How Communication Modes Determine Website Satisfaction Brigitte Stangl, Astrid Dickinger
[email protected],
[email protected] Institute for Tourism and Leisure Studies, MODUL University Vienna
Agenda • • • • • • •
Study context Information search Research question Hypotheses development Research design Results Discussion
Study Context • Importance of Internet in tourism • Focus on system evaluation – Usability, ease of use, satisfaction website success, persuasiveness, accpetance.... (Parasuraman, et al. 2005, Kim and Fesenmaier 2009, Venkatesh et al. 2003, Barnes and Vidgen 2002, Davis et al. 1989, Davis et al. 2003)
• User characteristics – Demographics (Venkatesh et al. 2003), innovativeness and past experiance (Argawal and Prasad 1998), intrinsic motivation (Venkatesh 2000), voluntariness of use (Venkatesh et al. 2003), knowledge about the topic (Marchionini 1995), cultural differences (Chau et al. 2002)
Learning and searching... • Searching more analytical and less stimulus driven than browsing (Hoffman and Novak 1996; Janiszewski 1998)
• Pictoral elements and text based navigation metaphors lead to different ways of cognitive processing (Guttormsen et al. 2000)
• Navigation behavior connected to cognitive processes is closely linked to learning • Considered from the field of cognitive and educational psychology but not interdisciplinarily approached (Coffield et al 2004) We propose: • Explanation of satisfaction taking into account traditional website evaluation constructs and users‘ communication mode
Research Question Research on web‐site design gives indication on antecedents to satisfaction Not conclusive on influence of users‘ psychographic factors on antecedents Is there a difference regarding the website evaluation based on users’ preferred communication mode?
Hypotheses development • • • • •
Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) TAM extension (Davis, Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh, 2000) Website design (De Marsico and Levialdi, 2004; Norman, 2002) Content quality (Barnes and Vidgen, 2000) Perceived value directly effects outcome measures: – Positive word‐of‐mouth – Repurchase intention – Customer loyalty (Rust and Oliver, 1994; Zeithaml, Berry et al., 1996; Fornell, 1992; Croning and Brady et al., 2000; Moon and Kim, 2001)
Hypotheses development Usefulness H1 Ease of use
H2
Satisfaction
(Davis, 1989)
Hypotheses development • • • • •
Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) TAM extensions (Davis, Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh, 2000) Website design (De Marsico and Levialdi, 2004; Norman, 2002) Content quality (Barnes and Vidgen, 2000) Satisfaction directly effects outcome measures: – Positive word‐of‐mouth – Repurchase intention – Customer loyalty (Rust and Oliver, 1994; Zeithaml, Berry et al., 1996; Fornell, 1992; Croning and Brady et al., 2000; Moon and Kim, 2001)
Hypotheses development
Enjoyment
H3
Satisfaction
(Davis, 1989; Venkatesh, 2000)
Hypotheses development • • • • •
Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) TAM extension (Davis, Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh, 2000) Website design (De Marsico and Levialdi, 2004; Norman, 2002) Content quality (Barnes and Vidgen, 2000) Perceived value directly effects outcome measures: – Positive word‐of‐mouth – Repurchase intention – Customer loyalty (Rust and Oliver, 1994; Zeithaml, Berry et al., 1996; Fornell, 1992; Croning and Brady et al., 2000; Moon and Kim, 2001)
Hypotheses development
Satisfaction H4 Webseite design
(Norman, 2002; De Marsico and Levialdi, 2004)
Hypotheses development • • • • •
Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) TAM extension (Davis, Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh, 2000) Website design (De Marsico and Levialdi, 2004; Norman, 2002) Content quality (Barnes and Vidgen, 2000) Perceived value directly effects outcome measures: – Positive word‐of‐mouth – Repurchase intention – Customer loyalty (Rust and Oliver, 1994; Zeithaml, Berry et al., 1996; Fornell, 1992; Croning and Brady et al., 2000; Moon and Kim, 2001)
Hypotheses development
Satisfaction
H5 Content quality (Barnes and Vidgen, 2000; Oliver, 1997, Moon and Kim, 2001)
Hypotheses development • • • • •
Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) TAM extension (Davis, Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh, 2000) Website design (De Marsico and Levialdi, 2004; Norman, 2002) Content quality (Barnes and Vidgen, 2000) Satisfaction directly effects outcome measures: – Positive word‐of‐mouth – Repurchase intention – Customer loyalty (Rust and Oliver, 1994; Zeithaml, Berry et al., 1996; Fornell, 1992; Croning and Brady et al., 2000; Moon and Kim, 2001)
Hypotheses development
Satisfaction
H6
Loyalty
(Rust and Oliver, 1994; Zeithaml, Berry et al., 1996; Fornell, 1992; Cronin and Brady et al., 2000; Moon and Kim, 2001)
Hypotheses development • Communication mode – presenting information to match a person‘s perceptual/cognitive system (Guttormsen et al., 2000) • Examination of how people perceive information, come to a decision and interact with environment (Cassidy 2004) • Most use a mixture of styles (auditory, visual, tactile and kinaesthetic) but preferences exist (Woolridge 1995) – Sensors and Intuitors (Jung, 1971) – Verbalizer/Verbal and Visualizer/Imagery (Paivio, 1971; Richardson, 1977) – Analytic type and Intuitive type (Ornstein 1977, Sperry 1961)
• Relevance of styles to web page design mentioned but not further elaborated (Holtze 2000)
Research model Moderator: Verbalizer vs. Visualizer Usefulness
+ Ease of use
Enjoyment
Webseite design Content quality
+ ‐ ‐ +
Satisfaction
Loyalty
Methodology Researach setting: • Tourist information search Questionnaire: • Extensive literature review • Pretest • Reliability and validity • Intro text
Construct: Ease of use Usefulness
Adapted from: Davis, 1989
Enjoyment
Van der Heijden, 2003
Content quality
Barnes and Vidgen, 2000
Website design
Lee et al., 2002
Satisfaction Loyalty
Cronin and Brady, 2000; Oliver et al., 1997; Moon and Kim, 2001
Communication mode
Fleming and mIlls 1992, Felder and Soloman 1991
Analyses • SEM using Mplus • Moderators tested using multiple group analyis (Baron and Kenny 1986) • Change in beta coefficients not due to measurement error (Steenkamp & Baumgartner 1998)
Measurement Model • Items loaded in excess of .63 • AVE between .52 and .73 • CR between .81 and .92 • All thresholds exceeded
Sample Profile • 238 questionnaires – Verbalizer: 32% – Visualizer: 68%
• 44% female, 56% male • Average age: 28 years • 43% white collar workers, 40% students, 7% self employed • 83% using the Internet constantly or several times a day • 9% use the Internet once a day • 39% used the Internet for more than 10 years, 48% between 5 and 10 years
Results: Overall Model Usefulness 0.327
Ease of use
Enjoyment
n.s.
n.s.
Satisfaction
0.820
Loyalty
0.381
Webseite design
0.352 Fit indicator
Content quality
Value
TLI
0.920
CFI
0.929
RMSEA
0.060
Research model Moderator: Verbalizer vs. Visualizer Usefulness
Ease of use
Enjoyment
Webseite design Content quality
Satisfaction
Loyalty
Results: Multigroup analyses Overall Model
Verbalizer
Visualizer
H8a Usefulness ‐> Satisfaction
0.327
0.365
0.305
Satisfaction
n.s.
(0.125)
(‐0.018)
n.s.
H8c Enjoyment ‐> Satisfaction
n.s.
(0.040)
(‐0.114)
n.s.
H8d Website Design ‐> Satisfaction
0.381
(0.147)
0.497
Satisfaction
0.411
0.391
0.319
