The mediated moderation model of interactivity

Media Psychology

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 647-672

  Bucy, Erik P ^a   Tao, Chen Chao ^b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547263520     PISSN: 15213269     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15213260701283269     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park. CA: Sage.
2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25, 729-735.
4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.
5. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3, 265-299.
6. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
7. Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. (2002) (Eds). Media effects: Advances in theory and research, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Bucy, E. P. (2004a). Interactivity in society: Locating an elusive concept. The Information Society, 20, 375-385.
9. Bucy, E. P. (2004b). The interactivity paradox: Closer to the news but confused. In E. P. Bucy & J. E. Newhagen (Eds.), Media access: Social and psychological dimensions of new technology use (pp. 47-72). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Bucy, E. P., & Affe, R. B. (2006). The contributions of Net news to cyber democracy: Civic affordances of major metropolitan newspaper sites. In X. Li (Ed,), Internet newspapers: Making of a mainstream medium (pp. 227-242). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Bucy, E. P., Lang, A., Potter, R. F., & Grabe, M. E. (1999). Formal features of Cyberspace: Relationships between Web page complexity and site traffic. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 1246-1256.
12. Bucy, E. P., & Newhagen, J. E. (1999). The micro- and macrodrama of politics on television: Effects of media format on candidate evaluations. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 193-210.
13. Cassell, M., Jackson, C., & Cheuvront, B. (1998). Health communication on the Internet: An effective channel for health behavior change? Journal of Health Communication, 3, 71-79.
14. Chaffee, S. H. (1991). Explication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15. Chaffee, S. H. (1996). Thinking about theory. In M. B. Salwen & D. W. Stacks (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 15-32). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Chaffee, S. H., & Berger, C. R. (1987). What communication scientists do. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 99-122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17. Chung, H., & Zhao, X. (2004). Effects of perceived interactivity on Web site preference and memory: Role of personal motivation. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10. Retrieved December 28, 2005, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/chung.html
18. Cohen, J. (1978). Partialed products are interactions; partialed powers are curve components. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 858-866.
19. Eastin, M. S., & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6. Retrieved March 30, 2004, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/ eastin.html
20. Eveland, W. P., Jr. (1997). Interactions and nonlinearity in mass communication: Connecting theory and methodology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 400-416.
21. Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). User control and structural isomorphism or disorientation and cognitive load? Learning from the Web versus print. Communication Research, 28, 48-78.
22. Eveland, W. P., Jr., Marton, K., & Seo, M. (2004). Moving beyond "just the facts": The influence of online news on the content and structure of public affairs knowledge. Communication Research, 31, 82-108.
23. Friedrich, R. J. (1982). In defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 797-833.
24. Grabe, M. E., Zhou, S., Lang, A., & Bolls, P. D. (2000). Packaging television news: The effects of tabloid on information processing and evaluative responses. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 581-598.
25. Ha, L., & James, E. L. (1998). Interactivity reexamined: A baseline analysis of early business websites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42, 457-474.
26. Heeter, C. (1989). Implications of new interactive technologies for conceptualizing communication. In J. Salvaggio & J. Bryant (Eds.), Media in the information age: Emerging patterns of adoption and consumer use (pp. 217-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Hoffman, D. L.. & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60, 50-68.
28. Holbert, R. L. (2005). Debate viewing as mediator and partisan reinforcement in the relationship between news use and vote choice. Journal of Communication, 55, 85-102.
29. Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2002). Structural equation modeling in the communication sciences, 1995-2000. Human Communication Research, 28, 531-551.
30. Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2003). The importance of indirect effects in media effects research: Testing for mediation in structural equation modeling. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 556-572.
31. Holmbeck, G. N, (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599-610.
32. Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and parasocial interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229.
33. Isotalus, P. (1998). Television performance as interaction. Nordicom Review, 79(1), 175-183.
34. James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307-321.
35. Jensen, J. F. (1998). Interactivity: Tracking a new concept in media and communication studies. Nordicom Review, 1, 185-204.
36. Kiousis, S. (2002). Interactivity: A concept explication. New Media & Society, 4, 355-383.
37. Kromrey, J. D., & Foster-Johnson, L. (1998). Mean centering in moderated multiple regression: Much ado about nothing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 42-67.
38. Lang, A. (1994) (Ed.). Measuring psychological responses to media messages. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. LaRose, R., Mastro, D., & Eastin, M. S. (2001). Understanding Internet usage: A social-cognitive approach to uses and gratifications. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 395-413.
40. Lee, J.-S. (2000). Interactivity: A new approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Phoenix, AZ.
41. Lee, S.-J., Lee, W.-N., Kim, H., & Stout, P. A. (2004). A comparison of objective characteristics and user perception of websites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 4. Retrieved December 28, 2005, from http://www.jiad.org/vol4/no2/lee/index.htm
42. Liu, Y. (2003). Developing a scale to measure the interactivity of websites. Journal of Advertising Research, 43, 207-216.
43. Liu, Y, & Shrum, L. 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, 53-64.
44. Macias, W. (2003). A preliminary structural equation model of comprehension and persuasion of interactive advertising brand Web sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 3. Retrieved December 28, 2005, from http://www.jiad.org/vol3/no2/macias/index.htm
45. Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (1993). Bivariate median splits and spurious statistical significance. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 181-190.
46. McCombs, M. E. (1994). News influence on our pictures of the world. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advance in theory and research (pp. 1-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. McLeod, D. M., Kosicki, G. M., & McLeod, J. M. (2002). Resurveying the boundaries of political communication effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 215-267). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. McLeod, J. M., & Reeves, B. (1980). On the nature or mass media effects. In S. B. Withey & R. P. Abeles (Eds.), Television and social behavior: Violence and children (pp. 17-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. McMillan, S. J. (2002a). Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: Users, documents, and systems. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingston (Eds.), Handbook of new media (pp. 163-182). London: Sage.
50. McMillan, S. J. (2002b). A four-part model of cyber-interactivity: Some cyber-places are more interactive than others. New Media & Society, 4, 271-291.
51. McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J.-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 Advertising, 31, 29-42.
52. McMillan, S. J., Hwang, J.-S., & Lee, G. (2003). Effects of structural and perceptual factors on attitudes toward the website. Journal of Advertising Research, 43, 400-409.
53. Mongeau, P. A., & Stiff, J. B. (1993). Specifying causal relationships in the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Communication Theory, 3, 65-72.
54. Morrison, M. (1998). A look at interactivity from a consumer perspective. In J. B. Ford & E. J. D. Honeycutt, Jr. (Eds.), Developments in Marketing Science, Vol. 21 (pp. 149-154). Norfolk, VA: Academy of Marketing Science.
55. Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852-863.
56. Newhagen, J. E. (2004). Interactivity, dynamic symbol processing, and the emergence of content in human communication. The information Society, 20, 397-402.
57. Newhagen, J. E., Cordes, J. W., & Levy, M. R. (1995). Nightly@nbc.com: Audience scope and the perception of interactivity in viewer mail on the Internet. Journal of Communication, 45, 164-175.
58. O'Keefe, D. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13, 251-274.
59. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on response to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81.
60. Potter, W. J., & Tomasello, T. K. (2003). Building upon the experimental design in media violence research: The importance of including receiver interpretations. Journal of Communications, 53, 315-329.
61. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 117-731.
62. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (in press). Suggested procedures for addressing moderated mediation hypotheses. Multivariate Behavioral Research.
63. Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins, J. Wiemann & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal process (pp. 110-134). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
64. Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2. Retrieved March 30, 2004, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html
65. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge University Press.
66. Robinson, T. N., Patrick, K., Eng, T. R., & Gustafson, D. (1998). An evidence-based approach to interactive health communication: A challenge to medicine in the information age. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1264-1269.
67. Rosenberg, M. (1968). The logic of survey analysis. New York: Basic Books.
68. Scheufele, D. A. (2002). Examining differential gains from mass media and their implications for participatory behavior. Communication Research, 29, 46-65.
69. Schultz, T, (2000). Mass media and the concept of interactivity: an exploratory study of online forums and reader e-mail. Media, Culture & Society, 22, 205-221.
70. Sherry, J. L. (2004). Media effects theory and the nature/nurture debate: A historical overview and directions for future research. Media Psychology, 6, 83-109.
71. Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845-851.
72. Steuer, J. (1995). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. In F. Biocca & M. R. Levy (Eds.), Communication in the age of virtual reality (pp. 33-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
73. Sundar, S. S. (2004). Theorizing interactivity's effects. The Information Society, 20, 387-391.
74. Sundar, S.S., Hesser, K. M., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. (1998). The effect of website interactivity on political persuasion. Paper presented at the 21st General Assembly and Scientific Conference of the International Association for Media and Communication Research, Glasgow, UK.
75. Sundar, S.S., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. (2003). Explicating website interactivity: Impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research, 30, 30-59.
76. Tao, C.-C., & Bucy, E. P. (2005, May). Capture the effect of interactivity: Examining the influence of third variables on the processing of interactivity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New York, NY.
77. Thompson, L. F., Meriac, J. P., & Cope, J. G. (2002). Motivating online performance: The influences of goal setting and Internet self-efficacy. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 149-160.
78. Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 149-170.
79. Tremayne, M. (2005). Lessons learned from experiments with interactivity on the Web. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5. Retrieved December 28, 2005, from http://jiad.org/vol5/no2/tremayne/index.html
80. Tremayne, M., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). Interactivity, information processing, and learning on the World Wide Web. Science Communication, 23, 111-134.
81. Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2000). Analysis and design for nonexperimental data: Addressing causal and noncausal hypotheses. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 412-450). New York: Cambridge University Press.
82. Worden, J. K., & Flynn, B. S. (2002). Using mass media to prevent cigarette smoking. In R. Hornik (Ed.), Public health communication: Evidence for behavior change (pp. 23-34). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
83. Wu, G. (1999). Perceived interactivity and attitude toward the website. In M. S. Roberts (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1999 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 254-262). Gainesville, FL: American Academy of Advertising.
84. Wu, G. (2005). The mediating role of perceived interactivity in the effect of actual interactivity on attitude toward the website. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5. Retrieved December 28, 2005, from http://jiad.org/vol5/no2/wu/index.htm