This study combines the heuristic-systematic model of persuasion with user interface literature to examine how website interactivity influences processing of anti-smoking messages and smoking outcome beliefs. We conducted a pilot experiment with 112 current smokers and found that the interactive website elicited more heuristic processing among participants, which diminished their outcome beliefs and website attitudes. However, their positive interface perception functioned as a salient cue that led to greater systematic processing, which outperformed the negative impact of interactivity. It is recommended for future research to examine the effect of interactivity on persuasion with other types of interface features and health messages.
BohnerG.MoskowitzG. B.ChaikenS. (1995). The interplay of heuristic and systematic processing of social information. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 33-68.
2.
BrownS. L.SmithE. Z. (2007). The inhibitory effect of a distressing anti-smoking message on risk perceptions in smokers. Psychology & Health, 22, 255-268. doi:10.1080/14768320600843127
3.
BurgoonJ. K.BonitoJ. A.BengtssonB.CederbergC.LundebergM.AllspachL. (2000). Interactivity in human–computer interaction: A study of credibility, understanding, and influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 553-574. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(00)00029-7.
4.
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
5.
ChaikenS.MaheswaranD. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-460. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460
6.
ChapmanS.WongW. L.SmithW. (1993). Self-exempting beliefs about smoking and health: Differences between smokers and ex-smokers. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 215-219. doi:10.2105/AJPH.83.2.215
7.
ChenS.ShechterD.ChaikenS. (1996). Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy-versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 262-275. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.262
8.
ChoiY. K.TaylorC. R. (2014). How do 3-dimensional images promote products on the Internet?Journal of Business Research, 67, 2164-2170.
9.
ChungH.ZhaoX. (2004). Effects of perceived interactivity on web site preference and memory: Role of personal motivation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00232.x
10.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
CyrD.HeadM.IvanovA. (2009). Perceived interactivity leading to e-loyalty: Development of a model for cognitive–affective user responses. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67, 850-869. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.07.004
12.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
13.
EvelandW. P.Jr.DunwoodyS. (2002). An investigation of elaboration and selective scanning as mediators of learning from the Web versus print. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 34-53. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4601_3
14.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160.
15.
GibsonJ. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In ShawR. E.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
GriffinR. J.DunwoodyS.NeuwirthK. (1999). Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research, 80, S230-S245.
17.
GriffinR. J.NeuwirthK.GieseJ.DunwoodyS. (2002). Linking the heuristic-systematic model and depth of processing. Communication Research, 29, 705-732.
18.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
19.
JeeJ.LeeW. N. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of perceived interactivity: An exploratory study. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 3, 34-45. doi:10.1080/15252019.2002.10722066
20.
JiangZ.ChanJ.TanB. C.ChuaW. S. (2010). Effects of interactivity on website involvement and purchase intention. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11, 34-59.
21.
KahlorL.DunwoodyS.GriffinR. J.NeuwirthK.GieseJ. (2003). Studying heuristic-systematic processing of risk communication. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 23, 355-368.
22.
KhalilG. E.WangH.CalabroK. S.MitraN.ShegogR.ProkhorovA. V. (2017). From the experience of interactivity and entertainment to lower intention to smoke: A randomized controlled trial and path analysis of a web-based smoking prevention program for adolescents. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(2), e44. doi:10.2196/jmir.7174
23.
KiousisS. (2002). Interactivity: A concept explication. New Media & Society, 4, 355-383. doi:10.1177/146144402320564392
24.
KohY. J.SundarS. S. (2010). Heuristic versus systematic processing of specialist versus generalist sources in online media. Human Communication Research, 36, 103-124.
25.
LeeE. J.KimY. W. (2016). Effects of infographics on news elaboration, acquisition, and evaluation: Prior knowledge and issue involvement as moderators. New Media & Society, 18, 1579-1598. doi:10.1177/1461444814567982
26.
LiuY. (2003). Developing a scale to measure the interactivity of websites. Journal of Advertising Research, 43, 207-216. doi:10.1017/S0021849903030204
27.
LiuY.ShrumL. J. (2009). A dual-process model of interactivity effects. Journal of Advertising, 38, 53-68.
28.
LuY.KimY.DouX. Y.KumarS. (2014). Promote physical activity among college students: Using media richness and interactivity in web design. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 40-50. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.08.012
29.
MaheswaranD.ChaikenS. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-25.
30.
MalthouseE. C.CalderB. J.KimS. J.VandenboschM. (2016). Evidence that user-generated content that produces engagement increases purchase behaviours. Journal of Marketing Management, 32, 427-444. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2016.1148066
31.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210-220.
32.
NatterH. M.BerryD. C. (2005). Effects of active information processing on the understanding of risk information. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 123-135.
33.
NeuwirthK.FrederickE.MayoC. (2002). Person-effects and heuristic-systematic processing. Communication Research, 29, 320-359.
34.
OhJ.SundarS. S. (2015). How does interactivity persuade? An experimental test of interactivity on cognitive absorption, elaboration, and attitudes. Journal of Communication, 65, 213-236. doi:10.1111/jcom.12147
35.
O’KeefeD. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13, 251-274.
36.
PerloffR. M. (2017). Dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Routledge.
RainsS. A.KarmikelC. D. (2009). Health information-seeking and perceptions of website credibility: Examining Web-use orientation, message characteristics, and structural features of websites. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 544-553.
39.
RhodesN.Roskos-EwoldsenD. R.EdisonA.BradfordM. B. (2008). Attitude and norm accessibility affect processing of anti-smoking messages. Health Psychology, 27(3 Suppl.), S224-S232.
40.
SchemerC.MatthesJ.WirthW. (2008). Toward improving the validity and reliability of media information processing measures in surveys. Communication Methods and Measures, 2, 193-225.
41.
SundarS. S. (2007). Social psychology of interactivity in human-website interaction. In JoinsonA. N.McKennaK. Y. A.PostmesT.ReipsU. D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of internet psychology (pp. 89-104). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
42.
SundarS. S.JiaH.WaddellT. F.HuangY. (2015). Toward a theory of interactive media effects (TIME): Four models for explaining how interface features affect user psychology. In SundarS. S. (Ed.), The handbook of the psychology of communication Technology (pp. 47-86). Malden, MA: John Wiley.
43.
SundarS. S.KalyanaramanS. (2004). Arousal, memory, and impression-formation effects of animation speed in web advertising. Journal of Advertising, 33, 7-17.
44.
TormalaZ. L.BriñolP.PettyR. E. (2006). When credibility attacks: The reverse impact of source credibility on persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 684-691. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.005
45.
Tortosa-EdoV.López-NavarroM. A.Llorens-MonzonísJ.Rodríguez-ArtolaR. M. (2014). The antecedent role of personal environmental values in the relationships among trust in companies, information processing and risk perception. Journal of Risk Research, 17, 1019-1035.
46.
Van BreukelenG. J. (2006). ANCOVA versus change from baseline had more power in randomized studies and more bias in nonrandomized studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 920-925. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.02.007
47.
Van NoortG.VoorveldH. A.van ReijmersdalE. A. (2012). Interactivity in brand websites: Cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses explained by consumers’ online flow experience. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26, 223-234.
48.
WangL. C.BakerJ.WagnerJ. A.WakefieldK. (2007). Can a retail website be social?Journal of Marketing, 71, 143-157.
49.
WangR.SundarS. S. (2018). How does parallax scrolling influence user experience? A test of TIME (Theory of Interactive Media Effects). International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 34, 533-543. doi:10.1080/10447318.2017.1373457
50.
WathenC. N.BurkellJ. (2002). Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 53, 134-144. doi:10.1002/asi.10016
51.
WegenerD. T.DowningJ.KrosnickJ. A.PettyR. E. (1995). Measures and manipulations of strength-related properties of attitudes: Current practice and future directions. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences, 4, 455-487.
52.
WongS. L.ShieldsM.LeatherdaleS.MalaisonE.HammondD. (2012). Assessment of validity of self-reported smoking status. Health Reports, 23, 47-53.
53.
WuG. (2005). The mediating role of perceived interactivity in the effect of actual interactivity on attitude toward the website. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5, 29-39. doi:10.1080/15252019.2005.10722099
54.
XuQ.SundarS. S. (2016). Interactivity and memory: Information processing of interactive versus non-interactive content. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 620-629.
55.
YangJ. (2016). Effects of popularity-based news recommendations (“most-viewed”) on users’ exposure to online news. Media Psychology, 19, 243-271. doi:10.1080/15213269.2015.1006333
56.
ZaichkowskyJ. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341-352.
57.
ZhaoL.LuY. (2012). Enhancing perceived interactivity through network externalities: An empirical study on micro-blogging service satisfaction and continuance intention. Decision Support Systems, 53, 825-834. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.019
