Perceived interactivity leading to e-loyalty: Development of a model for cognitive–affective user responses

Abstract

A B S T R A C T 1Novel applications of website interactivity are important to attract and retain online users. In this empirical study five designs for interactivity are examined using different web-poll interfaces. The goal of the investigation is to examine perceived interactivity in a model which includes most commonly tested cognitive elements such as efficiency and effectiveness, but augments this model with the inclusion of a cognitive-affective element for trust, and an affective element of enjoyment. More specifically, a model is created to validate the relationship of perceived interactivity (comprised of user control, user connectedness, and responsiveness of the web-poll application) to efficiency, effectiveness, trust and enjoyment, of the website. In turn, efficiency, effectiveness, trust, and enjoyment are tested for their influence on user behavioral intentions for e-loyalty. All relationships in the model are supported. In addition, exploratory evaluation of qualitative comments is conducted to investigate additional insights between the five web poll treatments in this investigation. The research confirms the complexity of a model in which cognitive, cognitive-affective and affective elements are present, and advances knowledge on the consequences of perceived interactivity. In additional to theoretical advancements, the research has merit for web designers and online marketers regarding how to enhance interactive online web applications. K E Y W O R D Sperceived interactivity, e-loyalty, web-poll design . IN T R O D U C T IO NDespite the potential for interactivity provided by the Internet, little attention has been paid to how interactivity might be more fully utilized (Johnson et al., 2006). Rice (1984) defined interactivity as the capability of a computer-enabled communication system that permits exchange of roles between the sender and receiver in real or delayed time so that communicators have more control over the structure, pace, and content of the communication.Although interactivity has numerous dimensions, a common theme is that the website successfully provides information to the user, is perceived as responsive, and allows a sense of connection -often with other users. While previous research has aimed to conceptually unravel contributing factors to interactivity, there is relatively little empirical work that systematically examines the consequences of interactivity. There are some exceptions. Jiang 1 An earlier version of this paper was accepted for presentation at the Sixth Pre-ICIS HCI Research in MIS Workshop (HCI/MIS'07), Montreal, 2007. The authors sincerely appreciate the suggestions of three anonymous reviewers. 3and Benbasat (2007) examined interactivity related to purchase intention and intention to return to the website. Johnson et al. (2006) developed a platform on a website for an herbal antidepressant that allowed users to know through an 'at-a-glance' X-Y plot diagram how many other users found the product useful, at what dosages, and for how long. Users could click...

Analyzing the Role of Interactivity in User Experience

“…engagement). Cyr, Head and Ivanov (2009) In contrast, Yi, Jiang and Benbasat (2011) found that limiting the opportunity to interact with products was more effective than video presentation or unconstrained interaction, concluding that limiting interaction may evoke curiosity and hence may be more persuasive in marketing.…”

“…Many definitions of interactivity have been produced, varying from Hoffman and Novak's (1996) categories of machine (UI controls) and person interaction (i.e. Computer Mediated Communication, or CMC), to Kristof and Satran's (2002) sevenlevel 'control over' grading of features used by Teo et al (2003); and Lee's (2005) framework of control, connectedness, and responsiveness, used in Cyr et al's studies (Cyr, Head & Ivanov 2009;Cyr, Head, Larios & Pan, 2009). Researchers in multi-media learning have proposed multi-faceted models of interactivity (Domagk, Schwartz & Plass 2010;Moreno & Mayer (1999) involving features for personalisation and user adaptation, interactive simulations or microworlds, as well as CMC between learners and tutors.…”

“…Lee (2005) To summarise, interactivity has been investigated in several studies (Cyr, Head & Ivanov 2009;Cyr, Head, Larios & Pan, 2009;O'Brien 2010;O'Brien & Toms 2010;Teo et al 2003) which extended TAM measures (Venkatesh et al 2003), so whereas the positive influence of interactive features on efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction has been demonstrated, the connection between interactivity and affect and the non-instrumental aspects of UX (e.g. aesthetics) has received less attention.…”

“…With the increasing interest in serious games and gamification of many applications (Clark 2009), understanding how interaction design promotes positive UX is an important concern. The few experimental studies of interactivity have shown that it does have a significant influence (Cyr, Head & Ivanov 2009;Teo et al 2003), but these studies manipulated feedback and computer-mediated communication rather than features such as avatars or interaction in 3D virtual worlds. Our investigation of interactivity is motivated by design features which may enhance presence, immersion and flow in user experience, such as 3D interactive worlds and avatars; this is in contrast to previous frameworks of interactivity (Kristof & Satran 2002;Hoffman & Novak 1996) which have described gradations of user control.…”

Critical review of the e-loyalty literature: a purchase-centred framework

“…For example, Lee et al [111], in a sample of 289 online customers, identified the key design factors for customer loyalty, and they found a strong impact of trust on customer loyalty (path coefficient = 0.781, p<0.01). Also, Gefen [67] investigated the influence of service quality on trust and loyalty, and the findings again showed a similar positive direct relationship between trust and loyalty. However, some researchers have found slight or even no association between trust and loyalty.…”