Ảnh hưởng của việc trình bày sản phẩm trực tuyến đến việc gợi nhớ sản phẩm: Vai trò điều chỉnh của loại sản phẩm

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020

ICYREB 2020

EFFECTS ONLINE PRODUCT PRESENTATION ON PRODUCT

RECALL: PRODUCT TYPES AS MODERATOR

ẢNH HƯỞNG CỦA VIỆC TRÌNH BÀY SẢN PHẨM TRỰC TUYẾN

ĐẾN VIỆC GỢI NHỚ SẢN PHẨM: VAI TRÒ ĐIỀU CHỈNH

CỦA LOẠI SẢN PHẨM

PhD, Nguyen Thi Huyen Trang

University of Economics and Law – Vietnam National University HCM

trangnth@uel.edu.vn

Abstract

Online product presentation is an indispensable feature in online shopping to facilitate the

buying process of consumers through the way providing the product information. This study applies

the cognitive information processing theory to investigate this effects of online product presentation

on product recall that is moderated by product types. An experiment of 2x2 between subjects is de-

signed, with the manipulation of text based versus video based for online product presentation and

hedonic versus utilitarian product for product types. MANCOVA and ANCOVA analysis will be used

to test the hypotheses. The results of this study benefit marketers to develop proper strategies on

product presentation and enhance advertising efficacy.

Keywords: Online product presentation, Product recall, Product types

Tóm tắt

Trình bày sản phẩm trực tuyến là một tính năng không thể thiếu trong mua sắm trực tuyến

nhằm tạo điều kiện thuận lợi cho quá trình mua hàng của người tiêu dùng thông qua cách cung

cấp thông tin sản phẩm. Nghiên cứu này áp dụng lý thuyết xử lý thông tin nhận thức để tìm hiểu tác

động của việc trình bày sản phẩm trực tuyến đối với việc gợi nhớ sản phẩm được điều chỉnh theo

loại sản phẩm. Thí nghiệm được thiết kế gồm 4 tình huống kết hợp giữa các biến được nghiên cứu

được điều chỉnh bao gồm trình bày văn bản so với video và sản phẩm giải trí so với sản phẩm thực

dụng. Phân tích MANCOVA và ANCOVA sẽ được sử dụng để kiểm tra các giả thuyết. Kết quả của

nghiên cứu này mang lại lợi ích nhà tiếp thị để phát triển các chiến lược phù hợp về trình bày sản

phẩm và nâng cao hiệu quả quảng cáo.

Từ khóa: Trình bày sản phẩm trực tuyến, Gợi nhớ sản phẩm, Loại sản phẩm

1. Introduction

In recent years, online retailing becomes one of the most popular online activities worldwide

coming along with different kind of benefits for both customers and sellers (Hasan, 2016; Yoh,

Damhorst, Sapp, & Laczniak, 2003). According to report published in Statista, online retail is ac-

counted for 10.2 percent of all retail sales worldwide in 2017 which is forecasted to up to 17.5 per-

965

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020

ICYREB 2020

cent in 2021. During the same year 2017, the number of people buying products online worldwide

are about 1.66 billion and this number is estimated to keep increasing for the years to come.

In both online and offline shopping, the way in which a product is displayed influences on

consumer shopping experience. In particular, the research of (Turley & Milliman, 2000) indicates

that well-presented products brings positive feeling and results in positive shopping behavior in the

context of offline retailing. In the case of online shopping, due to the absence of direct experiences

the role of product presentation is more crucial to attract consumers as well as to enhance their buy-

ing intention. In other words, online product presentation arouses both cognitive and affective action,

consequently affecting buying experiences and outcomes. In addition to this, the manner to present

a product also contributes to stimulate sensory experience which facilitates consumer decision mak-

ing process (Kim & Lennon, 2008; Yoo & Kim, 2012).

Intensive competition among various online stores provokes different types of product pre-

sentations to appeal consumers. Previously text and pictures are most popular manners of presenting

product while vivid multimedia features such as video or 3D display with extra effects are more fa-

vorable recently (Coyle & Thorson, 2001), (Suh & Lee, 2005).Accordingly, virtual product expe-

rience is enriched in which customers are more likely to feel, touch and try out various product’s

functions (Jiang & Benbasat, 2004).

Most studies in online product presentation have only been carried out on the conventional

forms of exposure which are textual and visual (i.e., still image) (M. Li, Tan, Teo, & Wei, 2012).

Studying on this topic, the impacts of these two types of information on shopping performance is

investigated (Kelton, Pennington, & Tuttle, 2010). Following that, the researchers have begun to

compare the role of each type of product presentation to shopping outcomes. According to (Blanco,

Sarasa, & Sanclemente, 2010) visual product information is more likely to facilitate shopping ex-

perience in comparison with textual presentation. Other scholars (Chandler & Sweller, 1991;

Sweller, 1994) showed that nonverbal product information cues (video based) outperforms text

based information in attracting consumer concentration which positively affects cognitive encoding

of product information (Rose, Khoo, & Straub, 1999) and also improve retailing revenue (Koppius,

Van Heck, & Wolters, 2004). In contrast, other researchers have identified that visual display does

not outweigh textual form in terms of enhancing shopping performance in which text-based infor-

mation cues facilitated consumers from obtaining and remembering desired information (Furnham,

Gunter, & Green, 1990; Kacmar & Hochwarter, 1996).

This cognitive process of mental encoding is reflected by recall capacity which represents

for the load of active information in brain and readily available state (Kim & Lennon, 2008), (Jiang

& Benbasat, 2007; Zhao, Hoeffler, & Dahl, 2009). To date, the debate on what type of product pres-

entation raises more information encoded in consumer’s memory is still controversial in e-commerce

researches (Jiang & Benbasat, 2007; Zhao et al., 2009). In addition to this, there is lack of research

integrating the types of product as moderators to examine the interplay of product presentation and

product recall. This study hence seeks to answer the following question: What are the impacts of

product presentation (text-based and video-based) on the product information recall of consumers?

and How does product type influence the effects of online product presentation on the recall of con-

sumers?

966

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020

ICYREB 2020

Drawing on Cognitive information processing, this research will examine the effects of two

different types of product presentation on consumer’s recall capacity which are denoted by the depth

and breadth of recall. Therefore, theoretically, the current study contributes to extending the under-

standing of product presentation strategies and product literature. Practically, this study is expected

to contribute to practitioners on how to provide effective advertisings and enhance users’ ability to

remember them.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Cognitive Information Processing

According to cognitive information processing theory, there are two paradigms called expe-

riential and analytical processing system in which different types of external stimuli are stored and

retrieved (Epstein, 1991, 1994). In this study, the external stimuli coming from vernal and nonverbal

types of product presentation. In particular, nonverbal form refers to nonlinguistic expression such

as picture, video, narration (Clark & Paivio, 1991) while verbal form associates with linguistic de-

scription, such as text, number and symbol (Clark & Paivio, 1991) .Considering cognitive informa-

tion processing approach, nonverbal information cues such as video, narration or animation are

believed to invoke experiential processing mode since those types of cues transfer better overall

impression of a product (Epstein, 1994). The experiential processing mode could help consumers

capture the general information of product which refers to the breadth of recall in this research con-

text. Previous studies found that nonverbal product information (video-based) affects recall ability

of consumers and in turn increase learning capability (Kagie, van Wezel, & Groenen, 2008; MacInnis

& Price, 1987). Relating to information processing paradigm, video based product presentation

could evoke experiential status in which consumers are under consuming simulation context, thus

increase the amount of information obtained by consumers (Chandler and Sweller (1991), Hu, Ma,

and Chau (1999), Park, Lennon, and Stoel (2005), Sweller (1994)). In particular, video-based prod-

uct presentation with animation, narration presenting actual consumption could deliver consumer’s

sensory experience strengthening consumer’s memory of a product (Epstein, 1994),(H. Li, Daugh-

erty, & Biocca, 2003; Petrova & Cialdini, 2005). On the other hand, verbal based product presen-

tation is able to stimulate analytical processing mechanism and increase in- depth understanding

about a product (M. J. Lee & Tedder, 2003). The research (Kacmar & Hochwarter, 1996)argues that

under the text based product presentation consumers are more likely to focus on desired product

information and easier in remembering about a product (Smith, 1991) which could lead to the greater

in depth of recall.

2.2. Impact on The Breadth of Recall

The breadth of recall refers to how many product attributes are remembered by consumers.

L. A. Kirkpatrick and S. Epstein (Kirkpatrick & Epstein, 1992) proposed that video based presen-

tation could activate experiential processing mode by creating a primary, illustrative and conceptual

processing. In comparison with text based presentation, video based is able to transfer physical

visual change with voices. Basing on cognitive information processing paradigm, product presen-

tation with video based could present richer available information. The paper of D. V. Thompson,

and R. W. Hamilton (Thompson & Hamilton, 2006) also indicated that video based presentation

with physical visual change and voices is more likely to generate favorable association on memory

967

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020

ICYREB 2020

compared with text only. With the support of temporal visual change and audio narration, consumers

are easier to capture product information and they could remember more product attributes. Thus

we posit the following:

H1. Compared with the text based product presentation, consumers with a narration and video-

based product presentation will yield a better performance on the breadth of recall.

2.3. Impact on The Depth of Recall

Unlike breath of recall, depth of recall refers to how consumers know about product. Accord-

ing to (Kacmar & Hochwarter, 1996), nonverbal cues (video based product presentation) could not

help consumers to understand product information precisely. On the contrary, the text based pres-

entation facilitates the analytical processing mode more effectively and generates more information

in the depth of recall comparing with video based product information (Grosslight & Kale, 1955).

Thus we posit the following:

H2. Compared with the video-based product presentation, text based product presentation

will yield a better performance on the depth of recall.

2.4. Product Types

According to (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982), the shopping purposes is classified into ‘‘util-

itarian” and ‘‘hedonic.” Utilitarian approach describes the shopping behavior based on critical mis-

sion, goal oriented and rational consideration (Batra & Ahtola, 1991; Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982;

Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2001). Hedonic approach refers to enjoyment oriented without intentional

buying purposes (Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994), (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). This division

emerges from the dual information processing in which includes rational and experiential ways (Ep-

stein, 2003). Moreover, in other researches, the shopping purpose is also divided into functional vs.

nonfunctional motivations (Sheth, 1983), shopping as work vs. shopping as fun (Babin et al., 1994),

economic vs. recreational (Brown, Pope, & Voges, 2003), and goal-oriented vs. experiential con-

sumers (Novak, Hoffman, & Duhachek, 2003). Hence, the classification of utilitarian and hedonic

purposes is reliable and applied in this research.

Consumers who are shopping for utilitarian purpose tend to search for product information

in advance before making buying decision. They take serious consideration for different features

of product such as product quality, price, service and finish the shopping time at particular deadline.

This approach of seeking information is called directed search behavior (Hoffman & Novak, 1996)

which can be considered as goal oriented with in-depth deliberation (Janiszewski, 1998).

On the other hand, shopping for hedonic purpose, customers are more likely to shop with fun

and no intention (Babin et al., 1994). Unlike utilitarian oriented, hedonic shoppers pay attention to

experiences rather than the shopping outcomes (Babin et al., 1994). Because they do not have any

shopping plans, the process of seeking information could be called as non-directed search behavior

or exploratory search behavior (Bloch, Sherrell, & Ridgway, 1986). Under exploratory search be-

havior, consumers surf for product information with less attention and consideration (Hoffman &

Novak, 1996; Janiszewski, 1998; Novak et al., 2003). Therefore, dissimilar with hedonic shopping,

utilitarian approach requires more information for cognitive information processing (B. K. Lee &

Lee, 2004; Tam & Ho, 2006) which relates to the semantic information encoding level.

968

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020

ICYREB 2020

Since text based information presentation could provide more specific information and help

consumers to understand better about product which increases the performance on product recall in

comparison with video based presentation. Hence, we propose two hypotheses as follows:

H3a. The positive effect of video-based product presentation on the breadth of recall is

stronger for hedonic product than for utilitarian product

H3b. The positive effect of text based product presentation on the depth of recall is stronger

for utilitarian product than for hedonic product

Figure 1: Research model

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Research Design

To address the research questions, a scenario-based experiment with 2 (Online product pres-

entation: text based vs. video based) x 2 (Product type: hedonic vs. utilitarian) is conducted as shown

in table below.

3.2. Participants and Procedures

The number of sample size is collected for the study is 120, corresponding 30 for each treat-

ment group. Because of the popularity of online shopping, the recruited respondents should not be

limited to any nationality. The participants are local and international students from different schools

in Tainan city, Taiwan who are required to own at least a smartphone and not limited to any educa-

tional background.

Participants will be recruited online through the invitation with briefly introduction of the

study purpose and randomly assigned into four scenarios which they will exposure to different ver-

sions of online product presentation modes.

3.3. Manipulation

In this experiment, we manipulate online product presentation in two types. For text based

presentation, the text description of products will be provided. While in the case of video based

presentation, a video with introduction of products will be presented to participants.

969

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020

ICYREB 2020

In the scenario of utilitarian purpose, the participants are instructed to buy the target product

for a very important reason and hence have to make a high-quality purchase decision. Meanwhile,

in the scenario of hedonic purpose, participants are instructed to browse the given website for fun

in their leisure time, with the chance of finding some products that highly interested them.

3.4. Dependent Variables

The dependent variables will be measured with open-ended questions adapted from (M. Li

et al., 2012). The breadth of recall is measured relying on the number of product attributes which

are recalled by participants. Whereas the depth of recall is referred to how they compare the product

attributes to make buying decisions.

3.4. Data Analysis

To test our hypotheses, we relied on general linear modeling (GLM), multivariate analyses

of covariance (MANCOVA), and analyses of covariance (ANCOVA). Both MANCOVA and AN-

COVA are widely used in experimental studies that require controlling for covariates; they are also

effective for testing interaction effects (Brod). For the MANCOVA analysis, we integrate presenta-

tion modes (text based, video based) as factors. Product types (utilitarian product, hedonic product)

as covariates. The breadth of recall and the depth of recall are the dependent variables.

REFRENCES

Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and

utilitarian shopping value. Journal of consumer research, 20(4), 644-656.

Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer

attitudes. Marketing letters, 2(2), 159-170.

Blanco, C. F., Sarasa, R. G., & Sanclemente, C. O. (2010). Effects of visual and textual in-

formation in online product presentations: looking for the best combination in website design. Eu-

ropean Journal of Information Systems, 19(6), 668-686.

Bloch, P. H., Sherrell, D. L., & Ridgway, N. M. (1986). Consumer search: An extended frame-

work. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 119-126.

Brod, C. (1984). Technostress: The human cost of the computer revolution. The University

of Michigan: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.

Brown, M., Pope, N., & Voges, K. (2003). Buying or browsing? An exploration of shopping

orientations and online purchase intention. European Journal of Marketing, 37(11/12), 1666-1684.

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cog-

nition and instruction, 8(4), 293-332.

Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational psychology

review, 3(3), 149-210.

Coyle, J. R., & Thorson, E. (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vivid-

ness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30(3), 65-77.

Epstein, S. (1991). Cognitive-experiential self-theory: An integrative theory of personality.

The relational self: Theoretical convergences in psychoanalysis and social psychology, 111-137.

970

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020

ICYREB 2020

Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American

Psychologist, 49(8), 709.

Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive experiential self theory of personality. Handbook of psychol-

ogy.

Furnham, A., Gunter, B., & Green, A. (1990). Remembering science: The recall of factual

information as a function of the presentation mode. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 203-212.

Grosslight, J., & Kale, S. (1955). EXPLORATORY STUDIES IN THE USE OF PICTURES

AND SOUND FOR TEACHING FOREIGN LANGUAGE VOCABULARY.

Hasan, B. (2016). Perceived irritation in online shopping: The impact of website design char-

acteristics. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 224-230.

Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts,

methods and propositions. The Journal of Marketing, 92-101.

Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated envi-

ronments: Conceptual foundations. The Journal of Marketing, 50-68.

Hu, P. J.-H., Ma, P.-C., & Chau, P. Y. (1999). Evaluation of user interface designs for infor-

mation retrieval systems: a computer-based experiment. Decision Support Systems, 27(1-2),

125-143.

Janiszewski, C. (1998). The influence of display characteristics on visual exploratory search

behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 290-301.

Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2004). Virtual product experience: Effects of visual and functional

control of products on perceived diagnosticity and flow in electronic shopping. Journal of Man-

agement Information Systems, 21(3), 111-147.

Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2007). The effects of presentation formats and task complexity on

online consumers’ product understanding. MIS Quarterly, 475-500.

Kacmar, K. M., & Hochwarter, W. A. (1996). Rater agreement across multiple data collection

media. The Journal of social psychology, 136(4), 469-475.

Kagie, M., van Wezel, M., & Groenen, P. J. (2008). A graphical shopping interface based on

product attributes. Decision Support Systems, 46(1), 265-276.

Kelton, A. S., Pennington, R. R., & Tuttle, B. M. (2010). The effects of information presen-

tation format on judgment and decision making: A review of the information systems research. Jour-

nal of Information Systems, 24(2), 79-105.

Kim, M., & Lennon, S. (2008). The effects of visual and verbal information on attitudes and

purchase intentions in internet shopping. Psychology & Marketing, 25(2), 146-178.

Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Epstein, S. (1992). Cognitive-experiential self-theory and subjective

probability: Further evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of personality and social psy-

chology, 63(4), 534.

Koppius, O. R., Van Heck, E., & Wolters, M. J. (2004). The importance of product represen-

tation online: empirical results and implications for electronic markets. Decision Support Systems,

38(2), 161-169.

971

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020

ICYREB 2020

Lee, B. K., & Lee, W. N. (2004). The effect of information overload on consumer choice

quality in an on line environment. Psychology & Marketing, 21(3), 159-183.

Lee, M. J., & Tedder, M. C. (2003). The effects of three different computer texts on readers’

recall: based on working memory capacity. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(6), 767-783.

Li, H., Daugherty, T., & Biocca, F. (2003). The role of virtual experience in consumer learning.

Journal of consumer psychology, 13(4), 395-407.

Li, M., Tan, C.-H., Teo, H.-H., & Wei, K.-K. (2012). Effects of product learning aids on the

breadth and depth of recall. Decision Support Systems, 53(4), 793-801.

MacInnis, D. J., & Price, L. L. (1987). The role of imagery in information processing: Review

and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 473-491.

Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Duhachek, A. (2003). The influence of goal-directed and ex-

periential activities on online flow experiences. Journal of consumer psychology, 13(1-2), 3-16.

Park, J., Lennon, S. J., & Stoel, L. (2005). On line product presentation: Effects on mood,

perceived risk, and purchase intention. Psychology & Marketing, 22(9), 695-719.

Petrova, P. K., & Cialdini, R. B. (2005). Fluency of consumption imagery and the backfire

effects of imagery appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 442-452.

Rose, G., Khoo, H., & Straub, D. W. (1999). Current technological impediments to business-

to-consumer electronic commerce. Communications of the AIS, 1(5es), 1.

Sheth, J. N. (1983). Integrative theory of patronage and behavior, in patronage behavior and

retail management. New York, North-Holland, elserier Science Publishing Company, Inc.

Smith, R. A. (1991). The effects of visual and verbal advertising information on consumers’

inferences. Journal of Advertising, 20(4), 13-24.

Suh, K.-S., & Lee, Y. E. (2005). The effects of virtual reality on consumer learning: an em-

pirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 673-697.

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn-

ing and instruction, 4(4), 295-312.

Tam, K. Y., & Ho, S. Y. (2006). Understanding the impact of web personalization on user in-

formation processing and decision outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 865-890.

Thompson, D. V., & Hamilton, R. W. (2006). The effects of information processing mode on

consumers’ responses to comparative advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 530-540.

Turley, L. W., & Milliman, R. E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review

of the experimental evidence. Journal of business research, 49(2), 193-211.

Wolfinbarger, M., & Gilly, M. C. (2001). Shopping online for freedom, control, and fun. Cal-

ifornia Management Review, 43(2), 34-55.

Yoh, E., Damhorst, M. L., Sapp, S., & Laczniak, R. (2003). Consumer adoption of the Inter-

net: The case of apparel shopping. Psychology & Marketing, 20(12), 1095-1118.

Yoo, J., & Kim, M. (2012). Online product presentation: the effect of product coordination

and a model’s face. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 6(1), 59-72.

Zhao, M., Hoeffler, S., & Dahl, D. W. (2009). The role of imagination-focused visualization

on new product evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 46-55.

972