Cited by 111Technology Adoption and User BehaviourPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionUsability and User Interface Design

Two Worlds of Trust for Potential E-Commerce Users: Humans as Cognitive Misers

Liu, Ben Q., Goodhue, Dale L.·2012·Information Systems Research

Abstract

In this paper we consider the impact of trust on a new visitor's intention to revisit a website, but instead of using the typical expectancy-value theories as our conceptual basis, we look at the issue from the perspective of cognitive complexity and “humans as cognitive misers.” Starting with the suggestion that it is cognitively taxing to distrust, we propose that in order to conserve on cognitive resources, once a new visitor has convinced him or herself that a website is “trustworthy enough,” that user will drop trustworthiness from their concerns and only consider other characteristics of the website (e.g., task-technology fit, aesthetic appeal, etc.) in determining their revisit intention. This leads to what we call a “trust tipping point” and two different worlds of trust. Above the tipping point revisit intention is constructed in one way, and below the trust tipping point it is constructed in a quite different way. This perspective results in very different recommendations for website designers as to the likely payoff from improving task-technology fit, aesthetic appeal, or trustworthiness, depending upon where their existing website stands relative to the trust tipping point. To test our hypotheses we used data from 314 student website users, and expanded a technique called piecewise regression (Neter et al. Applied Linear Statistical Models, 4th ed.) to allow us to analyze data as two different linear surfaces, joined at the tipping point. We found good support for…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/isre.1120.0424

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, B. Q., & Goodhue, D. L.
Affiliations
  • Department of Information Systems, College of Business, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR
  • University of Georgia (US)
Venue
Information Systems Research
Published
2012-12
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
1246-1262
ISSN
  • 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5536
OpenAlex
W1982830800
Cited by
111
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
11.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Information Systems Research (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 › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
e-commerce trust, revisit intention, cognitive complexity, cognitive load, website trustworthiness, task-technology fit, website aesthetics, piecewise linear regression

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