Interactivity

Asta Zelenkauskaite, Vilnius Tech, Lithuania & Drexel University, USA
az358@drexel.edu

From the macro perspective, interactivity entails larger theoretical constructs such as power of control where the power is shifted to users to express opinions, especially through online spaces that allow for user-generated content to circulate.

Interactivity has been conceptualised through the web 2.0 paradigm where users were given a possibility to not only passively create and consume content but also to engage with the content and each other.

Interactivity, thus, has been through various lenses; typically a mix of the following: it encompasses technological properties that enable interactivity to take place, communication contexts, and user perceptions and experiences. Others, such as McMillan, proposed similar approaches that include a mixed human and technology approach that has been summarised as the following three traditions of interactivity research: human-to-human interaction, human-to-document interaction, and human-to-system interaction.

For Jensen, typology approach of interactivity includes elements that pertain to information traffic: transmission, registration, consultation, and conversation.

And for Rafaeli, conversation approach to interactivity includes the following elements: interactivity is viewed as a property of message exchange, where the ideal circle is completed when two messages are synthesised by a third message.

In the mass media contexts, four broad conceptualisations of interactivity with regard to space and time have been proposed by Van Dijk. Spatial dimension is based on the mere availability of interactive applications; as such they allow for reaction. Temporal aspects entail synchronicity and response time becomes a variable that defines the success of interaction where the lag is perceived as creating damaging consequences to communication. The level of control in which communicative actors exercise to choose types and amount of contents to be exchanged is another dimension of interactivity. The last dimension is the highest abstract dimension that deals with understanding of contexts in which interaction of content takes place.

All these approaches suggest a multifaceted meaning of interactivity that shapes the way opinions are created and circulated, especially in online contexts, mediated by technological affordances through social construction of technology.

Keywords: asynchronous communication, interactivity, technological affordances, synchronicity, social construction of technology

Related Entries: Social Media, Affordances/Affordance Theory

References:
van Dijk, J. (2004). Digital media. In J. D. H. Downing, D. McQuail, P. Schlesinger, & E. Wartella (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media studies (pp. 145-164). Sage.
Jensen, J. F. (1998). ‘Interactivity’: Tracking a new concept in media and communication studies. Nordicom Review, 19(1), 185-204.
McMillan, S. J. (2002). Exploring models of interactivity. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of new media. Social shaping and consequences of ICTs (pp. 163-182). London.
Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins, J. Wienmann, & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal process (pp. 110-134). SAGE.
Sundar, S. S. (2004). Theorizing interactivity's effects. Information Society, 20(5), 385- 389.