The impact of Internet interactivity and need for closure on consumer preference

Abstract

The Internet is used by an ever-increasing number of people worldwide. However, there is little understanding of the interaction between Internet technology and the behavior of different human personality types. This article focuses on the impact of the need for closure on the desired level of interactivity of a given Website. For this experiment, four commercialized Websites were created: (1) flat—with no hyperlinks and no time pressure; (2) flat with time pressure; (3) interactive with no time pressure; and (4) interactive with time pressure. All of the Websites contained identical information presented in different ways. The interaction between need for closure as a personality variable and as a situational variable and level of interactivity of the Website as a variable on consumer behavior was examined. A 2 (high need for closure vs. low need for closure)×2 (time pressure vs. no time pressure)×2 (interactive vs. non-interactive Website) between-subjects design was used. One hundred and eighty-two experienced Web surfers took part in the experiment, and were randomly assigned to one of the Websites. After surfing they completed a questionnaire about their level of satisfaction with the Website, their willingness to purchase the product offered there, and their wish to return to the Website. It was predicted that people with a high need for closure would prefer a Website with fewer hyperlinks, while people with a low need for closure would prefer a Website containing more hyperlinks. Results confirmed our predictions with regard to the conditions without time pressure. In contrast, when participants were under time pressure, the results were completely reversed: People with a low need for closure preferred the flat Website and those with a high need for closure preferred an interactive Website. The implications of the results on Website design are discussed.

Introduction

Many people regard the Internet as an essential part of their daily lives and use it in various ways; for example, as an information source, for shopping, and for discussions with other users. Hamburger and Ben-Artzi (2000) pointed out the need to study the interaction between the users' personality and the different Internet services. Amichai-Hamburger (2002) suggested that the lack of communication between Web designers and psychologists has created a situation in which the Web is not sufficiently user-friendly and does not fulfill its potential as a consumer–sensitive service, especially when a unique ability to interact with individual needs and requests is taken into account. Amichai-Hamburger stresses that a comprehensive study of the impact of personality characteristics and Internet services on well-being is necessary in order to create a knowledge–base which will help shape the Internet into a more user-friendly environment.

Hamburger and Ben-Artzi (2000) were the first to demonstrate the link between personality and the Internet. They analyzed levels of extraversion and neuroticism and found that these showed different patterns for men and women in their interaction with the Internet services scale. For men, extraversion was positively linked to the use of leisure services and neuroticism was negatively related to the use of information services. Whereas for women, extraversion was negatively related and neuroticism was positively related to the use of social sites. These results are particularly interesting because they confirm earlier studies showing that women have a higher self-awareness and are more likely to use the social network for support. Hamburger and Ben-Artzi's (2000) results are important because they show that personality is a highly relevant factor in determining behavior on the Internet.

Howes, Miles, Payne, Mitchell, and Davies (2001) pointed out that very little empirical work has been carried out on the commercial effectiveness of Website design. The ability of the Internet to adapt itself to the preferences of net-users could contribute significantly to the effectiveness both of Websites and of advertising which would then become much more oriented towards the individual (Rust & Varki, 1996). Building on his previous work, Amichai-Hamburger (2002) suggested that people who differ in their need for closure (Kruglanski & Freund, 1983) might differ in their preference for a Website based on the amount of hyperlinks in the Website.

The Internet is by definition an interactive medium (Rust & Varki, 1996). An essential part of this interactive ability is the hyperlinks technique (namely, the ability to move from one place to another with a click on the mouse and so reach a new layer of information by a simple movement). There are, generally speaking, two kinds of hyperlinks: external and internal. The external hyperlink sends the surfer outside of the Website to an external source of information, while the internal hyperlink sends the surfer immediately to the part requested on the same Website. Websites differ as to their level of interactivity. A Website that uses many hyperlinks is called a high interactive Website, while a Website with very few or no hyperlinks is called a flat Website. Hyperlinks allow different surfers to visit the same Website simultaneously, while spending their time in completely different ways and seeing different parts of the site. For example, when visiting a car sale Website with a great amount of information, (e.g. photographs, media reports and service information), a person who needs much information before reaching a decision will move through many hyperlinks whereas, a fast decision maker will not.

By clicking, a surfer is seeking more information. It is important to understand the process by which an Internet user decides he/she has enough information. This point has been considered by lay epistemology theory (Kruglanski, 1980).

The lay epistemology theory (Kruglanski, 1980, Kruglanski and Ajzen, 1983) is concerned with the process by which people acquire information. This acquisition takes place in two phases: (1) hypothesis generation: a cognitive generation stage in which the contents of the information form in our mind; (2) evaluation generation: a cognitive validation stage in which the degree of validity attributed to the contents is assessed and the degree of confidence in the knowledge is determined. An individual's motivation can be located on a continuum, one end of which is a strong desire for closure and the other a desire to avoid closure. Closure is defined as the wish to attain the evaluation quickly. This may lead to a speedy “seizing” upon judgmentally relevant cues (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996). At this stage, people may adopt a “freezing” tendency in order to protect their prior judgment (Kruglanski & Freund, 1983). The dominant epistemic need at a specific time depends on the analysis of cost–benefit of the different results of the epistemic process. This is determined by a consistent personality tendency to see certain informational situations as cost or benefit situations; it may also be influenced by situational characteristics like those that enhance satisfaction on the basis of cost or benefits of freezing or unfreezing of the epistemic process in a given situation. For example, the benefit of cognitive closure can be related to predictive ability or the ability to act immediately. The lack of cognitive closure might be related to the time available and the additional effort required to reach closure. It was found that the need for closure is enhanced by time pressure (Heaton and Kruglanski, 1991, Kruglanski and Freund, 1983), environmental noise (Kruglanski and Webster, 1991, Kruglanski et al., 1993), a request for global impression (Freund, Kruglanski, & Shpitzajzen, 1985), cognitive load (Ford & Kruglanski, 1995), and the need to reach an unequivocal conclusion (Kruglanski & Mayseless, 1988). Alternatively, the need to avoid closure is influenced by the costs that stem from a judgmental mistake (Freund et al., 1985) or benefits that result in the avoidance of such a mistake. The cost–benefit might be financial (Kruglanski & Mayseless, 1987) or psychological (Kruglanski & Freund, 1983).

People differ as to their epistemic needs (Kruglanski et al., 1993, Webster and Kruglanski, 1994). Some people are characterized as having a high need for closure. Those people are motivated to avoid uncertainties on a judgmental topic and a tendency to “freeze” the epistemic process. Such people will tend to form their conclusions quickly, become locked into conceptions, and ignore contradicting information. People who have a low need for closure are predisposed to unfreeze and generate alternative hypotheses and to test as many implications of their hypotheses as possible, so as to ensure that the information they are holding is valid.

Webster and Kruglanski (1998) suggested that several of the effects of situational factors related to the need for closure were replicated when the need for closure was operationalized in terms of scores on the Need for Closure Scale (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). This indicated that the closure motivation represents a stable personality dimension in addition to being a product of situational factors.

Participants with a high need for closure are interested in reaching the ‘epistemic freezing’ in a relatively short time. It was therefore hypothesized that: (1a) participants with a high need for closure would be more convinced by the messages on the Website, would express more willingness to return to the site, and would feel more satisfaction from a flat site as compared with an interactive site. On the other hand, participants with a low need for closure require more information before they make a decision. Therefore it was hypothesized that: (1b) participants with a low-need-for-closure would be more convinced by the messages on the website, would express more willingness to return to the site, and would feel more satisfaction from an interactive site compared with a flat site. (2) Moreover we hypothesized that participants who surf a Website when the situation is aligned with their personal need (i.e. high-need-for-closure surfing under time pressure or low-need-for-closure surfing without time pressure) will show more extreme patterns of preference than participants who surf when the situation contradicts their personal need (i.e. high-need-for-closure surfing without time pressure or low-need-for-closure surfing under time pressure).