4.6 Article

Designing for Diagnosticity and Serendipity: An Investigation of Social Product-Search Mechanisms

期刊

INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 413-429

出版社

INFORMS
DOI: 10.1287/isre.2017.0695

关键词

user-generated content; product tags; socially endorsed people; information foraging; perceived diagnosticity; perceived serendipity; decision satisfaction; product search

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71402079, 71110107027]
  2. Tsinghua University [20151080393]
  3. Ministry of Education of Singapore [T1 251RES1613]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Users are increasingly sharing their product interests and experiences with others on e-commercewebsites. For example, users can tag products using their ownwords, and these product tags then serve as navigation cues for other users who want to search for products. Also, socially endorsed information contributors are sometimes highlighted on websites and serve as direct information sources. This study examines the effects of these two distinct social product search cues, product tags and socially endorsed people, on users' perceived diagnosticity and serendipity of their product search experience. While product tags support product navigation via a variety of product features tagged by the community, access to socially endorsed people enables users to browse diverse and high-quality alternatives favored by these individuals. We constructed an experimental website using real data from one of the largest social-network-based product-search websites in China to conduct an empirical study. The results of this study show that product tags help users to locate and evaluate relevant alternatives, thus enhancing the perceived diagnosticity of product search, whereas the integration of product tags and access to socially endorsed people enables users to conduct even more serendipitous searches. In addition, both perceived diagnosticity and perceived serendipity of a search experience positively affect users' decision satisfaction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据