Perceived effectiveness of recommendation agent routines: search vs. experience goods

International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising

Volumn 2, Issue 1-2, 2005, Pages 38-55

  Aggarwal, Praveen ^a   Vaidyanathan, Rajiv ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA DULUTH   (United States)

Author keywords

collaborative filtering; experience goods; rule based filtering; search goods; search routines; shopping agents

Indexed keywords

EID: 51349137155     PISSN: 14775212     EISSN: 17418100     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/ijima.2005.007503     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Aggarwal, P. (1998) Deciding Not to Decide: Antecedents of Consumer Decision Delegation, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Syracuse University.
2. Alba, J.W., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., Janisewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer, A. and Wood, S. (1997) ‘Interactive home shopping: consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate in electronic marketplaces’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, pp.38–53.
3. Ansari, A., Essegaier, S. and Kohli, R. (2000) ‘Internet recommendation systems’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37, pp.363–375.
4. Ariely, D., Lynch Jr., J.G. and Aparicio IV, M. (2004) ‘Learning by collaborative and individual-based recommendation agents’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14, Nos. 1–2, pp.81–95.
5. CDNOW (2002) Album advisor, CDNOW, [Online] available at http://www.cdnow.com/albumadvisor/.
6. Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991) ‘Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, pp.307–319.
7. Emons, W. (1997) ‘Credence goods and fraudulent experts’, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 28, pp.107–119.
8. Ford, G.T., Smith, D.B. and Swasy, J.L. (1990) ‘Consumer skepticism of advertising claims: testing hypotheses from economics of information’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16, pp.433–441.
9. Freiden, J.B. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1989) ‘Pre-purchase information seeking for professional services’, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 3, pp.45–55.
10. Gershoff, A.D., Mukherjee, A. and Mukhopadhyay, A. (2003) ‘Consumer acceptance of on-line agent advice: extremity and positivity effects’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13, pp.161–170.
11. Halstead, D., Hartman, D. and Schmidt, S.L. (1994) ‘Multisource effects on the satisfaction formation process’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22, pp.114–129.
12. Häubl, G. and Murray, K.B. (2001) ‘Recommending or persuading? The impact of a shopping agent’s algorithm on user behavior’, in Wellman, M.P. and Shoham, Y. (Eds.): Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, ACM Press, New York, pp.163–170.
13. Häubl, G. and Murray, K.B. (2003) ‘Preference construction and persistence in digital marketplaces: the role of electronic recommendation agents’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13, pp.75–91.
14. Häubl, G. and Trifts, V. (2000) ‘Consumer decision making in online shopping environments: the effects of interactive decision aids’, Marketing Science, Vol. 19, pp.4–21.
15. Johnson, C.A. and Walker, J. (2003) Q3 2003 Online Sales: Surprisingly Strong Growth, Forrester TechStrategy Brief of October 22, 2003, [On-line], Summary available online at, http://www.forrester.com/ER/Research/Brief/Excerpt/0,1317,32984,FF.html.
16. Malhotra, N.K. (1982) ‘Information load and consumer decision-making’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, pp.419–430.
17. Moorman, C., Deshpande, R. and Zaltman, G. (1993) ‘Factors affecting trust in market research relationships’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp.81–101.
18. Nelson, P. (1970) ‘Information and consumer behaviour’, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 78, pp.311–329.
19. Nelson, P. (1974) ‘Advertising as information’, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 81, pp.729–754.
20. Oliver, R.L. (1980) ‘A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17, pp.460–469.
21. Peterson, R.A., Balasubramanian, S. and Bronnenberg, B.J. (1997) ‘Exploring the implications of the internet for consumer marketing’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, pp.329–346.
22. Rush, L. (2003) US E-commerce to See Significant Growth by 2008, [On-line], Online report of August 7, 2003 available at, http://cyberatlas.internet.com/markets/retailing/print/0,,6061_2246041,00.html.
23. Swaminathan, V. (2003) ‘The impact of recommendation agents on consumer evaluation and choice: the moderating role of category risk, product complexity, and consumer knowledge’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13, pp.93–101.
24. Taylor, C. (1999) ‘Bot till you drop’, Time, October 11, p.154.
25. Umesh, U.N., Peterson, R.A., McCann-Nelson, M. and Vaidyanathan, R. (1996) ‘Type IV error in marketing research: the investigation of ANOVA interactions’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24, pp.17–26.
26. Venkatraman, N. and Henderson, J.C. (1998) ‘Real strategies for virtual organizing’, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40, pp.33–48.
27. Vigoroso, M.W. (2002) ‘Whatever happened to e-commerce robots?’, [On-line], E-Commerce Times, February 28, available online at, http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/printer/16548/.
28. Wilder, C. (1998) ‘Agents go price shopping’, Internetweek, December 7, pp.23–25.
29. Wright, A. A. and Lynch J.G. (1995) ‘Communication effects of advertising vs. direct experience when both search and experience attributes are present’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, pp.708–718.
30. Although hypotheses 2 and 3 jointly seem to imply an interaction effect, they were analysed separately in terms of their cell mean differences to avoid a Type IV error (Venkatraman and Henderson 1998). According to Umesh, et al., “A potential problem with testing an interaction, when only differences among cell means are of interest, is the possibility that a significant cell mean difference might exist even though a nonsignificant interaction effect is observed … If a researcher is only interested in cell mean differences, then the significance or nonsignificance of the interactions is irrelevant. Tests of interactions should not be used as a device for detecting significant differences between cell means.” (Umesh et al., 1996, p.24) Our theory predicted cell mean differences and so we followed their advice and avoided testing the interaction. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this issue to our attention.