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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

user engagement physical interaction interface assessment absorption digital outreach

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agarwal

Karahanna

(2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24, 665-694. doi:10.2307/3250951

Arapakis

Lalmas

Cambazoglu

B. B.

Marcos

M. C.

Jose

J. M.

(2014). User engagement in online news: Under the scope of sentiment, interest, affect, and gaze. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 1988-2005.

Arapakis

Lalmas

Valkanas

(2014). Understanding within-content engagement through pattern analysis of mouse gestures. In Proceedings of the 23rd Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (pp. 1439-1448). New York, NY: ACM.

Baddeley

(1998). Human memory. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Baddeley

(2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829-839. doi:10.1038/nrn1201

Bardzell

Pace

Karnell

(2008). Making user engagement visible: A multimodal strategy for interactive media experience research. In Proceedings of CHI’08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3663-3668). New York, NY: ACM.

Berger

(2011). Arousal increases social transmission of information. Psychological Science, 22, 891-893. doi:10.1177/0956797611413294

Berger

(2013). Contagious: Why things catch on. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Bickmore

T. W.

Consolvo

Intille

S. S.

(2009). Engagement by design. In Proceedings of CHI’09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4807-4810). New York, NY: ACM.

10.

Biocca

Delaney

(1995). Immersive virtual reality technology. In Biocca

Levy

M. R.

(Eds.), Communication in the age of virtual reality (pp. 57-124). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

11.

Blackler

A. L.

Popovic

Mahar

D. P.

(2005). Intuitive interaction applied to interface design. International Design Congress—IASDR 2005, Douliou, Taiwan.

12.

Brown

(2014, August). iOS users scroll and engage more across social networks. Social Business. Retrieved from http://www.zdnet.com/article/ios-users-scroll-and-engage-more-across-social-networks/

13.

Burns

K. S.

Lutz

R. J.

(2006). The function of format: Consumer responses to six on-line advertising formats. Journal of Advertising, 35, 53-63.

14.

Busselle

Bilandzic

(2008). Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory, 18, 255-280. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00322.x

15.

Busselle

Bilandzic

(2009). Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychology, 12(4), 321-347.

16.

Cabrera-Nguyen

(2010). Author guidelines for reporting scale development and validation results. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 1, 99-103.

17.

Calder

B. J.

Malthouse

E. C.

Schaedel

(2009). An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 321-331.

18.

Cha

Haddadi

Benevenuto

Gummadi

K. P.

(2010). Measuring user influence in twitter: The million follower fallacy. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM) (Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 8-17). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI.

19.

Chaffee

S. H.

(1991). Communication concepts 1: Explication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

20.

Chaffee

S. H.

Schleuder

(1986). Measurement and effects of attention to media news. Human Communication Research, 13, 76-107.

21.

Chaiken

Liberman

Eagly

A. H.

(1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In Uleman

J. S.

Bargh

J. A.

(Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-253). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

22.

Cho

C. H.

(1999). How advertising works on the WWW: Modified elaboration likelihood model. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 21, 34-50.

23.

Cohen

(2014, January 02). Google engagement ads—Should small businesses use them? Retrieved from http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2014/01/02/google-engagement-ads#

24.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

25.

Davis

F. D.

(1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.

26.

Diamantopoulos

Siguaw

J. A.

(2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 17, 263-282.

27.

Dobele

Toleman

Beverland

(2005). Controlled infection! Spreading the brand message through viral marketing. Business Horizons, 48, 143-149.

28.

Dreze

Hussherr

F. X.

(2003). Internet advertising: Is anybody watching? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17, 8-23.

29.

Dupret

Lalmas

(2013). Absence time and user engagement: Evaluating ranking functions. In Proceedings of the 6th Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (pp. 173-182). New York, NY: ACM.

30.

Evans

Gibbons

N. J.

(2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 49, 1147-1160.

31.

Falls

(2013, November 13). What’s the value of social media “engagement?” The Financial Brand. Retrieved from http://thefinancialbrand.com/35062/social-media-engagement-in-banking/

32.

Geiger

Reeves

(1993). The effects of scene changes and semantic relatedness on attention to television. Communications Research, 20, 155-175.

33.

Green

M. C.

Brock

T. C.

(2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701-721.

34.

Hair

Black

Babin

Anderson

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

35.

Hanna

Rohm

Crittenden

V. L.

(2011). We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons, 54, 265-273.

36.

Sundar

S. S.

(2010). Effects of online health sources on credibility and behavioral intentions. Communication Research, 37, 105-132.

37.

Indvik

(2013, April 26). Cost per like: A subjective valuation of your Facebook fans. Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2013/04/26/facebook-cost-per-like/

38.

Interactive Advertising Bureau. (2014). Defining and measuring digital ad engagement in a cross-platformworld. Retrieved from http://www.iab.net/media/file/Ad_Engagement_Spectrum2014_FINAL2-5-2014-EB.PDF

39.

Jacques

Preece

Carey

(1995). Engagement as a design concept for hypermedia. Canadian Journal of Educational Communications, 24, 49-59.

40.

Klein

L. R.

(2003). Creating virtual product experiences: The role of telepresence. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17, 41-55. doi:10.1002/dir.10046

41.

Klimmt

Vorderer

(2003). Media psychology “is not yet there”: Introducing theories on media entertainment to the presence debate. Presence, 12, 346-359.

42.

Lang

(2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. The Journal of Communication, 50, 46-70.

43.

Lang

Zhou

Schwartz

Bolls

P. D.

Potter

R. F.

(2000). The effects of edits on arousal, attention, and memory for television messages: When an edit is an edit can an edit be too much? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 94-109.

44.

Lee

H. H.

Fiore

A. M.

Kim

(2006). The role of the technology acceptance model in explaining effects of image interactivity technology on consumer responses. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 34, 621-644.

45.

Lehmann

Lalmas

Yom-Tov

Dupret

(2012). Models of user engagement. In Masthoff

Mobasher

Desmarais

M. C.

Nkambou

(Eds.), User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization (pp. 164-175). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

46.

Daugherty

Biocca

(2002). Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase intention: The mediating role of presence. Journal of Advertising, 31, 43-57.

47.

Lindgaard

Dudek

Sen

Sumegi

Noonan

(2011). An exploration of relations between visual appeal, trustworthiness and perceived usability of homepages. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 18, 1-28.

48.

Lipsman

(2012, April 24). For display ads, being seen matters more than being clicked. Retrieved from http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press-Releases/2012/4/For-Display-Ads-Being-Seen-Matters-More-than-Being-Clicked

49.

Lohtia

Donthu

Hershberger

E. K.

(2003). The impact of content and design elements on banner advertising click-through rates. Journal of advertising Research, 43, 410-418.

50.

Mollen

Wilson

(2010). Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 63, 919-925.

51.

Morrissey

(2008, February 20). VideoEgg tries “cost per engagement.” Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/videoegg-tries-cost-engagement-94983

52.

Morrissey

(2009, June 7). Thinking beyond the online banner. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/thinking-beyond-online-banner-99508

53.

Napoli

P. M.

(2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

54.

Naumann

Hurtienne

(2010). Benchmarks for intuitive interaction with mobile devices. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (pp. 401-402). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

55.

Norman

D. A.

(1990). The Design of Everyday Things. New York, NY: Doubleday.

56.

O’Brien

H. L.

(2011). Exploring user engagement in online news interactions. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48, 1-10.

57.

O’Brien

H. L.

Lebow

(2013). Mixed-methods approach to measuring user experience in online news interactions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 1543-1556.

58.

O’Brien

H. L.

Toms

E. G.

(2008). What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 938-955.

59.

O’Brien

H. L.

Toms

E. G.

(2010). The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement in e-commerce environments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 50-69.

60.

Bellur

Sundar

S. S.

(2010, June). A conceptual model of user engagement with media. Paper presented at the 60th annual conference of the International Communication Association, Singapore.

61.

Paivio

(1990). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

62.

Peters

Castellano

de Freitas

(2009). An exploration of user engagement in HCI. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Affective-Aware Virtual Agents and Social Robots (article number 9). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

63.

Peters

Kashima

Clark

(2009). Talking about others: Emotionality and the dissemination of social information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 207-222.

64.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

65.

Price

Zaller

(1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 133-164.

66.

Salajan

F. D.

Perschbacher

Cash

Talwar

El-Badrawy

Mount

G. J.

(2009). Learning with web-based interactive objects: An investigation into student perceptions of effectiveness. Computers & Education, 53, 632-643.

67.

Sharma

(2011). Social Media Engagement Metrics—6 things you can learn. Retrieved from http://www.optimizesmart.com/6-learn-postrank-social-engagement-metrics/#ixzz3OZtPcqmC

68.

Shen

Dillard

J. P.

(2009). Message frames interact with motivational systems to determine depth of message processing. Health Communication, 24, 504-514.

69.

Slater

Rouner

(2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12, 173-191.

70.

Sokolik

Magee

R. G.

Ivory

J. D.

(2014). Red-hot and ice-cold web ads: The influence of web ads’ warm and cool colors on click-through rates. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 14, 31-37.

71.

Stanley

T. L.

(2013, December 9). Is CPE the best way to quantify ROI? Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2013/12/09/cost-per-engagement-metrics/

72.

Steuer

(1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42, 73-93.

73.

Stieglitz

Dang-Xuan

(2013). Emotions and information diffusion in social media sentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29, 217-248.

74.

Stoney

Oliver

(1999). Can higher order thinking and cognitive engagement be enhanced with multimedia? Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning. Retrieved from http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/1999/2/07/printver.asp

75.

Strange

J. J.

Leung

C. C.

(1999). How anecdotal accounts in news and in fiction can influence judgments of a social problem’s urgency, causes, and cures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 436-449.

76.

Straub

Boudreau

M. C.

Gefen

(2004). Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. The Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 63-89.

77.

Sundar

S. S.

(2000). Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: A study of picture, audio, and video downloads. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 480-499.

78.

Sundar

S. S.

(2007). Social psychology of interactivity in human-website interaction. In Joinson

A. N.

McKenna

K. Y. A.

Postmes

Reips

U.-D.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 89-104). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

79.

Sundar

S. S.

(2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In Metzger

M. J.

Flanagin

A. J.

(Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 72-100). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

80.

Sundar

S. S.

Bellur

Jia

(2011). Calls for interaction: The more the better? User experience of 3D carousel and additional interaction techniques. In Campos

Graham

Jorge

Nunes

Palanque

Winckler

(Eds.), Proceedings of INTERACT 2011, Part IV, LNCS 6949 (pp. 487-490). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

81.

Sundar

S. S.

Bellur

Jia

(2014). User experience of on- screen interaction techniques: An experimental investigation of clicking, sliding, zooming, hovering, dragging and flipping. Human Computer Interaction, 29, 109-152.

82.

Sundar

S. S.

Kalyanaraman

Brown

(2003). Explicating web site interactivity: Impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research, 30, 30-59.

83.

Sundar

S. S.

Bellur

Jia

(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) (pp. 1477-1482). New York, NY: ACM.

84.

Sutcliffe

(2009). Designing for user engagement: Aesthetic and attractive user interfaces. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 2, 1-55.

85.

Teo

H. H.

L. B.

Liu

Wei

K. K.

(2003). An empirical study of the effects of interactivity on web user attitude. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 281-305.

86.

Venkatesh

Davis

F. D.

(2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186-204.

87.

Wang

(2006). Advertising engagement: A driver of message involvement on message effects. Journal of Advertising Research-New York, 46, 355-368.

88.

Webster

(1997). Audience engagement in multimedia presentations. Data Base for the Advances in Information Systems, 28, 63-77.

89.

Witmer

B. G.

Singer

M. J.

(1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7, 225-240.

90.

Sundar

S. S.

(2014). Lights, camera, music, interaction! Interactive persuasion in e-commerce. Communication Research, 41, 282-308.

91.

Yoshida

Tijerino

Y. A.

Abe

Kishino

(1995). A virtual space teleconferencing system that supports intuitive interaction for creative and cooperative work. In Proceedings of the 1995 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics (pp. 115-122). New York, NY: ACM.