/ Many researchers suggest that communication is most effective if a high level of interactivity between participants is involved. As yet, however, there is neither consensus on how interactivity is defined, nor on how it can be measured. The present study is aimed at finding an operational definition of interactivity that can be used in almost all communication contexts. Additionally, based primarily on three recent reviews on the concept, the study proposes an objective instrument for determining different levels of interactivity. The instrument consists of a checklist for observing the presence of a set of representative characteristics such as synchronicity, timing flexibility, control over content, physical presence of participants and the extent to which participants in a communication situation use their senses. The applicability of the instrument is demonstrated by determining the interactivity levels of two exemplary communication situations.
Bailey, M. (1992) `The Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity in an Interactive Video Lesson on Achievement, Attitude and Peer Interaction', unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University .
2.
Bakeman, R. and J.M. Gottman (1997) Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis, 2nd edn. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bezjian-Avery, A., B. Calder and D. Iacobucci (1998) `New Media Interactive Advertising vs Traditional Advertising', Journal of Advertising Research38(4): 23-32.
5.
Blattberg, R.C. and J. Deighton (1991) `Interactive Marketing: Exploiting the Age of Addressability' , Sloan Management Review33(1): 5-14.
6.
Bretz, R. (1983) Media for Interactive Communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
7.
Burgoon, J.K., J.A. Bonito, A. Ramirez Jr, N.E. Dunbar, K. Kam and J. Fischer (2002) `Testing the Interactivity Principle: Effects of Mediation, Propinquity, and Verbal and Nonverbal Modalities in Interpersonal Interaction', Journal of Communication52: 657-77.
8.
Cathcart, R. and G. Gumpert (1983) `Mediated Interpersonal Communication: Toward a New Typology', Quarterly Journal of Speech69: 267-77.
9.
Daft, R.L. and R.H. Lengel (1986) `Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness, and Structural Determinants', Management Science32(5): 554-71.
10.
Deighton, J. (1996) `The Future of Interactive Marketing', Harvard Business Review74: 151-62.
11.
Downes, E.J. and S.J. McMillan (2000) `Defining Interactivity: A Qualitative Identification of Key Dimensions', New Media and Society2: 157-79.
12.
Durlak, J.T. (1987) `A Typology for Interactive Media', pp. 743-57 in M.L. McLaughlin (ed.) Communication Yearbook 10. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
Ellis, D. (1993) `Modeling the Information Seeking Patterns of Academic Users: A Grounded Theory Approach', Library Quarterly63(4): 69-86.
14.
Ghose, S. and W.Y. Dou (1998) `Interactive Functions and Their Impacts on the Appeal of Internet Presences Sites', Journal of Advertising Research38: 29-43.
15.
Ha, L. and L. James (1998) `Interactivity Re-Examined: A Baseline Analysis of Early Business Websites', Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media42: 457-74.
16.
Heeter, C. (1989) `Implications of Interactivity for Communication Research', pp. 217-35 in J. Salvaggio and J. Bryant (eds) Media Use in the Information Age: Emerging Patterns of Adoption and Consumer Use. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
Jaffe, J.M. (1997) `Media Interactivity and Self-Efficacy: An Examination of Hypermedia First Aid Instruction', Journal of Health Communication2(4): 235-51.
18.
Jensen, J.F. (1998) `Interactivity: Tracing a New Concept in Media and Communication Studies', Nordicom Review19(1): 185-204.
19.
Kiousis, S. (2002) `Interactivity: A Concept Explication', New Media and Society4: 355-83.
20.
Leary, T. (1990) `The Interpersonal, Interactive, Interdimensional Interface', pp. 229-34 in B. Laurel (ed.) The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
21.
Liu, Y. (2003) `Developing a Scale to Measure the Interactivity of Web Sites', Journal of Advertising Research43: 207-16.
22.
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.
23.
McMillan, S.J. (2002) `Exploring Models of Interactivity from Multiple Research Traditions: Users, Documents, and Systems', pp. 163-82 in L. Lievrouw and S. Livingstone (eds) The Handbook of New Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
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.
25.
Morris, M. and C. Ogan (1997) `The Internet as Mass Medium', Journal of Communication46(1): 39-50.
26.
Murray, J.H. (1997) Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. New York: Free Press.
27.
Newhagen, J.E., J.W. Cordes and M.R. Levy (1995) `Nightly@nbc.com: Audience Scope and the Perception of Interactivity in Viewer Mail on the Internet', Journal of Communication 45(3): 164-75.
28.
Pavlik, J. (1996) New Media Technology. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
29.
Rafaeli, S. (1988) `Interactivity: From New Media to Communication' , pp. 110-34 in R.P. Hawkins, J.M. Wiemann and S. Pingree (eds) Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Process. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
30.
Rheingold, H. (1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. New York: Addison-Wesley .
31.
Rice, R.E. (1984) `New Media Technology: Growth and Integration' , pp. 33-54 in R.E. Rice (ed.) The New Media: Communication, Research, and Technology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32.
Rogers, E.M. and D.L. Kincaid (1981) Communication Networks: Toward a New Paradigm for Research. New York: Free Press.
33.
Schultz, T. (2000) `Mass Media and the Concept of Interactivity: An Exploratory Study of Online Forums and Reader Email', Media, Culture and Society22(2): 205-21.
34.
Sohn, D. and B.-K. Lee (2005) `Dimensions of Interactivity: Differential Effects of Social and Psychological Factors', Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10(3).
35.
Steuer, J. (1992) `Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence', Journal of Communication42(4): 73-93.
36.
Stromer-Galley, J. (2000) `On-Line Interaction and Why Candidates Avoid it' , Journal of Communication50(4): 111-32.
37.
Sundar, S.S., S. Kalyanaraman and J. Brown (2003) `Explicating Web Site Interactivity: Impression Formation Effects in Political Campaign Sites', Communication Research30(1): 30-59.
38.
Tremayne, M. and S. Dunwoody (2001) `Interactivity, Information Processing, and Learning on the World Wide Web', Science Communication23(2): 111-34.
39.
Walther, J.B. (1992) `Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction: A Relational Perspective', Communication Research19: 52-90.
40.
Walther. J.B. (1996) `Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyper-personal Interaction', Communication Research23: 3-43.
41.
Walther, J.B. and L.C. Tidwell (1996) `When is Mediated Communication not Interpersonal?' , pp. 300-7 in K.M. Galvin and P.J. Cooper (eds) Making Connections: Readings in Relational Communication. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
42.
Walther, J.B., G. Gay and J.T. Hancock (2005) `How Do Communication and Technology Researchers Study the Internet?', Journal of Communication55: 632-57.
43.
Williams, F., R.E. Rice and E.M. Rogers (1988) Research Methods and the New Media. New York: Free Press.
44.
Wu, G. (1999) `Perceived Interactivity and Attitude toward Websites' , pp. 254-62 in M.S. Roberts (ed.) Proceedings of the 1999 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising. Gainesville: University of Florida.
