Online Social Shopping:  The Functions and Symbols of Design Artifacts Camille Grange and Izak Benbasat HICSS, Kawaii, Jan...
<ul><li>Outline </li></ul><ul><li>01  Background and Motivation </li></ul><ul><li>02  Research Objectives </li></ul><ul><l...
01 Background and Motivation  <ul><li>Research lab @ UBC </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The better understanding, design and use of...
01 Background and Motivation  <ul><li>Social shopping:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A top shopping innovation, likely widespread...
02 Research Objectives <ul><li>This study, as a first step, examines a small aspect of that big picture </li></ul><ul><ul>...
03 Social Design Artifacts  We call  online social shopping design artifacts the E-commerce related  artifacts that levera...
04 Card Sorting <ul><li>Review of the consumer behaviour literature  and generated items for </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hedonic...
05 Online Survey  [A 1 - Product review]
05 Online Survey  [A 2  - Shoppers’ profile page]
05 Online Survey  [A 3  - List of Friends]
05 Online Survey  [A 4  – List of Products]
06 Findings  The influence of  affordances  and  symbols  on shoppers’ usefulness and enjoyment perceptions <ul><li>Main F...
06 Findings The role of motives in influencing shoppers’ affordances and symbols perceptions Expected Results
07 Contribution and Future Work  <ul><li>Contributions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Shoppers distinguish between hedonic and util...
Thank you very much for your attention. Comments? Questions ? Suggestions? Contact:  [email_address]
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Online Social Shopping: the Affordances and Symbols of Design Artifacts

1,200 views

Published on

Presentation of a paper studying the hedonic and utilitarian "functional affordances" and "symbols" of design artifacts found in online social shopping websites (e.g. product reviews, online shoppers' profile, list of other shoppers' favorite products).

Published in: Education
0 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,200
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
15
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
36
Comments
0
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • -Objectives: Position this paper among the type of work done at UBC and in the e-Commerce field in general Introduce my specific focus: how relevant the social shopping phenomenon is, how it expands existing research (e.g., different from Ebay studies where people are vendors, different from other artifacts in that social artifacts can both provide hedonic/social and utilitarian value) Present the overall spirit of my research, i.e., at the intersection of three themes Present Markus and Silver’s work and define the principal concepts that we are using: affordances and symbols -Precision: Interesting that the phenomenon is not so NEW though (ex NY times article in 2006; like shopping, like social networking, you’ll like social shopping) -Some questions and tentative answers: -the “social” aspect : so eBay already much studied ? Well, in this study people are are peers. In studies of trust in vendors in eBay for example, the people are “vendors” not other shoppers. Hence, they are different. -Why the study of social shopping artifacts should be different (or use different theoretial frames) than other e-Commerce studies? We think these artifacts are different from other artifacts e-Commerce has studied because they have the potential to satisfy both utilitarian (e.g., find a good product, make a better decision, make a quicker decision) and hedonic needs (e.g., discuss products with others, follow popular trends, explore what shoppers experts are saying, etc.) References for the duality of shopping motivations and value: Childers et al. 2001 (motivation); Babin et al. 1994 (value) Functional affordances: the potential uses one can make from a technical object, i.e., the possibilities for goal-directed behavior given one’s goals and capabilities Symbolic expressions: the underlying value-laden intent of a technical object that will guide use for a specific user group. Analogy with the law: the letters of the law (the text) vs. the spirit of the law (e.g., conservative, liberal, totalitarist, democratic…)
  • -Objectives: Position this paper among the type of work done at UBC and in the e-Commerce field in general Introduce my specific focus: how relevant the social shopping phenomenon is, how it expands existing research (e.g., different from Ebay studies where people are vendors, different from other artifacts in that social artifacts can both provide hedonic/social and utilitarian value) Present the overall spirit of my research, i.e., at the intersection of three themes Present Markus and Silver’s work and define the principal concepts that we are using: affordances and symbols -Precision: Interesting that the phenomenon is not so NEW though (ex NY times article in 2006; like shopping, like social networking, you’ll like social shopping) -Some questions and tentative answers: -the “social” aspect : so eBay already much studied ? Well, in this study people are are peers. In studies of trust in vendors in eBay for example, the people are “vendors” not other shoppers. Hence, they are different. -Why the study of social shopping artifacts should be different (or use different theoretial frames) than other e-Commerce studies? We think these artifacts are different from other artifacts e-Commerce has studied because they have the potential to satisfy both utilitarian (e.g., find a good product, make a better decision, make a quicker decision) and hedonic needs (e.g., discuss products with others, follow popular trends, explore what shoppers experts are saying, etc.) References for the duality of shopping motivations and value: Childers et al. 2001 (motivation); Babin et al. 1994 (value) Functional affordances: the potential uses one can make from a technical object, i.e., the possibilities for goal-directed behavior given one’s goals and capabilities Symbolic expressions: the underlying value-laden intent of a technical object that will guide use for a specific user group. Analogy with the law: the letters of the law (the text) vs. the spirit of the law (e.g., conservative, liberal, totalitarist, democratic…)
  • Story: John is an online shopper who has created his profile on his favorite online shopping network, and reviewed a couple of products (green arrow). In this network, he is directly related (blue link) to other customers such as Lens, Kate, and Mat. Lens and Kate have not reviewed (or commented on) products yet, but Kate has joined an interest group in Danish design. Matt has made a list of his favorite products but not reviewed any yet. John is also a member of a group where shoppers have a special interest for sustainable products, and in that group, one of the members is related to Ron who has reviewed one of the product Mat included in his favourite list. Thanks to the network, John can access to his contacts’ contacts and expand his reach on product and people-related information. In online social shopping networks/environments, designers can help shoppers by helping them be aware, access, navigate the network of people and product-related resources. This is a challenge because, as this example shows, shoppers risk getting lost or overloaded with information. Designers can also help shoppers by helping them evaluate the resources, i.e., once they have stopped on their way to evaluate a product or a product reviewer, for instance, they need appropriate information to help him/her judge the product (e.g., is it good, popular) or the person (e.g., is he/she reliable, popular, expert, well-informed, interested in similar products).
  • - FA : This exercise resulted in an overall hit ratio of 83%, well balanced between FAU (84%) and FAH (81%). After getting rid of the items that were still ambiguous (i.e., less than 70% of correct placement), we were left with the 26 remaining items for which the overall hit ratio reached 87% (86% and 88% for FAU and FAH, respectively), - SE : an overall hit ratio of 84% for the ten remaining items.
  • -Online survey; N=138; online shoppers; US + Canada; nationwide marketing panel -For each artifact, respondents were asked to evaluate the extent to which it would support certain activities (FA) and the extent to which it promoted certain goals (SE), e.g., “ what goals are being promoted through artifact X ” (SE), - from 1. not at all to 7. to a very great extent” 1 “ What would you use shoppers-created product lists for (FA). – same scale . -For each artifact, the items for SE were all the 10 items from the card sorting exercise (Table 2). Conversely, the items for FAs, were for each artifact a subset of the 26 items identified in the card sorting exercise (because of space constraints as well as because some FAs were more or less relevant depending on the artifact) (Table 3). Finally, respondents were also asked to estimate the PU, PE, and overall expected value for each artifact.
  • Overall finding ? -Higher hedonic motivation (have fun, have a good time…) is strongly associated with higher perceptions of either utilitarian or hedonic affordances! -Higher utilitarian motivation (
  • Online Social Shopping: the Affordances and Symbols of Design Artifacts

    1. 1. Online Social Shopping: The Functions and Symbols of Design Artifacts Camille Grange and Izak Benbasat HICSS, Kawaii, January 8 th 2010
    2. 2. <ul><li>Outline </li></ul><ul><li>01 Background and Motivation </li></ul><ul><li>02 Research Objectives </li></ul><ul><li>03 Social Shopping Design Artifacts </li></ul><ul><li>04 Card sorting </li></ul><ul><li>05 Online survey </li></ul><ul><li>06 Findings </li></ul><ul><li>07 Contributions and Future Research </li></ul>Online Social Shopping: The Functions and Symbols of Design Artifacts
    3. 3. 01 Background and Motivation <ul><li>Research lab @ UBC </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The better understanding, design and use of e-Commerce environments </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Topics : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Usability, service functionality, service quality, self-service ITs, product presentation, recommendation agents, trust, social presence, product reviews, collaborative shopping, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Focus of this research : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Social shopping environments  shoppers embedded in a network of product and people-related resources </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. 01 Background and Motivation <ul><li>Social shopping: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A top shopping innovation, likely widespread by 2015 (TNS Canada Retail Forward Research 2008) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>35% of online Americans members of an online social network 21% active creators of public content (Bernoff 2008) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Shopping motivations and value: hedonic vs. utilitarian </li></ul><ul><li>Investigate social shopping artifacts design, use, and effects in terms of affordances and symbols (Markus and Silver 2008; DeSanctis and Poole 1994) </li></ul>
    5. 5. 02 Research Objectives <ul><li>This study, as a first step, examines a small aspect of that big picture </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The distinction between hedonic and utilitarian affordances and symbols </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Card sorting </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The influence of these affordances and symbols on shoppers’ usefulness and enjoyment perceptions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Online Survey </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The role of motives in influencing shoppers’ affordances and symbols perceptions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Online survey </li></ul></ul></ul>
    6. 6. 03 Social Design Artifacts We call online social shopping design artifacts the E-commerce related artifacts that leverage the participation of other shoppers, i.e., the artifacts that exploit people-related as well as product-related user-generated content. John Sustainable products interest group Danish design interest group Victor Lens Mat Kate Erin Ron
    7. 7. 04 Card Sorting <ul><li>Review of the consumer behaviour literature and generated items for </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hedonic SE (e.g., freedom , choice , surprise , creativity ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hedonic FA (e.g., explore my friends’ favourite products , find out unexpected bargains, affiliate with others ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Utilitarian SE (e.g., informativeness , efficiency , convenience , control ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Utilitarian FA (e.g., find out reliable information on products , get recommendation to buy the best product ) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Two rounds of closed card sorting (8 and 10 judges) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For the SE : </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(1) characteristics of a website that promote playfulness , </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(2) ……………………………… that promote task-completion, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(3) don’t know </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For the FA : </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(1) A shopping site that promotes playfulness helps me (+ goal-oriented behavior) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(2) A shopping site that promotes task-completion helps me (+ goal-oriented behavior) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(3) don’t know </li></ul></ul></ul>83% hit ratio 84% hit ratio SE: Symbolic Expressions FA: Functional Affordances
    8. 8. 05 Online Survey [A 1 - Product review]
    9. 9. 05 Online Survey [A 2 - Shoppers’ profile page]
    10. 10. 05 Online Survey [A 3 - List of Friends]
    11. 11. 05 Online Survey [A 4 – List of Products]
    12. 12. 06 Findings The influence of affordances and symbols on shoppers’ usefulness and enjoyment perceptions <ul><li>Main Findings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Utilitarian affordances and symbols tend to influence perceptions of artifact's usefulness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hedonic affordances and symbols, on the contrary, tend to influence perceptions of artifact's enjoyment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hedonic (utilitarian) SE/FA sometimes happen to have a negative influence on usefulness (enjoyment)! </li></ul></ul>Full results
    13. 13. 06 Findings The role of motives in influencing shoppers’ affordances and symbols perceptions Expected Results
    14. 14. 07 Contribution and Future Work <ul><li>Contributions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Shoppers distinguish between hedonic and utilitarian affordances and symbols </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>These beliefs are consistently related to enjoyment and usefulness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hedonic motivation is a core driver of FAs and SEs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Limits </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Visual presentation of artifacts only (no real interaction) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to refine measures </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Future Work </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How can design influence these important beliefs (FA and SE)? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The flexibility of social shopping environments to fit different shoppers’ motives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The effect of coherent/incoherent symbols </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Thank you very much for your attention. Comments? Questions ? Suggestions? Contact: [email_address]

    ×