電腦為社會行動者（Computer As a Social Actor, CASA）典範指出，電腦可以經由介面來呈現出性格，且人類對待電腦就像對待真人一般，社會心理學中的理論能夠套用在人機互動情境下（Nass, Moon, Fogg, Reeves & Dryer, 1995）。本研究延續此典範，旨在探討在操弄視覺元素以呈現介面性格的人機互動情境下，是否依舊符合CASA典範。
由於先前的研究多為操弄語言線索（verbal cues）的研究，如聲音、文字、語氣等，但是對網頁使用者影響更深之「非語言線索」（ non-verbal cues）（如視覺、動畫角色等）的研究可謂鳳毛麟角；而網站的視覺設計是使用者評判網站的第一指標（Schenkamn & Jonsson, 2000）。故本研究操弄網頁視覺元素以呈現介面性格，再以巴南效應和問卷測量受測者對系統之信任度及喜好度。
本研究先歸納出能呈現內外向性格的網頁視覺特徵，據以設計出內向與外向的網頁介面。本研究假定，若受測者和自己性格相同或不同的介面互動時，對訊息的信任度以及對網頁的喜好度會有所不同，為了測量受測者對系統的信任度，本研究引入巴南效應做為工具。巴南效應為，人格測驗的受測者會傾向於相信測驗的結果，即使測驗結果是假的。故本研究用以測量網頁的內容為一心理測驗，受測者的任務即是填寫完此人格測驗後，對偽造的測驗結果做出準確度的評分。
實驗結果發現，在人機互動情境下仍然存在巴南效應。且操弄視覺元素特徵能夠成功表達出介面的內外向性格，而無論對於何種性格的使用者或何種類型（正面、中性、負面）的訊息，使用內向介面傳達訊息要比使用外向介面來得保險，使用者對訊息的接受度較不會有極端的情形發生。就訊息的類型來看，傳達正面訊息時應該應用相似性吸引理論（受測者和介面性格一致），傳達負面訊息時應該應用互補性吸引理論（受測者和介面性格相反），以提高使用者對訊息的信任度。而整體而言，在不瞭解使用者性格和傳達訊息的類型不定時，應用互補性吸引理論，能讓使用者最為信任且喜愛系統。
綜合先前的相關研究，可以歸納出在人機互動情境之下，操弄語言線索以呈現介面性格時，支持相似性吸引；操弄非語言線索時，則傾向互補性吸引。

Some research reveals that by manipulating interface elements such as text, voice and animated character, the interface can be designed to represent the personality of a computer. Users can distinguish the personalities of the computer interfaces, and tend to treat computers like human beings. The theories of social psychology can apply to the situation of human-computer interaction. (Nass & Lee, 2000)

In the study of Human-Computer Interaction, previous researchers have used many verbal and non-verbal cues to present the personalities of computers but not “visual elements”. Fogg et al. (2001) and Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab (2002) found that people quickly evaluate a site by visual design alone. This paper presents a recent study that applied the CASA paradigm to the web page interface by manipulating the visual elements.

In order to directly measure the feelings of subjects, this research used a new method—the Barnum Effect. The Barnum Effect is the tendency for people to accept vague, ambiguous, and general statements as descriptive of their unique personalities (Dickson & Kelly, 1985). We used Lai’s personality scale to find the extroverted and introverted subjects, and designed a FAKE personality scale with an introverted and an extroverted interface by manipulating visual elements. After completing the fake scale, 87 subjects received favorable, neural and unfavorable statements on the screen.

The results show that manipulating visual elements can represent the personality of interfaces well, and using extrovert interface leads more risks and using introvert interface is the relative safe way. When the conveyed information is positive, apply the similarity-attraction, while when the information is negative, apply the complementarity can raise the credibility to users. The overall result prone to support the complementarity.

Furthermore, based on the results and previous studies, we conclude that similarity-attraction can apply to the field of human-computer interaction using verbal cues, while complementarity can do so using non-verbal cues to express personality of interface. The CASA paradigm can apply to the visual elements in web page interfaces. In addition, the results reveal that there is Barnum Effect within the computerized mental test.

參 考 文 獻
中文部分
大山正（民87）。色彩心理學：追隨牛頓和哥德的腳步。台北市：牧村。
中網科技開發有限公司。網頁視覺設計。2004年8月30日， 取自 http://www.sinocnc.com/shijue.htm
內田廣由紀（民78）。版面設計藝術實用手冊。（祖秉和譯）。北京市：文化藝術。
王保進（民88）。視窗版SPSS與行為科學研究。台北市：心理。
王無邪（民93）。平面設計原理。台北市：雄獅。
史考茲和史考茲（Schultz, D., & Schultz, S.E.）著（民86）。人格理論（Theories of personality）（陳正文等譯）。台北市：揚智文化。
江彥竹（民90）。圖像與象徵在海報設計上之研究。台灣師範大學設計研究所碩士論文。
艾容森（Aronson, E）等著（民92）。社會心理學（Social psychology）（余伯泉和李茂興譯）。台北市：弘智。
艾德金森（Atkinson, R）等著（民90）。西爾格德心理學（曾慧敏、劉約蘭和盧麗鈴譯）。台北市：桂冠。
行政院主計處（民92）。中華民國統計年鑑92年版台灣地區家庭設備普及率及住宅狀況。2004年5月22日，取自http://www.gov.tw/EBOOKS/TWANNUAL/show_book.php?path=2_010_015
何祖鳳、陳俊榮和陳銘欽（民87）。網路教學系統評估準則之研究。遠距教育。7，20-29。
伯格（Burger, J.M.）著 (民86)。人格心理學（Personality）(林宗鴻譯)。台北市：揚智文化。（原作1993年出版）
吳東龍（民90）。網頁色彩配色與感覺意向之對應關係研究的建構—以個人網頁為例，國立交通大學應用藝術研究所。
呂月玉譯（民77）。色彩意象之美。台北市：漢藝色研。
李俊宏和李賢輝（民85）。網頁設計原則的研究，國立雲林科技大學工業設計研究所碩士論文，雲林縣。
李銘龍（民83）。應用色彩學。台北市：藝風堂。
李賢輝（民86）。WWW 網頁上的視覺傳達與藝術表現，第三部份：WWW 網頁視覺傳達設計的原則。2004年8月30日， 取自http://www.lib.fcu.edu.tw/articles/wwwvc03.htm
林文昌（民89）。色彩計畫。台北巿：藝術。
林東泰（民88）。大眾傳播理論。台北市：師大書苑。
林彥呈、管倖生(民89），產品色彩與造型搭配相關性之研究，工業設計，28(2)，148-153。
林秋薰（民90）。我國大學圖書館WebPAC畫面設計之研究。國立台灣大學圖書資訊學系碩士論文，台北市。
林書堯（民60）。色彩學概論。 台北巿：國立台灣藝術專科學校。
林崇宏（民85）。視覺藝術與造型。台北市：邯鄲。
林崇宏（民89）。造型設計原理。台北市：視傳。(該文引用Wong,W. (1993). Principles of form and design. Belmont: Thomason CA, USA)
林誼杰（民92）。電玩成癮傾向及其相關研究。中原大學心理學系碩士論文：中壢市。
肯那利和卡迪（Canary, D.J., & Cody, M.J.）著（民85）。人際溝通：目標本位取向（Interpersonal communication: a goals-based approach）（盧蓓恩譯）。台北市：五南。
阿蓋爾（Argyle, M）著（民84）。人際行為心理學（The psychology of interpersonal behaviour）（王文秀、陸洛譯）。台北市：巨流。
計惠卿（民92）。數位學習之人機互動構面研析。隔空教育論叢。15，109-126。
迪威力斯（DeVellis, R. F.）著 （民88）。量表的發展 : 理論與應用（Scale development : theory and applications） （吳齊殷譯）。台北市：揚智。
庫拉吉 (Craig, D) 著（民87）。視覺傳達/平面設計（Graphics for visual communication）。（劉錫權，陳幸春譯）。台北市：麥格羅希爾。
徐秀珍（民76）。態度量表設計的探究－以大學生為研究案例。國立台灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
張拓基和陳會昌(n.d.)。氣質類型調查表。山西省教科所。（轉引自上海財經大學黨校www.shufe.edu.cn/dangxiao/qizhidiaochabiao.doc ）檢索日期：2005/02/01
耿慶瑞（民89）。WWW廣告的互動層次。廣告學研究。15，161-181。
鬲波飛（2001）。網頁設計之視覺訊息傳達分析。湖南大學學報社會科學版，12。
張帆、羅琦和宮曉東。（2002）。網頁界面設計藝術設計指南。北京市：人民郵電。
莊錦昌（民89）。網頁介面使用性之探討與意象之研究。國立成功大學工業設計學系碩士論文，台南市。
許功餘、王登峰和楊國樞（民90）。台灣與大陸華人基本性格向度的比較。本土心理學研究，16，185-225。
郭為藩（民85）。人格心理學理論大綱。台北市：正中。
野村順一（民89）。 Color magic顏色魔法書。譯自：色の秘密―最新色彩学入門。台北市：方智。
陳兆。網站構成的基本元素。Retrieved Sep 5, 2004, from http://tech.tom.com　
陳妙媛（民93）。以平面構成原理探討網頁設計之視覺表現─以大學院校之資訊、設計學群首頁為例。樹德科技大學應用設計研究所。
曾啟雄（民88）。色彩的科學與文化。台北市：思想。
曾惠民（民91）。Pixel Style網站設計元素對使用者意象影響之研究。銘傳大學設計管理學研究所碩士論文，台北市。
朝倉直巳（民82）。藝術設計的平面構成。台北市：北興。
湛雅婷（民93）。社會福利：李俊蔚用笑容戰勝魚鱗癬症。輔仁大學新聞傳播系。2005年4月2日。取自：http://140.136.88.205/vita1/archives/000391.html
萊恩和雷斯萊（Leon, G. S., & Leslie, L. K.）著（民89）. 消費者行為學（譯自： Consumer behavior）（顧萱萱、郭建志譯）。台北市：學富。
馮淑萍（民88）。全球資訊網頁視覺傳達之使用者介面設計要素研究-以台灣企業形象網頁為例。國立雲林科技大學視覺傳達設計學研究所碩士論文，雲林縣。
廖凱民（民88）。網路上人際互動的相關研究。2004年5月28日，取自http://ceiba.cc.ntu.edu.tw/soc_psy/homework/internet_observation/IO1999/b85207059.html
廖鵬文和盧康渝（民93）。別讓我的滑鼠變自閉：Design for web interactivity。台北縣：數位人資訊。
摩敦（Morton,W）著（1995）。色彩的力量：色彩與生活、個性、行銷、保健的關係（The power of color）。（陳銘宗譯）。台北巿：號角。
歐秀明（民83）。應用色彩學。台北市：雄獅。
蕃薯藤數位科技（2003）。蕃薯藤2003台灣網路使用調查。2004年5月19日，取自 http://survey.yam.com/survey2003/chart/
蕭銘宏和李傳房（民86）。全球資訊網操作介面之研究。國立雲林科技大學工業設計研究所碩士論文，雲林縣。
賴保禎和賴美玲（民91）。賴氏人格量表新訂版。台北市：千華。
謝寶煖（2004）。台灣大學圖資系管理學課程網頁。2004年5月19日，取自http://ceiba.cc.ntu.edu.tw/management/content/ch10content.htm
羅吉斯（Rogers, E. M）著（民77）。傳播科技學理（莊克仁譯）。台北市：正中。
龔耀先（民81）。修定艾森克個性問卷手冊。（引自林誼杰（民92），電玩成癮傾向及相關因素研究，中原大學心理學系碩士論文）
Misite studies。（2003）。怎樣設計網頁。2004年11月12日， 取自http://misite.16isp.com/site/process.htm。

英文部分
Abrahamian, E., Weinberg J., Grady, M., Stanton ,CM. (2004). The effect of personality –aware computer-human interfaces on learning. Journal of universal computer science, 9(1), 17-27.
Adrian, F. & Chamorro-Premuzie, T. (2004). Personality, intelligence, and art. Personality and individual differences. 36, 705-715
Alison J. Head(1999). Design wise : a guide for evaluating the interface design of information resources. Medford, N.J. : CyberAge Books.
Allport, G.. W. (1937). Personality, a psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.
Allport, G.. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winson.
Aykin, M. (1989). Individual difference in human-computer interaction. Computers Industrial Engineering, 17 (1-4), 614-619.
Baillargeon, J. & Danis, C. (1984). Barnum meets the computer: a critical test. Journal of personality assessment. 48(4), 415-419.
Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory,. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bellack, J. P. (2003). Understanding the introvert preference, Journal of Nursing education 42(5).
Bloch. P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response. Journal of marketing, July 1995.
Bobertag, O. (1934) Bemerkungen zum Verifikationsproblem. Z.f. ang. Psychol., 46, 246-249.
Borgman, C.L. (1989). All users of information retrieval systems are not created equal: An exploration into individual differences. Information Processing &Management, 25, 237-251.
Boyden, T., Varroll, J.S,. & Maier, R.A. (1984). Similarity and attraction in homosexual males: the effects of age and masculinity-femininity. Sex roles, 10, 939-948.
Byrne, D., & Clore, G.. L. (1970). A reinforcement model of evaluative processes. Personality: an international journal, 1, 103-128.
Chen, C., Czerwinski, M., Macredie, R.(2000). Individual differences in virtual environments-introduction and overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(6), 499-507.
Chose, S., and Dou,W. (1998). "Interactive Functions and Their Impacts on the Appeal of Internet Presence Sites," Journal of Advertising Research, 38(2), 29-43.
Cockton, G. (2002). From doing to being: bring emotiona into interaction. Interacting with computers. 14, 89-92.
D’Angelo, J. & Little, S. K. (1998). Successful web pages: what are they and do they exist? Information Technology and Libraries, 17(2), 71-81.
Davis, J. & Merritt, S.(1998). The Web design wow! book : showcasing the best of on-screen communication. Berkeley, Calif. : Peachpit
Detweiler, M. C. and Omanson, R. C. Ameritech web page user interface standards and design guidelines. Retrieved May 2, 2000, from http://www.ameritech.com/corporate/testtown/library/standard/web_guidelines/index.html （轉引自林秋薰（民90）。我國大學圖書館WebPAC畫面設計之研究。國立台灣大學圖書資訊學系碩士論文，台北市。）
Dickson, D.H., & Kelly, I. W. (1985). The “Barnum effect” in personality assessment: a review of the literature. Psychological reports, 57, 367-382.
Dillon, A. (2003). Designing usable electronic text: Ergonomic aspects of human information usage. 2d ed. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Dillon, A., & Watson, C. (1996). User analysis in HCI- the historical lessons from individual differences research. International Journal of Human-computer Studies, 45, 619-637.
Electronic Library Access Committee (ELAC), Libraries UW-Madison. (2002). UW-Madison campus libraries web page standards and guidelines. Retrieved Jan, 2 2005, from http://www.library.wisc.edu/help/tech/Web_standards.htm
Ellis, L. & Ficek, C. (2001). Color preferences according to fender and sexual orientation. Personality and individual differences 31, 1375-1379
Endler, N. S. (2000). The interface between personality and cognition. European Journal of Personality, 14, 377-389.
Fogarty, F., Forlizzi, J., & Hudson, SE. (2001). Aesthetic information collages: generating decorative displays that contain information .Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, Nov 2001.
Fogg, B.J., Marshall, J., Kameda, T., Solomon, J., Rangnekar, A., Boyd, J., & Brown, B. (2001). Web credibility research: a method for online experiments and early study results. Proceedings of ACM, CHI 2001 Conferences of human factors in computing systems, v.2. New York: ACMpress.
Forer, B. R. (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: a classroom demonstration of gullibility. Journal of abnormal and social psychology, 44, 118-123.
Fuchs, R. (2001). Personality traits and their impact on graphical user interface design: lessons learned from the design of a real estate website. In 2nd workshop on attitude, personality and emotions in user-adapted interaction.
Gait, J. (1985). An aspect of aesthetics in human-computer communications: pretty windows. IEEE transactions on software engineering, 11(8), 714-717.
Goldsmith, R.E.,& Jon, B.F., Jacqueline, C.K. (1993) .Social values and female fashion leadership: a cross-cultural study. Psychology &marketing, 10, 399-412.
Hall, R.H. & Hanna, P (2004). The impact of web page text-background colour combinations on readability, retention, aesthetics and behavioural intention. Behaviour and information technology, 23(3), 183-195.
Halperin, K., Snyder, CR, Shenkel, RJ, & Houston, BK. (1976). Effects of source status and message favorability on acceptance of personality feedback. Journal of applied psychology. 61(1) 85-88.
Hamburer, Y. A. (2002). Internet and personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 1-10.
Hoffman, D. L & Thomas, P. N. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: conceptual foundations. Journal of marketing, 60, 50-68.
IBM. IBM ease of use: web design guidelines. Retrieved Jan 2, 2005, from http://www-3.ibm.com/ibm/easy/eou_ext.nsf/Publish/572
Isbister, K. & Nass, C. (2000). Consistency of personality in interactive characters: verbal cues, nonverbal cues, and user characteristics. International. Journal of Man-machine Studies, 53, 251-267.
Jordan, P. W. (1998). Human factors for pleasure in product use. Applied ergonomics. 29, 25-33.
Karsvall, A. (2002, October). Personality preferences in graphical interface design. In The 2nd Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Arhus, Denmark.
Karvonen, K. (2000). The beauty of simplicity . Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Universal Usability (CUU 2000), November 16-17, 2000, Washington DC, USA.
Kim, J & Moon, J. (1998). Designing towards emotional usability in customer interfaces- trustworthiness of cyber-banking system interfaces. Interacting with computers 10, 1-29.
Kostov, V. & Fukuda, S. (2001, September ). Development of men-Machine interface based on user preferences . In IEEE International Conference on Control Applications, Mexico city, Mexico.
Kurosu, M & Kashimura, K. (1995). Apparent usability vs. inherent usability. CHI ’95.
Lavie,T & Tractinsky, N. (2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of human-computer studies. 60, 269-298.
Lee , S. H. & Boling, E. (1999). Screen design guidelines for motivation in interactive multimedia instruction: a survey and framework for designers. Educational technology, 39, 19-26.
Lee, K. M, & Nass, C. (2003, April). Designing social presence of social actors in human computer interaction. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2003.
Lindgaard, G. (1994). Usability testing and system evaluation: A guide for designing useful computing systems. London: Chapman & Hall.
MacDonald, D. J. & Standing, L. G. (2002). Does selg-serving bias cancel the Barnum Effect? Social behavior and personality. 30(6), 625-630.
Mayhew, D. J. (1992). Screen layout and design. In Principles and guidelines in software user interface design (chap. 14, pp. 458-506). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McGovern, G., Norton, R., O'Dowd, C.(2002). The Web content style guide : an essential reference for online writers, editors, and managers. London ; New York : Financial Times Prentice Hall
McGrenere, J., et al. (2002, April). An evaluation of a multiple interface design solution for bloated software. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Meehl, P. E. (1956). Wanted: A good cookbook. American Psychologist, 11, 263-272.
Moon, Y. & Nass, C. (1996). How “Real” are computer personalities? Psychological responses to personality types in human-computer interaction. Communication research 23(6), 651-674.
Moon, Y. & Nass, C. (1998). Are computers scapegoats? Attributions of responsibility in human-computer interaction. International. Journal of Man-machine Studies, 49, 79-94.
Mowen, J.C., & Minor, M. (1998). Consumer Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mullet,K & Sano ,D. (1995). Designing Visual Interfaces. Mountain View, CA:SunSoft Press.
Nass, C, & Lee, K. M. (2000. April). Does computer-generated speech manifest personality? An experiment test of similarity-attraction. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2000, The Hague, Amsterdam.
Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, BJ., Reeves, B. & Dryer, C., (1995, May). Can computer personalities be human personalities? In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1995.
Nass, C., & Lee, K. M. (2000, April). Does computer-generated speech manifest personality? An experiment test of similarity-attraction. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2000, The Hague, Amsterdam.
Newman, M. & Landay, J.(2000), “Sitemaps, Storyboards, and Specifications: A Sketch of Web Site Design Practice”, DIS’00,pp. 263-274, ACM, New York.
Norman, D. A. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books, Inc, New York.
Norman, D.A. (1998) The Design of Every-Day Things. London: MIT.
Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books, Inc, New York.
Omanson, R. C,. Cline, J. A, Kilpatrick, C. E, and Dunkerton, M.C. (1998),“Dimensions Affecting Web Site Identity” , Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42th Annual Meeting, pp.429-433.
Orpen, C., & Jamotte, A. (1975). The acceotance of generalized personality interpretations. Journal of social psychology. 96, 147-148.
Pare,G.., & Elam, J. J.(1995). Discretionary use of personal computers by knowledge workers: testing of a social psychology theoretical model. Behavior & information technology ,14(4), 215-228.
Park, S. et al. (2004). Critical factors for the aesthetic fidelity of web pages: empirical studies with professional web designers and users. Interacting with computers, 16, 351-376.
Pickford, R,W. (1972). Psychology and visual aesthetics, Hutchinson educational, London.
Powell, T. A. (2000).Web design/the complete reference.Berkeley, Calif.:Osborne/McGraw-Hill.
Prince, R.J. & Guastello, S.J. (2001). The barnum effect in a computerized Rorschach Interpretation system. The journal of psychology, 124(2), 217-222.
Raman, N. V. (1996). Determinants of desired exposure to interactive advertising. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tesas, Austin, Texas.
Reuther, A. I., & Meyer. D.G. (2002). The effect of personality type on the usage of a multimedia engineering education system. In 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in education conference 2002.
Rice, R.E. (1984). Development of new media research. In Ronald, E. Rice (Ed.) The new media: communication, research and technology, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 436-476.
Richter, L.A, & Salvendy, G.. (1995). Effects of personality and task strength on performance in computerized tasks. Ergonomics, 38(2), 281-291.
Rosembaum, M. E. (1986). The repulsion hupothesis: ob the nondevelopment of relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51, 1156-1166.
Schenkman. B. N & Jonsson, F.U. (2000) Aesthetics and preferences of web pages. Behaviour & information technology. 19(5), 367-377.
Shneiderman, B. (1991, January). Human values and the future of technology: a declaration of responsibility. In Special Interest Group on Computer & Human Interaction Bulletin.
Smith, S. M. (2001). Men and women online: what makes them click? Marketing research , Summer 2001.
Snyder, C. R, & Larson, G.. (1972). A further look at student acceptance of general personality interpretations. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology. 38, 384-388.
Snyder, C. R. & Shenkel, R. J. (1976). Effects of “Favorability.” Modality, and relevance on acceptance of general personality interpretations prior to and after reveiving diagnostic feedback. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology. 44(1) 34-41.
Sojka, J. Z., & Giese, J.L. (2001). The influence of personality traits on the processing of visual and verbal information. Marketing letters, 12(1), 91-106.
Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab. (2002). Stanford Guidelines for Web Credibility http://www.webcredibility.org/guidelines/. Date:12/03/2004
Szuprowicz, B, O.(1996). Building a Multimedia Presence on the World Wide Web Charleston, SC：Computer Technology Research Corp.
Thong, J. Y. L., Hong, W., & Tam, K. (2002). Understanding user acceptance of digital libraries: what are the roles of interface characteristics, organizational context, and individual differences? International Journal of Human-computer Studies, 57, 215-242.
Tobacyk, J., Milford, G., Springer, T., & Tobacyk, Z. (1988). Paranormal beliefs and the Barnum Effect. Journal of personality assessment, 52(4), 737-739.
Tractinsky, N., Katz , A., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with computers, 12, 127-145.
Tractinsky, N.(1997). Aesthetics and apparent isability: mpirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. CHI ’97.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004). Factors influencing the usage of websites: the case of a generic portal in the Netherlands. Information & management, 40, 541-549.
Weinberger, L.J. & Bradley, L. A. (1980). Effects of “favorability” and type of assessment device upon acceptance of general personality interpretations. Journal of personality assessment, 44(1), 44-47.
Winn, W. (2000). The persuasive power of pathos in E-commerce web design: a new area for research. IEEE Technology &Teamwork, 2000.
Zebrowitz, L. A. (1997). Reading faces: window to the soul? Boulder, CO: Westview press.