No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Effects of Structural and Perceptual Factors on Attitudes toward the Website
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 March 2004
Abstract
This study examined effects of structural and perceptual variables on attitude toward websites. Data were collected from 311 consumers who reviewed four hotel websites. The sites were structurally different in terms of having high versus low number of features and also in terms of informational versus transformational creative strategies. Involvement and perceived interactivity were the two perceptual variables examined in the study. Involvement with the subject of a site and the subdimension of perceived interactivity that measured level of engagement were the best predictors of attitude. Positive attitudes were also associated with sites that took advantage of web-specific features such as virtual tours and online reservations systems. A key implication of this study is the need for advertisers and researchers to reconsider advertising in the context of the web. Radio and television required advertisers to adjust to the new concepts of buying and selling time instead of space and of incorporating aural and visual appeals in messages. The web demands that advertisers adjust to a new medium that is not bound by either space or time and that has the technical capability to involve and engage the consumer.This study was funded in part by grants from the University of Tennessee Scholarly Activities Research Initiative Fund (SARIF) and the Department of Advertising and College of Communication at the University of Tennessee.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © Copyright © 1960-2003, The ARF
References
REFERENCES
Aaker, D.A., and
D.E. Bruzzone.
“Viewer Perceptions of Prime-Time Television
Advertising.”
Journal of Advertising Research
21, 5
(1985):
15–23.Google Scholar
Bezjian-Avery, A.,
B. Calder, and
D. Iacobucci.
“New Media Interactive Advertising vs. Traditional
Advertising.”
Journal of Advertising Research
38, 4
(1998):
23–32.Google Scholar
Brackett, L.K., and
B.N. Carr.
“Cyberspaces Advertising vs. Other Media: Consumer vs. Mature
Student Attitudes.”
Journal of Advertising Research
41, 5
(2001):
23–32.Google Scholar
Brown, S.P., and
D.M. Staymen.
“Antecedents and Consequences of Attitude Toward the Ad: A
Meta-Analysis.”
Journal of Consumer Research
19, 1
(1992):
34–51.Google Scholar
Bruner, G.C., II, and
A. Kumar.
“Web Commercials and Advertising Hierarchy-of-Effects.”
Journal of Advertising Research
40, 1/2
(2000):
35–42.Google Scholar
Chen, Q., and
W.D. Wells.
“Attitude Toward the Site.”
Journal of Advertising Research
39, 5
(1999):
27–37.Google Scholar
Cho, C.H.
“How Advertising Works on the WWW: Modified Elaboration
Likelihood Model.”
Current Issues and Research in Advertising
21, 1
(1999):
33–55.Google Scholar
Cho, C.H., and
J.D. Leckenby.
“Interactivity as a Measure of Advertising
Effectiveness.” In
Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising,
M.S. Roberts, ed.
Gainesville, FL:
University of Florida,
1999.
Cho, C.H.,
J.-G. Lee, and
M. Tharp.
“Different Forced-Exposure Levels to Banner
Advertisements.”
Journal of Advertising Research
41, 4
(2001):
45–56.Google Scholar
Choi, Y.K.,
G.E. Miracle, and
F. Biocca.
“The Effects of Anthropomorphic Agents on Advertising
Effectiveness and the Mediating Role of Presence.”
Journal of Interactive Advertising
2, 1
(2001):
http://joia.org.Google Scholar
Coyle, J.R., and
E. Thorson.
“The Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and
Vividness in Web Marketing Sites.”
Journal of Advertising
30, 3
(2001):
65–77.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M.
“Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior.” In
Attitude Theory and Measurement,
M. Fishbein, ed.
New York:
John Wiley,
1967.
Frazer, C., and
S.J. McMillan.
“Sophistication on the World Wide Web: Evaluating Structure,
Function, and Commercial Goals of Web Sites.” In
Advertising and the World Wide Web,
D. Schumann, and
E. Thorson, eds.
Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
1999.
Ha, L., and
L. James.
“Interactivity Reexamined: A Baseline Analysis of Early
Business Web Sites.”
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media
42, 4
(1998):
457–74.Google Scholar
Haley, R.I., and
A.L. Baldinger.
“The ARF Copy Research Validity Project.”
Journal of Advertising Research
31, 2
(1991):
11–32.Google Scholar
Hwang, J.S., and
S.J. McMillan.
The Role of Interactivity and Involvement in Attitude toward the
Web Site.
Paper presented at the American Academy of Advertising,
Jacksonville, FL,
March 2002.
Hwang, J.S.,
S.J. McMillan, and
G. Lee.
“Corporate Web Sites as Advertising: An Analysis of Function,
Audience, and Message Strategy.”
Journal of Interactive Advertising
3, 2
(2003):
http://jiad.org.Google Scholar
Lord, K.R.,
M. Lee, and
P.L. Sauer.
“The Combined Influence Hypothesis: Central and Peripheral
Antecedents of Attitude toward the Ad.”
Journal of Advertising
24, 1
(1995):
73–85.Google Scholar
Lynn, G.S.,
S.M. Lipp,
A.E. Akgun, and
A. Crotez, Jr.
“Factors Impacting the Adoption and Effectiveness of the
World Wide Web in Marketing.”
Industrial Marketing Management
31
(2002):
35–49.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, S.B.,
R.J. Lutz, and
G.E. Belch.
“The Role of Attitude toward the Ad as a Mediator of
Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations.”
Journal of Marketing Research
23, 2
(1986):
130–43.Google Scholar
Massey, B.L., and
M.R. Levy.
“Interactivity, Online Journalism, and English-Language Web
Newspapers in Asia.”
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly
76, 1
(1999):
138–51.Google Scholar
McMillan, S.J.
“Who Pays for Content? Funding in Interactive Media.”
Journal of Computer Mediated Communication
4, 1
(1998):
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue1/mcmillan.html.Google Scholar
McMillan, S.J.
“Interactivity is in the Eye of the Beholder: Function,
Perception, Involvement, and Attitude toward the Web Site.” In
Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising,
M.A. Shaver, ed.
East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University,
2000.
McMillan, S.J.
“A Four-Part Model of Cyber-Interactivity: Some Cyber-Places
Are More Interactive than Others.”
New Media and Society
4, 2
(2002):
271–91.Google Scholar
McMillan, S.J., and
J.S. Hwang.
“Measures of Perceived Interactivity: An Exploration of
Communication, User Control, and Time in Shaping Perceptions of
Interactivity.”
Journal of Advertising
31, 3
(2002):
41–54.Google Scholar
Pavlou, P.A., and
D.W. Stewart.
“Measuring the Effects and Effectiveness of Interactive
Advertising: A Research Agenda.”
Journal of Interactive Advertising
1, 1
(2000):
http://jiad.org/vol1/no1/pavlou.Google Scholar
Perry, M., and
C.D. Bodkin.
“Fortune 500 Manufacturer Web Sites: Innovative Marketing
Strategies or Cyberbrochures?”
Industrial Marketing Management
31
(2002):
133–44.Google Scholar
Petty, R.E., and
J.T. Cacioppo.
“Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion.” In
Advertising and Consumer Psychology,
L. Percy, and
A.G. Woodside, eds.
Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books,
1983.
Puto, C.P., and
W.D. Wells.
“Informational and Transformational Advertising: The
Different Effects of Time.”
Advanced Consumer Research
11
(1984):
638–43.Google Scholar
Rodgers, S., and
E. Thorson.
“The Interactive Advertising Model: How Users Perceive and
Process Online Ads.”
Journal of Interactive Advertising
1, 1
(2000):
http://jiad.org/vol1/no1/rodgers/index.html.Google Scholar
Schultz, T.
“Interactive Options in Online Journalism: A Content Analysis
of 100 U.S. Newspapers.”
Journal of Computer Mediated Communication
5, 1
(1999):
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol5/issue1/schultz.html.Google Scholar
Shamdasani, P.N.,
A.J.S. Stanaland, and
J. Tan.
“Location, Location, Location: Insights for Advertising
Placement on the Web.”
Journal of Advertising Research
41, 4
(2001):
7–21.Google Scholar
Shimp, T.A.
“Attitude toward the Ad as a Mediator of Consumer Brand
Choice.”
Journal of Advertising
10, 2
(1981):
9–15.Google Scholar
Silk, A.J.,
L.R. Klein, and
E.R. Berndt.
“The Emerging Position of the Internet as an Advertising
Medium.”
Netnomics
3
(2001):
129–48.Google Scholar
Singh, S.N., and
N.P. Dalal.
“Web Pages as Advertisements.”
Communications of the ACM
42, 8
(1999):
91–98.Google Scholar
Stevenson, J.S.,
G.C. Bruner II, and
A. Kumar.
“Webpage Background and Viewer Attitudes.”
Journal of Advertising Research
40, 1/2
(2000):
29–34.Google Scholar
Sundar, S.S.,
S. Narayan,
R. Obregon, and
C. Uppal.
“Does Web Advertising Work? Memory for Print vs. Online
Media.”
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly
75, 4
(1998):
822–35.Google Scholar
Taylor, R.E.
“A Six-Segment Message Strategy Wheel.”
Journal of Advertising Research
39, 6
(1999):
6–17.Google Scholar
Tremayne, M., and
S. Dunwoody.
“Interactivity, Information Processing, and Learning on the
World Wide Web.”
Science Communication
23, 2
(2001):
111–34.Google Scholar
Wells, W.D., and
Q. Chen.
“The Dimensions of Commercial Cyberspace.”
Journal of Interactive Advertising
1, 1
(2000):
http://jiad.org/vol1/no1/wells/index.html.Google Scholar
Williams, F.,
S. Strover, and
A.E. Grant.
“Social Aspects of New Media Technologies.” In
Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research,
J. Bryant, and
D. Zillman, eds.
Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,
1994.
Wu, G.
“Perceived Interactivity and Attitude toward
Website.” In
Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising,
M.S. Roberts, ed.
Gainesville, FL:
University of Florida,
1999.
Yoo, C.Y., and
P.A. Stout.
“Factors Affecting Users' Interactivity with the Web
Site and the Consequences of Users' Interactivity.” In
Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the American Academy of
Advertising,
C.R. Taylor, ed.
Villanova, PA:
Villanova University,
2001.
Yoon, S.-J.
“What Makes the Internet a Choice of Advertising
Medium?”
Electronic Markets
11, 3
(2001):
155–62.Google Scholar
Zaichkowsky, J.L.
“Measuring the Involvement Construct.”
Journal of Consumer Research
12, 3
(1985):
341–52.Google Scholar