User Engagement with Interactive Media: A Communication Perspective

Abstract

This chapter builds on previous work that positions user engagement on the user involvement continuum and suggests that user engagement is comprised of physical interactions with media, cognitive involvement, absorption in media content, and behavioral outcomes in the form of outreach or media participation. The authors explore medium or interface characteristics and individual differences in the form of “power users” as determinants of user engagement, and persuasion as an outcome. An empirical example is user to illustrate the relationship between physical interactions, cognitive engagement, imagery engagement, and user attitudes and behavioral intentions. The chapter acknowledges and seeks to remedy the challenge associated with integrating conceptual frameworks of user engagement into design principles.

References

  1. 1.
    Adamo-Villani, N., Richardson, J., Carpenter, E., Moore, G.: A photorealistic 3d virtual laboratory for undergraduate instruction in Microcontroller Technology. In: 33rd SIGGRAPH 2006 (S. 21). ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agarwal, R., Karahanna, E.: Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Q 24, 665–694 (2000). doi:10.2307/3250951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Askwith, I.D.: Television 2.0: reconceptualizing TV as an engagement medium. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chicago (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Attfield, S., Kazai, G., Lalmas, M., Piwowarski, B.: Towards a science of user engagement (Position Paper). In: WSDM Workshop on User Modeling for Web Applications (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bellur, S., Sundar, S.S.: Interactivity as conversation: Can back and forth interactions affect user cognitions and attitudes? Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, London (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhargava, H.K., Feng, J.: America Online’s Internet access service: how to deter unwanted customers. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 4 (1), 35–48 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Biocca, F.: Virtual reality technology: a tutorial. J. Commun. 42 (4), 23–72 (1992). doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00811.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bucy, E.P.: Interactivity in society: locating an elusive concept. Inf. Soc. 20, 373–383 (2004). doi:10.1080/01972240490508063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bucy, E., Tao, C.-C.: The mediated moderation model of interactivity. Media Psychol. 9 (3), 647–672 (2007). doi:10.1080/15213260701283269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Busselle, R., Bilandzic, H.: Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: a model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Commun. Theory 18 (2), 255–280 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Busselle, R., Bilandzic, H.: Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychol. 12 (4), 321–347 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Calder, B.J., Malthouse, E.C., Schaedel, U.: An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. J. Interact. Mark. 23 (4), 321–331 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carr, N.G.: The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains. W.W. Norton, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., Gummadi, K.P.: Measuring userinfluence in twitter: the million follower fallacy. In: 4th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), vol. 14(1), pp. 8–17 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chapman, P., Selvarajah, S., Webster, J.: Engagement in multimedia training systems. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (1999). doi:10.1109/HICSS.1999.772808Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chu, S.C., Kim, Y.: Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. Int. J. Advert. 30 (1), 47–75 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coyle, J.R., Thorson, E.: The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in Web marketing sites. J. Advert. 30, 65–77 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cunningham, T., Hall, A.S., Young, C.: The advertising magnifier effect: an MTV study. J. Advert. Res. 46 (4), 369 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dobele, A., Toleman, D., Beverland, M.: Controlled infection! Spreading the brand message through viral marketing. Bus. Horiz. 48 (2), 143–149 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dobrian, F., Sekar, V., Awan, A., Stoica, I., Joseph, D., Ganjam, A., Zhang, H.: Understanding the impact of video quality on user engagement. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 41 (4), 362–373 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dow, S., Mehta, M., Harmon, E., MacIntyre, B., Mateas, M.: Presence and engagement in an interactive drama. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1475–1484. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Evans, D.: Soc Media Marketing: The Next Generation of Business Engagement. Wiley, Hoboken (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eveland, W.P., Marton, K., Seo, M.: Moving beyond “just the facts”: the influence of online news on the content and structure of public affairs knowledge. Commun. Res. 31 (1), 82–108 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Falls, J.: What’s the value of social media “engagement?” The Financial Brand. http://thefinancialbrand.com/35062/social-media-engagement-in-banking/ (2013). Cited 15 Feb 2015
  25. 25.
    Fazio, R.H., Zanna, M.P., Cooper, J.: Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency: an information processing analysis. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 4 (1), 48–51 (1978). doi:10.1177/014616727800400109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Green, M.C., Brock, T.C.: The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 79 (5), 701 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Harden, L., Heyman, B.: Digital Engagement: Internet Marketing that Captures Customers and Builds Intense Brand Loyalty. AMACOM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hayes, A.F.: Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Heath, R.: How do we predict advertising attention and engagement? University of Bath School of Management Working Paper Series. http://opus.bath.ac.uk/286/1/2007-09.pdf (2007). Cited 15 Feb 2015
  30. 30.
    Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. Gremler, D.D.: Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? J. Interact. Mark. 18 (1), 38–52 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hu, Y., Sundar, S.S. Effects of online health sources on credibility and behavioral intentions. Commun. Res. 37 (1), 105–132 (2010). doi:10.1177/0093650209351512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    IJsselsteijn, W.A., de Ridder, H., Freeman, J., Avons, S.: Presence: concept, determinants and measurement. Proc. SPIE, Hum. Vis. Electron. Imaging V 3959, 520–529 (2000). doi:10.1177/0093650209351512Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Indvik, L.: Cost Per Like: A Subjective Valuation of Your Facebook Fans. http://mashable.com/2013/04/26/facebook-cost-per-like/ (2013). Cited 15 Feb 2015
  34. 34.
    Jacques, R., Preece, J., Carey T.: Engagement as a design concept for multimedia. Can. J. Educ. Commun. 24 (1), 49–59 (1995)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kalyanaraman, S., Sundar, S.: The psychological appeal of personalized content in web portals: does customization affect attitudes and behavior? J. Commun. 56 (1), 110–132 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Klein, L.R.: Creating virtual product experiences: the role of telepresence. J. Interact. Mark. 17, 41–55 (2003). doi:10.1002/dir.10046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lee, S.-S. Lee, W.: Exploring effectiveness of physical metaphor in interaction design. In: CHI 2009 Proceedings. ACM, Boston (2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Li, H., Daugherty, T., Biocca, F.: Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase intention: the mediating role of presence. J. Advert. 31 (3), 43–57 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lindgaard, G., Dudek, C., Sen, D., Sumegi, L., Noonan, P.: An exploration of relations between visual appeal, trustworthiness and perceived usability of homepages. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 18 (1), 1–28 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Liu, Y., Shrum, L.J.: 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. J. Advert. 31 (4), 53–64 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liu, Y., Shrum, L.J.: A dual-process model of interactivity effects. J. Advert. 38 (2), 53–68 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    McMillan, S.J.: A four-part model of cyber-interactivity: some cyber-places are more interactive than others. New Media Soc. 4 (2), 271–291 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mollen, A., Wilson, H.: Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer experience: reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. J. Bus. Res. 63 (9), 919–925 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    O’Brien, H., Toms, E.G.: What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59 (6), 938–955 (2008)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    O’Brien, H., Toms, E.G.: The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61 (1), 50–69 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Oh, J., Bellur, S., Sundar, S.S.: Clicking, assessing, immersing and sharing: an empirical model of user engagement with interactive media. Commun. Res. (2015). doi:10.1177/0093650215600493 [Published online before print September 21, 2015] (in press)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Oh, J., Sundar, S. S.: How does interactivity persuade? Effects of interactivity on cognitive absorption, elaboration, and attitudes. J. Commun. 65, 213–236 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Parsons, T.: Generating ‘Engagement’ on Facebook Is Just The Beginning. The Financial Brand. http://thefinancialbrand.com/37709/facebook-engagement-roi-metrics-in-banking/ (2014). Cited 15 Feb 2015
  49. 49.
    Plummer, J., Cook, B., Diforio, D., Schachter, B., Sokolyanskaya, I. Korde, T.: Measures of Engagement. Advertising Research Foundation, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rafaeli, S.: From new media to communication. Sage Annual Rev. Commun. Res. 16, 110–134 (1988)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Reeves, B., Nass, C.: The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Reeves, B., Nass, C.: Perceptual user interfaces: perceptual bandwidth. Commun. ACM 43 (3), 65–70 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rogers, A.M.: The Virtuous Cycle: Online News, Industry Change and User Choice. Res Pap 104. http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/gs_rp/104 (2011). Cited 15 Feb 2015
  54. 54.
    Schlosser, A.E.: Experiencing products in the virtual world: the rule of goal and imagery in influencing attitudes versus purchase intentions. J. Consum. Res. 30, 184–198 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shepard, R.N.: The mental image. Am. Psychol. 33 (2), 125–137 (1978). doi:10.1037/0003-066X.33.2.125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Slater, M.D. Rouner, D.: Entertainment, education and elaboration likelihood: understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Commun. Theory 12 (2), 173–191 (2002)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Smith, R.E., Swinyard, W.R.: Cognitive response to advertising and trial: belief strength, belief confidence and product curiosity. J. Advert. 17 (3), 3–14 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Steuer, J.: Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. J. Commun. 42 (4), 73–93 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Strange, J.J., Leung, C.C.: How anecdotal accounts in news and in fiction can influence judgments of a social problem’s urgency, causes, and cures. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25 (4), 436–449 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Stromer-Galley, J.: Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process. Inf. Soc. 20 (5), 391–394 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sundar, S.S.: Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: a study of picture, audio, and video downloads. J. Mass Commun. Q. 77, 480–499 (2000). doi:10.1177/107769900007700302 Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Sundar, S.S.: Social psychology of interactivity in human-website interaction. In: Joinson, A.N., McKenna, K.Y.A., Postmes, T., Reips, U.-D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology, pp. 89–104. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Sundar, S.S.: The MAIN model: a heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In: Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J. (eds.) Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility, pp. 72–100. MIT, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sundar, S.S., Marathe, S.S.: Personalization versus customization: the importance of agency, privacy, and power usage. Hum. Commun. Res. 36 (3), 298–322 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sundar, S.S., Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Hastall, M.R.: News cues: information scent and cognitive heuristics. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58 (3), 366–378 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Sundar, S.S., Xu, Q., Bellur, S., Jia, H., Oh, J., Khoo, G.-S.: Click, drag, flip, and mouse-over: effects of modality interactivity on user engagement with web content. Paper presented at the 60th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Singapore (2010)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Sundar, S.S., Oh, J., Bellur, S., Jia, H., Kim, H.S.: Interactivity as self-expression: a field experiment with customization and blogging. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 395–404. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sundar, S.S., Bellur, S., Oh, J., Xu, Q., Jia, H.: User experience of on-screen interaction techniques: an experimental investigation of clicking, sliding, zooming, hovering, dragging and flipping. Hum. Comput. Interact. 29 (2), 109–152 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sundar, S.S., Bellur, S., Oh, J., Jia, H., Kim, H.S.: Theoretical importance of contingency in human-computer interaction: effects of message interactivity on user engagement. Commun. Res. (2014). doi:10.1177/0093650214534962. http://crx.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/21/0093650214534962 [Published online before print on May 22, 2014] (in press)
  70. 70.
    Sutcliffe, A.: Designing for user engagement: aesthetic and attractive user interfaces. Synth. Lect. Hum.-Cent. Inform. 2 (1), 1–55 (2009)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Tavanti, M., Lind, M.: 2D vs 3D, Implications on spatial memory. In: Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (INFOVIS’01), San Diego, 22–23 October, pp. 139–148 (2001)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46 (2), 186–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Vorderer, P.: Entertainment theory. In: Bryant, J., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D., Cantor, J. (eds.) Communication and Emotion: Essays in Honor of Dolf Zimmerman, pp. 131–153. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wang, A.: Advertising engagement: a driver of message involvement on message effects. J. Advert. Res. 46 (4), 355–368 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Webster, J., Ho, H.: Audience engagement in multimedia presentations. ACM SIGMIS Database 28 (2), 63–77 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Wise, K., Bolls, P.D., Schaefer, S.R.: Choosing and reading online news: how available choice affects cognitive processing. J. Broadcast Electron. Media 52 (1), 69–85 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J.: Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence 7 (3), 225–240 (1998). doi:10.1162/105474698565686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Wu, G., Wu, G.: Conceptualizing and measuring the perceived interactivity of websites. J. Curr. Issues Res. Advert. 28 (1), 87–104 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Xu, Q., Sundar, S.S.: Lights, camera, music, interaction! Interactive persuasion in e-commerce. Commun. Res. 41 (2), 282–308 (2014). doi:10.1177/0093650212439062Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Robert Morris UniversityMoon TownshipUSA
  2. 2.The Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations