Don’t Confuse Me! The Effect of Self-Construal on the Relationship between Context Visual Complexity and Enjoyment

  • Nesenur AltinigneEmail author
  • Elif Karaosmanoglu
Conference paper
Part of the Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science book series (DMSPAMS)


This study focuses on the complexity of atmospheric cues in online retailing. It tries to answer how context visual complexity of an online retailing Web site affects enjoyment of consumers. Furthermore, it asks whether other intervening variables (i.e., processing fluency and perceived control, self-construal) affect the relationship between visual complexity and enjoyment. The results indicate that an e-retailer Web site is evaluated as more enjoyable when presented in low visual complexity than high visual complexity. Also, mediating roles of processing fluency and perceived control are assured. Furthermore, the findings suggest that in low context visual complexity condition, the respondents with interdependent self-construal experience more perceived control compared to the ones with independent self-construal; in high context visual complexity condition, the respondents primed with independent self-construal experience more perceived control compared to the interdependent ones.


E-retailing Visual complexity Processing fluency Self-control Perceived control 


  1. Agarwal, R., & Venkatesh, V. (2002). Assessing a firm’s web presence: a heuristic evaluation procedure for the measurement of usability. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 168–186.Google Scholar
  2. Agrawal, N., & Maheswaran, D. (2005). The effects of self-construal and commitment on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 841–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alba, J., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., & Janiszewski, C. (1997). Interactive home shopping: Consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate in electronic marketplaces. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 38–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bodhani, A. (2013). Getting a purchase on AR. Engineering and Technology, 8(4), 46–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Childers, T. L., Carr, C. L., Peck, J., & Carson, S. (2001). Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behaviour. Journal of Retailing, 77(4), 511–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corneille, O., Monin, B., & Pleyers, G. (2005). Is positivity a cue or a response option? Warm glow vs. evaluative matching in the familiarity for attractive and not-so-attractive faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(4), 431–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cyr, D. (2014). Return visits: A review of how web site design can engender visitor loyalty. Journal of Information Technology, 29(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dabholkar, P. A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2002). An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 30(3), 184–201.Google Scholar
  9. Dailey, L. (2004). Navigational web atmospherics: Explaining the influence of restrictive navigation cues. Journal of Business Research, 57(7), 795–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., & Davis, L. M. (2001). Atmospheric qualities of online retailing: A conceptual model and implications. Journal of Business Research, 6(9), 177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., & Davis, L. M. (2003). Empirical testing of a model of online store atmospherics and shopper responses. Psychology and Marketing, 20(2), 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferraro, R., Bettman, J. R., & Chartrand, T. L. (2009). The power of strangers: The effect of incidental consumer brand encounters on brand choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(February), 729–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ganesh, J., Reynolds, K. E., Luckett, M., & Pomirleanu, N. (2010). Online shopper motivations, and e-store attributes: An examination of online patronage behavior and shopper typologies. Journal of Retailing, 86(1), 106–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grewal, D., Levy, M., & Kumar, V. (2009). Customer experience management in retailing: An organizing framework. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Model templates for PROCESS for SPSS and SAS. Retrieved December, 12, 2015.Google Scholar
  16. Heaps, C., & Handel, S. (1999). Similarity and features of natural textures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(2), 299–320.Google Scholar
  17. Heylighen, F. (1997). The growth of structural and functional complexity during evolution. In F. Heylighen, J. Bollen, & A. Riegler (Eds.), The evolution of complexity (pp. 17–44). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  18. Hui, M. K., & Bateson, J. E. (1991). Perceived control and the effects of crowding and consumer choice on the service experience. Journal of consumer research, 18(2), 174–184.Google Scholar
  19. Janiszewski, C., & Meyvis, T. (2001). Effects of brand logo complexity, repetition and spacing on processing fluency and judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort (Vol. 1063). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Kalakota, R., & Whinston, A. B. (1997). Electronic commerce: A manager’s guide. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional.Google Scholar
  22. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R. L. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  23. Klinger, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1994). Preferences need no inferences? The cognitive basis of unconscious mere exposure effects. In P. M. Niedenthal & S. Kitayama (Eds.), The heart’s eye: Emotional influences in perception and attention (pp. 67–85). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krafft, M., & Mantrala, K. M. (2010). Retailing in the 21st century: Current and future Q9 trends (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, T. S. (1954). An empirical investigation of self-attitudes. American Sociological Review, 19, 58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Landwehr, J., Labroo, A., & Herrmann, A. (2011). Gut liking for the ordinary: Incorporating design fluency improves automobile sales forecasts. Marketing Science, 30(3), 416–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Langer, E. J., & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of personality and social psychology, 34(2), 191.Google Scholar
  28. Langer, E. J. (1983). The psychology of control. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Lavie, T., & Tractinsky, N. (2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60, 269–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindgaard, G., & Dudek, C. (2003). What is this evasive beast we call user satisfaction?. Interacting with computers, 15(3), 429–452.Google Scholar
  31. Luarn, P., & Lin, H. H. (2003). A customer loyalty model for e-service context. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 4(4), 156–167.Google Scholar
  32. Machado, P., Romero, J., Nadal, M., Santos, A., Correia, J., & Carballal, A. (2015). Computerized measures of visual complexity. Acta Psychologica, 160, 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mai, R., Hoffmann, S., Schwarz, U., Niemand, T., & Seidel, J. (2014). The shifting range of optimal web site complexity. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mandler, G., Nakamura, Y., & Van Zandt, B. J. (1987). Nonspecific effects of exposure on stimuli that cannot be recognized. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(4), 646.Google Scholar
  35. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224.Google Scholar
  36. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). The basic emotional impact of environments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 38(1), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nadkarni, S., & Gupta, R. (2007). A task-based model of web site complexity. MIS Quarterly, 31(3), 501–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 377–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nordhielm, C. (2002). The influence of level of processing on advertising repetition effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(December), 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  41. Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. (1989). Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and satisfaction in transactions: A field survey approach. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Orth, U. R., & Crouch, R. C. (2014). Is beauty in the aisles of the retailer? package processing in visually complex contexts. Journal of Retailing, 90(4), 524–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pieters, R., Wedel, M., & Batra, R. (2010). The stopping power of advertising: Measures and effects of visual complexity. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reber, R., Zimmermann, T. D., & Wurtz, P. (2004). Judgments of duration, figure-ground contrast and size for words and nonwords. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(7), 1105–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110(1), 145–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Russell, J. A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shankar, V., Inman, J. J., Mantrala, M., Kelley, E., & Rizley, R. (2011). Innovations in shopper marketing: Current insights and futures research issues. Journal of Retailing, 87(1), S29–S42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sherrod, D. R., Hage, J. N., Halpern, P. L., & More, B. S. (1977). Effects of personal causation and perceived control on responses to an aversive environment: The more control, the better. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(1), 14–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The Measurement of Independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(October), 580–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 174–215.Google Scholar
  51. Staub, E., Tursky, B., & Schwartz, G. E. (1971). Self-control and predictability: Their effects on reactions to aversive stimulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(2), 157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Szpiler, J. A., & Epstein, S. (1976). Availability of an avoidance response as related to autonomic arousal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85(1), 73.Google Scholar
  53. Wang, Y. J., Minor, M. S., & Wei, J. (2011). Aesthetics and the online shopping environment: Understanding consumer responses. Journal of Retailing, 87(1), 46–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ward, J. C., & Barnes, J. W. (2001). Control and affect: The influence of feeling in control of the retail environment on affect, involvement, attitude, and behavior. Journal of Business Research, 54(2), 139–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66(5), 297.Google Scholar
  56. Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(December), 989–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yang, Z., Saini, R., & Freling, T. (2015). How anxiety leads to suboptimal decisions under risky choice situations. Risk Analysis, 35(10), 1789–1800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. The Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Istanbul Bilgi UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Istanbul Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations