Over the last few years, significant research has been conducted to examine the impact of web interactivity. However, mixed results have been found regarding why and how web interactivity could affect users’ attitudes and other psychological responses. This meta-analysis reviewed prior research that examined the extent to which web interactivity could affect various psychological outcomes and how such effects would differ due to several moderating variables. Our analysis of the results in 63 studies (N = 13,484) suggested that across studies, web interactivity was significantly correlated with user enjoyment, positive attitudes, and desirable behavioral intentions. However, interactivity did not necessarily increase cognitive elaboration, knowledge acquisition, and information recall. While modality interactivity appeared to be more effective than source interactivity and message interactivity, perceived interactivity was significantly more effective than objective interactivity. Furthermore, extremely high levels of web interactivity were not as effective as have been anticipated.
*AhnT.HongM.PedersenP. M. (2014). Effects of perceived interactivity and web organization on user attitudes. European Sport Management Quarterly, 14, 111-128. doi:10.1080/16184742.2014.880496
2.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
3.
*Amichai-HamburgerY.FineA.GoldsteinA. (2004). The impact of Internet interactivity and need for closure on consumer preference. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 103-117. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(03)00041-4
4.
*Bezjian-AveryA.CalderB.IacobucciD. (1998). New media interactive advertising vs. traditional advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 38, 23-32.
5.
BorensteinM.HedgesL.HigginsJ.RothsteinH. (2014) Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2) [Computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat. Available from http://www.comprehensive.com
6.
*BosM. J.KoolstraC. M.WillemsJ. T. (2010). Early exposures to ecogenomics: Effects of priming and web site interactivity among adolescents. Science Communication, 32, 232-255. doi:10.1177/1075547009358625
7.
BucyE. P. (2003). Media credibility reconsidered: Synergy effects between on-air and online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 247-264. doi:10.1177/107769900308000202
8.
BucyE. P. (2004a). The debate. Information Society, 20, 371. doi:10.1080/01972240490508045
9.
BucyE. P. (2004b). Interactivity in society: Locating an elusive concept. Information Society, 20, 375-385. doi:10.1080/01972240490508063
10.
*BucyE. P. (2004c). The interactivity paradox: Closer to the news but confused. In BucyE. P.NewhagenJ. E. (Eds.), Media access: Social and psychological dimensions of new technology use (pp. 47-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
BucyE. P.TaoC.-C. (2007). The mediated moderation model of interactivity. Media Psychology, 9, 647-672. doi:10.1080/15213260701283269
12.
*BurgoonJ. K.BonitoJ. A.BengtssonB.CederbergC.LundebergM.AllspachL. (2000). Interactivity in human–computer interaction: A study of credibility, understanding, and influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 553-574. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(00)00029-7
13.
*CameriniL.SchulzP. J. (2012). Effects of functional interactivity on patients’ knowledge, empowerment, and health outcomes: An experimental model-driven evaluation of a web-based intervention. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(4), e105. doi:10.2196/jmir.1953
14.
*ChengY. M. (2014). Roles of interactivity and usage experience in e-learning acceptance: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Web Information Systems, 10, 2-23. doi:10.1108/IJWIS-05-2013-0015
15.
*ChuK. M.YuanJ. C. (2013). The effects of perceived interactivity on e-trust and e-consumer behaviors: The application of fuzzy linguistic scale. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 14, 124-136. Retrieved from http://web.csulb.edu/journals/jecr/issues/20131/paper8.pdf
16.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
17.
*CoursarisC. K.SungJ. (2012). Antecedents and consequents of a mobile website’s interactivity. New Media & Society, 14, 1128-1146. doi:10.1177/1461444812439552
18.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1111-1132. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x
19.
*DholakiaR. R.ZhaoM. (2009). Retail web site interactivity: How does it influence customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions?International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 37, 821-838. doi:10.1108/09590550910988011
20.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
21.
*EvansC.GibbonsN. J. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 49, 1147-1160. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.008
22.
*EvelandW. (2004). How web site organization influences free recall, factual knowledge, and knowledge structure density. Human Communication Research, 30, 208-233. doi:10.1093/hcr/30.2.208
23.
*FioreA. M.JinH. J.KimJ. (2005). For fun and profit: Hedonic value from image interactivity and responses toward an online store. Psychology and Marketing, 22, 669-694. doi:10.1002/mar.20079
24.
*FioreA. M.KimJ.LeeH.-H. (2005). Effect of image interactivity technology on consumer responses toward the online retailer. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19, 38-53. doi:10.1002/dir.20042
25.
*FortinD. R.DholakiaR. R. (2005). Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement. Journal of Business Research, 58, 387-396. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00106-1
26.
*GaoY. (2011). An experimental study of the effects of interactivity and humor in e-commerce. Review of Business Information Systems, 15, 9-14. doi:10.19030/rbis.v15i1.3993
27.
GuR.OhL. B.WangK. (2013). Differential impact of web and mobile interactivity on e-retailers’ performance. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 23, 325-349. doi:10.1080/10919392.2013.837791
28.
*GuilloryJ. E.SundarS. S. (2013). How does web site interactivity affect our perceptions of an organization?Journal of Public Relations Research, 26, 44-61. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2013.795866
29.
*GuptaR.NadkarniS.GouldS. J. (2005). “Is this site confusing or interesting?” A perceived web site complexity (PWC) scale for assessing consumer Internet interactivity. In MenonG.RaoA. R. (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 32, pp. 42-50). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
30.
HaL.JamesE. L. (1998). Interactivity reexamined: A baseline analysis of early business web sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42, 457-474. doi:10.1080/08838159809364462
31.
*HasemanW. D.NuipolatogluV.RamamurthyK. (2002). An empirical investigation of the influences of the degree of interactivity on user-outcomes in a multimedia environment. Information Resources Management Journal, 15, 31-48. doi:10.4018/irmj.2002040104
32.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
*JeeJ.LeeW. N. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of perceived interactivity: An exploratory study. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 3, 34-45. doi:10.1080/15252019.2002.10722066
34.
*JiangZ.ChanJ.TanB. C. Y.ChuaW. S. (2010). Effects of interactivity on website involvement and purchase intention. Journal of the Association for Information Systems., 11(1), Article 1. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol11/iss1/1/
35.
*JoS.KimY. (2003). The effect of web characteristics on relationship building. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15, 199-223. doi:10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1503_1
36.
JonesQ.RavidG.RafaeliS. (2004). Information overload and the message dynamics of online interaction spaces: A theoretical model and empirical exploration. Information Systems Research, 15, 194-210. doi:10.1287/isre.1040.0023
37.
*KimH. (2011). Pharmaceutical companies as a source of health information: A pilot study of the effects of source, web site interactivity, and involvement. Health Marketing Quarterly, 28, 57-85. doi:10.1080/07359683.2011.545327
38.
*KimH.StoutP. A. (2010). The effects of interactivity on information processing and attitude change: Implications for mental health stigma. Health Communication, 25, 142-154. doi:10.1080/10410230903544936
39.
*KimJ.SpielmannN.McMillanS. J. (2012). Experience effects on interactivity: Functions, processes, and perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1543-1550. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.038
40.
*KimS. (2011). Web-Interactivity dimensions and shopping experiential value. Journal of Internet Business, 9, 1-25.
41.
KiousisS. (2002). Interactivity: A concept explication. New Media & Society, 4, 355-383. doi:10.1177/146144480200400303
42.
*LeeE.ShinS. Y. (2012). Are they talking to me? Cognitive and affective effects of interactivity in politicians’ Twitter communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 15, 515-520. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0228
43.
*LeeH.FioreA. M.KimJ. (2006). The role of the technology acceptance model in explaining effects of image interactivity technology on consumer responses. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 34, 621-644. doi:10.1108/09590550610675949
44.
*LeeH.KimJ.FioreA. M. (2010). Affective and cognitive online shopping experience: Effects of image interactivity technology and experimenting with appearance. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 28, 140-154. doi:10.1177/0887302x09341586
45.
LiuY. (2003). Developing a scale to measure the interactivity of websites. Journal of Advertising Research, 43, 207-216. doi:10.2501/JAR-43-2-207-216
46.
LiuY.ShrumL. J. (2002). What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 53-64. doi:10.1080/00913367.2002.10673685
47.
*LiuY.ShrumL. J. (2009). A dual-process model of interactivity effects. Journal of Advertising, 38(2), 53-68. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367380204
48.
*LuH.LinJ.HsiaoK.ChengL. (2010). Information sharing behaviour on blogs in Taiwan: Effects of interactivities and gender differences. Journal of Information Science, 36, 401-416. doi:10.1177/0165551510363631
49.
*LustriaM. L. A. (2007). Can interactivity make a difference? Effects of interactivity on the comprehension of and attitudes toward online health content. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 766-776. doi:10.1002/asi.20557
50.
*MaciasW. (2000). The effect of interactivity on comprehension and persuasion of interactive advertising (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas at Austin.
51.
*MaciasW. (2003). A beginning look at the effects of interactivity, product involvement and web experience on comprehension: Brand web sites as interactive advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 25(2), 31-44. doi:10.1080/10641734.2003.10505147
52.
*MannB. J. S.SahniS. K. (2011). Inter-relationship of web site interactivity and customer outcomes: Building trust in Internet banking web site. Global Business Review, 12, 99-115. doi:10.1177/097215091001200107
53.
McMillanS. J.HoyM. G.KimJ.McMahanC. (2008). A multifaceted tool for a complex phenomenon: Coding web-based Interactivity as technologies for interaction evolve. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 794-826. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00420.x
54.
NeisserU. (2014). Cognitive psychology: Classic edition. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
55.
*OhJ.SundarS. S. (2015). How does interactivity persuade? An experimental test of interactivity on cognitive absorption, elaboration, and attitudes. Journal of Communication, 65, 213-236. doi:10.1111/jcom.12147
56.
RafaeliS.ArielY. (2007). Assessing interactivity in computer-mediated research. In JoinsonA. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 71-88). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
57.
*SafferA. J.SommerfeldtE. J.TaylorM. (2013). The effects of organizational Twitter interactivity on organization-public relationships. Public Relations Review, 39, 213-215. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.02.005
58.
*SchlosserA. E. (2003). Experiencing products in the virtual world: The role of goal and imagery in influencing attitudes versus purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 184-198. doi:10.1086/376807
59.
*SealK. C.PrzasnyskiZ. H.LeonL. A. (2010). How levels of interactivity in tutorials affect students’ learning of modeling transportation problems in a spreadsheet. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 8, 75-94. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2009.00244.x
60.
ShenF.SheerV. C.LiR. (2015). Impact of narratives on persuasion in health communication: A meta-analysis. Journal of Advertising, 44(2), 105-113. doi:10.1080/00913367.2015.1018467
61.
*ShihH.HuangE. (2014). Influences of web interactivity and social identity and bonds on the quality of online discussion in a virtual community. Information Systems Frontiers, 16, 627-641. doi:10.1007/s10796-012-9376-7
62.
*ShippsB.PhillipsB. (2013). Social networks, interactivity and satisfaction: Assessing socio-technical behavioral factors as an extension to technology acceptance. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 8(1), 35-52. doi:10.4067/S0718-18762013000100004
63.
*SiciliaM.RuizS.MunueraJ. L. (2005). Effects of interactivity in a web site: The moderating effect of need for cognition. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 31-44. doi:10.1080/00913367.2005.10639202
64.
*SohnD.CiC.LeeB. K. (2007). The moderating effects of expectation on the patterns of the interactivity-attitude relationship. Journal of Advertising, 36(3), 109-119. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367360308
65.
*SongI.BucyE. P. (2007). Interactivity and political attitude formation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 4(2), 29-61. doi:10.1080/19331680802076082
66.
*StephensK.MottetT. (2008). Interactivity in a web conference training context: Effects on trainers and trainees. Communication Education, 57, 88-104. doi:10.1080/03634520701573284
67.
Stromer-GalleyJ. (2004). Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process. Information Society, 20, 393-396. doi:10.1080/01972240490508081
68.
*SunJ.HsuY. (2013). Effect of interactivity on learner perceptions in web-based instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 171-184. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.08.002
69.
SundarS. S. (2000). Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: A study of picture, audio, and video downloads. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 480-499. doi:10.1177/107769900007700302
70.
SundarS. S. (2004). Theorizing interactivity’s effects. Information Society, 20, 385-389. doi:10.1080/01972240490508072
71.
SundarS. S. (2007). Social psychology of interactivity in human-website interaction. In JoinsonA.McKennaK.PostmesT.ReipsU. D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 89-104). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
72.
SundarS. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 72-100). Cambridge: MIT Press.
73.
SundarS. S.BellurS.OhJ.JiaH.KimH.-S. (2014). Theoretical importance of contingency in human-computer interaction: Effects of message interactivity on user engagement. Communication Research, 43, 595-625. doi:10.1177/0093650214534962
74.
*SundarS. S.ConstantinC. (2004, May27). Does interacting with media enhance news memory? Automatic vs. controlled processing of interactive news features. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p113221_index.html
75.
*SundarS. S.KalyanaramanS.BrownJ. (2003). Explicating web site interactivity: Impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research, 30, 30-59. doi:10.1177/0093650202239025
76.
SundarS. S.NassC. (2001). Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of Communication, 51, 52-72. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02872.x
77.
SundarS. S.OhJ.KangH.SreenivasanA. (2013). How does technology persuade? Theoretical mechanisms for persuasive technologies. In DillardJ. P.ShenL. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 388-404). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
78.
*SundarS. S.XuQ.BellurS.JiaH.OhJ.KhooG. S. (2010, June21). Click, drag, flip, and mouse-over: Effects of modality interactivity on user engagement with web content. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of International Communication Association, Singapore. Retrieved from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p403905_index.html
79.
*SuntornpithugN.KhamalahJ. (2010). Machine and person interactivity: The driving forces behind influences on consumers’ willingness to purchase online. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 11, 299-325.
80.
TaoC.-C.BucyE. P. (2007). Conceptualizing media stimuli in experimental research: Psychological versus attribute-based definitions. Human Communication Research, 33, 397-426. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00305.x
81.
*TedescoJ. C. (2007). Examining Internet interactivity effects on young adult political information efficacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1183-1194. doi:10.1177/0002764207300041
82.
TeoH. H.OhL. B.LiuC.WeiK. K. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of interactivity on web user attitude. International Journal of Human-computer Studies, 58, 281-305. doi:10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00008-9
83.
*TremayneM. (2008). Manipulating interactivity with thematically hyperlinked news texts: A media learning experiment. New Media & Society, 10, 703-727. doi:10.1177/1461444808094353
84.
*TsaiC. H. (2011). The e-commerce model of health websites: An Integration of web quality, perceived interactivity, and web outcomes. Journal of Networks, 6, 1017-1024. doi:10.4304/jnw.6.7.1017-1024
85.
*Van NoortG.VoorveldH. A. M.van ReijmersdalE. A. (2012). Interactivity in brand web sites: Cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses explained by consumers’ online flow experience. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26, 223-234. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2011.11.002
86.
VoorveldH. A. M.NeijensP. C.SmitE. G. (2011). The relation between actual and perceived interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 40, 77-92. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367400206
87.
*VoorveldH. A. M.Van NoortG.DuijnM. (2013). Building brands with interactivity: The role of prior brand usage in the relation between perceived website interactivity and brand responses. Journal of Brand Management, 20, 608-622. doi:10.1057/bm.2013.3
88.
WaltherJ. B.GayG.HancockJ. T. (2005). How do communication and technology researchers study the Internet?Journal of Communication, 55, 632-657. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02688.x
89.
*WarnickB.XenosM.EndresD.GastilJ. (2005). Effects of campaign-to-user and text-based interactivity in political candidate campaign web sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00253.x
90.
*WuG. (1999). Perceived interactivity and attitude toward web sites. In RobertsM. S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the conference American Academy of Advertising (pp. 254-262). Gainesville, FL: American Academy of Advertising.
91.
*WuG. (2005). The mediating role of perceived interactivity in the effect of actual interactivity on attitude toward the website. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5(2), 29-39. doi:10.1080/15252019.2005.10722099
92.
*WuG.HuX.WuY. (2010). Effects of perceived interactivity, perceived web assurance and disposition to trust on initial online trust. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 1-26. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01528.x
93.
*WuL.WangY. T.WeiC. H.YehM. Y. (2013, January7-10). How interactivity works for utilitarian and hedonic consumers online. Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences System Sciences (HICSS), Wailea, HI.
94.
*XuQ.SundarS. S. (2014). Lights, camera, music, interaction! Interactive persuasion in e-commerce. Communication Research, 41, 282-308. doi:10.1177/0093650212439062
95.
*YooC. Y. (2011). Modeling audience interactivity as the gratification-seeking process in online newspapers. Communication Theory, 21, 67-89. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.0137
