How does interactivity persuade? An experimental test of interactivity on cognitive absorption, elaboration, and attitudes

Journal of Communication

Volumn 65, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 213-236

  Oh, Jeeyun ^a   Sundar, S Shyam ^b,c  

^a ROBERT MORRIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Sungkyunkwan University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Antismoking Website; Cognitive Absorption; Dual Process Model; Health Communication; Interactivity; Interactivity Effects Model; Message Elaboration; Message Interactivity; Modality Interactivity; User Engagement

Indexed keywords

COGNITION; COMMUNICATION NETWORK; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; PUBLIC HEALTH; WORLD WIDE WEB;

EID: 84926472050     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: 14602466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12147     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24, 665-694. doi:10.2307/3250951.
2. Block, L. G., & Williams, P. (2002). Undoing the effects of seizing and freezing: Decreasing defensive processing of personally relevant messages. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 803-830. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00243.x.
3. Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2008). Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory, 18(2), 255-280. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00322.x.
4. Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2009). Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychology, 12(4), 321-347. doi:10.1080/15213260903287259.
5. Carr, N. G. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
6. Chapman, P., Selvarajah, S., & Webster, J. (1999, January). Engagement in multimedia training systems. In Proceedings of the 32nd HICSS (pp. 1084). Washington DC: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.1999.772808
7. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5., pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460-473. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460.
9. Cohen, B. (2014, January 02). Google engagement ads-Should small businesses use them? Retrieved from http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2014/01/02/google-engagement-ads#
10. Daugherty, T., Li, H., & Biocca, F. (2008). Consumer learning and the effects of virtual experience relative to indirect and direct product experience. Psychology and Marketing, 25(7), 568-586. doi:10.1002/mar.20225.
11. Eveland, W. P., & Cortese, J. (2004). How web site organization influences free recall, factual knowledge, and knowledge structure density. Human Communication Research, 30(2), 208-233. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00731.x.
12. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701-721. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701.
13. Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6(1), 47-58. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(195001)6:1<47::AID-JCLP2270060111>3.0.CO;2-I.
14. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
15. Kahlor, L., Dunwoody, S., Griffin, R. J., Neuwirth, K., & Giese, J. (2003). Studying heuristic-systematic processing of risk communication. Risk Analysis, 23(2), 355-368. doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00314.
16. Kalyanaraman, S., & Sundar, S. S. (2006). The psychological appeal of personalized online content in web portals: Does customization affect attitudes and behavior? Journal of Communication, 56, 110-132. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00006.x.
17. Kankanhalli, A., Taher, M., Cavusoglu, H., & Kim, S. H. (2012, December). Gamification: A new paradigm for online user engagement. Paper presented at the 33rd International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando, FL.
18. Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46-70. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x.
19. Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2009). A dual-process model of interactivity effects. Journal of Advertising, 38(2), 53-68. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367380204.
20. Lynch, J. G., & Ariely, D. (2000). Wine online: Search costs affect competition on price, quality, and distribution. Marketing Science, 19(1), 83-103.
21. Muntean, C. I. (2011, October). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. In Proc. 6th ICVL (pp. 323-329).
22. Norman, D. A. (2002). The Design of Everyday Things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
23. O' Brien, H. L., & Toms, E. G. (2010). The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 50-69. doi:10.1002/asi.21229.
24. Oh, J., Bellur, S., & Sundar, S. S. (2010, June). A conceptual model of user engagement with media. Paper presented at the 60th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Singapore.
25. Pavlus, J. (2010). The game of life. Scientific American, 303, 43-44. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1210-43.
26. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
27. Rafaeli, S. (1988). 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). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28. Ravindran, B., Greene, B. A., & Debacker, T. K. (2005). Predicting preservice teachers' cognitive engagement with goals and epistemological beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(4), 222-233. doi:10.3200/JOER.98.4.222-233.
29. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (2000). Perceptual user interfaces: Perceptual bandwidth. Communications of the ACM, 43(3), 65-70. doi:10.1145/330534.330542.
30. Schlosser, A. E. (2003). Experiencing products in the virtual world: The rule of goal and imagery in influencing attitudes versus purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 184-198. doi:10.1086/376807.
31. Shen, L., & Dillard, J. P. (2009). Message frames interact with motivational systems to determine depth of message processing. Health Communication, 24(6), 504-514. doi:10.1080/10410230903104897.
32. Shen, L., Monahan, J. L., Rhodes, N., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2009). The impact of attitude accessibility and decision style on adolescents' biased processing of anti-smoking PSAs. Communication Research, 36, 104-128. doi:10.1177/0093650208326466.
33. Shneiderman, B. (2004). Designing for fun: How can we design user interfaces to be more fun? Interactions, 11(5), 48-50. doi:10.1145/1015530.1015552.
34. Sicilia, M., Ruiz, S., & Munuera, J. L. (2005). Effects of interactivity in a web site: The moderating effects of need for cognition. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 31-45. doi:10.1080/00913367.2013.768065.
35. Siegel, M., & Biener, L. (2000). The impact of an antismoking media campaign on progression to established smoking: Results of a longitudinal youth study. American Journal of Public Health, 90(3), 380-386.
36. Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12(2), 173-191.
37. Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73-93. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x.
38. Strange, J. J., & Leung, C. C. (1999). How anecdotal accounts in news and in fiction can influence judgments of a social problem's urgency, causes, and cures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(4), 436-449. doi:10.1177/0146167299025004004.
39. Sundar, S. S. (2000). Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: A study of picture, audio, and video downloads. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 480-499. doi:10.1177/107769900007700302.
40. Sundar, S. S. (2007). 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, England: Oxford University Press.
41. Sundar, S. S., Bellur, S., Oh, J., Jia, H., & Kim, H. S. (in press). Theoretical importance of contingency in human-computer interaction: Effects of message interactivity on user engagement. Communication Research. doi:10.1177/0093650214534962.
42. Sundar, S. S., Bellur, S., Oh, J., Xu, Q., & Jia, H. (2014). User experience of on-screen interaction techniques: An experimental investigation of clicking, sliding, zooming, hovering, dragging and flipping. Human Computer Interaction, 29(2), 109-152. doi:10.1080/07370024.2013.789347.
43. Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. (2003). Explicating website interactivity: Impression-formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research, 30, 30-59. doi:10.1177/00936502022390.
44. Sundar, S. S., Oh, J., Kang, H., & Sreenivasan, A. (2013). How does technology persuade? Theoretical mechanisms for persuasive technologies. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 388-404). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45. Sundar, S. S., Xu, Q., Bellur, S., Jia, H., Oh, J., & Khoo, G.-S. (2010, June). Click, drag, flip, and mouse-over: Effects of modality interactivity on user engagement with web content. Paper presented at the 60th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Singapore.
46. Sutcliffe, A. (2002, January). Assessing the reliability of heuristic evaluation for web site attractiveness and usability. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual HICSS (pp. 1838-1847). Washington DC: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2002.994098
47. Swanson, J. E., Rudman, L. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2001). Using the Implicit Association Test to investigate attitude-behavior consistency for stigmatized behavior. Cognition and Emotion, 15(2), 207-230. doi:10.1037/a0015575.
48. Tremayne, M., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). Interactivity, information processing, and learning on the web. Science Communication, 23(2), 111-134. doi:10.1177/1075547001023002003.
49. Webster, J., & Ho, H. (1997). Audience engagement in multimedia presentations. ACM SIGMIS Database, 28(2), 63-77.
50. Wu, G. (2006). Conceptualizing and measuring the perceived interactivity of websites. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 28(1), 87-104. doi:10.1080/10641734.2006.10505193.
51. Xu, Q., & Sundar, S. S. (2014). Lights, camera, music, interaction! Interactive persuasion in e-commerce. Communication Research, 41(2), 282-308. doi:10.1177/0093650212439062.
52. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341-352. doi:10.1086/208520.