See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/352907953

Beyond visual clutter: the interplay among products, advertisements, and the
overall webpage

Article  in  Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · July 2021

DOI: 10.1108/JRIM-10-2020-0213

CITATIONS READS

2 220

3 authors, including:

Hyunjoo Im
University of Minnesota Twin Cities
39 PUBLICATIONS   799 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mobile Coupons View project

Perceptual Fluency View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hyunjoo Im on 17 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7122.htm

Beyond visual clutter: the interplay Visual

complexity
among products, advertisements, effect

and the overall webpage

Hyunjoo Im
Retail Merchandising, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, USA Received 8 October 2020
Revised 10 March 2021
Hae Won Ju 21 April 2021
17 May 2021
Fashion Design and Retailing, Framingham State University, Framingham, 20 May 2021
Massachusetts, USA, and Accepted 21 May 2021

Kim K.P. Johnson

Retail Merchandising, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, USA
Abstract
Purpose – Little research has been done to understand how individual elements (e.g. advertisements) within a
webpage are processed and evaluated when visual complexity is increased. Thus, this study aimed to
investigate how consumers allocate attention and evaluate products and advertisements on complex webpages
when they are casually browsing.
Design/methodology/approach – This study conducted two experiments to test the causal effects of
different degrees of visual complexity on consumer responses to products and advertisements. An eye-tracking
experiment (n 5 90) and a follow-up online experiment (n 5 121) were conducted using undergraduate students
as participants.
Findings – Participants formed a global impression from the overall webpage complexity, which spilled over
to evaluation of individual elements on the webpage (e.g. product, advertisement). The inverted U-shaped
relationships (vs. linear negative relationships) between webpage visual complexity and attitude toward the
webpage, products, and advertisements were observed. The focal product was given a consistent level of
attention regardless of the complexity level.
Practical implications – This study provides implications for website organization and design to maximize
positive consumer experiences and marketing effectiveness. The findings provide implications for retailers and
advertisement buyers.
Originality/value – This study expanded the knowledge by examining the interplay between individual
elements of webpages and the whole webpage complexity when consumers browse visually complex
webpages. It is a novel finding that the overall webpage complexity effect spills over to locally attended
products or advertisements.
Keywords Online advertising, Online consumer behavior, Banner ads, Online retailing, Visual merchandising
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Online channel use and online visual marketing (e.g. banner ads, paid search insertions) is a
booming economic enterprise most recently fueled by the global pandemic. During the 2020
pandemic, consumers spent time and money online, recording $861 billion in retail sales. This
figure represents a 44% increase over 2019 spending (Ali, 2021). Accordingly, advertisers are
significantly increasing their spending on digital advertising. For example, Facebook’s ad
volume sold went up 40% in the second quarter of 2020 (Mogharabi, 2020). Internet
advertising is expected to account for 61% of global advertising expenditures and reach
$343.1 billion in 2021, an amount significantly greater than spending in traditional media
(Marketing Charts, 2021). In addition, the ability to personalize advertisements for individual Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing
consumers through big data analysis (Wang, 2021) makes online advertising relevant and © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-7122
attractive to consumers and thus, is increasing marketer’s preference for digital advertising. DOI 10.1108/JRIM-10-2020-0213
JRIM The amplified use of digital advertising results in increases in both the number of
advertisements presented on webpages and webpage visual complexity. Subsequently, the
effectiveness of advertisements appearing on complex webpages is an important question.
Two streams of previous literature on visual complexity are relevant to addressing this
effectiveness question. One perspective is reflected in the visual clutter research which
focuses on consumer’s attention on one object within an array of many, equally important
objects. Extant findings suggest that webpage complexity negatively influences marketing
and business outcomes (i.e. the simpler a webpage, the better it is) (Bialkova et al., 2013;
Pieters et al., 2007; Sohn et al., 2017). For example, individual advertisements become less
effective when placed in a highly complex environment because consumers’ attention to an ad
is reduced (e.g. Pieter et al., 2007). Consumers’ shopping experience is also negatively
impacted due to the high level of clutter (Bialkova et al., 2013). The other perspective focuses
on aesthetics and the design of objects. Research conducted from this perspective emphasizes
the perceived complexity of a single object. Findings from this vein of research point to
positive effects for a moderate level of complexity over too simple or too complex designs
(Geissler et al., 2006; He et al., 2019; Kusumasondjaja and Tjiptono, 2018; Wang et al., 2020).
For example, Kusumasondjaja and Tjiptono (2018) found that Instagram users found
complex (vs. simple) advertisement images more visually pleasing and consequently were
more willing to purchase the advertised products.
However, previous studies using these two perspectives fall short in predicting and
explaining how consumers attend and respond to advertisements on many websites. The
visual clutter research explains how consumers with a clear search goal navigate a complex
website and the aesthetics research explains how consumers evaluate the attractiveness of a
stand-alone product or advertisement without processing other objects simultaneously.
These two streams of research provide no clear explanations about how consumers would
behave when they are simultaneously exposed to both products and advertisements. On
commercial websites, advertisements are less important than focal products and are often
placed in a way that does not directly compete with focal products. Thus, how consumers see
and perceive an advertisement on commercial websites will be different from how they
process it amongst other visual clutter or as a sole object. Therefore, while researchers in
interactive marketing determined how consumers evaluate the overall quality of a website
(Nia and Shokouhyar, 2020) or a single product (Wang et al., 2020), extant research minimally
informs marketers of how consumers read and respond to their advertisements on
commercial websites.
Moreover, previously, researchers focused on goal-driven shoppers (i.e. utilitarian
motivation) (e.g. Sohn et al., 2017). When shoppers have a specific task to complete,
complexity can reduce efficiency and thus produce negative consumer responses. On the
other hand, complexity may not be as problematic for shoppers without shopping goals.
Conducted in a service retail space context, Orth and Wirtz (2014) provided supporting
evidence that interior complexity was particularly detrimental to utilitarian shoppers. Many
consumers use commercial websites to learn about products and “window-shop” without a
specific shopping goal. They browse to find inspiration for future purchases and learn about
new products from retailer’s websites (BrizFeel, 2021). Left undetermined is how these online
consumers, who are without specific search or shopping goals, process and respond to focal
and non-focal individual elements within a complex webpage.
To address this research gap, the current study was designed to investigate online
shopper’s attention allocation and information processing on commercial webpages when
they are casually browsing. Considering the well-documented importance of website design
on business and marketing outcomes (Kim and Lennon, 2013; Nia and Shokouhyar, 2020),
studying the interplay between overall webpage perception and individual element
perception is useful to reveal the nuanced effects of visual complexity on online consumers
during browsing. Drawing from the visual attention, visual complexity, and information Visual
processing literature, two empirical studies were conducted to demonstrate that online complexity
shoppers evaluate the focal (i.e. product) and non-focal elements (i.e. advertisement) while
inadvertently being influenced by the incidental overall complexity of the webpage.
effect
Practically, the findings of the study provide insights for both retailers and advertisers by
revealing the hidden impact of webpage complexity. The study also makes a theoretical
contribution to the visual complexity and interactive marketing literature by considering
both individual objects (i.e. focal product, advertisement) and the complexity of
surroundings. Our study goes beyond previous studies that investigated either whole
webpage complexity effects without considering individual elements therein (e.g. Geissler
et al., 2006; Nia and Shokouhyar, 2020) or individual object complexity effects on object
evaluation without considering the complexity of the object’s surrounding (e.g. Vazquez,
2019; Wang et al., 2020).

Literature review and hypotheses

Visual complexity: display vs. target complexity
Visual complexity is a function of the number of distinct and dissimilar units in a single view.
Researchers identified two different types of visual complexity based on whether the interest
is on a single object or on overall elements in a visual field (Donderi, 2006). Visual complexity
of an object (e.g. a single product or advertisement) is called target complexity or form
complexity whereas the complexity of an array of elements (e.g. a newspaper’s classified ad
section) is called display complexity. Online shoppers can respond very differently depending
on which type of visual complexity (i.e. display vs. target) dominates in a webpage.
Display complexity. Display complexity has been studied in the context of visual clutter
and usability. High display complexity involves multiple visual elements fighting for the
limited attention of viewers, making successful search of a target in a visual field difficult. In
an online context, researchers found websites with many elements (e.g. product pictures,
product information, advertisements) or with interactive and dynamic elements (e.g. videos,
animated graphics) were perceived as more complex than others (Harper et al., 2009; Mai et al.,
2014). Because display complexity interferes with effective use of websites and increases
confusion, website design and usability researchers reported negative effects for display
complexity on user responses (e.g. Bialkova et al., 2013; Harper et al., 2009). Similar negative
effects for display complexity were reported in advertising research (Pieters et al., 2002).
The cognitive processing literature provides an explanation for the negative effect of
display complexity on user responses. People prefer websites that are easy to process
(Im et al., 2010). Highly complex visual stimuli require cognitive resources and are difficult to
process, resulting in negative outcomes. Therefore, a negative linear relationship between
complexity and user responses is predicted; that is, as visual complexity increases, so do the
confusion and frustration of using a website. Research by Nadkarni and Gupta (2007) support
this prediction as they reported a negative impact of website complexity on goal-oriented
users’ satisfaction.
Target complexity. Target complexity has been studied as a determinant of aesthetic
evaluation and preference. Optimal stimulation level theories, such as Berlyne’s
psychobiological model of aesthetics, are frequently used to investigate target complexity.
According to these theories, people prefer moderately complex stimuli to very simple or
complex ones because of their arousal potential (Berlyne, 1960; Steenkamp and Baumgartner,
1992). When a stimulus induces an optimal level of arousal, individuals experience pleasure.
A stimulus that is very simple or very complex does not elicit as much pleasure as a moderate
one because it is either not interesting enough or too confusing. Thus, it was predicted that an
inverted U-shaped relationship existed between complexity and pleasure or liking.
JRIM In support of optimum stimulation theories is consumer research addressing print
advertisement complexity and its effectiveness. Putrevu et al. (2004) manipulated the target
complexity of print advertisements and found that consumers preferred complex
advertisements to simple advertisements and that the optimal level of complexity differed
by individual traits. Similarly, Kusumasondjaja and Tjiptono (2018) found that high (vs. low)
advertisement image complexity led to more positive responses from Instagram users.
However, because these researchers studied only two levels of complexity, they could not test
for an inverted U-shaped relationship between complexity and pleasure. Others have directly
tested the inverted U-shaped complexity-pleasure relationship for webpages (Geissler et al.,
2006; He et al., 2019; Mai et al., 2014). Their results suggested that a webpage with a moderate
level of visual complexity would receive more positive consumer responses (e.g. visual
attention, positive attitudes) than either a webpage with a low or a high level of visual
complexity.

Applying visual complexity principles to online shopping

Applying the visual complexity principles and findings from the visual attention literature
(see H2 for more extensive review) to the context of online shopping, we predict that target
complexity rather than display complexity determines consumer responses to complex
webpages. Prior experience and expectations guide consumers’ attention allocation. It has
been shown that even the mere experience of having seen an object in one area on a computer
monitor could build expectation and people attended to that area in a subsequent irrelevant
visual search task (Conner et al., 2004). Because online shoppers have expectations for where
to find the product and information from their experience, they are likely to attend to the
product information area (i.e. the top left part of the webpage). Consequently, their attention
will be concentrated on the product on a webpage while ignoring other information
surrounding the product (e.g. advertisements) because their visual attention process
spotlights the attended location while filtering out other areas in a visual field (Steinman and
Steinman, 1998). In this situation, non-core information is unlikely to compete with core
information for attention, yet likely to become part of the unattended background of the
visual field.
Accordingly, visual complexity that is increased by the number of non-core information
items should not increase viewing difficulty of the featured product(s). Rather, consumers
should perceive the webpage holistically as a single object. If this prediction is true, online
shoppers should evaluate visually complex webpages based on their target complexity.
Thus, it was predicted that, in an online shopping context, an inverted-U shaped relationship
results between the overall visual complexity of a webpage and responses toward that
webpage.

Hypotheses development
The important extension of the overall webpage complexity effect investigated in this study
is its spill-over effect on individual element evaluation. If consumers evaluate a webpage
holistically (i.e. target complexity), the focal product on the webpage may be also evaluated
positively when the webpage looks attractive because the affect felt at the moment can
influence one’s judgment. Researchers demonstrated that positive emotion can bias
individuals’ cognition and behavior in a positive direction even when the emotion is not
directly related to the target (Clore et al., 1994). For example, Schwarz and Clore (1983) found
feelings elicited from irrelevant events were misattributed to evaluation of different events.
Similarly, Murphy and Zajonc (1993) demonstrated an emotionally neutral stimulus could be
evaluated either positively or negatively depending on the feeling felt before encountering the
stimulus. In addition, marketing researchers have documented physically attractive models
and endorsers have a positive influence on product and brand evaluations (e.g. Micu et al., Visual
2009). This positive bias is obtained because consumers’ favorable impressions of an complexity
attractive model are transferred to other targets linked to the model such as products and ads
(Till et al., 2008). Thus, feelings bias or spill over into evaluations, which is also known as the
effect
affect transfer hypothesis. Affect transfer has been tested and confirmed in the interactive
marketing literature. Researchers documented that attitude toward advertisements transfers
to attitude toward brands (Huang et al., 2013; Stewart et al., 2018).
This affect transfer is also expected to happen in an online shopping context. The pleasure
elicited from viewing a webpage is likely to spill over into consumers’ evaluation and
behavior relative to that page. When consumers are browsing webpages, they do not
scrutinize related information or their emotional state to make judgments. Therefore, as affect
transfer researchers have documented (e.g. Murphy and Zajonc, 1993; Schwarz and Clore,
1983), individuals will also misattribute the pleasure felt from the overall complexity of a
webpage to evaluation of a specific element within a webpage (e.g. a product, an
advertisement). Because a webpage reflecting a moderate level of visual complexity was
expected to generate more positive affect than a simple or highly complex webpage,
consumers are likely to evaluate individual elements (e.g. the focal product, an advertisement)
within that webpage positively. Thus, H1 was formulated.
H1. There is an inverted-U shaped relationship between visual complexity of a webpage
and attitude toward individual elements within the webpage. Specifically, attitude
toward a product (H1a) and an advertisement (H1b) will be the highest at a moderate
level of webpage complexity.
Humans selectively process information among a vast amount of information available in the
environment. Visual attention is a key mechanism to information selection. Although the
definition of visual attention is not consistent across studies and disciplines (Steinman and
Steinman, 1998), many researchers define attention as the filtering of visual information that
enhances cognitive processing of a narrow, focal area within a visual field (e.g. Pieters and
Warlop, 1999).
Researchers have conceptualized two categories of visual attention: voluntary attention
€
and transient attention (e.g. Conner et al., 2004; Koch and Tsuchiya, 2007; Ohman et al., 2001;
Pieters and Warlop, 1999; Steinman and Steinman, 1998). Voluntary attention or top-down
attention is goal-driven and is dependent on expectancy of the viewer. During voluntary
attention, people allocate their attention by prioritizing cognitive resources to stimuli that are
consistent with their goals while suppressing information outside the attended area. This
process increases efficiency and reduces distraction. On the other hand, transient attention, or
bottom-up attention, is stimulus-driven and relatively involuntary. Bottom-up attention
shifts rapidly in response to salient sensory information and is often determined by stimulus
characteristics such as shape, color, movement and novelty (e.g. noticing a bright red flower
in a green field). It is described as low-level, quick attention given to an object during an
environmental scan.
When consumers browse a product page, top-down attention (i.e. voluntary attention)
guides consumers’ attention to the focal product. Einhauser et al. (2008) found that top-down
processing overrides bottom-up features in determining attention allocation. In fact, they
showed top-down processing (e.g. allocation of attention on a predetermined area) immediately
suppresses feature-driven attention (e.g. automatic attention on an eye-catching stimulus)
completely. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the attention given to a focal product is not
affected by the visual complexity of the webpage. Formally, H2 is stated below.
H2. Online shoppers give attention to a focal product consistently regardless of visual
complexity level.
JRIM Attention to an advertisement is one of the most important indicators of the effectiveness of
online advertising (Pavlou and Stewart, 2000) because consumers cannot make any
conceptual analysis of an advertisement without paying attention to it (Pieters and Warlop,
1999). Indeed, a study of online advertisement effectiveness showed longer processing of
advertisements is directly associated with increase in conversions (Tillson, 2018). However,
the same study also indicated that only 12% of ads receive attention of viewers, and only 4%
are viewed for more than a second.
This suggests, unlike the focal product on a webpage, visual complexity of a webpage is
likely to affect the amount of attention given to an advertisement. When consumers allocate
their attention to the product, other information on the same page becomes secondary.
Secondary information is likely to draw attention through the involuntary, feature-driven
process. Thus, increasing elements in the peripheral field will increase competition for such
involuntary attention and should reduce the chance of an advertisement getting attention of the
shoppers. Consistent with this logic, previous researchers studying ad clutter (Ha and McCann,
2008; Zanjani et al., 2011) reported high visual complexity negatively influenced attention to
online advertisements and advertisement recall. Thus, the following was hypothesized.
H3. Attention to an advertisement will decrease as the visual complexity of a webpage
increases.

Study 1
The purpose of Study 1 was to examine effects of webpage visual complexity on online
shoppers’ visual attention (H2 and H3) and evaluations of the target product and webpage
(H1a). To assess visual attention, eye-tracking was used. Eye-tracking detects the automatic,
responsive attention given to visual stimuli unobtrusively.

Method
Study design and stimuli development. A one-factor (5 levels of complexity) within-subjects
design with a 5 3 5 Latin Square experiment was used to test the hypotheses. For the
experiment, five target advertisements for unknown brands and five mock female apparel
retailers’ product pages were created. Each webpage presented a product picture and a brief
verbal description of the product resembling a typical commercial webpage. Women’s apparel
item pictures were collected from non-US retailers’ websites to avoid familiarity of products.
Pretest participants (female undergraduate students, n 5 97) showed no significant difference
in liking between the five items and the advertisement images (p > 0.05). Then, the researchers
created five product pages using the selected items and manipulated the complexity level of the
pages by adding visual elements such as product suggestions, shipping information, and
advertisements. The simplest webpage had product information only (complexity level 1). Non-
core elements, including the target advertisement, were incrementally added to the simplest
webpage to increase complexity. A pretest (n 5 29) confirmed that manipulation of complexity
was successful (p < 0.001). As a result, a total of 25 webpages (5 retailers 3 5 complexity levels)
were created (see Figure 1 for an example). Then, a Latin square design was employed to create
stimulus blocks to control for any effects of different products, website design elements such as
layout and color scheme, and the order of presentation (Cotton, 1993).
Participants. Female undergraduates from a Midwestern university were recruited to
participate using a $10 incentive. While the undergraduate students were a convenient
sample, they also represent digital natives who are savvy online shoppers. Because the
stimulus products were female apparel items and females and males have different aesthetic
preferences (Moss et al., 2006), only females were recruited. The volunteer participants
responded to an advertisement for a product evaluation study in which they would evaluate
products from five different online apparel retailers that were probably unfamiliar to them.
 Experimental procedure. A Tobii T-60 eye tracker was used. Once the participants arrived Visual
at the lab, they were individually seated in front of a computer monitor containing eye complexity
tracking sensors. The eye tracker was calibrated to detect and record participant’s eye
movements. After calibration, participants were randomly assigned to one of the
effect
experimental blocks and viewed each webpage for five seconds. Participants were told to
assume they were browsing apparel products online without a specific shopping goal.
Measures. The product and target advertisement on each webpage were marked as the
areas of interest (AOI). Common measures of attention in eye tracking research include the
number of times an individual looks at an area (i.e. total fixations) and the total length of time
an individual spends looking at an area (i.e. total durations of fixations) (e.g. Baschnagel,
2013). Both total fixations and total durations of fixations on the elements (i.e. product and
advertisements) were recorded. After viewing each webpage, participants were asked to
answer one question measuring webpage visual complexity (e.g. “The layout of this webpage
is simple”) adopted from Pieters et al. (2010) and three questions for their evaluation of the
webpage and the products therein using items selected and adopted from Janiszewski (1993)
(e.g. “The product featured in this webpage is attractive,” “I like this webpage,” “This
webpage is attractive”) using seven-point rating scales (1 5 strongly disagree; 7 5 strongly
agree). Participants also responded to demographic questions.

Results and discussion

Preliminary analysis. Ninety-three undergraduate women participated. Three participants
were eliminated due to a high amount of missing data. Thus, data from 90 individuals were
analyzed using Tobii studio 3.2.1 and SPSS. Participant’s ages ranged from 18 to 62
(m 5 20.59). While a 62-year old participant was unexpected, her responses did not differ
significantly from the mean and the age of participants was unrelated to their online
shopping frequency (r 5 0.003). The majority of participants were Caucasian (76.7%) and
single (97.8%). Participants’ majors varied including business, retail merchandising, and
apparel design. The sample characteristics are described in Table 1. Descriptive statistics and
correlations among the variables are reported in Tables 2 and 3.
Webpage and product evaluation. The data were analyzed using a series of repeated
measures analysis of variance. Multivariate normality was examined using the Mauchly test
of sphericity. The Huynh-Feldt corrected statistics were used when appropriate. The visual
complexity manipulation was successful [F(4,86) 5 43.25, p < 0.001; see Table 4 for mean
scores]. Effects of visual complexity on webpage attractiveness [F(4,86) 5 6.02, p < 0.001,
partial η2 5 0.22], webpage liking [F(4,86) 5 4.96, p 5 0.001, partial η2 5 0.19], and product
attractiveness [F(4,84) 5 4.44, p < 0.005, partial η2 5 0.17] were significant. Partial η2 values
indicate these effects were large (partial η2 > 0.14) (Keppel and Wickens, 2004).
Consistent with our logic, the tests of quadratic contrast confirmed inverted U-shaped
relationships between visual complexity of a webpage and attitude toward the webpage:
webpage attractiveness [F(1,89) 5 13.53, p < 0.001, partial η2 5 0.13] and webpage liking
[F(1,89) 5 5.95, p < 0.05, partial η2 5 0.06]. These findings are consistent with the target

Figure 1.
Stimulus webpage
examples (Study 1)
JRIM Study 1 (n 5 90) Study 2 (n 5 121)

Purpose To test effects of webpage complexity on To test effects of webpage complexity

product and webpage attitude and attention on product and ad attitude and ad
allocation recognition
Methods Eye-tracking lab experiment Online experiment
Product used for Apparel Apparel, coffee mug, e-book reader
experiment
Hypotheses tested H1a, H2, H3 H1b, H2, H3
Results H1a supported H1b supported
H2 supported H2 supported
H3 rejected H3 supported
Sample characteristics
Age 20.59 (SD 5 5.51) 21.61 (SD 5 2.49)
Gender
Male 0 (0%) 26 (21.7%)
Female 90 (100%) 94 (78.4%)
Ethnicity
White 69 (76.7%) 73 (60.5%)
Black 2 (2.2%) 3 (2.5%)
Hispanic 1 (1.1%) 4 (3.1%)
Table 1. Asian 18 (20%) 36 (29.6%)
Summary of studies Other 0 (0.0%) 4 (3.1%)

Product Webpage Webpage

Complexity attractiveness attractiveness liking

Complexity 1 0.550 0.602 0.595

Product attractiveness 1 0.597 0.592
Table 2. Webpage 1 0.823
Correlation matrix for attractiveness
Study 1 variables Webpage liking 1

Variable Min Max Mean SD

Study 1 Prod attractiveness 1.80 6.40 4.62 0.97

Complexity 2.80 7.00 5.11 0.92
Webpage liking 1.60 6.40 4.50 0.99
Webpage attractiveness 1.60 6.20 4.36 1.09
Study 2 Webpage attitude 1.00 7.00 4.41 1.39
Product attitude 1.00 7.00 4.52 1.40
Ad attitude 1.00 7.00 4.26 1.34
Table 3. Ad recognition 1.00 5.00 2.99 1.17
Descriptive statistics Click intention 1.00 5.00 2.04 1.14

complexity literature (e.g. Berlyne, 1960; Geissler et al., 2006), and contradict the research built
on the display complexity principle (e.g. Bialkova et al., 2013). Thus, this result confirms our
assertion that online shopper’s experience on commercial websites is very different from their
experience on cluttered websites with no clear focal point.
 Importantly, there was an inverted U-shaped relationship between visual complexity of a Visual
webpage and product attractiveness [F(1,87) 5 10.84, p < 0.001, partial η2 5 0.11], providing complexity
support for H1a. The quadratic effects on the dependent variables were medium-sized (partial
η2 > 0.06) (Keppel and Wickens, 2004) (see Figure 2 for the inverted-U shaped pattern). effect
Attention allocation. Eye-tracking data were analyzed to test the effect of visual
complexity on attention allocated to the focal products (H2) and the target advertisements
(H3). Because the simplest webpage did not contain ads, repeated measures ANOVAs were
conducted with four webpages with the target ads (complexity levels 2 to 5).
Consistent with H2, there were no significant effects for webpage visual complexity on the
total fixations or on the total duration of fixations on the focal products. Participants gave a
consistent level of attention to the focal product regardless of the complexity level. However,
visual complexity had a significant and large effect on the attention given to the
advertisements: the total fixations [F(3,43) 5 10.08, p < 0.001, partial η2 5 0.41] and the total
duration of fixations [F(3,43) 5 8.99, p < 0.001, partial η2 5 0.16]. This finding is consistent with
those of Pieters et al. (2010) who reported reduced attention on target ads under visual clutter.
Unexpectedly, when the mean values of the dependent measures were plotted, a U-shaped
relationship appeared. The tests of quadratic effects indicated this non-linear relationship
was statistically significant for both total fixations [F(1,45) 5 30.55, p 5 0.000, partial
η2 5 0.40] and total durations of fixations [F(1,45) 5 22.19, p 5 0.000, partial η2 5 0.33].
Because our hypothesis predicted a negative linear relationship between visual complexity
and attention on ads, H3 was rejected.

Partial Quadratic Mean by complexity level

F (df) P η2 contrast C1 C2 C3 C4 C5

Complexity 43.25* (4.86) 0.000 1.64a 2.34b 3.04c 3.28d 4.14e

Aweb 6.02* (4.86) 0.000 0.22 p 5 0.000 4.12ab 4.29ab 4.57bc 4.75bc 4.09a
Likeweb *
4.96 (4.86) 0.001 0.19 p 5 0.017 4.43a 4.40b 4.60b 4.89c 4.17a
Aprod 4.44 (4.84) 0.005 0.17 p 5 0.001 4.26a 4.58ab 4.84b 5.10b 4.43a
Fixations 10.08* (3.43) 0.000 0.41 p 5 0.000 3.63a 1.76b 1.41b 2.52a
Durations 8.99* (3.43) 0.000 0.16 p 5 0.000 0.98a 0.51b 0.38b 0.62b
Note(s): Aweb 5 Attractiveness of the webpage, Likeweb 5 webpage liking, Aprod 5 product attractiveness. Table 4.
C1 5 complexity level 1 (most simple) to C5 5 complexity level 5 (most complex). The subscript letters next to Repeated ANOVA
mean scores denote statistical differences after post-hoc tests (p 5 0.05).*Mauchly’s test of sphericity was results for study
significant at p 5 0.05 and ε > 0.75, and Huynh-Feldt statistics were reported 1 (N 5 90)

5.5
5.3 5.102
5.1 4.841 Webpage
4.9 Product
4.58
4.7 4.432
4.756
4.5 4.261
4.567
4.3
4.1 4.289
4.122 4.089
3.9
3.7
Figure 2.
3.5 Inverted-U relationship
1 2 3 4 5 between complexity
and attitude (N 5 90)
Complexity
JRIM While H3 was rejected, this finding suggests an unexpected yet interesting implication for
online advertising. If visual attention (i.e. fixation measures) to ads in our results reflects a
deeper level of processing (i.e. understanding and remembering ad messages), advertisers
could benefit from placing an ad on a very complex product page. However, whether this
interpretation is valid was unclear because participants never explicitly evaluated
advertisements. As a result, an important question remained. Do consumers process an
advertisement more when a webpage is very complex than when moderately complex? In
other words, do the total fixations and duration of fixations translate to outcomes such as ad
recognition and behavioral intention?
People’s eyes can attend to a stimulus without conscious awareness of the stimulus (Koch
and Tsuchiya, 2007; Lamme, 2003). Horowitz et al. (2007) reported that fixational eye
movements to a stimulus were not equal to attention shifts to it. According to these
researchers, fixations can happen because the eyes repeatedly move within the visual field to
prevent the overall image from dissipating. In this case, viewer’s eyes fixate on cues outside
the focal area to hold the background image without further processing the cues. If this
explains our finding, the unexpected increase of attention to the ads in the most complex
webpage condition may not result in positive outcomes such as ad recognition and recall
because the ad is outside the focal area. Study 2 was designed to answer this question.

Study 2
The purposes of Study 2 were to assess if the fixations on advertisements observed in Study 1
could lead to meaningful responses to the advertisements (i.e. attitude and recognition) (H1b).
We also used various kinds of products as stimuli to increase generalizability of results.

Method
Stimuli development. A total of 16 mock commercial webpages were developed (4 retailers x 4
levels of complexity) in a procedure similar to that of Study 1. To select the products for the
study, twenty-seven undergraduate students evaluated 20 products on product
attractiveness and personal relevance in a pretest. Four products – men’s shirt, women’s
jacket, a coffee mug, and an e-book reader – were selected because they were moderately
attractive and relevant to the participants. Using the selected products, four base product
pages were created. For each product page, a target advertisement was inserted.
Similar to Study 1, the visual complexity of the product pages was manipulated by
varying the number of elements. The webpage images (1,024*768) were created in Adobe
Photoshop and saved in a JPEG format. Once the simplest condition of the webpages (C1) was
created (i.e. webpages with the focal product and the target ad), additional visual elements
were incrementally inserted to increase complexity (see Figure 3). In addition to the number of
elements on a webpage, an objective measure of file size was used to ensure manipulation of
complexity. Visual complexity researchers documented that compressed picture file size (e.g.
JPEG) could be a reliable and valid measure for objective stimulus visual complexity. Large
files are more complex than small files (Donderi, 2006; Tuch et al., 2009). Consistent with this
method, the file size was checked while increasing the complexity level (e.g. file sizes for
Retailer A’s webpage images were 202MB, 274MB, 330MB and 433MB). Similar to Study 1, a
Latin square design was employed.
Participants and experimental procedure. Undergraduate students from three different
universities in the US (one Midwestern university, one university on the east coast, and one
university on the west coast) were recruited to this online experiment for course credit.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental blocks and viewed four
product pages. After each product page, a short online questionnaire appeared on the screen.
 Visual
complexity
Focal
effect
product Target
ad

Added non-focal
elements

Figure 3.
Stimulus webpage
Complexity Complexity Complexity Complexity design (Study 2)
Level 1 (C1) Level 2 (C2) Level 3 (C3) Level 4 (C4)

Participants were asked to indicate their attitude toward the webpage (Aweb) and the product
(Aprod) with three items adopted from Janiszewski (1993) (good-bad, likable-unlikable,
unattractive-attractive). Webpage complexity (Pieters et al., 2010) was assessed with a single
item (simple-complex). Once the participants rated all four webpages and products, the same
four product pages appeared again one at a time. The participants then indicated the two
locations that attracted most of their attention within each webpage by clicking on those
spots. This task was designed to measure conscious attention allocation and processing of
information.
Because the focus of the study was on the product and the target ad on each webpage, the
product picture and the ad were set as the areas of interest (AOI) to detect whether the
participants consciously allocated attention to these areas. The number of clicks within each
AOI was recorded. Each AOI could receive from zero to two clicks (e.g. if a participant
identified two different areas within the product pictures as most attention-getting, the
product area received two clicks).
Next, the target advertisement was displayed and conscious attention and processing of
the ad was measured with three ad recognition items developed by the researchers (“I noticed
the advertisement while browsing the webpage,” “the advertisement captured my attention
during my browsing the webpage,” “I remember seeing this advertisement”) and a behavioral
intention item (“It is likely I would click the ad”). Attitude towards the ad (Aad) was also
measured using items adopted from Janiszewski (1993) (e.g. positive-negative, unpleasant-
pleasant, dislike-like;). All items were rated on 7-point scales.

Results and discussion

Preliminary analysis. A total of 305 students were invited to Study 2. Within a two-week
period, 136 students responded (response rate 5 44.6%). After deleting incomplete responses,
the final dataset of 121 useable responses was analyzed with SPSS 23. Participants were men
(23.5%) and women (76.5%) and had an average age of 21.6 years. Participants reported that
they shop online 3.4 times per month on average. Descriptive statistics and the correlation
matrix for the variables are presented in Tables 3 and 5, respectively.
Webpage and product evaluation. A series of repeated measure ANOVA were performed
for data analyses. Because there was no significant difference between products for the same
JRIM complexity level, the product type did not affect participants’ responses. Therefore, the four
product page responses were collapsed by complexity level. Inter-item reliability for
measurements (Aprod, Aweb, Aad, ad recognition) was checked and confirmed (Cronbach’s
α > 0.82). These items were averaged to create indices of Aprod, Aweb, Aad, and ad recognition.
Manipulation of complexity was successful [F(3,341) 5 46.88, p < 0.001; see Table 6 for mean
scores].
Participants preferred the moderate complexity webpages (Aweb) to either low or high
complexity webpages [F(3,360) 5 15.88, p < 0.001]. Additional tests of within-subject contrast
revealed a significant and large quadratic effect [F(1,120) 5 23.36, p < 0.001, partial η2 5 0.16].
However, the linear relationship was not significant (p 5 0.265). The result provides
additional support for an inverted U-shaped relationship between visual complexity and
webpage evaluation as a whole. Complexity did not have a significant effect on Aprod
(p 5 0.349). The mean scores presented a consistent inverted-U pattern (see Table 6) although
the quadratic contrast did not reach significance (p 5 0.079) (H1a).
Attention allocation. In study 1, contrary to the hypothesis that the attention given to the
target advertisements decreases as webpage complexity increases, the fixations on the ad
unexpectedly increased on the most complex webpage (level 5). An important question was
whether the advertisements are consciously processed on a highly complex webpage.
Findings from Study 2 demonstrate that the increased fixations on the ad observed in Study 1
do not indicate conscious processing which can impact advertisement outcomes. The
repeated ANOVA test of visual complexity effects on ad recognition was not significant
[F(3,360) 5 1.77, p 5 0.12], meaning that participants did not recognize a target ad presented
on the most complex webpage better than an ad presented on less complex pages. The

Aweb Aprod Aad ad recognition Click intention

Aweb 1 0.529 0.284 0.117 0.106

Aprod 1 0.257 0.202 0.085
Aad 1 0.282 0.267
ad recognition 1 0.416
Table 5. Click intention 1
Correlation matrix for Note(s): Aweb 5 Attitude towards the webpage, Aad 5 Attitude towards the ad, Aprod 5 Attitude towards the
Study 2 variables product

Partial Quadratic Mean by complexity level

F (df) p η2 contrast C1 C2 C3 C4

Complexity 46.88* (3,341) 0.000 0.28 2.46a 2.71b 3.55c 4.35d

Aweb 15.88 (3,360) 0.000 0.09 p 5 0.000 3.94a 4.65b 4.65b 4.15a
Aad 11.93* (3,348) 0.000 0.09 p 5 0.000 4.37ab 4.59a 4.23b 3.77c
Aprod 1.10 (3,360) 0.349 0.03 p 5 0.079 4.37 4.65 4.57 4.47
ad recognition 1.96 (3,360) 0.120 0.02 p 5 0.016 2.94 3.15 3.08 2.89
Click intention 5.03* (3,350) 0.002 0.04 p 5 0.099 2.17a 2.22a 2.02a 1.81b
Attention to ad 4.43 (3,360) 0.004 0.04 p 5 0.601 0.264a 0.231a 0.174ab 0.107b
Attention to 0.838 (3,360) 0.474 0.01 p 5 0.379 0.777 0.711 0.752 0.736
product
Table 6. Note(s): Aweb 5 Attitude towards the webpage, Aad 5 Attitude towards the ad, Aprod 5 Attitude towards the
Repeated ANOVA product. C1 5 complexity level 1 (most simple) to C4 5 complexity level 4 (most complex). The subscript letters
results for study next to mean scores denote statistical differences after post-hoc tests (p 5 0.05). *Mauchly’s test of sphericity
2 (N 5 121) was significant at p 5 0.05 and ε > 0.75, and Huynh-Feldt statistics were reported
analysis of the participants’ conscious attention allocation (as measured with the number of Visual
clicks on the products and the ads) revealed a small, yet significant and negative complexity complexity
effect on the ad [F(3,360) 5 4.43, p < 0.01, partial η2 5 0.04] and on participants’ behavioral
intention toward the ad [F(3,350) 5 5.03, p < 0.01, partial η2 5 0.04]. That is, as the webpage
effect
became more complex, the chance of participants’ attending to the target ad was reduced
(Mc1 5 0.26, Mc2 5 0.23, Mc3 5 0.17, Mc4 5 0.11) along with their intention to click on the ads
(Mc1 5 2.20, Mc2 5 2.14, Mc3 5 1.99, Mc4 5 1.71). Therefore, H3 was supported. However,
complexity did not affect participants’ attention allocation to the focal products (p 5 0.415)
providing evidence for a top-down attention allocation on the products during viewing,
providing further support for H2. This finding is in line with the attention literature that
demonstrated eye movements and fixations do not equate to processing of information
(Horowitz et al., 2007; Koch and Tsuchiya, 2007; Lamme, 2003).
While ads presented on complex webpages were less likely to be noticed and clicked,
analyses of Aad and Aprod imply advertisements can still benefit from being on moderately
complex webpages if noticed. The complexity effect on Aad was significant [F(3,350) 5 11.93,
p < 0.001, partial η2 5 0.09], and importantly, the quadratic contrast was significant
[F(1,120) 5 15.39, p < 0.001, partial η2 5 0.11]. Thus, consistent with H1b, participants showed
a more positive attitude towards the ads when the webpage was moderately complex than
when it was simple or very complex. Together, the results support the affect transfer
hypothesis that positive attitude elicited by a webpage’s visual complexity affects attitude
toward the individual elements on the webpage (i.e. the focal product and advertisement). The
summary of results is provided in Table 1.

General discussion and conclusion

Researchers studying visual complexity effects on advertisements primarily adopted the
perspective of visual clutter and focused on documenting negative outcomes resulting from
placing advertisements on visually complex webpages (Bialkova et al., 2013; Pieters et al.,
2007; Sohn et al., 2017). In contrast, the current study viewed webpage complexity as a
potential positive factor which increases the attractiveness of products and advertisements.
Through two studies, we provided evidence that visual complexity of commercial websites
can be positive because the holistic perception of overall design spills over to evaluation of
elements within the webpage, adding a novel viewpoint to the online advertisement literature.
Previous researchers using the visual complexity design principle did not systematically
apply the principle to multi-element stimuli. This study demonstrated that online shopping is
different from visual search tasks, and contrary to common beliefs, both retailers and
marketers can benefit from a somewhat complex online environment.

Theoretical contributions
This study contributes to existing literature in interactive marketing, visual complexity, and
online consumer attention and behavior in several ways. First, building on the visual
attention, design and aesthetics, and affect transfer literature, we enhanced the current
understanding of how online shoppers process and respond to advertisements on visually
complex webpages. In doing so, we demonstrated complex webpages do not always create
visual clutter. When the top-down attention process determines a clear focal area to allocate
attention to, processing of surrounding areas was inhibited. As a result, increased complexity
due to additional elements in the non-focal area did not compete for attention and
consequently did not cause reduced effectiveness or confusion. Rather, this peripheral area
became a background that contributed to the overall impression of the webpage and further
affected evaluation of the focal product. Our study contributes to advance theoretical
understanding of consumer advertisement processing by incorporating several strands of
literature and by applying the framework to the interactive marketing context. The results
JRIM provided supporting evidence for the affect transfer hypothesis (Murphy and Zajonc, 1993;
Schwarz and Clore, 1983).
Second, our study particularly focused on how online shoppers read and respond to
individual elements within webpages, unlike previous researchers who investigated the whole
webpage as a target object (e.g. Nia and Shokouhyar, 2020; Vazquez, 2019). We conceptualized
and tested a mechanism of aesthetic evaluation of elements within webpages based on the
visual complexity and attention literature, a novel approach to understanding online consumer
behaviors. We demonstrated that individuals prioritize their focus on the product area among
others (i.e. target complexity) rather than distributing an equal amount of attention to all
elements on the webpage (i.e. display complexity). While design researchers used the
complexity principle to predict and understand aesthetic responses to designed objects such as
clothes and websites (e.g. Morganosky and Postlewait, 1989; Tuch et al., 2009), they focused on
the complexity of single items without considering contextual influences such as available
information in the background. Our findings revealed that seemingly irrelevant additional
information surrounding objects contributes to the overall complexity perception which in turn
influences aesthetic evaluation of and intention toward those objects.
Third, our findings support Berlyne’s psychobiological model of aesthetics (1960) and
reject the visual clutter predictions, demonstrating the usefulness of Berlyne’s theory to the
context of online information processing. In both Study 1 and 2, the inverted U-shaped
relationship between visual complexity of a webpage and evaluation of the webpage was
supported. Theoretically, our results corroborate those of previous researchers noting the
existence of an inverted U-shaped relationship between visual complexity and user
evaluation of the overall website (Geissler et al., 2006; Mai et al., 2014). However, our study
advances knowledge by applying the theory while considering the interaction between the
individual webpage elements and the overall webpage complexity. Therefore, while the
existing literature informs brand website developers and designers, our findings provide
important insights for advertisement buyers or website administrators who decide on the
number of ads to display.
Lastly, our study suggests employing multiple research methods is advisable for studying
visual attention of consumers. We investigated attention allocation through both active and
passive measures (i.e. self-identification and eye-tracking). Visual attention investigation is a
gateway to understanding consumer visual information processing on websites. Our results
indicate that fixations measured by eye-tracking can be made without awareness, especially
when the fixations are made on the areas that consumers were not meant to attend to.
Although the total number of fixations on ads was increased when a webpage became highly
complex (Study 1), participants did not recognize the ads during the browsing task (Study 2).

Managerial implication
Marketers will find these results interesting as the research shows the danger and
opportunity of presenting consumers with high levels of visual complexity when they choose
to place an ad. The findings confirmed the common knowledge that consumers attend to ads
less when there are many visual elements on a single page whereas the focal product
consistently attracts viewer attention. A new insight from the findings is that an ad (or any
non-core element such as recommended products and promotional information) on a complex
product page can be perceived positively when individuals attend to it. Moderately complex
webpages positively affected participants’ evaluation of both products and ads. Once
individuals attend to and consciously process an ad within a complex webpage, they evaluate
the ad while being influenced by the overall complexity of the webpage.
Online retailers can benefit from strategically creating moderately complex webpages
because the overall webpage complexity influences the focal product attractiveness. Adding
some non-core elements such as special promotions, family brand links, and product
recommendations may be helpful to achieving an optimal complexity. However, it should be Visual
noted that non-core elements should be carefully evaluated so that they do not fight for complexity
attention against one another.
Although our finding supported the inverted-U shaped relationship over the predictions of
effect
visual clutter research (i.e. visual disarray and confusion as a function of visual complexity), it
should be noted that our findings are only applicable for individuals casually browsing
commercial websites. In other words, visual clutter problems can be relevant in certain
conditions such as when there is no predetermined order or structure for processing a
complex visual field or when the viewer has a goal to search a specific target in a complex
visual field. In that sense, visual clutter problems can be particularly relevant for some new
technology marketing environments such as augmented reality and virtual reality where a
great amount of added information can be positioned in an unorganized manner.
While our study was conducted in the context of commercial webpages, the results can be
applied to other website environments such as social media or content websites in which
consumers have an established browsing pattern for viewing the core elements. It is likely
that the advancement of technology and use of consumer behavioral data can enhance the
relevancy of advertisements to individual consumers (Wang, 2021). Because the positive
effects of overall webpage complexity can only be triggered when the shoppers notice the
advertisement, the ability to personalize advertisements can enhance advertisement
effectiveness through both increased attention allocation and increased attractiveness due
to the spill-over effect of webpage complexity.

Limitations and future study suggestions

Every study has some limitations which often provide a basis for future avenues for research.
The focus of the current study was on low-involvement individuals (i.e. browsers) and on
providing contradictory evidence to previous visual clutter studies. Low-involvement shoppers
are different from goal-oriented high-involvement shoppers who are motivated to search and
process specific information (e.g. a shopper trying to find an item with specific features).
Researchers may directly manipulate and test the effect of shopper motivation and contrast the
visual complexity effect to further test our hypotheses and the boundary conditions.
Although the results imply online shoppers’ conscious attention to ads is unaffected by
webpage visual complexity, eye tracking results are evidence that individuals still
subconsciously processed the ads (i.e. the fixations). The unexpected increase of the
number of fixations on ads in a highly complex webpage indicates the possibility of enhanced
ad effectiveness through subconscious processing. Advertisement research based on mere
exposure argues for the importance of subconscious processing of ads (Janiszewski, 1993).
A future research project that focuses on how complexity might impact ad processing in a
mere exposure context could address this question.
Eye-tracking is a useful technique for assessing how consumers allocate attention to
webpages and thus is a rich resource for researching new digital advertising techniques such
as video content marketing which aim to attract shoppers’ attention. As the industry is
moving toward incorporating various platforms such as social media, streaming services and
content providers, eye-tracking can be a great tool to investigate the role of video and
interactive contents as a promotion technique in capturing consumer’s fleeting attention.
Because the overall visual complexity of webpages was the focal interest, the current
study was not designed to test how diverse features of an ad may interact with the visual
complexity of the webpage. Characteristics such as the location, color, format (e.g. banner,
skyscraper) or content of an ad can affect attention allocation to the ads. For example, Wang
et al. (2020) showed that the background of the product image could increase the amount of
attention given to the overall product picture. Researchers may investigate these factors to
understand possible interaction effects with complexity.
JRIM Considering the increasing degree of personalization of advertisements and other
marketing messages (Wang, 2021) and previous studies that demonstrated improved
effectiveness of relevant advertisements in ad clutter (Kim and Sundar, 2010; Zanjani et al.,
2011), researchers could investigate how increased relevance of the marketing stimuli interact
with the top-down attention allocation to the focal product on commercial websites.

References
Ali, F. (2021), “US ecommerce grows 44.0% in 2020”, available at: https://www.digitalcommerce360.
com/article/us-ecommerce-sales/ (accessed 28 February 2021).
Baschnagel, J.S. (2013), “Using mobile eye-tracking to assess attention to smoking cues in a
naturalized environment”, Addicitive Behaviors, Vol. 38, pp. 2837-2840.
Berlyne, D.E. (1960), Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Bialkova, S., Grunert, K.G. and van Trijp, H. (2013), “Standing out in the crowd: the effect of
information clutter on consumer attention for front-of-pack nutrition labels”, Food Policy,
Vol. 41, pp. 65-74.
BrizFeel (2021), “50 consumers online shopping behavior trends [survey] 2021”, available at: https://
brizfeel.com/consumer-online-retail-shopping-behavior/ (accessed 6 March 2021).
Clore, G.L., Schwarz, N. and Conway, M. (1994), “Affective causes and consequences of social
information processing”, in Wyer, R.S. and Srull, T.K. (Eds), Handbook of Social Cognition,
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 323-417.
Conner, C.E., Egeth, H.E. and Yantis, S. (2004), “Visual attention: bottom-up versus top-down”, Current
Biology, Vol. 14 No. 19, pp. R850-R852.
Cotton, J.W. (1993), “Latin square designs”, in Edwards, L. (Ed.), Applied Analysis of Variance in
Behavioral Science, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, pp. 147-196.
Donderi, D.C. (2006), “Visual complexity: a review”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 132 No. 1, pp. 73-97.
Einhauser, W., Rutishauser, U. and Koch, C. (2008), “Task-demands can immediately reverse the
effects of sensory-driven saliency in complex visual stimuli”, Journal of Vision, Vol. 8
No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Geissler, G.L., Zinkhan, G.M. and Watson, R.T. (2006), “The influence of home page complexity on
consumer attention, attitudes, and purchase intent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 69-80.
Ha, L. and McCann, K. (2008), “An integrated model of advertising clutter in offline and online media”,
International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 569-592.
Harper, S., Michailidou, E. and Stevens, R. (2009), “Toward a definition of visual complexity as an
implicit measure of cognitive load”, ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, Vol. 6 No. 2, p. 10.
He, Y., Guo, X. and Chen, G. (2019), “Assortment size and performance of online sellers: an inverted
U-shaped relationship”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 20 No. 10,
pp. 1503-1530.
Horowitz, T.S., Fine, E.M., Fencsik, D.E., Yurgenson, S. and Wolfe, J.M. (2007), “Fixational eye
movements are not an intext of covert attention”, Psychological Science, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 356-363.
Huang, J., Su, S., Zhou, L. and Liu, X. (2013), “Attitude toward the viral ad: expanding traditional
advertising models to interactive advertising”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 36-46.
Im, H., Lennon, S.J. and Stoel, L. (2010), “The perceptual fluency effect on pleasurable online shopping
experience”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 280-295.
Janiszewski, C. (1993), “Preattentive mere exposure effects”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20
No. 3, pp. 376-392.
Keppel, G. and Wickens, T.D. (2004), Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook, 4th ed., Pearson Visual
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
complexity
Kim, J. and Lennon, S.J. (2013), “Effects of reputation and website quality on online consumers’
emotion, perceived risk and purchase intention”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing,
effect
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 33-56.
Kim, N.Y. and Sundar, S.S. (2010), “Relevance to the rescue: can “smart ads” reduce negative response
to online ad clutter?”, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 87 No. 2,
pp. 346-362.
Koch, C. and Tsuchiya, N. (2007), “Attention and consciousness: two distinct brain processes”, Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 16-22.
Kusumasondjaja, S. and Tjiptono, F. (2018), “Endorsement and visual complexity in food advertising
on Instagram”, Internet Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 659-687.
Lamme, V.A.F. (2003), “Why visual attention and awareness are different”, Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 12-18.
Mai, R., Hoffman, S., Schwarz, U., Niemand, T. and Sedel, J. (2014), “The shifting range of optimal
website complexity”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28, pp. 101-116.
Marketing Charts (2021), “Here are forecasts for the global ad market this year”, available at: https://
www.marketingcharts.com/advertising-trends/spending-and-spenders-115854 (accessed 6
March 2021).
Micu, C.C., Coulter, R.A. and Price, L.L. (2009), “How product trial alters the effects of model
attractiveness”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 69-81.
Mogharabi, A. (2020), “Digital ad spending poised for exceptional growth”, available at: https://www.
morningstar.com/articles/1014195/digital-ad-spending-poised-for-exceptional-growth (accessed
28 February 2021).
Morganosky, M.A. and Postlewait, D.S. (1989), “Consumers’ evaluations of apparel form, expression,
and aesthetic quality”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 11-15.
Moss, G., Gunn, R. and Heller, J. (2006), “Some men like it black, some women like it pink: consumer
implications of differences in male and female website design”, Journal of Consumer Behavior,
Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 328-341.
Murphy, S.T. and Zajonc, R.B. (1993), “Affect, cognition, and awareness: affective priming with
suboptimal and optimal stimulus”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 64,
pp. 723-739.
Nadkarni, S. and Gupta, R. (2007), “A task-based model of perceived website complexity”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 501-524.
Nia, M.R. and Shokouhyar, S. (2020), “Analyzing the effects of visual aesthetic of Web pages on users’
responses in online retailing using the VisAWI method”, Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 357-389.
€
Ohman, A., Flykt, A. and Esteves, F. (2001), “Emotion drives attention: detecting the snake in the
grass”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 130 No. 3, pp. 466-478.
Orth, U. and Wirtz, J. (2014), “Consumer processing of interior service environments: the interplay
among visual complexity, processing fluency, and attractiveness”, Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 296-309.
Pavlou, P.A. and Stewart, D.W. (2000), “Measuring the effects and effectiveness of interactive
advertising: a research agenda”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-77.
Pieters, R. and Warlop, L. (1999), “Visual attention during brand choice: the impact of time pressure
and task motivation”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 16, pp. 1-16.
Pieters, R., Warlop, L. and Wedel, M. (2002), “Breaking through the clutter: benefits of advertisement
originality and familiarity for brand attention and memory”, Management Science, Vol. 48 No. 6,
pp. 765-781.
JRIM Pieters, R., Wedel, M. and Zhang, J. (2007), “Optimal feature advertising design under competitive
clutter”, Management Science, Vol. 53 No. 11, pp. 1815-1828.
Pieters, R., Wedel, M. and Batra, R. (2010), “The stopping power of advertising: measures and effects
of visual complexity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 48-60.
Putrevu, S., Tan, J. and Lord, K.R. (2004), “Consumer responses to complex advertisements: the
moderating role of need for cognition, knowledge, and gender”, Journal of Current Issues and
Research in Advertising, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 9-24.
Schwarz, N. and Clore, G.G. (1983), “Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: informative
and directive functions of affective states”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45,
pp. 513-523.
Sohn, S., Seegebarth, B. and Moritz, M. (2017), “The impact of perceived visual complexity of mobile
online shops on user’s satisfaction”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 195-214.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. and Baumgartner, H. (1992), “The role of optimum stimulation level in
exploratory consumer behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 434-448.
Steinman, S.B. and Steinman, B.A. (1998), “Vision and attention. I: current models of visual attention”,
Optometry and Vision Science, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 146-155.
Stewart, K., Kammer-Kerwick, M., Koh, H.E. and Cunningham, I. (2018), “Examining digital
advertising using an affect transfer hypothesis”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 231-254.
Till, B.D., Stanley, S.M. and Priluck, R. (2008), “Classical conditioning and celebrity endorsers: an
examination of belongingness and resistance to extinction”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 179-196.
Tillson, D. (2018), “How to make people pay attention to digital advertising”, available at: https://www.
campaignlive.co.uk/article/people-pay-attention-digital-advertising/1494773 (accessed 18 April 2021).
Tuch, A.N., Bargas-Avila, J.A., Opwis, K. and Wilhelm, F.H. (2009), “Visual complexity of websites:
effects on users’ experience, physiology, performance, and memory”, International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 67 No. 9, pp. 703-715.
Vazquez, E.E. (2019), “Effects of enduring involvement and perceived content vividness on digital
engagement”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Wang, C.L. (2021), “New frontiers and future directions in interactive marketing: inaugural editorial”,
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Wang, Q., Ma, D., Chen, H., Ye, X. and Xu, Q. (2020), “Effects of background complexity on consumer
visual processing: an eye-tracking study”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 111, pp. 270-280.
Zanjani, S.H., Diamond, W.D. and Chan, K. (2011), “Does ad-context congruity help surfers and
information seekers remember ads in cluttered e-magazines?”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 40
No. 4, pp. 67-83.

Further reading
Bruner, G.C. and Kumar, A. (2000), “Web commercials and advertising hierarchy of effects”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 35-42.

Corresponding author
Hyunjoo Im can be contacted at: hjim@umn.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats