thesis.eur.nl ivona (289839).doc · web viewbrand personality was again measured based on the...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Thesis Erasmus University-MarketingD. Tsekouras
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers?
Ivona Parsic 289839November 2011
________________________________________________________________________________Abstract
Purpose – To see how firms can improve their online conversion rates, the influence of web aesthetics on buying behavior is examined. Web aesthetics are divided into two dimensions, aesthetic appeal and aesthetic formality. This research shall contribute to the existing body of literature by using brand personality as well as aesthetic formality as moderators for the first time.Design/methodology/approach – Aesthetic appeal and aesthetic formality are regressed on buying intention separately and as an interaction term. Brand personality is also introduced as a moderator and tested for its influence on the relationship between aesthetic appeal and buying intention, as well as for the relationship between aesthetic formality and buying intention. Manipulation is based on brand personality and a pretest as well as a main research is conducted. Findings – Aesthetic appeal and aesthetic formality have a negative influence on the online buying intention of consumers. Excitement and sincerity have a positive influence on buying intention. There are no significant interaction effect, therefore there are no moderating roles at play in the relationship between web aesthetics and buying intention. Research limitations/implications – Only one industry and one product were used. There was no control introduced for the willingness to buy a new product of customers, whether consumers were searching for a new mobile phone or whether they were satisfied with their current phone. Companies and web designers should not only consider the demands of the company and the image of the brand, but also customer’s perceptions and preferences, when (re)designing a website.Originality/value – These results improve the understanding of consumer’s online perception of websites and provide managers with guidelines for developing websites and developing and maintaining successful customer relationships.
Keywords: Web aesthetics; Brand personality; Buying behavior; Online consumer behavior________________________________________________________________________________
![Page 2: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
Table of Content
Introduction 4
Theoretical Background 6
Conversion rates 6
Web Aesthetics 9
Brand personality 15
Research Framework 20
Methodology 22
Measures 22
Control variables 23
Income 23
Time spent online 24
Frequency of online shopping 24
Brand 24
Procedure 25
Statistical analysis 25
Results 27
Pre-test 27
Main research 27
Extra analyses 32
Discussion 38
Academic Implications 42
Managerial Implications 43
Limitations & Future Research 43
Conclusion 46
Acknowledgements 47
References 48
Appendix 55
FIGURE A: Overview online purchases per region 55
FIGURE B: Intended purchases 2010 56
FIGURE C: Brand personality construct viewed by Aaker (1997) 57
2
![Page 3: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
FIGURE D: Computer Industry: Pre-test results for Sincerity 59
FIGURE E: Computer Industry: Pre-test results for Excitement 60
FIGURE F: Mobile Industry: Pre-test results for Sincerity 61
FIGURE G: Mobile Industry: Pre-test results for Excitement 62
FIGURE H: Results main-test: Descriptives 65
TABLE A: Results pre-test: Demographics 58
TABLE B: Results main-test: Correlation matrix 63
TABLE C: Results main-test: Extra regressions 66
TABLE D: Results main-test: Extra Regressions dependent variable “BI Categories” 67
3
![Page 4: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
“The internet is no longer a niche technology- it is mass media and an utterly integral part of
modern life. (..) As our lives become more fractured and cluttered, it isn’t surprising that consumers
turn to the unrivalled convenience of the Internet when it comes to researching and buying
products.” (Jonathan Carson, president international Nielsen Online)
Introduction
The Internet has become a fundamental part of our lives. Everyone with a computer and a
modem can easily connect to the Internet and a whole new world is at their feet. The Internet
stills the hunger for information; it provides recommendations, entertainment, daily news feeds,
social encounters and much more. Besides providing sophisticated search capabilities, it also gives
customers the opportunity to become more efficient in their decision-making process when
purchasing (Heibstein 2002). Customers can, for example, use the Internet to acquire product
information prior to purchasing (Hof 2001). But the growth of the Internet has not only provided
enormous opportunities for consumers, but also for firms who desired an Internet existence.
Whereas in the past a marketing presence could only be established if the firm was one of the “big
guys” and had money to spend, now the Internet has made marketing affordable and available to
all forms of business, small and big. Furthermore, by using the Internet firms can better outline
client relations (Bauer et al. 2002). Online data, in addition, gives firms the opportunity to better
understand consumer behavior and preferences. The Internet also lowers the constraints for firms
in terms of the amount of information that can be delivered to consumers (Heibstein 2002). In the
digital environment there are no limitations such as those found with package size, ad space,
television time and physical space. But even now there are still many people left who have not yet
experienced the ease of the online world or who have not yet used the Internet as a shopping
medium. A Nielsen study in 2010 showed that in the Middle East, Africa and Pakistan 47% of all
online customers never made a purchase online. In North America this was 17 % and in Latin
America 19%. Thus even though the Internet has made huge successes compared to a decade ago,
there are still numerous opportunities left. The study also showed that in Europe 79% of online
customers planned to purchase through the web, which shows how important the World Wide
Web has become during the last few years.
Nevertheless, 90% of all websites fail. One of the reasons for failure is bad website design
(LindaCaroll.com). Palmer & Griffith (1998) show that by understanding how website design
influences consumer behavior website failure can be prevented. They state that every firm needs
4
![Page 5: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
to understand that website design includes not only marketing and technological factors but also
customer involvement, information search costs and technology innovation. Understanding
customer needs and preferences is therefore a necessity in order to make a website successful.
Ganesh at al. (2010) and Wolfinbarger & Gilly (2003) have also acknowledged the influence of web
design on consumer’s shopping experience. Ganesh et al. even found that many online consumers
shop via the Internet because interesting websites provide them a stimulation effect. The website
design cues consumers about the rest of the website and shapes the consumer’s perceptions of
the interaction to come (Tractinsky & Lowengart, 2007). The design of the website is also the
primary interaction form a firm has with its clients when they are visiting the website. The design
is also the first impression a consumer gets when visiting the site. If that first impression is
negative or if the site does not stick, then customers will navigate away, to never return again. As
the look and feel of a website is actually the firm’s business card, it would benefit the firm to
better understand what consumers want from a website. If firms could make the shopping
experience for online consumers better, with the help of website design, then both the consumers
and the firm would benefit greatly. Customers would benefit through a positive shopping
experience and firms would benefit through higher conversion rates and positive customer
attitudes, which is positively related to the consumer’s brand attitude, purchase intent (Bruner &
Kumar, 2000), shopping likelihood and site loyalty (Donthu, 2001). Therefore this study will
examine the influence of web aesthetics on the intended online buying behavior of consumers.
This research contributes to the existing body of literature by providing a deeper
understanding of the hedonic needs of consumers as well as a deeper understanding of the
influences of web aesthetics. Furthermore, in this research brand personality will be presented as
a moderator for the first time and the interaction effect of the two dimensions of web aesthetics
will be examined, also for the first time.
The study begins with a theoretical background on conversion rates, web aesthetics and
brand personality, followed by the hypotheses and the research methodology. Afterwards the
results of the analysis are presented, followed by the managerial implications, the limitations and
the recommendations for future research.
5
![Page 6: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
Theoretical Background
Conversion rates
Purchase conversion rates can be defined as the percentage of consumer’ visits that will
result in an actual purchase (Moe & Fader, 2004). While back in 2005 the average conversion rate
in the e-commerce environment hardly reached a level of 5% (Nielsen/Netratings, 2005), we now
see that the Internet business is booming. A Nielsen study in 2008 showed that, globally, more
than half of the Internet population made at least one purchase online in a time frame of one
month and more than 85% used the Internet to make a purchase. When comparing this to the
figures in 2006 we see an increase of 40%. In 2006, 10% of the world’s population had shopped
online, whilst in 2008 this figure increased with 40% from 627 million to 875 million people. In the
appendix (figure A) is an overview of global Internet users who actually purchased a product /
service online.
First let us take a look at the underlying mechanisms, which has driven the low online
purchase rate in the past. Past research showed that from all the Internet users, 75% browsed the
net or purposefully searched for a specific product, whilst only 35% of all visitors actually
purchased through the Internet (Sismeiro & Bucklin, 2004). This figure is not that surprising when
we know that back then the Internet was most of all used as an information medium (Van den
Poel & Buckinx, 2005). Moe & Fader (2004) credited the low conversion rate to transportation
costs. Website choice and purchase decision were both affected by the costs that the consumer
had to make, both physically and mentally. When comparing offline and online costs of “store”
choice and purchase decision, the article shows that visiting online stores is almost costless, as you
do not have to pay for travel costs and you spend less time overall. Next to time and
transportation costs, competition was also credited as a reason for the low conversion rates
online. Van den Poel & Buckinx (2005) explain that in the online environment competition is
intense and consumers can easily compare vendors online without losing much time. Besides the
mechanisms above, there was also the issue of trust and “fitting in”. Back then, buying online was
not yet accepted as a good shopping medium, and acceptation also varied by product category
(Van den Poel & Leunis, 1999) and also per country.
Even though Internet retailers struggled to reach a higher conversion rate in the past, we
now see that they managed to break some barriers as Internet shopping is now accepted as
“normal” and perhaps a necessity in our busy day-to-day lives. But there is always room for
improvement. In figure A in the Appendix we see that, even though Internet purchases are high
6
![Page 7: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
globally, there are still some regions where there are a lot of possibilities. Even in Europe there are
still 7 % of Internet users, who have not yet used the Internet medium to purchase a product /
service and in the EEMEA this is even 33%. There are still a lot of people who do not shop online,
and who do not yet use the Internet.
FIGURE 1: Shopping spending percentage March 2010 1
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
In the figure above, we see the spending percentages of online shoppers for March 2010.
We see that most of the charts are represented by the color blue (>5%) and orange (6%-10%). This
means that less than 10% of the general monthly spending is used for online shopping. Therefore
there are possibilities for increasing the online conversion rate. The research of Childers et al.
(2001) shows that improving the Internet shopping experience of consumers should lead to an
improvement in the conversion rate of potential buyers. Tackling the last barriers would not only
give companies a great opportunity to increase their online conversion rates, but also their profits,
brand equity and customer loyalty.
Recently more research has been done related to the design of web pages and their
influence on consumer preferences and therefore also the online conversion rates of websites. In
general there are four groups of shopper motivations and purchasing decisions for online
consumers (Moe, 2003; Moe & Fader, 2004). The first group, directed buyers, has a goal when
1 Source: Nielsen/NetRatings, 2010, , Online shopping report 2010
7
![Page 8: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
searching and purchasing. These people enter the online store with a specific product or service in
mind, which they want to buy, and therefore they do not leave the store without actually
purchasing. The second group, search/deliberation visitors, also has a goal but this group has a
general product category in mind. The third group, hedonic browsers, has no product category in
mind and purchase a product or service based on the environmental stimuli at that moment.
Mandel & Johnson (1999) confirm this by proving that peripheral cues in the online environment
have a significant effect on consumer choice. They examine the influence of web page design on
the preferences of consumers and show that a web design affects the importance of an attribute
and therefore changes the preferences of a consumer and ultimately their product choice and
conversion rate. The last group of people, knowledge-building visitors, only search for information
and they have no intention to purchase anything. Because customers have different reasons and
motivations when visiting and purchasing with an online website, it is very important for e-tailers
to understand what can affect these motivations and visits so that they can improve their online
conversion rate. In this research the focus will be laid upon the third group, i.e. the hedonic
browsers, who have no product category in mind and purchase a product or service based on the
environmental stimuli at that moment.
As the website of a company is their “business card” and also (often) the first impression
customers receive of a company, it is very important for the website to appeal to the customers so
that they do not navigate to another website. Singh & Dalal (1999) also state that web pages can
be seen as advertisements. The Nielsen study in 2008 furthermore showed that online customers
are inclined to shop at familiar shopping websites. The study mentions that 60% of all online
shoppers mostly buy products from the same website. Attracting and capturing new customers,
making a first purchase online, is therefore a necessity for firms. Capturing a new customer with a
pleasant shopping experience will most probably bring the firm customer loyalty and an increased
conversion rate. Research has furthermore shown that consumer attitude to a website has a
positive effect on the consumer’s brand attitude, purchase intent (Bruner & Kumar, 2000),
shopping likelihood and site loyalty (Donthu, 2001). Evanschitzky et. al (2004) describe the drivers
of online customer satisfaction as convenience and website design. Other research has also shown
that an attractive website design makes the shopping experience better for consumers (Ganesh et
al 2010). Ganesh et (2010) also revealed that interesting Internet sites lead to an incentive, which
triggers consumers to engage in shopping activities on the Internet. The company’s website also
signals their abilities and performance information to customers and therefore customers will see
8
![Page 9: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
a firm, which has invested in website design (front-end design), as a firm that can successfully
handle online transactions (Schlosser et al., 2006).
If firms could know what factors of website design influence the first impression of
consumers, and ultimately the buying behavior, then firms could benefit by this information and at
the same time, customers would be given a pleasurable Internet shopping experience. As stated
above, a pleasurable Internet shopping experience should also improve a company’s conversion
rate (Childers et al. 2001).
Web Aesthetics
Aesthetics have been researched for a very long time. According to the Qxford Advanced
Dictionary of Current English, aesthetics is defined as “a branch of philosophy which tries to make
clear the laws and principles of beauty”. The American heritage Dictionary of the English Language
defines aesthetics as “an artistically beautiful or pleasing appearance”. The term aesthetics has
been defined in multiple ways and used in different ways throughout the past. In the figure on the
next page you can find a schematic overview of the meaning of the word aesthetics. The yellow
line is the line that this paper will follow, when classifying aesthetics.
FIGURE 2: Meaning of aesthetics (Tractinsky & Lowengart, 2007)_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In this research aesthetics will be used as a synonym for beauty. Everyone finds beauty an
important factor in practically everything; the beauty of a person, an object, a happening, a poem,
a thought, a painting, architecture etc. Beauty is found in historic and modernistic research. In past
research we see that Vitrivius reckoned beauty as one of the three basic requirements (beauty,
firmness & convenience) of architecture (Kruft, 1994). In modern research we see that humans are
influenced by the aesthetics of nature, the environment (Porteous, 1996; Schroeder, 2002), and
artifacts (Coates, 2003; Norman, 2004). Even our physical appearance influences our social
interactions (Dion et al., 1972). As aesthetics are such a great part of our lives, we should not
9
Aesthetics
Symbolism, identity, image,
meaning
Other conceptualizations
of aesthetics
Objective properties of
objects
Visual aesthetics beauty
Subjective perceptions of objects
Evaluation of visual design properties
![Page 10: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
exclude the aesthetics of websites, as the Internet and websites have become a necessity in our
daily life. The aesthetic part of a website may also be the only part which the owner of the website
can modify so that customers are positively surprised, encouraged to buy and also encouraged to
return. When looking at a traditional store, we see that the owner has multiple ways of attracting
and retaining customers when using aesthetics. The owner could use three-dimensional aesthetic
design as well as acoustic and olfactory stimuli (Tractinsky & Lowengart, 2007). The website owner
however, is far more limited in his or her options.
The aesthetics of a website are represented by the site’s interface, which signals the users
about the content (Tractinsky & Lowengart, 2007). When looking a little deeper into the notion of
web aesthetics we find that it can be divided in two different dimensions. Schenkman & Jonsson
(2000) explain web aesthetics by using aesthetic formality and aesthetic appeal. The latter is
characterized by the overall impressiveness, or the hedonic experience of the website. Aesthetic
formality is characterized by legibility as well as simplicity. Wang, Minor, and Wei (2010) also used
this classification of web aesthetics in their paper. Lavie & Tractinsky (2004) also found that
consumers perceive along two dimensions, which they classified as classical aesthetics and
expressive aesthetics. The latter is characterized by the “designers’ creativity, originality and the
ability to break design conventions”, and the former emphasizes “orderly and clear design and is
closely related to many of the design rules advocated by usability experts”.2 In this study I will use
aesthetic formality and appeal when referring to web aesthetics.
FIGURE 3: Classification of web aesthetics________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Web Aesthetics
Aesthetic Formality = Classical Aesthetics Aesthetic Appeal = Expressive Aesthetics
(Utilitarian) (Hedonic)
________________________________________________________________________________
The paper of Tractinsky & Lowengart (2007) demonstrates the importance of dividing web
aesthetics into two separate dimensions by illustrating the implications of using the two aesthetic
dimensions in web design. I will briefly elaborate on two of the examples. The first example is
2 Lavie, T., Tractinsky, N., 2004, “ Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites”, J-Human-Computer Studies(60), pp.269
10
![Page 11: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
related to consumer goods; i.e. specialty goods vs. convenience goods. Specialty goods (designer
clothes, famous paintings, famous cars, etc) can be linked to high aesthetic appeal as these
products can be seen as unique, and there is an emphasis on the shopping experience.
Convenience goods (soap, newspapers, food, etc.) are not at all unique, and not the shopping
experience is emphasized but rather the efficiency of the shopping process. Original, creative
designs could then hinder the goal of the shopping process, which is efficiency. Therefore these
goods can be linked to a low aesthetic appeal. Aesthetic formality would probably be more valued
in upscale shopping as the eye for detail is higher there, but overall this form of aesthetics will be
appealing to all shopping environments. In convenience stores aesthetic formality will probably
serve as a catalyst for efficient shopping whereas in specialty stores it will serve as a quality
indicator for experienced design. See figure two on the next page for a graphical representation.
FIGURE 4Importance of aesthetic type to web site design given product categories
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Expressive High
Aesthetics (Arousal)
Classical
Aesthetics
Low High
(Unpleasant) (Pleasant)
Low
(Quiteness)
Source: Tractinsky, N., Lowengart, O., 2007, “Web-Store Aesthetics in E- Retailing: A Conceptual Framework and Some Theoretical Implications”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol 11(1), pp.11
________________________________________________________________________________
The second example relates to the heterogeneity of consumers. Tractinsky & Lowengart
(2007) explain that younger consumers will probably be more drawn to creative websites and
11
Specialty Goods
Shopping Goods
Convenience Goods
![Page 12: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
therefore will find aesthetic appeal important. Older people will most probably not appreciate the
creative “exclamations” shown today as they are less open than youngsters and therefore they will
need a lower amount of aesthetic appeal. The older generations are on the other hand probably
more appreciative of aesthetic formality as this is reflected by a clear design, which is more
traditional. See figure 3 on the next page for the graphical view.
FIGURE 5: Importance of aesthetic type to web site design given consumer characteristics________________________________________________________________________________ Expressive High
Aesthetics (Arousal)
Younger generation
Classical
Aesthetics
Low High
(Unpleasant) (Pleasant)
Older generation
Low
(Quietness)
Source: Tractinsky, N., Lowengart, O., 2007, “Web-Store Aesthetics in E- Retailing: A Conceptual Framework and Some Theoretical Implications”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol 11(1), pp.13
________________________________________________________________________________
Tractinsky & Lowengart (2007) showed that dividing web aesthetics into two dimensions is
important, as different goods need different aesthetics to thrive and reach higher sales. And
people also react different to the same form of aesthetics, thus people have different preferences
that need to be understood in order to achieve customer satisfaction and higher conversion.
Several researchers have examined the influence of website design on consumer choices.
Mandel & Johnson (1999) explain in their paper the notion of priming. Priming in the article is
12
![Page 13: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
defined as “several distinct types of phenomena that share the same underlying mechanism,
spreading activation. Retrieving an item activates internal representation, which then spreads
through a network of related memory traces, facilitating later retrieval of these traces.” The idea
behind priming is that preferences can be influenced by the background (colors or pictures) of a
web page through associative priming. Thus priming can influence attribute weights and therefore
the end product choice. Their research showed that peripheral cues displayed in the (electronic)
environment have a significant influence on consumer choice. Therefore they advise firms to
“create sites that contain colors, backgrounds and other elements that are consistent with the
company’s message and which emphasize the product attributes for which the company is
competitive.” Other researchers have also linked the aesthetics of websites to consumer behavior.
Fogg et al. (2002) showed that the design of a website was used as a cue when evaluating the
website’s credibility. Others showed that certain aesthetic components were related to consumer
choice (Mandel & Johnson, 2002) and also purchase intentions (Zhang & Von Dran, 2000). Geissler
(2001) found that respondents wanted to have clean, clear, relatively simple and fast-loading web
pages. Otherwise the consumer’s attention would simply not be captured. The homepage should
furthermore be well-laid-out, functional, brief and to-the-point. As for the use of graphics, they
must be fast-loading, few, and professional.
For aesthetic appeal, past research shows that various appeal characteristics have a positive
relationship with the attitude to a website. Coyle & Thorson (2001) found that an increase in
vividness led to more positive and lasting attitudes. McMillan et al. (2003) studied the influence of
structural and perceptual variables on website attitude. They used 311 consumers who reviewed
four hotel websites and found that websites with features such as virtual tours were related with
positive attitudes. Crisp et al. (1997) found that playfulness was a great determinant of the
shopping experience of a consumer, and the shopping experience influenced the consumer’s
attitude to the website. Based on this, I expect that high aesthetic appeal will have a positive
influence on the online buying intention of a consumer.
Hypothesis 1: Higher aesthetic appeal of a website will lead to a higher intention to buy.
As for aesthetic formality, ease of use has been positively related to website attitude by
several researchers (Crisp et al., 1997; Kwon et al., 2002; Chen & Wells, 1999). Bellman & Rossiter
(2004) hypothesized that “when an individual has a congruent website schema, there should be a
13
![Page 14: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
transfer of positive affect from perceived ease of navigation to a more favorable attitude toward
the site, and from attitude toward the site to a more favorable attitude toward the (new) brand.”
Wang, Minor, and Wei (2010) prove in their article that when consumers are satisfied with the
aesthetics of the website, the propensity to purchase increases. Therefore I expect that high
aesthetic formality will have a positive influence on the online buying intention of a consumer.
Hypothesis 2: High aesthetic formality of a website will lead to a higher intention to buy.
Wang, Minor, and Wei (2010) also show that the two dimensions of aesthetics have opposite
effects. While aesthetic appeal has a positive influence on arousal, aesthetic formality has a
negative influence on arousal. They furthermore find an opposite effect for satisfaction and they
also show, for respondents without a purchase task, that formality has a positive and non-
significant effect on purchase behavior, whilst appeal shows a more positive and a significant
effect. They explain that aesthetic appeal has a more prominent impact on purchase behavior
because the environment largely stimulates task-free consumers, when browsing the Internet. As
they have no predefined goal, their behavior will be stimulated based on the environmental
stimuli, which they encounter when surfing the web. Consumers, who are furthermore shopping
without a predefined purchase task, show a hedonic orientation (Wang, Minor, and Wei, 2010).
Thus although both aesthetic dimensions positively influence the purchase behavior of online
consumers, aesthetic appeal has a stronger positive effect compared to aesthetic formality. Based
on this I would expect that the interaction of the two dimensions of web aesthetics will lead to a
less positive effect on buying intention when aesthetic formality is low and appeal is high.
Hypothesis 3: High aesthetic appeal of a website will have a less positive effect on the intention to
buy when the aesthetic formality of the website is low.
Brand personality
14
![Page 15: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
“People choose their brands the same way they choose their friends in addition to the skills and
physical characteristics, they simply like them as people” (S. King, 1970)3
Brand personality is a concept that has received a lot of attention in the field of consumer
behavior research, and it has been defined and viewed in multiple ways. The common definition of
brand personality is “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand” (Aaker, 1997,
pp.347). Past research on this construct can be divided in three directions. The first and oldest is
the direction that Aaker (1997) takes, i.e. researching the different dimensions of brand
personality across different areas. The second is a focus on the fit of brand personality and the
antecedents of brand personality, and the third direction relates to the consequences of brand
personality (Wang &Yang, 2008). This research will be a part of the third direction.
Aaker (1997) presents in her research a theoretical framework of the brand personality
construct, which can be found in the appendix (figure 9). She conducted a parallel research so that
a better understanding of the symbolic use of brands could be reached. The symbolic use of brand
personality is justified by the term “animism”. Animism is described as one’s belief that an object
has a soul and also human-like qualities, and therefore customers feel the need to
anthropomorphize objects (Gilmore, 1919). Fournier (1998) describes three forms of animism. The
first form manifests when a brand is associated with the spirit of someone from the present (a
spokespersons), or someone from the past (a family member or friend who used a certain brand).
The second form of animism is when the brand product itself is fully anthropomorphized and
further functions as an example (the bol.com cartoon or the Robijn bear below). The third and last
form of animism is when the brand becomes a legitimized relationship partner. This occurs when
the brand is personified and behaves as an active member
who also contributes as a partner. Behaving actively can be
seen as every day execution of marketing mix decisions. This
is seen as a set of behaviors performed on behalf of the
brand (Fournier, 1998).
Aaker (1997) explains that brand personality is formed via two distinct directions. The first
direction is the direct route, which is when personality traits are associated with a brand in a direct
way. This direction is present when a consumer associates the brand with the people associated
3 King, S., 1970, “What is a brand?”, J.Walter Thompson Company Limited, London, in “Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality?”, Azoulay, A., Kapferer, J-N., The Journal of Brand Management, Vol 11 (2), 2003, pp. 143-155
15
![Page 16: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
with the brand. This entails the CEO, the employees, the endorsers of the brand and the user
imagery of the brand. The user imagery is defined as “the set of human characteristics associated
with the typical user of a brand” (Aaker, 1991, pp.348). The second direction is the indirect route,
which is present when personality traits are associated with the brand via “product-related
attributes, product category associations, brand name, symbol or logo, advertising style, price and
distribution channel” (Aaker, 1997, pp.348). Poddar et al. (2008) explain that the indirect route is
the best route when dealing with websites. In the direct route a consumer would use the user
imagery to reflect the brand’s personality; e.g. a brand’s personality would be credited as young
and fashionable when a consumer sees that young and trendy people tend to buy a product from
that brand. When dealing with a website, a consumer is not able to see what kind of consumers
buy which product, and therefore cannot infer the brand personality via the direct route. The
indirect route seems much more applicable as brand personality is here formed through the brand
name, symbol or logo, advertising style, etc. In this case it is much easier to infer a brand’s
personality, as all these characteristics are visible to all consumers.
FIGURE 6: Human personality vs. brand personality construct________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
The classification of brand personality used by Aaker (1997) is extracted from the FFM model
of human personality, also called the “Big Five”: Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness (O),
16
Human Personality Brand Personality
* Individual behavior* Physical characteristics* Attitudes* Beliefs* Demographic characteristics
Direct Route
* Associate via the people associated with the brand
Indirect Route
* Brand name / Symbol / Logo* Advertising style* Price* Distribution channel* Product-related attributes* Product category associations
![Page 17: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C).4 Past research has shown that these traits are not
fully applicable to brand personality although there are some similarities, i.e. Agreeableness ≈
Sincerity, Extraversion ≈ Excitement and Conscientiousness ≈ Competence (Aaker, 1997).
Perceptions of human personality traits are based on one’s “individual behavior, physical
characteristics, attitudes and beliefs and demographic characteristics” (Aaker, 1997, p.348).
Perceptions of brand personality are based on the interaction with the brand. Brand personality
explains for what “kind” of consumers the brand is for, and what “kind” of emotions this brand will
bring the consumer, once the product is consumed (Batra et al., 1993).
After Aaker’s (1997) research there have been studies that have questioned the
appropriability of the conceptual validity of the brand personality scale that she used (Azoulay &
Kapferer, 2003; Austin et al., 2003), but still today that scale is the most used throughout the
research of brand personality. Sweeny & Brandon (2006) used a circumplex model derived from
social and personality psychology and interpersonal psychiatry to provide more understanding of
the brand personality construct. Their results indicate that Aaker’s brand personality scale and the
dimensions extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Big Five) are appropriate when
measuring brand personality. They furthermore state that the dimensions extraversion
(excitement) and agreeableness (sincerity) are significantly more suitable when measuring brand
personality, compared to the other dimensions.
Based on the above, for this research I will use Aaker’s dimensions of excitement and
sincerity in order to see what the influence of brand personality is as a moderator. Excitement and
sincerity will be used as they are credited as opposites, and can therefore be used as a
manipulator in the experiment. Opoku et al. (2007) also use Aaker’s brand personality dimensions
in their research and they compose a compositional perceptual map to help them analyze their
results. The map shows the dimensions sincerity and excitement as polar opposites. These two
dimensions can also be related to utilitarianism and hedonism. Ai Ching Lim & Hoong Ang (2008)
define hedonism and utilitarianism in their study as affective, fun and enjoyment versus
pragmatic, rational and cognitive. Below an overview is presented of the two dimensions
excitement and sincerity, matched with hedonism and utilitarianism. As shown on the next page,
these dimensions can be used as opposites, as their characteristics overall match the two concepts
of hedonism and utilitarianism, which are polar opposites.
4 McCrae, R.R., Costa, Jr, P.T.. 1997, “Personality Trait Structure as a Human Universal”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52 (5), pp. 509
17
![Page 18: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
FIGURE 7: Excitement (hedonic) vs. sincerity (utalitarian)________________________________________________________________________________
(Woods, 1960; Holbrook, 1986; Mano and Oliver, 1993; Hirshman, 1980)
________________________________________________________________________________
Malthora (1981) mentions that brand preference is stronger when the human characteristics
a consumer uses to describe him/herself, matches the characteristics used to describe the brand.
As the firm’s website is a carrier of the brand, it is very important to see what kind of influence
brand personality can have on consumer’s online purchasing decisions. Research has shown that
brand personality can help differentiate the brand (Crask & Laskey, 1990) and it also is able to
develop emotional characteristics of a brand (Landon, 1974; Biel, 1993). Brand personality also
increases customer preference and usage (Sirgy, 1982). Wang & Yang (2008) furthermore also
prove that brand personality increases the purchase intention of customers. Keller (1993)
describes brand personality as interrelated with a symbolic or self-expressive function, i.e. brand
personality does not posses utilitarian functions, but it rather shows the symbolic values. Other
research also showed that brand personality allows customers to convey their own self (Belk,
1988), their ideal self (Malhotra, 1988) or a specific part of their selves that they want to show
(Kleine et al., 1993). Brand personality could therefore be related to the hedonic functions of the
self. In this line, Fennis et al. (2005) showed that the brand personality dimension “excitement”
influenced the self-perceptions of hedonism. Matzler et al. (2006) found that extraversion
(excitement) had a positive correlation with the hedonic value of a product. People who were
extravert (excited) perceived stronger hedonic values of a product, which then (according to the
authors) led to a positive brand affect. They conclude by stating that customers who have high
levels of extraversion (excitement) respond more to affective stimuli. The hedonic benefits that
the consumers expect to receive are evaluated based on aesthetics, taste, symbolism and sensory
experience (Holbrook & Moore, 1981). As aesthetic appeal represents the hedonic function of a
18
![Page 19: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
website I would expect, based on the research findings above, that the positive effect of aesthetic
appeal on buying intention will become stronger when brand personality is perceived as exciting.
Hypothesis 4: The positive effect of aesthetic appeal on buying intention will be stronger when the
brand personality “excitement” is present.
Aesthetic formality, on the other hand, can be linked to the utilitarian function of a
website. Consumers focus here on shopping in an efficient and timely manner, with a minimum
level of irritation (Childers et al., 2001). Mooradian et al. (2006) link agreeableness (sincerity) and
the propensity to trust to knowledge sharing and they find that people who score high on
agreeableness (sincerity) tend to trust more than people who score lower. And trust has been
positively linked to purchase intention. Van der Heijden et al. (2003) found in their research that a
customer will perceive less risk with online shopping when that customer trusts the company.
They also found that ease-of-use leads to a positive attitude toward online shopping. Chaudhurri &
Holbrook (2001) found that brand trust and brand affect determined purchase loyalty, which led
to a greater market share. Yoon (2002) also found that website trust had a positive and significant
influence on purchase intention and Chen & Barns (2007) also state initial online trust leads to a
higher purchase intention. Based on the above, I would expect that the positive relationship
between aesthetic formality and buying intention would be more positive when brand personality
is perceived as sincere.
Hypothesis 5: The positive effect of aesthetic formality on buying intention will be stronger when
the brand personality “sincerity” is present.
Research Framework
This study proposes the following research framework to examine the relationship between
online consumer behavior and web aesthetics. Taken into consideration will be the moderating
role of brand personality and also a distinction between aesthetic arousal and formality, as well as
the interaction between these two dimensions. The research framework and the proposed
hypotheses are presented below. Each arrow represents a hypothesis, accompanied with the
hypothesized direction and nature of the relationship (negative, or positive).
19
![Page 20: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
FIGURE 8: Conceptual framework of the effect of web aesthetics on online buying intention________________________________________________________________________________
H4 (+)
H1 (+) H5 (+)
H3 (-)
H2 (+)
________________________________________________________________________________
20
Online buying Intention
Brand personality Excitement SincerityAesthetic Appeal
OriginalFascinatingCreativePicturesOverall impression
Aesthetic FormalityStructuredPleasantSymmetricalCleanSimple
![Page 21: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
Methodology
Measures
Validated items that were used by other researchers were also used in this study in order
to measure the variables. Some items were altered so that there would be a better fit with the
current study. Two questionnaires were designed in order to capture the influence of web
aesthetics on the online buying intention of consumers. In total four latent variables were involved
in this process, as can be seen in the research framework above. Next to the variables that were
researched and the control variables, I also included classification data (age, gender, education
and career status). The pre-test consisted of the measurement of the two brand personality
dimensions excitement and sincerity for two industries, the computer and mobile industry, in
order to decide which industry would be used in the main research. Apple, Dell, HP (computer
industry) and Apple, Blackberry, Nokia (mobile industry) were used as these firms all have the
possibility of online shopping, and are fairly opposite (or alike) in brand image. Brand personality
was measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), and here a five-point Likert type scale was
applied. Five items measured sincerity: family-oriented, honest, original and friendly. Excitement
was measured by trendy, cool, unique and up-to-date. Classification data were collected in the
beginning, followed by the brand personality questions for Apple, Dell, HP, Blackberry and Nokia.
In the main research again the classification data was collected in the beginning, followed by
the control variables measurements, which are explained below. Afterwards the brand personality
dimensions were measured, followed by the website image. Brand personality was again
measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was
measured by family-oriented, honest, friendly and decent. Trendy, young, unique and up-to-date
measured the brand personality dimension excitement. Aesthetic appeal and formality were
measured based on the articles of Lavie & Tractinsky (2004) and Schenkman & Jonsson (2000). A
seven-point semantic differential scale was used. Aesthetic appeal was measured by five items
that were divided in five pairs of opposite adjectives: original vs. unoriginal, fascinating vs.
repellent, creative vs. unimaginative, good use of pictures vs. bad use of pictures, and good overall
impression vs. bad overall impression. Five pairs of opposite adjectives also measured aesthetic
formality: structured vs. unstructured, pleasant vs. unpleasant, symmetrical vs. asymmetrical,
clean vs. messy, and simple vs. difficult. The dependent variable buying intention was measured
with an seven-point Likert type scale and was based on the article of Boonghee & Donthu (2001).
21
![Page 22: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
It assessed the likelihood of buying a product now and in the future. On table 1, all the
measurement constructs can be found.
TABLE 1: Measurement constructs web aesthetics, brand personality & buying intention________________________________________________________________________________
Web Aesthetics * Brand Personality ** Buying Intention **1. Aesthetic Appeal 1. Excitement 1. Buy now Original Trendy 2. Likely in the future Fascinating Cool / Young 3. Intend to buy in the future Creative Unique 4. Definitely in the future Uses good pictures of product Up-to-date Overall impression
2. Aesthetic Formality 2. Sincerity Structured Family-oriented Pleasant Honest Symmetrical Original / Decent Clean Friendly Simple
* = seven-point semantic differential scale | ** = seven-point Likert type scale________________________________________________________________________________
Control variables
In order to control for external variables that can also influence the buying behavior of a
consumer and therefore jeopardize the validity of this study, I have included the following control
variables: income, time spent online, the frequency of online shopping and dummies to control for
brand effects.
Income
Income has also shown to have influences on consumers when purchasing online. Douthu
and Garcia (1999) found that Internet shoppers make more money compared to non-shoppers.
Kim & Kim (2004) also found that income was a significant predictor when determining customer’s
online buying intention. They examined this for the clothing, jewelry and accessories industry.
Mathwick et al., (2002) found that Internet shoppers were typically from single-income
households, and were also wealthier compared to non-Internet shoppers. Li et al. (1999)
researched to which class a consumer belonged and they found that consumers with a high
income were more likely to be in the “frequent online buyer” class. Income was measured by five
categories: less than €500 | €501 - €1000 | €1001 - €1500 | €1501 - €2000 | more than €2000.
22
![Page 23: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
Time spent online
Lohse et al. (2000) examine panel data in their research and they have the first opportunity
to examine how panel members change over time. They found that the percentage of panelists
making a purchase increases with the time spent online. Thus the more hours a consumer spends
online, the higher the probability that that consumer will purchase via the Internet. Thompson
(2002) also found that respondents spent a reasonable amount of time browsing the web before
they decide to buy. Time spent online was measured by five categories: less than 1 hour per
week| 1 – 3 hours per week | 4 – 10 hours per week | 11 – 20 hours per week | more than 20
hours per week.
Frequency of online shopping
Chang et al. (2005) found that the frequency of Internet usage had a positive influence on
the intention to use online shopping, and also on the actual use of online shopping. They also
found that the level of Internet purchase experience increased the intention to purchase online, as
did Shim et al. (2001). Brown et al. (2003) also found an influence of purchase experience on
future online purchase intentions, and so did Elliott & Speck (2005). Hammond et al. (1998)
furthermore mentioned that shoppers with more experience valued information higher and
entertainment lower compared to less experienced consumers. And customers with more web
experience are more inclined to purchase off the web (Bhatnagar et al., 2000). Frequency of online
shopping was measured by five categories: less than 1 per month| 1 – 2 times per month| 2 – 4
times per month| 5 – 6 times per month| more than 6 hours per month.
Brand Effect
Laroche et al. (1996) showed in their research that brand familiarity influenced the
consumer’s confidence towards the brand and therefore also the consumer’s intention to buy a
product from that brand. They also showed that brand familiarity influenced the consumer’s
attitude towards the brand. In this line, Dodds et al. (1991) also proved that a favorable brand
perception has a positive influence on the perceived quality and value of the product as well as an
increase in the willingness the buy a product from that brand. Brand effect was captured by two
dummy variables named “Apple” and “Blackberry”.
23
![Page 24: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
Procedure
The manipulation in this research was based on brand personality. As explained above, a
pre-test was conducted in which three websites from two industries were examined. The websites
used were existing websites, which were gender neutral and had the possibility of online
shopping. These six websites were classified based on excitement and sincerity and presented as a
survey to twenty respondents, in order to establish which three websites from which industry
would be used for the main research. The survey consisted out of some general questions to
assess the classification data, followed by questions related to the brand personality dimensions
excitement and sincerity for the five brand which were chosen (Apple, Dell, HP, Blackberry and
Nokia). Twenty respondents were asked to answer the survey via an email that contained the
Internet link to the questionnaire. With the results of the pre-test, the main questionnaire was
made. The main test consisted out of 37 questions, which were presented to 120 respondents,
again via an Internet link in which the respondents were invited to participate by filling in the
questionnaire. In order to compare three brands in an industry, brand one should be high in
excitement and high in sincerity. Brand two should be high in excitement and low in sincerity, and
brand three should be low in excitement and high in sincerity. Three versions were made, as
otherwise the questionnaire would be too long. Version one consisted out of brand one and brand
two, version two contained brand one and three, and version three included brand two and three.
Each version had 46 respondents.
Statistical analysis
After the data collection, SPSS was used to analyze the survey responses. Six ordinal logistic
regressions were performed in order to assess the influence of web aesthetics on the online
buying intention of consumers, and the moderating role of brand personality. The following
formula was used:
Buying Intention = Aesthetic Appeal + Aesthetic Formality + [Aesthetic Appeal x Aesthetic
Formality] + [Aesthetic Appeal x Brand Personality] + [Aesthetic Formality x Brand Personality] +
To differentiate the incremental influence of each variable on the dependent variable, four
predictor relationships were regressed. First the influence of aesthetic appeal, aesthetic formality,
sincerity and excitement on buying intention was regressed (these effects regard hypotheses one
24
![Page 25: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
and two). The second regression model included the relationship between all the independent
variables and the dependent variable, plus the control variables. After this model specification the
interactions were added in regression model three, which accounts for the third, fourth, and fifth
hypothesis. As last, all the predictor variables were regressed on the dependent variable buying
intention. The change in R2 was also monitored to determine whether each regression lead to a
significant increase in the model fit regarding intention of buying products online. In order to
account for the reliability of the constructs, the Cronbach’s alpha (α) was calculated for each
variable. To be reliable, a significant level of 0.70 must be reached (Nunnally 1978), so that there is
good internal-consistency reliability for the variables used.
Results
Pre-test
25
![Page 26: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
The results of the pre-test are shown in the figures (D-G) in the Appendix. In table A in the
Appendix we also see that out of the twenty respondents, 70% was female, 55% had a job, 45%
was a student, and 65 % had a master’s degree, compared to 20% with a bachelor’s degree. Below
a table is presented to make the answers of the questionnaire clearer. We see that in the
computer industry Apple is both characterized as sincere and exciting and Dell and HP as sincere
but not exciting. In the mobile industry we see Apple as sincere and exciting, Nokia as sincere but
not exciting, and Blackberry as exciting but semi-neutral for sincere. Because the comparison for
the three brands in the mobile industry is more pronounced, this industry was used as the input
for the main research.
TABLE 2Overview pre-test results
________________________________________________________________________________
Computer Industry Mobile IndustryApple Dell HP Apple Blackberry Nokia
Sincerity Family-oriented x v v x x vHonest v v v v - vOriginal v v v v v vFriendly v v v v v v
Excitement Trendy v x x v v x
Cool v x x v v xUnique v x - v v xUp-to-date v - - v v x
Sincere v v v v v / x vExciting v x x v v x
________________________________________________________________________________
Main research
First of all, a factor analysis and a reliability test were performed in order to be sure that
the reliability and validity of the constructs used in this research were adequate. The results of
these tests are shown in the table presented on the next page. Prior to these tests I assessed the
suitability of the data for factor analysis (see the appendix for the tables). The correlation matrix
shows presence of many coefficients of .03 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was .893,
which exceeds the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1970, 1974). The Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
showed a significance of .000, which supports the factorability of the correlation matrix. The factor
analysis showed five factors with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 37,5%, 11,2%, 10%, 9,2% and
26
![Page 27: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
6,5% of the variance respectively. It was decided (after examining the screeplot) to retain all the
five factors. To enable a better interpretation of these results, I performed a Varimax rotation for
which the results are shown in the table below.
TABLE 3: Results main-test: Rotated Matrix Factor Analysis________________________________________________________________________________
Variables Factor 1:“Aesthetic Formality”
Factor 2:“Buying Intention”
Factor 3:“Exciting”
Factor 4:“Aesthetic Appeal”
Factor 5:“Sincere”
Structured .853
Clean .775
Simple .771
Pleasant .766 .352
Symmetrical .715
Impression .666 .555
Pictures .634 .393
Buy definitely .899
Buy intend .892
Buy future .871
Buy now .769
Trendy .881
Young .870
Up to date .853
Unique .785
Creative .840
Fascinating .813
Original .798
Friendly .830
Honest .790
Decent .724
Family Oriented .716
Cronbach’s α 0.879 0.935 0.920 0.841 0.780______________________________________________________________________________________________________
The rotated solution shows numbers of strong loadings, and some variables loading in two
factors. We see that Pleasant, Impression and Pictures load both in “Aesthetic Formality” and
“Aesthetic Appeal”, which is not consistent with prior research. As Pleasant has a much higher
loading in “Aesthetic Formality”, I decided to include this variable in “Aesthetic Formality”.
Impression and Pictures should have been loaded (mainly) in “Aesthetic Appeal”, as depicted by
27
![Page 28: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
past research, but here we see that it is the opposite. I decided to drop Impression as this variable
loaded evenly in both factors. In order to decide what to do with Pictures, I checked the
Cronbach’s alpha for the factor “Aesthetic Appeal”. In the table below we see that the Cronbach’s
alpha for factor 4 would increase from .841 to .875 if I deleted Pictures. Due to this result and the
fact that Pictures loaded very high in the wrong factor, I decided to drop this variable too. I also
tested the Cronbach’s alphas of the other four factors, and we see that all the Cronbach’s alphas
are above .7, which indicates that there is good internal-consistency reliability.
TABLE 4: Results main-test: Cronbach’s alpha______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
After the factor analysis I performed multiple regressions in order to test the hypotheses.
Some initial descriptive results show that the average respondent is a 25 year old male, who is not
a student anymore, has a master degree and has either less than 1000 euro’s or more than 2000
euro’s per month to spend. He spends 4-10 hours per week online, and shops 1 to 2 times per
month on the Internet (See table D in the appendix).
Four regression models were performed. For all the regression models there were no
major deviations from normality, the residues were adequately spread to presume that there is a
constant variation and the regression models were linear. There was furthermore no
multicollinearity and no autocorrelation. All the models reached statistical significance (Sig = .000).
The results of the four regressions are shown in Table 5.
Factor 3α= 0.920 α if Item deleted
Trendy .882Young .893Unique .913Up to date .897
Factor 2α= 0.935 α if Item deleted
Buy now .949Buy future .904Buy intend .896Buy definitely .904
Factor 1α= 0.879 α if Item deleted
Structured .835Pleasant .850Symmetrical .876Clean .845Simple .855
Factor 4 α= 0.841 α if Item deleted
Original .790Fascinating .761Creative .753Pictures .875
Factor 5α= 0.780 α if Item deleted
Family Oriented .784Honest .714Friendly .643Decent .759
28
![Page 29: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
For model A we see that all the independent variables are significant. “Sincere” and
“Exciting” both have a positive influence on “Buying Intention”, meaning that for a one unit
increase in “Sincere”, “Buying Intention” increases with 0.161 units, ceteris paribus. The same
goes for “Exciting”, the more exciting we perceive a brand, the more likely it is we will buy a
product from that brand. For “Aesthetic Appeal” and “Aesthetic Formality” we see a quite
surprising result because the nature of the relationship is negative, which is the opposite of what I
expected, and what has been researched in the past. The results suggest that higher aesthetic
appeal and higher aesthetic formality leads to a lower online buying intention for consumers
(-.268, -.352 respectively). “Aesthetic Formality” even has a more negative impact on “Buying
Intention” than “Aesthetic Appeal”. Based on these results I have to reject hypotheses one and
two as the predicted relationship was positive and the results show a negative influence.
Looking at model B we see that again all the independent variables are significant, whilst
only one of the control variables shows significance (“Education”). “Sincere” and “Exciting” again
have a positive influence on “Buying Intention”, and “Aesthetic Appeal” and “Aesthetic Formality”
also again have a negative influence on the dependent variable. Therefore here again hypotheses
one and two must be rejected. “Education” shows that people with a higher education have a
lower intention to buy online.
Models C and D both show no significant variables, meaning that there are no moderating
influences on “Buying Intention”. Therefore hypotheses three, four and five are rejected. It is
worth noting that if significant, “Aesthetic formality” would have a negative moderating influence
on the relationship between the variables “Aesthetic Appeal” and “Buying Intention” (-.028 in
model C and -.016 in model D), but as the influence of “Aesthetic Appeal” on “Buying Intention” is
already negative, hypothesis three would have been rejected if it were significant.
Hypothesis 4 would also have been rejected, if it were significant, in model C (.007) and D
(-.020) as “Aesthetic Appeal” does not have a positive influence to start with. Hypothesis 5 would
have been rejected, if significant, in both models C (-.083) and D (-.090). We furthermore see here
that hypothesis 1 would also have been rejected in regression C and D, were it significant.
Hypothesis 2 would have been accepted here, were it significant. Below is a clear overview of all
the hypotheses and the accompanying results.
TABLE 5: Results main-test: Regressions
29
![Page 30: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
________________________________________________________________________________ Model A Model B Model C Model DConstant 3,835*** 3,299*** 1,722*** 1,564*** (,601) (,727) (2,198) (2,237)Aesthetic Appeal -,268*** -,250*** -,306 -,335 (,079) (,084) (,451) (,452)Aesthetic Formality -,352*** -,362*** ,404 ,296 (,080) (,080) (,545) (,544)Sincere ,161** ,221*** ,367 ,320 (,071) (,078) (,261) (,266)Exciting ,191*** ,163*** ,361 ,389 (,057) (,079) (,233) (,239)Gender -,205 -,189 (,155) (,156)Age ,010 ,009 (,009) (,009)Career ,070 ,084 (,224) (,228)Education -,188* -,193* (,106) (,109)Income ,128 ,123 (,089) (,090)Time spent online -,021 -,034 (,084) (,086)Shop online ,157 ,177 (,109) (,112)Apple ,243 ,245 (,263) (,268)Blackberry ,197 ,221 (,221) (,225)Aesthetic Appeal x Aesthetic Formality -,028 -,016 (,076) (,076)Aesthetic Appeal x Sincere ,021 ,052 (,067) (,067)Aesthetic Appeal x Exciting ,007 -,020 (,050) (,050)Aesthetic Formality x Sincere -,083 -,090 (,065) (,064)Aesthetic Formality x Exciting -,058 -,041 (,053) (,052)R2 .304 .360 .313 .369Adjusted R2 .294 .328 .290 .325*, **, *** Indicates significance at the 90%, 95%, and the 99% level, respectively
________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE 6: Results main-test: Hypotheses________________________________________________________________________________
Regression p Sign Accept
30
![Page 31: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
H1 High aesthetic appeal of a website will lead to a higher intention A 99% - Xto buy. B 99% - X
C No - XD No - X
H2 High aesthetic formality of a website will lead to a higher A 99% - Xintention to buy. B 99% - X
C No + V D No + V
H3 High aesthetic appeal of a website will have a less positive effect Aon the intention to buy when the aesthetic formality of the Bwebsite is low. C No - X
D No - X
H4 The positive effect of aesthetic appeal on buying intention will be Astronger when the brand personality “excitement” is present. B
C No + XD No - X
H5 The positive effect of aesthetic formality on buying intention will Abe stronger when the brand personality “sincerity” is present. B
C No - XD No - X
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Additional Analyses
Because the results were so surprising, I decided to do some more research with the data
to try to explain the anomalies that I encountered while performing the first set of regressions.
First of all I checked the means for the five variables, arranged per brand. Below we see the
outcome. We see that from the three brands, Apple has the highest buying intention. This can
probably be explained by the fact that people like Apple as a brand. We also see that Apple is
perceived as the most exciting brand. Nokia is perceived as the most sincere and highest in
aesthetic appeal for their website. Blackberry has the highest aesthetic formality for their website.
TABLE 7_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To see how the variables match with the brands I compared the mean scores above and
categorized the scores as low, medium and high (see table 8 below). We see two big anomalies.
TABLE 8______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Apple Blackberry NokiaSincere 4.68 4.02 4.84Exciting 6.06 4.40 3.59Aesthetic Appeal 3.06 3.29 4.05Aesthetic Formality 2.93 3.45 3.43Buying Intention 3.79 3.28 2.78
31
![Page 32: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Apple is perceived as an exciting brand, but it has a low aesthetic appeal for its website and
Nokia shows the opposite; it is perceived as a non- exciting brand, but it has a high appeal for its
website. This miss-match of the personality of the brand and the look of the website could
possibly explain why there is a negative influence on the buying intention for aesthetic appeal.
I then rearranged the data set to check what the results would be if I categorized the
variables as low and high. I chose a threshold of two instead of three to make the distinction more
clear, to make the results easier to interpret, and Wang, Hernandez, and Minor (2010) also
categorized appeal and formality in this way in their research. I also checked whether the brand
sequence of the questions in the survey and whether the buying intention statements could have
influenced the results. Below you find a table explaining the measurement construct used for the
second set of regressions. Both the web aesthetics and brand personality constructs were coded
as high or low. For buying intention I used one statement and two statements for the construct.
And I also added a control for the brand sequence, because I wanted to see whether it mattered if
a brand was presented first in the questionnaire vs. second. To be thorough I also performed a
regression with only the answers for the first brand that were asked in the questionnaire. At last I
also checked whether the brand combinations in the regression were of influence.
TABLE 9: Measurement constructs regression set 2________________________________________________________________________________Web Aesthetics Brand Personality Buying Intention * Brand Sequence First Brand1. Appeal 1. Excitement Likely in the future 0 = first brand asked Only the answers for High High 1 = second brand asked the first brand asked. Low Low
2. Formality 2. Sincerity Buying Intention ** High High Likely in the future
Low LowIntend to buy in the future
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The model reached statistical significance and the results of these extra regressions are
shown in table C in the appendix. We see that there are no significant differences in the results
compared to the first set of regressions, except that the influence becomes more negative for web
Sincere Exciting Aesthetic Appeal Aesthetic Formality Buying IntentionApple M H L L HBlackberry L M M M MNokia H L H M L
32
![Page 33: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
aesthetics and more positive for brand personality. Brand sequence furthermore does not show
significance, and the R2 of all the regressions is less than the R2 for the first set of regressions.
As the regressions above did not give some extra insights I rearranged the dependent
variable again. I coded “Buying Intention” into four categories:
Category 0 = 0.00 - 1.99,
Category 1 = 2.00 - 3.99,
Category 2 = 4.00 - 5.99, and
Category 3 = 6 or higher.
Then I conducted a regression analysis on the new dependent variable. This model also
reached statistical significance and the results of this set of regressions can be found in the
appendix in table D. We see that “Appeal” and “Formality” still have a negative influence, but the
influence now is much less negative. The variable “Exciting” here is not significant. The influence of
the interactions does not differ much from the original regressions, and the interactions are still
not significant. The R2 and the adjusted R2 here are also lower than for the original regressions.
After the above I regressed the independent variables while only selecting cases for male,
female, sincere, and exciting. The results are shown on the next page. We see that for males,
though not significant, “Formality” has a positive influence on their buying intention online. We
also see that when a brand is perceived as “Exciting”, males are prone to buy more online (ρ= .05).
When a brand is perceived as “Sincere” males also buy more, though this effect is not strong at all
(and not significant). We also see that when the brand is Blackberry, males again are prone to buy
more online (ρ= .05). At last we see that there is a negative moderating role for “Exciting” on
“Appeal” (ρ= .05), and a positive moderating role for “Sincere” on “Appeal” (ρ= .10).
The other regression models show no additional significant results. It is interesting though
to highlight that for females, if significant, “Appeal” would have a positive influence on their
buying intention online, and the brand personality of the brand has a negative influence, contrary
to the first findings. Females also prefer Apple as a brand compared to Blackberry (if the result
were significant). Another interesting finding is that when a brand is perceived as sincere or
exciting, appeal has a negative, and formality has a positive, influence on the online buying
intention (if the results were significant). This model also reached statistical significance.
TABLE 10
Results main-test: Extra Regressions based on gender & brand personality
33
![Page 34: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
________________________________________________________________________________
Regression E Regression F Regression G Regression H
Male Female Sincere Exciting
Constant -.631 2.516 3.497 .866
(1,912) (2.260) (2.357) (2.245)
Aesthetic Appeal -.062 .028 -.514 -.274
(.358) (.473) (.433) (.511)
Aesthetic Formality .235 -.405 .080 .292
(.433) (.607) (.558) (.540)
Sincere .001* -.064 -.579 .170
(.269) (.269) (.409) (.244)
Exciting .553** -.064 .184 .093
(.234) (.222) (.325) (.329)
Apple .192 .109 .283 .178
(.208) (.260) (.305) (.231)
Blackberry .387** .082 .070 .183
(.166) (.235) (.213) (.223)
Appeal x Formality -.010 -.052 -.044 -.017
(.060) (.080) (.076) (.071)
Appeal x Sincere .102* -.043 .151 .075
(.059) (.070) (.100) (.083)
Appeal x Exciting -.094** .061 .032 -.013
(.046) (.047) (.076) (.085)
Formality x Sincere -.063 .099 -.037 -.064
(.048) (.086) (.076) (.098)
Formality x Exciting -.019 -.016 .032 -.028
(.050) (.049) (.076) (.098)
R2 .383 .218 .197 .181
Adjusted R2 .333 .144 .107 .121
*, **, *** Indicates significance at the 90%, 95%, and the 99% level, respectively
________________________________________________________________________________
To be thorough, I also performed a cluster analysis. Table 11 on the next page shows the
results. We see that Cluster 1 is characterized by low perceived sincerity and excitement, low
buying intention and high-perceived web aesthetics. Cluster 2 is characterized by high-perceived
sincerity and excitement, high buying intention and low perceived web aesthetics. Cluster 3 shows
high excitement, whilst the rest is at a medium level. Cluster 4 has high sincerity, high aesthetic
appeal, low excitement and medium aesthetic formality and buying intention. And cluster 5 is
characterized by low aesthetic formality; high buying intention and the rest is at a medium level.
TABLE 11
34
![Page 35: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
Results main-test: Cluster analysis________________________________________________________________________________
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5
Sincere 1.97 4.84 4.33 4.96 4.61
Exciting 2.02 6.11 5.59 3.28 3.75
Appeal 5.22 2.89 4.12 4.97 3.71
Formality 4.09 2.55 3.82 4.38 2.89
Buying Intention Categorized 0.44 2.00 1.12 0.83 1.45 Red = Low | Blue = Medium | Green = High
________________________________________________________________________________
Finally, a model specification including squared values was used in order to check whether
there is an inverted U shape effect, but this was not the case. In addition, a mixed model
specification was attempted (random intercept model in STATA) but whereas the random
intercept could capture significantly some of the heterogeneity due to the repeated answers of
the individuals (ρ=0.45), results regarding the main effects did not differ.
35
![Page 36: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
Discussion
“Less is more” 5
The findings in this study help shed a light on the effects of web aesthetics on the online
buying intention of consumers and the moderating variables at play. The results show quite some
surprising directions. First of all it is very interesting to see that the relationship between web
aesthetics and the online buying intention of consumers is not positive but negative. Apparently
better web aesthetics lead to a lower online buying intention. One explanation for this anomaly
could be that people who already own a mobile phone are prone to answer negatively when asked
whether they would consider buying a mobile phone from the website. So even though the
website looks appealing, they would not buy a mobile phone because they already have a mobile
phone and are happy with it. This could explain the negative answers for buying intention paired
with high web aesthetics.
Another explanation could be that the respondents were not people who let them selves
be influenced by websites. Perhaps in this day and age, we have become less trusting about
websites and simple graphic representation is not enough. Consumers are known to review
customer reviews and recommendations before purchasing a product, and pricing always plays a
big role when deciding to purchase a product. Therefore the respondents could also be prone to
answer negatively when asked if they would buy a product from that website now or in the distant
future, even though they really liked the website, because they have the need to search for more
information first. We could also speculate that there are people who find too much aesthetic
appeal and formality a negative sign and become less trusting of the website, or just like simplicity,
and therefore are prone to buy less when the website is too creative, clean or structured. These
people maybe follow the “less-is-more” rule in life.
Kaltcheva & Weitz (2006) also found that environmental stimuli interfere with the
consumer’s shopping experience. When consumers are recreational shoppers, they enjoy
appealing stimuli when shopping, but when consumers have a specific goal they are bothered by
the stimuli as it distracts them from their goal. Purchase task-oriented consumers want to
complete their task with a minimum amount of effort and extra environmental stimuli then result
in extra effort needed to complete their goal. This could explain the negative involvement of
aesthetic appeal on the online buying intention of consumers. Wang, Hernandez, and Minor
5 Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
36
![Page 37: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
(2010) also show in their research that a high aesthetic appeal for a website does not result in
favorable thoughts about the service quality of the website, it actually distracts the information
processing process of consumers and therefore leads to negative feelings for that website.
Another explanation for the negative relationship between web aesthetics and the
consumer online buying intention could be linked to mobile phone providers. People very often
buy a new mobile phone, not directly from the mobile phone brand’s website, but either from the
website of the provider such as Vodafone and KPN, or directly in the store of Vodafone, KPN, etc.
Thus people can still find the website of Apple, Blackberry, and Nokia appealing (or not), yet
decide not to buy a mobile phone directly from their website, but instead buy it in the store of the
provider.
The negative influence of aesthetic formality and the online buying intention of consumers
could furthermore possibly be explained through consumer’s taste. In this day and age we are
bombarded with new Internet sites, web shops, blogs, forums and all the other new Internet
features yet to be discovered. As every company tries to stand out from the crowd, we are now
used to some level of creativity and appeal in a website. Therefore when a website is too
structured, too simple, or too clean, it can be perceived as boring or not interesting enough to stay
on that website. If people’s senses are not highlighted during the shopping process, they could
easily decide not to buy from that website, especially if the product is freely available on other
websites.
At last, the possible miss-match of the personality of the brand and the look of the website
could explain why there is a negative influence on the buying intention for web aesthetics. Apple is
perceived as an exciting brand with a high buying intention, yet the aesthetic appeal of their
website is low. If consumers, who find Apple an exciting brand and beforehand are prone to buy
Apple, experience the website as low in aesthetic appeal, they could view this as an intuitive miss-
match and decline from buying a product from the Apple website as their expectations of exciting
were not met. Another example would be a plumbing website for which the designer went
overboard with too much graphics and flashes. This does not match in the consumer’s head with
the image of the brand and what they would expect, and therefore the consumer’s decides to
navigate to a more appropriate website. The same goes for the miss-match for Nokia. Nokia is
perceived as a highly sincere brand, yet their website is low in formality.
37
![Page 38: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
It is also interesting to note that, even though not a main part of this research, “Sincere”
and “Exciting” both have a positive (but non-significant) influence on the buying intention of
online consumers. So when a brand is perceived as sincere or exciting, it raises the buying
intention of consumers. This is also in line with the research of Sirgy (1982), who showed that
brand personality increased customer preference and usage, and Wang & Yang (2008), who
proved that brand personality increased the purchase intention of customers. Brakus et al. (2009)
also showed that brand personality influences people’s satisfaction level and their loyalty. Both
brand personalities in this research apparently provide customers with positive feelings, a fact
which leads to a higher online buying intention.
Also interesting in this research is that there is no modifying role for brand personality in
the relationship between web aesthetics and buying intention of online consumers in the first set
of regressions, as the results are not significant. If they were significant than a brand that is
perceived as exciting or as sincere would have a negative influence on the relationship between
aesthetics and buying behavior. This could perhaps also be explained by lack of trust. When a
website is too creative or too simple or too structured, and on top of that the brand is perceived
as exciting or sincere, then people could start to mistrust, and therefore shy away from buying a
product. This could also be related to the miss-match between the perceived brand image and the
web aesthetics of the brand’s website, as already explained above.
In the extra set of regressions based on the gender of the respondents and the brand’s
personality we also see some interesting findings. We see that for males, aesthetic formality,
exciting (ρ= .05), and the brand Blackberry (ρ= .05) have a positive influence on their online buying
intention. Thus contrary to the first findings, we see here that aesthetic formality actually has a
positive influence on the online buying intention. Males apparently prefer website’s that are
higher in formality, when shopping online. This finding would therefore be in line with hypothesis
2, if the result were significant. Males also prefer brands that are perceived as exciting. This is not
a surprising finding, as males are known to be more thrill-seeking compared to females. Yet it is
surprising to see that males prefer excitement for the brand, and formality for the website, which
is a miss-match as excitement should be paired with high appeal and not high formality.
The moderating role of brand sincerity on the relationship between aesthetic appeal and
the online buying intention of males also shows a positive influence (ρ= .10), which is contrary to
the results from the original set of regressions. Here we see that the negative relationship
between appeal and buying intention for males is positively moderated when the brand is
38
![Page 39: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
perceived as sincere. This could be because sincerity in a brand is appreciated by males (see the
results), and because males prefer formality, which again is a match with sincerity.
At last we also see that the moderating role of exciting on the relationship between
aesthetic appeal and buying intention is negative, which is contrary to hypothesis four. The
negative influence of appeal on the buying intention of males is negatively influenced when the
brand is also perceived as exciting. Perhaps males expect an exciting brand to have a website with
high appeal, and as they dislike high appeal, the relationship between appeal and buying intention
becomes even stronger.
Though the results for the female respondents are not significant, they are interesting to
discuss. We see that aesthetic appeal and the brand Apple have a positive influence on their
online buying intention. Women supposedly prefer Apple as brand. This could be explained by the
fact that females dislike high aesthetic formality (see the results) and Apple shows low formality
for their website. Aesthetic appeal has a positive influence, yet this influence is really small.
Brand personality here has a negative influence on female’s online buying intention. Thus
an exciting or sincere brand leads to a lower buying intention for females. The match between
brand personality and web aesthetics could explain this. Females do not prefer high aesthetic
formality, and as this matches with sincerity, it is not surprising that females would dislike sincere
brands. Grohmann (2009) also showed that feminine and masculine brands could be related to
Aaker’s ruggedness and sophistication brand personalities, and that it complements Aaker’s brand
personality scale. This could also explain why excitement and sincerity has a negative influence for
females as feminine brands can be matched with the brand personality sophistication, thus
females will look for female / sophistication characteristics in brands and not so much for exciting
and sincere characteristics.
The moderation of exciting on the relationship between aesthetic appeal and buying
intention for females is furthermore positive, which is in line with hypothesis four for females.
Females prefer high aesthetic websites and when the brand is also perceived as exciting, the
positive relationship between appeal and buying intention is strengthened. The moderating role of
sincere on the relationship between appeal and buying intention is negative, which could be
explained due to the miss-match between high appeal and sincerity.
At last I also must note that the moderation of sincerity on the relationship between
aesthetic formality and buying intention for females is positive. This means that the negative
relationship between aesthetic formality and female online buying intention becomes less positive
39
![Page 40: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
when a brand is perceived as sincere. We also see that the negative relationship between
formality and female online buying intention becomes more negative when the brand is perceived
as exciting. Both these findings could be explained by the intuitive match between formality and
sincere.
The cluster analysis also shows some interesting results. We see that people in cluster 1
show high web aesthetics, low brand personality and high buying intention. This could account for
the negative relationship between aesthetics and online buying intention as high web aesthetics
should be matched with high brand personality. The results also show that there are people who
perceive low sincerity and high formality for a website, and low excitement and high appeal.
Cluster 2 shows the exact opposite of people in cluster 1; high sincerity is matched with low
formality, high excitement is matched with low appeal and low web aesthetics is matched with
high buying intention. Cluster 4 furthermore shows high appeal with high sincerity, which is
intuitively wrong and low excitement with high appeal, which is also a miss-match. These results
show that there are big intuitive miss-matches for the three brands, and therefore can account for
the insignificant results for the interactions in this research.
Academic Implications
This study aimed to shed some light on the complicated relationship between websites and
consumers. Web aesthetics have been used as the starting point, mingled with brand personality,
in order to see whether consumer’s buying intention would be influenced. The main contributions
of this study consist of:
(A) showing how online consumers respond to aesthetic stimuli on websites;
(B) demonstrating the complexity of web aesthetics and its influence;
(C) linking environmental stimuli with the consumer decision-making process; and
(D) illustrating the complexity of online consumer decision-making.
The results have furthermore shown that dividing web aesthetics in aesthetic formality and appeal
is important as both have a separate influence on buying intention. It has also become clear that
the relationship between web aesthetics and the online buying intention of consumers is still a
young and fresh topic and needs much more research to gain more knowledge and understanding,
so that the implications for all the parties invested become clearer.
40
![Page 41: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
Managerial Implications
These results overall imply that more research needs to be done in this area to fully
understand the true influence of web aesthetics on the online buying behavior of consumers. I
believe that this research is shadowed by a big limitation, which is that people, who already own a
mobile phone and are happy with it, are not prone to buy a new one, no matter what. Therefore in
this research we see high web aesthetics and low buying intention. This research should be copied
for other industries, with a control variable that accounts for the willingness to buy a new product.
Only then can we truly understand the influence of web aesthetics. And only then can we try to
understand what the implications will be for managers, website designers and companies. From
this research we can only imply that less is more. Too much creativity and formality is not good for
a website’s conversion rate when it comes to selling mobile phones. Web designers and
companies should furthermore balance the demands of the company, the image of the brand, but
also the clients’ preferences when building their website.
The results have also shown that it is simply not enough to establish a presence on the
Internet. Website aesthetics definitely influence consumers and are therefore an important
variable to account for when designing and branding a website.
Limitations and Future Research
The findings reported above are subjected to a few possible limitations, which could make
the results of this study not generalizable. First of all we see that a lot of the respondents are
students and young people. Students, and younger people, very often use the Internet and also
probably shop more online compared to other consumers. Students, and younger people,
furthermore probably also care less about the service and trust of a website. This could however
indicate how future users will perceive Internet shopping, as nowadays it is becoming an integral
part of our lives and in the future everyone will be familiar with it (compared to now, where most
of the older generation is skeptical and unfamiliar with the whole phenomena). Here I would
suggest replicating this study while making sure that the respondents are well represented for
every age category.
Secondly, respondents were asked whether they would buy something from the website
now or in the future, and it is known that people in general are not good at predicting their future
behavior. This technique is widely used in consumer research, yet it is a somewhat weak form of
measurement as the generalizability of the answer can be questioned. When better techniques
41
![Page 42: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
become available, it would be interesting to replicate this study, as to make the results more
generalizable.
I furthermore only used one industry (mobile industry) and one product (mobile phones).
Past research has showed that consumer’s focus and attention, when shopping online, varies
based on product type (Weathers et al., 2007; Hsieh et al., 2005). Therefore the results of this
research may not be generalizable to other product categories. It would therefore be interesting
to extend this research over multiple industries, to see if there are differences for product groups.
Extending over multiple countries would also be a point of interest, in order to account for cultural
differences in aesthetics.
Another limitation lies in the respondent’s evaluation of the websites used and the
perceptions of the brands used, as this could have been influenced by their prior-experience with
the websites and the brands. Apple, Blackberry and Nokia are well known brands and it could
easily have been the case that some of the respondents already purchased something from the
sites, or have visited the sites multiple times in the past. In future studies, a control variable should
be integrated to account for this limitation.
In this line, I also did not account for the fact that many people buy a new mobile phone via
a mobile phone provider and not directly via the website of the brand. Future research should
incorporate a control variable which accounts for whether people are willing to buy a mobile
phone via the brand’s website.
Perhaps the most important limitation in this research is the fact that there was no control
variable for whether respondents already owned a phone and were contemplating to buy a new
one or not. We can assume that people who own a mobile phone and are content with it, are
more likely to not want to buy a new mobile phone, regardless of the appearance of a website.
Therefore future research should focus on people who are searching for a new mobile phone.
It would also be interesting to perform a longitudinal research, as the Internet landscape
and technology is ever changing. It would be interesting to see which characteristics of web
aesthetics become more or less important, and how the moderating role of brand personality
evolves over generations. Perhaps brand personality will become even more important, due to the
increase in marketing activities and possibilities, and ease of reaching new (existing) customers.
This research also did not account for the price of the product and therefore I also suggest
that the influence of price should be added in the model, as price is known to influence consumer-
buying decisions.
42
![Page 43: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
It would furthermore also be very interesting to include multi-media in the research as now
a days more and more websites use background music and instruction videos.
Another interesting suggestion would be to examine the influence of aesthetic visual first
impressions of websites compared to the aesthetic influences of known and aged websites. This
would be very interesting for companies as they could match the appearance of their website to
the customers who visit the website.
I also recommend researching the influence of web blogs, as this phenomenon is becoming
an important information source, which may be used in the decision-making process when
shopping online.
Future research should also include a control variable for purchase task oriented
consumers vs. recreational consumers. Wang et al. (2010) researched this and showed that there
is a difference for purchase task oriented consumers and web aesthetics, compared to recreational
consumers.
As last I also want to mention the influence of culture. Karvonen (2000) mentions that
Finnish people like simplicity and functionality, and that Japanese have their own aesthetic
traditions. We all see that every country has its own culture and own view of what is beautiful. In
order to truly succeed globally, firms have to take culture into account when designing websites.
As this research was limited to respondents from The Netherlands and no control variable was
introduced for their culture and upbringing, the results may not be generalizable to other cultures.
In the future it would be interesting to replicate this study globally.
43
![Page 44: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
Conclusion
This research started by examining the influence of web aesthetics on the online buying intention
of consumers. This is an important area of research as it is fairly new and much more insights are
needed to be able to optimally serve customers. This research showed that simply establishing a
presence on the Internet is not enough to succeed and maintain a good conversion rate for your
products. Website aesthetics definitely influence consumers, therefore designers, companies and
marketers should account for the influences of web aesthetics. This research also showed that
overindulging in creativity, simplicity and brand presence is not a good idea. Website’s should
mediate their appearance and follow the “Less is more” rule more often, as too much appeal and
formality will lower the website’s online conversion rate. This research furthermore shows us that
web aesthetics, the Internet, and online conversion are a topic that is not yet fully understood and
needs much more attention. Only when we fully understand consumer online behavior and the
consumer decision-making process, can companies fully benefit from the Internet. Understanding
these significant topics will lead to better conversion rates and also more satisfied customers.
44
![Page 45: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
Acknowledgements
First I would like to thank my thesis supervisor D. Tsekouras for all his help, comments and good
insights. I also want to thank my parents, Nick and Jadranka Parsic, for always believing in my
abilities, always pushing me to go further, and loving me no matter what.
“Never regret the things you have done, but regret the things you haven’t done!”
45
![Page 46: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
References
A* Aaker, J., 1997, “Dimensions of Brand Personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 34 (3), pp. 347-356
* Al Ching Lim, E., Ang, S.H., 2007, “Hedonic vs. utilitarian consumption: A cross-cultural perspective based on cultural conditioning”, Journal of Business Research. Vol 61 (3), pp. 225-232
* Anderson, R.E., Srinivasan, S.S., 2003, “E-Satisfaction and E-Loyalty: A Contingency Framework”, Journal of Psychology and Marketing, Vol 20 (2), pp.123-138
* Austin, J. R. , Siguaw, J. A., Mattila, A. S., 2003, “A re-examination of the eneralizability ofthe Aaker brand personality measurement framework”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol 11 (2), pp.77-92
* Azoulay, A., Kapferer, J-N., 2003, “Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality?”, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol 11 (2), pp. 143-155
B* Bartlett, M.S., 1954, “A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol 16 (Series B), pp. 296-298
* Bauer, H.H., Grether, M., Leach, M., 2002, “Customer relations through the internet”, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol 1 (2), pp. 39-56
* Bellman, S., Rossiter, J.R., 2004, “The Website Schema”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol 4 (2), pp. 38-48
* Belk, R.W., 1988, “Possessions and the Extended Self”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 2, pp.139-68
* Bhatnagar, A., Misra, S., Rao, H.R., 2000, “On risk, convenience, and internet shopping behavior”, Communications of the ACM, Vol 43 (11), pp. 98-105
* Biel, A., 1993, “Converting Image into Equity”, in Brand Equity and Advertisement, Aaker, D.A., Biel, A., eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
* Boonghee, Y., Donthu, N., 2001, “Developing a Scale to Measure the Perceived Quality of an Internet Shopping Site (SITEQUAL)“, Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol 2 (1), pp. 31-47
* Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H., Zarantonello, L, 2009, “Brand Experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does is affect Loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73, pp. 52-68
* Brown, M., Pope, N., Voges. K., 2003, “Buying or browsing? An exploration of shopping orientations and online purchase intention”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol37 (11), pp. 1666-1684
* Bruner II, G.C., Kumar, A., 2000, “Web Commercials and Advertising Hierarchy-of-Effects”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol 40 (1/2), pp. 35-42
C* Chaudhuri, A., Holbrook, M.B., 2001, “The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 (2), pp. 81-93
* Chang, M.K., Cheung, W., Lai, V.S. 2005, “Literature derived reference models for the
46
![Page 47: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
adoption of online shopping”, Information and Management, Vol 42, pp. 543-559
* Chen, Q., Rodgers, S., 2006, “Development of an Instrument to Measure Web Site Personality”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol 7 (1), access: http://jiad.org/article86
* Chen, Q., Wells, W.D., 1999, “Attitude Toward the Site”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol 39 (5), pp. 27-37
* Chen, Y-H., Barnes, S., 2007, “Initial trust and online buyer behavior”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol 107 (1), pp. 21-36
* Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J., Carson, S., 2001, “Hedonic and Utilitarian Motivations for Online Retail Shopping Behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 (4), pp.511-535
* Coates, D., 2003, “Watches Tell More than Time”, New York: McGraw-Hill.
* Coyle, J.R., Thorson, E., 2001, “The Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in Web Marketing Sites”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30 (3), pp. 65-77
* Crask, M. R., Laskey H.A., 1990, "A Positioning-Based Decision Model for Selecting Advertising Messages" Journal of Advertising Research, pp. 32-38.
* Crisp, C.B., Jarvenpaa, S.L. Todd, P.A., 1997, “Individual differences and internet shopping attitudes and intentions.” Access: http://InformationR.net/ir/12-2/Crisp.html
D* D’Astous, A., Levesque, M., 2003, “A scale for measuring store personality”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol 20 (5), pp.455-469
* Dion, K., Berscheid, E., Walster, E., 1972, "What is Beautiful is Good.", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 24, pp. 285-290
* Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B., 1991, “Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers' Product Evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 (8), pp. 307-319
* Douthu, N., Garcia, A., 1999, “The Internet shopper”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol 39 (3), pp. 52-58
* Donthu, N., 2001, “Does your website measure up?”, Marketing Management, Vol 10 (4), pp. 29-32
E* Elliott, M.T., Speck, P.S., 2005, “Factors that affect attitude toward a retail web site”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol 13 (1), pp. 40-51
* Evanschitzky, H., Iyer, G.R., Hesse, J., Ahlert, D., 2004, “E-satisfaction: a re-examination”, Journal of Retailing, Vol 80, pp.239-247
F* Fennis, B.M., Pruyn, A.T.H., Maasland, M., 2005, “Revisiting the malleable self: brand effects on consumer self-perceptions of personality traits”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 32, pp. 371-377
* Frijda, N.H., 1994, “Emotions Require Cognitions, Even If Simple Ones”, in The nature of Emotion: Fundamental questions, Elkman, P. and Davisdon, R. eds. New York: Oxford University Press
* Fogg, B.J., Soohoo, C., Danielsen, D., Marable, L., Stanford, J., Tauber. E.R., 2002, "How Do People Evaluate a Web Site’s Credibility?" Persuasive Technology Lab, Stanford University.
47
![Page 48: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
* Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981, “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 19 (1), pp. 39-50
* Fournier, S., 1998, “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research”, The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 (4), pp. 343-353
G* Ganesh, J., Reynolds, K.E., Luckett, M., Pomirleanu, N., 2010, “Online Shopper Motivations, and e-Store Attributes: An Examination of Online Patronage Behavior and Shopper Typologies”, Journal of Retailing, Vol 86 (1), pp.106-115
* Garbarino, E., Strahilevitz, M., 2004, “Gender differences in the perceived risk of buying online and the effects of receiving a site recommendation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol 57, pp. 768-775
* Geissler, G.L., 2001, “Building customer relationships online: the Web site designers’ perspective”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol 18 (6), pp. 488-502
* Gilmore, G.W., 1919, “Animism”, Boston: Marshall Jones, In: “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research, Fournier, S., 1998, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 24 (3), pp. 343-353
* Grohmann, B., 2009, “Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality”, Journal of marketing, Vol 46 (1), pp. 105-119
H* Hammond, K., McWilliam, G., Diaz, A.N., 1998, “Fun and work on the web: differences in attitudes between novices and e}q)erienced users”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 25, pp. 372-378
* Heibstein, D., 2002, “What Attracts Customers to Online Stores and What Keeps Them Coming Back?”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol 30 (4), pp.465-473
* Hirshman, E. C., 1980, “Attributes and layers of meaning”, in: Al Ching Lim, E., Ang, S.H., 2007, “Hedonic vs. utilitarian consumption: A cross-cultural perspective based on cultural conditioning”, Journal of Business Research. Vol 61 (3), pp. 225-232
* Holbrook, M. B., 1986, “Emotion in the consumption experience: towards a new model of the human consumer”, in: Al Ching Lim, E., Ang, S.H., 2007, “Hedonic vs. utilitarian consumption: A cross-cultural perspective based on cultural conditioning”, Journal of Business Research. Vol 61 (3), pp. 225-232
* Holbrook, M. B., Moore, W. L., 1981, “Feature interactions in consumer judgments of verbal versus pictorial representations”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 8 (6), pp. 103-113
* Hof, R.D., 2001, “Don’t Cut Back Now”, Business Week, October 1, p.EB34
* Hsieh, Y., Chiu, H., Chiang, M., 2005, “Maintaining a committed online customer: A study across search-experience-credence products”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 81 (1), pp. 75-82doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2005.01.006
K* Kaiser, H., 1970, “A second generation Little Jiffy”, Psychometrika, Vol 35, pp. 401-415
* Kaiser, H., 1974, “An index of factorial simplicity”, Psychometrika, Vol 39, pp. 31-36
* Kaltcheva, V.D., Weitz, B.A., 2006, “When should a retailer create an exciting store
48
![Page 49: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
environment?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol 70 (1), pp. 107-118
* Karvonen, K., 2000, “The beauty of simplicity”, Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Universal Usability(CUU 2000), November 16–17, 2000, Washington DC, USA.
* Keller, K.L., 1993, “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol 57, pp.1-22
* Kim, E.Y., Kim, Y-K., 2004, “Predicting online purchase intentions for clothing products”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol 38 (7), pp.883-897
* Kleine, R.E., Schultz Kleine, S., Kernan, J.B., 1993, “Mundane Consumption and the Self: A Social- Identity Perspective”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol 2 (3), pp. 209-35
* Kruft, H. W., 1994, “A History of Architectural Theory: From Vitruvius to the Present”, Zwemmer and Princeton Architectural Press, pp. 223-234
* Kwon, O. B., Kim, C., Lee, E.J., 2002, “Impact of website information design factors on consumer ratings of web-based auction sites”, Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol 21 (6), pp. 387-340
L* Landon, E. L., 1974) "Self-Concept, Ideal Self-Concept and Consumer Purchase Intentions", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol1, pp. 44-51.
* Laroche, M., Kim , C., Zhou, L., 1996, “ Brand Familiarity and Confidence as Determinants of Purchase Intention: An Emperical Test in a Multiple Brand Context”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 37, pp. 115-120
* Lavie, T., Tractinsky, N., 2004, “Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites”, Int, J-Human-Computer Studies, Vol 60, pp.269-298
* Lehmann, D.R., Singh, D., 1993, “The Brand Personality Component of Brand Goodwill: Some Antecedents and Consequences”, access: http://books.google.nl/h
* Li, H., Cheng, K., Rusell, M.G., 1999, “The Impact of Perceived Channel Utilities, Shopping Orientations, and Demographics on the Consumer's Online Buying Behavior”, Journal of computer-mediated communication, Vol 5 (2), access: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol5/issue2/hairong.html
* Linda Caroll, “Why Websites Fail”, access: http://www.lindacaroll.com/why-websites-fail.html
* Linda Caroll, “Why Website Design Really Matters”, access: http://lindacaroll.com/website-design/good-website-design-really-matters
* Lohse, G. L., Bellman, S., Johnson, E. J., 2000, “Consumer buying behavior on the Internet: Findings from panel data”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol 14 (1), pp. 15-29
* Loken, B., 2006, “Consumer Psychology: Categorization, Inferences, Affect and Persuasions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol57, pp.453-485
M* Malhotra, N.K., 1981, “A Scale to Measure Self-Concepts, Person Concepts and Product Concepts”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 23, pp. 456-64
* Mandel, N., Johnson, E.J., 2002, “When Web Pages Influence Choice: Effects of Visual Primes on Experts and Novices”, The Journal
49
![Page 50: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
of Consumer Research, Vol 29 (2), pp. 235-245
* Mandel, N., Johnson, E.J., 1999, “Constructing Preferences Online: Can Web Pages Change What You Want?”, University of Pennsylvania, access: http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/Courses/Spring2000/BA269D/MandelJohnson99.pdf
* Mano H., Oliver, R. L., 1993, “Assessing the dimensionality and structure of theconsumption experience: evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 20 (12), pp.451–66
* Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N.K. Rigdon, E., 2002, “The effect of dynamic retail experiences on experiential perceptions of value: an Internet and catalog comparison”, Journal of Retailing, Vol 78 (1), pp. 51-60
* Matzler, K., Bidman, S., Graber-Krauter, S., 2006, “Individual determinants of brand affect: the role of the personality traits of extraversion and openness to experience”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol 15 (7), pp. 427-434
* McMillan, SJ, Hwang, J., Lee, G., 2003, “Effects of structural and perceptual factors on attitudes toward the website“, Journal of advertising research, Vol 43 (4), pp. 400-409
* Moe, W.W., 2003, “Buying, searching or browsing: Differentiating between online shoppers using in-store navigational click-stream”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol 12(1&2), pp. 29-40
* Moe, W.W., Fader, P.S., 2004, “Dynamic Conversion Behavior at the E-Commerce Sites”, Management Science, Vol 50 (3), pp. 326-335
* Mooradian, T.A., Renzl, B., Matzler, K. , 2006, “Who trusts? Personality, trust and
knowledge sharing”, Management Learning, Vol 37 (4), pp. 523-540
N* Nielsen/NetRatings, 2005, “Online Retail Report Card: Highest Conversion Rates Amongst Non-Brick-and-Mortar Retailers, According to Nielsen/NetRatings Megaview Online Retail”, available at: Online conversion rates 2005
* Nielsen/NetRatings, 2008, “Newsrelease January, 28th, 2008”, available at: News release January 2008
* Nielsen/NetRatings, 2010, “Global Trends in Online Shopping, A Nielsen Global Consumer Report June 2010”, available at: Online shopping report 2010
* Norman, D. A., 2004, “Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things”, New York: Basic Books.
* Nunnally, J.C., 1978, “Psychometric Theory”, New York: McGraw-Hill
O* Oliver, R.L., 1999, “Whence customer loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol 63, pp.33-44
* Opoku, R.A., Abratt, R., Bendixen, M., Pitt, L., 2006, “Communicating brand personality: are the web sites doing the talking for food SMEs?”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol 10 (4), pp.362-374
P* Palmer, J., W., Griffith, D.A., 1998, "An Emerging Model of Web Site Design for Marketing”, Communications of the ACM, Vol 41 (3), pp.44-51
* Poddar, A., Donthu, N., Wei, Y., 2009, “Web site customer orientations, Web site quality, and purchase intentions: The role of Web site
50
![Page 51: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
personality”, Journal of Business Research, Vol 62 (4), pp. 441-450 doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.036
* Poel van den, D., Buckinx, W., 2005, “Predicting online-purchasing behavior”, European Journal of Operating Research, Vol 166, pp.557-575 * Poel van den, D, Leunis, J., 1999, “Consumer Acceptance of the Internet as a Channel of Distribution”, Journal of Business Research, Vol 45 (3), pp. 249-256
* Porteous, J. D., 1996, “Environmental Aesthetics: Ideas, Politics and Planning”, Routledge, London.
R* Rodgers, S., 2003, "The Effects of Sponsor Relevance on Consumer Reactions to Internet Sponsorships," Journal of Advertising, Vol 32 (4), pp. 67-76
* Rodgers, S., Thorson, E., 2000, “The Interactive Advertising Model” How Users Perceive and Process Online Ads”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol 1 (1), pp. 42-61
* Russo, J.E., Meloy, M.G., Husted Medvec, V., 1998, “Predecisional Distortion of Product Information”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 35 (4), pp.438-452
S* Schenkman, B.N., Jonsson, F., 2000, “Aesthetics and preferences of web pages”, Behavior and Information Technology, Vol 19 (5), pp.367-377
* Schlosser, A.E., Barnett White, T., Lloyd, S.M., 2006, “Converting Web Site Visitors into Buyers: How Web Site Investment Increases Consumer Trusting Beliefs and Online Purchase Intentions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol 70 (2), pp 133-148
* Schroeder, J. E., 2002, “Visual Consumption”, London: Routledge.
* Shim, S., Eastlick, M.A., Lotz, S.L., 2000, “Assessing the impact of Internet shopping on store shopping among mall shoppers and Internet users”, Journal of Shopping Center Research, Vol 7 (2), pp. 7-43
* Shim, S., Eastlick, M.A., Lotz, S.L., Warrington P., 2001, “An online prepurchase intentions model: The role of intention to search”, Journal of Retailing, Vol 77 (3), pp. 397-416
* Singh, S., Dalal, N., 1999, “Web homepages as advertisements”, Communications of the AMC, Vol 42 (8), pp. 91-99
* Sismeiro, C., Bucklin, R.E., 2004, “Modeling Purchase Behavior at an E-commerce Website: A Conditional Probability Approach”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 41 (3), pp. 306-323
* Sirgy, J., 1982, “Self-Concept in Consumer behavior: A Critical Review”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 9, pp.287-300
* Sweeny, J.C., Brandon, C., 2006, “Brand Personality: Exploring the Potential to Move from Factor Analytical to Circumplex Models”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol 23 (8), pp.639-663
* Szymanski, D.M., Hise, R.T., 2000, ”E-satisfaction: An initial examination”, Journal of Retailing, Vol 76 (3), pp.309-322
T* Thompson, S.H.T, 2002, “Attitude toward online shopping and the Internet”, Behavior and Information technology, Vol 21 (4), pp.259-271
* Tractinsky, N., Lowengart, O., 2007, “Web-Store Aesthetics in E- Retailing: A Conceptual
51
![Page 52: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
Framework and Some Theoretical Implications”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol 11(1), pp.1-18
V* Van der Heijden, H., Verhagen, T., Creemers, M., 2003, “Understanding online purchase intentions: contributions from technology and trust perspectives”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol 12, pp. 41-48
W* Wang, Y.J., Minor, M.S., Wei, J., 2010, “Aesthetics and the online shopping environment: Understanding consumer responses”, Journal of Retailing, doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2010.09.002
* Wang, Y.J., Hernandez, M.D., Minor, M.S., 2010, “Web aesthetics effects on perceived online service quality and satisfaction in an e-tail environment: The moderating role of purchase task”, Journal of Business Research, Vol 63, pp. 935-942
* Wang, X., Yang, Z., 2008, “Does country-of-origin matter in the relationship between brand personality and purchase intention in
emerging economies?”, International Marketing Review, Vol 25 (4), pp. 458-474* Weathers, D., Sharma, S., Wood, S.L., 2007, “Effects of online communication practices on consumer perceptions of performance uncertainty for search and experience goods”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 (4), pp. 393-401doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2007.03.009
* Wolfinbarger, M., Gilly, M.C., 2003, “eTailQ: Dimensionalizing Measuring and Predicting eTail Quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol 79 (3), pp. 183-198
* Woods, W. A., 1960, “Psychological dimensions of consumer decision”, Journal of Marketing, Vol 24 (1), pp. 15-19
Y* Yoon, S-J, 2002, “The antecedants and consuquences of trust in online purchase decisions”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol 16 (2), pp. 47-63
Z* Zhang, P., Von Dran, G.M., 2000, "Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers: A Two-Factor Model for Website Design and Evaluation." Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol 51(14), pp.1253–1268
Appendix
52
![Page 53: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
FIGURE A
Overview online purchases per region________________________________________________________________________________
Source: Nielsen/NetRatings, 2008, News release January 2008
________________________________________________________________________________
FIGURE B
Intended purchases 2010
53
![Page 54: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
________________________________________________________________________________
Source: Nielsen/NetRatings, 2010, Online shopping report 2010
________________________________________________________________________________
FIGURE C
Brand personality construct viewed by Aaker (1997)
54
![Page 55: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Competence
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
________________________________________________________________________________
Source: Aaker, J., 1997, “Dimensions of Brand Personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 34 (3), pp. 352
________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE A
Results pre-test: demographics
55
Ruggedness
Brand personality
Outdoorsy / Though / Masculine
Sophistication Upper class / Charming
Reliable / Intelligent / Successful
Excitement Daring / Spirited / Imaginative/ Up-to-date
Sincerity Down-to-earth / Honest / Wholesome / Cheerful
![Page 56: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
________________________________________________________________________________
Demographics
N Frequency Percent Mean Std. Deviation
Gender 20 ,70 ,470
Male 6 30%
Female 14 70%
Age 20 ,90 ,641
18 – 24 4 20%
25 – 34 15 75%
35 – 54 0 0%
55 + 1 5%
Career occupation 20 ,55 ,510
Student 9 45%
I have a job 11 55%
Unemployed 0 0%
Education 20 2,55 ,999
Graduated high school 2 10%
Some college 0 0%
Bachelor degree 4 20%
Master degree 13 65%
Post graduate degree 1 5%
________________________________________________________________________________
FIGURE D
Computer Industry: Pre-test results for Sincerity________________________________________________________________________________
56
![Page 57: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
= HP | = Dell | = Apple
Family-oriented Honest
Original Friendly
________________________________________________________________________________
FIGURE E
Computer Industry: Pre-test results for Excitement________________________________________________________________________________
57
![Page 58: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
= HP | = Dell | = Apple
Trendy Cool
Unique Up-to-date
________________________________________________________________________________
FIGURE F
Mobile Industry: Pre-test results for Sincerity________________________________________________________________________________
= HP | = Dell | = Apple
58
![Page 59: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
Family-oriented Honest
Original Friendly
________________________________________________________________________________
FIGURE G
Mobile Industry: Pre-test results for Excitement________________________________________________________________________________
59
![Page 60: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Web Aesthetics and Buying Behavior: What really drives consumers? I.Parsic 2011
= HP | = Dell | = Apple
Trendy Cool
Unique Up-to-date
________________________________________________________________________________
60
![Page 61: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
TABLE B
Results main-test: Correlation matrix_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Family Oriented Honest Friendly Decent Trendy Young Unique Up to date Original Fascinating Creative
Family Oriented 1.000
Honest .390 1.000
Friendly .561 .621 1.000
Decent .293 .482 .538 1.000
Trendy .027 .177 .276 .147 1.000
Young .115 .168 .308 .140 .838 1.000
Unique .103 .263 .306 .246 .708 .688 1.000
Up to date .035 .226 .284 .219 .770 .728 .727 1.000
Original -.034 -.169 -.211 -.155 -.393 -.349 -.423 -.395 1.000
Fascinating -.070 -.120 -.166 -.184 -.365 -.348 -.365 -.368 .682 1.000
Creative .073 -.065 -.113 -.120 -.394 -.356 -.394 -.362 .685 .732 1.000
Pictures -.049 -.110 -.270 -.151 -.396 -.414 -.381 -.351 .377 .460 .481
Impression -.062 -.102 -.264 -.223 -.400 -.363 -.368 -.324 .505 .633 .590
Structured -.078 -.115 -.264 -.151 -.213 -.192 -.221 -.219 .210 .331 .247
Pleasant -.058 -.092 -.288 -.153 -.322 -.290 -.322 -.289 .405 .485 .434
Symmetrical -.086 -.085 -.260 -.212 -.154 -.180 -.163 -.115 .154 .222 .196
Clean -.013 -.080 -.225 -.141 -.335 -.304 -.303 -.276 .313 .385 .369
Simple -.125 -.117 -.253 -.103 -.264 -.260 -.241 -.212 .178 .281 .215
Buy now .170 .144 .268 .135 .301 .278 .334 .283 -.341 -.411 -.368
Buy future .120 .221 .248 .134 .379 .358 .431 .364 -.332 -.360 -.284
Buy intend .141 .186 .263 .116 .373 .334 .367 .322 -.356 -.383 -.312
Buy definitely .185 .212 .291 .135 .321 .290 .349 .272 -.323 -.353 -.279
![Page 62: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Pictures Impression Structured Pleasant Symmetrical Clean Simple Buy now Buy future Buy intend Buy definitely
Family Oriented
Honest
Friendly
Decent
Trendy
Young
Unique
Up to date
Original
Fascinating
Creative
Pictures 1.000
Impression .737 1.000
Structured .526 .615 1.000
Pleasant .638 .777 .707 1.000
Symmetrical .418 .410 .560 .481 1.000
Clean .506 .583 .636 .618 .568 1.000
Simple .460 .533 .651 .584 .460 .633 1.000
Buy now -.278 -.378 -.286 -.370 -.284 -.276 -.384 1.000
Buy future -.292 -.351 -.280 -.357 -.232 -.318 -.360 .699 1.000
Buy intend -.268 -.371 -.284 -.375 -.305 -.379 -.361 .694 .879 1.000
Buy definitely -.199 -.312 -.279 -.327 -.275 -.308 -.331 .701 .826 .880 1.000
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
![Page 63: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
FIGURE H
Results main-test: Descriptives________________________________________________________________________________
53,6% male | 46,4% female 43,1% 18-25 | 42,2% 26-35 | 42% student | 58% non-student 7,7% 36-50 | 6,3% above 50
10,1% no degree | 26,8 % bachelor 37,7% less than €1000 per month 5,1% less than 3 hours per week 57,2% master | 5,8% post graduate 7,2% €1001-1500 per month 33,3% 4-10 hours per week20,3% €1501-2000 per month 30,4% 11-20 hours per week34,8% more than €2000 per month 31,2% more than 20 hours per week
42,8% less than 1 time per month 46,8% 1-2 times per month 8% 3-4 times per month 2,9% more than 4 times per month
________________________________________________________________________________
![Page 64: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
TABLE C
Results main-test: Extra Regressions_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Regression I Regression J Regression K Regression L Regression M Regression N Regression OBuying Intention Buying Intention Buying Intention* Buying Intention* Buying Intention** Buying Intention** BI BI* BI**
Constant 3.011*** 3.969*** 3.035*** 3.965*** 3.081*** 4.198*** 3.124*** 4.192*** 3.091*** 4.195*** 3.083*** 4.195*** 4.085*** 3.731*** 3.805***
(.215) (.212) (.245) (.213) (.242) (.239) (.276) (.240) (.246) (.231) (.268) (.233) (.2976) (.331) (.322)
Aesthetic Appeal (High vs. Low) -.464*** -.464*** -.462*** -.462*** -.444** -.444** -.441** -.441** -.532*** -.488*** -.489*** -.489*** -.486** -.393 -.420
(.162) (.162) (.162) (.162) (.182) (.182) (.182) (.182) (.185) (.176) (.177) (.177) (.242) (.286) (.278)
Aesthetic Formality (High vs. Low)
-.640*** -.640*** -.639*** -.639*** -.646*** -.646*** -.646*** -.646*** -.692*** -.669*** -.669*** -.669*** -.850*** -.748*** -.878***
(.161) (.161) (.161) (.161) (.181) (.181) (.181) (.181) (.184) (.175) (.176) (.176) (.241) (.285) (.278)
Sincere (High vs. Low) .418** .418** .423** .423** .338* .338* .345* .345* .385** .361** .361** .361** .462* .441 .384
(.163) (.163) (.165) (.165) (.184) (.184) (.186) (.186) (.187) (.178) (.180) (.180) (.247) (.292) (.285)
Exciting (High vs. Low) .266 .266 .266 .266 .503*** .503*** .504*** .504*** .223 .363** .363** .363** .376 .672** .516*
(.164) (.164) (.164) (.164) (.184) (.184) (.185) (.185) (.187) (.179) (.179) (.179) (.245) (.290) (.283)
Brand Sequence -.057 -.057 -.101 -.101 0.006 0.006
(.270) (.270) (.304) (.304) (.295) (.295)
Apple .958 .929*** 1.118*** 1.067*** 1.101*** 1.112***
(.190) (.234) (.214) (.263) (.218) (.255)
Blackberry .427** -.531*** .456* -.473 .471* -.646*** .523** -.544 .433** -.657*** .449* -.663*
(.191) (.190) (.236) (.333) (.215) (.214) (.266) (.375) (.219) (.208) (.258) (.363)
Nokia -.958*** .929*** -1.118*** -1.067*** -1.109*** -1.112***
(.190) (.234) (.214) (.263) (.208) (.255)
R2 .235 .235 .235 .235 .230 .230 .230 .230 .214 .234 .234 .234 .272 .150 .153
Adjusted R2 .218 .218 .215 .215 .213 .213 .210 .210 .196 .217 .214 .214 .244 .125 .128
*, **, *** Indicates significance at the 90%, 95%, and the 99% level, respectivelyRegression O is performed with only the answers fr the first brand asked in the questionnaire.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
![Page 65: thesis.eur.nl Ivona (289839).doc · Web viewBrand personality was again measured based on the article of Aaker (1997), with a seven-point Likert type scale. Sincerity was measured](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070702/5e6411edd78af0684d5262d3/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
TABLE D: Results main-test: Extra Regressions dependent variable “Buying Intention Categories”________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Regression P Regression Q Regression R Regression S
Constant 1.407*** 1.092** .772 .590
(.376) (.462) (1.379) (1.412)
Aesthetic Appeal -.094* -.075 -.177 -.152
(.049) (.053) (.282) (.284)
Aesthetic Formality -.189*** -.200*** .183 .180
(.050) (.051) (.342) (.344)
Sincere .069 .104** .090 .064
(.044) (.049) (.164) (.168)
Exciting .139** .115** .194 .215
(.036) (.049) (.146) (.151)
Brand Sequence .126 -.148
(.165) (.166)
Apple -.137 -.131
(.097) (.098)
Blackberry .005 .005
(.006) (.006)
Gender .039 .035
(.141) (.144)
Age -.075 -.074
(.067) (.069)
Career .083 .089
(.056) (.057)
Education -.056 -.060
(.053) (.054)
Income .067 .070
(.069) (.070)
Time spent online .245 .279
(.185) (.190)
Shop online .108 .095
(.169) (.172)
Appeal x Formality -.021 -.025
(.048) (.048)
Appeal x Sincere .029 .050
(.042) (.042)
Appeal x Exciting .005 -.015
(.032) (.032)Formality x Sincere -.041 -.048
(.040) (.041)Formality x Exciting -.021 -.013
(.033) (.033)R2 .238 .293 .243 .300Adjusted R2 .227 .255 .217 .248
*, **, *** Indicates significance at the 90%, 95%, and the 99% level, respectively_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________