‘Interactivity’ was one of the major buzzwords of the 1990s. Although the academic discourse has produced a large number of different concepts of ‘interactivity’, in everyday life it still remains a label put on all kinds of aspects of online communication and digital media. Drawing on schema theory this article explores the concepts of ‘ordinary’ users (i.e. people who are not professional experts). The results indicate that users associate the foremost social and individual issues with the term ‘interactivity’, i.e. what they can accomplish by using media in terms of self-development, social influence and social relationships.
Bartlett, F.C. ( 1932) Remembering. Studies in Experimental and Social Psychology . London: Cambridge University Press .
2.
Beck, K. and G. Vowe ( 1995) ‘Multimedia aus Sicht der Medien’, Rundfunk und Fernsehen43(4): 549-63.
3.
Bezjian-Avery, A., B. Calder and D. Iacobucci ( 1998) ‘New Media Interactive Advertising vs. Traditional Advertising’, Journal of Advertising Research38(4): 23-32.
4.
Blattberg, R.C. and J. Deighton ( 1991) ‘Interactive Marketing: Exploiting the Age of Addressability’ , Sloan Management Review33(1): 5-14.
5.
Bos, M.J.W. and C.M. Koolstra ( 2005) ‘Developing a New Objective Instrument to Measure Different Levels of Interactivity’, paper presented at the First European Communication Conference, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 24-26 November.
6.
Bretz, R. and M. Schmidbauer ( 1983) Media for Interactive Communication. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
7.
Brosius, H.B. ( 1991) ‘Schema-Theore - ein brauchbarer Ansatz für die Wirkungsforschung?’, Publizistik36(2): 285-97.
8.
Bucy, E.P. ( 2004) ‘Interactivity in Society: Locating an Elusive Concept’ , The Information Society20(5): 373-83.
9.
Chung, H. and X. Zhao ( 2004) ‘Effects of Perceived Interactivity on Web Site Preference and Memory: Role of Personal Motivation’, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication10(1), URL (consulted January 2006): http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/chung.html
10.
Coyle, J.R. and E. Thorson ( 2001) ‘The Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in Web Marketing Sites’, Journal of Advertising30(3): 65-77.
11.
Crockett, W.H. ( 1988) ‘Schema, Affect, and Communication’, in L. Donohew, H.E. Sypher and T.E. Higgins (eds) Social Cognition and Affect, pp. 33-52. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Downes, E.J. and S.J. McMillan ( 2000) ‘Defining Interactivity - A Qualitative Identification of Key Dimensions’, New Media & Society2(2): 157-79.
13.
Durlak, J.T. ( 1987) ‘A Typology for Interactive Media’, in M.L. McLaughlin (ed.) Communication Yearbook 10, pp. 743-57. Newbury Park, CA: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Ha, L. and James E.L. ( 1998) ‘Interactivity Re-examined: A Baseline Analysis of Early Web Sites’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media42(4): 457-74.
15.
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 Consumer Use, pp. 217-35. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
Heeter, C. ( 2000) ‘Interactivity in the Context of Designed Experiences’ , Journal of Interactive Advertising1(1), URL (consulted January 2005): http://jiad.org/vol1/no1/heeter/
17.
Hoffmeyer-Slotnik, J.H.P. and J.A. Harkness ( 2005) Methodological Aspects in Cross-National Research. Mannheim: ZUMA.
18.
Hofstede, G. ( 2001) Culture’s Consequences. Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
19.
IBM Business Consulting Services (2005) ‘Medienstudie 2005’, Mediaculture-online, URL (consulted June 2007): http://www.mediacultureonline.de/fileadmin/bibliothek/ibm_medienstudie/ibm_medienstudie.pdf
20.
Jaffe, J.M. ( 1997) ‘Media Interactivity and Self-Efficacy: An Examination of Hypermedia First Aid Instruction’, Journal of Health Communication2(4): 235-51.
21.
Jensen, J.F. ( 1998) ‘Interactivity. Tracking a New Concept in Media and Communication Studies’, Nordicom Review19(1): 185-204.
22.
Jensen, K.B. ( 2002) ‘The Qualitative Research Process’, in K.B. Jensen (ed.) A Handbook of Media and Communication Research. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods , pp. 235-53. London: Routledge.
23.
Kiousis, S. ( 2002) ‘Interactivity: A Concept Explication’, New Media & Society4(3): 355-83.
24.
Lee, K.M. ( 2004) ‘Presence, Explicated’, Communication Theory14(1): 27-50.
25.
Liu, Y. and L.J. Shrum ( 2002) ‘What Is Interactivity and Is it Always Such a Good Thing? Implications of Definition, Person, and Situation for the Influence of Interactivity on Advertising Effectiveness’, Journal of Advertising31(4): 53-64.
26.
Lowe, D. and H. Hall ( 1999) Hypermedia and the Web. An Engineering Approach. Chichester: Wiley.
27.
McMillan, S.J. ( 2000) ‘Interactivity Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Function, Perception, Involvement, and Attitude Toward the Web Site’, in M.A. Shaver (ed.) Proceedings of the 2000 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, pp. 71-8. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
28.
McMillan, S.J. ( 2002a) ‘Exploring Models of Interactivity from Multiple Research Traditions: User, Documents and Systems’, in L.A. Lievrouw and S. Livingstone (eds) Handbook of New Media. Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs, pp. 163-82. London: SAGE.
29.
McMillan, S.J. ( 2002b) ‘A Four-Part Model of Cyber-Interactivity’ , New Media & Society4(2): 271-91.
30.
McMillan, S.J. and J.S. Hwang ( 2002) ‘Measures of Perceived Interactivity: An Exploration of the Role of Direction of Communication, User Control, and Time in Shaping Perceptions of Interactivity’, Journal of Advertising31(3): 29-42.
31.
Morrison, M.A. ( 1998) ‘A Look at Interactivity from a Consumer Perspective’ , in J.B. Ford and E.J.D. Honecutt (eds) Developments in Marketing Science, pp. 149-54. Norfolk, VA: Academy of Marketing Science.
32.
Neisser, U. ( 1976) Cognition and Reality: Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
33.
Nielsen, J. ( 2000) Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.
34.
Rafaeli, S. ( 1988) ‘Interactivity. From New Media to Communication’ , in R.P. Hawkins, J.M. Wiemann and S. Pingree (eds) Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes , pp. 110-34. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
35.
Rafaeli, S. and F. Sudweeks ( 1997) ‘Networked Interactivity’, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication2(4), URL (consulted May 2004): http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html
36.
Rogers, E.M. ( 1986) Communication Technology. The New Media in Society. New York: Free Press.
37.
Rumelhart, D.E. ( 1980) ‘Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition’ , in R.J. Shapiro, B.C. Bruce and W.E. Brewer (eds) Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension, pp. 33-58. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
Schönbach, K. ( 2005) ‘The Hyperactive Audience - Still an Illusion’ , in P. Rössler and F. Krotz (eds) Mythen der Mediengesellschaft , pp. 267-77. Konstanz: UVK.
39.
Schulz, W. ( 2002) ‘Kommunikationsprozess’, in E. Noelle-Neumann, W. Schulz and J. Wilke (eds) Fischer Lexikon Publizistik - Massenkommunikation, pp. 153-82. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.
40.
Short, J., E. Williams and B. Christie ( 1976) The Psychology of Telecommunications. London: Wiley.
41.
Steuer, J. ( 1992) ‘Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence’, Journal of Communication42(4): 73-93.
42.
Thurlow, C., L. Lengel and A. Tomic ( 2004) Computer Mediated Communication. Social Action and the Internet. London: SAGE.
43.
Van Eimeren, B. and B. Frees ( 2005) ‘Nach dem Boom: Größter Zuwachs in internetfernen Gruppen’, Media Perspektiven (8): 362-79.
44.
Vorderer, P. ( 2000) ‘Interactive Media and Beyond’, in D. Zillmann and P. Vorderer (eds) Media Entertainment. The Psychology of its Appeal , pp. 21-36. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
Williams, F., R.E. Rice and E.M. Rogers ( 1988) Research Methods and the New Media. New York: Free Press.
46.
Wu, G. ( 1999) ‘Perceived Interactivity and Attitude toward Websites’ , in M.S. Roberts (ed.) Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising, pp. 254-62. Gainesville : University of Florida.
