Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
New Media & Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mcmillan, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

A four-part model of cyber-interactivity

Some cyber-places are more interactive than others

Sally J. Mcmillan

University of Tennessee, sjmcmill{at}utk.edu

Existing communication models and definitions of interactivity provide both background and structure for a new model of cyber-interactivity that is introduced and explored in this article. Two primary dimensions, direction of communication and level of receiver control over the communication process, provide the primary framework for this new model of computer-mediated cyber-interactivity. A study designed to explore the applicability of this model analyzed 108 health-related websites using both perception-based and feature-based measures of these two dimensions. No significant correlation was found between the perception-based and feature-based models. The perception-based model was a better predictor of attitude toward the website and perceived relevance of the subject of the website than the feature-based model. However, the feature-based model may hold greater promise as a tool for website developers who seek to incorporate appropriate levels of interactivity in their websites.

Key Words: communication models • interactivity • new media

New Media & Society, Vol. 4, No. 2, 271-291 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/146144480200400208
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 New Media SocietyHome page
O. Quiring
What do users associate with 'interactivity'?: A qualitative study on user schemata
New Media Society, September 1, 2009; 11(6): 899 - 920.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 New Media SocietyHome page
G. Goggin and C. Spurgeon
Premium rate culture: the new business of mobile interactivity
New Media Society, October 1, 2007; 9(5): 753 - 770.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 New Media SocietyHome page
M. Van Selm and A. Peeters
Additional communication channels in Dutch television genres
New Media Society, August 1, 2007; 9(4): 651 - 669.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 New Media SocietyHome page
R. Richards
Users, interactivity and generation
New Media Society, August 1, 2006; 8(4): 531 - 550.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 New Media SocietyHome page
R. Cover
Audience inter/active: Interactive media, narrative control and reconceiving audience history
New Media Society, February 1, 2006; 8(1): 139 - 158.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 New Media SocietyHome page
T. Wilson, A. Hamzah, and U. Khattab
The 'Cultural Technology of Clicking' in the Hypertext Era: Electronic Journalism Reception in Malaysia
New Media Society, December 1, 2003; 5(4): 523 - 545.
[Abstract] [PDF]