Understanding the experience people have in a direct or mediated interaction is essential to defining interactivity and theorizing its role in communication, but the question of what constitutes a person’s perceptual experience of interaction, namely perceived interactivity, has not been systematically inquired. The objective of this article is to define the general structure of perceived interactivity, which provides an integrative framework to compare and evaluate interaction forms or situations involving human actors as well as both old and new media. A major premise of this framework is that an interaction experience, whether direct or mediated, consists of three underlying dimensions – sensory, semantic, and behavioral.
BagozziRP (1975) Marketing as exchange. Journal of Marketing39(4): 32–39.
2.
BanksWPKajicekD (1991) Perception. Annual Review of Psychology42: 305–331.
3.
BucyEP (2004) Interactivity in society: Locating an elusive concept. The Information Society20(5): 373–383.
4.
BurgoonJKRamirezADunbarNEKamKFischerJ (2002) Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication52(3): 657–677.
5.
CoyleJRThorsonE (2001) The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising30(3): 65–77.
6.
CulnanMJMarkusML (1987) Information Technologies. In: JablinFMPutnamLLRobertsKHPorterLW (eds) Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 420–430.
7.
DeftRLLengelRH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural determinants. Management Science32(5): 554–571.
8.
DownesEJMcMillanSJ (2000) Defining interactivity: A qualitative identification of key dimensions. New Media and Society2(2): 157–179.
9.
EvelandWP (2003) A ‘mix of attributes’ approach to the study of media effects and new communication technologies. Journal of Communication53(3): 395–410.
10.
FortinDRDholakiaRR (2005) Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement. Journal of Business Research58(3): 387–396.
11.
GibsonJJ (1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
12.
GilesDC (2002) Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology4(3): 279–305.
13.
GoffmanE (1957) Alienation from interaction. Human Relations10(1): 47–59.
14.
HaLJamesEL (1998) Interactivity reexamined: A baseline analysis of early business web sites. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media42(4): 457–469.
15.
HeeterC (2000) Interactivity in the context of designed experiences. Journal of Interactive Advertising1(1): 4–15.
16.
HelbigHBGrafMKieferM (2006) The role of action representations in visual object recognition. Experimental Brain Research174(2): 221–228.
17.
HoffmanDLNovakTP (1996) Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations. Journal of Marketing60(3): 50–68.
18.
HortonDWohlRR (1956) Mass communication and parasocial interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry19(3): 215–229.
19.
JohnsonGJBrunerGCKumarA (2006) Interactivity and its facets revisited. Journal of Advertising35(4): 35–52.
20.
KiousisS (2002) Interactivity: A concept explication. New Media & Society4(3): 355–383.
21.
LeinerDJQuiringO (2008) What Interactivity Means to the User: Essential Insights into and a Scale for Perceived Interactivity. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication14(1): 127–155.
22.
LiuY (2003) Developing a scale to measure the interactivity of websites. Journal of Advertising Research43(2): 207–216.
23.
LombardMSnyder-DuchJ (2001) Interactive advertising and presence: A framework. Journal of Interactive Advertising1(2): 56–65.
24.
McMillanSJHwangJ-S (2002) Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising31(3): 29–42.
25.
MilnerADGoodaleMA (1995) The Visual Brain in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
MoonYNassC (1996) How ‘real’ are computer personalities?Communication Research23(6): 651–674.
27.
MorrisonMA (1998) A Look at Interactivity from a Consumer Perspective. In: FordJBHonecuttEJD (eds) Developments in Marketing Science. Academy of Marketing Science, 149–154.
28.
NewhagenJE (2004) Interactivity, dynamic symbol processing, and the emergence of content in human communication. Information Society20(5): 395–400.
29.
NormanDA (1988) The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Doubleday.
30.
PapacharissiZRubinAM (2000) Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media44(2): 175–196.
31.
PerseEMRubinRB (1989) Attribution in social and parasocial relationships. Communication Research16(1): 59–77.
32.
QuiringO (2009) What do users associate with ‘interactivity’? A qualitative study on user schemata. New Media & Society11(6): 899–920.
33.
QuiringOSchweigerW (2008) Interactivity: A review of the concept and a framework for analysis. Communications33(2): 147–167.
34.
RafaeliS (1988) Interactivity: From new media to communication. In: HawkinsRPWiemannJM (eds) Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 110–134.
35.
RafaeliSArielY (2007) Assessing Interactivity in Computer-mediated Research. In: JoinsonAMcKennaKPostmesTReipsU (eds) The Oxford Handbook of internet Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 71–88.
ReevesBNassC (1996) The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
RothIBruceV (1986) Perception and Representation: Current Issues. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
39.
ShortJWilliamsEChristieB (1976) The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: Wiley.
40.
SiciliaMRuizSMunueraJL (2005) Effects of interactivity in a web site.Journal of Advertising34(3): 31–45.
41.
SohnDCiCLeeB-K (2007) The moderating effects of expectation on the patterns of the interactivity-attitude relationship. Journal of Advertising36(3): 261–271.
Stromer-GalleyJ (2004) Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process. The Information Society20(5): 391–394.
44.
SundarS (2004) Theorizing interactivity’s effects. The Information Society20(5): 385–389.
45.
SundarS (2007) Social psychology of interactivity in human-website interaction. In: JoinsonAMcKennaKPostmesTReipsU (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 89–102.
46.
SundarSKimJ (2005) Interactivity and persuasion: Influencing attitudes with information and involvement. Journal of Interactive Advertising5(2): 5–18.
47.
SundarSKalyanaramanSBrownJ (2003) Explicating interactivity: Impression-formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research30(1): 30–59.
TurnerJH (1988) A Theory of Social Interaction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
50.
VakratsasDAmblerT (1999) How advertising works: What do we really know?Journal of Marketing63(1): 26–43.
51.
WaltherJBGayGHancockJT (2005) How do communication and technology researchers study the internet?Journal of Communication55(3): 632–657.
52.
WarnickBXenosMEndresDGastilJ (2005) Effects of campaign-to-user and text-based interactivity in political candidate campaign web sites. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication10(3). Available at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/warnick.html (consulted March 2010).
53.
WuG (1999) Perceived interactivity and attitude toward website. In: RobertsMS (ed.) Proceedings of the 1999 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, 254–262.
54.
ZackMH (1993) Interactivity and communication mode choice in ongoing management groups. Information Systems Research4(3): 207–239.
