Journal of Management Information Systems: Click For Updates

This article was downloaded by: [FU Berlin]
On: 14 May 2015, At: 10:49

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Management Information

Systems
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mmis20
Enticing and Engaging Consumers via

Online Product Presentations: The
Effects of Restricted Interaction Design
Cheng Yi, Zhenhui (Jack) Jiang & Izak Benbasat
Published online: 15 Apr 2015.
Click for updates
To cite this article: Cheng Yi, Zhenhui (Jack) Jiang & Izak Benbasat (2015) Enticing and Engaging
Consumers via Online Product Presentations: The Effects of Restricted Interaction Design, Journal of
Management Information Systems, 31:4, 213-242, DOI: 10.1080/07421222.2014.1001270
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2014.1001270
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 10:49 14 May 2015
Enticing and Engaging Consumers via
Online Product Presentations: The Effects
of Restricted Interaction Design
CHENG YI, ZHENHUI (JACK) JIANG, AND IZAK BENBASAT
CHENG YI is an assistant professor of information systems at the School of

Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, China. She received her Ph.D.
in information systems from National University of Singapore. Her research interests
include the design and evaluation of information search and decision-support inter-
faces, electronic commerce, online consumer behavior, and social media. Her work
has appeared in top information systems journals such as Information Systems
Research, and the proceedings of top information systems and human–computer

interaction conferences, such as International Conference on Information Systems
(ICIS) and ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI).
ZHENHUI (JACK) JIANG is an associate professor in the Department of Information

Systems of National University of Singapore and assistant dean (graduate studies) in
the School of Computing. He received his Ph.D. in management information
systems from University of British Columbia. His research interests include social
media, electronic commerce, human–computer interaction, and information privacy.
His work has been published in top information systems journals, such as MIS
Quarterly, Information Systems Research, and Journal of Management Information
Systems, and top human–computer interaction conferences, such as CHI. He has
served on the editorial board of MIS Quarterly, IEEE Transactions of Engineering
Management, and Journal of the AIS, among others. He has previously taught at
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and Tsinghua University. He was
also a visiting scholar in the Marketing Group of MIT Sloan School of Management.
IZAK BENBASAT is a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and Canada Research
Chair in Information Technology Management at the Sauder School of Business,
University of British Columbia. He received his Ph.D. in information systems
from the University of Minnesota in 1974 and doctorat honoris causa from
Université de Montréal in 2009. He currently serves on the editorial boards of
Journal of Management Information Systems and Information Systems Journal.
He was the editor in chief of Information Systems Research, editor of the
Information Systems and Decision Support Systems Department of
Management Science, and a senior editor of MIS Quarterly. He became a fellow
of the Association for Information Systems (AIS) in 2002, received the LEO
Award for Lifetime Exceptional Achievements in Information Systems from
Association for Information Systems in 2007, and was conferred the title of
Distinguished Fellow by the Institute for Operations Research and Management
Sciences (INFORMS) Information Systems Society in 2009. He was a Marvin
Bower Fellow at the Harvard Business School and Shaw Visiting Professor at the
National University of Singapore.
Journal of Management Information Systems / Spring 2015, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 213–242.
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN 0742–1222 (print) / ISSN 1557–928X (online)
DOI: 10.1080/07421222.2014.1001270
214 YI, JIANG, AND BENBASAT
ABSTRACT: This work investigates the effects of three different online product presenta-
tion formats, namely, a noninteractive video presentation and two virtual product
experience (VPE) presentations (full interaction and restricted interaction), on engaging
users in online product experience as well as enticing users to try products offline. The
experimental results show that restricted interaction, which deprives users of part of the
interactive product experience, is more enticing than both the noninteractive and fully
interactive design for users with more product-class knowledge. In addition, restricted
interaction is generally as good as full interaction in engaging users. Both engagement
and enticement positively affect users’ purchase intentions. This study contributes to the
information systems literature by extending the theory in curiosity formation to the
interaction design context and advocating designs for enticement. It contributes to
design practice by revealing that less interactive and less costly presentations can be
more effective in attracting consumers toward the products.
KEY WORDS AND PHRASES: virtual product experience (VPE), restricted interaction,
full interaction, enticement, engagement, purchase intention, online product presen-
tation, online video, online selling.
This study investigates the effects of three online product presentation formats with
varying degrees of interactivity on engaging online users and enticing them to
pursue further product experiences offline. The role of users’ product-class knowl-
edge in moderating these effects is also assessed.
Many online stores have employed various forms of product presentations to display
their newly launched products in order to attract consumers. While traditional product
presentations are limited mainly to text and pictures, online vendors are now using more
vivid multimedia features to enrich the presentations [17, 84]. For example, the Land
Rover website (www.landroverusa.com) uses video clips with visual and sound effects
to display cars in motion. The Samsung website (www.samsung.com) allows users to
use their mouse or keyboard to rotate and view a virtual cell phone as well as to try out its
various functions. This type of online experience, which aims at simulating customers’
feel, touch, and trial of products, is termed virtual product experience (VPE) [42].
The design and impacts of online product presentations have been studied extensively
in recent years. Much attention has been paid to the use of interactive multimedia
technologies to improve consumers’ online product experience [e.g., 44, 57, 84]. For
example, studies have shown that presentations incorporating motion and interactivity
are generally better than static images in terms of improving product learning and the
playfulness of the experience [e.g., 42]. Particularly, a highly interactive product pre-
sentation (e.g., VPEs), as compared to a passive video one, will facilitate product
understanding and evoke a strong sense of control, intrinsic enjoyment and fulfillment
during the experience [e.g., 28, 80]. Such a state is often described as deep engagement,
which reflects an individual’s subjective enjoyment in a holistic experience with
technology [18, 33]. Engagement has been an important metric of online consumer
experience [13, 58, 88] and is positively related to consumer satisfaction and their
approach responses such as store revisits and purchases [41, 70].
ENTICING CONSUMERS VIA ONLINE PRODUCT PRESENTATIONS 215
While much research emphasis has been placed on improving the engagement and
playfulness of an online product experience, whether and how online product
exposure influences offline product experiences has attracted little research attention.
Indeed, statistics suggest that many consumers (78 percent according to a recent
eMarketer survey [25]) are “cross-channel” shoppers who tend to research online
and, if they are interested in particular products, turn to the offline stores to inspect
the real products and then make a purchase [5, 24, 25, 30, 56]. It has been reported
that web-influenced retailing store sales in the United States were more than three
times greater than direct online sales [24, 31]. A recent study has further revealed
that more than half of customers who sample the real product tend to buy it, and
nearly 90 percent of repeated customers will plan for another purchase after product
trials [6]. These statistics imply that consumers’ direct product trial is still a critical
step before forming purchase decisions, especially for products with experiential
attributes that cannot be fully evaluated without trials [83, 95]. Accordingly, retailers
are increasingly focusing on driving consumers into their physical store locations
while maintaining a growing online presence [25]. For example, companies often
feature their new automobile models online, hoping to attract potential buyers into
the showroom where a test drive is often followed by a purchase [64]. Therefore, the
design of an effective online product presentation should consider enticing potential
consumers to conduct product trials offline. In fact, exposure to a virtual product
experience preceding a direct product trial is also shown to be more effective in
influencing brand attitudes and purchase than having a direct trial experience
only [20].
Hence, while creating an engaging online presentation aims to deliver a playful
and holistic online product experience, an enticing presentation arouses consumers’
desire for further product experience offline. Existing information systems (IS)
literature has focused mainly on building engaging online experiences and has
advocated the use of interactive features that grant flexible user control and meet
users’ needs [e.g., 19, 44, 53, 62, 84]. However, the design and impacts of entice-
ment have seldom been discussed. We posit that consumers’ approach responses to
the featured products (such as their purchase behavior) should be influenced by both
the engagement and enticement of the online product experience. Specifically,
enticement as a force that generates interest in and desire for product trials is
important to the research and practice of online presentation design because entice-
ment could be a key antecedent to heightened awareness of and expectation about
the featured product, which boosts purchase propensity.
Indeed, while the need for incorporating interactivity to engage users and fulfill
their desire for active control is often agreed upon in previous IS research, some
studies in marketing and consumer psychology find that an interest-arousing product
experience is often not the one that perfectly fulfills all users’ need or delivers on all
the promises [e.g., 21, 37, 77]. Rather, discretionally restricting the experience being
delivered is found to effectively stimulate users’ curiosity and interest due to a
feeling of “loss” or “deprivation.” For example, movie trailers are designed to reveal
only selected parts of the shows; cosmetics advertisements often include cropped
images, such as half of the face of a sexy model, to attract potential customers. Such
restricted or incomplete information often boosts users’ interest in the focal objects.
In the context of online product presentations, similar attempts can be made to
restrict users’ interaction with virtual products so as to stimulate their desire for
further product experience. For example, suppose that you are on a cell phone
website. One presentation to introduce “building your own music library” feature
may let you directly act on the interface during every step of this functional process.
You would first open your music collection in a computer or connect to an online
music store, then select songs, confirm your selections, and play songs.
Alternatively, another form of presentation may ask you to open a music collection
on the screen and as you are exposed to the collection, it then starts demonstrating
the subsequent steps (e.g., select and play a song) in an automatic video form.
Apparently, these two presentation designs demonstrate the same functional process,
but they differ in the extent to which user–product interaction is embedded. The
former allows the user to actively experience all the steps of the entire executing
process; hence it is termed full interaction VPE. The latter restricts users’ active
interaction with the virtual product to only part of the functional process (“opening a
collection” in this case); whereas the rest of the process is shown automatically. We
thus term the latter design restricted interaction VPE [82]. In essence, full interaction
VPE provides users a completely interactive product experience, whereas restricted
interaction VPE allows for some user interactions but does not afford a complete
active experience.
The current study thus examines and compares three forms of online product
presentations with varying degrees of interactivity—namely, noninteractive video
presentation, restricted interaction VPE, and full interaction VPE. We propose that
while a more interactive and holistic design may engage online users more effec-
tively, a restricted design may be able to entice users to go beyond the online
experience for further information. It is thus meaningful to investigate the relative
benefits of different presentation designs and understand how to properly design
product interactivity to induce more purchases.
Moreover, different product presentation designs may not exert the same effect for
consumers having different knowledge about the target product class [48, 75].
Specifically, since enticement is often achieved through invoking personal goals
and needs related to the focal experience [52], the level of enticement should depend
on what knowledge one already possesses and what one wants to obtain [61]. Past
studies have shown that people with different knowledge about a product category
may process new product information in different ways [12] and react to product
promotional stimuli differently [68]. This implies that designers may have to tailor
the designs for different users in order to achieve the most desirable effect. This
study thus further examines how the enticing effect of different online product
demonstration formats will be moderated by users’ prior product-class knowledge.
Overall, this study aims to fill three gaps in the extant literature on online product
presentations. First, while existing studies tend to treat product interactivity as a
dichotomous design factor, that is, either highly interactive or passive [e.g., 28, 43,
80], we aim to shed light on possible new interaction design methods [36]. Second,
in addition to user engagement, we advocate the design for enticement, a concept
that has largely been neglected by prior IS studies. Our results will show that both
online user engagement and enticement toward offline product experience will
influence consumers’ purchase intentions. Third, this study investigates the role of
consumers’ product-class knowledge in moderating the effects of online product
presentations. While this has not attracted much attention in previous research, it is
generally agreed that understanding how to customize web provisions for different
consumer segments is highly important in achieving the most desired outcome [e.g.,
48, 75].
Literature Review
The current study examines how different online product presentation formats affect
the engagement and enticement of the online product experience, which are likely
conducive to purchase intentions. Engagement refers to the extent to which con-
sumers immerse in the online product experience and enjoy it [92]. The enticement
of the online presentation refers to the extent to which the presentation raises
consumers’ curiosity and desire about further direct product experiences offline
[52, 64, 66]. In other words, enhancing engagement focuses on optimizing users’
ongoing experience and drawing them into online product investigation, whereas
increasing enticement aims to elevate users’ voluntary interest in further exploration
offline. Prior literature suggests that engaging users in the current experience and
enticing them into further related experience may require different design techniques
[66, 91]. The following sections thus review the impacts and antecedents of engage-
ment and enticement in detail.
Engagement and the Provision of Interactivity

Prior research in psychology suggests that users’ holistic experiences with technol-
ogy as captured in constructs such as flow [18, 33], cognitive absorption [1], and
engagement [92] are important in explaining online user behavior. In particular,
Csikszentmihalyi’s [18, p. 4] notion of flow represents the condition “in which
people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter.” Such a
state reflects that the experience is intrinsically enjoyable. The theory of flow has
been applied to various contexts, including users’ reactions to and motivations for
using computing technologies [33]. It is found that users’ subjective enjoyment when
interacting with a technology significantly affects their extent of technology use and
attitudes. To further examine users’ holistic experiences with technologies, Agarwal
and Karahanna [1, p. 673] describe a concept labeled cognitive absorption, which
captures “a state of deep involvement with software.” A common thread underlying
flow and cognitive absorption is that users are engaged in an experience when
technologies they interact with are riveting and playful. The concept of engagement
thus encompasses users’ focused attention to an experience and the intrinsic enjoy-
ment they derive from it [73, 90]. A high level of engagement is found to develop a
positive feeling about the experience and reinforce users’ likelihood to use the
medium [49, 59]. In the context of online shopping, consumer engagement is
shown to be an important driver of consumers’ satisfaction online and their con-
sumption intentions [38, 79].
With respect to the antecedents of engagement, prior literature suggests that the
interactivity of the medium plays an important role [e.g., 1, 73, 91]. Specifically, a
highly interactive system allows users to exert their autonomy in determining the
material to examine and the pace at which they want to proceed, as well as permits
users to carry on a two-way communication with the system [51]. This flexibility as
well as the feedback that provides users with prompt acknowledgment of their input
create a sense of control, fulfillment, and enjoyment [7, 51].
Incorporating a higher level of interactivity has been demonstrated to enhance user
engagement in various task contexts. For example, studies have found that greater
interactivity of software interfaces facilitates an acute involvement with the software

and leads to increased pleasure [19, 27, 89]. In the context of online shopping,
websites with greater interactivity allow consumers to act in a variety of ways to
gather product information, resulting in higher affinity toward the website and
stronger engagement [45]. Schlosser [80] has specifically investigated product
interactivity, which refers to consumers’ virtual interactions with products, and has
found that interactivity with virtual products can help produce vivid mental imagery
of how a product can be consumed, which leads to high engagement in product
experience and positive attitudes.
Enticement and the “Deprivation” of Interactivity

Unlike engagement, enticement has not attracted much attention in IS research.
Enticement manifests the quality of a design that attracts a target by arousing hope
or desire. For example, marketers often harness the power of enticement in advertis-
ing to arouse consumers’ desire for further information on the advertised content
[64, 65]. Such desire reflects a heightened curiosity, which has been recognized as a
key motive for various human behaviors [61]. In the context of online product
investigations, an enticing product presentation may stimulate consumers’ interest
and curiosity about further interaction with the physical product beyond the virtual
environment. Sufficient curiosity and interest in further experiencing the product
represents a strengthened attachment to the product and an anticipated pleasure from
approaching it.
A common drive of one’s heightened curiosity and interest, as suggested by
previous research, is the incompleteness of a given stimulus. For example, teachers
often leave the learning tasks partially incomplete when releasing students for breaks
so students can maintain curious minds, thus yielding better retention and active
learning. Incorporating incomplete cues in marketing stimuli such as advertising
pictures [74, 76], product names [67], and logos [35] has also been found to
intensify consumers’ interests and generate favorable responses. In the domain of
“persuasive technology,” which focuses on how technology changes human beha-
viors, studies also suggest that technology design should “preserve” some elements
of surprise rather than making it holistic or perfect so as to entice users into further
interactions [e.g., 52]. Underlying these findings is a widely cited theory on curios-
ity, the information-gap theory, suggested by Loewenstein [61]. This theory views
curiosity as arising when one’s attention is focused on a gap in his/her knowledge.
Specifically, a gap is defined as the difference between what a person has now and
what he/she would like to have [61, 66]. The presence of a gap often implies a sense
of loss or deprivation, which induces a cognitive tension and motivates information
acquisition to reduce or eliminate the gap [9, p. 122; 26, 34, 60].
One key assumption of the information-gap theory is that users’ awareness of the
gap is a necessary precondition for enticement [11, 66]. Particularly, a failure to
appreciate what one does not get constitutes a barrier to be enticed since the feeling
of a gap is not sufficiently strong to enforce cognitive tension. Such a case is often
termed “no-cue curiosity,” that is, users are presented with an information gap but do
not tend to pay attention to it. As a result, they have little desire to approach it
further [66]. Accordingly, a key to enticement is to provoke users’ awareness of any
incomplete provision in the ongoing activity. Specifically, the perception of a gap is
often relative; it tends to result from a contrast between one’s actual level of
attainment and a subjective goal or aspiration level that serves as a “reference
point” [61]. For example, one way to enhance the awareness of a gap presented in
the experience is to deprive users of the information or experience previously
afforded, which provokes a comparison between the current and past experiences
and hence makes the incompleteness salient [86].
Whereas in most prior studies, it is the incomplete provision of visual or text
information that creates a perception of gap and tempts users to pursue a completion
[e.g., 32, 35, 74], this study attempts to extend the information-gap perspective to
the context of interaction design, where a perception of gap can be induced by the
lack of user–product interactions. We argue that if users are aware that they have
been deprived of the full opportunity of flexibly interacting with a virtual product, a
perception of gap in virtual product experience will be invoked and as a result users’
desire for further product experience will be intensified. Accordingly, users who
want to close the gap induced by the incomplete virtual experience are more likely to
be keen on the opportunity of further direct product trials than others who do not
face such deprivation or are not aware of it.
The Moderating Role of Relevant Knowledge in Evoking Enticement

Based on the information-gap theory, Loewenstein [61] further adds that curiosity
formation via information gaps is also affected by the knowledge that one has about
the domain related to closing the gaps. One’s domain knowledge is his/her general
knowledge about an area [4]. In the context of product investigation, consumers’

domain knowledge is their product-class knowledge, which refers to their general
knowledge about the class of products to which the target product belongs. For
example, when deciding on a possible purchase of an unknown personal computer
model, one’s existing knowledge about personal computers in general serves as his/
her domain knowledge to evaluate the product. In investigating the role of domain
knowledge in curiosity formation, Berlyne [10] found that unresolved questions
about animals evoked greater curiosity for users who were more familiar with the
animals. Hence, we expect that the enticing effect of an experience gap will be more
pronounced when individuals possess more related domain knowledge [47]. The
reasons are twofold.
First, if users have more knowledge on the topic, then the information stimulus is
more consistent with their existing knowledge structure and hence they will find the
task more relevant [e.g., 69]. Prior literature has shown that users tend to behave
with a self-consistency motive. Tasks or situations consistent with users’ knowledge
or beliefs tend to make them approach the stimuli and increase their readiness and
depth in processing the information [85]. As a result, users with an existing knowl-
edge base may be able to react to any missing information in the offering promptly
[3]. On the contrary, individuals with limited related knowledge may be less likely to
find the stimuli immediately relevant due to low consistency with their knowledge
structure. Information stimuli are likely to be processed superficially and activate
little related thought [3]. Accordingly, it is less likely for these users to develop a
strong perception of information gap and a need for further experience.
Second, individuals with more domain knowledge have stronger ability to close
the gap or resolve the incomplete experience; hence the goal of completion appears
more meaningful and manageable to them [61]. Indeed, past studies have suggested
that users’ information-processing capability is critical in influencing their motiva-
tions and execution of goal-directed activities [23, 81]. Individuals with a good
knowledge base are able to encode and process information presented efficiently and
thus can afford more information search and digestion [e.g., 14, 46]. For example,
trials of games or software may be more effective in attracting users who have
higher capabilities and richer resources to process the information [22, 96]. In
contrast, the lack of a related knowledge base and the processing capability may
dampen one’s enthusiasm to engage in further processing [8]. It is thus reasonable to
expect that the enticing impacts of an incomplete experience will be greater for users
who believe they can approach the goal of completion more effectively [e.g., 12].
Summary of Literature Review

To summarize, engagement and enticement are both important aspects that charac-
terize consumers’ online product experience. While providing highly interactive
features may contribute to building a fulfilling and engaging online product experi-
ence, restricting users’ interactions with a virtual product and thus inducing a
perception of gap may entice users to further experience the product. Moreover, the
enticing power of an incomplete interaction experience tends to get stronger when
users possess a higher level of domain knowledge.
Hypotheses Development
This study examines three different online product presentation formats, including
the noninteractive video design, the full interaction design, and the restricted inter-
action design. The noninteractive format dynamically demonstrates a product’s
functions via video, though it does not afford any user interaction with the virtual
product. The full interaction format, in contrast, allows users to freely interact with
the virtual product in its full detail and at their own pace throughout the process,
hence providing a flexible and holistic interactive experience. The restricted inter-
action format represents a middle course between the noninteractive and the full
interaction design. User interactions are restricted to limited steps during the demon-
stration process and the rest are demonstrated in a noninteractive video form.
Restricted interaction thus creates a partial interaction experience. The focus of
this study is to investigate how these three presentation formats with varying levels
of interactivity can engage users in the online product experience as well as entice
them to further experience the products offline. The entire research model is shown
in Figure 1. In the following sections, we will first compare the three presentation
formats in terms of engagement and then compare their effects on enticement. The
effects of engagement and enticement on purchase intentions are then proposed.
The Effect of Presentation Formats on Engagement

According to prior studies, online product presentations that provide users with more
interactive experiences by allowing visual and functional control over virtual pro-
ducts are expected to preserve users’ attention and create higher engagement [28, 42,
44]. This is because first, a high level of product interactivity allows users to directly
Figure 1. Research Model

manipulate the interface and gives them a feeling of “control” over the virtual
products [39]. Users thus tend to concentrate on the cues and feedback from the
interface in order to determine how to act and proceed. Second, a higher level of
interactivity encourages users to be active and exploratory during the experience,
hence generating more intrinsic interest and fulfillment [38, 93]. For example, Fiore
et al. [28] observed consumers’ reactions when they interacted with virtual models in
online clothing stores and found that such interactivity significantly increased con-
sumers’ enjoyment. In our study, since the full interaction design provides users with
the most interactive and flexible product experience, it should engage them in
product investigation more effectively than other less interactive designs. The
restricted interaction design, which offers limited chances for users to actively
interact with the product, is also expected to be more engaging than the noninter-
active design, which does not involve user interactivity at all. Therefore, we propose,
Hypothesis 1a: The full product interaction design will lead to higher user
engagement than the restricted product interaction and the noninteractive

design.
Hypothesis 1b: The restricted product interaction design will lead to higher
user engagement than the noninteractive design.
The Effect of Presentation Formats on Enticement

While an engaging presentation draws consumers into the online product experience
and makes them enjoy participating in the ongoing experience, an enticing presenta-
tion raises consumers’ desire for further product experiences beyond the virtual
environment. According to the literature on information-gap theory, discretionally
restricting the experience being delivered, rather than making it holistic and ful-
filling, tends to create a strong feeling of deprivation, which drives users to pursue
further experience. As the three presentation formats offer different interactive
experiences with the virtual product, they are expected to achieve different levels
of enticement.
With noninteractive presentations, users are a passive audience who do not interact
with virtual products at all throughout the process. Since interactivity is completely
lacking, there is no explicit awareness cue to prompt users to establish a goal such as
having an active product experience, and hence a contrast between users’ current
attainment and an elevated goal state is unlikely to form. Accordingly, users may
tend to treat the current passive experience as the norm, and thus there is little
awareness of incomplete product interactions. This is similar to the case of “no-cue
curiosity” in advertising, which presents a gap between what is provided and what
can be achieved but does not enforce users’ awareness of the link between the
current experience and the pursuable future [66]. Accordingly, a purely passive
design may not effectively entice users toward achieving a more interactive and
holistic experience [66].
In the restricted interaction design, users are able to interact with the virtual
product although part of this interactive experience is deprived. Specifically, the
limited interactions embedded during an automatic flow involve users as active
players rather than passive observers, and this active experience may serve as a
goal state and “reference point” for users in expecting subsequent product experi-
ence. Hence, when subsequent product interaction is “deprived,” an underlying
“goal tension” will be strongly invoked due to the contrast between the previous
active experience and the current passive one. In other words, users’ awareness of
the current interactive experience being incomplete is clearly heightened through the
interaction cues and the subsequent loss of the active experience. According to the
information-gap theory and related studies, such awareness of deprivation should
invoke users’ cognitive desire to continue and obtain a holistic and active product
inspection to close the gap in virtual product interactions. Overall, this incomplete
interaction design creates “cued curiosity” and entices users to further approach the
product and gather information by actively experiencing the product [11, 66].
In contrast, the full interaction design makes everything concrete and readily
available for users’ complete control. Since users are provided with the full oppor-
tunity of flexibly interacting with a virtual product, they are less likely than those
using restricted interaction to perceive a gap between what they are offered currently
and what they would like to have. The absence of such an explicit product experi-
ence gap will fail to produce a strong feeling of deprivation that induces users to
modify the current experience or desire more [e.g., 34, p. 203; 94]. As Wilson et al.
[94, p. 5] have stated, although “knowledge makes the world more predictable,” it
also makes it “less delicious” and “less exciting,” as there is little “loss” and thus
less anticipated pleasure from resolving it. Accordingly, full interaction may not
create a strong enticement for users to actively investigate the product further.
Therefore, we propose,
Hypothesis 2: The restricted product interaction design will lead to higher
enticement than the full product interaction and the noninteractive designs.
Whereas we expect an incomplete stimulus such as restricted interaction will be

effective in enticing users, the strength of this effect may differ depending on
users’ level of relevant knowledge. As mentioned earlier, a relevant knowledge
base increases the strength of this enticing effect. Particularly, in the context of
product investigation, possessing extensive knowledge about the target product
class implies that users are familiar with the terminology of the product class,
criteria for evaluating attributes, and so on. Accordingly, users with more product-
class knowledge are more likely to feel the online product experience as relevant
and appealing to them. When a product interaction experience deprives these
knowledgeable users of complete product exploration, users are likely to recognize
the deprived experience quickly. More knowledge about the product category also
makes users feel more capable of obtaining mastery over the product usage
through further experience due to the strong capability of accommodating new
information [3, 46]. Hence, users possessing a higher level of related knowledge
will be more likely to be motivated toward further knowledge seeking in the

presence of an incomplete experience.
In contrast, users with a lower level of related product-class knowledge may tend
to follow what is available at the surface and are less involved in the current
experience since it is not consistent with their existing knowledge [12]. The infor-
mation stimuli are less likely to generate focused thoughts, and users may also be
reluctant to digest more information because of limited cognitive capability.
Accordingly, when users lack elaborate knowledge of a product category, they are
less likely to perceive the incompleteness of an experience and to form a goal of
completion since it does not appear attractive or approachable. Accordingly, the
relative influence of a restricted design on enticement will be weakened for less
knowledgeable users. Overall, users’ product-class knowledge is expected to mod-
erate the influence of incomplete stimuli on users’ feeling of cognitive tension and
thus the enticing effect. Therefore, we propose,
Hypothesis 3: The superior effect of the restricted product interaction design

over the full product interaction and the noninteractive designs on inducing
enticement is stronger with the increase of users’ related product-class
knowledge.
The Effect of Engagement and Enticement on Purchase Intentions

To further show the importance of engagement and enticement, we posit that both
user engagement and the enticement of online presentations will influence consu-
mers’ purchase intentions. First, when the virtual product experience is highly
engaging, consumers tend to concentrate on the product investigation and feel an
intrinsic enjoyment in participating in it [1, 18, 53]. Various studies have found that
an engaging and playful online experience is intrinsically motivating and creates a
positive feeling about the medium [44, 84]. Specifically, positive feelings associated
with the product presentations tend to increase consumers’ involvement in product
information gathering and their fondness for online shopping, which is likely to
enhance their desire for purchase [33, 49]. Therefore, we propose,
Hypothesis 4: A higher level of engagement of online product presentations

will lead to stronger purchase intentions.
Second, an enticing product presentation arouses consumers’ curiosity and voluntary

interest in interacting with the product beyond the online experience. Such curiosity
and interest indicate consumers’ anticipated benefits of product consumption and
strong approach tendency [50], which may be converted to increased purchase
intentions. Prior studies also suggest that a feeling of curiosity is often associated
with “the thrill of unsolved problems or undeciphered riddles” [55, p. 99], which
stimulates active thinking and affective responses and thus fosters favorable product
evaluations [74]. Accordingly, invoking enticement about further product trials may
keep consumers thinking about and expecting new product experience, leading to
positive affections toward the product and heightened intention to purchase it.
Therefore, we propose,
Hypothesis 5: A higher level of enticement of online product presentations will

. lead to stronger purchase intentions.
Research Method
An experiment was designed to test the research model. A cell phone was chosen
as the target product to be presented, for two reasons. First, many of the
operational behaviors of cell phones can be simulated in the virtual environment
using VPE technologies [i.e., virtually high experiential products, 84]. On the
websites of most large cell phone companies, virtual product experiences are
widely adopted in presenting their new products. This online exposure has
become an important point of contact with potential consumers. Second, a cell
phone is a common product used by the majority of the population, hence the
task of inspecting and considering the purchase of such products represents a
realistic scenario for the subjects.
In particular, the general design of the experimental cell phone was adapted from a
Nokia model. Hence, the general operating procedures of functions (e.g., the steps of
photo editing) were similar to a typical Nokia Symbian phone. However, some other
interface elements such as icon design, menu style and items, and color settings did
not replicate any existing model on the market. A fictitious brand and model name
was associated to this experimental cell phone so as to avoid the possible confound-
ing effect of prior brand involvement. Hence, the experimental cell phone was
unknown to all the subjects. This is also in line with the intended context of this
study, that is, the promotion of newly launched products through online product
presentations.
Experimental Website Design

Four typical functions of a cell phone were presented, including calls and contacts
management, keyboard settings, photo display editing, and gaming. Every function
was demonstrated by three different presentation formats. In the noninteractive
condition, participants were able to view the prerecorded videos about the product
functions. The whole process did not require any user interaction with the product.
In the full interaction condition, participants were able to launch the VPE simu-
lators from the product homepage to sample the functions of the cell phone freely,
using the mouse. For example, the photo display effect function allowed users to
select artistic effects to apply to photos such as changing color theme, applying a
photo frame, and so on. Full interaction thus demonstrated this function by allowing
users to actively perform every step throughout the functional process, and the
virtual cell phone reacted as a real product would by changing the display and
emitting sounds.
In the restricted interaction condition, participants were restricted to interact with
the virtual product in limited steps only, and their active participation in user–
product interactivity was followed by an automatic and dynamic video demonstra-
tion rather than continued interactions. For example, to demonstrate the photo
display effect function, steps of accessing the gallery application from the main
screen were first shown in an automatic video flow. Then, the presentation prompted
the user to interact with the virtual product by pressing the Select button to select a
photo. After receiving the user’s input, the presentation restricted users from further
interaction by automatically performing various photo editing options in a video
format.
The factual product information (i.e., the visual characteristics and the execution
steps of functions) was kept uniform across the different presentation conditions. For
example, if users could apply various photo display effects in the full interaction
condition, then the same options were also demonstrated in the noninteractive and
restricted interaction conditions. Hence, the only difference across the conditions
was in the product interactivity design.
Sample Selection and Experimental Procedure

Students and staff in a major public university volunteered to participate in the
experiment. Specifically, presentation format was a factor manipulated between
subjects, whereas product-class knowledge was a measured continuous variable.
Since the operating system of the experimental cell phone was adapted from a
Nokia model, we measured subjects’ prior experience and knowledge about Nokia
phones (see Appendix A for measurement items) during the recruitment and used it
as their product-class knowledge.1 The subjects were then randomly assigned to one
of the three presentation conditions.
A total of 170 subjects participated in the study, with 58 subjects in the full
interaction condition, 57 subjects in the restricted interaction condition, and 55
subjects in the noninteractive condition. This ensured a sufficient statistical power
of 0.8 for a medium effect size [15].
During the experiment, the subjects were first asked to fill in a preexperimental
questionnaire about their demographic information. They were then asked to exam-
ine a cell phone product developed by a new cell phone producer (with a fictitious
brand name) on the experimental websites. The website was associated with a
commercial domain name related to the producer’s brand name to increase the
realism of the experiment. The subjects were told that the cell phone producer was
promoting its latest product on its website. They were asked to examine the new
product as if they were shopping online. Upon inspecting all the functions and
information of the product, they were asked to answer a postexperimental ques-
tionnaire that captured variables such as the enticement and engagement of the
online product experience as well as their intentions to purchase the cell phone. The
measurement items were adapted from prior studies (seven-point Likert scale, see
Appendix A). In addition, the subjects were told that they could have a chance to try
the real product if they were interested. Whether a subject had chosen to stay to try
the product or leave immediately was recorded as an indication of his/her actual
product trial behavior (see Appendix B for the details). The purpose was to provide a
complementary measure of the enticement effect. After completing the experiment,
each subject was paid $10 for participating and was told not to reveal the experiment
content to other students or staff.
Subject Background Information

The subjects were from 6 academic faculties/schools (19 departments) and 7 admin-
istration offices, representing very diverse backgrounds. Among them, 58 percent
were female. The age of the subjects ranged from 18 to 51. Across the three
presentation conditions, there was no significant difference in gender (F[2, 167] =
2.45, p > 0.10) and age distribution (F[2, 167] = 2.75, p > 0.10), subjects’ general
Internet experience (F[2, 167] = 0.21, p > 0.10), or their general interest in cell
phone products (F[2, 167] = 0.43, p > 0.10).
Data Analysis and Results

Manipulation Check and Instrument Validity
This study employed three presentation designs with different levels of interactivity.
To check our manipulations, we measured subjects’ perceived interactivity of the
presentations.2 The results showed that full interaction (mean = 5.59) was perceived
to be more interactive than restricted interaction (mean = 5.05; p = 0.05) and the
noninteractive format (mean = 3.87; p < 0.001), and that restricted interaction was
perceived to be more interactive than the noninteractive format (p < 0.001). Hence,
the manipulation check was successful.
Exploratory factor analysis was performed on product-class knowledge, engage-
ment, enticement, and purchase intention. Results showed that measurement items
loaded heavily on their intended factor and lightly on the other factors, indicating
adequate convergent and discriminant validity (see Table 1 for factor loadings). The
Cronbach alphas of the measure of product-class knowledge, engagement, entice-
ment, and purchase intention were 0.92, 0.92, 0.92, and 0.93, respectively, indicating
adequate reliability of the measurement scales. The correlations between these
variables are reported in Table 2.
Data analysis was conducted in two steps. First, we tested the effects of different
presentation formats and product-class knowledge on user engagement and the
enticement of the presentations. Second, we tested the effect of engagement and
enticement on purchase intention.
Table 1. Rotated Factor Loadings
Factors
Engagement Enticement Purchase intention Product-class knowledge
Engage1 .850 .210 .129 –.039
Engage2 .816 .147 .080 –.016
Engage3 .704 .076 .078 .038
Engage4 .805 .236 .220 –.036
Engage5 .828 .234 .253 .062
Engage6 .874 .158 .236 –.036
Entice1 .109 .836 .267 .105
Entice2 .196 .854 .277 –.060
Entice3 .340 .845 .142 –.001
Entice4 .234 .833 .139 .061
Purchase1 .164 .221 .919 –.058
Purchase2 .271 .269 .883 –.011

Purchase3 .308 .272 .798 –.058
Know1 –.010 –.058 –.040 .895
Know2 –.010 .031 –.042 .955
Know3 .009 .117 –.016 .923
Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: varimax with Kaiser
normalization.
Table 2. Correlations Between Variables
Purchase Product-class
Engagement Enticement intention knowledge
Engagement 1
Enticement .41 1
Purchase intention .49 .53 1
Product-class –.01 .05 –.07 1
knowledge
The Interaction Effects of Presentation Formats and Product-Class

Knowledge
Since we have two dependent variables (i.e., engagement and enticement), we con-
ducted a MANCOVA (multivariate analysis of covariance) test first to discover the
general effect of presentation format on both variables. Specifically, presentation format
was modeled as the fixed factor and product-class knowledge as the covariate. Since
product-class knowledge was a continuous variable, we centered this covariate and then
created an interaction term (presentation format and product-class knowledge) based on
the centered variable to avoid the multicollinearity issue. The results showed that the
effect of presentation format was significant (F[2, 164] = 5.61, Wilk’s lambda = 0.88, p
Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations of Engagement and Enticement
No interaction Restricted interaction Full interaction

Engagement 4.22 (1.11) 4.78 (1.08) 4.97 (1.15)
Enticement 4.52 (1.14) 5.18 (1.22) 4.76 (1.32)
< 0.001) and the interaction effect was significant too (F[2, 164] = 2.49, Wilk’s lambda
= 0.94, p < 0.05). Hence, ANCOVAs were further conducted on the two dependent
variables separately. Table 3 presents the mean and standard deviation of the level of
engagement and enticement of the different presentation conditions.
The ANCOVA results showed that there was a significant effect of presentation
formats on engagement (F[2, 164] = 7.41, p < 0.01), but there was no interaction
effect between presentation formats and product-class knowledge (F[2, 164] = 1.83,
p > 0.10, see Table 4) . Pair-wise comparisons showed that both the full interaction
(adjusted mean = 4.96) and restricted interaction (adjusted mean = 4.79) led to
higher engagement than the noninteractive design (adjusted mean = 4.19; p < 0.001
and p < 0.01, respectively), but the difference between the full interaction and
restricted interaction was not significant (p > 0.10). Hence, H1a was partially
supported and H1b was fully supported.
In terms of enticement, there was a significant main effect of presentation formats
(F[2, 164] = 4.91, p < 0.01). Pair-wise comparisons showed that restricted interac-
tion (adjusted mean = 5.22) led to higher enticement than both the full interaction
(adjusted mean = 4.76, p < 0.05) and noninteractive design (adjusted mean = 4.50; p
< 0.01), and the difference between the full interaction and noninteractive design
was not significant (p > 0.10). Moreover, the interaction effect between presentation
formats and product-class knowledge was significant (F[2, 164] = 3.64, p < 0.05, see
Table 4). To clarify the nature of this interaction, we performed a spotlight analysis
Table 4. Main and Interaction Effects on Engagement and Enticement
Type III sum of Mean

Source squares df square F Sig.
Corrected model Engagement 21.47a 5 4.29 3.48 .01
Enticement 24.64b 5 4.93 3.35 .01
Presentation Engagement 18.29 2 9.15 7.41 .001
Enticement 14.45 2 7.22 4.91 .01
Product-class Engagement .30 1 .30 .24 .63
knowledge Enticement 1.35 1 1.35 .92 .34
Presentation * Engagement 4.53 2 2.26 1.83 .16
knowledge Enticement 10.70 2 5.35 3.64 .03
Error Engagement 202.58 164 1.24
Enticement 241.12 164 1.47
a 2
R = .10.
b 2
R = .09.
5.7
5.5 5.54
5.3
5.1
4.9 5.02 High Knowledge
4.7 4.58 4.69 4.71 Low Knowledge
4.5 4.55
4.3
No Interaction Restricted Full Interaction
Interaction
Figure 2. Plots of Interaction Effect on Enticement

(Note: Numbers are estimated at high (+1SD from the mean) and low (-1SD from the mean)
produce-class knowledge.)
at one standard deviation above (i.e., high knowledge level) and one standard
deviation below (i.e., low knowledge level) the mean of product-class knowledge
[following 2, 29, 40]. Specifically, we tested the simple effects of presentation
formats for subjects with relatively high and low product-class knowledge based
on the global influence of presentation formats and product-class knowledge. The
results showed that for subjects with high product-class knowledge, the restricted
interaction condition led to significantly higher enticement than both the full inter-
action (beta = 0.51, t = 3.31; p < 0.01) and noninteractive conditions (beta = 0.47, t =
2.93; p < 0.01), whereas the full interaction and noninteractive conditions did not
differ (beta = 0.30, t = 0.84; p > 0.10; see Figure 2).
For subjects with low product-class knowledge, however, the three conditions
were not different from each other (p > 0.10 for all pair-wise comparisons, see
Figure 2). Hence, both H2 and H3 were supported.
As mentioned earlier, in order to further examine the enticement effect of product
presentations, we also captured an indication of subjects’ actual product trial beha-
vior. The findings on the effect of presentation formats on indicative product trial
behavior provided further support for the results on the self-reported enticement.
Restricted interaction was more effective than the other two designs in enticing high-
knowledge users into further product trials (see Appendix B for details).
The Effects of Engagement and Enticement on Purchase Intention

Purchase intention was regressed on engagement and enticement. The results
showed that both engagement (beta = 0.31, p < 0.001) and enticement (beta =
0.38, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of purchase intention. Together they
explained 36 percent of the variance in purchase intention. To further assess com-
mon method variance (CMV), we used the marker-variable technique [63] and found
that the original correlations between purchase intention and engagement as well as
between purchase intention and enticement did not differ significantly from their
CMV-adjusted correlations (Δr < 0.02). Hence, common method biases were not
substantial. Overall, H4 and H5 were supported.
Discussion of Results
Consistent with our predictions, the findings show that both user engagement and
the enticement of the online product presentations positively and significantly affect
users’ purchase intentions. Whereas it is well-documented that an engaging presen-
tation that offers consumers a playful and enjoyable online product experience will
lead to positive feelings about online shopping and thus an increased intention to
purchase, our results further show that an enticing presentation that induces an
online-to-offline conversion toward continued product investigation will increase
purchase propensity too. The findings thus confirm the power of enticement and
suggest that designing for presentation enticement should not be neglected.
Specifically, restricted interaction that provides an incomplete interactive experi-

ence creates stronger enticement than full interaction and the noninteractive format
for users with high product-class knowledge. As we explained earlier, the presence
of a gap in interactive product experience is a critical contributor to the enticement
effect because a feeling of deprivation, rather than fulfillment, often instigates
cognitive tension and active efforts to complete the gap. Furthermore, given an
incomplete product exposure stimulus, users possessing a higher level of product-
class knowledge tend to find the product evaluation task more relevant and thus be
more sensitive about the gaps when interacting with the focal product. These
individuals may also view the pursuit of a complete product experience as a more
meaningful and approachable prospect; hence they may be more motivated toward
such a prospect after an incomplete interactive experience. In contrast, a lower level
of relevant knowledge base may lead users to follow the superficial information
rather than to process the presentation stimuli carefully with interest. This may result
in lower sensitivity to any deprived experience. Users’ failure to perceive the
deprivation in the virtual experience and their limited capability to process more
information will largely reduce the enticing effect of an incomplete interaction
design. Hence, the superiority of restricted interaction in terms of enticement
diminishes for users with low product-class knowledge.
In addition, while we expected that a more interactive design, such as full inter-
action, would be more engaging than restricted interaction, the results showed no
significant difference between them. A plausible reason is that although the provi-
sion of product interactivity is limited, the variation in the styles of experiencing
products via restricted interaction may still be appealing to individuals and engage
them in inspecting the product. Specifically, in a restricted interactive experience,
users are prompted to interact with the virtual product at certain points and then
observe an automatic demonstration of product functions. These alternate modes of
presentation as well as the vivid video demonstration following users’ input may
keep them involved in the product experience. This finding thus provides an
important extension to previous research by suggesting that although creating inter-

activity is essential to an engaging experience, the extent of interactivity does not
necessarily have a linear effect on engagement.
In sum, prior studies on interaction design have mainly emphasized the mechan-
isms and importance of creating an engaging experience. Our study generally
concurs with these prior findings by showing that a highly engaging online experi-
ence indeed contributes to enhanced purchase intention. In addition, we have also
clearly demonstrated the critical impact of enticement on purchase intention beyond
the effect of engagement. Moreover, we show that restricted interaction design can
achieve a superior effect on enticing high-knowledge users to further experience the
product offline and is generally comparable with full interaction design in engaging
users in the online product experience too.
Implications of the Findings

This study focuses on the interaction design of e-commerce product presentations
and reveals the relative effects of three different presentation formats on consumers’
product experience and purchase intentions. This research has several theoretical and
practical implications.
First, while the literature on online product presentations has focused on engaging
online experiences, the current research advocates a new design perspective about
designing for an “enticing” experience. Specifically, this study highlights the ability
of online product presentations to entice users to conduct further product trials
offline. This is also in line with the current significant increase in web-influenced
retail store sales. Indeed, a large proportion of consumers tend to perform offline
actions such as visiting local stores to test real products after their online trips [5]. A
recent marketing study also points out that product vendors should not only focus on
selling products online but also consider online-to-offline (O2O) conversion by tying
online presence to the store experience [25]. Many online retailers such as Amazon,
Firstcry (kids and baby care), Lenskart (eyeware), and Tmall (the largest B2C
platform in China) have recently opened offline kiosks or stores for a richer
customer experience. Accordingly, it is important for businesses to employ proper
online product presentation tactics in order to grab the customers’ attention, tug on
their emotions, and entice them to react passionately to the advertised products and
visit the stores. Our results suggest that an enticing online presentation that creates a
heightened curiosity about continuing product exploration will lead to increased
purchase intentions. Such positive affection associated with the product is based on a
voluntary interest in product investigation invoked by the online product experience.
Overall, with the unique focus on the enticement of online presentations and its
impact on purchase intentions, this research brings about a new theoretical perspec-
tive for IS research in related fields.
Second, while past studies have looked mainly at the two contrasting ends of
presentation design such as noninteractive presentations and full interaction VPE
[e.g., 43, 80], we suggest that product interactivity design is not a dichotomy and
propose that there is a middle course, such as the restricted interaction VPE.
Moreover, this study provides important empirical evidence for the nonlinear effect
of interactivity design in online product presentations. Specifically, restricted inter-
action, which deprives users of part of the interactive experience with a virtual
product, can be more effective in terms of enticing users’ curiosity about further
product trials than both full interaction and a noninteractive presentation for con-
sumers with high product-class knowledge. This heightened enticement in turn
enhances their purchase intentions. In other words, simpler and “smarter” restricted
interaction design has the potential to outperform both the more widely studied
noninteractive format (such as video) and the “luxurious” full interaction design in
achieving particular outcomes desired by vendors.
Third, past IS research on online product presentations primarily advocates highly
interactive designs. This study integrates the traditional theories in IS research (flow
and interaction design) with theories in curiosity formation [61], and suggests that an
imperfect or incomplete experience may create “psychic tension” and invoke peo-
ple’s interest in continued activities. Indeed, the enticing effect of an “information
gap” seems to account for behaviors in various contexts such as visual design,
effective learning, project management, and marketing plan [66]. These contexts
often involve incomplete provision of visual images or storyline (e.g., incomplete
photos, unresolved questions, mystery ads, etc.). However, little research has exam-
ined the theory in the context of interaction design. Through manipulating the
incompleteness of users’ interactive product experience, we find that restricted
interaction creates a feeling of loss or deprivation and effectively triggers users’
curiosity about further product exploration (for high-knowledge users). The present
study thus makes the first attempt to extend the theories in consumer curiosity and
the related findings to the context of online interaction design. It advocates a brand-
new design concept, restricted interaction design, which is shown to be effective in
inducing users’ further product trials, and is as good as full interaction design in
creating an engaging experience online.
Fourth, this study contributes to the literature on consumer curiosity in two ways.
It underscores that a mere presence of a gap in experience may not be able to induce
the desired enticing effect. A critical premise of such an effect is that users should be
made aware of it. In the current study, a noninteractive video presentation does not
provide a complete interactive experience either, but it fails to adequately intensify
users’ awareness of missing interactive experience. Depriving users of the interactive
product experience that has already been afforded may intensify the contrast in
experiences and hence raise their sensitivity to the incomplete product interactivity.
Hence, incorporating elements of incompleteness in the experience and highlighting
users’ awareness of them are both essential to achieving the enticing effect.
In addition, this research highlights the moderating role of users’ relevant knowl-
edge base for the enticing effect of restricted interaction, and thus proposes a
boundary condition for the curiosity-arousing effect of a perceived “gap.” Product-
class knowledge is of great interest to both researchers and practitioners because it is
often used in customer segmentation and correlates with the level of category
consumption [71]. Past studies have demonstrated that optimizing the cognitive fit
between decision aids and consumers’ product-class knowledge significantly
increases consumer satisfaction and decision performance [e.g., 16, 75]. The central
argument is that high-knowledge users have more stable preferences and process
information more efficiently, whereas low-knowledge users often require assistance
and are more likely to follow the decision aids. This study suggests that since high-
knowledge users are more capable of processing information in depth and digesting
further information, they are more sensitive to the deprivation of experience and
motivated to approach a holistic one given incomplete interaction experience.
Understanding the reasons behind individuals’ reactions to presentations based on
the level of their product-class knowledge thus allows website designers to tailor
their interface to suit different people. This also constitutes a broader implication that
goes beyond the realm of interaction design and marketing, that is, stimulating one’s
curiosity via information or experience gap requires a preexisting knowledge base in
the related domain.

In summary, understanding the enticing tactics is extremely helpful for web
designers, who have long been seeking to understand and “manipulate” the audi-
ence’s attention and reaction to the exposed information. Based on the current study,
the message to marketers and web designers is that using the most complex and
costly technology may not necessarily be the most effective in promoting products
and boosting purchase. Interactive features are usually costly to develop and main-
tain due to proprietary software, extensive programming, and a huge database of
graphics [28]. In our case, the development cost of the restricted interaction is much
lower than that of the full interaction due to the reduced extent of user–product
interactions.3 Hence, our findings provide an important insight into the use of
interactive technologies because a less costly restricted interaction design is as
effective as a fully interactive design in creating an engaging online experience.
For firms that intend to advertise new products or features online and achieve online-
to-offline conversions, embedding restricted user interactions could be even more
effective in invoking consumers’ attention and desire to continue the product
experience offline. Moreover, it is also important to note that the restricted interac-
tion design is more enticing than the full interaction and noninteractive designs only
for high-knowledge consumers. In other words, to introduce a new product to
consumers who are familiar with the type of product, a restricted interactive pre-
sentation could be cost-efficient and persuasive. Indeed, prior IS studies have
suggested that web retailers should customize their offerings for different users
because customized designs often create more effective experience than a one-
size-fits-all design [75, 87]. In the context of online product presentations, business
may also want to identify customer segments with different levels of product-related
knowledge before deciding which interface design to use. For example, online
vendors could trace visitors’ online membership information and their past browsing
and purchase behavior to understand the knowledge level of their online customers.
They could also design online campaigns or promotions to collect feedback from site
visitors, which could help segment the customer base too. Business can then benefit
from presenting customized product presentations to different consumer segments.
Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations. First, the findings are best generalized to experi-
ence products. Specifically, Nelson [72] has proposed two different types of pro-
ducts, namely, experience products, which users cannot fully evaluate without actual
trial or consumption, and search products, which users can accurately evaluate
before actual consumption. The product chosen in this study (i.e., cell phone) has
a substantial portion of experience attributes, such as the look and feel, usability, and
functionality design; hence people tend to personally try the product before pur-
chase. In the case of search products such as hard drives, the vendors may want to
promote direct online sales without offering physical trials because consumers
should be able to well evaluate the product through searchable information such
as disk capacity and access speed. As suggested by Wright and Lynch [95], the best
medium to promote the product is the one that communicates the type of product
information in the most congruent way. Hence, while it is certainly promising to
discover the benefits of the restricted interaction design for many experience pro-
ducts, caution is needed in generalizing and applying our findings to other product
types.
Second, in the current study, the effects of different presentation formats are
manifested through self-reported measures as well as an indicative trial behavior
after the experimental task, as constrained in a lab setting. Future studies could
examine the effect of online presentations in field settings by collaborating with
companies that intend to launch new products and including actual behavior mea-
sures such as users’ actual store visits, their online and offline purchases. Moreover,
to complement and extend the current findings, it is also promising to further test
whether the engaging and enticing effects are strong enough to hold over a longer
period, insofar as there is typically a time lag between consumers’ first online store
visit and their offline trips.
We believe that our findings have significant implications for future research in
interaction design. A latest trend of interaction design is to create a sense of
immersion by increasing users’ ability to interact and communicate with the virtual
environment. For instance, museums employ immersive virtual environment to
improve visitors’ experience; interactive learning platforms allow learners to “walk
around” the environment, make observations, and solve scientific problems.
Whereas a common goal of these designs is to construct a holistic and realistic
environment, the current study suggests that incorporating interactivity in a less
sophisticated but smart way, for example, by offering users active participation in a
restricted manner, may effectively arouse users and keep them interested. We thus
suggest that future research test the idea of incomplete interaction in different
interaction design contexts.
Conclusions
This study investigates three different formats of online product presentation and
reveals that an incomplete interaction design, namely, restricted interaction, can be
more effective than both the noninteractive and fully interactive designs in enticing
users to further explore the product if users are knowledgeable about the product
class. Restricted interaction design is also as engaging as full interaction design in
general. This study thus complements extant studies of online product presentations
by theoretically conceptualizing the enticement effect and empirically comparing
different presentation formats on both engagement and enticement. By extending
theories in consumer curiosity to the context of interaction design, this study
advocates the new design concept of restricted interaction and highlights the mod-
erating role of consumers’ product-class knowledge for the enticing effects of
product presentations. The findings provide valuable practical guidance for market-
ers and web designers, that is, using less costly and less interactive presentation
design may promote products and boost online-to-offline conversion more

effectively.
Acknowledgment: The authors thank the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore (Grant:
MOE2009-T2-1-062) for its financial support.
NOTES
1. Since there is a variety of cell phone brands, models, and operating systems, we did not
use general cell-phone knowledge as the product-class knowledge. For example, users who
are familiar with Nokia cell phones and their Symbian operating system may not be well-
versed in dealing with the Android system on a Samsung phone or iOS on an iPhone.
Moreover, because a cell phone is a common product used in everyday life, it would be
hard to differentiate subjects in terms of their general cell-phone knowledge. Hence, we
measured product-class knowledge using the knowledge pertaining to the type of experimental
cell phone.
2. The measurement items were: (1) The product presentation is interactive; (2) I am able
to interact with this product; and (3) The product presentation is very responsive to my action.
3. For each demonstrated product function, the restricted interaction is designed using
Adobe Flash, which loads a video file, plus only 5–10 layers to implement user interaction
(e.g., buttons) at specific frames, and a few lines of code at these frames to set the flow
sequence. The full interaction format, on the other hand, involves more user interactions, and
requires more than 30 layers on average in the source Flash file, plus thousands of lines of
codes to implement the flow.
REFERENCES
1. Agarwal, R., and Karahanna, E. Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorp-
tion and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24, 4 (2000), 665–694.
2. Aiken, L.S., and West, S.G. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991.
3. Alba, J.W., and Hutchinson, J.W. Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of
Consumer Research, 13 (March 1987), 411–454.
4. Alexander, P.A.; Schallert, D.L.; and Hare, V.C. Coming to terms: How researchers
in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61 (1991),
315–343.
5. Arbesman, D.M. Cross channel shopping is a must, 2010, accessed April 10, 2011.
Available at http://blog.compete.com/2010/07/21/cross-channel-shopping-is-a-must/.
6. Arbitron and Edison Media, R. Arbitron product sampling study, 2008, accessed July
10, 2012. Available at www.arbitron.com/downloads/product_sampling_study.pdf.
7. Ariely, D. Controlling the information flow: Effects on consumers’ decision making and
preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (2000), 233–248.
8. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Plenum, 1997.
9. Baumeister, R.F., and Bushman, B.J. Social Psychology and Human Nature.: San
Francisco, CA: Wadsworth, 2008.
10. Berlyne, D. An experimental study of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology,
45, 1 (1954), 256–265.
11. Berlyne, D. Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
12. Bettman, J.R., and Park, C.W. Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of
the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis. Journal of
Consumer Research, 7, December (1980), 234–248.
13. Boyle, E.A., Connolly, T.M., Hainey, T., and Boyle, J.M. Engagement in digital
entertainment games: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 3 (2012),

771–780.
14. Brucks, M. The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior.
Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (June 1985), 1–16.
15. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 1988.
16. Coupey, E.; Irwin, R.; and Payne, J. Product category familiarity and preference
construction. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (1998), 459–468.
17. Coyle, J.R., and Thorson, E. The effects of progressive levels of interactivity
and vividness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30, 3 (2001), 65–77.
18. Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper
Perennial, 1990.
19. Cyr, D.; Head, M.; and Ivanov, A. Perceived interactivity leading to e-loyalty:
Development of a model for cognitive-affective user responses. International Journal of
Human–Computer Studies, 67, 10 (2009), 850–869.
20. Daugherty, T.; Li, H.; and Biocca, F. Consumer learning and the effects of virtual
experience relative to indirect and direct product experience. Psychology and Marketing, 25, 7
(2008), 568–586.
21. Deighton, J., and Grayson, K. Marketing and seduction: Building exchange
relationships by managing social consensus. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 4 (1995),
660–676.
22. Dey, D.; Lahiri, A.; and Liu, D. Consumer learning and time-locked trials of software
products. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30, 2 (2013), 239–267.
23. Eccles, J.S., and Wigfield, A. Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109 (2002), 109–132.
24. eMarketer. Multi-channel retailing, 2008, accessed April 10, 2011. Available at www.
emarketer.com/blog/index.php/tag/multichannel-retailing/.
25. eMarketer, Retailers look to merge offline and online shopping experiences in 2014,
2014, accessed June 30, 2014. Available at www.emarketer.com/Article/Retailers-Look-
Merge-Offline-Online-Shopping-Experiences-2014/1010812/.
26. Fang, Y.-H. Beyond the credibility of electronic word of mouth: Exploring eWOM
adoption on social networking sites from affective and curiosity perspectives. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18, 3 (2014), 67–102.
27. Featherman, M.; Wright, R.T.; Thatcher, J.B.; Zimmer, J.C.; and Pak, R. The influence
of interactivity on e-service offerings: an empirical examination of benefits and risks. AIS
Transactions on Human–Computer Interaction, 3, 1 (2011), 1–25.
28. Fiore, A.M.; Jin, H.J.; and Kim, J. For fun and profit: Hedonic value from image
interactivity and response toward an online store. Psychology and Marketing, 22, 8 (2005),
669–694.
29. Fitzsimons, G.J. Editorial: Death to dichotomizing. Journal of Consumer Research, 35,
1 (2008), 508.
30. ForresterResearch. Are you prepared for the cross-channel shopper? 2006, accessed
April 10, 2011. Available at www.selfserviceworld.com/article/168059/Are-you-prepared-for-
the-cross-channel-shopper/.
31. ForresterResearch. Forrester forecast: Online retail sales will grow to $250 billion by
2014, 2010, accessed July 7, 2011. Available at http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/08/forrester-
forecast-online-retail-sales-will-grow-to-250-billion-by-2014/.
32. Forster, J.; Liberman, N.; and Higgins, E.T. Accessibility from active and fulfilled goals.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41 (May 2005), 220–239.
33. Ghani, J.A., and Deshpande, S.P. Task characteristics and the experience of optimal
flow in human–computer interaction. Journal of Psychology, 128, 4 (1994), 381–391.
34. Greene, R. The Art of Seduction. Sydney: Hodder, 2001.
35. Hagtvedt, H. The impact of incomplete typeface logos on perceptions of the firm.
Journal of Marketing, 75 (July 2011), 86–93.
36. Hevner, A.; March, S.; and Park, J. Design science research in information systems. MIS
Quarterly, 28, 1 (2004), 75–105.

37. Hoch, S.J. Product experience is seductive. Journal of Consumer Research, 29
(December 2002), 448–454.
38. Hoffman, D.L., and Novak, T.P. Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environ-
ments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60, (July 1996), 50–68.
39. Hutchins, E.L.; Hollan, J.D.; and Norman, D.A. Direct manipulation interfaces. In D.A.
Norman S.W. Draper and (eds.), User Centered System Design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 1986, pp. 87–124.
40. Irwin, J.R., and McClelland, G.H. Misleading heuristics and moderated multiple regres-
sion models. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 1 (2001), 100–109.
41. Jarvenpaa, S.L., and Todd, P.A. Consumer reactions to electronic shopping on the World
Wide Web. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 1, 2 (1997), 59–88.
42. Jiang, Z., and Benbasat, I. Virtual product experience: Effects of visual and functional
control on perceived diagnosticity in electronic shopping. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 21, 3 (2004), 111–147.
43. Jiang, Z., and Benbasat, I. The effects of presentation methods and task complexity on
online consumers’ product understanding. MIS Quarterly, 31, 3 (2007), 475–500.
44. Jiang, Z., and Benbasat, I. Investigating the influence of the functional mechanisms of
online product presentations. Information Systems Research, 18, 4 (2007), 454–470.
45. Jiang, Z.; Chan, J.; Tan, B.C.Y.; and Chua, W.S. Effects of interactivity on website
involvement and purchase intention. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11, 1
(2010), 34–59.
46. Johnson, E., and Russo, J.E. Product familiarity and learning new information. Journal
of Consumer Research, 11 (June 1984), 542–550.
47. Jones, S. Curiosity and knowledge. Psychological Reports, 45 (1979), 639–642.
48. Kamis, A., and Davern, M.J. Personalizing to product category knowledge: Exploring
the mediating effect of shopping tools on decision confidence. In Proceedings of the Thirty-
Seventhth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Big Island, HI,
2004, p.10.
49. Kashdan, T.B., and Fincham, F.D. Facilitating curiosity: A social and self-regulartory
perspective for scientifically based interventions, In P.A. Linley and S. Joseph (eds.), Postivie
Psychology in Practice. New York: Wiley, 2004, pp. 482–503.
50. Kashdan, T.B.; Rose, P.; and Fincham, F.D. Curiosity and exploration: Facilitating
positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 82, 3 (2004), 291–305.
51. Kettanurak, V.N.; Ramamurthy, K.; and Haseman, W.D. User attitude as a mediator of
learning performance improvement in an interactive multimedia environment: An empirical
investigation of the degree of interactivity and learning styles. International Journal of

Human–Computer Studies, 54, 4 (2001), 541–583.
52. Khaslavsky, J., and Shedroff, N. Understanding the seductive experience.
Communications of the ACM, 42, 5 (1999), 45–49.
53. Koufaris, M. Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online
consumer behavior. Information Systems Research, 13, 2 (2002), 205–223.
54. Kramer, T. The effect of measurement task transparency on preference construction and
evaluations of personalized recommendations. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 2 (2007),
224–233.
55. Kreitler, H., and Kreitler, S. Psychology of the Arts. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press, 1972.
56. Leggatt, H. Spoiled consumers demand cross-channel shopping, 2007. accessed April
10, 2011. Available at www.bizreport.com/2007/08/spoiled_consumers_demand_crosschannel_
shopping.html.
57. Li, H.; Daugherty, T.; and Biocca, F. Characteristics of virtual experience in electronic
commerce: A protocol analysis. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15, 3 (2001), 13–30.
58. Li, M.; Jiang, Q.; Tan, C.H.; and Wei, K.K. Enhancing user-game engagement
through software gaming elements. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30, 4
(2014), 115–149.
59. Li, T.; Berens, G.; and Maertelaere, M.D. Corporate Twitter channels: The impact of
engagement and informedness on corporate reputation. International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 18, 2 (2013), 97–126.
60. Litman, J.A.; Hutchins, T.L.; and Russon, R.K. Epistemic curiosity, feeling-of-knowing,
and exploratory bahavior. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 4 (2005), 559–582.
61. Loewenstein, G. The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation.
Psychological Bulletin, 116, 1 (1994), 75–98.
62. Lowry, P.B.; Romano, N.C.; Jenkins, J.L.; and Guthrie, R.W. The CMC interactivity
model: How interactivity enhances communication quality and process satisfaction in lean-
media groups. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26, 1 (2009), 155–195.
63. Malhotra, N.K.; Kim, S.S.; and Patil, A. Common method variance in IS research: A
comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science,
52, 12 (2006), 1865–1883.
64. Maloney, J.C. Curiosity versus disbelief in advertising. Journal of Advertising Research,
40, 6 (2000), 7–13.
65. Mayzlin, D., and Shin, J. Uninformative advertising as an invitation to search.
Marketing Science, 30, 4 (2011), 666–685.
66. Menon, S., and Soman, D. Managing the power of curiosity for effective web advertis-
ing strategies. Journal of Advertising, 31, 3 (2002), 1–14.
67. Miller, E.G., and Kahn, B.E. Shades of meaning: The effect of color and flavor names
on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (June 2005), 86–92.
68. Moore, D.J.; Reardon, R.; and Durso, F.T. The generation effect in advertising appeals.
Advances in Consumer Research, 13 (1986), 117–120.
69. Mooreman, C.; Diehl, K.; Brinberg, D.; and Kidwell, B. Subjective knowledge,
search locations, and consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (December
2004), 673–680.
70. Nah, F.F.; Eschenbrenner, B.; and DeWester, D. Enhancing brand equity through flow
and telepresence: A comparison of 2D and 3dDvirtual worlds. MIS Quarterly, 35, 9 (2011),
731–747.
71. Nam, M., and Sternthal, B. The effects of a different category context on target brand
evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (December 2008), 668–679.
72. Nelson, P.J. Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78, 2
(1970), 311–329.
73. O’Brien, H., and Toms, E.G. What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for
defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 59, 6 (2008), 938–955.
74. Peracchio, L.A., and Meyers-Levy, J. How ambiguous cropped objects in ad photos can
affect product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1 (1994), 190–204.
75. Pereira, R.E. Optimizing human–computer interaction for the electronic commerce
environment. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 1, 1 (2000), 23–44.
76. Pieters, R.; Wedel, M.; and Batra, R. The stopping power of advertising: Measures and
effects of visual complexity. Journal of Marketing, 74, 5 (2010), 48–60.
77. Pracejus, J.W. Is more exposure always better? Effects of incidental exposure to a brand
name on subsequent processing of advertising. Advances in Consumer Research, 22, (1995),
319–322.
78. Reeve, J., and Cole, S.G. The Zeigarnik effect and intrinsic motivation: Are they the
same? Motivation and Emotion, 10, 3 (1986), 233–245.
79. Rettie, R. An exploration of flow during Internet use. Internet Research: Electronic
Networking Applications and Policy, 11, 2 (2001), 103–113.
80. Schlosser, A.E. Experiencing products in the virtual world: The role of goal and
imagery in influencing attitudes versus purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research,
30, September (2003), 184–198.
81. Schunk, D.H. Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 2000.
82. Silver, M.S. Decision support systems: Directed and nondirected change. Information
Systems Research, 1, 1 (1990), 47–70.

83. Smith, R.E. Integrating information from advertising and trial: Processes and effects on
consumer response to product information. Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (May 1993),
204–219.
84. Suh, K.S., and Lee, Y.E. Effects of virtual reality on consumer learning: An empirical
investigation in web-based electronic commerce. MIS Quarterly, 29, 4 (2005), 673–697.
85. Swann, W.B.; Rentfrow, P.J.; and Guinn, J.S. Self-verification: The search for coher-
ence, In M. Leary and J.P. Tagney (eds.), Handbook of Self and Identity. New York: Guilford
Press, 2002, pp. 367–383.
86. Swann, W.B.J.; Stephenson, B.; and Pittman, T.S. Curiosity and control: on the deter-
minants of the search for social knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40
(1981), 635–642.
87. Tam, K.Y., and Ho, S.Y. Web personalization as a persuasion strategy: An elaboration
likelihood model perspective. Information Systems Research, 16, 3 (2005), 271–291.
88. Trevino, L.K., and Webster, J. Flow in computer-mediated communication: Electronic
mail and voice mail evaluation and impacts. Communication Research, 19, 5 (1992), 539–
573.
89. von Ahn, L., and Dabbish, L. Designing games with a purpose. Communications of the
ACM, 51, 8 (2008), 58–67.
90. Webster, J., and Ahuja, J.S. Enhancing the design of web navigation systems: The influence
of user disorientation on engagement and performance. MIS Quarterly, 30, 3 (2006), 661–678.
91. Webster, J., and Hackley, P. Teaching effectiveness in technology-mediated distance
learning. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 6 (1997), 1282–1309.
92. Webster, J., and Ho, H. Audience engagement in multi-media presentations. Data Base
for Advances in Information Systems, 28, 2 (1997), 63–77.
93. Webster, J.; Trevino, L.K.; and Ryan, L. The dimensionality and correlates of flow in
human–computer interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 9, (1993), 411–426.
94. Wilson, T.D.; Centerbar, D.B.; Kermer, D.A.; and Gilbert, D.T. The pleasure of uncer-
tainty: Prolonging positive moods in ways people do not anticipate. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 88, 1 (2005), 5–21.
95. Wright, A.A., and Lynch, J.G. Communication effect of advertising versus direct
experience when both search and experience attributes are present. Journal of Consumer
Research, 21 (March 1995), 708–718.
96. Yang, X.; Teo, H.H.; and Tan, C.H. A psychological reactance perspective on time and
functionality restriction of free trial software: Are you willing to evaluate the software? In
Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventth International Conference on Information Systems.
Milwaukee, 2006, pp. 1509–1527.
Appendix A: Measurement Items (Using a Seven-Point Likert Scale)
Product-class knowledge (1) I am familiar with Nokia phones’ operating systems

[adapted from 54, 75] and functions;
(2) I have substantial knowledge about Nokia phones in
general;
(3) I can clearly recall the features of the Nokia cell
phones I have used/am using.
Engagement (1) I was absorbed intensely in examining the product

[adapted from 92] presentation;
(2) My experience with this product presentation was
interesting;
(3) I concentrated fully on viewing the product
presentation;
(4) My experience with this product presentation was
enjoyable;
(5) My attention was focused on examining the online
product;
(6) My experience with this product presentation was fun.
Enticement (1) The product presentation made me want to know

[adapted from 66] more about the product by trying the real one;
(2) I was interested in trying the real product;
(3) I was enticed to explore functions of the actual phone;
(4) I was curious about playing with the real phone.
Purchase intentions (1) It is likely that I will consider this cell phone if I need a
[adapted from 44] new one.
(2) I may purchase the product the next time I need a cell
phone.
(3) Suppose that a friend calls me to get my advice in his/
her search for a cell phone, I would recommend to
him/her this one.
Appendix B: Supplementary Analysis on the Effect of Presentation

Formats on Indicative Product Trial
In order to provide a complementary measure of the enticement effect, we also
captured an indication of subjects’ actual product trial behavior. Specifically, after
subjects had completed the questionnaire, they were told that they could have a
chance to try the real product if they were interested; however, the subject would
have to wait for 10 minutes before the cell phone could be delivered to the lab. The
subject was also told that this decision of whether or not to wait for the real phone
was completely voluntary. The purpose of having a waiting interval of 10 minutes
was to create a barrier, to filter those who were not truly or highly interested in
physically experiencing the product and thus would not spend time waiting for it.
Whether the subject had chosen to stay and wait for the real phone or leave
0.7
0.62
0.6
0.51 0.52 0.51
0.5 High Knowledge
0.4 0.38 Low Knowledge
0.3 0.32
No Interaction Restricted Full Interaction
Interaction
Figure B1. Plots of Interaction Effect on Indicative Product Trial

(Note: The vertical axis represents the percentage of subjects who chose to try the product.
Numbers are estimated at high (+1SD from the mean) and low (-1SD from the mean) product-
class knowledge.)
immediately was recorded as the measure of indicative product trial. This way of
measuring indicative trial behavior was based on the approach used by Reeve and
Cole [78], who gave subjects a free-choice period during the experiment and
observed whether the subjects chose to engage in the previous incomplete task or
in other activities during this period.
In our study, since the experimental product was a unique model designed solely
for the experimental purpose, we did not actually have the physical phone for
subjects to try. Hence, after the 10-minute waiting period, we apologized to the
subject that the product could not be delivered in time due to an unresolved technical
problem. The subjects were then dismissed from the experiment. They were also told
not to reveal the experiment content to others. After all the data collection was
completed, we explained to all the subjects who chose to wait for the real products,
informing them individually about the nature of the experimental product as well as
the research purpose of this experimental procedure.
We tested the effect of presentation formats on subjects’ indicative trial behavior.
Logistic regression was used since trial was a binary variable—the choice of trying the
product was coded “1” and the choice of leaving immediately was coded “0.” The
restricted interaction condition was treated as the reference group. The results showed
that there was a marginally significant main effect of presentation formats on product
trials (B = –0.37, p = 0.06), and the interaction effect between presentation formats and
product-class knowledge was significant (B = –0.22, p = 0.05). Spotlight analysis at one
standard deviation above (i.e., high knowledge level) and one standard deviation below
(i.e., low knowledge level) the mean of product-class knowledge showed that for
subjects with high product-class knowledge, the restricted interaction condition induced
more subjects to try the product than both the full interaction (β = 0.14, t = 2.16; p <
0.05) and noninteractive conditions (β = 0.12, t = 1.80; p = 0.07), whereas the latter two
conditions did not differ. For subjects with low product-class knowledge, the three
conditions did not differ from each other (p > 0.10 for all pairwise comparisons). The
result thus provided further support to the result on self-reported enticement. The plot of
interaction effect is shown in Figure B1.

Journal of Management Information Systems: Click For Updates

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management Information Systems: Click For Updates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [FU Berlin]

On: 14 May 2015, At: 10:49

Journal of Management Information

Enticing and Engaging Consumers via

Click for updates

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2014.1001270

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

CHENG YI is an assistant professor of information systems at the School of

Research, and the proceedings of top information systems and human–computer

ZHENHUI (JACK) JIANG is an associate professor in the Department of Information

Engagement and the Provision of Interactivity

interactivity of software interfaces facilitates an acute involvement with the software

Enticement and the “Deprivation” of Interactivity

The Moderating Role of Relevant Knowledge in Evoking Enticement

knowledge about an area [4]. In the context of product investigation, consumers’

Summary of Literature Review

The Effect of Presentation Formats on Engagement

Figure 1. Research Model

engagement than the restricted product interaction and the noninteractive

The Effect of Presentation Formats on Enticement

Whereas we expect an incomplete stimulus such as restricted interaction will be

will be more likely to be motivated toward further knowledge seeking in the

Hypothesis 3: The superior effect of the restricted product interaction design

The Effect of Engagement and Enticement on Purchase Intentions

Hypothesis 4: A higher level of engagement of online product presentations

Second, an enticing product presentation arouses consumers’ curiosity and voluntary

Hypothesis 5: A higher level of enticement of online product presentations will

Experimental Website Design

Sample Selection and Experimental Procedure

Subject Background Information

Data Analysis and Results

Table 1. Rotated Factor Loadings

Purchase2 .271 .269 .883 –.011

Table 2. Correlations Between Variables

The Interaction Effects of Presentation Formats and Product-Class

Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations of Engagement and Enticement

No interaction Restricted interaction Full interaction

Table 4. Main and Interaction Effects on Engagement and Enticement

Type III sum of Mean

Figure 2. Plots of Interaction Effect on Enticement

The Effects of Engagement and Enticement on Purchase Intention

Specifically, restricted interaction that provides an incomplete interactive experi-

important extension to previous research by suggesting that although creating inter-

Implications of the Findings

the related domain.

Limitations and Future Research

design may promote products and boost online-to-offline conversion more

entertainment games: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 3 (2012),

Quarterly, 28, 1 (2004), 75–105.

investigation of the degree of interactivity and learning styles. International Journal of

Systems Research, 1, 1 (1990), 47–70.

Appendix A: Measurement Items (Using a Seven-Point Likert Scale)

Product-class knowledge (1) I am familiar with Nokia phones’ operating systems

Engagement (1) I was absorbed intensely in examining the product

Enticement (1) The product presentation made me want to know

Appendix B: Supplementary Analysis on the Effect of Presentation

Figure B1. Plots of Interaction Effect on Indicative Product Trial

You might also like