Clicking, Assessing, Immersing, and Sharing: An Empirical Model of User Engagement with Interactive Media

This article explicates the concept of user engagement by synthesizing a disparate body of scholarship, and suggests a measurement and a structural model for empirically capturing the meaning and process of user engagement, specifically in the context of interactive media. A second-order confirmatory factor analysis of data from two experiments (N = 263) shows that four attributes—physical interaction, interface assessment, absorption, and digital outreach—together constitute a valid and reliable operationalization of the concept of user engagement. A structural equation model reveals that greater amount of physical interaction with the interface and a more positive assessment of the interface predict cognitive absorption with the content, which in turn is associated with greater behavioral intention to manage and socially distribute the content. In addition, predictive validity tests show that the four subscales are predictors of attitudinal and learning outcomes.

[1]  S. Shyam Sundar,et al.  Beyond pointing and clicking: how do newer interaction modalities affect user engagement? , 2011, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[2]  Christoph Klimmt,et al.  Media Psychology is not yet there: Introducing Theories on Media Entertainment to the Presence Debate , 2003, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[3]  Heather L. O'Brien,et al.  Exploring user engagement in online news interactions , 2011, ASIST.

[4]  S. Chaffee,et al.  Measurement and Effects of Attention to Media News , 1986 .

[5]  Louisa Ha,et al.  Audience Evolution: New Technologies and the Transformation of Media Audiences , 2011 .

[6]  SHYAM SUNDAR,et al.  Explicating Web Site Interactivity , 2003, Commun. Res..

[7]  Hock-Hai Teo,et al.  An empirical study of the effects of interactivity on web user attitude , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[8]  A. Parkin,et al.  Human memory , 1999, Current Biology.

[9]  Florin D. Salajan,et al.  Learning with web-based interactive objects: An investigation into student perceptions of effectiveness , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[10]  S. Sundar.  The MAIN Model : A Heuristic Approach to Understanding Technology Effects on Credibility , 2007 .

[11]  D. Hoang.  FLOW: The Psychology of Optimal Experience , 2018 .

[12]  Naveen Donthu,et al.  The Impact Of Content And Design Elements On Banner Advertising Click-Through Rates , 2003 .

[13]  J. J. Strange,et al.  How Anecdotal Accounts in News and in Fiction Can Influence Judgments of a Social Problem’s Urgency, Causes, and Cures , 1999 .

[14]  T. Brock,et al.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology the Role of Transportation in the Persuasiveness of Public Narratives Text Quality Individual Differences and Situational Influences Transportation Scale Items Gender Differences Discriminant Validation: Need for Cognition Effect of Text Manipulation Beli , 2022 .

[15]  Lisa R. Klein.  Creating virtual product experiences: The role of telepresence , 2003 .

[16]  Alistair Sutcliffe,et al.  Designing for User Engagement: Aesthetic and Attractive User Interfaces , 2009, Designing for User Engagement.

[17]  Peter Cabrera-Nguyen.  Author Guidelines for Reporting Scale Development and Validation Results in the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research , 2010, Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research.

[18]  James Price Dillard,et al.  Message Frames Interact With Motivational Systems to Determine Depth of Message Processing , 2009, Health communication.

[19]  Hagai Gringarten,et al.  Contagious: Why Things Catch On , 2013 .

[20]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Validation Guidelines for IS Positivist Research , 2004, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[21]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

[22]  Heather L. O'Brien,et al.  Mixed-methods approach to measuring user experience in online news interactions , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[23]  Colin Potts,et al.  Design of Everyday Things , 1988 .

[24]  Mounia Lalmas,et al.  Absence time and user engagement: evaluating ranking functions , 2013, WSDM '13.

[25]  S. Shyam Sundar,et al.  Lights, Camera, Music, Interaction! Interactive Persuasion in E-commerce , 2014, Commun. Res..

[26]  H. Wilson,et al.  Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives , 2010 .

[27]  Fumio Kishino,et al.  A virtual space teleconferencing system that supports intuitive interaction for creative and cooperative work , 1995, I3D '95.

[28]  Chang-Hoan Cho.  How Advertising Works on the WWW: Modified Elaboration Likelihood Model , 1999 .

[29]  Judy A. Siguaw,et al.  Formative versus Reflective Indicators in Organizational Measure Development: A Comparison and Empirical Illustration , 2006 .

[30]  Wendy E. Mackay,et al.  CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2013, CHI 2013.

[31]  M. Slater,et al.  Entertainment—Education and Elaboration Likelihood: Understanding the Processing of Narrative Persuasion , 2002 .

[32]  Y. Kashima,et al.  Talking about Others: Emotionality and the Dissemination of Social Information , 2009 .

[33]  Elaine Toms,et al.  What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[34]  Jonah A. Berger.  Arousal Increases Social Transmission of Information , 2011, Psychological science.

[35]  Jonathan Steuer,et al.  Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence , 1992 .

[36]  Helena Bilandzic,et al.  Measuring Narrative Engagement , 2009 .

[37]  Sunny Consolvo,et al.  Engagement by design , 2009, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[38]  A. Baddeley.  Working memory: looking back and looking forward , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[39]  Alex Wang.  Advertising Engagement: A Driver of Message Involvement on Message Effects , 2006, Journal of Advertising Research.

[40]  A. Fiore,et al.  The role of the technology acceptance model in explaining effects of image interactivity technology on consumer responses , 2006 .

[41]  Nicola J. Gibbons,et al.  The interactivity effect in multimedia learning , 2007, Comput. Educ..

[42]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[43]  Benjamin Naumann,et al.  Mental Representations A Dual Coding Approach , 2016 .

[44]  J. Zaller,et al.  WHO GETS THE NEWS? ALTERNATIVE MEASURES OF NEWS RECEPTION AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH , 1993 .

[45]  Daniel L. Sherrell,et al.  Communications of the Association for Information Systems , 1999 .

[46]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Measuring User Influence in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy , 2010, ICWSM.

[47]  Ginevra Castellano,et al.  An exploration of user engagement in HCI , 2009, AFFINE '09.

[48]  Victoria L. Crittenden,et al.  We're all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem , 2011 .

[49]  Annie Lang,et al.  The limited capacity model of mediated message processing , 2000 .

[50]  Mounia Lalmas,et al.  Models of user engagement , 2012, UMAP.

[51]  Jörn Hurtienne,et al.  Benchmarks for intuitive interaction with mobile devices , 2010, Mobile HCI.

[52]  X. Drèze,et al.  Internet advertising: Is anybody watching? , 2003 .

[53]  Shaowen Bardzell,et al.  Making user engagement visible: a multimodal strategy for interactive media experience research , 2008, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[54]  Robert G. Magee,et al.  Red-Hot and Ice-Cold Web Ads: The Influence of Web Ads’ Warm and Cool Colors on Click-Through Rates , 2014 .

[55]  George Valkanas,et al.  Understanding Within-Content Engagement through Pattern Analysis of Mouse Gestures , 2014, CIKM.

[56]  Angela R. Dobele,et al.  Controlled infection! Spreading the brand message through viral marketing , 2005 .

[57]  Giacomo Mauro DAriano.  Communication Concepts 1: Explication. , 1993 .

[58]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. , 1989 .

[59]  Heather O'Brien,et al.  The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[60]  Gitte Lindgaard,et al.  An exploration of relations between visual appeal, trustworthiness and perceived usability of homepages , 2011, TCHI.

[61]  Alethea L. Blackler,et al.  Intuitive Interaction Applied to Interface Design , 2005 .

[62]  Rick W. Busselle,et al.  Fictionality and Perceived Realism in Experiencing Stories: A Model of Narrative Comprehension and Engagement , 2008 .

[63]  Jane Webster,et al.  Audience engagement in multimedia presentations , 1997, DATB.

[64]  S. Shyam Sundar,et al.  Calls for Interaction: The More the Better? User Experience of 3D Carousel and Additional Interaction Techniques , 2011, INTERACT.

[65]  Rolph E. Anderson,et al.  Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed. , 2009 .

[66]  Hairong Li,et al.  Impact of 3-D Advertising on Product Knowledge, Brand Attitude, and Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role of Presence , 2002 .

[67]  E. Malthouse,et al.  An Experimental Study of the Relationship between Online Engagement and Advertising Effectiveness , 2009 .

[68]  Elena Karahanna,et al.  Time Flies When You're Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs About Information Technology Usage , 2000, MIS Q..

[69]  Saraswathi Bellur,et al.  A Conceptual Model of User Engagement With Media , 2010 .

[70]  Michael J. Singer,et al.  Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire , 1998, Presence.

[71]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[72]  Joemon M. Jose,et al.  User engagement in online News: Under the scope of sentiment, interest, affect, and gaze , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[73]  Annie Lang,et al.  The Effects of Edits on Arousal, Attention, and Memory for Television Messages: When an Edit Is an Edit Can an Edit Be Too Much? , 2000 .

[74]  Shyam Sundar,et al.  Social psychology of interactivity in human-website interaction , 2009 .

[75]  R. Lutz,et al.  THE FUNCTION OF FORMAT: Consumer Responses to Six On-line Advertising Formats , 2006 .

[76]  Seth Geiger,et al.  The Effects of Scene Changes and Semantic Relatedness on Attention to Television , 1993 .

[77]  Qian Xu,et al.  User Experience of On-Screen Interaction Techniques: An Experimental Investigation of Clicking, Sliding, Zooming, Hovering, Dragging, and Flipping , 2014, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[78]  S. Sundar,et al.  Multimedia Effects on Processing and Perception of Online News: A Study of Picture, Audio, and Video Downloads , 2000 .

[79]  S. Shyam Sundar,et al.  Effects of Online Health Sources on Credibility and Behavioral Intentions , 2010, Commun. Res..

[80]  Frank Biocca,et al.  Immersive virtual reality technology , 1995 .

[81]  Stefan Stieglitz,et al.  Emotions and Information Diffusion in Social Media—Sentiment of Microblogs and Sharing Behavior , 2013, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..