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] Texas State Univ, McCoy Coll Business, CIS QMST Dept, San Marcos, TX 78666 USA
[2] Univ N Texas, ITDS Dept, Coll Business, Denton, TX 76203 USA
来源：
INFORMATION & MANAGEMENT | 2015年 / 52卷 / 01期
关键词：
Cognitive absorption; Website design; Intention to buy; TAM; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL; USER ACCEPTANCE; INFORMATION-TECHNOLOGY; VIRTUAL WORLDS; PERCEIVED USEFULNESS; COGNITIVE ABSORPTION; IMAGE INTERACTIVITY; METHOD VARIANCE; MERE-EXPOSURE; ONLINE;
D O I：
10.1016/j.im.2014.10.605
中图分类号：
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号：
0812 ;
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. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码：1 / 17
页数：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.
    [J]. Information and Management, 2015, 52 (01): : 1 - 17
  • [2] 3D webspace VS 2D website
    Kiss, Daniel
    Baranyi, Peter
    [J]. 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
    [J]. AMCIS 2011 PROCEEDINGS, 2011,
  • [4] Signaling reactions in 2D vs. 3D
    Huang, William Y. C.
    Boxer, Steven G.
    Ferrell, James E.
    [J]. BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL, 2024, 123 (03) : 21A - 21A
  • [5] 2D vs. 3D Mammography: Observer Study
    Fernandez, James Reza F.
    Hovanessian-Larsen, Linda
    Liu, Brent
    [J]. 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.
    [J]. 2005 IEEE NUCLEAR SCIENCE SYMPOSIUM CONFERENCE RECORD, VOLS 1-5, 2005, : 2133 - 2137
  • [7] 2D whispering gallery vs. 3D whispering cave
    Kwon, O'Dae
    [J]. LASER RESONATORS AND BEAM CONTROL X, 2008, 6872
  • [8] 2D vs. 3D positioning results for 4D treatments
    Lederer, Lydia
    [J]. 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
    [J]. 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.
    [J]. CHILDREN-BASEL, 2023, 10 (11):
12345