Cited by 223Technology Adoption and User BehaviourPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Trust and distrust on the web: User experiences and website characteristics

Seckler, Mirjam, Heinz, Silvia, Forde, Seamus, Tuch, Alexandre N., Opwis, Klaus·2015·Computers in Human Behavior

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.064

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seckler, M., Heinz, S., Forde, S., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K.
Affiliations
University of Basel (CH)
Corresponding author
Seckler, Mirjam
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-04
Volume
45
Pages
39-50
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2037809001
Cited by
223
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 3
FWCI
19.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
online trust, distrust, user experience, web design, website characteristics, critical incidents, privacy concerns, security indicators, online reviews, social influence, perceived honesty, perceived competence, perceived benevolence, web page layout, pop-ups

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review