Theoretical Importance of Contingency in Human-Computer Interaction: Effects of Message Interactivity on User Engagement

Communication Research

Volumn 43, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 595-625

  Sundar, S Shyam ^a,b   Bellur, Saraswathi ^c   Oh, Jeeyun ^d   Jia, Haiyan ^a   Kim, Hyang Sook ^e  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Sungkyunkwan University   (South Korea)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^d ROBERT MORRIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e ST NORBERT COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Chatbot; interaction history; interactivity effects; live chat; message contingency; message interactivity; search engine; user engagement

Indexed keywords

EID: 84975041800     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: 15523810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650214534962     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. R.AgarwalE.Karahanna (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. R.K.AhernJ.Stromer-GalleyW.R.Neuman (2000, June). Interactivity and structured issue comparisons on the political web: An experimental study of the 2000 New Hampshire presidential primary. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico.
3. P.J.BoczkowskiE.Mitchelstein (2012). How users take advantage of different forms of interactivity on online news sites: Clicking, e-mailing, and commenting. Human Communication Research, 38, 1-22. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01418.x
4. S.E.Brennan (1998). The grounding problem in conversations with and through computers. In (Eds.), Social and cognitive psychological approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 201-225). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. S.E.BrennanE.Hulteen (1995). Interaction and feedback in a spoken language system: A theoretical framework. Knowledge-Based Systems, 8, 143-151. doi:10.1016/0950-7051(95)98376-H
6. R.W.BuellM.I.Norton (2011). The labor illusion: How operational transparency increases perceived value. Management Science, 57, 1564-1579. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1376
7. J.K.BurgoonJ.A.BonitoB.BengtssonA.RamirezJr.N.E.DunbarN.Miczo (1999). Testing the interactivity model: Communication processes, partner assessments, and the quality of collaborative work. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(3), 33-56. doi:10.1080/07421222.1999.11518255
8. H.H.ClarkS.E.Brennan (1991). Grounding in communication. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, 13, 127-149. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10096-006
9. H.H.ClarkE.F.Schaefer (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259-294. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1302_7
10. R.ColeS.van VuurenB.PellomK.HaciogluJ.MaJ.MovellanJ..Yan (2003). Perceptive animated interfaces: First steps toward a new paradigm for human-computer interaction. Proceedings of the IEEE, 91, 1391-1405.
11. C.K.CoursarisJ.Sung (2012). Antecedents and consequents of a mobile website’s interactivity. New Media Society, 14, 1128-1146. doi:10.1177/1461444812439552
12. J.R.CoyleE.Thorson (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30(3), 65-77. doi:10.1080/00913367.2001.10673646
13. D.CyrM.HeadA.Ivanov (2009). Perceived interactivity leading to e-loyalty: Development of a model for cognitive–affective user responses. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67, 850-869. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.07.004
14. B.H.DetenberM.WijayaH.Goh (May, 2008). Blogging and online friendships: The role of self-disclosure and perceived reciprocity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
15. Q.GaoP.L.P.RauG.Salvendy (2010). Measuring perceived interactivity of mobile advertisements. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29, 35-44. doi:10.1080/01449290802666770
16. E.Goffman (1967). Interaction ritual. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
17. E.Goffman (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
18. L.HaE.L.James (1998). Interactivity reexamined: A baseline analysis of early business web sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42, 457-474. doi:10.1080/08838159809364462
19. G.HaublV.Trifts (2000). Consumer decision making in online shopping environments: The effects of interactive decision aids. Marketing Science, 19, 4-21. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.19.1.4.15178
20. A.F.Hayes (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21. C.Heeter (1989). Implications of new interactive technologies for conceptualizing communication. In (Eds.), Media in the information age: Emerging patterns of adoption and consumer use (pp. 217-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. W.HillJ.Hollan (1994). History-enriched digital objects: Prototypes and policy issues. The Information Society, 10(2), 139-145. doi:10.1080/01972243.1994.9960164
23. K.IsbisterC.Nass (2000). Consistency of personality in interactive characters: Verbal cues, non-verbal cues, and user characteristics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 251-267. doi:10.1006/ijhc.2000.0368
24. J.F.Jensen (1998). Interactivity: Tracking a new concept in media and communication studies. Nordicom Review, 1, 185-204.
25. Z.JiangJ.ChanB.C.Y.TanW.S.Chua (2010). Effects of interactivity on website involvement and purchase intention. Journal of the Association for Information System, 11, 34-59. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol11/iss1/1
26. B.LidaS.HullK.Pilcher (2003). Breadcrumb navigation: An exploratory study of usage. Usability News, 5(1). Retrieved from http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/51/breadcrumb.asp
27. Y.Liu (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
28. Y.LiuL.J.Shrum (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
29. Y.LiuL.J.Shrum (2009). A dual-process model of interactivity effects. Journal of Advertising, 38(2), 53-68. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367380204
30. M.LombardJ.Snyder-Dutch (2001). Interactive advertising and presence: A framework. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 1(2). Retrieved from http://jiad.org/article13.html
31. M.L.Mauldin (1994). ChatterBots, TinyMuds, and the Turing test: Entering the Loebner prize competition. Proceedings of the National Conference on American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Menlo Park, CA. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=199288.199285
32. S.J.McMillanJ.S.Hwang (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 29-42. doi:10.1080/00913367.2002.10673674
33. Y.Moon (2000). Intimate exchanges: Using computers to elicit self-disclosure from consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 323-339. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209566
34. C.NassK.M.Lee (2001). Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 171-181. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.7.3.171
35. C.NassY.Moon (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81-103. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00153
36. J.Nielsen (2007). Breadcrumb navigation increasingly useful. Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox. Retrieved from http://www.nngroup.com/articles/breadcrumb-navigation-useful/
37. D.A.Norman (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Design, 6(3), 38-42. doi:10.1145/301153.301168
38. E.PelapratR.B.Shapiro (2002). User activity histories. In Proceedings of 2002 Annual Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’02), 876-877.
39. A.PowersS.Kiesler (2006). The advisor robot: Tracing people’s mental model from a robot’s physical attributes. In Proceedings of the First ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI ’06), 218-225.
40. S.Rafaeli (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes (pp. 110-134). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
41. S.RafaeliF.Sudweeks (1997). Networked interactivity [Electronic version]. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(4). Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00201.x/full
42. S.RafaeliF.Sudweeks (1998). Interactivity on the nets. In (Eds.), Network and netplay: Virtual groups on the Internet (pp. 173-190). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
43. B.ReevesC.Nass (1996). Media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York, NY: CLSI Publications.
44. E.RoblesA.SukumaranK.RickertsenC.Nass (2006, April). Being watched or being special: How I learned to stop worrying and love being monitored, surveilled and assessed. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’ 06), 831-839.
45. W.Schramm (1954). How communication works. In (Ed.), The process and effects of communication (pp. 3-26). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
46. M.Schudson (1978). The ideal of conversation in the study of mass media. Communication Research, 5, 320-329.
47. C.E.ShannonW.Weaver (1949). The mathematical theory of information. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
48. P.SkalskiR.Tamborini (2007). The role of social presence in interactive agent-based persuasion. Media Psychology, 10, 385-413. doi:10.1080/15213260701533102
49. D.Sohn (2011). Anatomy of interaction experience: Distinguishing sensory, semantic, and behavioral dimensions of interactivity. New Media & Society, 13, 1320-1335. doi:1461444811405806
50. J.H.SongG.M.Zinkhan (2008). Determinants of perceived web site interactivity. Journal of Marketing, 72, 99-113. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.2.99
51. J.Steuer (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42, 73-93. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x
52. J.Stromer-Galley (2000). On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication, 50, 111-132. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02865.x
53. J.Stromer-Galley (2004). Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process. The Information Society, 20, 391-394. doi:10.1080/01972240490508081
54. A.Subramony (2011, December5). 10 questions to ask Siri [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.maclife.com/article/gallery/10_questions_ask_siri
55. S.S.Sundar (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
56. S.S.Sundar (2007). Social psychology of interactivity in human-website interaction. In (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 89-104). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
57. S.S.Sundar (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In (Eds.), Digital, media, youth, and credibility (pp. 72-100). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
58. S.S.SundarS.KalyanaramanJ.Brown (2003). Explicating web site interactivity: Impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research, 30, 30-59. doi:10.1177/0093650202239025
59. S.S.SundarJ.Kim (2005). Interactivity and persuasion: Influencing attitudes with information and involvement. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5(2), 5-18. Retrieved from http://jiad.org/article59.html
60. S.S.SundarS.S.Marathe (2010). Personalization vs. customization: The importance of agency, privacy and power usage. Human Communication Research, 36, 298-322. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01377.x
61. S.S.SundarC.Nass (2000). Source orientation in human-computer interaction: Programmer, networker, or independent social actor?Communication Research, 27, 683-703. doi:10.1177/009365000027006001
62. S.S.SundarS.BellurJ.OhQ.XuH.Jia (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
63. L.TerveenJ.McMackinB.AmentoW.Hill (2002). Specifying preferences based on user history. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’02), 315-322.
64. K.S.ThorsonS.Rodgers (2006). Relationships between blogs as eWOM and interactivity, perceived interactivity, and parasocial interaction. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6(2), 34-44. doi:10.1080/15252019.2006.10722117
65. M.TremayneS.Dunwoody (2001). Interactivity, information processing, and learning on the World Wide Web. Science Communication, 23, 111-134. doi:10.1177/1075547001023002003
66. H.A.M.VoorveldP.C.NeijensE.G.Smit (2011). The relation between actual and perceived interactivity: What makes the web sites of top global brands truly interactive?Journal of Advertising, 40, 77-92. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367400206
67. A.WexelblatP.Maes (1999). Footprints: History-rich tools for information foraging. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’99), 270-277.
68. K.WiseB.HammanK.Thorson (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
69. G.Wu (2006). Conceptualizing and measuring the perceived interactivity of websites. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 28, 87-104. doi:10.1080/10641734.2006.10505193
70. J.XuI.BenbasatR.T.Cenfetelli (2010). Does live help service matter? An empirical test of the De Lone and McLean’s Extended Model in the e-service context. In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1-10. Retrieved from http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/HICSS.2010.158