|
Broadening the Boundaries of Interactivity: A Concept Explication
By
Spiro Kiousis
Doctoral Student
Department of Journalism
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
(512) 719-5572
[log in to unmask]
Submitted to the AEJMC annual conference in New Orleans, LA August 4-7, 1999
The author would like to thank Dr. Nick Lasorsa and Dr. Julie Newton for their
helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Broadening the Boundaries of Interactivity: A Concept Explication
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 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 about how the concept should be
theoretically and operationally defined. Following Chaffee's (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 people's perceptions.
Submitted to the AEJMC annual conference in New Orleans, LA August 4-7, 1999
Broadening the Boundaries of Interactivity: A Concept Explication
Broadening the Boundaries of Interactivity: A Concept Explication
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. Newhagen et al. (1995) and Steuer (1992), for example,
elaborate on the lack of theoretical discussion with the concept of
interactivity and subsequent problems it raises in research. Such questions
surround whether interactivity is a characteristic of the context in which
messages are exchanged or is it strictly dependent upon the technology used in a
communication process? Further, are we drifting toward a more cybernetic model
of communication as outlined by Wiener (1948)? Thus, it would be valuable to
explicate this concept in an attempt to contribute to the term's theoretical
foundation, which has lagged far behind the proliferation of empirical work
converging on it. Consequently, in this analysis, Chaffee's (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 itselfDespecially when conceptions
are hotly contested as has been the case with interactivity. More than anything
else, explication is about theorizing. Chaffee (1991) 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" (p.14). Accordingly, the following steps were
executed to complete this project: (1) provide a general background of
interactivity; (2) survey relevant literature on the concept; (3) identify the
concept's central operational properties; (4) locate the present definitions of
the concept; (5) evaluate and modify those definitions; (6) propose a conceptual
definition; (7) propose an operational definition; and (8) discuss the
implications of the arrived at definition on future research.[1]
GENERAL BACKGROUND
When first thinking about interactivity, one must outline some basic
assumptions that researchers connect with the term. Generally, we will find
that interactivity is associated with new communication technologies (e.g.,
DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1989). The level of interactivity varies across media,
usually anchored in their ability to facilitate interactions similar to
interpersonal communication (Williams et al., 1986). However, the standard for
what makes one medium more interactive than another is quite ambiguous. In most
empirical literature, interactivity is employed as an assumed independent
variable to describe a medium (e.g., Kayany et al., 1996). In these types of
studies, researchers call an experimental condition "interactive" without
considering multiple levels of the variable, let alone defining its meaning.
Newhagen et al. (1995) deviate from the norm by examining "perceived"
interactivity as an individual level psychological variable.
At first blush, one could submit that there should be no alarm at the scarcity
of theoretical debate on interactivity. As long as we all accept that the term
implies some degree of receiver feedback and is linked to new technologies, why
should there be a problem? The dilemma is that while these basic tenets are
usually agreed upon, the components and features that comprise the various
definitions can lead to great discrepancies in scholarly output. Newhagen et
al. (1995), for instance, articulate that interactivity levels rise and fall
within a medium dependent on people's perceptions, while Schneiderman (1987)
suggests interactivity levels only fluctuate by altering technological
properties. Further, variables that are highly related to interactivity, such
as social presence and feedback, are shaped by how scholars conceptualize it.
Thus, Bretz (1983) reports that interactivity is linked 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 logical step is to survey the concept's
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 explanations prepared by researchers from many different
academic and professional perspectives. Indeed, interactivity elucidations have
been predominantly informed by communication, psychological, and computer /
science design literature--although other disciplines have also made meaningful
contributions. Due to the diverse literature on the subject, it is apparent
that some organizational device would be indispensable in discerning among its
various meanings. Two dimensions emerge in scholarly work that could be used to
arrange the various definitions: the object emphasized by scholars and the
intellectual perspective from which the meaning originated. Of course, the
categories within the two dimensions do overlap, yet still allow for concise
classification of the literature. Table 1 is presented below for the reader's
reference throughout the remainder of this project.
- - - Table 1 Here - - -
As the analysis continues, we will begin to fill in the table cells with various
authors in hopes of locating common threads and subtle differences across the
literature.
Communication Definitions
Any discussion of interactivity inevitably draws from its roots in Cybernetic
theory as mapped out by Wiener (1948). As a basic communication model, the
chief difference between Cybernetic theory and the Shannon and Weaver (1949)
model was its emphasis on feedback. This ability for message receivers to
respond to message senders developed into a principal component of 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. As with most
communication work investigating this topic, the Cybernetic position belongs in
the middle cell of our first column in Table 1.
With the growth of new media such as the computer, videotext, cellular phones,
etc., more conceptual deliberation of interactivity was needed. Thus, Rafaeli
(1988) explains interactivity "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" (p.111). Williams et al. (1988) write that interactivity
is "the degree to which participants in a communication process have control
over, and can exchange roles in, their mutual discourse is called interactivity"
(p.10). Here, we see a shift away from emphasis on channels and more to the
interconnected relationship between messages exchanged (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 movies tonight, why
have you changed your mind?"
User 2: "I didn't 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, engendering a third-order dependency. In addition, interactivity
necessitates user control over the pace and content of the medium in question
(see Bretz, 1983). It relies upon an individual's ability to comprehend and
react to previous message transmissions among participants. Consequently, while
this definition clusters into the communication setting's category, the object
of focus, in this perspective, has transferred from channel to message
relationship. Most conventional use of interactivity has stemmed from this
belief. If a system allows for third-order dependency between participants, it
is deemed interactive. In empirical terms, scholars in this tradition examine
content of interactive media and link it to psychological and behavioral
variables (e.g., Rafaeli, 1986; Rafaeli & Larose, 1993).
Of course, this approach is problematic because it does not underscore elements
of interactivity that other researchers find substantial--specifically,
technological and individual factors. Current work bridging communication and
computer science (e.g., Reeves & Nass, 1996) has prompted designers to consider
technological structure and audience idiosyncrasies when formulating their
products. Steuer (1992), for example, furnishes an intricate 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"
(p.84). His conception is admittedly 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
(1996) argues that "IDEO found that most people only use a few functions offered
by state-of-the-art television, and that they tend no to readjust the controls
once they have set them" (p.35). In this situation, excessive range overburdens
the user. Nevertheless, the potential quantification of interactivity levels,
as generated by Steuer (1992), is of great benefit for constructing operational
definitions.
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
our litmus test to recognize interactivity. Returning to Table 1, we deduce
that Steuer and Durlak 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, at least one study delves into the user's perception of interactivity
as a dependent variable. Newhagen et al. (1995) adopt interactivity as a
psychological variable in a content analysis of NBC news viewer e-mail to gauge
perceptions of interactivity. Specifically, the size of the intended audience
in an e-mail message is inversely correlated to the level of perceived
interactivity--i.e., the smaller the audience, the higher the level of perceived
interactivity. Unlike other constructs, here interactivity is comprehended as a
variable that can dwell within an individual's cognitions. This perceiver-based
outlook introduces a new path for researchers to explore. This complements
previous conceptions that emphasized channel and medium structure.
Psychological Definitions
Though communication theorists perhaps provide the most systematic overview of
interactivity, this explication project would be incomplete without
acknowledging the additions made by other intellectual discourses. It is well
documented that psychology plays a central 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 (1990)
poses an intriguing analogy comparing the evolution of interactivity to the
development of interpersonal in psychology. "Both concepts are related to
very wide and deep and irrevocable changes in the way people relate to the
world" (p. 230). In fact, Leary predicts that the success of an interactive
medium hinges on its ability to resemble the interpersonal. This conclusion
runs parallel to communication scholars who have long asserted that face-to-face
communication is a consummate interactive experience (see Bretz, 1983; Williams
et al., 1988).
Turkle (1984), while never affording any formal definition of interactivity,
further develops the notion of interactivity 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). Indeed, there is a connotation that
interactivity is related to the ability of individuals to experience different
media as if they were engaging with other human beings. This is substantial
because the evaluation of interactivity does not lie within the technology but
in the perception of the user. This has shocking ramifications for scholars who
judge a medium as interactive on the basis of technological criteria.
Obviously, this academic work is best placed in the lowest cell of the
psychological column in Table 1.
Computer Science / Design Definitions
Much of the work in the communication technology category is derived from the
computer science / design literature. Generally, one would expect the object of
interest in such perspectives to be media technology. That is, the user of
interactive media would be, at best, a mechanism initiating an interactive
communication experience, but not a central figure in the concept's definition.
For example, in professional circles, interactive media are often thought to be
"mechanisms for delivering image, text and sound data in which the user
interacts with the database" (Hutheesing, 1993, p. 244). Further, Dyson (1993)
infers that most computer professionals understand interactivity in terms of
converging technology. Surprisingly though, 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 perceiver-determined representations. Heckel
(1984) recommends that interactive software designers "learn to think like a
communicator and to practice an artistic craft as well as an engineering one"
(p.xii).
Interactivity definitions are consistently becoming more user-based. Naimark
(1990) suggests 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. Moreover, Norman's (1988) theme of mapping as a
vital factor in interactivity confirms the human-centered concern evident in
current design literature. Collectively, computer science / design researchers
have greatly enhanced our knowledge of interactivity through their balanced
consideration of technology and human beings. By combining the cogent areas of
communication, psychological, and design definitions, we may be able to identify
the true nature of this variable.
Summary
Before proceeding any further, it is essential we reformulate Table 1 to
organize the major authors of the literature review visually. In addition,
certain attributes salient to authors should also be listed. Table 2 is
presented below as a reference for the remainder of this project.
- - - Table 2 Here - - -
EMPIRICAL DESCRIPTION
Based on the literature review, it is clear that the operational definition
properties of interactivity are limited. Formal operational definitions are
basically non-existent and little empirical work demarcates levels of the
variable (although the conceptual definitions certainly imply this possibility).
However, by closely scrutinizing the small number of studies that discuss
interactivity operationally, some of these properties may be pinpointed.
Typically, interactivity is used as a descriptive characteristic of new media
(e.g., DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1989). Most authors center on feedback as the
key signal of interactivity (e.g., Rafaeli, 1988). Thus, if participants can
engage in a message transaction that is comparable to interpersonal
communication, the experience is labeled interactive (e.g., Kayany et al.,
1996). Obviously, this is not a precise operational measure of interactivity.
At best, interactivity, in this light, is a two-level, nominal variable; i.e.,
something is or is not interactive.
As mentioned earlier, an exception to this norm occurs in Newhagen et al.
(1995) where interactivity is operationalized as a perception of the individual.
Specifically, messages addressing large audiences indicate low perceptions of
interactivity, while those targeting an interpersonal audience are perceived to
be highly interactive. This type of research is promising because it shows that
interactivity is not just applicable in depicting media technology. Steuer
(1992) does not perform an empirical analysis but advocates that interactivity
should be operationalized in terms of the medium's speed, range, and mapping
abilities.
While few studies operationally define interactivity, we may be able to glean
some very basic operational properties from the literature. As disclosed in
Newhagen et al. (1995) and in some 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 could vary within individuals' perceptions.
Steuer (1992) hints that interactivity levels should correlate with
telepresence.[3] Newhagen et al. (1995) discovered that perceived interactivity
corresponds to intended audience size. Finally, based on the arguments of Bretz
(1983) and Rafaeli (1988), one can assume that the ability to induce feedback is
a major prerequisite to calling a medium or a communication experience
interactive.
DEFINITION
Generally, it appears that most interactivity research fails to properly
conceptualize or operationalize the term (e.g., Kayany et al., 1996). On a
simple everyday level, interactivity deals with the ability of systems to
simulate face-to-face 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:
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, p.111).
Williams et al. (1986) say "the degree to which participants in a communication
process have control over, and can exchange roles in, their mutual discourse is
called interactivity" (p.10).
Steuer (1992) reports it as "the extent to which users can participate in
modifying the form and content of a mediated environment in real-time" (p.84).
Based on scholarly work from the intellectual discourses covered, we can begin
to compile a list of the various elements and meanings of interactivity. Some
consensus can be reached concerning the chief ingredients of an interactive
experience. Two-way communication must exist, usually through a mediated
channel. The roles of message sender and receiver must be interchangeable
between equal participants. The speed of communication among participants
should probably occur as close to real-time as possible, although there are
instances when it might not be (to be discussed below). In addition, some
third-order dependency between participants is usually necessary. For the most
part, communicators can be human or machine. Individuals must be able to
manipulate content, form, and pace of the mediated environment in some way.
Finally, face-to-face communication remains a standard by which we judge
interactivity.
Problems w/ Definitions
While some unanimity among authors is clear from these common definitional
threads, problems frequently arise when scholars stress 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 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 related to the concept of speed is that, it too, is weakly
explicated. For instance, a distinction should be made between objective
standards of speed and perceptions of speed. This is a critical distinction
because people's interpretations of an interactive experience will not
necessarily conform to objective measures of dimensions of that experience.
Thus, communicating on the Internet with a 28800 modem by today's standards is
perceived as average in terms of speed, but a few years ago, this seemed like
lightning. In a few years, it will be perceived as extremely slow. The point
here is that objective standards of speed (e.g., 28800 BPS) might not change,
but users' perceptions do. Accordingly, we should separate these two qualities
of speed in our consideration of interactivity.
Beyond speed, other problems also exist with the definitions reviewed herein.
In contrast to some of the technologically based work (e.g., Durlak, 1987), for
example, the original Cybernetic model seems appropriate for specific mediums
(e.g., telephone) because of its emphasis on feedback, although this model is
probably antiquated for some of today's complex media technology (e.g., Virtual
Reality). Moreover, authors, including Heckel (1984) and Schneiderman (1992),
conceive 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) takes this a step further by displaying
interactivity as a possible perception for individual users.
Others maintain that a system may not be interactive if all it members cannot
cognitively process the messages transmitted, raising questions about machine to
machine communication (see Williams et al., 1988 for discussion). The notion of
real-time is problematic because it suggests that instantaneous feedback is
required for an interactive experience. Still, many technologies, which most
scholars would concur are interactive, have delays in response times (e.g.,
email may be returned after one week but is still considered interactive by
most). One strategy for solving this dilemma might be to think of real-time on
a continuum, where instantaneous communication is the ideal for interactive
experiences, but delayed communication is also acceptable. The key feature is
that two-way communication is possible; the speed (perceived and real) of the
two-way communication is important but secondary.
Finally, the face-to-face standard is difficult to reconcile with the
possibility of communicating one-to-many as might be the case with e-mail.
Therefore, while some basic agreement exists on a few fundamental attributes of
interactivity, our challenge remains to assimilate the plethora of scattered
conceptions in the literature into a comprehensive framework.
Before abandoning this section, it is often helpful to link the theoretical
meanings of abstract terms with more low order concepts. Perhaps the most
concrete term embracing interactivity is technology. In recent years,
interactivity has become more and more associated with 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., TV, radio, and newspapers) are
excluded 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, 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.[4] First of all, there must be at
least two participants (human or non-human) for interactive communication to
transpire. Except for the case of face-to-face communication, some technology
allowing for mediated information exchanges between users through a channel must
be present (e.g., telephone or computer chatroom). Finally, the possibility for
users to modify the mediated environment as close to real-time as possible must
also exist. Once these conditions have been met, interactive communication can
be detected.
The key to noticing interactivity on an individual level lies in the
researcher's competency to recognize simultaneous comprehension and response to
communication transmissions by participants. Normally, evidence for this would
consist of direct observations, questionnaires, and content analyses.
Psychological scales, like those formed in Newhagen et al. (1995), could be
contrived to approximate perceptions of interactivity by users. For example,
questionnaires might monitor typical interpersonal communication variables as
indicators of perceived interactivity, i.e., the higher scores on such variables
would mean higher perceptions of interactivity. To ascertain interactivity
levels of a particular medium, researchers could devise a scale based on
predetermined parameters. Specifically, the number of possible actions
available to users (range) by a media system could be one indicator of
interactivity for a particular 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. Hence, we could make comparisons across media and individuals more
precisely than previously imagined. This would be a powerful tool for both
professionals and academics.
REVIEW OF DEFINITIONS
As argued earlier, little consensus has been achieved regarding interactivity.
So far, we have identified the concept, surveyed the literature, and reviewed
the scattered definitions. It is now necessary that we hone in on some basic
properties of the varied definitions. To begin, interactivity should be
categorized as a relational variable. 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 and speed (perceived and real).
Most definitions of interactivity are tacit. Researchers often make broad
assumptions about interactivity and simply merge them into positivist work as a
two-level, nominal independent variable. Many of the explicit interpretations
that endure (e.g., Rafaeli, 1988, Bretz 1983) understand interactivity in
abstract terms but do not really delve into operational definitions. The
closest attempts would resemble the Steuer (1992) and Newhagen et al. (1995)
studies, but more work needs to be executed.
The scant supply of empirical work makes evaluation of other researchers'
operational measures arduous. Few would dispute that the concept "really"
exists, but how one would isolate and order it is subject to debate. Currently,
the best technique for appraising operational measures of interactivity is to
either sift through the few studies operationalizing this variable (as done in
the present analysis) or to explore empirical literature covering related
concepts such as social presence. Walther et al. (1994) encapsulate previous
work on some related variables.
The academic usage of "interactivity" is marginally inconsistent at best.
While some accord on the general meaning remains, 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--e.g., Steuer, (1992) and Durlak,
(1987) both believe that social presence is a crucial factor. In fact, meanings
are not so scattered that intellectual dialogue is impossible. Reconsideration
of interactivity by academics can bring about a more holistic awareness of the
concept.
DEFINITION MODIFICATION
As we continue through the explication process, we may want to contemplate
modification of interactivity definitions. So far, we have demonstrated that
interactivity definitions have three 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
multiple conceptions, it is imperative that instead, we merge interactivity
conceptions into a hybrid definition. A parsimonious interpretation that
encompasses the central aspects of the previous definitions reviewed is more
appropriate. The goal here is to eliminate nonessential components of the
varying 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 (Durlak, 1987); (2) the context of communication settings (Rafaeli,
1993); and (3) the perception of users (Turkle 1984). 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 1 Here - - -
TENTATIVE DEFINITION
As asserted throughout this paper, interactivity definitions have stressed
three primary areas: 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 equal participants can communicate (both one-to-one and one-to-many) as
close to real-time as possible 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.
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 a video-game, as long as the
system conforms to the other specifications enumerated. Participant
relationships would normally be human-to-machine or human-to-human via machine
but could be machine-to-machine in rare cases. Real-time refers to the degree
communication exchanges can be synchronous but note that "as close as possible"
suggests a range, making instantaneous communication back and forth an ideal
standard rather than a necessary characteristic. In short, real-time is a goal
for interactive experiences to strive for but not always attainable.
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). 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 all 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
mediated and non-mediated 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 definition's
exclusion of "pure" interpersonal communication is debatable; however, we feel
the concept is so tied to technology (from a communication perspective at least)
that we distinguished between mediated and nonmediated experiences.[5] The
"range" strategy to real-time is also meaningful because delayed responses in
communication are still included in the definition, yet we are additional able
to understand that communication experiences become more "interactive" as they
approach real-time.
The vague use of "mediated environment" is bound to receive criticism but is
purposeful because we are aiming to accommodate all two-way communication
performed with or through media technologies. Of course, some mediated
environments are more interactive than others, contingent on factors such as
choices of actions provided to participants and the ease with which participants
can direct and adjust the constructed mediated environment. This will be
discussed in more detail in the operational definition stage of the explication
process. Finally, perceptions, in this view, are limited to humans because
researchers argue that the simulation of interpersonal communication and
increased telepresence are variables relevant only to human communication, not
machine-to-machine interactions (e.g., Keltner, 1973). The first portion of the
offered definition adequately accounts for machine-to-machine communication
experiences, while human perceptions are integrated into the second segment.
To observe interactivity as it has been outlined above, we require a
three-stage inspection procedure. 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., how fast does a system allow
for information transmissions? Next, we will want to scrutinize the environment
in which 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 individual 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 this variable. Thus, the units of analysis are as
follows: individual mediums, single communication experiences (comprised of sets
of message transmissions based on interactions with communication technologies),
and user perceptions.
Because of the different measures necessary to observe interactivity as
completely as it is proposed here, data conversions are inevitable 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 average number of
choices allowed by a medium and the average speed of communication into the
conversion. In the second stage of the inspection process, traditional
operational procedures for third-order dependencies will 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 on the intentions of the study, scholars may include just one of these
measures in their inquiries or perform more complex statistical tests to create
an "overall interactivity score." By gauging interactivity in this manner, we
can make comparisons across mediums, communication exchanges, individuals, and
overall interactive experiences. This is an especially precious resource for
empirical researchers in the new media area who are regularly called upon to
make comparisons of new technologies. At this point, specific operational
procedures will be supplied to explain how this might manifest in an empirical
investigation.
OPERATIONAL DEFINITION
For the purposes of this explication project, we will suppose that a researcher
is interested in ascertaining the total degree of interactivity for some new
computer communications system software. We will also assume that the scholar
has the means to perform an experiment, which would be the ideal method for
evaluating the system. The first step he must take is to define the population
and draw a sample.[6] A random sample of about 30 computers equipped with the
system would suffice to represent the overall population. He will also need to
draw an equal sample of users to test out the system. In social scientific
investigations, every attempt should be made to acquire a sample with the
demographic makeup of the population that the researcher wants to make
generalizations about (Kerlinger, 1986). Once the sample is found, the
researcher must now devise measures and make his observations.
Creating operational measures is one of the more challenging phases in carrying
out an empirical study because the items need to be discernible enough that they
can be measured but also need to encompass the actual concept the researcher is
attempting to quantify. Hence, a major consideration revolves around the
reliability and validity of measures. By applying multiple indicators as
intended here, our empiricist should dramatically strengthen reliability
(Chaffee, 1991). The researcher 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 will be
collected by scrutinizing: attributes of the software program, the content of
communication transmissions, and user perceptions.
The first operational measures will examine the medium's structure, i.e., the
computer system. Steuer (1992) and Durlak (1987) confer 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. Our researcher could operationalize speed (objective)
as an average between the amount of time it takes for the software to transmit
information from one participant to another or the whole group and the amount of
time responses take to be communicated (feedback).[7] Range could be computed
as the number of actions the system advances 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. Building on the ideas of Durlak
(1987), the scholar 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 mediums
because it acknowledges that video-conferencing, for instance, 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 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 signify higher levels of 'technological
interactiveness.'
The second set of operational measures concentrates on the environment in which
interactive communication takes place. For this, the researcher could have two
measures: one of third-order dependency and one of social presence. Third-order
dependency would be quantified in the content analysis by the percentage of
overall messages that refer to prior message transmissions. Subjective
judgments of coders would probably be sufficient to assess which messages allude
to prior exchanges and which 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.). While 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
researcher must judge how well a communication experience simulated face-to-face
communication, since we have already decided that face-to-face communication is
a standard by which interactive communication is evaluated. Some of the most
important variables in face-to-face / interpersonal communication are proximity,
sensory activation, and speed of response (Bretz, 1983; Chesebro & Bonsall,
1989; Meyers & Meyers, 1976). Therefore, the questionnaire should measure these
and other related variables such as telepresence to compute a perceived
interactivity score.
Our hypothetical scholar could form Likert scales for each of these
measures. Thus, they would 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) speed of response would be operationalized as how fast users
perceived the system allowed participants to react to one another's
transmissions from "very 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. Of course, other factors could adversely affect
telepresence, but the researcher hopes that randomization should control for
these. 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 have been collected, they would be transformed, producing
technological, communication context, and perceived interactivity scores. Once
the three scores are verified, we can either combine them statistically to
manufacture an overall interactivity score or simply use them individually to
make decisions about the system. As an overall score, the data would cover all
three essential dimensions of the interactivity definition offered.
Individually, the data magnify the attribute of interactivity upon which the
researcher wishes to converge on.
Empirically, the data will 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 consistent until innovations are made to systems.
In contrast, context and perceived interactivity levels oscillate 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 interactive environments. User perceptions also
fluctuate due to individual differences, inexperience in using computer
communications systems, etc.
Before evaluating the operational definition, it would be advantageous to link
the operational definitions with the conceptual definition established earlier.
Visually, this manifestation might look something like this.
- - - Figure 2 Here - - -
Throughout this explication project, we have substantiated that interactivity
is operationally composed of three components: properties of technology,
attributes of communication context, and user perceptions. Each is equally
important and combine to form the overarching concept known as interactivity.
In contrast, interactivity can also be thought of along three dimensions that
fuse together to form the broad 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
definitions match well with our conceptual definition of the term. Speed
(objective), range, and sensory activation are qualities associated with the
structure of technology and can be used to estimate high and low levels of
interactivity. Third-order dependency and social presence were fundamental
aspects in the proposed 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 face-to-face communication, a benchmark by which
interactive communication is judged.
On the whole, the operational definition supplied herein not only describes the
essence of the theoretical definition of interactivity but may also help broaden
the concept's boundaries. In comparison to previous versions, the interactivity
definition provided above is expansive, permitting for analyses across mediums
and individuals. Interactivity is understood as both a media and psychological
variable. In addition, interactivity is offered here as a variable that can be
examined along its discrete dimensions or as a single, 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 TV
and text. Similar to this merging, interactivity conceptions need to be
integrated into a hybrid definition. From this analysis, we have shown the
significance of devising conceptual and operational definitions that embrace
interactivity as a media and psychological variable. To restate, interactivity
can be defined as:
the degree to which a communication technology can create a mediated environment
in which equal participants can communicate (both one-to-one and one-to-many) as
close to real-time as possible 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 medium used (objective speed, range, & sensory complexity),
characteristics of the communication settings (third-order dependency & social
presence), and individuals' perceptions (proximity, perceived speed, sensory
activation, & telepresence). Hence, we have outlined definitions that have
coalesced the most important elements of prior conceptions into a concise
framework. 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.
Notes
Tables & Figures
TABLE 1: INTERACTIVITY DEFINITIONS
Intellectual Perspective
Communication
Psychology
Computer Science / Design
Technology
Object Emphasized
Communication Setting
Perceiver
TABLE 2: INTERACTIVITY DEFINITIONS
Intellectual Perspective
Communication
Psychology
Computer Science / Design
Technology
Steuer (Mapping)
Durlak (Sensory-
richness)
Schneiderman (System functionality)
Hutheesing
(Message delivery)
Object Emphasized
Communication Setting
Wiener (Cybernetic
theory)
Williams (Mutual
discourse)
Bretz (3rd-order
dependency)
Rafaeli (3rd-order
dependency)
Perceiver
Newhagen et al.
(Perceived interactivity)
Leary (Interpersonal simulation)
Turkle (Humanistic
interactions)
Schneiderman (Learning speed)
Norman (Mapping)
Figure 1: Dimensions of Interactivity
Figure 2: Operationalization of Interactivity
[--- Pict Graphic Goes Here ---]
WORKS CITED & CONSULTED
Aldersey-Williams, H. (1996). Interactivity with a human face. Technology
Review.
Feb.-March, v99, 34-36.
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. & Bonsall, D.G. (1989). Computer mediated communication: human
relationships in a computerized world. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama
Press.
DeFleur, M.L. & Ball-Rokeach, S.J. (1989). Theories of mass communication.
New
York: Longman.
Dyson, E. (1993). Interactivity means 'active' participation. (using computers
to facilitate
interpersonal communication). Computerworld. 12/13/97. v27, n50,
33.
Durlak, J.T. (1987). A typology for interactive media. In M.L. McLaughin
(Ed.),
Communication Yearbook 10 (pp. 743-757). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Heckel, P. (1984). The elements of friendly software design. New York: Warner
Books.
Hutheesing, N. (1993). Interactivity for the passive. Forbes. 12/6/93,
244-246.
Kayany, J.M., Wotring, C.E., & Forrest, E.J. (1996). Relational control and
interactive
media choice in technology-mediated communication situations. Human
Communication Research, 22, (3), 399-421.
Keltner, J.W. (1973). Elements of interpersonal communication. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.
Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). New
York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Leary, T. (1990). The interpersonal, interactive, interdimensional interface.
In B. Laurel
(Ed.), The art of human-computer interface design. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Co.
McQuail, D. (1994). Mass communication theory. London: Sage.
Meyers, G.E., & Meyers, M.T. (1976). The dynamics of human communication: a
laboratory approach (2nd edition). New York: McGraw Hill.
Naimark, M. (1990). Realness and interactivity. . In B. Laurel (Ed.), The art
of human-
computer interface design. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Newhagen, J.E., Cordes, J.W., & Levy, M.R. (1995). [log in to unmask]: audience
scope and the perception of interactivity in viewer mail on the
internet. Journal of Communication, 45, (3), 164-175.
Norman, D.N. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.
Rafaeli, S. (1986). The electronic bulletin board: a computer driven mass
medium.
Computers and the Social Sciences, 2, (3), 123-136.
Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R.P.
Hawkins,
J.M. Wieman, & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: merging
mass and interpersonal processes (pp. 110-134). Newbury, CA: Sage.
Rafaeli, S., & Larose, R.J. (1993). Electronic bulletin boards and "public
goods"
explanations of collaborative mass media. Communication Research,
20, (2), 177-197.
Reeves, B. & Nass, C.I. (1996). The Media Equation. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Rice, R.E. (1984). Mediated group communication. In Rice, R.E., & Associates
(eds.). The New Media: Communication, Research, and Technology, 107-120.
Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Schneiderman, B. (1987). Designing the user interface: strategies for
effective human-
computer interaction. Massachusetts: Addison-Weeley Publishing Co.
Shannon, C. & Weaver, W. (eds). (1949). The mathematical theory of
communication.
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Steuer, J.S. (1992). Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining
telepresence.
Journal of communication, 42 (4), 73-93.
Turkle, S. (1984). The second self. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Walther, J.B., Anderson, J.F., & Park, D.W. (1994). Interpersonal effects in
computer-
mediated interaction, a meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication.
Communication Research, 21, (4), 460-487.
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics. New York: John Wiley.
Williams, F., Rice, R.E., & Rogers, E. (1988). Research methods and the new
media.
New York: The Free Press.
[1] It is important to recognize that these steps represent one method for
explicating a concept and is by no means exhaustive. Chaffee (1991) 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" (p.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" (p.85-86)
respectively.
[3] Telepresence is the degree a media user feels their mediated environment
takes precedence over their physical environment.
[4] 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 a different set of rules. Second, due
to the lack of empirical work on interactivity, the rules created here are
derived from combinations of theoretical and positivistic discussions.
[5] This by no means should indicate that we reject interactivity's application
in interpersonal communication but rather feel such applications should be
rooted in a different interpretation of the concept than the one employed here.
For our purposes though, it is the simulation of interpersonal communication
that is crucial and not the actual process itself.
[6] The term "he" shall be used (at times) when referring to the researcher in
this stage of the explication. It is by no means a judgment on the talent of
female scholars. It is merely a convenient term due to force of habit. Indeed,
I have had positive experiences with both male and female researchers and aspire
to make no distinctions in my scholarly work.
[7] 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.
|
