Interactivity and Persuasion

REFERENCES

• Ahern, R. Kirkland and Jennifer Stromer-Galley (2000), “The Interaction Effect: An Experimental Study of High and Low Interactivity Political Websites,” Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Acapulco, June.
   Google Scholar
• Anfuso, Dawn (2002), “Research Shows IMUs Are Working” iMedia Connection (April 4) http://www.imediaconnection.com/news/560.asp (accessed on 10/20/2003).
   Google Scholar
• Beattie, Ann E. and Andrew A. Mitchell (1985), “The Relationship between Advertising Recall and Persuasion: An Experimental Investigation,” in Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects: Theory, Research, and Application, Linda F. Alwitt and Andrew A. Mitchell, eds,. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 129-155.
   Google Scholar
• Bucy, Erik P. (2003), “The Interactivity Paradox: Closer to the News but Confused,” in Media Access: Social and Psychological Dimensions of New Technology Use, Erik P. Bucy and John E. Newhagen, eds., Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 47-72.
   Google Scholar
• Burner, Gordon C. (1998), “Standardization and Justification: Do Aad Scales Measure Up?,” Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 20 (1), 1-18.
   Google Scholar
• Chaiken, Shelley (1980), “Heuristic versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source versus Message Cues in Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (5), 752-766.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, Shelley (1987), “The Heuristic Model of Persuasion,” in Social influence: The Ontario Symposium, vol. 5, Mark. P. Zanna, James. M. Olson, and C. Peter Herman, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 3-39.
   Google Scholar
• Chaiken, Shelley and Yaacov Trope (1999), Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guildford.
   Google Scholar
• Coyle, James R. and Esther Thorson (2001), “The Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in Web Marketing Sites,” Journal of Advertising, 30 (3), 65-77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Detenber, Benjamin H. and Byron Reeves (1996), “A Bio-Informational Theory of Emotion: Motion and Image Size Effects on Viewers,” Journal of Communication, 46 (3), 66-84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Detenber, Benjamin H., Robert F. Simons, and Gary G. Bennett Jr. (1998), “Roll ‘em!: The Effects of Picture Motion on Emotional Responses,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42 (1), 113-127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, Steven M., Hairong Li, and Joo-Hyun Lee (2002), “Forced Exposure and Psychological Reactance: Antecedents and Consequences of the Perceived Intrusiveness of Pop-up Ads,” Journal of Advertising, 21 (3), 83-95.
   Google Scholar
• Fogg, Brian J. (2003), Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Boston: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Gati, Itamar and Amos Tversky (1987), “Recall of Common and Distinctive Features of Verbal and Pictorial Stimuli,” Memory & Cognition, 15 (2), 97-100.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heo, Nokon and S. Shyam Sundar (2000a), “Emotional Responses to Web Advertising,” Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Phoenix, August.
   Google Scholar
• Heo, Nokon and S. Shyam Sundar (2000b), “Visual Orientation and Memory for Web Advertising: A Study of Animation and Position Effects,” Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Acapulco, June.
   Google Scholar
• Kalyanaraman, Sriram and Mary Beth Oliver (2001), “Technology or Tradition: Exploring Relative Persuasive Appeals of Animation, Endorser Credibility, and Argument Strength in Web Advertising,” Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Education and Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, DC., August.
   Google Scholar
• Kalyanaraman, Sriram and S. Shyam Sundar (2003), “The Psychological Appeal of Personalized Online Content: An Experimental Investigation of Customized Web Portals,” Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, San Diego, May.
   Google Scholar
• Koegel, Kathryn (2003), “ Rich Media: What? Where? Why? A DoubleClick®White Paper”_0307.pdf> (accessed on 02/05/2005)
   Google Scholar
• Lang, Annie (1990), “Involuntary Attention and Physiological Arousal Evoked by Structural Features and Emotional Content in TV Commercials,” Communication Research, 17 (3), 275-299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang, Annie (1994), “What Can the Heart Tell Us about Thinking?,” in Measuring Psychological Responses to Media, Annie Lang, ed., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 99-111.
   Google Scholar
• Lang, Annie (1995), “Defining Audio/Video Redundancy from a Limited-Capacity Information Processing Perspective,” Communication Research, 22 (1), 86-115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang, Annie (2000), “The Limited Capacity Model of Mediated Message Processing,” Journal of Communication, 50 (3), 46-67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang, Annie, Jennifer Borse, Kevin Wise, and Prabu David (2002), “Captured by the World Wide Web: Orienting to Structural and Content Features of Computer-Presented Information,” Communication Research, 29 (3), 215-245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang, Annie, Kuljinder Dhillon, and Qingwen Dong (1995), “The Effects of Emotional Arousal and Valence on Television Viewers’ Cognitive Capacity and Memory,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 39 (3), 313-327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang, Annie, John E. Newhagen, and Byron Reeves (1996), “ Negative Video as Structure: Emotion, Attention, Capacity, and Memory,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40 (4), 460-477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, Hairong and Janice L. Bukovac (1999), “Cognitive Impact of Banner Ad Characteristics: An Experimental Study,” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76 (2), 341-353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, Hairong, Terry Daugherty, and Frank Biocca (2002), “Impact of 3-D Advertising on Product Knowledge, Brand Attitude, and Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role of Presence,” Journal of Advertising, 31 (3), 43-57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, Yuping 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 Advertising, 31 (4), 53-64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMillan, Sally J. and Jang Sun 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 Advertising, 31 (3), 29-42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mundorf, Norbert and Dolf Zillmann (1991), “Effects of Story Sequencing on Affective Reactions to Broadcast News,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 35 (2), 197-211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nairne, James S., Ian Neath, Matt Serra, and Eunhee Byun (1997), “Positional Distinctiveness and Ratio Rule in Free Recall,” Journal of Memory & Language, 37 (3), 155-166.
   Google Scholar
• Nass, Clifford and Youngme Moon (2000), “Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers,” Journal of Social Issues, 56 (1), 81-103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbett, Richard E. and Lee Ross (1980), Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, Richard E. and Joseph R. Priester (1994), “Mass Media Attitude Change: Implications of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” in Media effects: Advances in Theory and Research, Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 91-122.
   Google Scholar
• Rafaeli, Sheizaf (1988), “Interactivity: From New Media to Communication,” in Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes, Robert Hawkins, John M. Weimann and Suzanne Pingree, eds., Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 124-181.
   Google Scholar
• Reeves, Byron, Annie Lang, Eun Young Kim, and Debroah Tatar (1999), “The Effects of Screen Size and Message Content on Attention and Arousal,” Media Psychology, 1 (1), 49-68.
   Google Scholar
• Reeves, Byron and Clifford Nass (1996), The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Palo Alto, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
   Google Scholar
• Reeves, Byron and Clifford Nass (2000), “Perceptual bandwidth,” Communications of the ACM, 43 (3), 65-70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeves, Byron, Esther Thorson, Michael L. Rothschild, Daniel McDonald, Judith Hirsch, and R. Goldstein (1985), “Attention to Television: Intrastimulus Effects of Movement and Scene Changes on Alpha Variation over Time,” International Journal of Neuroscience, 27 (3), 241-255.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rodgers, Shelly and Esther Thorson (2000), “The Interactive Advertising Model: How people Perceive and Process Interactive ads,” Journal of Interactive Advertising 1 (1), http://www.jiad.org/vol1/no1/rodgers/index.htm (accessed on 10/10/2004).
   Google Scholar
• Sherman, Steven J. and Eric Corty (1984), “Cognitive Heuristics,” in Handbook of Social Cognition, Robert S. Wyer and Thomas K. Srull, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 189-286.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, Daniel C. and C. Whan Park (1992), “The Effects of Brand Extensions on Market Share and Advertising Efficiency,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (3), 296-313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundar, S. Shyam, Kenneth M. Hesser, Sriram Kalyanaraman, and Justin Brown (1998), “The Effect of Website Interactivity on Political Persuasion,” Paper presented at the meeting of the International Association for Media and Communication Research, Glasgow, UK, July.
   Google Scholar
• Sundar, S. Shyam and Sriram Kalyanaraman (2004), “Arousal, Memory, and Impression Formation Effects of Animation Speed in Web Advertising,” The Journal of Advertising, 33 (1), 7-17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundar, S. Shyam, Sriram Kalyanaraman, and Justin Brown (2003), “Explicating Website Interactivity: Impression-Formation Effects in Political Campaign Sites,” Communication Research, 30 (1), 30-59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundar, S. Shyam and Clifford Nass (2000), “Source Orientation in Human-Computer Interaction: Programmer, Networker, or Independent Social Actor?,” Communication Research, 27 (6), 683-703.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundar, S. Shyam and Clifford Nass (2001), “Conceptualizing Sources in Online News,” Journal of Communication, 51 (1), 52-72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundar, S. Shyam, George Otto, Lisa Pisciotta, and Karen Schlag (1997), “Animation and Priming Effects in Online Advertising,” Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago, August.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, Shelley E. (1982), “The Availability Bias in Social Perception and Interaction,” in Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic and Amos Tversky, eds., New York: Cambridge University Press, 190-200.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, Shelley E. and Suzanne C. Thompson (1982), “Stalking the Elusive Vividness Effect,” Psychological Review, 89 (2), 155-81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1985), “Measuring the Involvement Construct,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3), 341-52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar