The Influence of Personality on Mobile Web Credibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown that the perceived credibility of a website is critical to its success. However, little is known about how individual differences influence this important factor of web design. In this paper, we investigate how personality traits affect the perceived credibility of a website in the mobile domain. Using a sample of 323 participants, we developed a model showing how the Big Five personality traits influence the perceived credibility of a website through its perceived aesthetics and perceived usability. Our model reveals that Agreeableness is the strongest predictor of aesthetics and/or usability, followed by Conscientiousness. This suggests that the more agreeable and/or the more conscientious users are easily more satisfied aesthetically and usability-wise by a mobile websites than the less agreeable and/or the less conscientious users respectively. Consequently, designers of mobile sites may have to do more in user interface design in order to attract the less agreeable and/or the less conscientious users to their sites based on its hedonic (aesthetics-inspired) and utilitarian (usability-inspired) appeal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".