Effects of Campaign-to-User and Text-Based Interactivity in Political Candidate Campaign Web sites

This study examined the effects on users of two forms of interactivity commonly found on political candidate campaign Web sites in the 2002 U.S. House election cycle. The first form, campaign-­to-­user interactivity, focuses on features or mechanisms used to enable or facilitate communication between site users and the campaign. The second form, text ­based interactivity, focuses on how site content is verbally and visually expressed. Study participants viewed one of four versions of either a Democratic or Republican campaign website. Both text ­based and campaign -to-­user interactivity increased the amount of time users spent on the site and their accurate recall of candidates' issue stances. The co ­occurrence of both forms of interactivity, however, showed a noticeably lower level of issue recall, confirming earlier findings that too much interactivity can interfere with user recall of site content.

[1]  Jennifer Stromer-Galley,et al.  Citizen Perceptions of Online Interactivity and Implications for Political Campaign Communication , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

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

[3]  Hock-Hai Teo,et al.  An empirical study of the effects of interactivity on web user attitude , 2003 .

[4]  Erik P. Bucy.  The Interactivity Paradox: Closer to the News but Confused , 2003 .

[5]  B. Calder,et al.  New media interactive advertising vs. traditional advertising , 1998 .

[6]  E. Thorson,et al.  The Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in Web Marketing Sites , 2001 .

[7]  Jennifer Stromer-Galley.  On-Line Interaction and Why Candidates Avoid It , 2000 .

[8]  Joel Sklar.  Principles of Web Design , 2000 .

[9]  Michael Margolis.  Campaigning Online: The Internet in U.S. Elections , 2004, Perspectives on Politics.

[10]  Sonia “Tita” Puopolo.  The Web and U.S. Senatorial Campaigns 2000 , 2001 .

[11]  Spiro Kiousis,et al.  Interactivity: a concept explication , 2002, New Media Soc..

[12]  Bruce Bimber and Richard Davis.  Campaigning Online: The Internet in U.S. Elections , 2003 .

[13]  Michael Margolis,et al.  Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace `Revolution′ , 2000 .

[14]  W. James Potter,et al.  Building upon the experimental design in media violence research: The importance of including receiver interpretations , 2003 .

[15]  Matthew Lombard,et al.  Interactive Advertising and Presence , 2001 .

[16]  D. Rucinski.  The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. , 1994 .

[17]  Sally J. McMillan.  Exploring Models of Interactivity from Multiple Research Traditions: Users, Documents, and Systems , 2002 .

[18]  M. Lodge,et al.  The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation , 1995, American Political Science Review.

[19]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches , 1981 .

[20]  M. Schudson,et al.  The Ideal of Conversation in the Study of Mass Media , 1978 .

[21]  Dean E. Hewes.  Small Group Communication May Not Influence Decision Making: An Amplification of Socio-Egocentric Theory , 1996 .

[22]  Danielle Endres,et al.  Text‐based interactivity in candidate campaign web sites: A case study from the 2002 elections , 2004 .