Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The more interactivity the better? Investigating interactivity, task complexity, and product knowledge in online purchase decisions

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the joint effects of interactivity, task complexity, and product knowledge on customers’ online purchase decision quality. Interactivity is defined as the extent to which users can participate in modifying the form and content of a mediated environment in real-time. For example, users sort products on a website based on certain criteria (e.g., price). An experiment with 264 participants was conducted to test the hypotheses. The results suggest that interactivity and task complexity jointly affect customers’ online purchase decision quality. When customers perform a complex task, interactivity reduces the cognitive resources needed to perform the task and thus improves customers’ decision quality. However, when customers perform a simple task, interactivity worsens the mismatch between the cognitive resources available and what is required, leading to deteriorated decision quality. Similarly, product knowledge and task complexity interact to influence customers’ decision quality. Product knowledge improves decision quality when customers perform a complex task, whereas it results in deteriorated decision quality when customers perform a simple task. In addition, interactivity interacts with product knowledge to affect customers’ intention to revisit the website. Specifically, interactivity has a stronger effect on customers’ intention to revisit the website when the customer has more product knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The 8 levels of the attributes for Price are: (1) $104.99, (2) $129.99, (3) $154.99, (4) $179.99, (5) $204.99, (6) $229.99, (7) $254.99, and (8) $279.99, respectively.

  2. The 6 levels of the attributes for Resolution are: (1) 12 MP, (2) 10 MP, (3) 8 MP, (4) 7 MP, (5) 6 MP, (6) 5 MP, respectively.

  3. The 3 levels of the attributes for Zoom are: (1) 5X, (2) 4X, and (3) 3X, respectively.

  4. The 5 levels of the attributes for Display size are: (1) 3", (2) 2.7", (3) 2.5", (4) 2.4", and (5) 2", respectively.

  5. The 3 levels of the attributes for Condition are: (1) New, (2) Refurbished, and (3) Used, respectively.

  6. The 2 levels of the attributes for Free shipping are: (1) Yes, and (2) No, respectively.

  7. The numbers in parentheses represent the level ranking of the associated attribute. For example, if a camera has the lowest price, the level ranking of the price attribute for this camera would be 1.

  8. The results were not changed if we remove the covariate variables.

References

  1. Anand P, Sternthal B (1989) Strategies for designing persuasive messages: deductions from the resource matching hypothesis. In: Cafferata P, Tybout AM (eds) Cognitive and affective responses to advertising. Lexington Books, Lexington, pp 135–159

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anon (2014) Customer retention should outweigh customer acquisition. ReSci. https://www.retentionscience.com/blog/customer-retention-should-outweigh-customer-acquisition/. Accessed 22 Sept 2019

  3. Bezjian-Avery A, Calder B, Lacobucci D (1998) New media interactive advertising vs. traditional advertising. J Advert Res 38(94):23–32

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cowley E, Mitchell AA (2003) The moderating effect of product knowledge on the learning and organization of product information. J Consum Res 30(3):443–454

    Google Scholar 

  5. Coyle JR, Thorson E (2001) The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. J Advert 30(3):65–77

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cyr D, Head M, Ivanov A (2009) Perceived interactivity leading to E-loyalty: development of a model for cognitive-affective user responses. Int J Hum Comput Stud 67(10):850–869

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dholakia RR, Zhao M (2009) Retail web site interactivity: how does it influence customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions? Int J Retail Distrib Manag 37(10):821–838

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fan L, Liu X, Wang B, Wang L (2017) Interactivity, engagement, and technology dependence: understanding users’ technology utilisation behaviour. Behav Inf Technol 36(2):113–124

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fiore AM, Jin HJ, Kim J (2005) For fun and profit: hedonic value from image interactivity and responses toward an online store. Psychol Market 22(8):669–694

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fortin DR, Dholakia RR (2005) Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement. J Bus Res 58(3):387–396

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gao Q, Rau PLP, Salvendy G (2010) Measuring perceived interactivity of mobile advertisements. Behav Inf Technol 29(1):35–44

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ghose S, Dou W (1998) Interactive functions and their impacts on the appeal of internet presence sites. J Advert Res 38:29–44

    Google Scholar 

  13. Häubl G, Trifts V (2000) Consumer decision making in online shopping environments: the effects of interactive decision aids. Mark Sci 19(1):4–21

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hoffman DL, Novak TP (1996) Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: conceptual foundations. J Mark 60:50–68

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jae H, DelVecchio DS, Childers TL (2011) Are low-literate and high-literate consumers different? Applying resource-matching theory to ad processing across literacy levels. J Consum Psychol 21(3):312–323

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jee J, Lee WN (2002) Antecedents and consequences of perceived interactivity: an exploratory study. J Interact Advert 3(1):27–43

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jiang Z, Benbasat I (2007) The effects of presentation formats and task complexity on online consumers’ product understanding. MIS Q 31(3):475–500

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jiang Z, Benbasat I (2007) Investigating the influence of the functional mechanisms of online product presentations. Inf Syst Res 18(4):454–470

    Google Scholar 

  19. Johnson GJ, Bruner GC II, Kumar A (2006) Interactivity and its facets revisited: theory and empirical test. Journal of Advertising 35(4):35–52

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kamis A, Koufaris M, Stern T (2008) Using an attribute-based decision support system for user-customized products online: an experimental investigation. MIS Q 32(1):159–177

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ku EC, Chen CD (2015) Cultivating travellers’ revisit intention to e-tourism service: the moderating effect of website interactivity. Behav Inf Technol 34(5):465–478

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lee T (2005) The impact of perceptions of interactivity on customer trust and transaction intentions in mobile commerce. J Electron Commer Res 6(3):165–180

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lee D, Moon J, Kim YJ, Mun YY (2015) Antecedents and consequences of mobile phone usability: linking simplicity and interactivity to satisfaction, trust, and brand loyalty. Inf Manag 52(3):295–304

    Google Scholar 

  24. McKechnie S, Nath P (2016) Effects of new-to-market e-store features on first time browsers. Int J Hum Comput Stud 90:14–26

    Google Scholar 

  25. Merrilees B, Fry ML (2003) E-trust: the influence of perceived interactivity on E-retailing users. Mark Intell Plan 21(2):123–128

    Google Scholar 

  26. Olshavsky RW (1979) Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: a replication and extension. Organ Behav Hum Perform 24(3):300–316

    Google Scholar 

  27. Olson EL, Widing RE (2002) Are interactive decision aids better than passive decision aids? A comparison with implications for information providers on the internet. J Interact Mark 16(2):22–33

    Google Scholar 

  28. Park CW, Moon BJ (2003) The relationship between product involvement and product knowledge: moderating roles of product type and product knowledge type. Psychol Mark 20(11):977–997

    Google Scholar 

  29. Payne JW (1976) Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: an information search and protocol analysis. Organ Behav Hum Perform 16(2):366–387

    Google Scholar 

  30. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1988) Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 14(3):534–552

    Google Scholar 

  31. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1992) Behavioral decision research: a constructive processing perspective. Annu Rev Psychol 43:87–131

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rafaeli S (1988) Interactivity: from new media to communication. In: Hawkins R, Wiemann J, Pingree S (eds) Sage annual review of communication research: advancing communication science, vol 16. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 110–134

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rafaeli S, Sudweeks F (1997) Networked interactivity. J Comput Mediat Commun [online], 2(4). http://www.usc.edu/dept/annenberg/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html. Accessed 20 June 2004

  34. Rao AR, Monroe KB (1988) The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in product evaluations. J Consum Res 15(2):253–264

    Google Scholar 

  35. Shiloh S, Koren S, Zakay D (2001) Individual differences in compensatory decision-making style and need for closure as correlates of subjective decision complexity and difficulty. Personal Individ Differ 30(4):699–710

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pfeiffer J, Vogel F, Stumpf S, Kiltz C (2010) A theory-based approach for a modular system of interactive decision aids. In: Proceedings of the sixteenth Americas conference on information systems, Lima, Peru

  37. Swait J, Adamowicz W (2001) The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: a latent class model of decision strategy switching. J Consum Res 28(1):135–148

    Google Scholar 

  38. Park M, Park J (2009) Exploring the influences of perceived interactivity on consumers’e-shopping effectiveness. J Cust Behav 8(4):361–379

    Google Scholar 

  39. Peracchio LA, Meyers-Levy J (1997) Evaluating persuasion-enhancing techniques from a resource-matching perspective. J Consum Res 24(2):178–191

    Google Scholar 

  40. Skitka LJ, Mosier KL, Burdick M (1999) Does automation bias decision-making? Int J Hum Comput Stud 51(5):991–1006

    Google Scholar 

  41. Speier C, Vessey I, Valacich JS (2003) The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and information presentation on computer-supported decision-making performance. Decis Sci 34(4):771–797

    Google Scholar 

  42. Steuer J (1992) Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. J Commun 42(4):73–93

    Google Scholar 

  43. Stewart DW, Pavlou PA (2002) From consumer response to active consumer: measuring the effectiveness of interactive media. J Acad Mark Sci 30(4):376–396

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sweller J (1988) Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn Sci 12:257–285

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sweller J (1994) Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn Instr 4(4):295–312

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sweller J (2011) Cognitive load theory. Psychol Learn Motiv 55:37–76

    Google Scholar 

  47. Tan CH, Teo HH, Benbasat I (2010) Assessing screening and evaluation decision support systems: a resource-matching approach. Inf Syst Res 21(2):305–326

    Google Scholar 

  48. Wood RE (1986) Task complexity: definition of the construct. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 37(1):60–82

    Google Scholar 

  49. Wu G (2005) The mediating role of perceived interactivity in the effect of actual interactivity on attitude toward the website. J Interact Advert 5(2):29–39

    Google Scholar 

  50. Xu J, Benbasat I, Cenfetelli RT (2014) The influences of online service technologies and task complexity on efficiency and personalization. Inf Syst Res 25(2):420–436

    Google Scholar 

  51. Xu Q, Sundar SS (2016) Interactivity and memory: information processing of interactive versus non-interactive content. Comput Hum Behav 63:620–629

    Google Scholar 

  52. Yadav MS, Varadarajan R (2005) Interactivity in the electronic marketplace: an exposition of the concept and implications for research. J Acad Mark Sci 33(4):585–603

    Google Scholar 

  53. Yoo B, Donthu N (2001) Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. J Bus Res 52(1):1–14

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Virginia Commonwealth University, 301 West Main Street, Richmond, VA, 23284, USA

    Fengchun Tang

Authors
  1. Fengchun Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fengchun Tang.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1528 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tang, F. The more interactivity the better? Investigating interactivity, task complexity, and product knowledge in online purchase decisions. Inf Technol Manag 21, 179–189 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-020-00316-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-020-00316-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation