Research has indicated that although online interactive features are not used by the visitors of different websites, such features might be appreciated by the visitors. This article examines the use and appreciation of interactive features by visitors on Swedish newspaper websites. Utilizing an online survey focusing on different traits and habits of newspaper website visitors, the study presents a typology of visitor types, characterized by the different ways they use and appreciate interactive features in the online news media context. Although certain types make extensive use of interactivity, the overall results of the survey points towards rather low levels of both use and appreciation. As such, newspaper website visitors might be characterized as ‘slow learners’, taking their time to adapt to the interactive capabilities offered by the online news media.
BergströmA (2008) The reluctant audience: Online participation in the Swedish journalistic context. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture5(2): 60–79.
2.
BoczkowskiP (2002) The development and use of online newspapers: What research tells us and what we might want to know. In: LievrouwLLivingstoneS (eds) The Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs. London: Sage, 270–286.
3.
BriggsSRCheekJM (1986) The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality54(1): 106–148.
4.
BucyEP (2004) Interactivity in society: Locating an elusive concept. The Information Society20(5): 373–383.
ChoHLaRoseR (1999) Privacy issues in internet surveys. Social Science Computer Review17(4): 421–434.
7.
ChungDS (2004) Into interactivity? How news websites use interactive features. Paper presented at the ICA annual convention, New Orleans, LA.
8.
ChungDS (2007) Profits and perils: Online news producers’ perceptions of interactivity and uses of interactive features. Convergence13(1): 43–61.
9.
ChungDS (2008) Interactive features of online newspapers: Identifying patterns and predicting use of engaged readers. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication13(3): 658–679.
10.
ChungDSNahS (2009) The effects of interactive news presentation on perceived user satisfaction of online community newspapers. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication14(4): 855–874.
11.
ChungHZhaoX (2004) Effects of perceived interactivity on web site preference and memory: Role of personal motivation. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication10(1).
CouperMPTourangeauRConradFG. (2004) What they see is what we get: Response options for web surveys. Social Science Computer Review22(1): 111–127.
14.
CrawfordSDCouperMPLamiasMJ (2001) Web surveys: Perceptions of burden. Social Science Computer Review19(2): 146–162.
15.
DeuzeM (2003) The Web and its journalisms: Considering the consequences of different types of newsmedia online. New Media & Society5(2): 203–230.
16.
DeuzeMDimoudiC (2002) Online journalists in the Netherlands: Towards a profile of a new profession. Journalism3(1): 85–100.
17.
DomingoD (2008) Interactivity in the daily routines of online newsrooms: Dealing with an uncomfortable myth. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication13(3): 680–704.
18.
DomingoDQuandtTHeinonenA. (2008) Participatory journalism practices in the media and beyond. Journalism Practice2(3): 326–342.
19.
DownesEJMcMillanSJ (2000) Defining interactivity: A qualitative identification of key dimensions. New Media & Society2(2): 157–179.
20.
EngebretsenM (2006) Shallow and static or deep and dynamic? Studying the state of online journalism in Scandinavia. Nordicom Review27(1): 3–16.
21.
FortunatiLSarricaM (2010) The future of the press: Insights from the sociotechnical approach. The Information Society26(4): 247–255.
22.
FriskJ (2008) Medier bjuder in engagerade läsare. Journalisten, 18March.
23.
GerpottTJWankeH (2004) Interactivity potentials and usage of German press-title web sites: An empirical investigation. Journal of Media Economics17(4): 241–260.
24.
GillmorD (2004) We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
25.
HairJF (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
26.
HallinDCManciniP (2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
27.
HargittaiE (2005) Survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science Computer Review23(3): 371–379.
28.
HargittaiE (2009) An update on survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science Computer Review27(1): 130–137.
29.
HarrisonTMBarthelB (2009) Wielding new media in Web 2.0: Exploring the history of engagement with the collaborative construction of media products. New Media & Society11(1–2): 155–178.
30.
HujanenJPietikainenS (2004) Interactive uses of journalism: Crossing between technological potential and young people’s news-using practices. New Media & Society6(3): 383–401.
31.
HwangJMcMillanSJ (2002) The role of interactivity and involvement in attitude toward the web site. Paper presented at the Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Auburn, AL.
32.
JenningsMKZeitnerV (2003) Internet use and civic engagement. Public Opinion Quarterly67(3): 311–334.
33.
KarlssonM (2006) Nätjournalistik: en explorativ fallstudie av digitala mediers karaktärsdrag på fyra svenska nyhetssajter. Lund: Lund University.
34.
KIA-Index (2010) Web statistics provided by the Association of Swedish Advertisers. Available at: http://www.kiaindex.net/
35.
KoolstraCMBosMJW (2009) The development of an instrument to determine different levels of interactivity. International Communication Gazette71(5): 373–391.
36.
LarssonAO (forthcoming) Interactivity on Swedish newspaper websites: What kind, how much and why. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies.
37.
LeinerDJQuiringO (2008) What interactivity means to the user: Essential insights into and a scale for perceived interactivity. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication14(1): 127–155.
38.
McMillanSJ (2000) Interactivity is in the eye of the beholder: Function, perception, involvement, and attitude toward the website. In: ShaverMA (ed.) Proceedings of the 2000 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising. East Lansing, MI: AAA, 71–78.
39.
McMillanSJ (2002a) Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: Users, documents, and systems. In: LievrouwLLivingstoneS (eds) The Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs. London: Sage, 163–182.
40.
McMillanSJ (2002b) A four-part model of cyber-interactivity: Some cyber-places are more interactive than others. New Media & Society4(2): 271–291.
41.
McMillanSJHwangJS (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 Advertising31(3): 29–42.
42.
MitchelsteinEBoczkowskiPJ (2009) Between tradition and change: A review of recent research on online news production. Journalism10(5): 562–586.
43.
O’ReillyT (2005) What is Web 2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Available at: http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228
44.
PorterSRWhitcombME (2005) E-mail subject lines and their effect on web survey viewing and response. Social Science Computer Review23(3): 380–387.
45.
QuiringO (2009) What do users associate with ‘interactivity’? A qualitative study on user schemata. New Media & Society11(6): 899–920.
46.
RafaeliSArielY (2007) Assessing interactivity in computer-mediated research. In: JoinsonAN (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 71–88.
47.
RafaeliSSudweeksF (1997) Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication2(4): 1–6.
48.
Reips U-D (2002) Internet-based psychological experimenting: Five dos and five dont’s. Social Science Computer Review20(3): 241–249.
49.
SchudsonM (1978) Ideal of conversation in study of mass-media. Communication Research5(3): 320–329.
SingerJBAshmanI (2009) ‘Comment Is Free, but Facts Are Sacred’: User-generated content and ethical constructs at theGuardian. Journal of Mass Media Ethics24(1): 3–21.
52.
SohnDLeeBK (2005) Dimensions of interactivity: Differential effects of social and psychological factors. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication10(3).
53.
SohnDCiCLeeBK (2007) The moderating effects of expectation on the patterns of the interactivity-attitude relationship. Journal of Advertising36(3): 109-119.
54.
SongJHZinkhanGM (2008) Determinants of perceived web site interactivity. Journal of Marketing72(2): 99–113.
55.
StreinerDL (2003) Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment80(1): 99–103.
56.
Stromer-GalleyJ (2004) Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process. The Information Society20(5): 391–394.
57.
SundarS (2004) Theorizing interactivity’s effects. The Information Society20(5): 385–389.
58.
TezisG (2008) European Media Governance: National and Regional Dimensions. Bristol: Intellect.
59.
ThurmanN (2008) Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of user generated content initiatives by online news media. New Media & Society10(1): 139–157.
60.
TremayneM (2005) Lessons learned from experiments with interactivity on the Web. Journal of Interactive Advertising5(2).
61.
YeXLiX (2006) Internet newspapers’ public forum and user involvement. In: LiX (ed.) Internet Newspapers: The Making of a Mainstream Medium. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 243–260.
