Ảnh hưởng của việc trình bày sản phẩm trực tuyến đến việc gợi nhớ sản phẩm: Vai trò điều chỉnh của loại sản phẩm

EFFECTS ONLINE PRODUCT PRESENTATION ON PRODUCT 
RECALL: PRODUCT TYPES AS MODERATOR
ẢNH HƯỞNG CỦA VIỆC TRÌNH BÀY SẢN PHẨM TRỰC TUYẾN
ĐẾN VIỆC GỢI NHỚ SẢN PHẨM: VAI TRÒ ĐIỀU CHỈNH 
CỦA LOẠI SẢN PHẨM
PhD, Nguyen Thi Huyen Trang
University of Economics and Law – Vietnam National University HCM
trangnth@uel.edu.vn
Abstract
Online product presentation is an indispensable feature in online shopping to facilitate the
buying process of consumers through the way providing the product information. This study applies
the cognitive information processing theory to investigate this effects of online product presentation
on product recall that is moderated by product types. An experiment of 2x2 between subjects is de-
signed, with the manipulation of text based versus video based for online product presentation and
hedonic versus utilitarian product for product types. MANCOVA and ANCOVA analysis will be used
to test the hypotheses. The results of this study benefit marketers to develop proper strategies on
product presentation and enhance advertising efficacy.
Keywords: Online product presentation, Product recall, Product types
Tóm tắt
Trình bày sản phẩm trực tuyến là một tính năng không thể thiếu trong mua sắm trực tuyến
nhằm tạo điều kiện thuận lợi cho quá trình mua hàng của người tiêu dùng thông qua cách cung
cấp thông tin sản phẩm. Nghiên cứu này áp dụng lý thuyết xử lý thông tin nhận thức để tìm hiểu tác
động của việc trình bày sản phẩm trực tuyến đối với việc gợi nhớ sản phẩm được điều chỉnh theo
loại sản phẩm. Thí nghiệm được thiết kế gồm 4 tình huống kết hợp giữa các biến được nghiên cứu
được điều chỉnh bao gồm trình bày văn bản so với video và sản phẩm giải trí so với sản phẩm thực
dụng. Phân tích MANCOVA và ANCOVA sẽ được sử dụng để kiểm tra các giả thuyết. Kết quả của
nghiên cứu này mang lại lợi ích nhà tiếp thị để phát triển các chiến lược phù hợp về trình bày sản
phẩm và nâng cao hiệu quả quảng cáo.
Từ khóa: Trình bày sản phẩm trực tuyến, Gợi nhớ sản phẩm, Loại sản phẩm
1. Introduction
In recent years, online retailing becomes one of the most popular online activities worldwide
coming along with different kind of benefits for both customers and sellers (Hasan, 2016; Yoh,
Damhorst, Sapp, & Laczniak, 2003). According to report published in Statista, online retail is ac-
counted for 10.2 percent of all retail sales worldwide in 2017 which is forecasted to up to 17.5 per-
965
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
cent in 2021. During the same year 2017, the number of people buying products online worldwide
are about 1.66 billion and this number is estimated to keep increasing for the years to come. 
In both online and offline shopping, the way in which a product is displayed influences on
consumer shopping experience. In particular, the research of (Turley & Milliman, 2000) indicates
that well-presented products brings positive feeling and results in positive shopping behavior in the
context of offline retailing. In the case of online shopping, due to the absence of direct experiences
the role of product presentation is more crucial to attract consumers as well as to enhance their buy-
ing intention. In other words, online product presentation arouses both cognitive and affective action,
consequently affecting buying experiences and outcomes. In addition to this, the manner to present
a product also contributes to stimulate sensory experience which facilitates consumer decision mak-
ing process (Kim & Lennon, 2008; Yoo & Kim, 2012).
Intensive competition among various online stores provokes different types of product pre-
sentations to appeal consumers. Previously text and pictures are most popular manners of presenting
product while vivid multimedia features such as video or 3D display with extra effects are more fa-
vorable recently (Coyle & Thorson, 2001), (Suh & Lee, 2005).Accordingly, virtual product expe-
rience is enriched in which customers are more likely to feel, touch and try out various product’s
functions (Jiang & Benbasat, 2004).
Most studies in online product presentation have only been carried out on the conventional
forms of exposure which are textual and visual (i.e., still image) (M. Li, Tan, Teo, & Wei, 2012).
Studying on this topic, the impacts of these two types of information on shopping performance is
investigated (Kelton, Pennington, & Tuttle, 2010). Following that, the researchers have begun to
compare the role of each type of product presentation to shopping outcomes. According to (Blanco,
Sarasa, & Sanclemente, 2010) visual product information is more likely to facilitate shopping ex-
perience in comparison with textual presentation. Other scholars (Chandler & Sweller, 1991;
Sweller, 1994) showed that nonverbal product information cues (video based) outperforms text
based information in attracting consumer concentration which positively affects cognitive encoding
of product  ... pport of temporal visual change and audio narration, consumers
are easier to capture product information and they could remember more product attributes. Thus
we posit the following:
H1. Compared with the text based product presentation, consumers with a narration and video-
based product presentation will yield a better performance on the breadth of recall.
2.3. Impact on The Depth of Recall
Unlike breath of recall, depth of recall refers to how consumers know about product. Accord-
ing to (Kacmar & Hochwarter, 1996), nonverbal cues (video based product presentation) could not
help consumers to understand product information precisely. On the contrary, the text based pres-
entation facilitates the analytical processing mode more effectively and generates more information
in the depth of recall comparing with video based product information (Grosslight & Kale, 1955).
Thus we posit the following:
H2. Compared with the video-based product presentation, text based product presentation
will yield a better performance on the depth of recall.
2.4. Product Types
According to (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982), the shopping purposes is classified into ‘‘util-
itarian” and ‘‘hedonic.” Utilitarian approach describes the shopping behavior based on critical mis-
sion, goal oriented and rational consideration (Batra & Ahtola, 1991; Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982;
Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2001). Hedonic approach refers to enjoyment oriented without intentional
buying purposes (Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994), (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). This division
emerges from the dual information processing in which includes rational and experiential ways (Ep-
stein, 2003). Moreover, in other researches, the shopping purpose is also divided into functional vs.
nonfunctional motivations (Sheth, 1983), shopping as work vs. shopping as fun (Babin et al., 1994),
economic vs. recreational (Brown, Pope, & Voges, 2003), and goal-oriented vs. experiential con-
sumers (Novak, Hoffman, & Duhachek, 2003). Hence, the classification of utilitarian and hedonic
purposes is reliable and applied in this research. 
Consumers who are shopping for utilitarian purpose tend to search for product information
in advance before making buying decision. They take serious consideration for different features
of product such as product quality, price, service and finish the shopping time at particular deadline.
This approach of seeking information is called directed search behavior (Hoffman & Novak, 1996)
which can be considered as goal oriented with in-depth deliberation (Janiszewski, 1998).
On the other hand, shopping for hedonic purpose, customers are more likely to shop with fun
and no intention (Babin et al., 1994). Unlike utilitarian oriented, hedonic shoppers pay attention to
experiences rather than the shopping outcomes (Babin et al., 1994). Because they do not have any
shopping plans, the process of seeking information could be called as non-directed search behavior
or exploratory search behavior (Bloch, Sherrell, & Ridgway, 1986). Under exploratory search be-
havior, consumers surf for product information with less attention and consideration (Hoffman &
Novak, 1996; Janiszewski, 1998; Novak et al., 2003). Therefore, dissimilar with hedonic shopping,
utilitarian approach requires more information for cognitive information processing (B. K. Lee &
Lee, 2004; Tam & Ho, 2006) which relates to the semantic information encoding level. 
968
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
Since text based information presentation could provide more specific information and help
consumers to understand better about product which increases the performance on product recall in
comparison with video based presentation. Hence, we propose two hypotheses as follows: 
H3a. The positive effect of video-based product presentation on the breadth of recall is
stronger for hedonic product than for utilitarian product
H3b. The positive effect of text based product presentation on the depth of recall is stronger
for utilitarian product than for hedonic product
Figure 1: Research model
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Research Design
To address the research questions, a scenario-based experiment with 2 (Online product pres-
entation: text based vs. video based) x 2 (Product type: hedonic vs. utilitarian) is conducted as shown
in table below.
3.2. Participants and Procedures
The number of sample size is collected for the study is 120, corresponding 30 for each treat-
ment group. Because of the popularity of online shopping, the recruited respondents should not be
limited to any nationality. The participants are local and international students from different schools
in Tainan city, Taiwan who are required to own at least a smartphone and not limited to any educa-
tional background. 
Participants will be recruited online through the invitation with briefly introduction of the
study purpose and randomly assigned into four scenarios which they will exposure to different ver-
sions of online product presentation modes.
3.3. Manipulation
In this experiment, we manipulate online product presentation in two types. For text based
presentation, the text description of products will be provided. While in the case of video based
presentation, a video with introduction of products will be presented to participants. 
969
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
In the scenario of utilitarian purpose, the participants are instructed to buy the target product
for a very important reason and hence have to make a high-quality purchase decision. Meanwhile,
in the scenario of hedonic purpose, participants are instructed to browse the given website for fun
in their leisure time, with the chance of finding some products that highly interested them.
3.4. Dependent Variables
The dependent variables will be measured with open-ended questions adapted from (M. Li
et al., 2012). The breadth of recall is measured relying on the number of product attributes which
are recalled by participants. Whereas the depth of recall is referred to how they compare the product
attributes to make buying decisions.
3.4. Data Analysis
To test our hypotheses, we relied on general linear modeling (GLM), multivariate analyses
of covariance (MANCOVA), and analyses of covariance (ANCOVA). Both MANCOVA and AN-
COVA are widely used in experimental studies that require controlling for covariates; they are also
effective for testing interaction effects (Brod). For the MANCOVA analysis, we integrate presenta-
tion modes (text based, video based) as factors. Product types (utilitarian product, hedonic product)
as covariates. The breadth of recall and the depth of recall are the dependent variables.
REFRENCES
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. Journal of consumer research, 20(4), 644-656. 
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer
attitudes. Marketing letters, 2(2), 159-170. 
Blanco, C. F., Sarasa, R. G., & Sanclemente, C. O. (2010). Effects of visual and textual in-
formation in online product presentations: looking for the best combination in website design. Eu-
ropean Journal of Information Systems, 19(6), 668-686. 
Bloch, P. H., Sherrell, D. L., & Ridgway, N. M. (1986). Consumer search: An extended frame-
work. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 119-126. 
Brod, C. (1984). Technostress: The human cost of the computer revolution. The University
of Michigan: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
Brown, M., Pope, N., & Voges, K. (2003). Buying or browsing? An exploration of shopping
orientations and online purchase intention. European Journal of Marketing, 37(11/12), 1666-1684. 
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cog-
nition and instruction, 8(4), 293-332. 
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational psychology
review, 3(3), 149-210. 
Coyle, J. R., & Thorson, E. (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vivid-
ness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30(3), 65-77. 
Epstein, S. (1991). Cognitive-experiential self-theory: An integrative theory of personality.
The relational self: Theoretical convergences in psychoanalysis and social psychology, 111-137. 
970
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American
Psychologist, 49(8), 709. 
Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitiveexperiential self theory of personality. Handbook of psychol-
ogy. 
Furnham, A., Gunter, B., & Green, A. (1990). Remembering science: The recall of factual
information as a function of the presentation mode. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 203-212. 
Grosslight, J., & Kale, S. (1955). EXPLORATORY STUDIES IN THE USE OF PICTURES
AND SOUND FOR TEACHING FOREIGN LANGUAGE VOCABULARY. 
Hasan, B. (2016). Perceived irritation in online shopping: The impact of website design char-
acteristics. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 224-230. 
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts,
methods and propositions. The Journal of Marketing, 92-101. 
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated envi-
ronments: Conceptual foundations. The Journal of Marketing, 50-68. 
Hu, P. J.-H., Ma, P.-C., & Chau, P. Y. (1999). Evaluation of user interface designs for infor-
mation retrieval systems: a computer-based experiment. Decision Support Systems, 27(1-2), 
125-143. 
Janiszewski, C. (1998). The influence of display characteristics on visual exploratory search
behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 290-301. 
Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2004). Virtual product experience: Effects of visual and functional
control of products on perceived diagnosticity and flow in electronic shopping. Journal of Man-
agement Information Systems, 21(3), 111-147. 
Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2007). The effects of presentation formats and task complexity on
online consumers’ product understanding. MIS Quarterly, 475-500. 
Kacmar, K. M., & Hochwarter, W. A. (1996). Rater agreement across multiple data collection
media. The Journal of social psychology, 136(4), 469-475. 
Kagie, M., van Wezel, M., & Groenen, P. J. (2008). A graphical shopping interface based on
product attributes. Decision Support Systems, 46(1), 265-276. 
Kelton, A. S., Pennington, R. R., & Tuttle, B. M. (2010). The effects of information presen-
tation format on judgment and decision making: A review of the information systems research. Jour-
nal of Information Systems, 24(2), 79-105. 
Kim, M., & Lennon, S. (2008). The effects of visual and verbal information on attitudes and
purchase intentions in internet shopping. Psychology & Marketing, 25(2), 146-178. 
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Epstein, S. (1992). Cognitive-experiential self-theory and subjective
probability: Further evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of personality and social psy-
chology, 63(4), 534. 
Koppius, O. R., Van Heck, E., & Wolters, M. J. (2004). The importance of product represen-
tation online: empirical results and implications for electronic markets. Decision Support Systems,
38(2), 161-169. 
971
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
Lee, B. K., & Lee, W. N. (2004). The effect of information overload on consumer choice
quality in an online environment. Psychology & Marketing, 21(3), 159-183. 
Lee, M. J., & Tedder, M. C. (2003). The effects of three different computer texts on readers’
recall: based on working memory capacity. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(6), 767-783. 
Li, H., Daugherty, T., & Biocca, F. (2003). The role of virtual experience in consumer learning.
Journal of consumer psychology, 13(4), 395-407. 
Li, M., Tan, C.-H., Teo, H.-H., & Wei, K.-K. (2012). Effects of product learning aids on the
breadth and depth of recall. Decision Support Systems, 53(4), 793-801. 
MacInnis, D. J., & Price, L. L. (1987). The role of imagery in information processing: Review
and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 473-491. 
Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Duhachek, A. (2003). The influence of goal-directed and ex-
periential activities on online flow experiences. Journal of consumer psychology, 13(1-2), 3-16. 
Park, J., Lennon, S. J., & Stoel, L. (2005). On line product presentation: Effects on mood,
perceived risk, and purchase intention. Psychology & Marketing, 22(9), 695-719. 
Petrova, P. K., & Cialdini, R. B. (2005). Fluency of consumption imagery and the backfire
effects of imagery appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 442-452. 
Rose, G., Khoo, H., & Straub, D. W. (1999). Current technological impediments to business-
to-consumer electronic commerce. Communications of the AIS, 1(5es), 1. 
Sheth, J. N. (1983). Integrative theory of patronage and behavior, in patronage behavior and
retail management. New York, North-Holland, elserier Science Publishing Company, Inc. 
Smith, R. A. (1991). The effects of visual and verbal advertising information on consumers’
inferences. Journal of Advertising, 20(4), 13-24. 
Suh, K.-S., & Lee, Y. E. (2005). The effects of virtual reality on consumer learning: an em-
pirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 673-697. 
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn-
ing and instruction, 4(4), 295-312. 
Tam, K. Y., & Ho, S. Y. (2006). Understanding the impact of web personalization on user in-
formation processing and decision outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 865-890. 
Thompson, D. V., & Hamilton, R. W. (2006). The effects of information processing mode on
consumers’ responses to comparative advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 530-540. 
Turley, L. W., & Milliman, R. E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review
of the experimental evidence. Journal of business research, 49(2), 193-211. 
Wolfinbarger, M., & Gilly, M. C. (2001). Shopping online for freedom, control, and fun. Cal-
ifornia Management Review, 43(2), 34-55. 
Yoh, E., Damhorst, M. L., Sapp, S., & Laczniak, R. (2003). Consumer adoption of the Inter-
net: The case of apparel shopping. Psychology & Marketing, 20(12), 1095-1118. 
Yoo, J., & Kim, M. (2012). Online product presentation: the effect of product coordination
and a model’s face. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 6(1), 59-72. 
Zhao, M., Hoeffler, S., & Dahl, D. W. (2009). The role of imagination-focused visualization
on new product evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 46-55. 
972
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020