Asesments for all 50 Web Sites (Expt 2) correlation 6.5 6.0 between trust 5.5 Trial 2 (avg) assessments in 5.0 trials 1 and 2 (r = 4.5 4.0 0.76, p<.001) 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5• 64% of participants Trial 1 (avg) (7 out of 11) Significance # of Participants % of Participants exhibited a p<.01 7 63.6% significant p<.05 0 0.0% correlation in their p<.10 1 9.1% trust assessments p>.10 3 27.3% 27
  28. 28. Summary of our research• Individuals are capable of processing trust on a pre-attentive level • Approximately one-half of participants in Experiment 1 and two-thirds of participants in Experiment 2 demonstrated a consistent level of trust assessments • Significant correlation between trust assessments in the first and second trials when averaging across participants• Preconscious mind may play a larger role in how websites are judged than previously believed 28
  29. 29. Next Steps• What is the relationship between trust assessments on a pre-attentive and conscious level? (Stage 2)• What are the specific design attributes that impact pre- attentive trust assessments? (Stage 3)• What are the effects of trust/distrust primes on subsequent cognitive acts? (Stage 4)• Are there other aspects of the user experience that may be developed pre-attentively? 29
  30. 30. Stages of trust in web design Inspection Opinion • <200ms • > 3 seconds • Based on • Based on an design • < 3 seconds • Based on interaction multiple primitives • Based on brief with specific (color, density, inspection of interactions elements layout) specific • Takes into elements account the entire design Exposure Interaction 30
  31. 31. What It Means For You
  32. 32. Why it matters• Trust is a key element in web design that impacts short- term and long-term behaviors and perceptions• Trust directly impacts: • Sales • Customer loyalty • Support costs • Session duration • Satisfaction • Ease of use • Efficiency of use 32
  33. 33. What you should do• Review designs prior to launch and on a periodic basis • Brief exposures “blink tests” to evaluate “pre-attentive” trust • Deep dive usability evaluations to identify specific elements • Quantitative-based user research to validate the design• Look at the design as a dialogue with the user 33
  34. 34. Wrap up Sweat the little things… It makes a big difference 34
  35. 35. Questions?Bill Albert, PhDExecutive DirectorDesign and Usability Center, Bentley Universitywalbert@bentley.edu@UXMetrics | @BentleyDUChttp://usability.bentley.edu

×