An Examination of Online Product Comparison Service: Fit Between Product Type and Disposition Style

  • Fiona Fui-Hoon Nah
  • Weiyin Hong
  • Liqiang Chen
  • Hong-Hee Lee
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4553)


Horizontal and vertical disposition styles are two main formats used in product comparison service on e-commerce websites. In this research, we hypothesize that there is a fit between product type (‘think‘ vs. ‘feel‘ product) and disposition style (horizontal vs. vertical style), where horizontal disposition style is more appropriate for ‘feel‘ products and vertical disposition style is a better fit for ‘think‘ products. An experiment will be carried out to test the hypotheses.


Cognitive fit product comparison service product type presentation format e-commerce websites 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Zid, L.A.-S.: Shop and Compare. Marketing Management 14, 1, 3-3, 2/5p (January/February 2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nah, F., Lee, H.-H., Chen, L.: Information Search Patterns in E-commerce Product Comparison Services. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Workshop on HCI Research in MIS, pp. 75–79 (2005) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dahlen, M.: Thinking and Feeling on the World Wide Web: The Impact of Product Type and Time on World Wide Web Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Communications 8(2), 115–125 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ratchford, B.T.: New Insights about the FDB Grid. Journal of Advertising Research, 24–38 (August/September 1987)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vessey, I.: Cognitive Fit: A Theory-based Analysis of the Graphs versus Tables Literature. Decision Sciences 22(2), 219–240 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hong, W., Thong, J.Y.L., Tam, K.Y.: The Effects of Information Format and Shopping Task on Consumers’ Online Shopping Behavior: A Cognitive Fit Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems 21(3), 151–188 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vessey, I., Galletta, D.: Cognitive Fit: An Empirical Study of Information Acquisition. Information Systems Research 2(1), 63–85 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ojanpaa, H., Nasanen, R., Kojo, I.: Eye Movements in the Visual Search of Word Lists. Vision Research 42, 1499–1512 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A.: The Psychology of Reading. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1989)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Claeys, C., Swinnen, A., Abeele, P.V.: Consumers’ Means-end Chains for “think” and “feel” Products. International Journal of Research in Marketing 12, 193–208 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kirk, R.E.: Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edn. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, US (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fiona Fui-Hoon Nah
    • 1
  • Weiyin Hong
    • 2
  • Liqiang Chen
    • 1
  • Hong-Hee Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Nebraska-Lincoln, College of Business Administration, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0491USA
  2. 2.University of Nevada, College of Business, Las Vegas, Nevada 89154-6034USA

Personalised recommendations