This article was downloaded by: [Central U Library of Bucharest]
On: 16 April 2013, At: 14:22
Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK The Information Society: An International Journal Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utis20 Theorizing Interactivity's Effects S. Shyam Sundar a a Media Effects Research Laboratory, College of Communications, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA Version of record first published: 12 Aug 2010. To cite this article: S. Shyam Sundar (2004): Theorizing Interactivity's Effects, The Information Society: An International Journal, 20:5, 385-389 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972240490508072 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. The Information Society, 20: 385389, 2004 Copyright c Taylor & Francis Inc. ISSN: 0197-2243 print / 1087-6537 online DOI: 10.1080/01972240490508072 Theorizing Interactivitys Effects S. Shyam Sundar Media Effects Research Laboratory, College of Communications, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA Noting that interactivity is often dened but seldom theorized in the literature, this article provides some pointers for developing theories about effects of interactivity, particularly as it applies to Web-based mass communication. It rst makes the case that inter- activity is an attribute of the technology and not that of the user. It exposes the tautology of studying the effects of perceived inter- activity and calls for the consideration of ontological aspects that constitute interactivity while specifying its social and psychologi- cal effects. Theoretical explorations may be categorized in terms of three classes of outcome measuresbehavioral, attitudinal, and cognitiveas we investigate the role played by interactivity in ini- tiating action, changing attitudes, and altering the nature of infor- mation processing. These would result in theories about technology rather than psychology in that they help us specify direct and com- bination effects of interactivity, modality, navigability, and other technological attributes of the Web medium. Keywords interactivity, media effects, psychology of technology, web-based mass communication Like most technological variables, interactivity is a much-touted but undertheorized concept. It was a mere buzzword some 20 years ago, then enjoyed considerable hype during the 1990s, thanks mostly to rapid proliferation of communication technologies that offered an unprece- dented range of interactive possibilities. While informa- tion technologists were mostly concerned about inter- activitys contribution to task performance (particularly efciency), media scholars became preoccupied with its potential to fundamentally alter the nature of interpersonal and mass communication. The notion of interactivity un- dermines the classical assumption of a passive media audi- Received 19 November 2003; accepted 26 March 2004. Address correspondence to S. Shyam Sundar, Associate Professor and Co-Director, Media Effects Research Laboratory, College of Com- munications, Pennsylvania State University, 212, Carnegie Building, University Park, PA 16802-5101, USA. E-mail: sss12@psu.edu ence, to the point of changing the label of communication receiver from audience to user. By interacting with networked media, users do not simply dictate reception of information, they become veritable gatekeepers of it, thus transferring agency from senders to receivers (Sundar & Nass, 2001). Besides undermining the traditional concep- tion of communication source, interactivity renders the no- tion of medium problematic, since interactive processes aspire to achieve seamless transaction between user and content in a manner that obscures the distinction between mediated and non-mediated experiences (Reeves & Nass, 1996; Sundar & Nass, 2000). Much of this preoccupation is premised on the pre- sumed effects of interactivity, particularly upon users ac- tions, attitudes, and thoughts. These effects, as different authors have pointed out (see Bucy, 2004a, 2004b; Rafaeli, 1988), are assumedtobe mostlypositive anddesirable, fol- lowing the dominant conviction of engineers who design interactive systems for a living (e.g., Hoogeveen, 1997). However, conceptual models grounded in the social sci- ences are virtually absent in the literature on interactiv- ity. As Bucy (this issue) observes, much of the work has concentrated on dening interactivity and typologizing in- teractive media, but very little effort is directed towards theorizing how interactivity affects the act and impact of communication. This article offers some possibilities for theoretical ex- ploration of this rich concept. It rst discusses the locus of interactivityinaneffort toclarifyits status as anattribute of the medium rather than the user. The article then proceeds to discuss a sampling of theoretical formulations that seem most appropriate for investigating the behavioral, attitudi- nal, and cognitive effects of technological interactivity in the context of Web-based mass communication. INTERACTIVITY IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF TECHNOLOGY While it may be operationally more convenient to mea- sure interactivity in terms of user perceptions of existing 385 D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ C e n t r a l
U
L i b r a r y
o f
B u c h a r e s t ]
a t
1 4 : 2 2
1 6
A p r i l
2 0 1 3
386 S. S. SUNDAR interfaces rather than to create interfaces that expressly include the various dening elements specied by so- called n-dimensional models of interactivity (see Jensen, 1998), it would be a mistake to dene interactivity as a per- ceptual variable. To begin with, such a denition situates the concept in the user rather than the medium, the under- lying sentiment being one of I knowit when I see it. This further obscures, rather than claries, the true meaning of interactivity. Perceptual measures stress the experience of interac- tivity (Bucy, 2004b) and therefore lend themselves to a skills-based determination of interactivity. Therefore, the correlation between perceived interactivity and other self- reported variables is a reection of the users in the sample rather than the technologies they are asked to evaluate. Its simply self-fullling. If I am skilled enough to ably use a given interface, I would rate it as quite interactive. If not, I would rate it poorly. As a result, a high-end virtual real- ity (VR) system that requires advanced skills is likely to be rated lower in interactivity than more usable everyday applications such as e-mail. Indeed, perceived interactiv- ity is probably confounded with perceived usability of the system. In the perceptual scheme of things, technology is a con- stant. So are medium and message. The only thing varying is (individual differences in) users ability to use and hence rateany given interface. If we were to theorize about the psychological effects of interactivity using such a technologically independent conception of interactivity, then we would be building knowledge about people (i.e., theories of psychology) rather than about media. Theres no danger in this as long as we remain satised with simply exploring uses (and gratications) of media and dont as- pire to understand howvariations in information and com- munication technology affect users. Furthermore, given that perceived interactivity locates the concept within the individual, that is, as an individual-differences variable, it hampers the possibility of discussing it at a mass or societal level. Another downside to the perceptual approach is the lack of specication about which technological elements contribute toor detract frominteractivity. All we can say is that a system that is rated as interactive will also be rated higher or lower on an outcome measure or de- pendent variable. Apart from training users to become skilled at using the system, it would be difcult to as- certain what promotes the perception of interactivity in a system. Under this scheme, we may nd that television is considered more interactive than the personal computer (see Morrison, 1998), but we cannot tell whyother than, of course, that people are probably more skilled at using television. Given these limitations of the perceptual approach, it is incumbent upon us to treat interactivity as an attribute of the technological interface rather than the media user. Perceived interactivity is, at best, a manipulation-check item, a control variable, or even a dependent measure, but should not be the major independent variable of interest to effects researchers. In message research, when we want to investigate the effects of suspense, we would use level of exposure to suspenseful stimuli as the independent vari- able, not the viewers perception of suspense as the pre- dictor. Similarly, interactivity is a message (or medium) attribute, not a user attribute. Using perceived interactivity as a manipulation check does not necessarily make it a mediator of interactivity effects; it simply veries that the manipulation took. In other words, users of ICTs realize the interactive potential of the interface feature being tested. Howmuch of that po- tential is explored during the course of interaction with (or through) technology is a behavioral consequence of the features interior design, or programming (see Stromer- Galley, this issue), rather than a mental construction. By randomly assigning participants to different ontologically specied interactivity conditions, we can rule out individ- ual differences in the exploration of interactive potential and isolate the contribution of technological, as opposed to simply perceived, interactivity on outcome variables of interest. INTERACTIVITY EFFECTS ON BEHAVIOR In a provocative essay on interactivity in society, Bucy (2004b) asserts that technological denitions are concep- tually limiting . . . in that they do not take into account how different media may be experienced by different user groups. Yet the experiential aspect of interactivity is not part of its denition, but rather its effect, specically a be- havioral effect. To again invoke a message-effects analogy, it would be tautological to dene lmed horror in terms of audience members response, that is, how scared they get. That is why horror is often dened in terms of the presence of certain aspects of the messagefrightening scenes, gore and death, the presence of a monster, and so on. Likewise, interactivity should be dened in terms of the presence of specic ontological characteristics (e.g., control, choice, contingency) in the interface. How users interact with the system under conditions of high or low interactivity is an effects question. Whether it is with another person (computer-mediated communication, CMC) or a system (humancomputer in- teraction, HCI), interaction is an obvious behavioral con- sequence of interface interactivity. Therefore, theorizing can proceed along the lines of determining the mecha- nism by which interactivity causes interaction, in terms of both nature and volume. When conceptualized in terms of speed of system response (Steuer, 1992), for exam- ple, interactivity may be associated with physiological D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ C e n t r a l
U
L i b r a r y
o f
B u c h a r e s t ]
a t
1 4 : 2 2
1 6
A p r i l
2 0 1 3
THEORIZING INTERACTIVITYS EFFECTS 387 excitation, which then translates to clicking action (Sundar &Wagner, 2002), following the excitation-transfer predic- tion (Zillmann, 1983). When conceptualized in terms of customization, interactivity is negatively associated with interaction because the high personal relevance of con- tent under levels of high interactivity obviates the need to explore (Kalyanaraman & Sundar, 2003). More generally, certain forms or elements of interactive interfaces may be more successful than others in issuing calls to action. And certain individual-difference variables, including skill level, may help explain how those calls are interpreted differentially and why some calls result in greater interaction than others. When considered at the ag- gregate level, the social phenomenon of digital divide is really about the differential ability and/or desire of differ- ent social groups to respond to the online mediums calls to action. At a more complex level, theorizing may involve other technological variables related to interactivity. Interactive interfaces are often constructed around a series of hyper- linking structures, so interactivity tends to be confounded with navigability, that is, the degree of navigation afforded by the interfacebut not always (Sundar et al., 2003). This raises the possibility of considering interactivity and navigability together as predictors of user behavior. Calls to action issued by interactive devices may be more pro- nounced under conditions of higher navigability, but are also more likely to be ignored given the multiplicity of options for clicking on hyperlinks. Testable hypotheses can also be generated by consid- ering interactivity with other formal features, such as an- imation. For example, we could predict that, given ani- mations potential to attract attention, interactivity would result in higher interaction when calls to interactivity are signied by animated, rather than static, icons. Further- more, we could propose that the presence of animation on the interface that is not visually connected with interac- tive devices will serve to distract users from engaging in interaction. Content variables may also be thrown in the mix. For example, we could propose that animation would additively combine with interactivity in stimulating inter- action on a political web site but animation would serve to diminish the behavioral effect of interactivity in the case of online advertisements, given lowclick-through rates for web banners. These kinds of psychological considerations have broader implications, both in the construction of mass communication on the Internet and in gauging societys re- sponses to such communications in general. For example, the general social stigma attached to pop-up ads signies not only the effectiveness of such devices in tricking users to orient toward them (Diao & Sundar, in press), but also a societal response to a technology that forces users to en- gage in interactions that they did not solicit. The fact that users necessarily have to interact in order to close down the pop-up window(just like they necessarily have to inter- act with unwelcome telemarketers) makes such commu- nications particularly loathsome, whereas interruptions by commercials on television tend to be socially tolerated be- cause receivers are thought to be generally passive while using the television medium and not engaged in ongoing transactional interactions. INTERACTIVITY EFFECTS ON ATTITUDES The generally positive expectations of interactivity noted earlier are based on favorable attitudes generated by user perceptions of interface design, especially its functional- ity and user accommodations, including navigability and organization, aesthetic appeal, information accessibility, and the like. Given this, it is again problematic to employ a perceptual denition of interactivity because we come very close to operationalizing the independent or predictor variable in terms of the dependent or outcome variable. If we are serious about building theories that delineate the nature of interactivity effects on attitudes, then we have to clearly situate interactivity within the medium or the mes- sage so that we can objectively determine its contribution. By contributing to seamlessness in interaction or a sense of telepresence (Coyle & Thorson, 2001), higher levels of interactivity may be theorized as contributing to more pos- itive social responses to computers (Reeves &Nass, 1996) simply on the basis of good design and ease of use. Acom- peting theoretical proposition could be that interactivity gives the illusion of agency or human presence (Sundar & Nass, 2000), thus encouraging the categorization of com- puters as fellow social actors, leading to mindless applica- tion of social rules and expectations (Nass &Moon, 2000). Under this formulation, the nature of the invoked agency (machine or programmer, for example) would likely dic- tate the degree and valence of user ratings (Sundar &Nass, 2000). Users attitudinal responses to interactivity may also be based on a simple evaluation (of interactive devices them- selves), as in the case of most advertising and consumer behavior studies. We could theorize about these responses using formulations readily available in social psychology. For example, Sundar et al. (2003) discuss interactivity in the context of dual-process persuasion models, as a poten- tial peripheral cue or a central message argument depend- ing on the conceptualization. If interactivity is operational- ized in terms of the bells and whistles on the interface, it is thought of as a peripheral cue that contributes to positive attitudes via mere association. But, if it is based on the contingent transmission of threaded messages, then it is more likely to trigger closer scrutiny of message content. This puts the focus on the informational component of in- teractivity, as delivering more information requires more D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ C e n t r a l
U
L i b r a r y
o f
B u c h a r e s t ]
a t
1 4 : 2 2
1 6
A p r i l
2 0 1 3
388 S. S. SUNDAR involvement with content. Therefore, one could theorize interactivity as impacting attitudes by way of enhancing user involvement with information. Of course, the valence of the attitudes would depend on the persuasive strength of the arguments in the information, but one could make the case that the veryconstructionof the interactive loopserves as a strong message argument (Sundar & Kim, 2004). We might get more theoretically adventurous by at- tempting to predict combination effects of interactivity and other technological variables (modality, animation, etc.) on user attitudes. For example, interactivity may additively combine with a peripheral cue like animation to promote positive attitudes, but an abundance of such cues may lead to over-stimulation and negative evaluations (see Bucy, this issue). The reason for such an outcome should be the focus of theoretical development. One proposition may be related to the degree to which these cues, in combination, detract the user from gaining information needed for eval- uation. A competing proposition could be that the mere presence of certain cues (e.g., pop-up ads) alters users perception of interactivity (Sundar &Kim, 2004). Another possibility is that the effect is simply attentional, i.e., more cues means more distraction. Now, depending on the object of evaluation, distraction could be considered a positive or negative contributor to attitudes. For example, if pop-up ads are so distracting that they interfere with reception of web-site information, then user attitudes toward the site may suffer. But if pop- up ads serve as an optimal distracting cue, then they may successfully inhibit counterarguments about site content, leading to greater persuasion (Stavrositu &Sundar, 2004). Of course, it is likely that at least some of these psycho- logical effects are affected by broader societal and policy responses to technological devices such as pop-ups. There- fore, attitudes toward interactivity are probably contingent on both the degree to which interfaces followculturally ac- cepted norms of interaction and the value placed by a given culture on its offerings, such as greater engagement with mediated content. INTERACTIVITY EFFECTS ON COGNITION By calling for user action, interactive devices on the inter- face invite users to think about their communication be- havior, particularly the courses of action they could take or the choices to avail themselves of on screen. There- fore, we could argue that user responses to interactivity are necessarily strategic. This would have implications for the nature of cognitive processing of mediated information. As Shapiro, Lang, Hamilton and Contractor (2001) note, most stimulus characteristics, especially formal features, in the media-effects literature are understood to trigger automatic processing which is outside the conscious con- trol of the receiver and therefore occurs without planning (Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977). Depending on the particu- lars of a given conceptualization, certain interactive fea- tures (such as mouse-overs and sliders in an interactive news story) are likely to automatically trigger orienting responses, leading to greater attention to the features. But the purposive user involvement triggered by (certain types of) interactivity seems to suggest that interactively trans- mitted information will be processed consciously (Sundar & Constantin, 2004). Considering that cognition is cru- cially determined by the nature of information processing, an important theoretical issue to be resolved concerns the automatic vs. controlled processing of interactivity. Theorizing can also come from the navigational aspect of interactivity. The enactment effect in cognitive psychol- ogy (Nilsson, 2000), which posits that action concomitant with verbal information facilitates encoding, may be used to service the argument that greater interactivity will lead to increased learning simply because it involves more in- teraction with the interface. One recent study suggests that online information obtained by clicking on a hyperlink is more likely to be encoded compared to information that is not at the receiving end of a link (Sundar & Constantin, 2004). Both interactive features and interactively transmitted content compete for allocation of processing resources in the human brain, which means interactivity, especially when combined with other interface features, may result in cognitive overload, resulting in disorientation (Sundar, 2000) and better encoding but lower storage of information (Lang, 2000), among other possibilities. Determining such trade-offs between attention and memory, and arriving at threshold points at which interactivity can be cognitively burdensome, are areas worthy of greater theoretical spec- ication. In sum, rich detail on the social and psychological ef- fects of interactivity may be obtained by rst considering interactivityas a technological variable andthentheorizing about the various reasons for its main effects on cognition, attitudes and behaviors. Such an approach may identify moderator variables (usually other technological features), leading us to specify interaction hypotheses between inter- activity and other variables. Careful investigation should also yield one or more mediating variables that serve to ex- plicate the causal path by which interactivity affects users. REFERENCES Bucy, E. P. 2004a. The interactivity paradox: Closer to the news but confused. In Media access: Social and psychological dimensions of new technology use, eds. E. P. Bucy and J. E. Newhagen, pp. 4772. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bucy, E. P. 2004b. Interactivity in society: Towards a theory of an elusive concept. Paper presented at the 54th annual conference of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA, May. D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ C e n t r a l
U
L i b r a r y
o f
B u c h a r e s t ]
a t
1 4 : 2 2
1 6
A p r i l
2 0 1 3
THEORIZING INTERACTIVITYS EFFECTS 389 Coyle, J. R., and Thorson, E. 2001. The effects of progressive lev- els of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising 30(3):6577. Diao, F., and Sundar, S. S. In press. Orienting response and memory for Web advertisements: Exploring effects of pop-up window and animation. Communication Research. Hoogeveen, M. 1997. Toward a theory of the effectiveness of multime- dia systems. International Journal of HumanComputer Interaction 9(2):151168. Jensen, J. F. 1998. Interactivity: Tracking a new concept in media and communication studies. Nordicom Review 1:185204. Kalyanaraman, S., and Sundar, S. S. 2003. The psychological appeal of personalized online content: An experimental investigation of cus- tomized Web portals. Paper presented at the 53rd annual conference of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA, May. Lang, A. 2000. The limited capacity model of mediated message pro- cessing. Journal of Communication 50(3):4667. Morrison, M. 1998. A look at interactivity from a consumer perspec- tive. In Developments in marketing science, vol. 21, eds. J. B. Ford and E. J. D. Honeycutt, Jr., pp. 149154. Norfolk, VA: Academy of Marketing Science. Nass, C., and Moon, Y. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: Social re- sponses to computers. Journal of Social Issues 56(1):81103. Nilsson, L. 2000. Rememberingactions andwords. InThe Oxfordhand- book of memory, eds. E. Tulving and F. I. M Craik, pp. 137148. New York: Oxford University Press. Reeves, B., and Nass, C. 1996. The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications and Cambridge University Press. Shapiro, M. N., Lang, A., Hamilton, M. A., and Contractor, N. S. 2001. Information systems division: Intrapersonal, meaning, atti- tude, and social systems. In Communication yearbook, vol. 24, ed. W.B. Gudykunst, pp. 1750. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shiffrin, R. M., and Schneider, W. 1977. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review 84:127189. Stavrositu, C., and Sundar, S. S. 2004. Interstitials and their relevance to Website content: Inuence on Website credibility. Paper presented at the 54th annual conference of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA, May. Steuer, J. 1992.Dening virtual reality: Dimensions determining telep- resence. Journal of Communication 42:7393. Sundar, S. S. 2000. Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: A study of picture, audio, and video downloads. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 77(3):480499. Sundar, S. S., and Constantin, C. 2004. Does interacting with media enhance news memory? Automatic vs. controlled processing of inter- active news features. Paper presented at the 54th annual conference of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA, May. Sundar, S. S., and Kim, J. 2004. Interactivity and persuasion: Inu- encing attitudes with information and involvement. Paper presented at the 54th annual conference of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA, May. Sundar, S. S., and Nass, C. 2000. Source orientation in human-computer interaction: Programmer, networker, or independent social actor? Communication Research 27(6):683703. Sundar, S. S., and Nass, C. 2001. Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of Communication 51(1):5272. Sundar, S. S., and Wagner, C. B. 2002. The world wide wait: Explor- ing physiological and behavioral effects of download speed. Media Psychology 4:173206. Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S., and Brown, J. 2003. Explicating web- site interactivity: Impression-formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research 30(1):3059. Zillmann, D. 1983. Transfer of excitation in emotional behavior. In Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook, eds. J. T. Cacioppo and R. E. Petty, pp. 215240. New York: Guilford Press. D o w n l o a d e d
Physical Facilities Monitoring System Employed by The Elementary Schools in The Third Congressional District of Quezon: Basis For An Enhanced Systematic Monitoring Model
Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal
British Columbia - Campus 2020 - Thinking Ahead: The Report - Access & Excellence - The Campus 2020 Plan For British Columbia's Post-Secondary Education System - Geoff Plant - April 2007