„FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU...“

Group 3Christiana Kirsten

Christiane Kwamena

TwinTide AUtumn Training SchOol 2013:

REsearch Methods for Human-Computer Interaction (TUTOREM 2013)

http://www.adriansnood.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Firstimpressions.jpg

http://www.adriansnood.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Firstimpressions.jpg

THE FIRST IMPRESSION

studies showed: 50 ms is enough to make a reliable first impression of a website

How crucial is it to make a good first impression?

Primary proposer: Dr. Alexandre Tuch

http://www.designdecoy.com/5-ways-smart-businesses-make-great-first-impression

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

How does a first impression with a website effect how users rate it after an error?

How does prior error with a website effect user‘s first impressions of a visually similar website?

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

positivist experimental approach (quantitative)

establish whether the effect occurs

variables have been proven to be measurable

interpretist approach (qualitative)

establish causes why the phenomena occurred

explain any effect found

Good impression WS

very good first impression, could lead to

high expectations

which then might lead to

big disappointment after an error occurs

appe

al sc

ale

very good

very bad

Average impression WS

moderate first impression, could prevent the development of

high expectations

which then might lead to

less disappointment after an error occurs

appe

al sc

ale

very good

very bad

Good impression WSAverage impression WS

appe

al sc

ale

very good

very badPhase 1: between-subjects

H0: an error has no effect on the appeal rating

H1: very good impressions will lead to a large drop in appeal rating after an error

H2: very good impressions will lead to a significantly larger drop in appeal rating after an error than average impressions

HYPOTHESES

Good impression WSSimilar good impression WSAverage impression WSSimilar average impression WS

appe

al sc

ale

very good

very badPhase 2: within-subjects

HYPOTHESES

H0: an error has no effect on ratings of visually similar websites

H1: following an error in a good impression website, a visually similar website will be rated lower than the initial one

H2: following an error in an average impression website, a visually similar website will not be rated significantly lower than the initial one

STUDY

Participants

Materials

Design

Analysis

n = 100, randomly recruited, familiar with IT, no experience with web design

desktop computers, 12 websites (collected through a pre-study of appeal rating and visual similarity)

Phase #1: between-subjectsPhase #2: within subjects

independent variable: appeal of website with error (good / average)dependent variable: appeal rating (first impression, after error, first impression of visually similar WS)

ANOVA

appeal scale

random WS

appeal scale

50 ms

60 s

PROCEDURE

random WS

appeal scale

50 ms

3 random WS(rated for appeal)

appeal scale

appeal scale

50 ms

60 s, then error

5 random WS(rated for appeal)

PROCEDURE

CONTRIBUTIONS TO HCI

„Keep your promises!“

first impression may not be the most important thing to strive for - one should live up to the expectations one evokes

„Don‘t be a copycat!“

if the copied (popular) website fails, this might impact the first impression of your website

your website might promise more, than you can deliver

RISKS

confounding variables:

error was not attributed to the website

worse appeal of visually similar website was not caused by the prior error

scale might be inappropriate to measure appeal after interaction

Qualitative follow-up study may clarify this