Slides for Group 3's mini project presentation on First Impressions presented at Tutorem 2013.

1. TwinTide AUtumn Training SchOol 2013:
REsearch Methods for Human-Computer Interaction (TUTOREM 2013)
„FOOL ME ONCE,
SHAME ON YOU...“
Group 3
Kirsten
Christiana
Christiane
Kwamena

2. http://www.adriansnood.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Firstimpressions.jpg

3. http://www.adriansnood.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Firstimpressions.jpg

4. THE FIRST
IMPRESSION
How crucial is it to make
a good first impression?
Primary proposer:
Dr. Alexandre Tuch
studies showed: 50 ms is enough to make
a reliable first impression of a website
http://www.designdecoy.com/5-ways-smart-businesses-make-great-first-impression

5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
How does a first impression with a website effect how
users rate it after an error?
How does prior error with a website effect user‘s first
impressions of a visually similar website?

6. METHODOLOGICAL
APPROACH
positivist experimental approach (quantitative)
establish whether the effect occurs
variables have been proven to be measurable
interpretist approach (qualitative)
establish causes why the phenomena occurred
explain any effect found

7. Good impression WS
very good
appeal scale
very good first impression,
could lead to
high expectations
which then might lead to
big disappointment after
an error occurs
very bad

8. Average impression WS
very good
appeal scale
moderate first impression,
could prevent the
development of
high expectations
which then might lead to
less disappointment after
an error occurs
very bad

9. Good impression WS
Average impression WS
appeal scale
very good
very bad
Phase 1: between-subjects

10. HYPOTHESES
H0: an error has no effect on the appeal rating
H1: very good impressions will lead to a large drop in appeal
rating after an error
H2: very good impressions will lead to a significantly larger
drop in appeal rating after an error than average
impressions

11. appeal scale
very good
Good impression WS
Similar good impression WS
Average impression WS
Similar average impression WS
very bad
Phase 2: within-subjects

12. HYPOTHESES
H0: an error has no effect on ratings of visually similar
websites
H1: following an error in a good impression website, a
visually similar website will be rated lower than the initial
one
H2: following an error in an average impression website, a
visually similar website will not be rated significantly lower
than the initial one

13. STUDY
Participants
n = 100,
randomly recruited, familiar with IT, no experience with
web design
Materials
desktop computers, 12 websites (collected through a prestudy of appeal rating and visual similarity)
Design
Phase #1: between-subjects
Phase #2: within subjects
independent variable: appeal of website with error (good / average)
dependent variable: appeal rating (first impression, after error, first
impression of visually similar WS)
Analysis
ANOVA

14. PROCEDURE
appeal scale
random WS
60 s
appeal scale
random WS
50 ms

15. appeal scale
PROCEDURE
3 random WS
(rated for
appeal)
appeal scale
60 s, then error
appeal scale
50 ms
5 random WS
(rated for
appeal)
50 ms

16. CONTRIBUTIONS TO HCI
„Keep your promises!“
first impression may not be the most important thing to
strive for - one should live up to the expectations one
evokes
„Don‘t be a copycat!“
if the copied (popular) website fails, this might impact the
first impression of your website
your website might promise more, than you can deliver

17. RISKS
confounding variables:
error was not attributed to the website
worse appeal of visually similar website was not caused by
the prior error
scale might be inappropriate to measure appeal after
interaction
Qualitative follow-up study may clarify this