How does technology persuade?: Theoretical mechanisms for persuasive technologies

The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 388-404

  Sundar, S Shyam ^a   Oh, Jeeyun ^a   Kang, Hyunjin ^a   Sreenivasan, Akshaya ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84949756616     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4135/9781452218410.n23     Document Type: Chapter

References (99)

1. Balakrishnan, B., & Sundar, S. S. (2011). Where am I? How can I get there? Impact of navigability and narrative transportation on spatial presence. Human Computer Interaction, 26, 161-204.
2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman. doi:10.1016/0149-7189(90)90004-G http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189%2890%2990004-G
3. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3, 265-299. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03
4. Bang, M., Torstensson, C., & Katzeff, C. (2006). The power house: A persuasive computer game designed to raise awareness of domestic energy consumption. In W. A.IJsselsteijn, Y. A. W. De Kort, C. J. H. Midden, J. H. Eggen & E. A. W. H. Van den Hoven (Eds.), Persuasive 2006 (pp. 123-132). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
5. Baranowski, T., Buday, R., Thompson, D., & Baranowski, J. (2008). Playing for real: Video games and stories for health-related behavior change. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34, 74-82. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.09.027 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.09.027
6. Bellur, S., & Sundar, S. S. (2010, June). How can we tell when a heuristic has been used? Models for measurement of heuristics. Paper presented at the 60th annual conference of the International Communication Association, Singapore.
7. Bente, G., Rüggenberg, S., Krämer, N. C., & Eschenburg, F. (2008). Avatar-mediated networking: Increasing social presence and interpersonal trust in Net-based collaborations. Human Communication Research, 34, 287-318. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00322.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00322.x
8. Biocca, F. (1997). The cyborg's dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3, 1-29.
9. Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Ramirez, A. Jr., Dunbar, N. E., Kam, K., & Fischer, J. (2002). Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication, 52, 657-677. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02567.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02567.x
10. Campbell, M. K., Devellis, B. M., Strecher, V. J., Ammerman, A. S., Devellis, R. F., & Sandler, R. S. (1994). Improving dietary behavior: The effectiveness of tailored messages in primary-care settings. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 783-787. doi:10.2105/AJPH.84.5.783 http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.84.5.783
11. 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.
12. Coner, A. (2003). Personalization and customization in financial portals. Journal of American Academy of Business, 2, 498-504.
13. Coyle, J. R., & Thorson, E. (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30, 65-77.
14. Dillard, J. P. (2010). Persuasion. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, & D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (eds.), The handbook of communication science (pp. 203-218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412982818 http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412982818
15. Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. In L. Berkowitz (eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. X14, pp. 161-202). New York, NY: Academic Press.
16. Firpo, D., Kasemvilas, S., Ractham, P., & Zhang, X. (2009). Generating a sense of community in a graduate educational setting through persuasive technology. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology (Persuasive 2009). New York, NY: ACM Press.
17. Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technologies: Using computer power to change attitudes and behaviors. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
18. Fogg, B. J., Lee, E., & Marshall, J. (2002). Interactive technology and persuasion. In J. P. Dillard and M. Pfau (eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 765-788). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412976046 http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412976046
19. Fox, J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2009). Virtual self-modeling: The effects of vicarious reinforcement and identification on exercise behaviors. Media Psychology, 12, 1-25. doi:10.1080/15213260802669474 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213260802669474
20. Franke, N., Schreier, M., & Kaiser, U. (2009). The "I designed it myself" effect in mass customization. Management Science, 56, 125-140. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1090.1077 http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1077
21. Fransen, M. L., Fennis, B. M., & Pruyn, A. H. (2010). Matching Communication modalities: The effects of modality congruence and processing style on brand evaluation and brand choice. Communication Research, 37, 576-598. doi:10.1177/0093650210368251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650210368251
22. Garcia-Palaciosa, A., Hoffman, H., Carlin, A., Furness, T. A., III, & Botella, C. (2002). Virtual reality in the treatment of spider phobia: A controlled study. Behavior Research and Therapy, 40, 983-993. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(01)00068-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967%2801%2900068-7
23. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701-721. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701
24. Guadagno, R., Blascovich, J., Bailenson, J., & McCall, C. (2007). Virtual humans and persuasion: The effects of agency and behavioral realism. Media Psychology, 10, 1-22.
25. Gustafson, D. H., Hawkins, R., McTavish, F., Pingree, S., Chen, W. C., Volrathongchai, K., et al. (2008). Internet-based interactive support for cancer patients: Are integrated systems better? Journal of Communication, 58, 238-257. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00383.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00383.x
26. Hawkins, R. P., Kreuter, M., Resnicow, K., Fishbein, M., & Dijkstra, A. (2008). Understanding tailoring in communicating about health. Health Education Research, 23, 454-466. doi:10.1093/her/cyn004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/her/cyn004
27. Holbert, R. L. (2002). The embodied meaning of media forms. In J. P. Dillard and M. Pfau (eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 749-764). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412976046 http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412976046
28. Holzwarth, M., Janiszewski, C., & Neumann, M. M. (2006). The influence of avatars on online consumer shopping behavior. Journal of Marketing, 70, 19-36. doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.4.19 http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.4.19
29. Hu, Y., & Sundar, S. S. (2010). Effects of online health sources on credibility and behavioral intentions. Communication Research, 37(1), 105-132. doi:10.1177/0093650209351512 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650209351512
30. Intille, S. S. (2002). Designing a home of the future. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 1, 80-86.
31. Jerant, A., Kravitz, R. L., Rooney, M., Arnerson, S., Kreuter, M., & Franks, P. (2007). Effects of a tailored interactive multimedia computer program on determinants of colorectal cancer screening: A randomized controlled pilot study in physician offices. Patient Education and Counseling, 66, 67-74. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2006.10.009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2006.10.009
32. Jin, S.-A. A. (2009). Modality effects in second life: The mediating role of social presence and the moderating role of product involvement. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 12, 717-721.
33. Jin, S.-A. A. (2010). Effects of 3D virtual haptics force feedback on brand personality perception: The mediating role of physical presence in adver-games. Cyber Psychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13, 307-311. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0098 http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0098
34. Kalyanaraman, S., & Sundar, S. S. (2006). The psychological appeal of personalized 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00006.x
35. Kim, H. S., & Sundar, S. S. (2011). Using interface cues in online health community boards to change impressions and encourage user contribution. Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'11), 599-608.
36. Klein, L. R. (2003). Creating virtual product experiences: The role of telepresence. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17, 41-55. doi: 10.1002/dir.10046 doi:10.1002/dir.10046 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dir.10046
37. Koh, Y. J., & Sundar, S. S. (2010a). Effects of specialization in computers, web sites and web agents on e-commerce trust. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68, 899-912. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.08.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.08.002
38. Koh, Y. J., & Sundar, S. S. (2010b). Heuristic versus systematic processing of specialist versus generalist sources in online media. Human Communication Research, 36, 103-124. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01370.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01370.x
39. Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2009). A dual-process model of interactivity effects. Journal of Advertising, 38, 53-68. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367380204 http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367380204
40. Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 3. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x
41. Lynch, J. G., & Ariely, D. (2000). Wine online: Search costs affect competition on price, quality and distribution. Marketing Science, 19, 83-103. doi:10.1287/mksc.19.1.83.15183 http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.19.1.83.15183
42. Marathe, S., & Sundar, S. S. (2011). What drives customization? Control or identity?Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'11), 781-790.
43. Marcus, B. H., Lewis, B. A., Williams, D. M., Dunsiger, S., Jakicic, J. M., Whiteley, J. A., et al. (2007). A comparison of Internet and print-based physical activity interventions. Archives of internal medicine, 167, 944-949. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.9.944 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinte.167.9.944
44. McCalley, T., Kaiser, F., Midden, C. J. H., Keser, M., & Teunissen, M. (2006). Persuasive appliances: Goal priming and behavioral response to product-integrated energy feedback. In W. A.IJsselsteijn, Y. A. W. De Kort, C. J. H. Midden, J. H. Eggen, & E. A. W. H. Van den Hoven (Eds.), Persuasive 2006 (pp. 45-49). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
45. McMillan, D. W. (1996). Sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 315-325. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199610)24:4<315::AID-JCOP2>3.0.CO;2-T http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/%28SICI%291520-6629%28199610%2924:4%3C315::AID-JCOP2%3E3.0.CO;2-T
46. McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1<6::AID-JCOP2290140103>3.0.CO;2-I http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629%28198601%2914:1%3C6::AID-JCOP2290140103%3E3.0.CO;2-I
47. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413-439. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
48. Miller, G. R. (1980). On being persuaded. In M. Roloff & G. R. Miller (eds.), Persuasion: New directions in theory and research (pp. 11-28). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
49. Murray, J. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50. Nass, C., & Mason, L. (1990). On the study of technology and task: A variable-based approach. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfeld (eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 46-67). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
51. Noar, S. M., Pierce, L. B., & Black, H. G. (2010). Can computer-mediated interventions change theoretical mediators of safer sex? A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 36, 261-297. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01376.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01376.x
52. Norton, M. I., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2011). The 'IKEA Effect': When labor leads to love. Harvard Business School Marketing Unit Working Paper No. 11-091. Retrieved from SSRN, May 11, 2012: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1777100
53. Oenema, A., Brug, J., Dijkstra, A., de Weerdt, I., & de Vries, H. (2008). Efficacy and use of an internet-delivered computer-tailored lifestyle intervention, targeting saturated fat intake, physical activity and smoking cessation: A randomized controlled trial. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35, 125-135. doi:10.1007/s12160-008-9023-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12160-008-9023-1
54. Overberg, R., Otten, W., de Man, A., Toussaint, P., Westenbrink, J., & Zwetsloot-Schonk, B. (2010). How breast cancer patients want to search for and retrieve information from stories of other patients on the Internet: An online randomized controlled experiment. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 12(1). doi:10.2196/jmir.1215
55. Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G., & Granka, L. (2007). In Google we trust: Users' decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12. Retrieved May 11, 2012, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue3/pan.html
56. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1
57. Petty, R. E., Wheeler, S. C., & Bizer, G. Y. (2000). Attitude functions and persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach to matched versus mismatched messages. In J. M. Olson (eds.), Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes (pp. 133-162). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
58. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7, 84-107. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84
59. Pirolli, P. (2007). Information foraging theory: Adaptive interaction with information. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.
60. Pirolli, P., & Card, S. K. (1999). Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106, 643-675. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.643 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.643
61. Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. Hawkins, J. Weimann, & S. Pingree (eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes (pp. 124-181). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
62. Read S.J., Miller, L. C., Appleby, P. R., Nwosu, M. E., Reynaldo, S., Lauren, A., et al. (2006). Socially optimized learning in a virtual environment: Reducing risky sexual behavior among men who have sex with men. Human Communication Research, 3, 1-34.
63. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
64. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (2000). Perceptual user interfaces: Perceptual bandwidth. Communications of the ACM, 4, 65-70.
65. Richardson, C. R., Buis, L. R., Janney, A. W., Goodrich, D. E., Sen, A., Hess, M. L., et al. (2010). An online community improves adherence in an internetmediated walking program. part 1: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24. doi: 10.2196/jmr.1338
66. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
67. Salomon, G. (1979). Media and symbol systems as related to cognition and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 131-148. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.71.2.131 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.2.131
68. 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/376807
69. Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656-666. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.656 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.656
70. Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42, 73-93. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x
71. Strecher, V. J., McClure, J., Alexander, G., Chakraborty, B., Nair, V., Konkel, J., et al. (2008). The role of engagement in a tailored web-based smoking cessation program: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 10(5). doi:10.2196/jmir.1002
72. Sundar, S. 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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700302
73. 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, UK: Oxford University Press.
74. Sundar, S. S. (2008a). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 72-100). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
75. Sundar, S. S. (2008b). Self as source: Agency and customization in interactive media. In E. Konijn, S. Utz, M. Tanis, & S. Barnes (eds.), Mediated interpersonal communication (pp. 58-74). New York, NY: Routledge.
76. Sundar, S. S. (2009). Media effects 2. 0: Social and psychological effects of communication technologies. In R. L. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 545-560). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
77. Sundar, S. S., & Bellur, S. (2010). Concept explication in the internet age: The case of interactivity. In E. P. Bucy & R. L. Holbert (eds.), Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 485-500). New York, NY: Routledge.
78. Sundar, S. S., Bellur, S., Oh, J., Jia, H., & Kim, H. S. (2012, May). The importance of message contingency: An experimental investigation of interactivity in an online search site. Paper presented at the 62nd annual conference of the International Communication Association, Phoenix, AZ.
79. Sundar, S. S., Bellur, S., Oh, J., Xu, Q., & Jia, H. (2011). User experience of on-screen interaction techniques: An experimental investigation of clicking, sliding, zooming, hovering, dragging and flipping. Manuscript submitted for publication.
80. Sundar, S. S., & Constantin, C. (2004). Does interacting with media enhance news memory? Automatic vs. controlled processing of interactive news features. Paper presented at the 54th annual conference of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
81. Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. (2003). Explicating website interactivity: Impressionformation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research, 30, 30-59. doi:10.1177/0093650202239025 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650202239025
82. Sundar, S. S., & Kim, J. (2005). Interactivity and persuasion: Influencing attitudes with information and involvement. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5, 6-29. Retrieved May 11, 2012, from http://www.jiad.org/article59
83. Sundar, S. S., & Marathe, S. S. (2010). Personalization versus customization: The importance of agency, privacy, and power usage. Human Communication Research, 36, 298-322. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01377.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01377.x
84. Sundar, S. S., & Nass, C. (2001). Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of Communication, 51, 52-72. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02872.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02872.x
85. Sundar, S. S., Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Xu, Q. (2008). The bandwagon effect of collaborative filtering technology. Proceedings of CHI'08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 26, 3453-3458.
86. Sundar, S. S., Oh, J., Bellur, S., Jia, H., & Kim, H. S. (2012). Interactivity as self-expression: A field experiment with customization and blogging. Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'12), 395-404.
87. Sundar, S. S., Xu, Q., Bellur, S., Jia, H., Oh, J., & Khoo, G-S. (2010, June). Click, drag, flip, and mouseover: Effects of modality interactivity on user engagement with web content. Paper presented at the 60th annual conference of the International Communication Association, Singapore.
88. Sundar, S. S., Xu, Q., Bellur, S., Oh, J., & Jia, H. (2011). Beyond pointing and clicking: How do newer interaction modalities affect user engagement?Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA'11), 1477-1482.
89. Sundar, S. S., Xu, Q., & Dou, X. (2012). Role of technology in online persuasion: A MAIN Model perspective. In S. Rodgers & E. Thorson (eds.), Advertising theory (pp. 355-372). New York, NY: Routledge.
90. Sundar, S. S., Xu, Q., & Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2009). Authority vs. peer: How interface cues influence users. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'09), 27, 4231-4236.
91. Walshe, D. G., Lewis, E. J., Kim, S. I., O'Sullivan, K., & Wiederhold, B. K. (2003). Exploring the use of computer games and virtual reality in exposure therapy for fear of driving following a motor vehicle accident. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 6, 329-334.
92. Wang, J., & Calder, B. J. (2006), Media transportation and advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 151-162. doi:10.1086/506296 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/506296
93. Weissman, J. R. (1988). Have it your way: What happens when users control the interface. In M. A. Siegel (eds.), Design and evaluation of computer/human interfaces: Issues for librarians and information scientists (pp. 95-104). Urbana, IL: Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
94. Wirth, W., Hartmann, T., Böcking, S., Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., Schramm, H., et al. (2007). A process model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychology, 9, 493-525. doi:10.1080/15213260701283079 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213260701283079
95. Wise, K., Hamman, B., & Thorson, K. (2006). Moderation, response rate, and message interactivity: Features of online communities and their effects on intent to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 24-41. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00313.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00313.x
96. Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. N. (2007). The Proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Human Communication Research, 33, 271-290. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00299.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00299.x
97. Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., & Ducheneaut, N. (2009). The Proteus effect: Implications of transformed digital self-representation on online and offline behavior. Communication Research, 36, 285-312. doi:10.1177/0093650208330254 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650208330254
98. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341-352. doi:10.1086/208520 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208520
99. Zanbaka, C., Goolkasian, P., & Hodges, L. F. (2006). Can a virtual cat persuade you? The role of gender and realism in speaker persuasiveness. Proceedings of CHI 2006, 1153-1162.