Skip to main content
Original Article

Interactive Data Graphics and Information Processing

The Moderating Role of Involvement

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000127

Among the chief promises of interactivity in news content online are that it leads to improved engagement with and attitudes toward content, yet scholarship is mixed on how such effects should occur, and under what conditions they do so. This study sought to examine the processes and conditions for effects of interactivity on processing online health news containing graphically displayed data. An experiment (N = 86) was conducted using online health news to examine these effects and test two previously proposed mechanisms – namely, those of increased involvement and perceived interactivity. Interactivity of information graphics accompanying an online health article was manipulated across three ordinal levels, and effects on postexposure attitudes and memory measures obtained. Preexisting level of involvement with the content domain and numerical aptitude were measured and tested as potential moderators of effects. The results showed that involvement with the content domain moderated the role of interactivity, such that increased interactivity led to more favorable attitudes toward the article for users low in involvement, while no effect was found for highly involved users. The effects of interactivity on attitudes were also found to be mediated by perceived interactivity. The results suggest that involvement with content domain is a key determinant of the effects of interactivity, and should be included as a key element in the development of theories of the impact of technology on communication.

References

  • Ahern, R. K., & Stromer-Galley, J. (2000, June). The interaction effect: An experimental study of high and low interactivity political Websites. Paper presented at the 50th annual conference of the International Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ancker, J. S., Chan, C., & Kukafka, R. (2009). Interactive graphics for expressing health risks: development and qualitative evaluation. Journal of Health Communication, 14, 461–475. doi: 10.1080/10810730903032960 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ariely, D. (2000). Controlling the information flow: Effects on consumers’ decision making and preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 233–248. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bucy, E. P., & Tao, C. (2007). The mediated moderation model of interactivity. Media Psychology, 9, 647–672. doi: 10.1080/15213260701283269 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 805. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Calogero, M., & Nelson, T. O. (1992). Utilization of base-rate information during feeling-of-knowing judgments. The American Journal of Psychology. 565–573. doi: 10.2307/1422911 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 210–224. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Donelle, L., Hoffman-Goetz, L., Gatobu, S., & Arocha, J. F. (2009). Comprehension of Internet-based numeric cancer information by older adults. Informatics for Health and Social Care, 34(4), 209–224. doi: 10.3109/17538150903358552 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • George-Palilonis, J., & Spillman, M. (2011). Interactive graphics development: A framework for studying innovative visual story forms. Visual Communication Quarterly, 18(3), 167–177. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gray, J., Chambers, L., & Bounegru, L. (2012). The data journalism handbook. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. [White paper]. Retrieved from www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Jee, J., & Lee, W. N. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of perceived interactivity: an exploratory study. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 3(1), 34–45. doi: 10.1080/15252019.2002.10722066 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jiang, Z., Chan, J., Tan, B. C., & Chua, W. S. (2010). Effects of interactivity on website involvement and purchase intention. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(1), 34–59. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 290. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.290 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johnson, E. J., & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 20–31. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.20 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johnson, P. O., & Fay, L. C. (1950). The Johnson-Neyman technique, its theory and application. Psychometrika, 15(4), 349–367. doi: 10.1007/BF02288864 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kristof, R., & Satran, A. (1995). Interactivity by design. Mountain View, CA: Adobe Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Larsson, A. O. (2012). Interactivity on Swedish newspaper websites: What kind, how much and why? Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 18(2), 195–213. doi: 10.1177/1354856511430184 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Lipkus, I. M., & Peters, E. (2009). Understanding the role of numeracy in health: Proposed theoretical framework and practical insights. Health Education & Behavior, 36(6), 1065–1081. doi: 10.1177/1090198109341533 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Liu, Y. (2003). Developing a scale to measure the interactivity of websites. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(02), 207–216. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2009). A dual-process model of interactivity effects. Journal of Advertising, 28(2), 53–68. doi: 10.2753/JOA0091-3367380204 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715–726. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.715 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. S. (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. 29–42. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Parasie, S., & Dagiral, E. (2013). Data-driven journalism and the public good: “Computer-assisted-reporters” and “programmer-journalists” in Chicago. New Media & Society, 15(6), 853–871. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Peters, E., & Levin, I. P. (2008). Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighing risky and riskless options. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 435–448. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. BerkowitzEd., Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847–855. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity from new media to communication. In R. HawkinsJ. M. WiemannS. PingreeEds., Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes. Sage Annual Reviews of Communication Research (vol. 16, pp. 110–134). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Rafaeli, S., & Ariel, Y. (2007). Assessing interactivity in computer-mediated research. In A. N. JoinsonK. Y. A. McKennaT. PostmesU.-D. ReipsEds., The Oxford handbook of internet psychology (pp. 71–88). Oxford: Oxford University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schapira, M. M., Nattinger, A. B., & McAuliffe, T. L. (2006). The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication. Journal of Health Communication, 11, 569–582. doi: 10.1080/10810730600829916 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Severtson, D. J., & Henriques, J. B. (2009). The effect of graphics on emotional health risk beliefs, emotions, behavioral intentions, and recall. Risk Analysis, 29(11), 1549–1565. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01299.x First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Sohn, D., Ci, C., & Lee, B. (2007). The moderating effects of expectation on the patterns of the interactivity: Attitude relationship. Journal of Advertising, 36(3), 109–119. doi: 10.2753/JOA0091-3367360308 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Song, J. H., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2008). Determinants of perceived web site interactivity. Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 99–113. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.72.2.99 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42, 73–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sundar, S. (2000). Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: A study of picture, audio, and video downloads. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 480–499. doi: 10.1177/107769900007700302 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sundar, S. S. (2004). Theorizing interactivity’s effects. The Information Society, 20, 385–389. doi: 10.1177/107769900007700302 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Sundar, S. S. (2007). Social psychology of interactivity in human-website interaction. In A. N. JoinsonK. Y. A. McKennaT. PostmesU.-D. ReipsEds., The Oxford handbook of internet psychology (pp. 71–88). Oxford: Oxford University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In M. J. MetzgerA. J. FlanaginEds., Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73–100). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Sundar, S. S., & Kalyanaraman, S. (2004). Arousal, memory, and impression-formation effects of animation speed in web advertising. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 7–17. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2004.10639152 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. (2003). Explicating Web site interactivity: Impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research, 30(1), 30–59. doi: 10.1177/0093650202239025 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sundar, S. S., & Kim, J. (2005). Interactivity and persuasion: Influencing attitudes with information and involvement. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5(2), 5–18. doi: 10.1080/15252019.2005.10722097 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sundar, S. S., Xu, Q., Bellur, S., Oh, J., & Jia, H. (2011). Beyond pointing and clicking: How do newer interaction modalities affect user engagement? In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’11), Vancouver, Canada (pp. 1477–1482). New York: ACM. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Teo, H. H., Oh, L. B., Liu, C., & Wei, K. K. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of interactivity on web user attitude. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(3), 281–305. doi: 10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00008-9 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Voorveld, H. A., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2011). The relation between actual and perceived interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 40(2), 77–92. doi: 10.2753/JOA0091-3367400206 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Weber, W., & Rall, H. (2012, May). Between data visualization and visual storytelling: The interactive information graphic as a hybrid form. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Phoenix, AZ, USA First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wirth, W. (2006). Involvement. In J. BryantP. VordererEds., The psychology of entertainment (pp. 199–212). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wu, G. (2005). The mediating role of perceived interactivity in the effect of actual interactivity on attitude toward the website. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5(2), 29–39. doi: 10.1080/15252019.2005.10722099 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–352. doi: 10.1086/208520 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Smith, D. M., Fagerlin, A., & Ubel, P. A. (2007). Validation of the subjective numeracy scale (SNS): Effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Medical Decision Making, 27(5), 663–671. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07303824 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Zillmann, D. (1999). Exemplification theory: Judging the whole by some of its parts. Media Psychology, 1, 69–94. doi: 10.1207/s1532785xmep0101_5 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Zillmann, D. (2006). Exemplification effects in the promotion of safety and health. Journal of Communication, 56, S221–S237. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00291.x First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Zillmann, D. (2013). The utility of affect-evoking exemplars in health promotion. In A. SchorrEd., Campaigning for health: Case studies in communication and health promotion (pp. 73–100). New York: Pabst Science Publishers. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Zillmann, D., & Brosius, H.-B. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Zillmann, D., Callison, C., & Gibson, R. (2009). Quantitative media literacy: Individual differences in dealing with numbers in the news. Media Psychology, 12, 394–416. doi: 10.1080/15213260903287275 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Zillmann, D., Gibson, R., & Sargent, S. L. (1999). Effects of photographs in news-magazine reports on issue perception. Media Psychology, 1, 207–228. doi: 10.1207/s1532785xmep0103_2 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar