Designing interactivity in media interfaces: a communications perspective

ABSTRACT

Interactivity has become ubiquitous in the digital media landscape. Numerous interactive tools are designed, tested, deployed and evaluated. Yet, we do not have generalizable knowledge about the larger concept of interactivity and its psychological impact on user experience. As a first step toward a theory of interface interactivity, this paper identifies three species of interactivity corresponding to three central elements of communication - source, medium, and message. Interactivity situated in any of these three loci of communication can provide cues and affordances that operate either individually or together to capture users' attention and determine the nature and depth of their processing of online content as well as contribute to their perceptions, attitudes and behavioral intentions. This paper discusses psychological mechanisms by which the three classes of interactivity tools affect users, with the specific purpose of drawing out design implications and outlining UI challenges for strategic development of interactive interfaces.

References

1. Basil, M. D. Multiple resource theory I: Application to television viewing. Communication Research, 21 (1994), 177--207.
2. Basso, A., Goldberg, D., Greenspan, S., & Weimer, D. First impressions: emotional and cognitive factors underlying judgments of trust e-commerce. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM conference on Electronic Commerce (2001). Tampa, Florida.
3. Berlo, D. K. The process of communication. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1960.
4. Bucy, E. P. The interactivity paradox: Closer to the news but confused. In E. P. Bucy and J. E. Newhagen (Eds.), Media access: Social and psychological dimensions of new technology use (pp. 47--72). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2004.
5. Gonzales, A. L., Finley, T., & Duncan, S. P. (Perceived)Interactivity: Does interactivity increase enjoyment and creative identity in artistic spaces? Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2009). Boston, MA.
6. Jensen, J. F. The concept of "interactivity" in interactive television. In J. F. Jensen & C. Toscan (Eds.), Interactive Television: TV of the future or the future of TV? Aalborg University Press, Aalborg, 1999.
7. Kalyanaraman, S., & Sundar, S. S. The psychological appeal of personalized online content in Web portals: Does customization affect attitudes and behavior? Journal of Communication, 56(2006), 110--132.
8. Kweon, S. H., Cho, E. J., & Kim, E. M. Interactivity dimension: Media, content, and user perception. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts (2008). Athens, Greece.
9. Lang, A. Defining audio/video redundancy from a limited-capacity information processing perspective. Communication Research, 22, 1(1995), 86--115.
10. Latimer, A. E., Katulak, N. A., Mowad, L., & Salovey, P. Motivating cancer prevention and early detection behaviors using psychologically tailored messages Journal of Health Communication, 10(2005). 137--155.
11. Metcalfe, J., Glavanov, D., & Murdock, M. Spatial and temporal processing in the auditory and visual modalities. Memory and Cognition, 9(1981), 351--359.
12. Nelson, D. L., Reed, V.S., & Walling, J. R. Pictorial superiority effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 5(1976), 523--528.
13. New York Times. The first presidential debate. Retrieved September 10, 2009 from http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/first-presidential-debate.html.
14. Norman, D. A. Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6,3(1999), 38--42.
15. Oviatt, S., MacEachern, M., & Levow, G.-A. Predicting hyper articulate speech during human-computer error resolution. Speech Communication, 24(1998), 87--110.
16. Paivio, A. Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. Oxford University Press, New York, 1986.
17. Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M. & Brock, T. C. Cognitive responses in persuasion. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1981.
18. Rafaeli, S. Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes (pp. 110--134). Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1988.
19. Rice, R. E., & Williams, F. Theories old and new: The study of new media. In R. E. Rice (Ed.) The new media: Communication, research, and technology (pp. 55--80). Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1984.
20. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. Perceptual user interfaces: Perceptual bandwidth. Communications of the ACM, 43, 3(2000), 65--70.
21. Revelle, G., Zuckerman, O., Druin, A., & Bolas, M. Tangible user interfaces for children. Extended abstract of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2005). Portland, Oregon.
22. Shannon, C. E, & Weaver W. The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1949.
23. Steuer, J. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(1992). 73--93.
24. Stout, P.A., Villegas, J., & Kim, H. Enhancing learning through use of interactive tools on health-related websites. Health Education Research, 16, 6(2001), 721--733.
25. Sundar, S. S. Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: A study of picture, audio, and video downloads. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 3 (2000), 480--499.
26. Sundar, S. S. Theorizing interactivity's effects. The Information Society, 20(2004). 385--389.
27. Sundar, S. S. Social psychology of interactivity in human--website interaction. In A. N. Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes & U.-D. Reips (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of internet psychology (pp. 89--104). University Press, Oxford, UK, 2007.
28. Sundar, S. S. Self as source: Agency and customization in interactive media. In E. Konijn, S. Utz, M. Tanis & S. Barnes (Eds.), Mediated interpersonal communication (pp. 58--74). Routledge, New York, 2008.
29. Sundar, S. S. The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital, media, youth, and credibility (pp. 72--100). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008.
30. Sundar, S. S., & Constantin, C. Does interacting with media enhance news memory? Automatic vs. controlled processing of interactive news features. Paper presented at the 54th annual conference of the International Communication Association (2004), New Orleans, LA.
31. Sundar, S. S., Hesser, K., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. The effect of website interactivity on political persuasion. Paper presented at the 21st General Assembly & Scientific Conference of the International Association for Media and Communication Research (1998), Glasgow, UK.
32. Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. Explicating web site interactivity: Impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research, 30,1(2003), 30--59.
33. Sundar, S. S., & Kim, J. Interactivity and persuasion: Influencing attitudes with information and involvement. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5, 2(2005), 6--29.
34. Sundar, S. S., & Marathe, S. S. Is it tailoring or is it agency? Unpacking the psychological appeal of customized news. Paper presented at the 89th annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (2006), San Francisco, CA.
35. Sundar, S. S., & Nass, C. Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of Communication, 51, 1(2001), 52--72.
36. Time.com. Addiction and the Brain. Retrieved September 10, 2009 from http://www.time.com/time/2007/addiction/.
37. Vorderer, P., Knobloch, S., and Schramm, H. Does entertainment suffer from interactivity? The impact of watching an interactive TV movie on viewers' experience of entertainment. Media Psychology, 3, 4(2001), 343--363.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)

    • HCI theory, concepts and models

  • Interaction design

    • Interaction design theory, concepts and paradigms