Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The influence of textual and verbal word-of-mouth on website usability and visual appeal

  • Published:
The Journal of Supercomputing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Word-of-Mouth (WOM) may impact the perception and experience of website usability and visual appeal. This study aimed to highlight the effects of WOM, implemented textually and verbally, on subjective and objective usability and visual appeal in a web environment. This research was spread over three studies and was undertaken using an unfamiliar city council website to exclude the influence of past experiences and to allow for greater control of WOM implementation. The statistical results showed that both visual appeal and objective and subjective usability were influenced via text that established expectations around these and that the results were only more compelling when verbal WOM was added. The result implications show that when the message is simple, such as it usually is in communication on social media and advertising, then it does impact people’s perceptions of website visual appeal and usability, which may impact future intentions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heidmann F (2009) Human–computer cooperation. In: Bullinger HJ (ed) Technology guide. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  2. Litvin S, Goldsmith R, Pan B (2008) Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management. Tour Manag 29(3):458–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Forrester Research: The State of Retailing Online (2006) The 9th annual shop.org study. www.clickz.com/3611181

  4. Burtuskova A, Krejcar O Evaluation framework for user preference research implemented as web application. In: Badica C, Nguyen NT, Brezovan M (eds) ICCCI, 201, LNCS, vol 8083, Heidelberg, pp 537–548

  5. ISO 9241/11 (1996) International organization for standardization. Retrieved June 2012

  6. Feagin SF (1995) Beauty. In: Audi R (ed) The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 66

    Google Scholar 

  7. Blijlevens J (2011) Typically the best? Perceived typicality and aesthetic appraisal of product appearances. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

  8. Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub D (2003) Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integreated model. MIS Quart 27(1):51–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Stojmenović M, Pilgrim C, Lindgaard G (2014) Perceived and objective usability and visual appeal in a website domain with a less developed mental model. In: The 26th ACM Australian Computer–Human Interaction Conference OZCHI’14, December 2–5, 2014, Sydney, NSW, Australia, pp 316–323

  10. Stojmenović M, Grundy J, Farrell V, Biddle R, Hoon L (2016) Does textual word-of-mouth affect look and feel? In: The 28th ACM Australian Computer–Human Interaction Conference OZCHI’16, November 29–December 2, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia, pp 257–265

  11. Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  12. Harmon-Jones E, Amodio DM, Harmon-Jones C (2009) Action-based model of dissonance: a review, integration, and expansion of conceptions of cognitive conflict. In: Zanna MP (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 41. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 119–166

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tractinsky N, Katz AS, Ikar D (2000) What is beautiful is usable. Interact Comput 13(2):127–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dion KK, Berscheid E, Walster E (1972) What is beautiful is good. J Personal Social Psychol 24:285–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Thorndike EL (1920) A constant error in psychological ratings. J Appl Psychol 4(1):25–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hall RH, Hanna P (2004) The impact of web page text-background colour combinations on readability, retention, aesthetics and behavioural intention. Behav Inf Technol 23(3):183–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hartmann J, Sutcliffe A, De Angeli A (2007) Investigating attractiveness in web user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p 396

  18. Tractinsky N (1997) Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI, New York, ACM, pp 115–122

  19. Norman D (2004) Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Katz A (2010) Aesthetics, usefulness and performance in user-search-engine. Int J Appl Quant Methods 5(3):424–445

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tuch AN, Roth SP, Hornbæk K, Opwis K, Bargas-Avila JA (2012) Is beautiful really usable? Toward understanding the relation between usability, aesthetics, and affect in HCI. Comput Hum Behav 28(5):1596–1607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. De Angeli A, Sutcliffe A, Hartmann J (2006) Interaction, usability and aesthetics: What influences users’ preferences?. University Park, ‎College Town, pp 271–280

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lee S, Koubek RJ (2010) Understanding user preferences based on usability and aesthetics before and after actual use. Interact Comput 22(6):530–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sangwon L, Koubek RJ (2010) Understanding user preferences based on usability and aesthetics before and after actual use. Interact Comput 22(6):530–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Taebi O, Aldabbas H, Clarskon M (2013) Users’ perception towards usability and aesthetics design of travel websites. In: Proceedings of The International Conference on E-Commerce and Information Technology, vol 117, EcomIT & GBM, Sri Lanka

  26. Quinn JM, Tran TQ (2010) Attractive phones don’t have to work better: independent effects of attractiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency on perceived usability. In: CHI’10: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, pp 353–362

  27. McLellan S, Muddimer A, Peres SC (2012) The effect of experience on system usability scale ratings. J Usability Stud 7(2):56–67

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ip C, Law R, Lee H (2011) A review of website evaluation studies in the tourism and hospitality fields from 1996 to 2009. Int J Tour Res 13(3):234–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sokkar A, Law E (2013) Validating an episodic UX model on online shopping decision making: a survey study with B2C e-commerce. IN: Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, pp 297–306

  30. Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78(6):1360–1380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Herr PM, Kardes FR, Kim J (1991) Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. J Consum Res 17(4):454–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Smith D, Menon S, Sivakumar K (2005) Online peer and editorial recommendations, trust, and choice in virtual markets. J Interact Market 19(3):15–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pavlou PA, Dimoka A (2006) The nature and role of feedback text comments in online marketplaces: implications for trust building, price premiums, and seller differentiation. Inf Syst Res 17(4):392–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ba S, Pavlou PA (2002) Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in electronic markets: price premiums and buyer behavior. MIS Q 26(3):243–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Chevalier J (2006) The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book reviews. J Market Res 43(3):9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Vermeulen IE, Seegers D (2009) Tried and tested: the impact of online hotel reviews on consumer consideration. Tour Manag 30(1):123–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Voss B (1984) Slips of the ear: Investigations into the speech perception behaviour of German speakers of English. G. Narr, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  39. Chandy R, Gu H (2012) Identifying spam in the iOS app store. Paper Presented, pp 56–59. https://doi.org/10.1145/2184305.2184317

  40. Ellison G, Fudenberg D (1995) Word-of-mouth communication and social learning. Q J Econ 110(1):93–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118512

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Asch SE (1951) Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. In: Guetzkow H (ed) Groups, leadership and men. Carnegie Press, Pittsburgh, pp 177–190

    Google Scholar 

  42. Asch SE (1955) Opinions and social pressure. Sci Am 193:31–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Asch SE (1956) Studies of independence and conformity. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol Monogr 70(9):1–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Svahnberg M, Aurun A, Wohlin C (2008) Using students as subjects—an empirical evaluation. In: Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement ESEM ‘08. 288-290

  45. Druckman JN, Kam CD (2009) Students as experimental participants: a defense of the “narrow data base”*. SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1498843

  46. Brooke J (1986) System usability scale (SUS). © Digital Equipment Corporation, UK

  47. Moshagen M, Thielsch M (2012) A short version of the visual aesthetics of websites inventory. Behav Inf Technol 32(12):1305–1311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kruskal W (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47(260):583–621

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Kampstra P (2008) Beanplot: a boxplot alternative for visual comparison of distributions. J Stat Softw 28(1):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  50. Razali NM, Wah YB (2011) Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. J Stat Model Anal 2(1):21–33

    Google Scholar 

  51. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52(3/4):591–611

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Cramer D, Howitt D (2004) The SAGE dictionary of statistics. SAGE, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. Doane DP, Seward LE (2011) Measuring skewness. J Stat Educ 19(2):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Martin WE, Bridgmon K (2012) Quantitative and statistical research methods: from hypothesis to results. Wiley, Somerset

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Nordstokke DW, Zumbo BD, Cairns SL, Saklofske DH (2011) The operating characteristics of the nonparametric Levene test for equal variances with assessment and evaluation data. Pract Assess Res Eval 1(5):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  56. Rettig M (1991) Nobody reads documentation. Commun ACM 34(7):19–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Felder RM (1993) Reaching the second tier: learning and teaching styles in college science education. J Coll Sci Teach 23:286–290

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Milos Stojmenovic for creating the website data sample and thanks to Gitte Lindgaard for advice on previous related work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Milica Stojmenovic & Robert Biddle

  2. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    John Grundy

  3. Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

    Vivienne Farrell

Authors
  1. Milica Stojmenovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Biddle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Grundy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vivienne Farrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Milica Stojmenovic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stojmenovic, M., Biddle, R., Grundy, J. et al. The influence of textual and verbal word-of-mouth on website usability and visual appeal. J Supercomput 75, 1783–1830 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-018-2313-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-018-2313-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation