Content uploaded by Marshall Scott Poole
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marshall Scott Poole
Content may be subject to copyright.
Deng & Poole/Impacts of Web Page Visual Complexity and Order–Appendices
RESEARCH ARTICLE
AFFECT IN WEB INTERFACES: A STUDY OF THE IMPACTS OF
WEB PAGE VISUAL COMPLEXITY AND ORDER
By: Liqiong Deng
Richards College of Business
University of West Georgia
1601 Maple Street
Carrollton, GA 30118
U.S.A.
jdeng@westga.edu
Marshall Scott Poole
Department of Communication
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1207 W. Oregon Street
Urbana, IL 61801
U.S.A.
mspoole@illinois.edu
Appendix A
Experimental Stimuli
We conducted two pilot studies to select the appropriate e-commerce website type and contents for the homepage stimuli. The purpose of Pilot
Study 1 was to select a website category with which subjects are not familiar, for which they show neither liking nor disliking, but have some
interests in browsing. Unfamiliarity with the website was required because familiarity with a certain category of website may influence
perceived complexity of (Radocy and Boyle 1988) and liking for the webpage stimuli (Bornstein 1989; Zajonc 2000). We needed a website
for which subjects showed neither liking nor disliking so that the manipulation of webpage stimuli in the experiment could be assumed to be
the major influence on their reported emotional responses and approach tendencies. To have some degree of interest in browsing the website
is necessary for subjects to engage in experiential web-browsing activities with the webpage stimuli. Based on the results of Pilot Study 1, we
selected the gifts website as the context for the experimental stimuli. Then, we conducted Pilot Study 2 to identify appropriate gift items to
be included in the webpage stimuli. Thirteen gift items, which were shown to elicit neutral affect in the subjects and to be of some interest to
the subjects for browsing or purchase, were selected for the website.
Utilizing Geissler et al.’s (2001) findings regarding the influence of amount of text, number of links, and number of graphics on user’s perceived
complexity of webpage, we designed four levels of complexity (complexity increases from level 1 to level 4) into the experimental stimuli by
manipulating the number of links, number of graphics, and amount of text (see Table A1).
We also manipulated webpage order at three levels (order increases from level 1 to level 3) by arranging the layout of webpage elements.
According to our definition of order, webpage order is related to the logical organization, coherence, and clarity of webpage content. We used
logical organization as a starting point for our design of webpage stimuli at lower and higher levels of order, since logical organization is the
most fundamental component upon which coherence and clarity are built. upon. Three levels of webpage order were operationalized and
designed into the webpage stimuli through the following steps:
MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 4, Deng & Poole, Appendices/December 2010 A1
Deng & Poole/Impacts of Web Page Visual Complexity and Order–Appendices
Table A1. Manipulation of Webpage Visual Complexity
Level 1 Complexity Level 2 Complexity Level 3 Complexity Level 4 Complexity
Number of Links 12 16 33 54
Number of Graphics 2 4 8 14
Number of Text 33 40 57 118
First, we identified the webpage elements to be included in the webpage stimuli that are designed at a certain level of complexity.
Second, we determined the logical position of each webpage element in the web space in order to make them obviously identifiable or easily
recognizable by users. This was achieved by arranging the placement of webpage elements in the web space following the conventions of
website design. A user generally draws on his/her memory of past experience with websites as a reference when navigating websites. There-
fore, we operationalized logical organization by conforming to the conventional guidelines for arranging the positions of different webpage
elements in relation to each other in the web space. For instance, to comply with the habit of browsing a webpage from top to bottom and left
to right, we (1) placed the company name in the most prominent webpage location, the top left corner, (2) put the primary navigation bar on
the top of webpage just to the right of company name, (3) positioned the content navigation menu on the left of webpage below the company
name, and (4) placed the content area in the center of webpage to the right of content navigation menu and below the primary navigation bar.
The webpage stimuli designed at this stage were labeled as Level 2 Order, which served as basis for the design of other two levels of order:
Level 1 Order and Level 3 Order.
Third, we designed Level 1 Order by using free-form layout of webpage elements, each of which was displaced from its logical position so
as to attain a low level of order without any sense of logical organization.
Fourth, Level 3 Order was built on the Level 2 Order by applying the alignment and grouping design tools to associate similar or related
elements and differentiate unrelated elements.
To test the effectiveness of our manipulation of webpage visual complexity and order, we performed Pilot Study 3, in which two independent
samples of subjects were recruited. One sample was assigned to rank order the webpage stimuli according to their paired similarities, and the
other sample rated each webpage on its degree of complexity and order as well as their preference for it under telic and paratelic meta-
motivational states. The MDS (multidimensional scaling) results of Pilot Study 3 demonstrated the effectiveness of our manipulations of
webpage visual complexity and order as factors accounting for the perceptual similarity/dissimilarity among the webpage stimuli and
influencing the perceived complexity and order of the stimuli as well as subjects’ preference for them.
The 12 homepage stimuli are presented below.
References
Bornstein, R. F. 1989. “Exposure and Affect: Overview and Meta-analysis of Research 1968–1987,” Psychological Bulletin (106), pp.
265-289.
Geissler, G., Zinkhan, G., and Watson, R. 2001. “Web Home Page Complexity and Communication Effectiveness,” Journal of the Association
of the Information Systems (2:2), pp. 1-46.
Radocy, R., and Boyle, D. 1988. Psychological Foundations of Musical Behavior, Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Zajonc, R. B. 2000. “Feeling and Thinking: Closing the Debate over the Independence of Affect,” in Feeling and Thinking: The Role of
Affect in Social Cognition, J. P. Forgas (ed.), New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31-58.
A2 MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 4, Deng & Poole, Appendices/December 2010
Deng & Poole/Impacts of Web Page Visual Complexity and Order–Appendices
Stimulus C101 Stimulus C102
Stimulus C103 Stimulus C201
MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 4, Deng & Poole, Appendices/December 2010 A3
Deng & Poole/Impacts of Web Page Visual Complexity and Order–Appendices
Stimulus C202 Stimulus C203
Stimulus C301 Stimulus C302
A4 MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 4, Deng & Poole, Appendices/December 2010
Deng & Poole/Impacts of Web Page Visual Complexity and Order–Appendices
Stimulus C303 Stimulus C401
Stimulus C402 Stimulus C403
MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 4, Deng & Poole, Appendices/December 2010 A5
Deng & Poole/Impacts of Web Page Visual Complexity and Order–Appendices
Appendix B
Scenarios for Induction of Telic and Paratelic States
Scenario for Induction of Telic State
One of your friends’ birthday is just around the corner. You want to buy a gift for him/her, but you don’t have a lot of time to shop around.
You plan to spend 10 to 20 minutes. So, you think of going to a gift website on the Internet to buy a birthday gift for your friend. In order to
quickly find a gift for your friend online, you turn on the computer, open Internet Explorer, and go to the Google search engine. You search
for gift websites by typing in “gifts” in the keywords space. You click on the first website link in the resulting list. As the website homepage
loads on your computer screen, you start looking through the webpage.
Scenario for Induction of Paratelic State
It is shortly after noon on a Saturday. You’re surfing on the Internet at home. You’re not looking for anything specific online. Instead, you’re
taking your time browsing various websites and checking out some fun stuff. All you want to do is to spend several enjoyable hours online
by yourself. As you’re browsing the Internet looking for fun and enjoyment, a banner advertisement for a gift website attracts your attention.
You want to visit the website and see if you can find some interesting stuff for your friends. You click on the banner, which opens another
IE window. As the website homepage loads on your computer screen, you start browsing through the webpage.
Appendix C
Instrumental Scales
Arousal (–3 = significantly, –2 = quite, –1 = slightly, 0 = neither, 1 = slightly, 2 = quite, 3 = significantly)
• The webpage makes me feel stimulated/relaxed (R).
• The webpage makes me feel calm/excited.
• The webpage makes me feel frenzied/sluggish (R).
• The webpage makes me feel unaroused/aroused.
• The webpage makes me feel jittery/dull (R).
• The webpage makes me feel wide-awake/sleepy.
Pleasantness (–3 = significantly, –2 = quite, –1 = slightly, 0 = neither, 1 = slightly, 2 = quite, 3 = significantly)
• The webpage makes me feel happy/unhappy (R).
• The webpage makes me feel annoyed/pleased.
• The webpage makes me feel satisfied/unsatisfied (R).
• The webpage makes me feel melancholic/contented.
• The webpage makes me feel hopeful/despairing(R).
• The webpage makes me feel uncomfortable/comfortable.
Approach–Avoidance Tendency (7 = strongly agree, 6 = agree, 5 = somewhat agree, 4 = neutral, 3 = somewhat disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 =
strongly disagree):
• I would enjoy visiting this website.
• I like to spend much time browsing this website.
• I would try to leave this website as soon as possible (reversed).
• I would avoid getting back to this website after I have left it (reversed).
• I want to avoid exploring or investigating this website (reversed).
• I like this website.
• I would avoid any unplanned activity in this website.
• I would be satisfied with this website.
• I would have a positive attitude toward this website.
A6 MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 4, Deng & Poole, Appendices/December 2010
Deng & Poole/Impacts of Web Page Visual Complexity and Order–Appendices
MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 4, Deng & Poole, Appendices/December 2010 A7
Deng & Poole/Impacts of Web Page Visual Complexity and Order–Appendices
A8 MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 4, Deng & Poole, Appendices/December 2010
Deng & Poole/Impacts of Web Page Visual Complexity and Order–Appendices
Table D3. Factor Loadings and Item Reliability
Constructs and Their Indicators
Factor
Loading T Value SE
Composite
Reliability
Arousal 0.92
Arsl1 0.75 17.81 0.053
Arsl2 0.80 19.46 0.050
Arsl3 0.82 20.47 0.044
Arsl4 0.75 17.82 0.052
Arsl5 0.81 19.91 0.046
Arsl6 0.69 15.91 0.050
Pleasantness 0.93
Plst1 0.72 17.30 0.046
Plst2 0.88 23.28 0.048
Plst3 0.83 21.18 0.050
Plst4 0.78 19.27 0.046
Plst5 0.82 20.92 0.048
Plst6 0.72 17.24 0.051
Approach/Avoidance Behavior 0.98
Apb1 0.95 27.05 0.060
Apb2 0.92 25.62 0.060
Apb3 0.94 26.46 0.060
Apb4 0.94 26.44 0.059
Apb5 0.92 25.25 0.060
Apb6 0.93 25.78 0.061
Apb7 0.85 22.37 0.061
Apb8 0.96 27.22 0.060
Apb9 0.95 26.69 0.061
Perceived Order 0.91
Ordr1 0.87 23.04 0.062
Ordr2 0.84 21.46 0.060
Ordr3 0.93 25.60 0.062
Ordr4 0.88 23.56 0.059
Ordr5 0.89 23.99 0.067
Perceived Complexity 0.81
Cmplx1 0.85 21.99 0.069
Cmplx2 0.90 23.85 0.063
Cmplx3 0.90 24.05 0.065
MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 4, Deng & Poole, Appendices/December 2010 A9
Deng & Poole/Impacts of Web Page Visual Complexity and Order–Appendices
Table D4. Cell Descriptive Statistics for Dependent Variables
Treatment
Arousal Pleasantness Approach Tendency
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Level 1 OR
Level 1
CM
Telic -0.44 0.60 -0.06 0.74 1.82 0.63
Paratelic -0.18 0.75 -0.11 0.43 1.58 0.37
Level 2
CM
Telic 0.51 0.72 -0.43 0.86 2.09 1.00
Paratelic 0.58 0.52 0.21 0.50 2.98 1.12
Level 3
CM
Telic 1.11 0.87 -0.85 0.80 1.94 0.74
Paratelic 0.89 0.55 0.62 0.72 3.59 1.49
Level 4
CM
Telic 1.33 0.66 -1.28 0.65 1.32 0.22
Paratelic 1.06 0.36 0.21 0.95 2.59 1.40
Level 2 OR
Level 1
CM
Telic -1.15 0.62 0.60 0.71 3.63 1.48
Paratelic -0.99 0.72 -0.83 1.08 2.24 1.00
Level 2
CM
Telic -0.52 0.55 0.72 0.67 3.85 1.25
Paratelic -0.46 0.41 0.49 0.27 3.67 0.51
Level 3
CM
Telic -0.02 0.54 0.98 0.74 4.52 1.49
Paratelic 0.28 0.87 0.67 0.78 4.03 1.43
Level 4
CM
Telic 0.48 0.57 0.52 0.74 3.58 1.39
Paratelic 0.58 0.45 1.20 0.85 4.67 1.73
Level 3 OR
Level 1
CM
Telic -1.16 0.52 0.78 0.61 4.16 1.25
Paratelic -1.19 1.10 -1.10 1.18 2.02 0.84
Level 2
CM
Telic -0.68 0.59 0.70 0.68 3.81 1.36
Paratelic -0.39 0.54 0.24 0.31 3.08 0.63
Level 3
CM
Telic -0.81 0.49 1.60 0.52 5.62 0.70
Paratelic -0.47 0.37 0.41 0.66 3.77 1.32
Level 4
CM
Telic 0.20 0.65 0.82 0.64 4.06 1.47
Paratelic 0.21 0.61 0.81 0.51 4.28 1.18
A10 MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 4, Deng & Poole, Appendices/December 2010
