Aesthetics and preferences of web pages

By B. Schenkman, Fredrik U. Jönsson. Behavior and Information Technology, 2000

538 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/06958aa06aa4c4e0bcc1f30b52867ff86e9711ea

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots (2013, background): “Perceived attractiveness has been ascertained as the most important attribute in the preference for hedonic systems [31] as well as being the mediator for other qualities of technological systems [13].”
The role of visual complexity and prototypicality regarding first impression of websites: Working towards understanding aesthetic judgments (2012, background): “, 2000; Robins and Holmes, 2008), and overall impression (Schenkman and Jönsson, 2000; Tuch et al., 2010).”
An acceptance model for smart watches: Implications for the adoption of future wearable technology (2015, background): “For example, studies have found that web sites and web-based applications with greater AQ are perceived to be more useful for completing user tasks (Schenkman and Jönsson, 2000; Zhang and Li, 2004, 2005; Sanchez-Franco, 2010).”
An exploration of relations between visual appeal, trustworthiness and perceived usability of homepages (2011, background): “…formulate a medical diagnosis [Eddy 1999; Lindgaard et al. 2010], or assess the appeal of a Web site [Fernandes et al. 2003; Lindgaard et al. 2006; Schenkman and J¨ onsson 2000], our .rst impression is critical for developing a more considered opinion, or for determining a subsequent action.”
Evaluating the consistency of immediate aesthetic perceptions of web pages (2006, background): “In line with Lindgaard et al. (2006), this study supports a possible explanation for various studies that found influence of aesthetics on attitudes towards the IT artifact (e.g. Schenkman and Jonsson, 2000; Tractinsky et al., 2000; Lindgaard and Dudek, 2003; van der Heijden, 2003).”
The Affective Response Model: A Theoretical Framework of Affective Concepts and Their Relationships in the ICT Context (2013, background): “Web page preference Schenkman and Jonsson 2000 (no definition) Single item measure: preferred completely.”
Integrating the Kano model into a robust design approach to enhance customer satisfaction with product design (2008, background): “Previous studies (Lavie and Tractinsky, 2004; Liu, 2003, Rashid et al., 2004; Schenkman and Jonsson, 2000) that used a one-dimensional construct (e.g., a semantic index ‘‘beautiful verse ugly’’ or a single aesthetic measure with Likert scale rating) to explain how users perceived subject quality…”
Facets of visual aesthetics (2010, background): “, 2010; Hall and Hanna, 2004; Ling and van Schaik, 2002; Shieh and Lin, 2000; Simon, 2001; Thielsch, 2008), balance, grouping, structure, and order (Bauerly and Liu, 2006, 2008; Brady and Phillips, 2003; Ling and van Schaik, 2002, 2004; Schenkman and Jönsson, 2000; Schmidt et al., 2009; Schrepp et a”
The Interplay of Beauty, Goodness, and Usability in Interactive Products (2004, background): “Empirical studies on beauty and usability so far either relied on simple automated teller machine (ATM) layouts (e.g., Tractinsky et al., 2000) or Web sites (Schenkman & Jönsson, 2000) as study objects.”