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
  • [31] 2D vs. 3D LiDAR-based Person Detection on Mobile Robots
    Jia, Dan
    Hermans, Alexander
    Leibe, Bastian
    2022 IEEE/RSJ INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INTELLIGENT ROBOTS AND SYSTEMS (IROS), 2022, : 3604 - 3611
  • [32] 3D virtual reality vs. 2D desktop registration user interface comparison
    Bueckle, Andreas
    Buehling, Kilian
    Shih, Patrick C.
    Boerner, Katy
    PLOS ONE, 2021, 16 (10):
  • [33] Eye and Hand Fatigue in Minimal Invasive Surgery; 2D vs. 3D: RCT
    Youssef, A.
    Elbakbak, W.
    Bouhelal, A.
    Patel, B.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2015, 102 : 81 - 81
  • [34] Moving through a changing world: Single cell migration in 2D vs. 3D
    Pawluchin, Anna
    Galic, Milos
    FRONTIERS IN CELL AND DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY, 2022, 10
  • [35] 3D vs. 2D: On the Importance of Registration for Hallucinating Faces under Unconstrained Poses
    Qu, Chengchao
    Herrmann, Christian
    Monari, Eduardo
    Schuchert, Tobias
    Beyerer, Juergen
    2015 12TH CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER AND ROBOT VISION CRV 2015, 2015, : 139 - 146
  • [36] Mitotic spindle asymmetry in rodents and primates: 2D vs. 3D measurement methodologies
    Delaunay, Delphine
    Robini, Marc C.
    Dehay, Colette
    FRONTIERS IN CELLULAR NEUROSCIENCE, 2015, 9 : 11
  • [37] Evaluating the Dosimetric Impact of 3D vs. 2D Planning Techniques in Palliative Radiotherapy
    Pope, K. L.
    Holwell, M.
    Lau, M.
    Wang, L.
    Bezjak, A.
    McLean, M.
    Levin, W.
    Zurawel-Balaura, L.
    Wong, R.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2010, 78 (03): : S579 - S580
  • [38] 2D BAO vs. 3D BAO: Solving the Hubble Tension with Bimetric Cosmology
    Dwivedi, Sowmaydeep
    Hoegas, Marcus
    UNIVERSE, 2024, 10 (11)
  • [39] 3D vs. 2D Modeling of Concrete Gravity Dam Subjected to Mining Tremor
    Dulinska, Joanna M.
    Galuszka, Anna
    PROGRESS IN INDUSTRIAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING II, PTS 1-4, 2013, 405-408 : 2015 - 2019
  • [40] A study of the reliability of 2D vs. 3D verification methods for head and neck IMRT
    Rolfo, M.
    Wada, M.
    Height, R.
    Handley, M.
    Anderson, N.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2008, 72 (01): : S414 - S415
12345