downes , mcmillan - defining interactivity.pdf

ARTICLE

Defining interactivity............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

A qualitative identification of keydimensions

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

EDWARD J. DOWNESBoston University

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

SALLY J. McMILLANUniversity of Tennessee

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

AbstractThe literature on interactivity includes many assumptionsand some definitions but few tools for operationalizing theconcept of interactivity in computer-mediatedenvironments. This article takes an early step in filling thatgap. In-depth interviews with 10 individuals who workand teach in the field of interactive communication led toa conceptual definition of interactivity based on sixdimensions: direction of communication, time flexibility,sense of place, level of control, responsiveness, andperceived purpose of communication. Suggestions aremade for applying these dimensions to multiple forms ofcomputer-mediated communication. Future researchshould empirically test the existence and application ofthese dimensions.

Key wordscomputer-mediated communication • interactivity

The word ‘interactivity’ has been used to describe products ranging fromsnoring dolls and web-based brochures to video games and onlinetransactions. Scholars have employed the term to refer to everything fromface-to-face exchanges to computer-mediated communication. However,much of the literature, both popular and scholarly, uses the term

new media & society

Copyright © 2000 SAGE PublicationsLondon, Thousand Oaks, CA and New DelhiVol2(2):157–179 [1461–4448(200006)2:2;157–179;012223]

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

157

http:\\www.sagepub.co.uk

‘interactivity’ with few or no attempts to define it. Even when definitionsare found they are often contradictory. Such imprecision invites research,such as that reported by this article, which adds shape and form to theconcept of interactivity and suggests necessary foci for a conceptualdefinition.

This article begins with a synopsis of the literature and explanationstherein of the term ‘interactivity’. Based on concepts found in that literature,the authors asked individuals who are involved with emergingcommunication technologies to provide their insights about interactivity incomputer-mediated environments. A qualitative analysis of their responses tointerview questions revealed multiple themes that seem to underlie theconcept of interactivity. After careful consideration of both the conceptsfound in the literature and the themes that emerged from the interviews,the authors propose a conceptual definition of interactivity based on sixdimensions. Finally, suggestions are made for how this emerging definitioncan be used in future research.

LITERATURE REVIEWAn extensive body of literature exists about interaction in humancommunication. Much of this literature grows out of a sociologicaltradition. For example, the simultaneous transaction model addresses real-time, interpersonal exchange between individuals and is often framed interms of interaction (DeFleur et al., 1997). Jensen (1998: 188) suggestedthat, from the sociological perspective, interactivity is ‘the relationshipbetween two or more people who, in a given situation, mutually adapt theirbehavior and actions to each other’.

Another body of research examines interaction of human beings withcomputers. This literature grows out of the computer science tradition andfocuses on improving the interface of computer hardware and software.Thomas (1995: 2) described the study of human–computer interaction as a‘situated, particular, detailed, gritty, error–prone, and largely nondeterminedreality’. Jensen (1998) reported that researchers in the field of human-computer interfaces have identified the style of control that exists betweenthe human and the computer as the key determinant of interactivity.

Only in the past 10 to 15 years have scholars in the mass communicationtradition begun to examine the nature of interactivity in computer-mediatedcommunication. Rafaeli was one of the early investigators of interactivity inthe mass media context; in a 1990 study, he examined interactivity in thecontext of traditional media. However, much of his work has focused oncomputer-mediated environments. Rafaeli’s earliest definition of interactivity(1988: 111) was: ‘An expression of the extent that, in a given series ofcommunication exchanges, any third (or later) transmission (or message) isrelated to the degree to which previous exchanges referred to even earlier

New Media & Society 2(2)

158

transmissions’. In a 1997 study conducted with Sudweeks, Rafaeli revisedthat definition to: ‘The extent to which messages in a sequence relate toeach other, and especially the extent to which later messages recount therelatedness of earlier messages’. Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1997) identifiedinteractivity as ‘a theoretical construct that grapples with the origins ofcaptivation, fascination, and allure that can be inherent in computer-mediated groups’.

We chose to center our search for the definition of interactivity on thisrelatively new body of literature that focuses on computer-mediatedcommunication. Examination of technologies such as the internet and itsgraphical subset, the world wide web, has led researchers to the conclusionthat interactivity is a key advantage of such media (Morris and Ogan, 1997;Pavlik, 1996). But what is that interactivity?

Answering this question is not a simple task. Braman (1989), whodeveloped an approach to defining information, noted that definitions ofcore communication concepts (e.g. information and interactivity) are criticalfor policy makers and may dramatically impact society. Nevertheless,attempts to settle upon a single definition are problematic because theseconcepts are multi-faceted and because multiple definitions applyconcurrently.

Like information, interactivity is not a monolithic concept. But, becauseit is an emerging field, examination of interactivity must be narrowed. Wehave chosen to narrow our examination of interactivity by focusingprimarily on how individuals perceive interactivity in the context ofcomputer-mediated communication.

The literature of interactivity includes multiple concepts that help toexplain how individuals perceive interactivity in the context of computer-based communication. For example, Heeter (1989) suggested users exertmore effort when they attend to interactive media than to traditional mediaforms. However, McMillan (1998) found it was difficult to operationalizethis concept of effort in an analysis of web sites. Therefore, the relationshipof effort to interactivity requires further examination.

Role taking and feedback are two additional concepts that have appearedin several studies of interactivity. Rice (1984: 35) suggested ‘fully interactivemedia imply that the sender and receiver roles are interchangeable’. Morethan a decade later, Rogers (1995: 314) echoed the same theme when hedefined interactivity as ‘the degree to which participants in a communicationprocess can exchange roles in and have control over their mutual discourse’.

Steur (1992: 84) defined interactivity as ‘the extent to which users canparticipate in modifying the form and content of a mediated environment inreal time’. Rice and Williams (1984) also focused on real-timecommunication and suggested that media are interactive if they have thepotential for immediate, two-way exchange. But not all observers agree

Downes & McMillan: Defining interactivity

159

about the importance of real time. For example, Rheingold (1993)suggested that the asynchronous characteristics of tools such as email,newsgroups, and listservs is one of the key benefits of these interactivemedia. The importance of time in interactive communication needs to beexplored in more depth.

Chen (1984) suggested passivity and interactivity are qualities ofindividuals making use of media, not qualities of the media per se. Otherresearchers also suggested that individual uses are more important thanmedia features in determining interactivity (Kayany et al., 1996; Walther,1994). Some researchers, however, have argued that certain technologiespermit more interactivity than others. For example, Snyder (1996) focusedon ways in which the non-linear nature of hypertext enhances interactivity.

Changes in patterns of control are another issue researchers and observersare beginning to link to interactivity. As noted above, Rogers (1995)identified control over mutual discourse as a key element of interactivity.O’Keefe (1995) noted the web provides a two-edged sword: on the onehand, organizations have a robust media environment in which to tell theirown story in their own words; on the other hand, they cannot controlexactly what route individuals will take after they arrive at a web site. Finn(1998) suggested that the sender/receiver ratio of control in contentcreation, presentation, and preservation is a key dimension of computer-based communication information systems.

Ha (1998) identified information collection as a key dimension ofinteractivity. Blattberg and Deighton (1991) also identified audience trackingas a key advantage that computer-mediated systems offer marketingcommunicators. Dreze and Zufryden (1997) noted the importance thatmarketers attach to tracking users in interactive environments and theconcerns of consumers about losing their privacy in the process. However,the potential benefit for users is that, as their activities are tracked, messagescan be customized to match their interest.

Other studies have focused on advantages and disadvantages of interactivemedia. For example, Ang and Cummings (1994) found that computer-mediated environments enhance information-seeking. Schaffer and Hannafin(1986) found that recall was significantly enhanced by increased interactivity.Sproull and Kiesler (1991) reported that, within organizations, electronicwork groups can be as efficient or more efficient than face-to-face workgroups.

Finally, some researchers have associated disadvantages with computer-mediated communication. For example, Markus (1994) reported thatelectronic mail can filter out personal and social cues which may result in‘flaming’, public rebuke of senders, and depersonalization. Othercommentators have suggested computer-mediated communication goes


160

beyond simple disadvantage to real or perceived threat. For example, Stolz(1995) criticized computer-based communication as a threat to ‘real world’interaction among people in public places.

In summary, the literature suggested that examination of interactivityshould include attention to: user effort, sender and receiver roles, timeliness,characteristics of both the medium and the communicator, control, activitytracking, advantages, disadvantages, and potential threats.

METHODBased on the literature, we developed a structured interview instrument(Appendix 1) for use with a panel of experts (Appendix 2). This structuredformat, rather than one that was unstructured or more loosely structured,met our objectives. We wished to limit the interview to exploring theconcept of interactivity while opening the door for serendipitous insightsinto related issues which came from the initial responses to the questions(Singleton, 1993).

We believed it was necessary to qualify interactivity before we quantifiedit. Thus, our purpose in conducting the interviews was not so much to helpus to know what interactivity is, but rather to help us to understand and toexplain it. We sought breadth of informed opinion and shared intuition.Thus, we chose to explore the concept of interactivity in depth with a fewpeople rather than examining broad-based conceptions of interactivityamong a larger sample.

Data were gathered from the 10 respondents in face-to-face interviewsconducted in January and February 1998. These respondents all meetMarshall and Rossman’s definition of elites – experts who are ‘considered tobe influential, prominent, and/or well informed people in an organization. . .’ (1989: 113). All had been working with new technologies for severalyears; all had taught for several years. Descriptions of each respondent areprovided in Appendix 2. Real names are not used because respondents werepromised anonymity.

The tradition of interviewing a relatively small number of experts such asthese – as a means to uncover a social, cultural, economic, political,technical or other phenomenon – is fully recognized in the literature onqualitative methods (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994; Lee, 1999; Mason, 1996;Patton, 1987; Strauss, 1996; Marshall and Rossman, 1989). The advantagesto conducting interviews with elites is that such interviews allow for thediscovery of complex interconnections in social relationships; facilitateanalysis, triangulation and validity checks; generate working hypotheses; andprovide great utility for uncovering the subjective side of a phenomenon(here, the concept of interactivity) under investigation (Marshall andRossman, 1989).


161

We chose to interview these experts for two additional reasons. First, ourontological position suggested that the respondents ‘knowledge, views,understandings, interpretations, experience and interactions . . . [were]meaningful properties of the social reality under exploration’ (Mason, 1996:39) that could be best teased out via the structured interview. And second,that our epistemological position suggested that a legitimate way to generatedata on those ontological properties (was) to interact with people, to talk tothem, to listen to them, and to gain access to their accounts andarticulations (Mason, 1996: 40).

A script of 10 questions (see Appendix 1) was written before interviewsbegan, and each question was asked in the order presented. Occasionally afollow-up inquiry was made (Tell me more about that . . . Can you expandon that thought?). Each interview lasted between 20 and 90 minutes withan average time of 40 minutes.

We had several qualitative methodological options. We chose to utilizestructured interviews because, on balance, they appeared the best method bywhich to realize our goals of: (1) uncovering the subjective side of how thenotion of interactivity was viewed; (2) providing background context andhypotheses for a future, quantitatively driven research phase; (3)documenting the evolving nature of the concept of interactivity; and (4)quickly obtaining large amounts of contextual data (Marshall and Rossman,1989; Denzin and Lincoln, 1994).

The collection and analysis of these data is rooted in a phenomenologicalparadigm which holds that reality (here, the reality of those who both teachand practice computer-mediated communications) is socially constructed(Firestone, 1987; Strauss, 1996). Our respondents were in an ideal positionto identify the concepts and parameters of interactivity and to tell what thenotion, in its present state, is. Further, the affirmatives represented in thethemes provided rich insights into feelings, personal experiences, empathies,emotions, intuitions, subjective judgments, imaginations, and the diverseforms of creativity held by respondents (Rosoneau, 1992).

After interviews were completed, we read and re-read transcripts lookingfor responses that would provide shape and form to the concept ofinteractivity. Each of the primary researchers, as well as two graduatestudents who are developing expertise in the impact of new technologies oncommunication management, read the transcripts. Each sought pervasivethemes. Each read and re-read sections of the data, sometimes as much as adozen times. We then reconvened, read the transcripts aloud, anddetermined themes on which there was wide agreement. The findingssection below discusses only those themes on which at least three of thefour coders agreed. Naturally, every effort was made when writing results toallow the words of respondents to define the parameters related to theconcept under investigation.


162

FINDINGSThe interview data are reported below in three major categories: impacts,messages, and participants.

ImpactsRespondents’ comments about the impacts of computer-mediated interactivecommunication centered on three concepts: (1) revolution; (2)consequences; and (3) uncertainty.

Revolution. Without exception, respondents talked about the impacts ofinteractive computer-mediated communication on individuals, organizations,and society. But they were not always consistent in their evaluations of theimpacts of cyber-interactivity. Is it something revolutionary or just anadaptation of very old communication models? For example, Pam suggestedthat interaction has long been studied by sociologists and that computer-mediated interaction is really nothing new. Dennis suggested that theliterature on interpersonal and organizational communication holds the keyto understanding interactivity. Both Jake and Will noted that computerscientists have been studying interactivity for years in the context of human-computer interfaces. And Jeff suggested that interactivity is the traditionalcommunication model with a robust feedback loop. Thus, while parts ofinteractivity may be revolutionary, other parts seem to be nothing new.

Some respondents lauded the revolutionary nature of the computer as acommunication medium. For example, Joseph said the computer claims to‘do it all – video, sound, music, good quality, text, and images and voice’.This medium was also portrayed as breaking down walls between advertisingand selling, marketing and fulfillment, and organizations and their publics.

However, some respondents identified unique flaws in the medium. Forexample, two respondents noted specific problems with email. Pam said:‘Because it [email] is so casual, so fast, you dash it off, forgetting about theimpression on your colleague’. On a similar note, Jeff shared his impressionthat, ‘few receivers seem to read email carefully and thoughtfully’.

Despite the highlighting of both positive and negative ‘revolutions’, mostrespondents talked about interactivity in relatively traditional terms. Mostreferred regularly to senders and receivers, creators and audiences, anddevelopers and users. However, several suggested that new relationships weredeveloping among those who create and those who consume messages. Forexample, Joseph suggested that the computer-mediated environment allowsfor ‘three-party interactivity’ involving two people and a computer. Whilethe terms sender and receiver were used frequently to suggest a kind ofdichotomous relationship, many also expressed the belief that in interactivecommunication the roles become interchangeable.


163

In sum, respondents viewed interactivity as something old, somethingnew, something borrowed from other disciplines, and something bothpeople and computers do. While no clear consensus emerged about therevolutionary nature of the medium, most respondents used terminology,such as sender and receiver, that suggests a traditional communicationmodel.

Consequences. Regardless of their opinions about the revolutionarynature of computer-mediated communication, respondents were fairlyunanimous in their belief that this new communication form has, and willcontinue to have, far-reaching consequences. Joseph illustrated this consensuswhen he said: ‘It threatens whole industries, it threatens whole professions’.Dennis expanded this discussion primarily to communication professionals:

For those people who have traditionally distributed information in a one-to-many model, interactivity is changing the way you can do or should dobusiness because the opportunity now exists to put control in the hands of theuser. The implications of that, I think, are truly interesting things aboutinteractivity.

Amy discussed consequences in terms of the organizational communicationenvironment:

The old paradigm of ‘if knowledge is power, he who owns the knowledgeowns the power’ means that sharing knowledge can undermine one’s securityin corporate America. That doesn’t mean it’s doomed to failure, just that manycultural issues must be addressed before you can reasonably expect people toshare.

Bob brought the concept of consequences to the personal level: ‘Onecannot anticipate the consequence of getting out on the web and providinginformation that’s important to you’. He said interactivity can beempowering to the individual operating outside the corporate structure:

There is quite a bit of anarchy out there – which is encouraging. The fact that Ican become a spokesman for solar power, not because I spent the money toget a solar powered house built, but because of a site on the world wide webis, I think, totally threatening to the power company. Because I have a voicenow. I think the threat is to existing institutions and the old ways of doingthings.

Interactivity may represent a threat to institutions and professionalcommunicators at the same time that it creates new opportunities forindividuals participating in a collaborative and interactive environment. Butthe balance of power is not yet clear. Rita poetically summed up thepotentials: ‘The misrepresentation that you can do with multimedia can be


164

tremendously bad. Also, the other side is that you let other people createtheir dreams. Dreams and nightmares’.

In sum, respondents were in general agreement that computer-mediatedinteraction has far-reaching consequences with the potential to changeentire industries and forge new paradigms. Their comments suggest that ifthe power shifts they envision unfold, communication ‘management’ maybecome an oxymoron.

Uncertainty. The above discussion of both the potentially revolutionarynature and consequences of computer-mediated interactive communicationreveals an underlying reality: even ‘experts’ such as the subjects of ourinterviews are still uncertain about the exact impacts of this newcommunication form. Respondents disagreed with each other about keyconcepts such as the importance of ‘real time’ in interactive communication,the amount of effort interactive communication requires, and even whetherhuman beings are an integral part of interactive communication. Internaldisagreements were also found. For example, Joseph began by asserting thatinteractivity is typified by conversation but later indicated that transactionsare one of the most ‘intensely interactive processes’. Furthermore, phrasessuch as ‘I am not sure yet’, and ‘I can’t define it, but I know it when I seeit’ were used by many of the respondents.

Discussions of interactivity were characterized by a confusing mix ofterms. For example, Rita used the terms ‘interactivity’ and ‘multimedia’almost interchangeably. When asked whether the terms were synonymousshe replied: ‘Yes and no. All things in life are multimedia. The entirespectrum is also interactive. The new-technology multimedia works on thesame concept with different tools. Multimedia for me is ancient.Interactivity is ancient. The tools are new.’

The concept of hypertextual links was also often mixed with the conceptof interactivity. For example, Will said: ‘I can rearrange, sometimes, thecontent where I am no longer bound to a linear fashion because ofhypertext. So that would be an interactive multimedia experience.’

In sum, the impacts of interactive, computer-mediated communicationtechnologies are still evolving. Even the ‘experts’ are not yet certain exactlywhat the concept means. However, all of the respondents seem to suggestthat interactivity is a multi-faceted concept. And despite occasionaldisagreements, it seems that two key components of interactivity are themessages themselves and the people who participate in interactivecommunication.

MessagesThree message-based concepts emerged from the interviews: (1) the natureand direction of messages; (2) the importance of time to message structure


165

and retrieval; and (3) the creation of a sense of place in computer-mediatedenvironments.

Nature and direction. Most respondents said the computer is closely tiedto their concepts of interactivity. Some believe the computer provides anideal medium for facilitating communication. For example, Joseph said: ‘Theinternet was designed with interactivity in mind. All of its technical makeupand its design from the beginning were interactive’. He also indicated thatone of the key advantages of the computer as a medium is that it canintegrate functions that used to be split between active and passive media.He illustrated with a comment on interactive advertising:

Right now advertising has little to do with buying and selling. It’s donethrough a different medium, at a different time, in a different place, with adifferent purpose. Right? We don’t advertise to sell something. We advertise tochange someone’s attitude or image or proclivity (mental state). And we do itthrough a passive mass media. Buying and selling, we do in a whole differentatmosphere, whole different system that involves transactions. Now we have amedium that can do both.

Jake sought balance in describing the medium: ‘The important thing still. . . is the humans behind the medium. Having said that, it is important tohave a good medium so you can interact. So if you have email or theinternet you have a good medium for interaction.’

Others, however, expressed concern that the computer is less than aperfect medium for some types of communication. Kent shared a story of‘cyber-flirting’. He met a woman online through a matchmaking service.They exchanged email for several weeks. ‘I was convinced I was in lovewith this person’, he said. They shared many things in common, enjoyedthe same humor, shared a depth of knowledge about popular culture. Hesaved all her email messages. ‘I could go back and laugh at it later – dayslater, hours later. I could go back and think about that funny thing whichyou can’t do as well with phone conversations’. Within a few weeks theytalked on the phone and he knew instantly that the magic that existed inemail was missing from their voice conversation. They met, and werefurther convinced that the relationship they had built online just didn’t exist‘in the real world’. It was not that either was particularly unattractive, Kentsaid, it was just that in the ‘unedited’ environment of real-time exchange byvoice or face-to-face communication they could not experience the sameexcitement and fun that they found in carefully crafting messages by email.Kent summarized the experience:

I don’t know what to take out of there but there is definitely somethinginteresting there. Interaction via email. Real time interaction versus chat. Andhow that is different from real time interaction via voice and meeting face-to-


166

face. Timing makes a difference and meeting makes a difference. Interestingexperience, but the medium can alter your opinion of someone.

It may be that all interactive communication must be two-waycommunication. However, some forms of computer-mediatedcommunication are much more like traditional one-way communicationthan others. For example, Pam noted ‘Just because you get at a computerand you start pushing buttons, or you get to jump from this site to that site,you’ve got some choice’. She saw this as a form of interactivity. Web sitesthat provide online brochures for an organization might require user activity;the viewer may select options from a menu. But this is not much differentfrom turning the pages of a physical brochure. In both the web site and thebrochure, the communication is primarily one-way: from the sender to thereceiver.

Most respondents assumed that interactive communication must be two-way. They talked about how the technologies inherent in the internet allowfor a robust feedback loop. And they also talked about how individuals canshift between sender and receiver roles. The literature also seems to assumetwo-way communication. The Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1997) description ofthe recursive nature of interactivity assumes a two-way flow ofcommunication; and both Rice (1984) and Rogers (1995) suggest thatinteractive communication requires that sender and receiver roles beinterchangeable.

While it might be tempting to discount one-way communication assomething less than interactivity, to do so would fail to recognize someunique forms of communication that are evolving on the internet. Forexample, Jake talked about how he uses searchable databases to facilitategroup work. These databases provide a resource for remote education andare valuable forms of communication that do not have exact parallels outsideof the environment of media such as the internet. These content-rich sitestypify a form of one-way communication in which the receiver exertsprimary control over the message.

In sum, while many respondents lauded the benefits of this new medium,several also indicated concern about the limitations inherent in computer-based interactivity. In particular, they experienced a sense of falseness whensuch communication became personalized and called for a deeper, sharedmeaning. Most respondents described interactivity as two-waycommunication, but some also recognized interactive communications thatare more one-way in nature.

Time. As some respondents talked about interactivity they suggested that thecloser to ‘real time’ an interchange, the more interactive it becomes. Kentsaid: ‘This is probably because most of the interaction in the past was in realtime’. Dennis also stressed the importance of timeliness: ‘I think it [real-time


167

communication] is incredibly important. Almost by definition, interactionrequires immediate response.’ Will echoed similar ideas and placed them inan interpersonal context: ‘The closer you can get to the human exchangethe more valuable it becomes’.

Other respondents did not believe timing of messages is central tointeractivity. Jake said: ‘Real-time is not at all important. I can send mail toyou and if you are there, you can give me the immediate response. But ifyou are not, you can log in a couple of hours later or another day. And stillyou will be able to respond to what I said. Which to me is a plus.’ Pamtook a situational perspective. She said: ‘Obviously, the closer it is to thatimmediate time, then, I think it fits . . . it’s more interactive’. Joseph waseven more situationally oriented in his discussion of the role of timing:‘Time is important, but you have to consider it in terms of the nature ofthe conversation. When do we expect and need immediacy, and when dowe expect and need a delay?’

Timing, our data suggest, may be more important to some of the types ofinteractive communication than to others. For example, when an individualis communicating with a marketer about a potential purchase, immediate orquick response may be an important measure of interactivity. But, in othercases the ability to respond at a convenient time may be more important. Asseveral interview respondents pointed out, tools such as email allow them toachieve interpersonal communication without co-presence. Thus, theimportance of timing seems to be its level of flexibility to the demands ofthe situation rather than its immediacy.

In sum, while there was a consensus that media such as the internet allowfor interaction to take place at different times, there was a wide range ofopinion as to whether real time is necessary for such an interchange to belabeled interactive. A key issue seems to be that participants have somecontrol over the timing of messages in computer-based interactiveenvironments.

Place. The final message-based concept to emerge from interviews wassense of place. Several respondents indicated that interactive computer-mediated communication can transcend geography to create a kind ofvirtual place. For example, Kent said the online world ‘seems to createpublic places again’. In these public places people can meet on the basis of‘what they are thinking and writing’ rather than on the basis of physicalcharacteristics such as appearance, status, etc.

Many respondents referred to the ‘place’ where computer-mediatedcommunication occurs. For example, Joseph said ‘interactivity goes on rightthere in that computer and person’. Similarly, Bob referred to highlyinteractive web sites as those that ‘invite you back time and again’,


168

suggesting that the site visitor is not only viewing but being transported to aspecific place.

Two respondents focused on ways the multimedia nature of web sites cancreate a sense of place. Will described a future in which web sites couldhave the ability to let him pre-tour his vacation location by immersing himin media experiences ranging from text to contextual video. But he noted apotential downside to such a sensory-rich experience: ‘If I can get the fullexperience in the synthesized form, do I need the place?’ Similarly, Dennisenvisioned the total immersion of virtual reality as an advanced form ofcyber-interactivity. By utilizing multiple types of media and responsemechanisms, the computer can be completely responsive to his actions.

Some of the factors that may help to create a sense of place includegreater use of multiple types of media and a greater opportunity forinterchanges among the participants. For example, Joseph identified the GapKids web site as one of the best ‘places’ on the web. He spoke of how thesite enables the individual to physically participate in a shopping experienceincluding ‘trying on’ the clothes as one drags and drops specific clothingitems onto virtual people.

In an interesting twist on the concept of place, Jake first noted that oneof the primary benefits of computer-mediated communication is that peopledon’t have to be in the same place at the same time to be able tocommunicate effectively. But then he went on to note that tools such asemail, listservs, and bulletin boards can create a kind of ‘virtual place’ wherea virtual community can come together to collaboratively solve problems.

In sum, respondents suggested that the more interactive a computer-mediated communication environment becomes, the more likely that theindividual will feel that he/she has been transported to a virtual place. Inthose places, they may encounter experiences ranging from a resurgence ofpublic life to new forms of retail shopping.

ParticipantsThree concepts emerged from the interviews that relate to the individualswho participate in interactive media: (1) control; (2) responsiveness; and (3)perceived goals.

Control. Some respondents focused on control from the sender’s perspectiveand some from the user’s point of view. Pam’s comments summarize user-oriented perspectives about control:

I think control is a critical factor. Maybe it’s kind of the central factor. It’s notjust that I determine where I go or what content I view or what buttons Iselect. It’s that I control the timing, I control the content, I control to whomI’m going to address this. I control, in some respects, with whom I want tohave this exchange and interaction.


169

Dennis also expressed the opinion that interactive media shift control tothe ‘users’ of the medium. He said that this shift can be very troubling toprofessionals who have become accustomed to controlling the content oftraditional mass media:

The true meaning or the consequence of greatest import in interactivity is thatwe are transferring control to the user. The control of production is one issue,but that only matters to us as professionals if we perceive that the control ofproduction somehow contributes to the control of perception and understoodmeaning. Every time you give the user more control it means you have evenless control over the potential meaning than could be derived from yourinformation.

Not all respondents, however, believed that interactive communicationshifts control to the user. Bob acknowledged that such a shift might be anideal to strive for, but it is not yet a reality:

At this time, the author has the control. The person who has put together thegame, or the web site, or the information has the control. They set theparameters for the response on the part of the user. I think as we train studentsto become authors, to become producers of interactive material, the goal is forthem to set the parameters as deep as possible and as wide as possible so thatthe user perceives that he/she is in control. Are they really in control? Not yet.

In sum, respondents were in general agreement that while the sender hascontrol of the message, the receiver has control as to whether he/she will:(1) indicate to the sender that the message was received; (2) attend to themessage; or (3) pretend that it was never sent. Thus, it would seem that thereceiver has control over the feedback loop in a way more characteristic ofmass media than of interpersonal communication.

Responsiveness. As noted earlier, the literature reflects some differingperspectives on the amount of effort required for interactive communication.In discussing effort with the experts who provided the insights for thisarticle, we began to realize that effort may be a less meaningful conceptthan responsiveness. In some cases, the individual participants in interactivecommunication may need to exert more effort because they are respondingto messages they see on the screen. But this may seem like less effortbecause the interchange with a responsive partner (human or computer)helps to facilitate communication. Kent provided an example of how aresponsive system can require both more and less effort:

I think interactivity requires a lot of effort. But on the web it seems thatviewers are very passive still. People don’t want to work on the web. There iseffort, but there is payoff because you have so much information. It is lesseffort in a way. I would rather make a decision [about purchasing an airline


170

ticket] myself and see all the options than work through that person who isreading stuff off the computer. So, I see it as less effort and more empowering.

Among those respondents who believed that interactivity requires effort,most framed that effort in terms of responsiveness. For example, Josephsuggested interactivity requires twice as much effort as traditional mediatedcommunication because communicators have to think about how to presentinformation and also about how to respond to information they receive.Dennis suggested that effort is ‘the definition of interactivity, because if youare giving control to me then the output requires my exerting that control’.In other words, the participant must respond to the control options that areprovided in the medium.

Responsiveness is a key element of the Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1997)definition of interactivity. They wrote that interactive communicationrequires all messages in a sequence to relate to each other. This implies thatinteractivity is a series of related active and reactive communications.Respondents were in general agreement that computer-mediatedcommunication is more active than other types of mediated communication.Joseph spoke of individuals communicating through computers: ‘They act bytyping words or selecting things or moving things, or talking or a variety ofthings’.

Reaction goes beyond simple selection and choice of options. Ratherthan just making choices, individuals can customize the content to suit theirneeds. Will said that the capability of customizing messages for individuals orgroups was central to the notion of interactivity. Using the example ofsearch engines, he pointed out that the individual should be able to ‘drive’the search engine and the search engine should respond. If the individualhas conducted a particular kind of search in the past, the next time hereturns to the search engine it will remember his searching patterns. ‘As itlearns my preferences, it can then make suggestions to me’, he said.

In sum, responsive communication may require more effort and/oractivity than passive message reception. But respondents were fairlyunanimous in their belief that responsive communication has so manybenefits that the participant may think that less effort has been exerted.

Perceived goals. The actual goal of communication may be determined bythe creator of the message. However, discussions of goals among ourrespondents seem to focus on perceptions about goals rather than the goalsthemselves. Because this article focuses on how individuals perceiveinteractivity, it is the individuals’ perceptions rather than the actual goals thatare the focus.

Interview respondents talked about ways in which organizations are usingcomputer-mediated communication to advance their causes. The samemedium can be used to communicate a sales message and to transact the


171

sale. But not all computer-mediated communication is designed to persuade.Rather, respondents seemed to view persuading and informing as two pointson a continuum of communication goals. In some cases, communicationgoals are more oriented toward exchanging information. For example, Jakeshared the experience of online collaboration that enabled a group ofprogrammers to coordinate their work for a specific client.

Public relations practitioners have long recognized the fact thatcommunication may be oriented to persuading and/or informing. In fact,goals are one of the key variables Grunig and Grunig (1989) use in definingfour models of public relations. But we believe study of interactivity needsto move beyond how organizations define their communication goals tohow communication participants perceive the goals of those with whomthey communicate.

In conclusion, individual perceptions of communication goals are animportant aspect of interactivity. Individuals are willing to accept messagesbased on both persuasive and informational goals in the interactivecommunication environment. But the ways in which they respond to thosemessages may be more consistent with their own perceptions than with theactual goals of the content creator.

DEFINITIONJoseph told us that any attempts to define interactivity are futile at this time.‘Nobody knows, because the field of interactive communication is in itsinfancy, what the possibilities are. You have to base your definition ofinteractivity on what’s out there. And it changes every day. So yourdefinition is going to have to be a bit loose in the beginning’. Bobconfirmed the evolutionary nature of computer-mediated interactivity:

We don’t know what it’s going to be. It has its own momentum, in part set bythe communication industry, and the software industry, and the user’s settings.We don’t know where it’s going, except that it’s going real fast. And a slightshift in its heading will head it off in another hemisphere, if we’re not careful.

Several respondents told us interactivity is not a simple concept. Josephsaid: ‘It’s not a single dimension. You are not trying to argue this isinteractivity, this is not. You’re just trying to say that it includes thesethings’. Pam said: ‘Interactivity is going to be a continuum, I think’.

Despite the evolving nature of computer-based interactivity, we believethat a definition does emerge from the concepts found in the literature andin our in-depth interviews. However, it is clear that interactivity is a multi-dimensional construct and each of those dimensions seems to be representedby a continuum.

Concepts related to the impact of interactive communication (revolution,consequences, and uncertainty) help to provide a framework for


172

understanding why interactivity is such an important concept in theevolving field of computer-mediated communication. However, the threemessage-based dimensions and the three participant-based dimensions seemto offer the most promise for helping us understand and define the actualconcept of interactivity.

With respect to the message-based dimensions, our research suggests thatinteractivity increases as:

• Two-way communication enables all participants to activelycommunicate.

• Timing of communication is flexible to meet the time demandsof participants.

• The communication environment creates a sense of place.

With respect to the participant-based dimensions, our research suggests thatinteractivity increases as:

• Participants perceive that they have greater control of thecommunication environment.

• Participants find the communication to be responsive.• Individuals perceive that the goal of communication is more

oriented to exchanging information than to attempting topersuade.

DISCUSSIONMost communication in computer-mediated environments may beinteractive. However, we believe varying levels of interactivity exist. Each ofthe message dimensions (direction, time, and place) and the participantdimensions (control, responsiveness, and perceived goals) seem to becontinua. But even when these dimensions have values on the low end ofthe continuum, individuals may still perceive that they are participating ininteractive communication. Something about the computer-mediatedcommunication environment suggests that interactivity occurs even whenthe direction of communication is more one way than two way, when theparticipant has relatively little control, and so on.

For example, many organizations believe that they have created aninteractive communication tool when they create a corporate web site(McMillan, 1999). Many of these corporate web sites are little more than anonline brochure. But sites such as these do have some characteristics (albeitat low levels) of interactivity. Site visitors believe that by pushing buttonsand navigating through the site they are exerting some control andexperiencing some machine-based responsiveness. While turning the page ofa paper-based brochure is also exerting control and receiving a mailed


173

answer to a request for more information is also responsive, somehow thoseactivities that take place in the ‘real world’ are not seen as being as‘interactive’ as their cyberspace counterparts. Why is this? Is this a short-term anomaly that reflects society’s tendency to be enamored of newtechnologies? Or is there some inherent characteristic of computer-mediatedcommunication that makes it truly more interactive? Future research needsto explore these questions.

At the other extreme, cyberspace does seem to offer opportunities fornew forms of interactivity. Virtual communities described and promoted bywriters such as Rheingold (1993) seem to represent such an opportunity.Such virtual communities often include user-created content, virtualmeeting rooms, both synchronous and asynchronous two-waycommunication options, and an information-rich environment. Inenvironments such as this, each of the dimensions identified above may havevalues on the high end of the continuum: communication is two way,timing of communication is flexible, the communication environmentcreates a sense of place, participants have control over their communicationexperience, communication is responsive, and the purpose of the site seemsto focus on information exchange. But is this kind of environment new, ormerely an extension of both interpersonal and mediated communication?Does moving a conversation into a virtual community change thatconversation in any way from what it would have been in a geographicalcommunity? Or, does the technology of computer-mediated communicationsimply enrich the long-distance conversations that telephone technology hasfacilitated for more than 100 years? Future research should explore thesequestions.

Thus far, we have suggested two extremes: either low values or highvalues on each of the interactivity continua. But what if some values arehigh while others are low? For example, is there a form of cyber-interactivity in which the message dimensions of interactivity (direction,time, and place) are low while the participant dimensions (control,responsiveness, and goal) are high? Content-rich, searchable databases andonline publications might fit this model as individuals exert a high level ofcontrol over the information they receive but have relatively little two-waycommunication, control over timing of messages, or sense of place as theynavigate through such databases and publications. But do individuals whoaccess this type of information consider it to be interactive?

What if message dimensions are high while participant dimensions arelow? E-commerce might fit this profile as online retailers create virtualmarketplaces that lead the shopper through an experience that is sensitive tothe shopper’s time needs and allows for two-way communication that resultsin a purchase. But we must ask whether this virtual marketplace represents anew form of interactivity or whether it simply moves the shopping


174

experience to a new space and time in much the same way that catalogshave long served as an alternative to the physical shopping experience.

Future research needs to further explore the relative importance of bothmessage dimensions and participant dimensions of interactivity. Much earlyattention seems to focus on the message dimensions. When asked to defineinteractivity, our respondents often first talked about characteristics of theinteractive medium. But these message dimensions seem to be very closelylinked to participant dimensions. In particular, the individual’s control overthe message seems to be a key determinant of interactivity.

In addition to a broad exploration of the relative importance of message-based and participant-based concepts, future research also needs to exploreeach of the six dimensions of interactivity identified in this research. Howimportant is each to the individual’s perceptions of interactivity incomputer-mediated environments? Scales should be developed to measureeach dimension and the relationship of each to the global concept ofinteractivity.

Despite the uncertainty about interactivity and its potentiallyrevolutionary characteristics, interactive communication may indeed havefar-reaching consequences as suggested by our interviewees. It is importantfor those who study, develop, and participate in computer-mediatedcommunication to understand the concepts and potential consequences ofeach of the six dimensions of interactivity identified in this article.

APPENDIX 1

Interview instrumentI’m interested in your thoughts on issues related to the concept ofinteractivity and computers. The information I’m gathering, over the nextfew minutes, from talking to experts (such as you) will help me – and Ihope will help others – to better understand the impact of newtechnologies. I’m tape recording our conversation so that, in the weeksahead, I can refer to the tape, and, in turn, take some notes off it. Justanswer the questions with whatever comes to mind. Feel free, too, to ‘pass’on any questions.

The information gathered from this interview and others will be used inorder to write an academic article; it’s not intended for any purpose otherthan that. At the conclusion of interviews such as these I always destroy thetapes and, therefore, can assure you your answers will remain confidential.How does that sound? Any questions?

1. What does the concept of ‘interactivity’ mean to you?2. How much effort, relative to that expended for other types of

communication, do you think interactive communication requires?


175

3. One of my colleagues recently suggested to me that fully interactivemedia create a situation in which the roles of the sender and receiverare interchangeable. What do you think of that idea?

4. How important do you think it is for interactive communication tooccur in ‘real time?’ In other words, is it necessary for responses – inorder to be deemed ‘interactive responses’ – to be immediate?

5. Someone recently said, and I’ll paraphrase, that ‘interactivity is aquality of individuals who are making use of a medium, rather thanbeing a quality of a medium itself ’. How would you respond to this?

6. Some kinds of communication give the communicator more controlthan others. For example, a public relations practitioner does not havecomplete control over how a reporter will cover a press conference,whereas an advertising professional has control over what anadvertisement will look like. Tell me what you think about the issue of‘control’ as it applies to interactive communication?

7. How important is it to track the activity of people who areparticipating in interactive media?

8. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of different formsof interactive communication?

9. A communications professional recently said to me that she seesinteractivity as ‘threatening’. How would you respond to her?

10. Finally, thank you for your willingness to share your ideas on thesetopics. Can you tell me if there are any major, related issues we didn’taddress above. What have we missed?

APPENDIX 2

Profile of respondentsJoseph gained substantial experience as both an educator and executive forone of the nation’s leading computer firms. He serves on the full-timefaculty at one of the country’s top communication programs.

Pam recently published a book on the uses of new technologies and has anextensive background in media research, theory, and computer-assistedinstruction and design.

Dennis has extensive professional and academic experience, primarily in theadvertising industry. He teaches a variety of courses on interactivecommunication while serving on the full-time faculty at a prominentsouthern university.

Bob directs a technology task force for one of the leading communicationprograms in the US. He concentrates on the integration of new technology,such as interactive multimedia, into the university’s programs.


176

Jake has served as an instructor for the past 15 years at a prominent researchand technology university. He has worked extensively in the ongoingdevelopment of his institution’s computer courses and played a significantrole in shaping the related curriculum.

Kent manages content development for a large student-oriented web site.He also manages the university students who are responsible for creation ofthe content.

Will has post-graduate training in computer science with an emphasis inartificial intelligence. He currently teaches university students the technicalaspects of building sophisticated web sites.

Rita works professionally as a multimedia-media designer. She hasexperience as a journalist, film maker, and artist. She teaches universitystudents the basics of using computers as a tool for communication.

Amy works for a company that specializes in facilitating collaborativeworkplace strategies. She has post-graduate education in philosophy and isalso active in creating several ‘virtual communities’ oriented to support ofprofessional women.

Jeff is a recently retired journalist whose computer experience began withmainframes in the 1960s, progressed to minicomputers in the 1970s, andevolved to microcomputers in the 1980s. He currently uses emailextensively in his teaching of university writing courses.

ReferencesAng, S. and L.L. Cummings (1994) ‘Panel Analysis of Feedback-Seeking Patterns in

Face-to-Face, Computer Mediated, and Computer-Generated CommunicationEnvironments’, Perceptual and Motor Skills 79: 67–73.

Blattberg, R.C. and J. Deighton (1991) ‘Interactive Marketing: Exploiting the Age ofAddressability’, Sloan Management Review (Fall): 5–14.

Braman, S. (1989) ‘Defining Information: An Approach for Policymakers’,Telecommunications Policy 13: 233–42.

Chen, M. (1984) ‘Computers in the Lives of Our Children: Looking Back on aGeneration of Television Research’, in R.E. Rice (ed.) The New Media:Communication, Research, and Technology, pp. 269–86. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

DeFleur, M.L., P. Kearney, and T.G. Plax (1997) Fundamentals of Human Communication(2nd edn). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.

Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

Dreze, X. and F. Zufryden (1997) ‘Testing Web Site Design and Promotion Content’,Journal of Advertising Research (March/April): 77–91.

Finn, T.A. (1998) ‘A Conceptual Framework for Organizing Communication andInformation Systems’, paper presented at the International CommunicationAssociation Conference, Jerusalem, 20–4 July.


177

Firestone, W.A. (1987) ‘Meaning in Method: The Rhetoric of Quantitative andQualitative Research’, Educational Researcher (October): 16–21.

Grunig, J.E. and L.A. Grunig (1989) ‘Toward a Theory of Public Relations Behavior ofOrganizations: Review of a Program of Research’, in J.E. Grunig and L.A. Grunig(eds) Public Relations Research Annual, Volume 1, pp. 27–63. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Ha, L. (1998) ‘Interactivity in Business Web Sites: A Content Analysis’, paper presentedat the American Academy of Advertising Conference, Lexington, KY, 27–30 March.

Heeter, C. (1989) ‘Implications of New Interactive Technologies for ConceptualizingCommunication’, in J.L. Salvaggio and J. Bryant (eds) Media Use in the InformationAge: Emerging Patterns of Adoption and Computer Use, pp. 221–5. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jensen, J.F. (1998) ‘Interactivity: Tracing a New Concept in Media and CommunicationStudies’, Nordicom Review 19(1): 185–204.

Kayany, J.M., C.E. Worting, and E.J. Forrest (1996) ‘Relational Control and InteractiveMedia Choice in Technology-Mediated Communication Situations’, HumanCommunication Research 22: 399–421.

Lee, T.W. (1999) Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

Lynne, M.L. (1994) ‘Finding a Happy Medium: Explaining the Negative Effects ofElectronic Communication on Social Life at Work’, ACM Transactions on InformationSystems 14: 119–49.

Markus, M.L. (1994) ‘Finding a Happy Medium: Explaining the Negative Effects ofElectronic Communication on Social Life at Work’, ACM Transactions on InformationSystems 14: 119–49.

Marshall, C. and G.B. Rossman (1989) Designing Qualitative Research. Newbury Park,CA: Sage Publications.

Mason, J. (1996) Qualitative Researching. London: Sage Publications.McMillan, S.J. (1998) ‘Who Pays for Content? Funding in Interactive Media’, Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication 4(1), URL: (consulted Feb. 1999) http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue1/mcmillan.html

McMillan, S.J. (1999) ‘Advertising Age and Interactivity: Tracing Media EvolutionThrough the Advertising Trade Press’, paper presented at the American Academy ofAdvertising Conference, Albuquerque, NM, 26–9 March.

Morris, M. and C. Ogan (1997) ‘The Internet as Mass Medium’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 1(4), URL: (consulted Feb. 1999) http://www.cwis.usc.edu/dept/annenberg/vol1/issue4/vol1no4.html

O’Keefe, S. (1995) Publicity on the Internet: Creating Successful Publicity Campaigns. NewYork: Alfred A. Knopf.

Patton, M.Q. (1987) How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications.

Pavlik, J.V. (1996) New Media Technology: Cultural and Commercial Perspectives. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.

Rafaeli, S. (1988) ‘Interactivity: From New Media to Communication’, in R.P.Hawkins, J.M. Wiemann and S. Pingree (eds) Advancing Communication Science: MergingMass and Interpersonal Process, pp. 110–34. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rafaeli, S. (1990) ‘Interacting with Media: Para-Social Interaction and Real Interaction’,in B.D. Ruben and L.A. Liverouw (eds) Mediation, Information and Communication:Information and Behavior, Volume 3, pp. 125–81. New Brunswick, NJ: TransactionPublishers.


178

Rafaeli, S. and F. Sudweeks (1997) ‘Networked Interactivity’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2(4), URL: (consulted Feb. 1999) http://www.usc.edu/dept/annenberg/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html

Rheingold, H. (1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. NewYork: Addison-Wesley.

Rice, R.E. (1984) ‘New Media Technology: Growth and Integration’, in R.E. Rice(ed.) The New Media: Communication, Research, and Technology, pp. 33–54. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

Rice, R.E. and F. Williams (1984) ‘Theories Old and New: The Study of New Media’,in R.E. Rice (ed.) The New Media: Communication, Research, and Technology, pp. 55–80.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rogers, E.M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations (4th edn). New York: Free Press.Rosoneau, P.M. (1992) Post Modernism in the Social Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.Schaffer, L.C. and M.J. Hannafin (1986) ‘The Effects of Progressive Interactivity on

Learning from Interactive Video’, Educational Communication and Technology 34: 89–96.Singleton, R.A. (1993) Approaches to Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press.Snyder, I. (1996) Hypertext: The Electronic Labyrinth. Melbourne: Melbourne University

Press.Sproull, L. and S. Kiesler (1991) ‘Computers, Networks, and Work’, Scientific American

(September): 116–23.Steur, J. (1992) ‘Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence’, Journal

of Communication 42: 73–93.Stolz, C. (1995) Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway. New York:

Doubleday.Strauss, A.L. (1996) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge

University Press.Thomas, P.J. (1995) ‘Introduction: The Social and Interactional Dimensions of Human-

Computer Interfaces’, in P.J. Thomas (ed.) The Social and Interactional Dimensions ofHuman-Computer Interfaces, pp. 1–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walther, J.B. (1994) ‘Anticipated Ongoing Interaction Versus Channel Effects onRelational Communication in Computer-Mediated Interaction’, HumanCommunication Research 20: 473–501.

EDWARD J. DOWNES is an assistant professor at Boston University. His expertise is incommunication management, public relations, public affairs, program administration, andqualitative research. His most recent work was published in the Journal of Public RelationsResearch.Address: Boston University, College of Communication, 640 Commonwealth Ave, Boston, MA02215. [email: [email protected]]SALLY J. MCMILLAN is an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee. Her researchfocuses on the individual, organizational and social impacts of interactive communicationtechnologies and has been published in journals such as the Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication and Health Communication as well as proceedings of the American Academyof Advertising conference and the Advertising and Consumer Psychology conference.Address: The University of Tennessee, College of Communication, 476 CommunicationBuilding, Knoxville, Tennessee, TN 37996. [email: [email protected]]


179

downes , mcmillan - defining interactivity.pdf

Documents