Modality is the message: interactivity effects on perception and engagement

ABSTRACT

New media interfaces offer a wide variety of modalities for interacting with systems. While typing and clicking remain the staple of most interfaces, several other modalities have emerged in recent years, enabling users to perform a range of other actions, such as dragging, sliding, zooming-in/out, mousing-over and flipping through a revolving carousel of images (as in cover flow). While each modality offers a unique way of interacting with information, it is not clear whether it brings unique psychological advantages. Does a drag engender greater user engagement? Is the mouse-over likely to enhance user's perceptual bandwidth? A scientific assessment of such effects is impossible with existing interfaces given the confounded nature of modality combinations and information provided by them. Therefore, we designed six Web interface prototypes with identical content, differing only in modality, for experimentally isolating the effects of each, using a between-subjects design. Ongoing data collection involves both physiological and psychological measures of perceptual bandwidth and engagement.

References

1. Agarwal, R. and Karahanna, E. Time flies when you're having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage, MIS Quarterly, 24 (2000), 665--694.
2. Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S., Pace, T., and Karnell, J. Making user engagement visible: A multimodal strategy for interactive media experience research. Ext. Abstracts CHI 2008, ACM Press (2008), 3663--3668.
3. Brown, E., & Cairns, P. A grounded investigation of game immersion. Ext. Abstracts CHI 2004, ACM Press (2004), 1297--1300.
4. Hu, Y., & Sundar, S. S. (2008, May). Doctors vs. laypersons on blogs vs. bulletin boards vs. websites vs. homepages: The effects of online health sources on credibility and behavioral intentions. Paper presented at the 58th annual conference of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.
5. Kaushik, A. Web analytics: An hour a day. Wiley Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, USA, 2007.
6. Lang, A. The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. The Journal of Communication, 50, 1(2000), 46--70.
7. Lang, A., Bradley, S. D., Park, B., Shin, M., & Chung, Y. Parsing the resource pie: Using STRTs to measure attention to mediated messages. Media Psychology, 8(2006), 369--394.
8. Morrissey, B. (February 20, 2008). VideoEgg tries 'Cost per Engagement'. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com
9. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. Perceptual Bandwidth. Association for Computing Machinery. Communications of the ACM, 43, 3(2000), 65--70.
10. 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). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007.
11. Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S. & Brown, J.. Explicating website interactivity: impression-formation effects in political campaign sties. Communication Research, 30(2003), 30--59.
12. Stromer-Galley, J. Interactivity-as-Product and Interactivity-as-Process. The Information Society, 20, 5(2004), 391--394.
13. Wickens, C. D. The structure of attentional resources. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp.(pp. 63--101)). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 2000.
14. Wong, E. (August 29, 2009). How Special K Became a Social Media Star. http://www.brandweek.com

Index Terms

• Applied computing

  • Law, social and behavioral sciences

    • Psychology

• Information systems