Interactivity: A Concept Explication: University of Florida, USA

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
new media & society

Copyright 2002 SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi
Vol4(3):355383 [14614448(200209)4:3,355383;026203]
ARTICLE
Interactivity: a concept
explication
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
SPIRO KIOUSIS
University of Florida, USA
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Abstract
The use of interactivity as a variable in empirical
investigations has dramatically increased with the
emergence of new communication channels such as the
world wide web. Though many scholars have employed
the concept in analyses, theoretical and operational
definitions are exceedingly scattered and incoherent.
Accordingly, the purpose of this project is to engender a
detailed explication of interactivity that could bring some
consensus to how the concept should be theoretically and
operationally defined. Following Chaffees (1991)
framework for concept explication, we generate new
theoretical and operational definitions that may be central
to future work in this area. In particular, we suggest that
interactivity is both a media and psychological factor that
varies across communication technologies, communication
contexts, and peoples perceptions.
Key words
communication technologies computer mediated
communication interactivity new media
INTRODUCTION
With the ongoing influx of new communication technologies, many
traditional concepts in mass communication are being redefined, reworked,
and reinvented. Indeed, McQuail (1994) and Williams et al. (1988) argue
that the convergence of new technologies is skewing the boundaries
involved in traditional mass communication theories. For example, many
355
New Media & Society 4(3)
scholars have highlighted the confusion embedded in theoretical discussions

surrounding the concept of interactivity and the subsequent problems it
raises in research (e.g. Heeter, 1989; McMillan, 2000; Newhagen et al.
1995; Steuer, 1992). Such questions ask, among other things, whether
interactivity is a characteristic of the context in which messages are
exchanged; is it strictly dependent upon the technology used in
communication interactions; or is it a perception in users minds? As such, it
would be valuable to explicate the concept in an attempt to contribute to
the terms theoretical foundation, which has lagged far behind the
proliferation of empirical work that zeros in on it. Consequently, in this
analysis, Chaffees (1991) framework for concept explication is employed to
carefully dissect this variable.
Typically, a concept explication is part of a larger empirical study, but in
some instances, it is an entire project in itself especially when conceptions
are hotly contested, as has been the case with interactivity (e.g. Hoffman
and Novak, 1996; Pavlik, 1998). More than anything else, explication is
about theorizing. Chaffee states that without explication, our words are
nothing more than words, and our data add nothing to them. Theory, or
more exactly, theorizing, consists of an interplay among ideas, evidence, and
inference (1991: 14). Accordingly, the following steps were executed to
complete this project:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
provide a general background of interactivity;

survey relevant literature on the concept;
identify the concepts central operational properties;
locate present definitions of the concept;
evaluate and modify those definitions;
propose a conceptual definition;
propose an operational definition; and
discuss the implications on future research of the arrived-at
definition.1
GENERAL BACKGROUND
When initially thinking about interactivity, one must first pinpoint some
basic assumptions that researchers connect with the term. Generally, we will
find that interactivity is associated with new communication technologies
(e.g. DeFleur and Ball-Rokeach, 1989), especially the internet and world
wide web (e.g. Lanham, 1993; Stromer-Galley, 2000). In some arenas, the
level of interactivity varies across media, usually anchored in its ability to
facilitate interactions similar to interpersonal communication (Walther and
Burgoon, 1992; Williams et al., 1988). However, the standard for what
makes one medium more interactive than another is quite ambiguous. In
the empirical literature, interactivity has been employed as both an assumed
356
Kiousis: Interactivity
independent variable to describe a medium (e.g. Kayany et al., 1996) and as

a dependent variable gauging peoples perceptions (e.g. Wu, 1999). A major
limitation with some experimental inquiries is that a condition is often
called interactive without considering multiple levels of the variable, let
alone defining its meaning.
At first glance, one could submit that there should be no alarm at the
lack of theoretical consensus regarding the concept. As long as we all accept
that the term implies some degree of receiver feedback and is usually linked
to new technologies, why should there be a problem? The dilemma is that,
while these basic tenets are frequently agreed upon, the components and
features that comprise the various definitions can lead to great discrepancies
in scholarly output. For example, Newhagen et al. (1995) assert that
interactivity levels rise and fall within a medium dependent upon peoples
perceptions, while Schneiderman (1987) suggests that interactivity levels
only fluctuate by altering technological properties. Further, variables that are
highly associated with interactivity, such as social presence and feedback, are
shaped by how it is conceptualized by scholars.
As a consequence, the paucity of theoretical consensus can have
dramatically different implications in more practical and operational terrains.
For example, Bretz (1983) reports that interactivity is related to an
interdependence of messages, while Steuer (1992) understands it as more
technologically determined. Consequently, these two interpretations would
obviously create differing opinions on computer design recommendations,
with the former stressing message content and the latter emphasizing
technological structure. Before seeking to formally define interactivity, the
next step in the explication process is to survey the concepts literature in an
attempt to synthesize its fragmented meanings.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Any literature review of interactivity is cumbersome because of the vast
implicit and explicit definitions prepared by researchers from many different
academic and professional perspectives. Consequently, it is important to
narrow our focus and keep the analysis manageable given the extensive
discussion surrounding the topic. Specifically, while our emphasis is on
communication, interactivity conceptions have been informed by both
communication and non-communication perspectives, especially from the
fields of psychology, sociology, and computer science/design. To help
sharpen the current analysis focus, this explication is principally rooted in
explicit definitions of interactivity rather than implied or tacit conceptions,
though these are considered when relevant. As with any literature review,
this is a selected set of readings and by no means exhaustive.
Due to the diverse literature on the concept, it is apparent that some
organizational device would be indispensable in discerning its various
357
Figure 1
Interactivity definitions
meanings. Two dimensions emerge in scholarly work that could be used to

arrange definitions: the object emphasized by scholars, and the intellectual
perspective from which the definition originates. Of course, the categories
within the two dimensions do overlap, yet still allow for concise
classification of the literature. Figure 1 is presented above for the readers
reference throughout the remainder of this article.
As the analysis unfolds, the table cells will begin to be filled in with
various authors in the hope of locating common threads and subtle
differences across the literature. Before continuing, it would be helpful to
explain the rationale behind the two dimensions selected for organizing the
literature. The choice of the intellectual perspective dimension was rather
uncomplicated. Due to the concepts interdisciplinary nature, it is
advantageous to recognize the originating field of the different definitions.
For purposes of brevity, the literature was divided into communication and
non-communication perspectives, yet both categories could certainly be
further segmented.
In contrast to the first dimension, the object-emphasized dimension is not
as straightforward, but is a natural outcropping of the literature. Several
scholars underscore these various objects in their work, but few have ever
unified them into a single theoretical framework. For example, McMillan
writes that while some scholars see interactivity as a function of the
medium itself, others argue that interactivity resides in the perceptions of
those who participate in the communication (2000: 71). Moreover,
Stromer-Galley (2000) distinguishes between human and media
interactivity. Finally, Massey and Levy (1999) identify differences between
content and interpersonal interactivity. Collectively, most of the literature
touches on at least one of the three object domains. Even when considering
elaborate, multifaceted views of the concept (e.g. Heeter, 1989), the object358
emphasized categories can still be used to group many of the various

dimensions pinpointed in such definitions (to be discussed below). While
not perfect, this categorization scheme is believed to capture the
preponderance of prior conceptual and empirical work, and is therefore
useful as an organizational tool in this capacity.
Communication definitions
Any discussion of interactivity inevitably draws from its roots in Cybernetic
theory, as outlined by Wiener (1948). As a basic communication model, the
chief difference between Cybernetic theory and the classic Shannon and
Weaver (1949) model is its emphasis on feedback. This ability for message
receivers to respond to message senders has developed into a core
component of many interactivity conceptions. Under this framework,
interactivity is an attribute of the channel through which communication
occurs. Communication is seen as a dynamic, interdependent process
between senders and receivers. Like much of the communication work
giving attention to interactivity, the Cybernetic position belongs in the
middle cell of our first column in Figure 1.
As the rise of new media grew such as the personal computer,
videotext, cellular phones, etc. more conceptual deliberation of
interactivity was needed and was subsequently forged in the 1980s. During
this period, Rafaeli declared that interactivity is
an expression of the extent that in a given series of communication exchanges,
any third (or later) transmission (or message) is related to the degree to which
previous exchanges referred to even earlier transmissions. (1988: 111)
In a similar vein, Williams et al. stated that interactivity is the degree to

which participants in a communication process have control over, and can
exchange roles in, their mutual discourse (1988: 10). Here, we see a shift
away from an emphasis on channels and more towards the interconnected
relationships among exchanged messages (also referred to as third-order
dependency). A third-order dependent message interaction in a computer
chatroom might read like the following:
User 1: Five minutes ago, you said that you wanted to go to the
movies tonight, why have you changed your mind?
User 2: I didnt change my mind. Two minutes ago, I thought you
said you wanted to go to the movies tomorrow?
From this dialogue, we notice that both participants refer to prior
transmissions, prompting a third-order dependency. Consequently, while this
definition clusters into the communication settings category, the object of
359
focus, in this perspective, has transferred from channel to message

relationship. As Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1997) put it,
interactivity is not a characteristic of the medium. It is a process-related
construct about communication. It is the extent to which messages in a
sequence relate to each other, and especially the extent to which later messages
recount the relatedness of earlier messages. (1997, online)
Several academic and professional applications of interactivity have

stemmed from this belief. If a system permits third-order dependency
among participants, it is deemed interactive. In empirical terms, scholars in
this tradition examine the content of interactive media and associate it with
psychological and behavioral variables (e.g. Rafaeli, 1986; Rafaeli and
Larose, 1993; Rafaeli et al., 1994).
Of course, this approach is restricted because it does not highlight the
elements of interactivity that other communication researchers find
compelling specifically, technological and individual factors. More current
work bridging communication and computer science has pushed scholars to
consider technological structure and audience idiosyncrasies when
commenting on interactivity and related concepts (e.g. Nass, Lombard et al,
1995; Nass, Moon et al., 1995; Reeves and Nass, 1996). Viewed as a
multidimensional construct, Steuer furnishes a detailed account of
interactivity, which he contends is the extent to which users can participate
in modifying the form and content of a mediated environment in real-time
(1992: 84). Admittedly, his conception is technologically based and is
governed by the speed, range, and mapping capabilities of a medium,
although the user possesses ultimate control.2 One can surmise that increases
in any one of these factors raises the level of interactivity for a given
medium.
However, there may be a point of diminishing returns when too much of
one of these factors may actually make an experience less interactive.
Aldersey-Williams states that IDEO found that most people only use a few
functions offered by state-of-the-art television, and that they tend not to
readjust the controls once they have set them (1996: 35). In this situation,
excessive range overburdens the user. A similar technologically-driven
communication definition is given by Jensen (1998), who submits that
interactivity is a measure of a medias potential ability to let the user exert
an influence on the content and/or form of the mediated communication
(p. 201). His definition is further separated into transmissional,
consultational, conversational, and registrational interactivity. The potential
quantification of interactivity levels, as generated by these authors, is of great
benefit for scholars attempting to generate operational definitions. However,
of concern is their definitions inattention to aspects of other prominent
interactivity conceptions, such as third-order dependency.
360
Durlak (1987) expresses a slightly different technological viewpoint by

producing a typology for interactive media. Variables implicated with
interactivity become equated with the physical components of interactive
systems themselves. For example, hardware encompasses sensory richness,
spatial management, and responsiveness. Here, the composition of
technology becomes the litmus test in order to recognize interactivity.
Returning to Figure 1, we deduce that Steuer, Durlak, and Jensen are best
grouped in the upper left cell, but please note their differing views reflect
that these classifications leave room for multiple interpretations within each
perspective.
While most implied and explicit definitions of interactivity in
communication concentrate on the technological and communication
context aspects of the concept, other studies see it as a perception.
Newhagen et al. (1995) adopt interactivity as a psychological variable
in a content analysis of NBC news viewer email to gauge perceptions
of interactivity. More recently, Wu (1999) noted that perceptions of
interactivity have an impact on peoples attitudes towards websites. Unlike
other definitions, here interactivity is comprehended as a variable that can
dwell within individuals minds. This perceiver-based outlook introduces a
new path for researchers to explore, complementing prior conceptions that
emphasized other attributes.
Up to this point, the communication definitions that were
multidimensional underscored components of interactivity that dealt with
one of the objects presented in our organizational scheme. This article now
turns to those touching on multiple objects. Based on Heeters (1989)
conceptualization of interactivity, a series of communication studies
primarily examining the world wide web appropriate a multifaceted view
of interactivity that touches on two or all three of the objects emphasized in
this studys typology. As a consequence, it is important to note that our
categories are not mutually exclusive, but rather continuous. Further,
authors are not just bound to single categories.
In an effort to summarize much of the early literature, Heeter (1989)
supplies a six-dimensional definition of interactivity, which includes the
following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
complexity of choice available;

effort that users must exert;
responsiveness to the user;
monitoring of information use (when a system can track users
for example);
(5) ease of adding information; and
(6) facilitation of interpersonal communication.
361
Though not exact, many of these variables can be classified as employing

the proposed organizational framework. For example, complexity of choice
available, monitoring of information use, ease of adding information, and
facilitation of interpersonal communication are all related to internal
characteristics of the communication technology itself. The responsiveness
dimension, which is anchored in Rafaelis view of interactivity as feedback,
is the degree to which a communication exchange resembles human
discourse (1985; cited in: Heeter, 1989: 223), and is therefore connected to
communication settings. Absent is a direct linkage to human perceptions, yet
the effort dimension is certainly perceiver-based. Reflecting further overlap
in our classification scheme, system responsiveness, ease of adding
information, and facilitation of interpersonal communication are variables
that could also be studied from a perceiver standpoint.
Many communication investigations, building on conceptualizations
similar to Heeters, also contain components that are tied to more than one
of the aforementioned objects (e.g. Goertz, 1995; Ha and James, 1998;
Kenney et al., 2000; Massey and Levy, 1999). For example, Ha and James
argue that interactivity is the the extent to which the communicator and
the audience respond to, or are willing to facilitate each others
communication needs (1998: 462), consisting of the following variables:
playfulness, choice, connectedness, information collection, and reciprocal
communication.3 Within the present framework, choice could be seen as a
dimension dealing with technology, while connectedness, as they
conceptually define it, would probably be more perceiver-based. However,
they operationalize it in terms of the presence of hyperlinks on webpages.
Such differences reflect the murkiness of the literature. Downes and
McMillan (2000) provide a five-dimensional definition of interactivity
comprised of:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
direction of communication;
timing flexibility;
sense of place;
level of control;
responsiveness and the perceived purpose of communication.4
As a whole, such definitions primarily focus on computer-mediated

communication.
Downes and McMillans (2000) identification of timing flexibility as a key
dimension warrants further discussion. Traditionally, the real-time speed ideal
has been included or implied in many interactivity conceptions, making it
difficult to reconcile with communication experiences such as email,
newsgroups, etc. which most people deem interactive despite their
delayed response times. Additional scholarly attention has suggested that it is
362
the flexibility of message timing that makes interactive media more appealing
(e.g. Finn, 1998; McMillan, 2000; Rheingold, 1993). Accordingly, timing
flexibility should be more thoroughly considered as an important facet of
interactivity. However, it is critical to distinguish between speed and timing
flexibility, with the former representing the rate at which information flows
through a system, while the latter refers to the degree to which users can
control that rate. Despite this distinction, real time remains central in many
conceptualizations of interactivity (e.g. Lombard and Ditton, 1997; Zeltzer,
1992).
While the prior multifaceted definitions are beneficial for covering several
aspects of the construct, we must be careful that they do not become so
highly intricate that they cannot be applied to real world settings (for
discussion, see Jensen, 1998). As a consequence, the concise framework
offered in this project affords some parsimony to many of the varying
dimensions of the concept found in the literature.
Non-communication definitions
Although communication theorists perhaps afford the most systematic
overview of interactivity, this explication project would be incomplete
without acknowledging the contributions made by other intellectual
discourses. It is well documented that psychology plays an integral role in
interactive media design (Aldersey-Williams, 1996). As one might imagine,
psychological work on interactivity prefers the individual to be its object of
focus. Leary poses an intriguing analogy comparing the evolution of
interactivity to the development of the interpersonal in psychology: Both
concepts are related to very wide and deep and irrevocable changes in the
way people relate to the world (1990: 230). In fact, Leary predicts that
the success of an interactive medium hinges on its ability to resemble the
interpersonal. This conclusion parallels those drawn by many communication
scholars, who have long asserted that face-to-face communication is a
standard for judging interactive experiences (see Bretz, 1983; Heeter, 1989;
Williams et al., 1988). From a sociological perspective, DeFleur and BallRokeach similarly contend that interactivity generally refers to the processes
of communication that take on some of the characteristics of interpersonal
communication (1989: 341).
Importantly, the face-to-face standard is problematic because most
interactive experiences are associated with technologically-mediated
environments, rather than the unmediated environments of face-to-face
communication. To address this problem, we believe it is essential to employ
the broader term of interpersonal communication which can occur in
both technologically-mediated and unmediated contexts rather than
employing face-to-face communication to avoid such concerns. There is
some research that criticizes the use of interpersonal communication as a
363
standard in mediated communication experiences (Schudson, 1978), yet the

consistency of such a pattern in interactivity literature has been ubiquitous
for many years.
While never proffering any formal definition of interactivity, Turkle
(1984) further develops the notion of it as an interpersonal, humanistic
variable. Her ethnographic work suggests that human beings ascribe some
very human characteristics to interactive systems (e.g. a computer is alive,
and can even cheat according to children). Despite writing from a
communication point of view, in a similar vein, Jensen offers an insightful
interdisciplinary comparison between the notions of human interaction in
sociology and media interaction (which he sees as closely intertwined to
the evolution of interactivity) in communication studies, when remarking
that
in communication studies, it [interaction] refers, among other things, to the
relationship between text and the reader, but also to reciprocal human actions
and communication associated with the use of media as well as (para-social)
interaction via a medium. (1998: 190)
When taken to its logical conclusion, this hints that to some extent
interactivity is associated with the ability of individuals to experience
different media as if they were engaging with other human beings.
Accordingly, the simulation of interpersonal communication in an interactive
environment is not just confined to human-to-human communication, but
includes human-to-machine communication as well. Ultimately, any
evaluation of interactivity from such approaches does not lie just within the
technology, but in perceptions of users themselves. This has noteworthy
ramifications for scholars who judge a medium as interactive on the sole
basis of technological criteria. Obviously, this work is best placed in the
lowest cell of the non-communication column in Figure 1.
Much of the work in the communication technology category is derived
from the computer science/design literature. Generally, one would surmise
that the object of interest in such perspectives is communication technology.
That is, the users of interactive media are, at best, mechanisms initiating
interactive communication experiences, but not central figures in the
concepts definition. For example, in professional circles, interactive media
are often thought of as mechanisms for delivering image, text and sound
data in which the user interacts with the database (Hutheesing, 1993: 244).
Further, Dyson (1993) infers that most computer professionals understand
interactivity in terms of converging technology. In brief, observers from this
outlook see the capacity of media systems to convey and receive information
in multimedia formats as a chief feature of the concept (Sims, 1995).
364
Notwithstanding an emphasis on technology, surprisingly what we find, at

least in the more academically-based literature, is an evened approach that is
equally concerned with medium structure and human characteristics.
Schneiderman (1987), who does not explicitly define interactivity, suggests a
checklist to estimate the success of an interactive system. He balances
technological criteria (system functionality and reliability) with user criteria
(time to learn, speed, rate of user error, etc.). His accentuation on speed is
especially enlightening because it illustrates the tendency toward perceiverdetermined representations. Heckel recommends that interactive software
designers learn to think like a communicator and to practice an artistic craft
as well as an engineering one (1984: xii). Even Laurel (1991), whose early
work (1986a, 1986b) argued that interactivity consists of frequency, range,
and significance (similar to Steuers [1992] technology-driven definition),
gives way to a more perceiver-based position when writing that interactivity
occurs when you either feel yourself to be participating in the ongoing
action of the representation or you dont (1992: 201).
In a broad sense, interactivity definitions from a computer science/design
viewpoint have gradually become more user-based. Naimark (1990) urges
that we differentiate between realness and interactivity. The former refers to
the competency of technology to blur the boundaries between physical and
mediated reality. The latter refers to the aptitude of users to modify, interact,
and respond to media which, in turn, transform the mediated environment
being experienced. Nevertheless, as demonstrated by Laurel (1991), the
blurring of such boundaries is a critical part of other observers interactivity
definitions. Murray, when discussing the notion of cyberdramas, captures
the idea of realness when concluding that at that point, when the medium
itself melts away into transparency, we will be lost in the make-believe and
care only about the story (1997: 272). Elsewhere, she reflects a focus on
both the user and communication context when stating that it is the
procedural and participatory environments created by new media that
make them interactive.5 Normans (1988) theme of mapping as a vital factor
in interactivity confirms the human-centered orientation evident in
contemporary design literature. By combining the cogent aspects of
interactivity discussions from the fields of communication, sociology,
psychology, and computer/science design, we may be able to identify the
true nature of the concept.
Summary
Before proceeding any further, it is essential that we reformulate Figure 1 to
organize many of the authors in the literature review visually. In addition,
certain attributes salient to authors are also listed. Figure 2 is presented
below as a reference for the remainder of this project.
365
Figure 2
Interactivity definitions
EMPIRICAL DESCRIPTION
Based on the literature review, it is clear that operational definitions of
interactivity revolve around measuring specific dimensions or subconcepts of
the term. Though some agreement has been discovered on certain
subvariables, formal operational definitions are equivocal. Yet by collectively
scrutinizing those studies that discuss interactivity operationally, some of its
common operational properties may be isolated.
In a very general sense, interactivity is used as a descriptive characteristic
of new media (e.g. DeFleur and Ball-Rokeach, 1989). Many authors center
on feedback as the key signal of the concept (e.g. Rafaeli, 1988). Thus, if
participants can engage in message transactions that are comparable to
interpersonal communication, those experiences are labeled interactive (e.g.
Kayany et al., 1996). However, two-way communication is not the only
type of experience related to interactivity, for many scholars highlight oneto-many and many-to-many communication experiences as well provided
that some degree of feedback is involved (e.g. Hoffman and Novak, 1996;
Rust and Oliver, 1994). It is also important to note that the communication
flow can be both linear and non-linear (Goertz, 1995; Stromer-Galley,
2000). Of course, one-way communication is typically deemed low in
interactivity.
In studies of web communication, the number of hyperlinks on webpages
and sites has been used to operationalize interactivity (e.g. Sundar et al.,
1998). From a multidimensional perspective, Kenney et al. (2000) assessed
366
complexity of choice by looking at alternatives for speed and language.

Likewise, Ha and James (1998) measured choice in terms of options for
color, speed, language, etc.; playfulness by the number of curiosity arousal
devices and games; connectedness with hyperlinks; information collection
with registration prompts at websites; and reciprocal communication through
mechanisms such as email, telephone numbers, etc. McMillan (2000)
ascertained time flexibility by whether websites allowed users to submit
updates at their convenience.
As mentioned earlier, Newhagen et al. (1995) was one of the first studies
to operationalize interactivity as a perception of the individual. Specifically,
email messages addressing large audiences indicated low levels of perceived
interactivity, while those targeting interpersonal audiences were perceived to
be highly interactive. Wu (1999) gauged perceived interactivity by asking
website visitors questions that grouped into two major factor loadings: (1)
how responsive a website was to their input; and (2) how easy the site was
to navigate. Steuer (1992) does not perform an empirical analysis but
advocates that interactivity should be operationalized in terms of a mediums
speed, range, and mapping abilities.
While studies operationally defining interactivity are scattered, we still
may be able to glean some basic operational properties from the literature.
As disclosed in Newhagen et al. (1995) and in related definitions,
interactivity is a variable that fluctuates across individuals and media (e.g.
computers are more interactive than newspapers). Interactivity levels are
fairly stable across time in media technologies, but can vary substantially
within individuals perceptions. Steuer (1992) hints that interactivity levels
should correlate with telepresence (the degree to which users feel that
mediated environments take precedence over physical environments). This is
similar to discussions of place, connectedness, and realness mentioned by
other scholars (e.g. Ha and James, 1998; McMillan, 2000; Murray, 1997;
Naimark, 1990; Walther and Burgoon, 1992). Finally, based on the
arguments of Bretz (1983), Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1997) and others, one
can assume that the ability to induce feedback is a major prerequisite to
calling a medium or communication experience interactive. Again, feedback
should not be limited to two-way communication, but multiway
communication as well.
DEFINITION
Overall, considerable debate exists about how to properly conceptualize or
operationalize the term (e.g. Heeter, 2000; Kayany et al., 1996; Norman,
1988). On a simple everyday level, interactivity deals with the ability of
systems to simulate interpersonal communication, although the features and
components of it change with authors. To review, the following are some of
the explicit definitions encountered in the literature search.
367
Interactivity is as an expression of the extent that in a given series of

communication exchanges, any third (or later) transmission (or message) is
related to the degree to which previous exchanges referred to even earlier
transmissions (Rafaeli, 1988: 111).
Williams et al. say the degree to which participants in a communication
process have control over, and can exchange roles in, their mutual discourse
is called interactivity (1988: 10).
DeFleur and Ball-Rokeach argue that interactivity generally refers to the
processes of communication that take on some of the characteristics of
interpersonal communication (1989: 341).
Steuer reports it as the extent to which users can participate in modifying
the form and content of a mediated environment in real-time (1992: 84).
Ha and James contend that it is the extent to which the communicator
and the audience respond to, or are willing to facilitate each others
communications needs (1998: 461).
Jensen argues that it is a measure of a medias potential ability to let the
user exert an influence on the content and/or form of the mediated
communication (1998: 201).
Based on scholarly work from the aforementioned intellectual discourses,
we can begin to compile a list of the various elements and meanings
encompassing interactivity. Some consensus can be reached concerning the
chief ingredients of an interactive experience. Two-way or multiway
communication should exist, usually through a mediated channel. The roles
of message sender and receiver should be interchangeable among
participants. In addition, some third-order dependency among participants is
usually necessary. For the most part, communicators can be human or
machine, often contingent upon whether they can function as both
senders and receivers. Individuals should be able to manipulate the content,
form, and pace of a mediated environment in some way. Users should be
able to perceive differences in levels of interactive experiences.
Problems with definitions
While some common ground among authors can be observed from these
shared definitional threads, problems frequently arise when scholars
accentuate one of these features over another. For example, much of
the communication literature is preoccupied with factors related to
communication context, such as message relationships and channels (e.g.
Rafaeli, 1988). Meanwhile, Steuer (1992) delimits interactivity as a property
of technology itself, consisting of speed, mapping, and range. Though speed
and range seem consistent with basic views of interactivity, mapping is
probably more topic specific for computer software.
A major problem linked to the concept of speed is that, it too, is weakly
explicated. For example, a distinction should be made between objective
368
standards of speed and perceptions of speed. This is a crucial distinction,

because peoples interpretations of an interactive experience will not
necessarily conform to objective operational measures linked to that
experience. Thus, communicating on the internet with a 28,800bps modem
by todays standards might be perceived as slow, but just a few years ago, this
seemed brisk. The point here is that objective standards of speed (e.g.
28,800bps) might not change, but users perceptions of them do.
Furthermore, scholars have pointed out that interactive experiences do not
always have to be fast or in real time, as seen in the example of email
(e.g. Finn, 1998). Accordingly, we should separate these two qualities of
speed in our consideration of interactivity, along with the distinction
between speed and timing flexibility outlined earlier.
Besides speed, other problems also surface with the definitions reviewed
in this study. In contrast to some of the more technologically-based work
(e.g. Durlak, 1987), for example, the original Cybernetic model seems
appropriate for specific media (e.g. telephone) because of its emphasis on
feedback. However, it is surely antiquated for many of todays complex
media technologies (e.g. virtual reality). Authors, including Heckel (1984),
Laurel (1991), and Schneiderman (1987) define interactivity in close relation
to the user. In particular, Leary (1990) sees interactivity as the capacity for a
system to mimic interpersonal communication. Newhagen et al. (1995) and
Wu (1999) take this a step further by displaying interactivity as a possible
perception of individual users.
Others maintain that a system may not be interactive if all its members
cannot cognitively process the messages transmitted, raising questions about
machine-to-machine communication (for discussion, see Williams et al.,
1988). The notion of real time is also problematic because it suggests that
instantaneous feedback is required for an interactive experience. The shift in
the literature to discuss flexibility has helped to address such issues. Indeed,
many forms of communication with new media, which most researchers
would concur are interactive, have delays in response times (e.g. email may
be returned after one week, yet is still considered interactive by most).
However, as remarked above, many explications still indicate that real time is
integral to interactive experiences (e.g. Lombard and Snyder-Duch, 2001;
Steuer, 1992). Finally, the face-to-face standard is difficult to accord with
the possibility of communicating one-to-many and many-to-many, as might
be the case with email and the world wide web. Therefore, while some
common discussion exists regarding certain attributes of the construct, our
challenge remains to assimilate the plethora of scattered conceptions in the
literature into a more cohesive theoretical framework.
Whenever attempting to conceptually define abstract terms, it is often
helpful to link their theoretical meanings with some lower order concepts
(Chaffee, 1991). Perhaps the most concrete term embracing interactivity is
369
technology. In recent years, interactivity has become more and more allied
to the personal computer. We are told continuously that the internet is
interactive, and widespread dissemination of interactive videophones is in the
near future. Generally, any new communication technology will be dubbed
interactive if it allows some degree of user response. Traditional media (e.g.
television, radio, and newspapers) rank low because their capacity for
feedback is limited. Among the various new media, interactivity is highly
connected to the following: computers, cellular communications, digital
communications, video-conferencing, software, virtual reality, the world
wide web, etc.
Since the end-goal of an explication project is to operationally define a
concept (Chaffee, 1991), it is vital that we tentatively sketch out some basic
empirical rules for observing interactivity.6 First, there must be at least two
participants (human or non-human) for interactive communication to
transpire. Further, some technology allowing for mediated information
exchanges between users through a channel must also be present (e.g.
telephone or computer chatroom). Finally, the possibility for users to modify
the mediated environment must exist. Once these conditions have been
met, interactive communication can be detected.
One key to noticing interactivity on an individual level lies in the
researchers competency to recognize simultaneous comprehension and
responses to communication transmissions by participants. Normally,
evidence for this would consist of direct observations, questionnaires, and
content analyses. Psychological scales, such as those formed in Newhagen et
al. (1995) and Wu (1999), could be employed to approximate perceptions of
interactivity by users. In addition, questionnaires monitoring typical
interpersonal communication variables could function as indicators of
perceived interactivity, i.e. higher scores on such variables would signify
higher perceptions of interactivity. To ascertain interactivity levels of a
particular medium, researchers could devise a scale based on predetermined
criteria. Specifically, the number of possible actions available to users (range)
by a media system could be one indicator of interactivity for a specific
medium. To gauge interactivity levels of a communication context, one
could calculate the frequency of messages that refer to earlier exchanges
(third-order dependency). These measures could then be scaled and
statistically tested to calculate perceived and actual interactivity scores.
Against this backdrop, we could then make comparisons across media and
individuals more precisely than previously imagined. This would be a
powerful tool for both professionals and academics alike.
REVIEW OF DEFINITIONS
As argued earlier, little consensus has been reached concerning interactivity.
Thus far, the concept has been identified, the literature surveyed, and the
370
scattered definitions reviewed. It is now necessary to converge on some

basic properties of the numerous definitions. To begin, interactivity should
be categorized as a relational variable (Rafaeli and Sudweeks, 1997). On an
individual level, it resides in the minds of media users as perceptions
(Newhagen et al., 1995). As a quality of media, it can be seen in the form,
content, and structure of technology and their relation to the user (e.g.
Steuer, 1992). Typically, interactivity is examined within a dyadic
communication context between humans and machines, or humans and
humans via machines (Rice, 1984). It is difficult to isolate from variables
such as social presence, transparency, and user friendliness (Durlak, 1987).
Other connected factors are feedback, speed (perceived and real), and timing
flexibility (e.g. Bretz, 1983; McMillan, 2000).
Many definitions of interactivity are either tacit or assumed. Researchers
often make broad assumptions about interactivity and simply merge them
into positivist work as a two-level, nominal independent variable. Moreover,
many of the explicit definitions lack a parsimonious framework to be useful
(for discussion, see Jensen, 1998) or are limited to particular media, but
significant progress has been made (e.g. Downes and McMillan, 2000;
Newhagen et al. 1995; Steuer 1992). Few would dispute that the concept
really exists, yet how one would isolate and order it is certainly subject to
debate. Currently, the best approach for appraising operational measures is to
sift through the studies operationalizing the concept (as done in the present
analysis) and explore empirical literature covering related concepts such as
social presence. Walther et al. (1994) encapsulate previous work on some
germane variables.
The academic usage of interactivity is marginally inconsistent at best.
Many fundamental differences (e.g. channel vs. technological attributes) lead
to incongruity in implied and explicit theoretical definitions. However,
there is some common understanding as to which related variables belong
together. For instance, Steuer (1992) and Durlak (1987) both believe that
social presence is a crucial factor. Murray (1997) and Ha and James (1998)
suggest that increasing user awareness of mediated environments over
physical environments is paramount. In fact, meanings are not so scattered
that intellectual dialogue is impossible. Reconsideration of interactivity by
researchers can elicit a more holistic awareness of the concept.
DEFINITION MODIFICATION
As we continue through the explication process, we may want to
contemplate modification of extant interactivity definitions. So far, it has
been demonstrated that interactivity definitions have multiple roots, which
have all made valuable improvements in the evolution of the concept.
Rather than alter any of the contributions made by other researchers or
highlight only one area of the different conceptions, it is instead imperative
371
that interactivity conceptions are merged into a hybrid definition. A succinct

interpretation encompassing the central aspects of the previously reviewed
definitions is more appropriate. The goal here is to eliminate non-essential
components of the different views and blend the fundamental ones into a
comprehensive vision of interactivity. Consequently, we endeavor to
formulate a definition of interactivity that includes the following as major
dimensions: (1) the structure of a medium (Steuer, 1992); (2) the context of
communication settings (Rafaeli, 1988); and (3) the perceptions of users
(Wu, 1999). Hence, the final definition will hopefully allow interactivity to
be accepted as both a media and psychological variable by scholars. Visually,
the definition outlined above might look like this.
Figure 3
Conceptualization of interactivity
TENTATIVE DEFINITION
As asserted throughout this article, interactivity definitions have stressed
three principal domains: technological properties, communication context,
and user perceptions. The problem has been that researchers have not tied
these three aspects together into an inclusive definition. This is what we will
attempt to accomplish now.
Definition
Interactivity can be defined as the degree to which a communication
technology can create a mediated environment in which participants can
communicate (one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many), both
synchronously and asynchronously, and participate in reciprocal message
exchanges (third-order dependency). With regard to human users, it
additionally refers to their ability to perceive the experience as a simulation of
interpersonal communication and increase their awareness of telepresence.
Clarification
To clarify a few points about the terms consolidated into this definition, by
communication technology we allude to anything from a telephone to a
computer system. Further, a mediated environment can be anything from a
telephone wire to virtual reality. Communication, in this context, can range
from simple information transfer to sophisticated movements in video games
or through the world wide web, thereby encompassing linear and non-linear
372
communication paths. Participant relationships would normally be humanto-machine or human-to-human via machine, but could be machine-tomachine in some cases. As mentioned earlier, including machine-to-machine
communication in interactivity definitions is provocative (e.g. Williams et al.,
1988), yet it does possess many of the key features of the concept, including
two-way/multiway message transmissions through mediated environments
and the interchangeability of roles as senders and receivers. Further, the fact
that so many conceptions of interactivity are closely tied to technology
makes incorporating machine-to-machine exchanges natural.
Third-order dependent message transmissions are applied in the tradition
of Rafaeli (1986) and Bretz (1983). Telepresence is elucidated as the ability
of a medium to form an environment that, in the minds of communication
participants, takes precedence over actual physical environments (Steuer,
1992). This parallels the emphasis put on place or connectedness by other
scholars (e.g. Ha and James, 1998). The first segment of the definition is
designed to cover the technological structure and communication settings
aspects of interactivity, while the latter part integrates user perceptions.
Interactivity, in this light, contains the major components of previous
explications, but demarcates certain boundaries that must be adhered to in
order for a medium or communication experience to be regarded as
interactive. For example, it includes all types of technology, but clearly
differentiates between technologically-mediated and unmediated
communication. Therefore, a conversation over the phone is interactive,
while a dialogue in person is not (though technological simulation of
interpersonal communication is central). Our definitions exclusion of
pure interpersonal communication is debatable; however, as stated above,
the concept is so closely tied to technology (from a communication
perspective at least) that there should be a distinction between mediated and
unmediated experiences.7 Moreover, Jensen (1998) articulates the
importance of distinguishing between human interaction (in sociological
circles) and media interaction (in communication circles), with the latter
typically involving technologically-mediated experiences and the
former typically occurring without technology. Because interactivity is more
heavily anchored in the notion of media interaction (Jensen, 1998),
mediated communication via technology is a central attribute of our
definition.
The definitions inclusion of both synchronous and asynchronous
communication captures the idea of timing flexibility because communication
technology providing both options are thought to be truly interactive, yet
the growing importance of real time is also acknowledged. The vague use of
mediated environment is somewhat limiting, but is purposeful because we
are aiming to accommodate all two-way and multiway communication
performed with or through media technologies. This could range from
373
conversations through a CB radio to live chats on the internet. Of course,

some mediated environments are more interactive than others, dependent
upon factors such as the choice of actions provided to participants and the
ease with which participants can direct and adjust the constructed mediated
environment. (This will be detailed more in the operational definition stage
of the explication process). Finally, in this view perceptions are limited to
humans because researchers claim that the simulation of interpersonal
communication and increased telepresence are variables pertinent only to
human communication, not machine-to-machine exchanges (e.g. Keltner,
1973). The first portion of the offered definition adequately accounts for
machine-to-machine communication, while human perceptions are
integrated into the second part.
To observe interactivity as it has been outlined above, a three-stage
inspection procedure is required. First, we are interested in looking at the
attributes of the communication medium being used during an interactive
experience. Within this context, objective criteria will be formulated to
produce an interactivity score for a medium, e.g. what is the range of
choices a system provides participants? Next, we will want to scrutinize the
environment in which the communication is occurring. This can be
achieved by content analysis to establish the degree of third-order
dependency among communication exchanges. Finally, we will probe
individuals perceptions of such interactions and devise perceived
interactivity scores. One strategy for accomplishing this is through
questionnaires. The value of such an observation plan is that it employs
multiple indicators to detect the construct. Thus, the units of analyses are as
follows: individual medium, single communication experiences (comprised
of sets of message transmissions based on exchanges with communication
technologies), and user perceptions.
Because of the different measures needed to observe interactivity as
completely as it is proposed here, data conversions are necessary but not too
difficult. To complete this, we must consider each step of the detection
process separately. First, when measuring technological interactiveness, we
could create an index to produce a technology interactivity score. In a
basic investigation, this might be accomplished by including the number of
actions that are allowed by a medium. In the second stage of the inspection
process, traditional operational procedures for third-order dependencies
could be utilized as a basis for a communication context interactivity score,
i.e., tallying the amount of overall communication transmissions that allude
to prior message transmissions (Rafaeli, 1988). Finally, a composite scale of
interpersonal communication measures might be adapted to produce a
perceived interactivity score. Depending upon the intentions of the study,
scholars may choose just one of these measures in their inquiries or perform
more complex statistical tests to create an overall interactivity score. By
374
gauging interactivity in this manner, we can make comparisons across

media, communication exchanges, individuals, and overall interactive
experiences. At this point, specific operational procedures will be supplied to
explain how this might manifest in an empirical investigation.
OPERATIONAL DEFINITION
In this section, an example of how the current definition might be applied
is presented. As a preface, the example is simplistic by design for ease of
illustration. Certainly, it would be optimistic that all the aspects of
interactivity covered could be easily measured quantitatively, as the example
proposes. I am by no means asserting that all applications of the offered
definition would be this smooth, but believe this can be a good starting
point for future research to build on.
That said, for the purposes of this explication project, let us suppose that
a set of researchers are interested in ascertaining the total degree of
interactivity for some new computer communications system software. It
will also be assumed that the scholars have the means to perform an
experiment, which would be a desirable method for evaluating the system.
The first step they must take is to define a population and draw a sample. A
sample of 30 users to test the system might suffice to represent their chosen
overall population, especially if it is in an organizational setting. As the
sampling procedure is created, the researchers must also generate operational
measures to make their observations.
Forming operational measures is one of the more challenging phases in
carrying out an empirical study because the items need to be discernible
enough to be measured, yet also need to encompass the actual concept that
the researchers are attempting to quantify. Hence, a major consideration
revolves around the reliability and validity of measures. By applying multiple
indicators (as intended here), our empiricists should dramatically strengthen
reliability (Chaffee, 1991). The researchers should also aim to improve
validity by matching the operational definition with the conceptual
definition granted earlier. To list the appropriate observations in the
inspection process, data would be collected by scrutinizing attributes of the
software program, the content of communication transmissions, and user
perceptions.
The first operational measures will examine the mediums structure, i.e.,
the computer system. Steuer (1992) and Durlak (1987) afford some logical
measures of interactive technology: speed, range, and mapping. Of these,
speed and range appear to be most appropriate because mapping is more
applicable for virtual reality or video games. Downes and McMillans (2000)
dimension of timing flexibility is also appropriate for studying
communications software. Our researchers could operationalize speed
(objective) as an average between the amount of time it takes for the
375
software to transmit information from one participant to another or the

whole group and the amount of time responses take to be communicated
(feedback).8 Timing flexibility could be operationalized as whether the
system would allow participants to communicate in real time and/or in
delayed fashion. A system allowing for both would rate higher than one
only providing one option. Range could be computed as the number of
actions that the system offers to the user. For example, can subjects only
communicate with one person at a time or many simultaneously? Can
individuals reply to information while receiving it? Each of these possible
actions are counted toward a mapping score. Obviously, there would be
some overlap between the timing flexibility and mapping scores, since the
timing options would be among the actions available to users.
Expanding on Durlaks (1987) ideas, scholars might approximate
technological complexity as the amount of devices employed by the system
to activate the five senses (sensory complexity). For example, written text
would activate visual senses, while use of sound would activate acoustic
senses. This is instrumental for comparing different media because it
acknowledges that, for example, video streaming on the web is more
technologically complex than telephone discussions. Another advantage of
this operational definition is that it is broad enough to include nearly all
interactive communication experiences, yet it is not too simplistic to assess
such factors as graphics quality. It furnishes a criterion that is based on
objective properties of the system, not subjective perceptions of the user.
Higher levels on any of these measures would signify higher levels of
technological interactiveness.
The second set of operational measures concentrates on the environment
in which interactive communication takes place. For this, researchers could
have two measures: one of third-order dependency and one of social
presence. Third-order dependency would be quantified in the content
analysis as the percentage of overall messages that refer to prior message
transmissions. Subjective judgements of coders would probably be sufficient
to assess which messages allude to prior exchanges and which ones do not.
Social presence, which in this context is delimited as the ability of users to
convey their presence in communication transmissions, might be
operationalized as the percentage of messages when subjects explicitly refer
to themselves (e.g. I, me, my, etc.). Although this measure lacks validity, it
is extremely reliable and clearly represents a demonstration of
communicating social presence. Higher percentages on both indicators
would signal higher context interactivity levels.
Finally, the third set of measures entails perceived levels of interactivity. As
mentioned earlier, this could be detected by questionnaires once the
experiment has concluded. When investigating participant perceptions, the
researchers could judge how well a communication experience simulated
376
interpersonal communication. Some of the most paramount variables in

interpersonal communication are proximity, sensory activation, and speed
(Bretz, 1983; Chesebro and Bonsall, 1989; Meyers and Meyers, 1976).
Therefore, the questionnaire could gauge these and other related variables,
such as telepresence, to compute a perceived interactivity score.
Our hypothetical scholars could then form Likert scales for each of these
indicators. Thus, they might be operationalized as follows:
(1) proximity would be the degree to which a respondent feels he/
she is near other subjects when engaging with the system from
very far to very close;
(2) sensory activation would be operationalized by asking the
respondent to rate which senses (sight, hearing, touch, etc.)
were heightened during the experiment from not at all to very
much;
(3) perceived speed would be operationalized as how fast users
thought the system allowed participants to react to one anothers
transmissions from vary fast to very slow; and
(4) telepresence would be operationalized as the accuracy with
which users could describe the physical environment of the
laboratory presumably the less accurate, the higher the sense
of telepresence, because the mediated environment would take
precedence over physical surroundings.
A composite scale of these measures would create a perceived interactivity
score. The higher the score, the higher the level of perceived
interactiveness.
Once the data has been collected, it would be transformed, producing
technological, communication context, and perceived interactivity scores.
Subsequently, researchers could either combine it statistically to manufacture
an overall interactivity score or simply use it individually to assess the
system. As an overall score, the data would cover all three essential
dimensions of the advanced interactivity definition. Individually, the data
would magnify the component of interactivity in which the researchers were
interested.
Empirically, the data would probably reveal that interactivity levels can
vary across technology, communication settings, and individuals perceptions.
Technological interactivity is postulated to be more stable than the other
types because medium qualities are usually consistent until innovations are
made to systems. In contrast, context and perceived interactivity levels
fluctuate more because they consist of communication content and
participant perceptions respectively. Communication context levels are
probably the most volatile since content is discursive, particularly in
377
interactive environments. User perceptions also fluctuate due to individual

differences, inexperience in using computers, etc.
Before evaluating the operational definition, it would be wise to link the
operational definitions with the conceptual definition established earlier.
Visually, the manifestation might look something like this.
Figure 4
Operationalization of interactivity
Throughout this explication, it has been substantiated that interactivity is

operationally composed of three principal elements: properties of
technology, attributes of communication contexts, and user perceptions.
Each is equally important, and they combine to form the overarching
concept known as interactivity. In contrast, interactivity can also be thought
of along these three dimensions (that fuse together to form the broader
concept) or simply be considered discretely. However, neglecting any facet
of the operational definition does not capture the full view of the
theoretical construct. It appears that our operational definition matches well
with our conceptual definition of the term. Speed (objective), range, timing
flexibility, and sensory activation are qualities associated with the structure of
technology, and can be used to estimate high and low levels of technological
interactivity. Third-order dependency and social presence are germane to the
theoretical definition and describe characteristics of communication context
appropriately. Finally, basic interpersonal communication measures and
telepresence apply to the conceptual definition because all are correlated to
the simulation of interpersonal communication.
On the whole, the operational definition offered not only describes the
essence of the theoretical definition of interactivity, but may also help
broaden the concepts boundaries. In comparison to previous versions, the
interactivity definition provided above is expansive, permitting analyses
across media and individuals. Interactivity is understood as both a media and
psychological variable. In addition, interactivity is advanced here as a
variable that can be examined along its individual dimensions or as a single,
378
composite variable. Thus, scholars can be as specific or general as needed in

their inquiries.
CONCLUSION
The convergence of new technologies blurs the boundaries between
traditional and new media. For example, the internet is often seen as a
hybrid system of television and text. Similar to this merging, interactivity
conceptions need to be integrated into a hybrid definition. From this
analysis, the significance of engendering conceptual and operational
definitions that embrace interactivity as a media and psychological variable
has been shown. To restate, interactivity can be defined as the degree to
which a communication technology can create a mediated environment in
which participants can communicate (one-to-one, one-to-many, and manyto-many) both synchronously and asynchronously and participate in
reciprocal message exchanges (third-order dependency). With regard to
human users, it additionally refers to the ability of users to perceive the
experience to be a simulation of interpersonal communication and increase
their awareness of telepresence.
Operationally, interactivity is established by three factors: technological
structure of the media used (e.g. speed, range, timing flexibility, and sensory
complexity), characteristics of communication settings (e.g. third-order
dependency and social presence), and individuals perceptions (e.g.
proximity, perceived speed, sensory activation, and telepresence). Hence,
definitions have been outlined that have blended the most important
elements of prior conceptions into a concise framework. Inevitably,
interactivity will remain a controversial concept in the literature, but it is
hoped that this explication has granted a clearer picture of interactivity and
how it might be studied in future investigations. As more new media
proliferate, other concepts in mass communication will have to be adjusted
and refined. The expansion of knowledge awaits.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Dr Nick Lasorsa from the University of Texas at Austin,
Dr Julie Newton from the University of Oregon, the editors, and the anonymous
reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Notes
1 It is important to recognize that these steps represent one method for explicating a
concept and are by no means exhaustive. Chaffee further articulates this point by
arguing that the steps outlined in his book can serve as a checklist for the researcher
explicating a concept, but it is not a recipe that guarantees results (1991: 14).
2 These three factors refer to the rate which input can be assimilated into the mediated
environment; the number of possibilities for action at any given time; and the
ability of a system to map its controls to changes in the mediated environment in a
natural and predictable manner (Steuer, 1992: 856) respectively.
379
3 Playfulness is the degree to which an interactive experience is entertaining. Choice

deals with the amount of alternatives available to users in an interactive experience,
similar to range. Connectedness is the feeling of being able to link to the outside
world and to broaden ones experience easily (Ha and James, 1998: 462). Information
collection is similar to Heeters (1989) monitoring of information use dimension.
Finally, reciprocal communication mirrors the concept of feedback.
4 Direction of communication refers to the idea that two-way communication is more
interactive than one-way communication (McMillan, 2000: 71). Timing flexibility
refers to the degree to which users have some control in the timing of messages.
Place is similar to Ha and James (1998) discussion of connectedness. Control is the
extent to which users feel in command during interactive communication.
Responsiveness entails the effort required by users to react in interactive experiences.
Finally, perceived purpose of communication is the degree to which users feel that
the goal of communication is more oriented to exchanging information than to
attempting to persuade (Downes and McMillan, 2000: 173).
5 Procedural simply means that the environments have rules, and participatory means
that the environments are responsive to user input (Murray, 1997: 74).
6 Before continuing, two caveats must be mentioned. First, please note that the rules
expressed are to be used for specific observation in an experimental environment.
Other methods might require different sets of rules. Secondly, the rules created here
are derived from combinations of theoretical and positivistic discussions.
7 This should by no means indicate that I completely reject interactivitys application in
face-to-face communication, but rather feel such applications are rooted in a different
interpretation of the concept than the one employed here perhaps the concept of
interaction is more appropriate in that context. For my purposes though, it is the
simulation of interpersonal communication that is crucial.
8 Channel traffic would inevitably play a role in this measure and might be considered a
characteristic of communication context, but this hypothetical analysis presumes that
the capacity to overcome channel traffic lies in the structure of technology and is thus
a measure of the medium.
References
Aldersey-Williams, H. (1996) Interactivity With a Human Face, Technology Review 99(2)
(FebruaryMarch): 346.
Bretz, R. (1983) Media for Interactive Communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Chaffee, S.H. (1991) Communication Concepts 1: Explication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Chesebro, J.W. and D.G. Bonsall (1989) Computer Mediated Communication: Human
relationships in a Computerized World. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
DeFleur, M.L. and S.J. Ball-Rokeach (1989) Theories of Mass Communication. New York:
Longman.
Downes, E.J. and S.J. McMillan (2000) Defining Interactivity: A Qualitative
Identification of Key Dimensions, New Media and Society 2(2): 15779.
Durlak, J.T (1987) A Typology for Interactive Media, in M.L. McLaughin (ed.)
Communication Yearbook 10, pp. 74357. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dyson, E. (1993) Interactivity Means Active Participation (Using Computers to
Facilitate Interpersonal Communication), Computerworld 27(50): 33.
Finn, T.A. (1998) A Conceptual Framework for Organizing Communication and
Information Systems, paper presented to the International Communication
Association, Jerusalem, July 2024.
380
Goertz, L. (1995) Wie interaktiv sind Medien? Auf dem Weg zu einer Definition von
Interaktivitt, Rundfunk und Fernsehen 43(4): 47793.
Ha, L. and L. James (1998) Interactivity Re-examined: A Baseline Analysis of Early
Business Websites, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 42(4): 45774.
Heckel, P. (1984) The Elements of Friendly Software Design. New York: Warner Books.
Heeter, C. (1989) Implications of New Interactive Technologies for Conceptualizing
Communication, in J.L. Salvaggio and J. Bryant (eds) Media Use in the Information
Age: Emerging Patterns of Adoption and Computer Use, pp. 21735. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Heeter, C. (2000) Interactivity in the Context of Designed Experience, Journal of
Interactive Advertising 1(1), URL (consulted June 2001): http://www.jiad.org/vol1/
no1/heeter/.
Hoffman, D. and T.P. Novak (1996) Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated
Environments: Conceptual foundations, Journal of Marketing 60(3): 508.
Hutheesing, N. (1993) Interactivity for the Passive, Forbes, 6 December, pp. 244 6.
Jensen, J.F. (1998) Interactivity: Tracing a New Concept in Media and Communication
Studies, Nordicom Review 19: 185204.
Kayany, J.M., C.E. Wotring and E.J. Forrest (1996) Relational Control and Interactive
Media Choice in Technology-Mediated Communication Situations, Human
Communication Research 22(3): 399421.
Keltner, J.W (1973) Elements of Interpersonal Communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Kenney, K., A. Gorelik and S. Mwangi (2000) Interactive Features of Online
Newspapers, First Monday Journal, URL (consulted June 2001): http://
www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_1/kenney/.
Lanham, R.A. (1993) The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Laurel, B. (1986a) Interface as Mimesis, in D.N. Norman and S.W. Draper (eds), Usercentered System Design, pp. 6786. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Laurel, B. (1986b) Toward the Design of a Computer-based Interactive Fantasy System
(unpublished PhD dissertation). Ohio State University.
Laurel, B. (1991) Computers as Theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Leary, T. (1990) The Interpersonal, Interactive, Interdimensional Interface, in B. Laurel
(ed.) The Art of HumanComputer Interface Design, pp. 229234. Menlo Park, CA:
Addison-Wesley.
Lombard, M. and T. Ditton (1997) At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence,
Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 3(2), URL (consulted June 2001):
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/lombard.html.
Lombard, M. and J. Snyder-Duch (2001) Interactive Advertising and Presence: A
Framework, Journal of Interactive Advertising 1(2), URL (consulted June 2001):
http://jiad.org/vol1/no2/lombard/
McMillan, S.J. (2000) Interactivity is in the Eye of the Beholder. Function, Perception,
Involvement, and Attitude Toward Web Sites, in M.A. Shaver (ed.) Proceedings of the
2000 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, pp. 718. East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University.
McQuail, D. (1994) Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage.
Massey, B.L. and M.R. Levy (1999) Interactivity, Online Journalism, and EnglishLanguage Web Newspapers in Asia, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly
76(1): 13851.
Meyers, G.E. and T.M. Meyers (1976) The Dynamics of Human Communication: A
Laboratory Approach (2nd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill.
381
Murray, J.H (1997) Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. New
York: Free Press.
Naimark, M. (1990) Realness and Interactivity, in B. Laurel (ed.) The Art of Human
Computer Interface Design. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Nass, C., M. Lombard, L. Henriksen and J. Steuer (1995) Anthropocentrism and
Computers, Behaviour and Information Technology 14(4): 22938.
Nass, C., Y. Moon, B.J. Fogg, B. Reeves and D.C. Dryer (1995) Can Computers Be
Human Personalities?, International Journal of HumanComputer Studies 43: 22339.
Newhagen, J.E., J.W. Cordes, and M.R. Levy (1995) [email protected]: Audience
Scope and the Perception of Interactivity in Viewer Mail on the Internet, Journal of
Communication 45(3): 16475.
Norman, D.N. (1988) The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Doubleday.
Pavlik, J.V. (1998) New Media Technology: Cultural and Commercial Perspectives (2nd edn).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Rafaeli, S. (1985) If the computer is a medium, what is the message: Explicating
interactivity. Paper presented at the International Communication Association annual
convention, Dallas, TX.
Rafaeli, S. (1986) The Electronic Bulletin Board: A Computer Driven Mass Medium,
Computers and the Social Sciences 2(3): 12336.
Rafaeli, S. (1988) Interactivity: From New Media to Communication, in R.P.
Hawkins, J.M. Wieman and S. Pingree (eds) Advancing Communication Science: Merging
Mass and Interpersonal Processes, pp. 11034. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rafaeli, S. and R.J. Larose (1993) Electronic Bulletin Boards and Public Goods
Explanations of Collaborative Mass Media, Communication Research 20(2): 17797.
Rafaeli, S. and F. Sudweeks (1997) Networked Interactivity, Journal of Computer
Mediated Communication 2(4), URL (consulted June 2001): http://www.ascusc.org/
jcmc/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html.
Rafaeli, S., F. Sudweeks, J. Konstan and E. Mabry (1994) Project H Technical Report,
URL (consulted June 2001): http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/ ~ fay/netplay/
techreport.html.
Reeves, B. and C.I. Nass (1996) The Media Equation. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Rheingold, H. (1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. New
York: Addison-Wesley.
Rice, R.E. (1984) Mediated Group Communication, in R.E. Rice and Associates (eds)
The New Media: Communication, Research, and Technology, pp. 10720. Norwood, N.J.:
Ablex.
Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.W. (1994) The Death of Advertising, Journal of Advertising
23(4) 7178.
Schneiderman, B. (1987) Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human
Computer Interaction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schudson, M. (1978) The Ideal of Conversation in the Study of Mass Media,
Shannon, C. and W. Weaver (eds) (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Sims, R. (1995) Interactivity: A Forgotten Art?, Instructional Technology Research Online,
URL (consulted June 2001): http://www.gsu.edu/ ~ wwwitr/docs/interact/.
Steuer, J.S. (1992) Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence,
Journal of Communication 42(4): 7393.
382
Stromer-Galley, J. (2000) Online Interaction and Why Candidates Avoid It, Journal of
Communication 50(4): 11132.
Sundar, S.S., K.M. Hesser, S. Kalyanaraman and J. Brown (1998) The Effect of
Interactivity on Political Persuasion, paper presented at the Sociology and Social
Psychology section at the 21st General Assembly and Scientific Conference of the
International Association for Media and Communication Research, Glasgow, July.
Turkle, S. (1984) The Second Self. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Walther, J.B. and J.K. Burgoon (1992) Relational Communication in ComputerMediated Interaction, Human Communication Research 19(1): 5080.
Walther, J.B., J.F. Anderson and D.W. Park (1994) Interpersonal Effects in ComputerMediated Interaction, a Meta-analysis of Social and Antisocial Communication,
Wiener, N. (1948) Cybernetics. New York: John Wiley.
Williams, F., R.E. Rice and E. Rogers (1988) Research Methods and the New Media. New
York: Free Press.
Wu, G. (1999) Perceived Interactivity and Attitude Toward Websites, paper presented at
the Annual Conference of the American Academy of Advertising in Albuquerque,
New Mexico, March.
Zeltzer, D. (1992) Autonomy, Interaction, and Presence, Presence 1(1): 12732.
SPIRO KIOUSIS is currently an assistant professor in the Department of Public Relations at
the University of Florida. He holds a bachelors degree from the University of San Francisco
(1995), a masters degree from Stanford University (1996), and a doctorate from the University
of Texas at Austin (2000). His primary research interests are in political communication and
new communication technologies. Address: Department of Public Relations, 13201 SW 2nd
Place, Gainsville, FL 32607, USA. [email: [email protected]]
383

Interactivity: A Concept Explication: University of Florida, USA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interactivity: A Concept Explication: University of Florida, USA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interactivity: A Concept Explication: University of Florida, USA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

new media & society

New Media & Society 4(3)

scholars have highlighted the confusion embedded in theoretical discussions

provide a general background of interactivity;

independent variable to describe a medium (e.g. Kayany et al., 1996) and as

New Media & Society 4(3)

meanings. Two dimensions emerge in scholarly work that could be used to

emphasized categories can still be used to group many of the various

In a similar vein, Williams et al. stated that interactivity is the degree to

New Media & Society 4(3)

focus, in this perspective, has transferred from channel to message

Several academic and professional applications of interactivity have

Durlak (1987) expresses a slightly different technological viewpoint by

complexity of choice available;

New Media & Society 4(3)

Though not exact, many of these variables can be classified as employing

As a whole, such definitions primarily focus on computer-mediated

New Media & Society 4(3)

standard in mediated communication experiences (Schudson, 1978), yet the

Notwithstanding an emphasis on technology, surprisingly what we find, at

New Media & Society 4(3)

complexity of choice by looking at alternatives for speed and language.

New Media & Society 4(3)

Interactivity is as an expression of the extent that in a given series of

standards of speed and perceptions of speed. This is a crucial distinction,

New Media & Society 4(3)

scattered definitions reviewed. It is now necessary to converge on some

New Media & Society 4(3)

that interactivity conceptions are merged into a hybrid definition. A succinct

New Media & Society 4(3)

conversations through a CB radio to live chats on the internet. Of course,

gauging interactivity in this manner, we can make comparisons across

New Media & Society 4(3)

software to transmit information from one participant to another or the

interpersonal communication. Some of the most paramount variables in

New Media & Society 4(3)

interactive environments. User perceptions also fluctuate due to individual

Throughout this explication, it has been substantiated that interactivity is

composite variable. Thus, scholars can be as specific or general as needed in

New Media & Society 4(3)

3 Playfulness is the degree to which an interactive experience is entertaining. Choice

New Media & Society 4(3)

You might also like