skip to main content
10.1145/2207676.2207731acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Interactivity as self-expression: a field experiment with customization and blogging

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 May 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

A paradigmatic quality of interactive interfaces is that they allow users to express themselves, thereby converting message receivers into communication sources. We define this quality as Source Interactivity [26, 29], and test its effects on user experience with a field experiment (N=141) of a portal site featuring cosmetic customization, functional customization and blogging (active versus filter). In demonstrating the psychological influence of source-based interactivity on such outcomes as user engagement, sense of agency, sense of community, intrinsic motivation and attitudes toward the interface, we discuss how designers can use them for creating interactive tools for self-expression.

References

  1. Agarwal, R. and Karahanna, E. Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly 24, 4 (2000), 665--694. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Baghaei, N., Kimani, S., Freyne, J., Brindal, E., Berkovsky, S. and Smith, G. Engaging families in lifestyle changes through social networking. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 27, 10 (2011), 971--990.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Bailey, R. W., and Bolls, P. How avatar customizability affects children's arousal and subjective presence during junk food-sponsored online video games. CyberPsychology & Behavior 12, 3 (2009), 277--283.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Baker, J. R. and Moore, S. M. Blogging as a social tool: A psychosocial examination of the effects of blogging. CyberPsychology & Behavior 11, 6 (2008), 747--749.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Busselle, R. and Bilandzic, H. Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory 18, 2 (2008), 255--280.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Cheng, R., and Vassileva, J. User motivation and persuasion strategy for peer-to-peer communities. In Proc. HICSS'38 (2005), Hawaii, USA, 193--202. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Firpo, D., Kasemvilas, S., Ractham, P. and Zhang, X. Generating a sense of community in a graduate educational setting through persuasive technology. In Proc. Persuasive Technology, ACM Press (2009), Article 41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Flemming, M. A. and Petty, R. E. Identity and persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Attitude, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership. Mahawah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., and Blanchard, C. On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The situational motivation scale. Motivation and emotion 24, 3 (2000), 175--213.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Hassenzahl, M. and Tractinsky, N. User experience: A research agenda. Behavior and Information Technology 25, 2 (2006), 91--97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Higgins, E. T. Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review 113, 3 (2006), 439--460.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Hu, Y. and Sundar, S. S. Effects of online health sources on credibility and behavioral intentions. Communication Research 37, 1 (2010), 105--132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Huang, C., Shen, Y.-Z., Lin, H.-X. and Chang, S.-S. Bloggers' motivations and behaviors: A model. Journal of Advertising Research 47, 4 (2007), 472--484.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Iyengar, S. and Lepper, M. When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (2000), 995--1006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Kalyanaraman, S. and Sundar, S. S. The psychological appeal of personalized content in Web portals: Does customization affect attitudes and behavior? Journal of Communication 56 (2006), 110--132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Kumkale, G. T. and Albarracin, D. The sleeper effect in persuasion: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 130 (2004), 143--172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Marathe, S. S. and Sundar, S. S. The 'me' revolution in mediated communication: Investigating the psychology of cosmetic and functional customization. In Proc. International Communication Association, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Marathe, S. S. and Sundar, S. S. What drives customization? Control or identity? In Proc. CHI 2011, ACM Press (2011), 781--790. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Marathe, S. S., Sundar, S. S., Bijvank, M. N., et al. Who are these power users anyway? Building a psychological profile. In Proc. International Communication Association, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. O'Brien, H. L., Toms, E. G., Kelloway, E. K. and Kelley, E. Developing and evaluating a reliable measure of user engagement. In Proc. American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus integration. Psychological Bulletin 107 (1990), 367--374.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Rivera, D. The effect of content customization on learnability and perceived workload. In Proc. CHI '05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, ACM Press (2005), 1749--1752. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Stavrositu, C., and Sundar, S. S. (2008). Can blogs empower women? Designing agency-enhancing and community-building interfaces. In Proc. Ext. Abstracts CHI 2008, ACM Press (2008), 2781--2786. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Sundar, S. S. Self as source: Agency and customization in interactive media. In E. Konijn, S. Utz, M. Tanis, and S. Barnes (Eds.), Mediated interpersonal communication (pp. 58--74). New York: Routledge, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Sundar, S. S. Social psychology of interactivity in human-website interaction. In A. N. Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes, and U.-D. Reips (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology, (pp. 89--104). Oxford University Press Oxford, UK, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S. and Brown, J. Explicating website interactivity: Impression-formation effects in political campaign sties. Communication Research 30 (2003), 30--59.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Sundar, S. S., and Marathe, S. S. Personalization versus customization: The importance of agency, privacy, and power usage. Human Communication Research 36 (2010), 298--322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Sundar, S. S., Xu, Q., and Bellur, S. Designing interactivity in media interfaces: A communications perspective. In Proc. CHI 2010, ACM Press (2010), 2247--2256. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Ulken, E. Measuring user engagement: Lessons from BusinessWeek. Online Journalism Review. http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/eulken/200904/1696/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., Schemeichel, B. J., Twenge, J. M., Nelson, N. M. and Tice, D. M. Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94 (2008), 883--989.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Wei, L. Filter blogs vs. personal journals: Understanding the knowledge production gap on the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (2009), 532--558.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Winer, D. The history of weblogs. 2002. http://oldweblogscomblog.scripting.com/historyOfWeblogs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Xiao, J., Stasko, J., and Catrambone, R. The role of choice and customization on users' interaction with embodied conversational agents: Effects on perception and performance. In Proc. CHI 2007, ACM Press (2007), 1293--1302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Yu, F.-Y. Scaffolding student-generated questions: Design and development of a customizable online learning system, Computers in Human Behavior 25, 5 (2009), 1129--1138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Interactivity as self-expression: a field experiment with customization and blogging

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '12: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2012
      3276 pages
      ISBN:9781450310154
      DOI:10.1145/2207676

      Copyright © 2012 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 5 May 2012

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader