The influence of website dimensionality on customer experiences, perceptions and behavioral intentions: An exploration of 2D vs. 3D web design

被引：0
|
作者：
Visinescu, Lucian L. [1 ]
Sidorova, Anna [2 ]
Jones, Mary C. [2 ]
Prybutok, Victor R. [2 ]
机构：
[1] McCoy College of Business, Texas State University, CIS/QMST Department, United States
[2] College of Business, ITDS Department, University of North Texas, United States
来源：
Information and Management | 2015年 / 52卷 / 01期
关键词：
3-D environments - Behavioral intention - Cognitive absorptions - Customer experience - Intention to buies - Perceived ease of use - Shopping websites - Threedimensional (3-d);
D O I：
10.1016/j.im.2014.10.005
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
As online retailers seek to attract customers through innovative electronic storefront designs, some are experimenting with three-dimensional (3D) websites. This study examines the influence of website dimensionality on cognitive absorption, perceived ease of use, and, indirectly, perceived website usefulness and intentions to buy online using the website. Findings indicate that shopping websites using 3D environments are associated with lower perceived ease of use and lower cognitive absorption, compared to traditional 2D websites. The effect of website dimensionality on cognitive absorption is moderated by user experience. The implications of the study for research and practice are discussed. © 2014 Elsevier B.V.
引用
收藏
页码：1 / 17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The influence of website dimensionality on customer experiences, perceptions and behavioral intentions: An exploration of 2D vs. 3D web design
    Visinescu, Lucian L.
    Sidorova, Anna
    Jones, Mary C.
    Prybutok, Victor R.
    INFORMATION & MANAGEMENT, 2015, 52 (01) : 1 - 17
  • [2] 3D webspace VS 2D website
    Kiss, Daniel
    Baranyi, Peter
    2020 11TH IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COGNITIVE INFOCOMMUNICATIONS (COGINFOCOM 2020), 2020, : 515 - 516
  • [3] The Influence of Shopping Website Design on Consumer's Intention to Buy Online: The Case of 3D vs. 2D Online Book Stores
    Visinescu, Lucian L.
    Sidorova, Anna
    AMCIS 2011 PROCEEDINGS, 2011,
  • [4] Signaling reactions in 2D vs. 3D
    Huang, William Y. C.
    Boxer, Steven G.
    Ferrell, James E.
    BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL, 2024, 123 (03) : 21A - 21A
  • [5] 2D vs. 3D Mammography: Observer Study
    Fernandez, James Reza F.
    Hovanessian-Larsen, Linda
    Liu, Brent
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2011: ADVANCED PACS-BASED IMAGING INFORMATICS AND THERAPEUTIC APPLICATIONS, 2011, 7967
  • [6] Image quality vs. NEC in 2D and 3D PET
    Wilson, John W.
    Turkington, Timothy G.
    Wilson, Josh M.
    Colsher, James G.
    Ross, Steven G.
    2005 IEEE NUCLEAR SCIENCE SYMPOSIUM CONFERENCE RECORD, VOLS 1-5, 2005, : 2133 - 2137
  • [7] 2D whispering gallery vs. 3D whispering cave
    Kwon, O'Dae
    LASER RESONATORS AND BEAM CONTROL X, 2008, 6872
  • [8] 2D vs. 3D positioning results for 4D treatments
    Lederer, Lydia
    STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE, 2019, 195 (06) : 604 - 604
  • [9] 2D and 3D Porphyrinic Covalent Organic Frameworks: The Influence of Dimensionality on Functionality
    Meng, Yi
    Luo, Yi
    Shi, Ji-Long
    Ding, Huimin
    Lang, Xianjun
    Chen, Wei
    Zheng, Anmin
    Sun, Junliang
    Wang, Cheng
    ANGEWANDTE CHEMIE-INTERNATIONAL EDITION, 2020, 59 (09) : 3624 - 3629
  • [10] 2D vs. 3D Ultrasound Diagnosis of Pediatric Supracondylar Fractures
    Knight, Jessica
    Alves-Pereira, Fatima
    Keen, Christopher E.
    Jaremko, Jacob L.
    CHILDREN-BASEL, 2023, 10 (11):
12345