|
|
|
|
|
Insights from Human Factors International
|
 |
|
In This Issue:
|
|
Web Credibility
|
Kath Straub, Ph.D., CUA, Chief Scientist of HFI, and Susan Weinschenk,
Ph.D., Chief of Advanced Studies and Projects for HFI, ask the question
– What makes a Web site credible?
|
| |
|
|
The Pragmatic Ergonomist
|
Dr. Eric Schaffer, Ph.D., CPE, founder and CEO of HFI offers practical
advice.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Overview
|
What are the characteristics of a Web site that make a person decide
the information at the site is credible? Recent research indicates that
not all people make the decision of credibility using the same criteria.
Domain experts (e.g., Doctors on a health site or Certified Financial
Planners on a financial information site) focus on brand, company reputation,
information sources, and internal fact-checking to evaluate the credibility
of an information site. In contrast, consumers use characteristics such
as look-and-feel and information design to evaluate credibility.
|
|
Recent research
|
Consumer watchdog/research groups have reported large scale surveys in
which they asked internet users to report the criteria that they use to
evaluate the credibility of Web sites [3,4]. Advocacy groups such as Consumer
Web Watch (the Web watchdog arm of Consumers Union) and the Pew Internet
and American Life Projects each report large scale surveys concluding
that consumers report that they rely on the following types of information:
- Site owners/sponsors;
- Reported information sources/citations;
- Date of posting;
- Clearly distinguished content, editorial content and advertising copy.
In fact, both groups also report that, although consumers SAY that they
use these factors to evaluate a site's authority and trustworthiness,
they fail to actually do these things. Pew reports that only about one
quarter of health information seekers actually check the source and timeliness
of information every time they search for health information.
So what characteristics are they really using, not just reporting on?
Fogg and colleagues conducted two major studies [1,2] exploring the characteristics
of a Web site that influence consumers and domain experts separately.
Participants were asked to explore/evaluate pairs of similar Web sites,
rank the sites (within a given pair) as more or less credible than the
other and then report why they selected that particular ranking.
A total of 2,864 participants completed the consumer study [1]. Participants
rated site pairs from one of 10 randomly assigned content categories:
E-commerce, Entertainment, Finance, Health, News, Non-profit, Opinion/Review,
Search Engines, Sports or Travel. Each category contained 10 sites.
A total of 15 participants completed the expert study [2]. In this study,
site categories were limited to Health and Finance. Again, participants
ranked and commented on a random site pair. Participants were assigned
to their domain expertise category.
|
|
What the studies found
|
Consumers who were not domain experts tended to use the same criteria
even on different types of sites. The criteria used most often are (in
order of frequency):
- Design look
- Information focus
- Information design
- Advertising
- Company motive
- Name and reputation
- Information bias
- Information accuracy
- Writing tone
- Information source
For the domain experts the most often used criteria were (in order of
frequency):
- Name
- Information source
- Company motive
- Information focus
- Advertising
- Design look
- Information bias
- Information design
- Writing tone
- Information accuracy
Although these studies were conducted in the United States, similar findings
have been found in other countries. In a study at the University of Heidelberg
[5], consumers in a focus group confidently reported that they would look
primarily to the information source to evaluate credibility of health
information Web sites. However, in practice none of the participants explored
the "About Us" sections of any of the sites that they visited.
Further, participants could remember the name of the [Web site or] company
or organization presenting task-critical information only about 20% of
the time.
It seems that consumers use parameters of Web sites that they feel confident
evaluating: Look and Information design. In short, attractive and easy-to-use
Web sites are construed as being credible.
|
|
Possible explanations
|
In looking at why consumers use the factors they do there are several
possible explanations.
Social Psychologists (and marketers) have known through research for
quite some time that attractive people are responded to more positively
than unattractive people – they receive more help, more job offers,
higher pay and shorter prison sentences [6,7,8 and 9]. In the absence
of other criteria for evaluation (or even in their presence), perhaps
the same holds true for Web sites?
Or perhaps it is the famous "halo effect." A halo effect occurs
when one positive characteristic of a person broadly influences the way
that that person is viewed by others. Again, the positive characteristic
is typically attractiveness. The halo of attractiveness broadly influences
the perception of unrelated attributes:
- Attractive children are viewed as being less naughty than their less
attractive peers for the same behaviors [10],
- Good looking people are automatically assigned favorable traits such
as kindness, honesty and talent [11].
Apparently, attractive Web sites are attributed expertise and trustworthiness
– the characteristics Fogg uses to define credibility – in
the same way.
|
|
What is the impact?
|
In terms of design, we are reminded that effective design depends on
knowing the audience: Site characteristics that influence credibility
for domain experts are very different than those which influence consumers.
Look and usability are intimately correlated with Web credibility for
general consumers. In the absence of expertise, consumers appeal to look
and ease of use to evaluate a site's credibility. Not only are attractive,
easy-to-use sites rated more credible than frustrating or chaotic ones,
users explicitly acknowledge the importance of this characteristic in
the evaluation process.
|
|
References
|
Fogg, B.J., Soohoo, C., Danielsen, D., Marable, L., Stanford, J., &
Tauber, E. (2002). How
Do People Evaluate a Web Site's Credibility? Results from a Large Study.
Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab, Stanford University.
Stanford, J., Tauber, E., Fogg, B.J., Marable, L. (2002). Expert
vs. Online Consumers: A Comparative Credibility Study of Health and Finance
Web Sites.
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.
Vital Decisions: How Internet users decide what information to trust
when they or their loved ones are sick (March 2002). Fox, S and Rainie,
L. Pew, Internet and American Life Project Report:
Washington, DC.
Eysenbach, G., & Köhler, C. (2002). How do consumers search
for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative
study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews British
Medical Journal, 324, 573-577.
Benson, P.L., Karabenic, S. A. and Lerner, R. M. (1976). Pretty Pleases:
The effects of physical attractiveness on race, sex and receiving help.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
12, 409-415.
Mack, D. & Rainey, D. (1990). Female applicants' grooming and personnel
selection. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
5, 399-407.
Hammermesch, D. and Biddle, J. E. (1994). Beauty and the labor market.
The American Economic Review, 84, 1174-1194.
Stewart, J. E. (1980). Defendant's attractiveness as a factor in the
outcome of trials. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
10, 217-238.
Dion. K. K. (1972). Physical Attractiveness and evaluation of children's
transgressions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 24, 207-213.
Eagly, A.H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G. and Longo, L.C. (1991).
What is beautiful is good, but...: A meta-analytic review of research
of the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological
Bulletin, 110, 109-128.
|
| |
| |
As designers we probably can't change our company name, and may have
little control over content. But the quality of graphic treatment and
structural design can clearly make a difference. It is like the "Dress
for Success" of interface design. Dressing well won't help much when
being cross examined by an expert. But it will certainly help convince
the less well informed.
|
|
|
|
Past Issues
|
|
