Effects of specialization in computers, web sites, and web agents on e-commerce trust

Suppose you went shopping online for wines and visited several sites, each recommending particular reds and whites. Which kind of site are you likely to trust more-costco.com or wine.com? The specialization implied by the latter suggests more expertise in the domain of wines. Does it mean that you are more likely to purchase wines recommended by sites such as wine.com and vintagecellars.com.au than those recommended by generalist sites such as costco.com and samsclub.com? Our study attempts to answer this question by experimentally investigating how specialization in media technology (specifically, web agent, web site, and computer) influences individuals' perception and attitudes towards sources in online communication, particularly consumer trust and purchase behaviors in e-commerce. All subjects (N=124) went to a specially constructed online site with a virtual shopping cart for a wine-purchasing task, as part of a 2 (specialist vs. generalist web agent)x2 (specialist vs. generalist web site)x2 (specialist computer vs. generalist computer) between-subjects experiment. Results indicate significant main effects and interactions of the agent, site, and computer specialization on trust and purchase decision time. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

[1]  D. Campbell,et al.  Recency and primacy in persuasion as a function of the timing of speeches and measurements. , 1959, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[2]  S. Chaiken.  Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. , 1980 .

[3]  Steven L. Neuberg,et al.  A Continuum of Impression Formation, from Category-Based to Individuating Processes: Influences of Information and Motivation on Attention and Interpretation , 1990 .

[4]  Donnavieve N. Smith,et al.  Online Peer and Editorial Recommendations, Trust, and Choice in Virtual Markets , 2005 .

[5]  R. Solomon,et al.  Building Trust: In Business, Politics, Relationships, and Life , 2001 .

[6]  R. Norman,et al.  When what is said is important: A comparison of expert and attractive sources , 1976 .

[7]  E. Langer,et al.  Matters of mind: Mindfulness/mindlessness in perspective , 1992, Consciousness and Cognition.

[8]  C. Nass,et al.  Technology and Roles: A Tale of Two TVs , 1996 .

[9]  M. R. Leippe,et al.  The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence , 1991 .

[10]  C. Nass,et al.  Voices, boxes, and sources of messages: Computers and social actors. , 1993 .

[11]  C. Nass,et al.  Machines and Mindlessness , 2000 .

[12]  Gail D. Heyman,et al.  Carrot-Eaters and Creature-Believers: The Effects of Lexicalization on Children's Inferences About Social Categories , 1999 .

[13]  Tor Guimaraes,et al.  Assessing the impact of internet agent on end users' performance , 2005, Decis. Support Syst..

[14]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust , 1998 .

[15]  Norman L. Chervany,et al.  What Trust Means in E-Commerce Customer Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Conceptual Typology , 2001, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[16]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

[17]  Matthew K. O. Lee,et al.  A Trust Model for Consumer Internet Shopping , 2001, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[18]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust , 1995 .

[19]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion , 1986, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

[20]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Validation Guidelines for IS Positivist Research , 2004, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[21]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Web credibility research: a method for online experiments and early study results , 2001, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[22]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Switching channels: The effects of television channels on the mental representations of television news , 1998 .

[23]  Devon S. Johnson,et al.  Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships , 2005 .

[24]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Machines, social attributions, and ethopoeia: performance assessments of computers subsequent to "self-" or "other-" evaluations , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[25]  C. Staats,et al.  Attitudes established by classical conditioning. , 1958, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[26]  Katia P. Sycara,et al.  Adding security and trust to multiagent systems , 2000, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[27]  Heike Schaumburg,et al.  A picture says more than a thousand words: photographs as trust builders in e-commerce websites , 2002, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[28]  C. Nass,et al.  Conceptualizing Sources in Online News , 2001 .

[29]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Source Orientation in Human-Computer Interaction , 2000, Commun. Res..

[30]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[31]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Trust In and Adoption of Online Recommendation Agents , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[32]  S. Chaiken.  The heuristic model of persuasion. , 1987 .

[33]  R. W. Rogers,et al.  Effects of source expertness, physical attractiveness, and supporting arguments on persuasion: A case of brains over beauty. , 1980 .

[34]  David Gefen,et al.  Reflections on the dimensions of trust and trustworthiness among online consumers , 2002, Data Base.

[35]  D. Hamilton,et al.  Stereotype‐Based Expectancies: Effects on Information Processing and Social Behavior , 1990 .

[36]  Felix B. Tan,et al.  Online Consumer Trust: A Multi-Dimensional Model , 2004, J. Electron. Commer. Organ..

[37]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Recommendation Agents for Electronic Commerce: Effects of Explanation Facilities on Trusting Beliefs , 2007, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[38]  Justine Cassell,et al.  Embodied conversational interface agents , 2000, CACM.

[39]  Joseph P. Cannon,et al.  An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer–Seller Relationships: , 1997 .

[40]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  What makes Web sites credible?: a report on a large quantitative study , 2001, CHI.

[41]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. , 1989 .

[42]  Susan Wiedenbeck,et al.  On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[43]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches , 1981 .

[44]  Richard L. Miller,et al.  Mere Exposure, Psychological Reactance and Attitude Change , 1976 .

[45]  Matthew K. O. Lee,et al.  Trust in Internet Shopping: Instrument Development and Validation through Classical and Modern Approaches , 2001, J. Glob. Inf. Manag..

[46]  L. Hosmer.  TRUST: THE CONNECTING LINK BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY AND PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS , 1995 .

[47]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An integrative model of organizational trust, Academy of Management Review, : . , 1995 .

[48]  Blake E. Ashforth,et al.  The Ubiquity and Potency of Labeling in Organizations , 1997 .

[49]  N. Moray,et al.  Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. , 1996, Ergonomics.

[50]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  THE USE AND ABUSE OF FACTOR ANALYSIS IN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH , 1979 .

[51]  Syed Saad Andaleeb,et al.  Factors Influencing Customer Trust in Salespersons in a Developing Country , 1996 .

[52]  Charles J. Kacmar,et al.  Developing and Validating Trust Measures for e-Commerce: An Integrative Typology , 2002, Inf. Syst. Res..