Impact of Information Presentation Format on User Decision-making: A Format-stage Fit Perspective

With the growing popularity of online videos, understanding the role of information presentation format in online decision-making becomes crucial. Existing research in information systems and marketing have looked at information presentation formats and online reviews but very little research has considered the fit between online review presentation format and decision-making stage. In this research we are primarily interested in developing the novel concept of format-stage fit, based on the notion that reviews’ presentation formats have a varying impact on users’ perceptions when users are in different decision-making stages. Accordingly, we propose that a review in pallid format (e.g., text) may be a better fit in choice-reduction stage whereas a review in vivid format (e.g., video) may be a better fit in choice-selection stage. We conduct a lab study to test the research model. The findings are expected to enhance our understanding of information presentation and decision making in online commerce.

[1]  A. Stephen,et al.  In Mobile We Trust: The Effects of Mobile Versus Nonmobile Reviews on Consumer Purchase Intentions , 2019, Journal of Marketing Research.

[2]  D. Gursoy.  A critical review of determinants of information search behavior and utilization of online reviews in decision making process (invited paper for ‘luminaries’ special issue of International Journal of Hospitality Management) , 2019, International Journal of Hospitality Management.

[3]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Says Who? The Effects of Presentation Format and Source Rating on Fake News in Social Media , 2019, MIS Q..

[4]  Carlos Flavián,et al.  The influence of online product presentation videos on persuasion and purchase channel preference: The role of imagery fluency and need for touch , 2017, Telematics Informatics.

[5]  Chuan-Hoo Tan,et al.  Sequentiality of Product Review Information Provision: An Information Foraging Perspective , 2017, MIS Q..

[6]  Elena Karahanna,et al.  The Dark Side of Reviews: The Swaying Effects of Online Product Reviews on Attribute Preference Construction , 2017, MIS Q..

[7]  Paul A. Pavlou,et al.  On Self-Selection Biases in Online Product Reviews , 2017, MIS Q..

[8]  Tibert Verhagen,et al.  Making Online Products More Tangible: The Effect of Product Presentation Formats on Product Evaluations , 2016, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[9]  Wenqi Zhou,et al.  Do Professional Reviews Affect Online User Choices Through User Reviews? An Empirical Study , 2016, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Liang Chen,et al.  Will video be the next generation of e-commerce product reviews? Presentation format and the role of product type , 2015, Decis. Support Syst..

[11]  Chuan-Hoo Tan,et al.  Comprehension and Assessment of Product Reviews: A Review-Product Congruity Proposition , 2013, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[12]  Matthew L. Jensen,et al.  Credibility of Anonymous Online Product Reviews: A Language Expectancy Perspective , 2013, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[13]  Thomas Hess,et al.  Differential Effects of Provider Recommendations and Consumer Reviews in E-Commerce Transactions: An Experimental Study , 2012, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Yong Tan,et al.  Social Networks and the Diffusion of User-Generated Content: Evidence from YouTube , 2012, Inf. Syst. Res..

[15]  A. Kalra,et al.  When Trade-Offs Matter: The Effect of Choice Construal on Context Effects , 2011 .

[16]  Jason Q. Zhang,et al.  When does electronic word-of-mouth matter? A study of consumer product reviews☆ , 2010 .

[17]  Carlos Flavián Blanco,et al.  Effects of visual and textual information in online product presentations: looking for the best combination in website design , 2010, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[18]  David Schuff,et al.  What Makes a Helpful Review? A Study of Customer Reviews on Amazon.com , 2010 .

[19]  Soo Young Rieh,et al.  Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context , 2008, Inf. Process. Manag..

[20]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Investigating the Influence of the Functional Mechanisms of Online Product Presentations , 2007 .

[21]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Effects of Presentation Formats and Task Complexity on Online Consumers' Product Understanding , 2007, MIS Q..

[22]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media Synchronicity , 2008, MIS Q..

[23]  Arnold Kamis,et al.  Using an Attribute-Based Decision Support System for User-Customized Products Online: An Experimental Investigation , 2008, MIS Q..

[24]  Elena Karahanna,et al.  The Relative Advantage of Electronic Channels: A Multidimensional View , 2008, MIS Q..

[25]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Research Note: The Influence of Recommendations and Consumer Reviews on Evaluations of Websites , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[26]  Wendy W. Moe.  An Empirical Two-Stage Choice Model with Varying Decision Rules Applied to Internet Clickstream Data , 2006 .

[27]  Amitav Chakravarti,et al.  The Neglect of Prescreening Information , 2006 .

[28]  Mark A. Fuller,et al.  Involvement and Decision-Making Performance with a Decision Aid: The Influence of Social Multimedia, Gender, and Playfulness , 2005, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[29]  Stephen M. Nowlis,et al.  The Effect of a Delay between Choice and Consumption on Consumption Enjoyment , 2004 .

[30]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: The Promise of Multimedia Learning , 2001 .

[31]  Nada Nasr Bechwati,et al.  Do Computers Sweat? The Impact of Perceived Effort of Online Decision Aids on Consumers’ Satisfaction With the Decision Process , 2003 .

[32]  Frank Biocca,et al.  The Role of Virtual Experience in Consumer Learning , 2003 .

[33]  R. Peterson.  On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research: Insights from a Second‐Order Meta‐analysis , 2001 .

[34]  Joel Huber,et al.  The Impact of Anticipating Satisfaction on Consumer Choice , 2000 .

[35]  Chin Tiong Tan,et al.  Marketing Management: An Asian Perspective , 1998 .

[36]  Stuart K. Card,et al.  Information foraging in information access environments , 1995, CHI '95.

[37]  E. Coupey.  Restructuring: Constructive Processing of Information Displays in Consumer Choice , 1994 .

[38]  Elizabeth Cooper-Martin,et al.  Measures of cognitive effort , 1994 .

[39]  Lee Roy Beach,et al.  Image theory: an Alternative to Normative Decision theory , 1993 .

[40]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Cognitive Fit: A Theory‐Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature* , 1991 .

[41]  Joan K. Gallini,et al.  When Is an Illustration Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1990 .

[42]  K. B. Murray,et al.  The impact of services versus goods on consumers’ assessment of perceived risk and variability , 1990 .

[43]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[44]  John W. Payne,et al.  Effort and Accuracy in Choice , 1985 .

[45]  Gabriel J. Biehal,et al.  Information-Presentation Format and Learning Goals as Determinants of Consumers' Memory Retrieval and Choice Processes , 1982 .

[46]  Russell W. Belk,et al.  Effects of Gift-Giving Involvement on Gift Selection Strategies , 1982 .

[47]  L. Ross,et al.  Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. , 1981 .

[48]  Jay J.J. Christensen-Szalanski,et al.  Problem solving strategies: A selection mechanism, some implications, and some data. , 1978 .

[49]  J. Bettman,et al.  Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies , 1977 .

[50]  Werner Severin,et al.  Another look at cue summation , 1967 .

[51]  Lee K. Anderson,et al.  The Consumer and His Alternatives: An Experimental Approach , 1966 .

[52]  W. Day,et al.  A Survey of the Research Literature Comparing the Visual and Auditory Presentation of Information , 1950 .