ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
How do users evaluate the credibility of Web sites?: a study with over 2,500 participants
Full text PdfPdf (140 KB)
Source Designing For User Experiences archive
Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Designing for user experiences table of contents
San Francisco, California
SESSION: Focusing on user-to-product relationships table of contents
Pages: 1 - 15  
Year of Publication: 2003
ISBN:1-58113-728-1
Authors
B. J. Fogg  Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Cathy Soohoo  Stanford University, Stanford, CA
David R. Danielson  Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Leslie Marable  Consumer WebWatch, Consumerís Union, Yonkers, NY
Julianne Stanford  Sliced Bread Design, Mountain View, CA
Ellen R. Tauber  Sliced Bread Design, Mountain View, CA
Sponsors
SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
SIGGRAPH: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques
: American Institute of Graphic Arts
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 139,   Downloads (12 Months): 641,   Citation Count: 17
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/997078.997097
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

In this study 2,684 people evaluated the credibility of two live Web sites on a similar topic (such as health sites). We gathered the comments people wrote about each siteís credibility and analyzed the comments to find out what features of a Web site get noticed when people evaluate credibility. We found that the ìdesign lookî of the site was mentioned most frequently, being present in 46.1% of the comments. Next most common were comments about information structure and information focus. In this paper we share sample participant comments in the top 18 areas that people noticed when evaluating Web site credibility. We discuss reasons for the prominence of design look, point out how future studies can build on what we have learned in this new line of research, and outline six design implications for human-computer interaction professionals.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Benoy, J. W. (1982). The credibility of physically attractive communicators: A review. Journal of Advertising, 11(3), 15--24.
 
2
Berscheid, E. & Walster, E. (1974) Physical attractiveness. L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology. (Vol. 7, pp. 157--215). New York: Academic Press.
 
3
Berscheid, E. (1981) A review of the psychological effects of physical attractiveness. G. W. Lucker, K. A. Ribbens, & J. A. McNamara (Eds.), Psychological aspects of facial form (pp. 1--23). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Human Growth.
 
4
Cheskin Research & Studio Archetype/Sapient. (1999). "Ecommerce Trust Study." http://cheskin.com/think/trust/assets/images/etrust.pdf
 
5
Cheskin Research (July 2000). "Trust in the Wired Americas" Online at http://cheskin.com/think/studies/trustIIrpt.pdf
 
6
Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., Wiedenbeck S. (2001). Trust in the online environment. In M. J. Smith, G. Salvendy, D. Harris, and R. J. Koubek (Eds.), Usability Evaluation and Interface Design
 
7
Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E. & Walster, E. (1972) What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285--290.
 
8
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991) What is beautiful is good, but...: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109--128.
9
 
10
Finberg, H., Stone, H., and Lynch, D. (2001). Digital Journalism Credibility Study. Available at www.journalists.org/Programs/credibility_study.pdf
 
11
Fogg, B. J. (2002a). Prominence-Interpretation Theory: Explaining How People Assess Credibility. A Research Report by the Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab. Available at www.captology.stanford.edu/PIT.html
 
12
Fogg, B. J. (2002b). Stanford Guidelines for Web Credibility. A Research Summary from the Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab. Stanford University. www.webcredibility.org/guidelines.
13
 
14
Fogg, B. J., Kameda, T., Boyd, J., Marshall, J., Sethi, R., Sockol, M., Trowbridge, T. (2002). Stanford-Makovsky Web Credibility Study 2002: Investigating what makes Web sites credible today. A Research Report by the Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab in collaboration with Makvosky & Company. Stanford University. Available at www.webcredibility.org
 
15
Fogg, B. J., Lee. E., & Marshall, J. (2002). Interactive Technology and Persuasion. In J. P. Dillard and M. Pfau (Eds.), The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice. Pp 765--788. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16
17
18
 
19
Kim, J. & J. Y. Moon (1998). Designing Emotional Usability in Customer Interfaces-Trustworthiness of Cyber-banking System Interfaces. Interacting with Computers, Vol. 10: 1--29.
20
21
 
22
23
 
24
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, New York: Academic Press, 123--205.
 
25
Princeton Survey Research Associates (2002). A Matter of Trust: What Users Want From Web Sites. Results of a National Survey of Internet Users for Consumer WebWatch. Available online at http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/news/report1.pdf
26
 
27

CITED BY  17

Collaborative Colleagues:
B. J. Fogg: colleagues
Cathy Soohoo: colleagues
David R. Danielson: colleagues
Leslie Marable: colleagues
Julianne Stanford: colleagues
Ellen R. Tauber: colleagues