........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

new media & society

Copyright © 2000 SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi
Vol2(2):157–179 [1461–4448(200006)2:2;157–179;012223]

ARTICLE

Defining interactivity
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

A qualitative identification of key

dimensions
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

EDWARD J. DOWNES
Boston University
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

SALLY J. McMILLAN
University of Tennessee
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Abstract
The literature on interactivity includes many assumptions
and some definitions but few tools for operationalizing the
concept of interactivity in computer-mediated
environments. This article takes an early step in filling that
gap. In-depth interviews with 10 individuals who work
and teach in the field of interactive communication led to
a conceptual definition of interactivity based on six
dimensions: direction of communication, time flexibility,
sense of place, level of control, responsiveness, and
perceived purpose of communication. Suggestions are
made for applying these dimensions to multiple forms of
computer-mediated communication. Future research
should empirically test the existence and application of
these dimensions.
Key words
computer-mediated communication • interactivity

The word ‘interactivity’ has been used to describe products ranging from
snoring dolls and web-based brochures to video games and online
transactions. Scholars have employed the term to refer to everything from
face-to-face exchanges to computer-mediated communication. However,
much of the literature, both popular and scholarly, uses the term

157
New Media & Society 2(2)

‘interactivity’ with few or no attempts to define it. Even when definitions

are found they are often contradictory. Such imprecision invites research,
such as that reported by this article, which adds shape and form to the
concept of interactivity and suggests necessary foci for a conceptual
definition.
This article begins with a synopsis of the literature and explanations
therein of the term ‘interactivity’. Based on concepts found in that literature,
the authors asked individuals who are involved with emerging
communication technologies to provide their insights about interactivity in
computer-mediated environments. A qualitative analysis of their responses to
interview questions revealed multiple themes that seem to underlie the
concept of interactivity. After careful consideration of both the concepts
found in the literature and the themes that emerged from the interviews,
the authors propose a conceptual definition of interactivity based on six
dimensions. Finally, suggestions are made for how this emerging definition
can be used in future research.

LITERATURE REVIEW
An extensive body of literature exists about interaction in human
communication. Much of this literature grows out of a sociological
tradition. For example, the simultaneous transaction model addresses real-
time, interpersonal exchange between individuals and is often framed in
terms of interaction (DeFleur et al., 1997). Jensen (1998: 188) suggested
that, from the sociological perspective, interactivity is ‘the relationship
between two or more people who, in a given situation, mutually adapt their
behavior and actions to each other’.
Another body of research examines interaction of human beings with
computers. This literature grows out of the computer science tradition and
focuses on improving the interface of computer hardware and software.
Thomas (1995: 2) described the study of human–computer interaction as a
‘situated, particular, detailed, gritty, error–prone, and largely nondetermined
reality’. Jensen (1998) reported that researchers in the field of human-
computer interfaces have identified the style of control that exists between
the human and the computer as the key determinant of interactivity.
Only in the past 10 to 15 years have scholars in the mass communication
tradition begun to examine the nature of interactivity in computer-mediated
communication. Rafaeli was one of the early investigators of interactivity in
the mass media context; in a 1990 study, he examined interactivity in the
context of traditional media. However, much of his work has focused on
computer-mediated environments. Rafaeli’s earliest definition of interactivity
(1988: 111) was: ‘An expression of the extent that, in a given series of
communication exchanges, any third (or later) transmission (or message) is
related to the degree to which previous exchanges referred to even earlier

158
 Downes & McMillan: Defining interactivity

transmissions’. In a 1997 study conducted with Sudweeks, Rafaeli revised

that definition to: ‘The extent to which messages in a sequence relate to
each other, and especially the extent to which later messages recount the
relatedness of earlier messages’. Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1997) identified
interactivity as ‘a theoretical construct that grapples with the origins of
captivation, fascination, and allure that can be inherent in computer-
mediated groups’.
We chose to center our search for the definition of interactivity on this
relatively new body of literature that focuses on computer-mediated
communication. Examination of technologies such as the internet and its
graphical subset, the world wide web, has led researchers to the conclusion
that interactivity is a key advantage of such media (Morris and Ogan, 1997;
Pavlik, 1996). But what is that interactivity?
Answering this question is not a simple task. Braman (1989), who
developed an approach to defining information, noted that definitions of
core communication concepts (e.g. information and interactivity) are critical
for policy makers and may dramatically impact society. Nevertheless,
attempts to settle upon a single definition are problematic because these
concepts are multi-faceted and because multiple definitions apply
concurrently.
Like information, interactivity is not a monolithic concept. But, because
it is an emerging field, examination of interactivity must be narrowed. We
have chosen to narrow our examination of interactivity by focusing
primarily on how individuals perceive interactivity in the context of
computer-mediated communication.
The literature of interactivity includes multiple concepts that help to
explain how individuals perceive interactivity in the context of computer-
based communication. For example, Heeter (1989) suggested users exert
more effort when they attend to interactive media than to traditional media
forms. However, McMillan (1998) found it was difficult to operationalize
this concept of effort in an analysis of web sites. Therefore, the relationship
of effort to interactivity requires further examination.
Role taking and feedback are two additional concepts that have appeared
in several studies of interactivity. Rice (1984: 35) suggested ‘fully interactive
media imply that the sender and receiver roles are interchangeable’. More
than a decade later, Rogers (1995: 314) echoed the same theme when he
defined interactivity as ‘the degree to which participants in a communication
process can exchange roles in and have control over their mutual discourse’.
Steur (1992: 84) defined interactivity as ‘the extent to which users can
participate in modifying the form and content of a mediated environment in
real time’. Rice and Williams (1984) also focused on real-time
communication and suggested that media are interactive if they have the
potential for immediate, two-way exchange. But not all observers agree

159
New Media & Society 2(2)

about the importance of real time. For example, Rheingold (1993)

suggested that the asynchronous characteristics of tools such as email,
newsgroups, and listservs is one of the key benefits of these interactive
media. The importance of time in interactive communication needs to be
explored in more depth.
Chen (1984) suggested passivity and interactivity are qualities of
individuals making use of media, not qualities of the media per se. Other
researchers also suggested that individual uses are more important than
media features in determining interactivity (Kayany et al., 1996; Walther,
1994). Some researchers, however, have argued that certain technologies
permit more interactivity than others. For example, Snyder (1996) focused
on ways in which the non-linear nature of hypertext enhances interactivity.
Changes in patterns of control are another issue researchers and observers
are beginning to link to interactivity. As noted above, Rogers (1995)
identified control over mutual discourse as a key element of interactivity.
O’Keefe (1995) noted the web provides a two-edged sword: on the one
hand, organizations have a robust media environment in which to tell their
own story in their own words; on the other hand, they cannot control
exactly what route individuals will take after they arrive at a web site. Finn
(1998) suggested that the sender/receiver ratio of control in content
creation, presentation, and preservation is a key dimension of computer-
based communication information systems.
Ha (1998) identified information collection as a key dimension of
interactivity. Blattberg and Deighton (1991) also identified audience tracking
as a key advantage that computer-mediated systems offer marketing
communicators. Dreze and Zufryden (1997) noted the importance that
marketers attach to tracking users in interactive environments and the
concerns of consumers about losing their privacy in the process. However,
the potential benefit for users is that, as their activities are tracked, messages
can be customized to match their interest.
Other studies have focused on advantages and disadvantages of interactive
media. For example, Ang and Cummings (1994) found that computer-
mediated environments enhance information-seeking. Schaffer and Hannafin
(1986) found that recall was significantly enhanced by increased interactivity.
Sproull and Kiesler (1991) reported that, within organizations, electronic
work groups can be as efficient or more efficient than face-to-face work
groups.
Finally, some researchers have associated disadvantages with computer-
mediated communication. For example, Markus (1994) reported that
electronic mail can filter out personal and social cues which may result in
‘flaming’, public rebuke of senders, and depersonalization. Other
commentators have suggested computer-mediated communication goes

160
 Downes & McMillan: Defining interactivity

beyond simple disadvantage to real or perceived threat. For example, Stolz

(1995) criticized computer-based communication as a threat to ‘real world’
interaction among people in public places.
In summary, the literature suggested that examination of interactivity
should include attention to: user effort, sender and receiver roles, timeliness,
characteristics of both the medium and the communicator, control, activity
tracking, advantages, disadvantages, and potential threats.

METHOD
Based on the literature, we developed a structured interview instrument
(Appendix 1) for use with a panel of experts (Appendix 2). This structured
format, rather than one that was unstructured or more loosely structured,
met our objectives. We wished to limit the interview to exploring the
concept of interactivity while opening the door for serendipitous insights
into related issues which came from the initial responses to the questions
(Singleton, 1993).
We believed it was necessary to qualify interactivity before we quantified
it. Thus, our purpose in conducting the interviews was not so much to help
us to know what interactivity is, but rather to help us to understand and to
explain it. We sought breadth of informed opinion and shared intuition.
Thus, we chose to explore the concept of interactivity in depth with a few
people rather than examining broad-based conceptions of interactivity
among a larger sample.
Data were gathered from the 10 respondents in face-to-face interviews
conducted in January and February 1998. These respondents all meet
Marshall and Rossman’s definition of elites – experts who are ‘considered to
be influential, prominent, and/or well informed people in an organization
. . .’ (1989: 113). All had been working with new technologies for several
years; all had taught for several years. Descriptions of each respondent are
provided in Appendix 2. Real names are not used because respondents were
promised anonymity.
The tradition of interviewing a relatively small number of experts such as
these – as a means to uncover a social, cultural, economic, political,
technical or other phenomenon – is fully recognized in the literature on
qualitative methods (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994; Lee, 1999; Mason, 1996;
Patton, 1987; Strauss, 1996; Marshall and Rossman, 1989). The advantages
to conducting interviews with elites is that such interviews allow for the
discovery of complex interconnections in social relationships; facilitate
analysis, triangulation and validity checks; generate working hypotheses; and
provide great utility for uncovering the subjective side of a phenomenon
(here, the concept of interactivity) under investigation (Marshall and
Rossman, 1989).

161
New Media & Society 2(2)

We chose to interview these experts for two additional reasons. First, our
ontological position suggested that the respondents ‘knowledge, views,
understandings, interpretations, experience and interactions . . . [were]
meaningful properties of the social reality under exploration’ (Mason, 1996:
39) that could be best teased out via the structured interview. And second,
that our epistemological position suggested that a legitimate way to generate
data on those ontological properties (was) to interact with people, to talk to
them, to listen to them, and to gain access to their accounts and
articulations (Mason, 1996: 40).
A script of 10 questions (see Appendix 1) was written before interviews
began, and each question was asked in the order presented. Occasionally a
follow-up inquiry was made (Tell me more about that . . . Can you expand
on that thought?). Each interview lasted between 20 and 90 minutes with
an average time of 40 minutes.
We had several qualitative methodological options. We chose to utilize
structured interviews because, on balance, they appeared the best method by
which to realize our goals of: (1) uncovering the subjective side of how the
notion of interactivity was viewed; (2) providing background context and
hypotheses for a future, quantitatively driven research phase; (3)
documenting the evolving nature of the concept of interactivity; and (4)
quickly obtaining large amounts of contextual data (Marshall and Rossman,
1989; Denzin and Lincoln, 1994).
The collection and analysis of these data is rooted in a phenomenological
paradigm which holds that reality (here, the reality of those who both teach
and practice computer-mediated communications) is socially constructed
(Firestone, 1987; Strauss, 1996). Our respondents were in an ideal position
to identify the concepts and parameters of interactivity and to tell what the
notion, in its present state, is. Further, the affirmatives represented in the
themes provided rich insights into feelings, personal experiences, empathies,
emotions, intuitions, subjective judgments, imaginations, and the diverse
forms of creativity held by respondents (Rosoneau, 1992).
After interviews were completed, we read and re-read transcripts looking
for responses that would provide shape and form to the concept of
interactivity. Each of the primary researchers, as well as two graduate
students who are developing expertise in the impact of new technologies on
communication management, read the transcripts. Each sought pervasive
themes. Each read and re-read sections of the data, sometimes as much as a
dozen times. We then reconvened, read the transcripts aloud, and
determined themes on which there was wide agreement. The findings
section below discusses only those themes on which at least three of the
four coders agreed. Naturally, every effort was made when writing results to
allow the words of respondents to define the parameters related to the
concept under investigation.

162
 Downes & McMillan: Defining interactivity

FINDINGS
The interview data are reported below in three major categories: impacts,
messages, and participants.

Impacts
Respondents’ comments about the impacts of computer-mediated interactive
communication centered on three concepts: (1) revolution; (2)
consequences; and (3) uncertainty.

Revolution. Without exception, respondents talked about the impacts of

interactive computer-mediated communication on individuals, organizations,
and society. But they were not always consistent in their evaluations of the
impacts of cyber-interactivity. Is it something revolutionary or just an
adaptation of very old communication models? For example, Pam suggested
that interaction has long been studied by sociologists and that computer-
mediated interaction is really nothing new. Dennis suggested that the
literature on interpersonal and organizational communication holds the key
to understanding interactivity. Both Jake and Will noted that computer
scientists have been studying interactivity for years in the context of human-
computer interfaces. And Jeff suggested that interactivity is the traditional
communication model with a robust feedback loop. Thus, while parts of
interactivity may be revolutionary, other parts seem to be nothing new.
Some respondents lauded the revolutionary nature of the computer as a
communication medium. For example, Joseph said the computer claims to
‘do it all – video, sound, music, good quality, text, and images and voice’.
This medium was also portrayed as breaking down walls between advertising
and selling, marketing and fulfillment, and organizations and their publics.
However, some respondents identified unique flaws in the medium. For
example, two respondents noted specific problems with email. Pam said:
‘Because it [email] is so casual, so fast, you dash it off, forgetting about the
impression on your colleague’. On a similar note, Jeff shared his impression
that, ‘few receivers seem to read email carefully and thoughtfully’.
Despite the highlighting of both positive and negative ‘revolutions’, most
respondents talked about interactivity in relatively traditional terms. Most
referred regularly to senders and receivers, creators and audiences, and
developers and users. However, several suggested that new relationships were
developing among those who create and those who consume messages. For
example, Joseph suggested that the computer-mediated environment allows
for ‘three-party interactivity’ involving two people and a computer. While
the terms sender and receiver were used frequently to suggest a kind of
dichotomous relationship, many also expressed the belief that in interactive
communication the roles become interchangeable.

163
New Media & Society 2(2)

In sum, respondents viewed interactivity as something old, something

new, something borrowed from other disciplines, and something both
people and computers do. While no clear consensus emerged about the
revolutionary nature of the medium, most respondents used terminology,
such as sender and receiver, that suggests a traditional communication
model.

Consequences. Regardless of their opinions about the revolutionary

nature of computer-mediated communication, respondents were fairly
unanimous in their belief that this new communication form has, and will
continue to have, far-reaching consequences. Joseph illustrated this consensus
when he said: ‘It threatens whole industries, it threatens whole professions’.
Dennis expanded this discussion primarily to communication professionals:

For those people who have traditionally distributed information in a one-to-

many model, interactivity is changing the way you can do or should do
business because the opportunity now exists to put control in the hands of the
user. The implications of that, I think, are truly interesting things about
interactivity.

Amy discussed consequences in terms of the organizational communication

environment:

The old paradigm of ‘if knowledge is power, he who owns the knowledge
owns the power’ means that sharing knowledge can undermine one’s security
in corporate America. That doesn’t mean it’s doomed to failure, just that many
cultural issues must be addressed before you can reasonably expect people to
share.

Bob brought the concept of consequences to the personal level: ‘One

cannot anticipate the consequence of getting out on the web and providing
information that’s important to you’. He said interactivity can be
empowering to the individual operating outside the corporate structure:

There is quite a bit of anarchy out there – which is encouraging. The fact that I
can become a spokesman for solar power, not because I spent the money to
get a solar powered house built, but because of a site on the world wide web
is, I think, totally threatening to the power company. Because I have a voice
now. I think the threat is to existing institutions and the old ways of doing
things.

Interactivity may represent a threat to institutions and professional

communicators at the same time that it creates new opportunities for
individuals participating in a collaborative and interactive environment. But
the balance of power is not yet clear. Rita poetically summed up the
potentials: ‘The misrepresentation that you can do with multimedia can be

164
 Downes & McMillan: Defining interactivity

tremendously bad. Also, the other side is that you let other people create
their dreams. Dreams and nightmares’.
In sum, respondents were in general agreement that computer-mediated
interaction has far-reaching consequences with the potential to change
entire industries and forge new paradigms. Their comments suggest that if
the power shifts they envision unfold, communication ‘management’ may
become an oxymoron.

Uncertainty. The above discussion of both the potentially revolutionary

nature and consequences of computer-mediated interactive communication
reveals an underlying reality: even ‘experts’ such as the subjects of our
interviews are still uncertain about the exact impacts of this new
communication form. Respondents disagreed with each other about key
concepts such as the importance of ‘real time’ in interactive communication,
the amount of effort interactive communication requires, and even whether
human beings are an integral part of interactive communication. Internal
disagreements were also found. For example, Joseph began by asserting that
interactivity is typified by conversation but later indicated that transactions
are one of the most ‘intensely interactive processes’. Furthermore, phrases
such as ‘I am not sure yet’, and ‘I can’t define it, but I know it when I see
it’ were used by many of the respondents.
Discussions of interactivity were characterized by a confusing mix of
terms. For example, Rita used the terms ‘interactivity’ and ‘multimedia’
almost interchangeably. When asked whether the terms were synonymous
she replied: ‘Yes and no. All things in life are multimedia. The entire
spectrum is also interactive. The new-technology multimedia works on the
same concept with different tools. Multimedia for me is ancient.
Interactivity is ancient. The tools are new.’
The concept of hypertextual links was also often mixed with the concept
of interactivity. For example, Will said: ‘I can rearrange, sometimes, the
content where I am no longer bound to a linear fashion because of
hypertext. So that would be an interactive multimedia experience.’
In sum, the impacts of interactive, computer-mediated communication
technologies are still evolving. Even the ‘experts’ are not yet certain exactly
what the concept means. However, all of the respondents seem to suggest
that interactivity is a multi-faceted concept. And despite occasional
disagreements, it seems that two key components of interactivity are the
messages themselves and the people who participate in interactive
communication.

Messages
Three message-based concepts emerged from the interviews: (1) the nature
and direction of messages; (2) the importance of time to message structure

165
New Media & Society 2(2)

and retrieval; and (3) the creation of a sense of place in computer-mediated

environments.

Nature and direction. Most respondents said the computer is closely tied
to their concepts of interactivity. Some believe the computer provides an
ideal medium for facilitating communication. For example, Joseph said: ‘The
internet was designed with interactivity in mind. All of its technical makeup
and its design from the beginning were interactive’. He also indicated that
one of the key advantages of the computer as a medium is that it can
integrate functions that used to be split between active and passive media.
He illustrated with a comment on interactive advertising:

Right now advertising has little to do with buying and selling. It’s done
through a different medium, at a different time, in a different place, with a
different purpose. Right? We don’t advertise to sell something. We advertise to
change someone’s attitude or image or proclivity (mental state). And we do it
through a passive mass media. Buying and selling, we do in a whole different
atmosphere, whole different system that involves transactions. Now we have a
medium that can do both.

Jake sought balance in describing the medium: ‘The important thing still
. . . is the humans behind the medium. Having said that, it is important to
have a good medium so you can interact. So if you have email or the
internet you have a good medium for interaction.’
Others, however, expressed concern that the computer is less than a
perfect medium for some types of communication. Kent shared a story of
‘cyber-flirting’. He met a woman online through a matchmaking service.
They exchanged email for several weeks. ‘I was convinced I was in love
with this person’, he said. They shared many things in common, enjoyed
the same humor, shared a depth of knowledge about popular culture. He
saved all her email messages. ‘I could go back and laugh at it later – days
later, hours later. I could go back and think about that funny thing which
you can’t do as well with phone conversations’. Within a few weeks they
talked on the phone and he knew instantly that the magic that existed in
email was missing from their voice conversation. They met, and were
further convinced that the relationship they had built online just didn’t exist
‘in the real world’. It was not that either was particularly unattractive, Kent
said, it was just that in the ‘unedited’ environment of real-time exchange by
voice or face-to-face communication they could not experience the same
excitement and fun that they found in carefully crafting messages by email.
Kent summarized the experience:

I don’t know what to take out of there but there is definitely something
interesting there. Interaction via email. Real time interaction versus chat. And
how that is different from real time interaction via voice and meeting face-to-

166
 Downes & McMillan: Defining interactivity

face. Timing makes a difference and meeting makes a difference. Interesting

experience, but the medium can alter your opinion of someone.

It may be that all interactive communication must be two-way

communication. However, some forms of computer-mediated
communication are much more like traditional one-way communication
than others. For example, Pam noted ‘Just because you get at a computer
and you start pushing buttons, or you get to jump from this site to that site,
you’ve got some choice’. She saw this as a form of interactivity. Web sites
that provide online brochures for an organization might require user activity;
the viewer may select options from a menu. But this is not much different
from turning the pages of a physical brochure. In both the web site and the
brochure, the communication is primarily one-way: from the sender to the
receiver.
Most respondents assumed that interactive communication must be two-
way. They talked about how the technologies inherent in the internet allow
for a robust feedback loop. And they also talked about how individuals can
shift between sender and receiver roles. The literature also seems to assume
two-way communication. The Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1997) description of
the recursive nature of interactivity assumes a two-way flow of
communication; and both Rice (1984) and Rogers (1995) suggest that
interactive communication requires that sender and receiver roles be
interchangeable.
While it might be tempting to discount one-way communication as
something less than interactivity, to do so would fail to recognize some
unique forms of communication that are evolving on the internet. For
example, Jake talked about how he uses searchable databases to facilitate
group work. These databases provide a resource for remote education and
are valuable forms of communication that do not have exact parallels outside
of the environment of media such as the internet. These content-rich sites
typify a form of one-way communication in which the receiver exerts
primary control over the message.
In sum, while many respondents lauded the benefits of this new medium,
several also indicated concern about the limitations inherent in computer-
based interactivity. In particular, they experienced a sense of falseness when
such communication became personalized and called for a deeper, shared
meaning. Most respondents described interactivity as two-way
communication, but some also recognized interactive communications that
are more one-way in nature.

Time. As some respondents talked about interactivity they suggested that the
closer to ‘real time’ an interchange, the more interactive it becomes. Kent
said: ‘This is probably because most of the interaction in the past was in real
time’. Dennis also stressed the importance of timeliness: ‘I think it [real-time

167
New Media & Society 2(2)

communication] is incredibly important. Almost by definition, interaction

requires immediate response.’ Will echoed similar ideas and placed them in
an interpersonal context: ‘The closer you can get to the human exchange
the more valuable it becomes’.
Other respondents did not believe timing of messages is central to
interactivity. Jake said: ‘Real-time is not at all important. I can send mail to
you and if you are there, you can give me the immediate response. But if
you are not, you can log in a couple of hours later or another day. And still
you will be able to respond to what I said. Which to me is a plus.’ Pam
took a situational perspective. She said: ‘Obviously, the closer it is to that
immediate time, then, I think it fits . . . it’s more interactive’. Joseph was
even more situationally oriented in his discussion of the role of timing:
‘Time is important, but you have to consider it in terms of the nature of
the conversation. When do we expect and need immediacy, and when do
we expect and need a delay?’
Timing, our data suggest, may be more important to some of the types of
interactive communication than to others. For example, when an individual
is communicating with a marketer about a potential purchase, immediate or
quick response may be an important measure of interactivity. But, in other
cases the ability to respond at a convenient time may be more important. As
several interview respondents pointed out, tools such as email allow them to
achieve interpersonal communication without co-presence. Thus, the
importance of timing seems to be its level of flexibility to the demands of
the situation rather than its immediacy.
In sum, while there was a consensus that media such as the internet allow
for interaction to take place at different times, there was a wide range of
opinion as to whether real time is necessary for such an interchange to be
labeled interactive. A key issue seems to be that participants have some
control over the timing of messages in computer-based interactive
environments.

Place. The final message-based concept to emerge from interviews was

sense of place. Several respondents indicated that interactive computer-
mediated communication can transcend geography to create a kind of
virtual place. For example, Kent said the online world ‘seems to create
public places again’. In these public places people can meet on the basis of
‘what they are thinking and writing’ rather than on the basis of physical
characteristics such as appearance, status, etc.
Many respondents referred to the ‘place’ where computer-mediated
communication occurs. For example, Joseph said ‘interactivity goes on right
there in that computer and person’. Similarly, Bob referred to highly
interactive web sites as those that ‘invite you back time and again’,

168
 Downes & McMillan: Defining interactivity

suggesting that the site visitor is not only viewing but being transported to a
specific place.
Two respondents focused on ways the multimedia nature of web sites can
create a sense of place. Will described a future in which web sites could
have the ability to let him pre-tour his vacation location by immersing him
in media experiences ranging from text to contextual video. But he noted a
potential downside to such a sensory-rich experience: ‘If I can get the full
experience in the synthesized form, do I need the place?’ Similarly, Dennis
envisioned the total immersion of virtual reality as an advanced form of
cyber-interactivity. By utilizing multiple types of media and response
mechanisms, the computer can be completely responsive to his actions.
Some of the factors that may help to create a sense of place include
greater use of multiple types of media and a greater opportunity for
interchanges among the participants. For example, Joseph identified the Gap
Kids web site as one of the best ‘places’ on the web. He spoke of how the
site enables the individual to physically participate in a shopping experience
including ‘trying on’ the clothes as one drags and drops specific clothing
items onto virtual people.
In an interesting twist on the concept of place, Jake first noted that one
of the primary benefits of computer-mediated communication is that people
don’t have to be in the same place at the same time to be able to
communicate effectively. But then he went on to note that tools such as
email, listservs, and bulletin boards can create a kind of ‘virtual place’ where
a virtual community can come together to collaboratively solve problems.
In sum, respondents suggested that the more interactive a computer-
mediated communication environment becomes, the more likely that the
individual will feel that he/she has been transported to a virtual place. In
those places, they may encounter experiences ranging from a resurgence of
public life to new forms of retail shopping.

Participants
Three concepts emerged from the interviews that relate to the individuals
who participate in interactive media: (1) control; (2) responsiveness; and (3)
perceived goals.

Control. Some respondents focused on control from the sender’s perspective

and some from the user’s point of view. Pam’s comments summarize user-
oriented perspectives about control:

I think control is a critical factor. Maybe it’s kind of the central factor. It’s not
just that I determine where I go or what content I view or what buttons I
select. It’s that I control the timing, I control the content, I control to whom
I’m going to address this. I control, in some respects, with whom I want to
have this exchange and interaction.

169
New Media & Society 2(2)

Dennis also expressed the opinion that interactive media shift control to
the ‘users’ of the medium. He said that this shift can be very troubling to
professionals who have become accustomed to controlling the content of
traditional mass media:

The true meaning or the consequence of greatest import in interactivity is that

we are transferring control to the user. The control of production is one issue,
but that only matters to us as professionals if we perceive that the control of
production somehow contributes to the control of perception and understood
meaning. Every time you give the user more control it means you have even
less control over the potential meaning than could be derived from your
information.

Not all respondents, however, believed that interactive communication

shifts control to the user. Bob acknowledged that such a shift might be an
ideal to strive for, but it is not yet a reality:

At this time, the author has the control. The person who has put together the
game, or the web site, or the information has the control. They set the
parameters for the response on the part of the user. I think as we train students
to become authors, to become producers of interactive material, the goal is for
them to set the parameters as deep as possible and as wide as possible so that
the user perceives that he/she is in control. Are they really in control? Not yet.

In sum, respondents were in general agreement that while the sender has
control of the message, the receiver has control as to whether he/she will:
(1) indicate to the sender that the message was received; (2) attend to the
message; or (3) pretend that it was never sent. Thus, it would seem that the
receiver has control over the feedback loop in a way more characteristic of
mass media than of interpersonal communication.

Responsiveness. As noted earlier, the literature reflects some differing

perspectives on the amount of effort required for interactive communication.
In discussing effort with the experts who provided the insights for this
article, we began to realize that effort may be a less meaningful concept
than responsiveness. In some cases, the individual participants in interactive
communication may need to exert more effort because they are responding
to messages they see on the screen. But this may seem like less effort
because the interchange with a responsive partner (human or computer)
helps to facilitate communication. Kent provided an example of how a
responsive system can require both more and less effort:

I think interactivity requires a lot of effort. But on the web it seems that
viewers are very passive still. People don’t want to work on the web. There is
effort, but there is payoff because you have so much information. It is less
effort in a way. I would rather make a decision [about purchasing an airline

170
 Downes & McMillan: Defining interactivity

ticket] myself and see all the options than work through that person who is
reading stuff off the computer. So, I see it as less effort and more empowering.

Among those respondents who believed that interactivity requires effort,

most framed that effort in terms of responsiveness. For example, Joseph
suggested interactivity requires twice as much effort as traditional mediated
communication because communicators have to think about how to present
information and also about how to respond to information they receive.
Dennis suggested that effort is ‘the definition of interactivity, because if you
are giving control to me then the output requires my exerting that control’.
In other words, the participant must respond to the control options that are
provided in the medium.
Responsiveness is a key element of the Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1997)
definition of interactivity. They wrote that interactive communication
requires all messages in a sequence to relate to each other. This implies that
interactivity is a series of related active and reactive communications.
Respondents were in general agreement that computer-mediated
communication is more active than other types of mediated communication.
Joseph spoke of individuals communicating through computers: ‘They act by
typing words or selecting things or moving things, or talking or a variety of
things’.
Reaction goes beyond simple selection and choice of options. Rather
than just making choices, individuals can customize the content to suit their
needs. Will said that the capability of customizing messages for individuals or
groups was central to the notion of interactivity. Using the example of
search engines, he pointed out that the individual should be able to ‘drive’
the search engine and the search engine should respond. If the individual
has conducted a particular kind of search in the past, the next time he
returns to the search engine it will remember his searching patterns. ‘As it
learns my preferences, it can then make suggestions to me’, he said.
In sum, responsive communication may require more effort and/or
activity than passive message reception. But respondents were fairly
unanimous in their belief that responsive communication has so many
benefits that the participant may think that less effort has been exerted.

Perceived goals. The actual goal of communication may be determined by

the creator of the message. However, discussions of goals among our
respondents seem to focus on perceptions about goals rather than the goals
themselves. Because this article focuses on how individuals perceive
interactivity, it is the individuals’ perceptions rather than the actual goals that
are the focus.
Interview respondents talked about ways in which organizations are using
computer-mediated communication to advance their causes. The same
medium can be used to communicate a sales message and to transact the

171
New Media & Society 2(2)

sale. But not all computer-mediated communication is designed to persuade.

Rather, respondents seemed to view persuading and informing as two points
on a continuum of communication goals. In some cases, communication
goals are more oriented toward exchanging information. For example, Jake
shared the experience of online collaboration that enabled a group of
programmers to coordinate their work for a specific client.
Public relations practitioners have long recognized the fact that
communication may be oriented to persuading and/or informing. In fact,
goals are one of the key variables Grunig and Grunig (1989) use in defining
four models of public relations. But we believe study of interactivity needs
to move beyond how organizations define their communication goals to
how communication participants perceive the goals of those with whom
they communicate.
In conclusion, individual perceptions of communication goals are an
important aspect of interactivity. Individuals are willing to accept messages
based on both persuasive and informational goals in the interactive
communication environment. But the ways in which they respond to those
messages may be more consistent with their own perceptions than with the
actual goals of the content creator.

DEFINITION
Joseph told us that any attempts to define interactivity are futile at this time.
‘Nobody knows, because the field of interactive communication is in its
infancy, what the possibilities are. You have to base your definition of
interactivity on what’s out there. And it changes every day. So your
definition is going to have to be a bit loose in the beginning’. Bob
confirmed the evolutionary nature of computer-mediated interactivity:
We don’t know what it’s going to be. It has its own momentum, in part set by
the communication industry, and the software industry, and the user’s settings.
We don’t know where it’s going, except that it’s going real fast. And a slight
shift in its heading will head it off in another hemisphere, if we’re not careful.

Several respondents told us interactivity is not a simple concept. Joseph

said: ‘It’s not a single dimension. You are not trying to argue this is
interactivity, this is not. You’re just trying to say that it includes these
things’. Pam said: ‘Interactivity is going to be a continuum, I think’.
Despite the evolving nature of computer-based interactivity, we believe
that a definition does emerge from the concepts found in the literature and
in our in-depth interviews. However, it is clear that interactivity is a multi-
dimensional construct and each of those dimensions seems to be represented
by a continuum.
Concepts related to the impact of interactive communication (revolution,
consequences, and uncertainty) help to provide a framework for

172
 Downes & McMillan: Defining interactivity

understanding why interactivity is such an important concept in the

evolving field of computer-mediated communication. However, the three
message-based dimensions and the three participant-based dimensions seem
to offer the most promise for helping us understand and define the actual
concept of interactivity.
With respect to the message-based dimensions, our research suggests that
interactivity increases as:

• Two-way communication enables all participants to actively

communicate.
• Timing of communication is flexible to meet the time demands
of participants.
• The communication environment creates a sense of place.

With respect to the participant-based dimensions, our research suggests that

interactivity increases as:

• Participants perceive that they have greater control of the

communication environment.
• Participants find the communication to be responsive.
• Individuals perceive that the goal of communication is more
oriented to exchanging information than to attempting to
persuade.

DISCUSSION
Most communication in computer-mediated environments may be
interactive. However, we believe varying levels of interactivity exist. Each of
the message dimensions (direction, time, and place) and the participant
dimensions (control, responsiveness, and perceived goals) seem to be
continua. But even when these dimensions have values on the low end of
the continuum, individuals may still perceive that they are participating in
interactive communication. Something about the computer-mediated
communication environment suggests that interactivity occurs even when
the direction of communication is more one way than two way, when the
participant has relatively little control, and so on.
For example, many organizations believe that they have created an
interactive communication tool when they create a corporate web site
(McMillan, 1999). Many of these corporate web sites are little more than an
online brochure. But sites such as these do have some characteristics (albeit
at low levels) of interactivity. Site visitors believe that by pushing buttons
and navigating through the site they are exerting some control and
experiencing some machine-based responsiveness. While turning the page of
a paper-based brochure is also exerting control and receiving a mailed

173
New Media & Society 2(2)

answer to a request for more information is also responsive, somehow those

activities that take place in the ‘real world’ are not seen as being as
‘interactive’ as their cyberspace counterparts. Why is this? Is this a short-
term anomaly that reflects society’s tendency to be enamored of new
technologies? Or is there some inherent characteristic of computer-mediated
communication that makes it truly more interactive? Future research needs
to explore these questions.
At the other extreme, cyberspace does seem to offer opportunities for
new forms of interactivity. Virtual communities described and promoted by
writers such as Rheingold (1993) seem to represent such an opportunity.
Such virtual communities often include user-created content, virtual
meeting rooms, both synchronous and asynchronous two-way
communication options, and an information-rich environment. In
environments such as this, each of the dimensions identified above may have
values on the high end of the continuum: communication is two way,
timing of communication is flexible, the communication environment
creates a sense of place, participants have control over their communication
experience, communication is responsive, and the purpose of the site seems
to focus on information exchange. But is this kind of environment new, or
merely an extension of both interpersonal and mediated communication?
Does moving a conversation into a virtual community change that
conversation in any way from what it would have been in a geographical
community? Or, does the technology of computer-mediated communication
simply enrich the long-distance conversations that telephone technology has
facilitated for more than 100 years? Future research should explore these
questions.
Thus far, we have suggested two extremes: either low values or high
values on each of the interactivity continua. But what if some values are
high while others are low? For example, is there a form of cyber-
interactivity in which the message dimensions of interactivity (direction,
time, and place) are low while the participant dimensions (control,
responsiveness, and goal) are high? Content-rich, searchable databases and
online publications might fit this model as individuals exert a high level of
control over the information they receive but have relatively little two-way
communication, control over timing of messages, or sense of place as they
navigate through such databases and publications. But do individuals who
access this type of information consider it to be interactive?
What if message dimensions are high while participant dimensions are
low? E-commerce might fit this profile as online retailers create virtual
marketplaces that lead the shopper through an experience that is sensitive to
the shopper’s time needs and allows for two-way communication that results
in a purchase. But we must ask whether this virtual marketplace represents a
new form of interactivity or whether it simply moves the shopping

174
 Downes & McMillan: Defining interactivity

experience to a new space and time in much the same way that catalogs
have long served as an alternative to the physical shopping experience.
Future research needs to further explore the relative importance of both
message dimensions and participant dimensions of interactivity. Much early
attention seems to focus on the message dimensions. When asked to define
interactivity, our respondents often first talked about characteristics of the
interactive medium. But these message dimensions seem to be very closely
linked to participant dimensions. In particular, the individual’s control over
the message seems to be a key determinant of interactivity.
In addition to a broad exploration of the relative importance of message-
based and participant-based concepts, future research also needs to explore
each of the six dimensions of interactivity identified in this research. How
important is each to the individual’s perceptions of interactivity in
computer-mediated environments? Scales should be developed to measure
each dimension and the relationship of each to the global concept of
interactivity.
Despite the uncertainty about interactivity and its potentially
revolutionary characteristics, interactive communication may indeed have
far-reaching consequences as suggested by our interviewees. It is important
for those who study, develop, and participate in computer-mediated
communication to understand the concepts and potential consequences of
each of the six dimensions of interactivity identified in this article.

APPENDIX 1
Interview instrument
I’m interested in your thoughts on issues related to the concept of
interactivity and computers. The information I’m gathering, over the next
few minutes, from talking to experts (such as you) will help me – and I
hope will help others – to better understand the impact of new
technologies. I’m tape recording our conversation so that, in the weeks
ahead, I can refer to the tape, and, in turn, take some notes off it. Just
answer the questions with whatever comes to mind. Feel free, too, to ‘pass’
on any questions.
The information gathered from this interview and others will be used in
order to write an academic article; it’s not intended for any purpose other
than that. At the conclusion of interviews such as these I always destroy the
tapes and, therefore, can assure you your answers will remain confidential.
How does that sound? Any questions?

1. What does the concept of ‘interactivity’ mean to you?

2. How much effort, relative to that expended for other types of
communication, do you think interactive communication requires?

175
New Media & Society 2(2)

3. One of my colleagues recently suggested to me that fully interactive

media create a situation in which the roles of the sender and receiver
are interchangeable. What do you think of that idea?
4. How important do you think it is for interactive communication to
occur in ‘real time?’ In other words, is it necessary for responses – in
order to be deemed ‘interactive responses’ – to be immediate?
5. Someone recently said, and I’ll paraphrase, that ‘interactivity is a
quality of individuals who are making use of a medium, rather than
being a quality of a medium itself ’. How would you respond to this?
6. Some kinds of communication give the communicator more control
than others. For example, a public relations practitioner does not have
complete control over how a reporter will cover a press conference,
whereas an advertising professional has control over what an
advertisement will look like. Tell me what you think about the issue of
‘control’ as it applies to interactive communication?
7. How important is it to track the activity of people who are
participating in interactive media?
8. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of different forms
of interactive communication?
9. A communications professional recently said to me that she sees
interactivity as ‘threatening’. How would you respond to her?
10. Finally, thank you for your willingness to share your ideas on these
topics. Can you tell me if there are any major, related issues we didn’t
address above. What have we missed?

APPENDIX 2
Profile of respondents
Joseph gained substantial experience as both an educator and executive for
one of the nation’s leading computer firms. He serves on the full-time
faculty at one of the country’s top communication programs.
Pam recently published a book on the uses of new technologies and has an
extensive background in media research, theory, and computer-assisted
instruction and design.
Dennis has extensive professional and academic experience, primarily in the
advertising industry. He teaches a variety of courses on interactive
communication while serving on the full-time faculty at a prominent
southern university.
Bob directs a technology task force for one of the leading communication
programs in the US. He concentrates on the integration of new technology,
such as interactive multimedia, into the university’s programs.

176
 Downes & McMillan: Defining interactivity

Jake has served as an instructor for the past 15 years at a prominent research
and technology university. He has worked extensively in the ongoing
development of his institution’s computer courses and played a significant
role in shaping the related curriculum.
Kent manages content development for a large student-oriented web site.
He also manages the university students who are responsible for creation of
the content.
Will has post-graduate training in computer science with an emphasis in
artificial intelligence. He currently teaches university students the technical
aspects of building sophisticated web sites.
Rita works professionally as a multimedia-media designer. She has
experience as a journalist, film maker, and artist. She teaches university
students the basics of using computers as a tool for communication.
Amy works for a company that specializes in facilitating collaborative
workplace strategies. She has post-graduate education in philosophy and is
also active in creating several ‘virtual communities’ oriented to support of
professional women.
Jeff is a recently retired journalist whose computer experience began with
mainframes in the 1960s, progressed to minicomputers in the 1970s, and
evolved to microcomputers in the 1980s. He currently uses email
extensively in his teaching of university writing courses.

References
Ang, S. and L.L. Cummings (1994) ‘Panel Analysis of Feedback-Seeking Patterns in
Face-to-Face, Computer Mediated, and Computer-Generated Communication
Environments’, Perceptual and Motor Skills 79: 67–73.
Blattberg, R.C. and J. Deighton (1991) ‘Interactive Marketing: Exploiting the Age of
Addressability’, Sloan Management Review (Fall): 5–14.
Braman, S. (1989) ‘Defining Information: An Approach for Policymakers’,
Telecommunications Policy 13: 233–42.
Chen, M. (1984) ‘Computers in the Lives of Our Children: Looking Back on a
Generation of Television Research’, in R.E. Rice (ed.) The New Media:
Communication, Research, and Technology, pp. 269–86. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
DeFleur, M.L., P. Kearney, and T.G. Plax (1997) Fundamentals of Human Communication
(2nd edn). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.
Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Dreze, X. and F. Zufryden (1997) ‘Testing Web Site Design and Promotion Content’,
Journal of Advertising Research (March/April): 77–91.
Finn, T.A. (1998) ‘A Conceptual Framework for Organizing Communication and
Information Systems’, paper presented at the International Communication
Association Conference, Jerusalem, 20–4 July.

177
New Media & Society 2(2)

Firestone, W.A. (1987) ‘Meaning in Method: The Rhetoric of Quantitative and

Qualitative Research’, Educational Researcher (October): 16–21.
Grunig, J.E. and L.A. Grunig (1989) ‘Toward a Theory of Public Relations Behavior of
Organizations: Review of a Program of Research’, in J.E. Grunig and L.A. Grunig
(eds) Public Relations Research Annual, Volume 1, pp. 27–63. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Ha, L. (1998) ‘Interactivity in Business Web Sites: A Content Analysis’, paper presented
at the American Academy of Advertising Conference, Lexington, KY, 27–30 March.
Heeter, C. (1989) ‘Implications of New Interactive Technologies for Conceptualizing
Communication’, in J.L. Salvaggio and J. Bryant (eds) Media Use in the Information
Age: Emerging Patterns of Adoption and Computer Use, pp. 221–5. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jensen, J.F. (1998) ‘Interactivity: Tracing a New Concept in Media and Communication
Studies’, Nordicom Review 19(1): 185–204.
Kayany, J.M., C.E. Worting, and E.J. Forrest (1996) ‘Relational Control and Interactive
Media Choice in Technology-Mediated Communication Situations’, Human
Communication Research 22: 399–421.
Lee, T.W. (1999) Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Lynne, M.L. (1994) ‘Finding a Happy Medium: Explaining the Negative Effects of
Electronic Communication on Social Life at Work’, ACM Transactions on Information
Systems 14: 119–49.
Markus, M.L. (1994) ‘Finding a Happy Medium: Explaining the Negative Effects of
Electronic Communication on Social Life at Work’, ACM Transactions on Information
Systems 14: 119–49.
Marshall, C. and G.B. Rossman (1989) Designing Qualitative Research. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Mason, J. (1996) Qualitative Researching. London: Sage Publications.
McMillan, S.J. (1998) ‘Who Pays for Content? Funding in Interactive Media’, Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 4(1), URL: (consulted Feb. 1999) http:/
/[Link]/jcmc/vol4/issue1/[Link]
McMillan, S.J. (1999) ‘Advertising Age and Interactivity: Tracing Media Evolution
Through the Advertising Trade Press’, paper presented at the American Academy of
Advertising Conference, Albuquerque, NM, 26–9 March.
Morris, M. and C. Ogan (1997) ‘The Internet as Mass Medium’, Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication 1(4), URL: (consulted Feb. 1999) [Link]
dept/annenberg/vol1/issue4/[Link]
O’Keefe, S. (1995) Publicity on the Internet: Creating Successful Publicity Campaigns. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Patton, M.Q. (1987) How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Pavlik, J.V. (1996) New Media Technology: Cultural and Commercial Perspectives. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Rafaeli, S. (1988) ‘Interactivity: From New Media to Communication’, in R.P.
Hawkins, J.M. Wiemann and S. Pingree (eds) Advancing Communication Science: Merging
Mass and Interpersonal Process, pp. 110–34. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rafaeli, S. (1990) ‘Interacting with Media: Para-Social Interaction and Real Interaction’,
in B.D. Ruben and L.A. Liverouw (eds) Mediation, Information and Communication:
Information and Behavior, Volume 3, pp. 125–81. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.

178
 Downes & McMillan: Defining interactivity

Rafaeli, S. and F. Sudweeks (1997) ‘Networked Interactivity’, Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication 2(4), URL: (consulted Feb. 1999) [Link]
annenberg/vol2/issue4/[Link]
Rheingold, H. (1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. New
York: Addison-Wesley.
Rice, R.E. (1984) ‘New Media Technology: Growth and Integration’, in R.E. Rice
(ed.) The New Media: Communication, Research, and Technology, pp. 33–54. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Rice, R.E. and F. Williams (1984) ‘Theories Old and New: The Study of New Media’,
in R.E. Rice (ed.) The New Media: Communication, Research, and Technology, pp. 55–80.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rogers, E.M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations (4th edn). New York: Free Press.
Rosoneau, P.M. (1992) Post Modernism in the Social Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Schaffer, L.C. and M.J. Hannafin (1986) ‘The Effects of Progressive Interactivity on
Learning from Interactive Video’, Educational Communication and Technology 34: 89–96.
Singleton, R.A. (1993) Approaches to Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Snyder, I. (1996) Hypertext: The Electronic Labyrinth. Melbourne: Melbourne University
Press.
Sproull, L. and S. Kiesler (1991) ‘Computers, Networks, and Work’, Scientific American
(September): 116–23.
Steur, J. (1992) ‘Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence’, Journal
of Communication 42: 73–93.
Stolz, C. (1995) Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway. New York:
Doubleday.
Strauss, A.L. (1996) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Thomas, P.J. (1995) ‘Introduction: The Social and Interactional Dimensions of Human-
Computer Interfaces’, in P.J. Thomas (ed.) The Social and Interactional Dimensions of
Human-Computer Interfaces, pp. 1–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walther, J.B. (1994) ‘Anticipated Ongoing Interaction Versus Channel Effects on
Relational Communication in Computer-Mediated Interaction’, Human
Communication Research 20: 473–501.

EDWARD J. DOWNES is an assistant professor at Boston University. His expertise is in

communication management, public relations, public affairs, program administration, and
qualitative research. His most recent work was published in the Journal of Public Relations
Research.
Address: Boston University, College of Communication, 640 Commonwealth Ave, Boston, MA
02215. [email: edownes@[Link]]
SALLY J. MCMILLAN is an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee. Her research
focuses on the individual, organizational and social impacts of interactive communication
technologies and has been published in journals such as the Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication and Health Communication as well as proceedings of the American Academy
of Advertising conference and the Advertising and Consumer Psychology conference.
Address: The University of Tennessee, College of Communication, 476 Communication
Building, Knoxville, Tennessee, TN 37996. [email: sjmcmill@[Link]]

179