The Impacts of Online Clothes Short Video Display on Consumers’ Perceived Quality
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Pre-Investigation
2.1. The Characteristics and Current Status of Short Video Clothes Displays
2.2. Consumers’ Preferences for the Characteristics of Short Video Clothes Displays
3. Hypotheses
3.1. The Length of Videos and Perceptions of Quality
3.2. Angle of Presentation and Perceptions of Quality
3.3. Display Scenarios of Short Videos and Perceptions of Quality
4. Experiment Design
4.1. Objectives of and Products Used in the Experiments
4.2. Experimental Groups and Experimental Materials
4.3. Questionnaire Design and Pre-Experiments
5. Results
5.1. Descriptive Statistics
5.2. Analysis of Reliability and Validity
5.3. Verification of Hypotheses
5.3.1. Verification of the Hypothesis on Impacts of the Length of Short Video Displays on Perceptions of Quality
5.3.2. Verification of the Hypothesis on Impacts of the Angle of Presentation of Short Video Displays on Perceptions of Quality
5.3.3. Verification of the Hypothesis on Impacts of Short Video Display scenarios on Perceptions of Quality
6. Conclusions
6.1. Research Conclusions
6.2. Theoretical Contributions
6.3. Management Implications
6.4. Limitations and Prospects
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gefen, D.; Straub, D. Managing user trust in B2C e-services. e-Serv. J. 2003, 2, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarvenpaa, S.L.; Todd, P.A. Consumer reactions to electronic shopping on the world wide web. Int. J. Electron Commer. 1996, 1, 59–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, E.J.; Park, J. Enhancing virtual presence in E-Tail: dynamics of cue multiplicity International. J. Electron. Commer. 2014, 18, 117–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, H.X.; Cai, Z.H.; He, S. The relationship between online merchandise displaying, online interaction and impulsive buying based on virtual tactility. Chin. J. Manag. 2014, 11, 133–141. [Google Scholar]
- Walia, N.; Srite, M.; Huddleston, W. Eyeing the web interface: the influence of price, product, and personal involvement. Electron. Commer. Res. 2016, 16, 297–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aljukhadar, M.; Senecal, S.; Poirier, A.B. From word-of-mouth to glimpse-of-eye: social media mavenism and its attitudinal and behavioral determinants. Soc. Sci. Electron 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- James, R.C.; Esther, T. The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. J. Advert. 2001, 30, 65–77. [Google Scholar]
- Li, H.; Daugherty, T.; Biocca, F. Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowledge, brand attitude, and Purchase intention: the mediating role of presence. J. Advert. 2002, 31, 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khakimdjanova, L.; Park, J. Online visual merchandising practice of apparel e-merchants. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2005, 12, 307–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Z.; Benbasat, I. Investigating the influence of the functional mechanisms of online product presentations. Inf. Syst. Res. 2007, 18, 454–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, H.; Lennon, S.J. E-atmosphere, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2010, 14, 412–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, J.; Kim, M. The effects of online product presentation on consumer responses: A mental imagery perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, J.; Zou, Y.P.; Liu, H.L.; Wang, J.T. Is “Dynamic” Better Than “Static”? The Effect of Product Presentation on Consumer’s Evaluation—The Mediation Effect of Cognitive Processing. Chin. J. Manag. 2017, 14, 742–750. [Google Scholar]
- Peck, J.; Barger, V. Luangrath, A. In search of a surrogate for touch: the effect of haptic imagery on psychological ownership and object valuation. J. Consum. Psychol. 2013, 23, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dutta-Bergman, M.J. The impact of completeness and web use motivation on the credibility of e-Health information. J. Commun. 2006, 54, 253–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; PARK, H. Effects of various characteristics of social commerce on consumers’ trust and trust performance. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 318–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleinl, R. Creating virtual product experiences: the role of telepresence. J. Interact. Mark. 2003, 17, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ernst, M.O. Multisensory integration: a late bloomer. Curr. Biol. 2008, 18, 519–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wirth, W.; Hartmann, T.; Böcking, S.; Vorderer, P.; Klimmt, C.; Schramm, H.; Saari, T.; Laarni, J.; Ravaja, N.; Gouveia, F.R.; et al. A process model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychol. 2007, 9, 493–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Z.; Benbasat, I. The effects of presentation formats and task complexity on online consumers’ product understanding. MIS Q. 2007, 31, 475–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, T.; Meshkova, Z. Examining the impact of rich media on consumer willingness to pay in online stores. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2013, 12, 449–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roggeveen, A.L.; Grewal, D.; Townsend, C.; Krishnan, R. The impact of dynamic presentation format on consumer preferences for hedonic products and services. J. Mark. 2015, 79, 34–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlos, O.; Raquel, G.; Carlos, F. Facilitating imaginations through online product presentation videos: effects on imagery fluency, product attitude and purchase intention. Electron. Commer. Res. 2017, 17, 661–700. [Google Scholar]
- Carlos, F.; Raquel, G.; Carlos, O. The influence of online product presentation videos on persuasion and purchase channel preference: The role of imagery fluency and need for touch. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 1544–1556. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, H.L.; Zhao, Y.; Shi, H.Y. Research of the influence of short-form video display on customers’ purchase intention on the e-commerce platform. Inf. Stud. Theory Appl. 2019, 42, 145–151. [Google Scholar]
- Nisbett, R.E.; Ross, L. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social judgment; Prentice Hall Inc.: Eanglewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papk, J.; Lennon, S.J.; Stoel, L. On-line product presentation: effects on mood, perceived risk, and purchase intention. Psychol. Mark. 2005, 22, 695–719. [Google Scholar]
- Fortin, D.R.; Dholakia, R.R. Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 387–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steuer, J. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. J. Commun. 1992, 42, 73–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffith, D.A.; Krampf, R.F.; Palmer, J.W. The role of interface in electronic commerce: Consumer involvement with print versus on-line catalogs. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2001, 5, 135–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raney, A.; Arpan, L.; Pashupati, K.; Brill, D. At the movies, on the web: An investigation of the effects of entertaining and interactive web content on site and brand evaluations. J. Interact. Mark. 2003, 17, 38–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erik, J.M. What You Can Learn from Short from Video. Available online: http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/News/News-Feature/What-You-Can-Learn-from-Short-Form-Video-100141.htm (accessed on 31 January 2020).
- Wu, Y.H. Analysis of Communication Effect and Influencing Factors of News Video. Master’s Thesis, Beijing Minzu University, Beijing, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, L.J.; Zhang, Z.J. Status and prospects of emotion research in human-computer interaction. Chin. J. Ergon. 2010, 16, 87–90. [Google Scholar]
- Holbrook, M.B. On the importance of using real products in research on merchandising strategy. J. Retail. 1983, 59, 4–23. [Google Scholar]
- Dong, D.H.; Liu, S.N.; Jin, Y.F.; Qi, H. An empirical research on E-commerce customer website loyalty. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management and Service Science, Wuhan, China, 24–26 August 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Pan, L. Display of Clothing Sales in the Network Environment. Master’s Thesis, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, China, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Navon, D. Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cogn. Psychol. 1977, 9, 353–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navon, D. Do attention and decision follow perception comment on miller. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1981, 7, 1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, S.H. The global precedence in visual information processing. J. Chin. Psychol. Acta Psychol. Sin. 2000, 3, 337–347. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.Y.; Zhang, Y.; Pu, Y. On effect of online apparel display to consumer purchasing behavior. J. Southwest China Norm. Univ. 2013, 38, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y. Research on the Impact of Online Clothing Display on Consumers’ Purchase Behavior. Master’s Thesis, Donghua University, Shanghai, China, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, S.S. The Research of Communication of Tmall Women’s Clothing Boutique Product Visualization. Master’s Thesis, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Tang, F.X. The impact of Online Store Design on the Purchase Intentions of Customers—A Study from the Perspective of Emotional Reactions. Master’s Thesis, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Javenpaa, S.L.; Todd, P.A. Is there a future for retailing on the Internet? Electron. Mark. Consum. 1997, 1, 139–154. [Google Scholar]
- Baker, J.; Crewal, D.; Parasuraman, A. The influence of store environment on quality inference and store image. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1994, 22, 328–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dodds, W.B.; Grewal, D. Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. J. Mark. Res. 1991, 28, 307–319. [Google Scholar]
- Hoekstra, J.C.; Leeflang, P.S.; Wittink, D.R. The customer concept: the basis for a new marketing paradigm. J. Mark. Focused Manag. 1999, 4, 43–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuma, V.; Girish, R.; Timothy, B. Customer lifetime value approaches and best practice applications. J. Interact. Mark. 2004, 18, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadav, M.S.; Varadarajan, P.R. Understanding product migration to the electronic marketplace: A conceptual framework. J. Retail. 2005, 81, 125–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fink, G.R.; Halligan, P.W.; Marshall, J.C.; Frith, C.D.; Frackowiak, R.S.J.; Dolan, R.J. Where in the brain does visual attention select the forest and the trees? Nat. 1996, 382, 626–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Heinze, H.J.; Hinrichs, H.; Scholz, M.; Burchert, W.; Mangun, G.R. Neural mechanisms of global and local processing: A combined PET and ERP study. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 1998, 10, 485–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yovel, G.; Yovel, I.; Levy, J. Hemispheric asymmetries for global and local visual perception: Effects of stimulus and task factors. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2001, 27, 1369–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mevorach, C.; Humphreys, G.W.; Shalev, L. Opposite biases in salience-based selection for the left and right posterior parietal cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 2006, 9, 740–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mevorach, C.; Hodsoll, J.; Allen, H.; Shalev, L.; Humphreys, G. Ignoring the elephant in the room: a neural circuit to downregulate salience. J. Neurosci. 2010, 30, 6072–6079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Author | Year | Content | |
---|---|---|---|
Online product displays | Li et al. [8] | 2002 | Consumers’ presence and virtual experiences were explored. It was found that three-dimensional (3D) advertisements can enhance consumers’ presence and improve consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions. |
Khakimdjanova and Park [9] | 2005 | The authors suggest that a product display should be analyzed in five respects, namely, display methods, display techniques, supplementary displays, display aesthetics, and structures and layouts of displays. | |
Jiang and Benbasat [10] | 2007 | Based on the interactivity of the internet, businesses can use a variety of forms to display their products. The vividness and interactivity of a product display are the main design features that affect the impact of an online product display. | |
Kim and Lennon [11] | 2010 | The authors found that image magnification technologies have an impact on consumers’ enjoyment, which is positively correlated with the perceived quantity of information. | |
Jungmin and Minjeong [12] | 2014 | The psychological perceptions that are caused by the elements of a product display, such as pictures and text, are the main sources of information with which consumers make purchase decisions. | |
Wirth et al. [19] | 2016 | Consumers require different information and experience environments for different products, and retailers should adjust the design of their online product displays accordingly. | |
The impacts of online video product displays on consumers’ perceptions | Jiang and Benbasat [20] | 2007 | The authors investigated the picture, video, and virtual experience display methods, and they found that both video displays and virtual product experiences had a greater impact on consumers’ perceptions than pictures. |
Li and Meshkova [21] | 2013 | Product videos and virtual product experiences increased the amount of information consumers received about the tested products and their excitement about the shopping experience. | |
Roggeveeen et al. [22] | 2015 | Compared with a static display, videos can increase the impact of displayed content and effectively enhance consumers’ perceptions of products’ value. | |
Oru et al. [23] | 2016 | The authors discussed the impacts of online product displays’ presentation and characteristics on information processing, consumers’ attitudes toward products, and purchase intentions. | |
Flavián et al. [24] | 2017 | Video displays can influence consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions in two respects: ease of imagining products and satisfying demand for tactile sensations. | |
Guo et al. [25] | 2019 | The usefulness and comprehensiveness of short videos were found to have positive effects on consumers’ virtual sense of touch, sense of pleasure, and sense of trust. |
Operating Variables | Length of Short Videos | ||
---|---|---|---|
Short | Long | ||
Indoor scenarios | Overall display | Experiment group1 | Experiment group 2 |
Overall and details displays | Experiment group 3 | Experiment group 4 | |
Outdoor scenarios | Overall display | Experiment group 5 | Experiment group 6 |
Overall and details displays | Experiment group 7 | Experiment group 8 |
Factors | Questions | References |
---|---|---|
Judgements on the characteristics of the short videos | The short video is shorter in duration compared to a general short video of clothes. | Fuxin et al. (2012) [44], Hongxia et al. (2014) [4] |
The short video display’s angle of presentation is more comprehensive compared with a general short video display of clothes. | ||
This short video was shot at an appropriate scene. | ||
Perception of quality | This one-piece summer dress is reliable. | Jarvenpaa and Todd (1997) [45], Baker (1994) [46], Dodds and Grewal (1991) [47] |
This one-piece summer dress is excellently tailored. | ||
This one-piece summer dress is of good quality. | ||
This one-piece summer dress is durable. |
Grouping | N | Mean Value | Standard Deviation | Standard Error | Max | Min |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Experiment group 1 (indoors, overall, short) | 30 | 3.98 | 1.04 | 0.19 | 6.00 | 2.00 |
Experiment group 2 (indoors, overall, long) | 30 | 3.43 | 1.25 | 0.23 | 5.00 | 1.00 |
Experiment group 3 (indoors, overall and details, short) | 33 | 4.45 | 1.06 | 0.18 | 7.00 | 2.25 |
Experiment group 4 (indoors, overall and details, long) | 31 | 3.99 | 0.86 | 0.15 | 5.75 | 2.50 |
Experiment group 5 (outdoors, overall, short) | 31 | 4.43 | 1.03 | 0.18 | 6.50 | 3.00 |
Experiment group 6 (outdoors, overall, long) | 32 | 3.99 | 0.89 | 0.16 | 5.25 | 1.75 |
Experiment group 7 (outdoors, overall and details, short) | 30 | 4.88 | 0.94 | 0.17 | 6.50 | 3.25 |
Experiment group 8 (outdoors, overall and details, long) | 32 | 4.45 | 0.79 | 0.14 | 6.00 | 3.00 |
Variables | Questions | Deleted α Value | Cronbach’s α |
---|---|---|---|
Perceived quality | Q1: This one-piece summer dress is reliable. | 0.919 | 0.924 |
Q2: This one-piece summer dress is excellently tailored. | 0.892 | ||
Q3: This one-piece summer dress is of good quantity. | 0.878 | ||
Q4: This one-piece summer dress is durable. | 0.913 |
Variables | KMO Measurement | Bartlett’s Sphericity Test | |
---|---|---|---|
Perceived quality | 0.843 | Approximate chi-square value | 791.85 |
Df | 6 | ||
Sig. | 0 |
Questions | Factor Loading | The Interpretation of Total Variance | |
---|---|---|---|
Perceived quality | Q1 | 0.943 | 81.51% |
Q2 | 0.92 | ||
Q3 | 0.88 | ||
Q4 | 0.866 |
Duration | t-Value | p (T ≤ t) Single-Tailed | t Single-Tailed Critical | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Overall and details, outdoors | Long, 44 s | |||
Short, 14 s | −1.989 | 0.026 | 1.671 | |
Overall, outdoors | Long, 44 s | |||
Short, 14 s | −1.799 | 0.038 | 1.670 | |
Overall and details, indoors | Long, 44 s | |||
Short, 14 s | −1.876 | 0.033 | 1.670 | |
Overall, indoors | Long, 44 s | |||
Short, 14 s | −1.849 | 0.035 | 1.672 |
Display Angle | t-Value | p (T ≤ t) Single-Tailed | t Single-Tailed Critical | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Long, outdoors | Overall and details | |||
Overall | 2.160 | 0.017 | 1.670 | |
Short, outdoors | Overall and details | |||
Overall | 1.801 | 0.038 | 1.671 | |
Long, indoors | Overall and details | |||
Overall | 2.024 | 0.024 | 1.675 | |
Short, indoors | Overall and details | |||
Overall | 1.746 | 0.043 | 1.670 |
Display Angle | t-Value | p (T ≤ t) Single-Tailed | t Single-Tailed Critical | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Long, overall and details | Outdoors | |||
Indoors | 2.180 | 0.017 | 1.670 | |
Short, overall and details | Outdoors | |||
Indoors | 1.718 | 0.045 | 1.670 | |
Long, overall | Outdoors | |||
Indoors | 2.017 | 0.024 | 1.675 | |
Short, overall | Outdoors | |||
Indoors | 1.673 | 0.050 | 1.671 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ma, R.; Shao, B.; Chen, J.; Dai, D. The Impacts of Online Clothes Short Video Display on Consumers’ Perceived Quality. Information 2020, 11, 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11020087
Ma R, Shao B, Chen J, Dai D. The Impacts of Online Clothes Short Video Display on Consumers’ Perceived Quality. Information. 2020; 11(2):87. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11020087
Chicago/Turabian StyleMa, Rong, Bingjia Shao, Jiaqi Chen, and Dan Dai. 2020. "The Impacts of Online Clothes Short Video Display on Consumers’ Perceived Quality" Information 11, no. 2: 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11020087
APA StyleMa, R., Shao, B., Chen, J., & Dai, D. (2020). The Impacts of Online Clothes Short Video Display on Consumers’ Perceived Quality. Information, 11(2), 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11020087