JBR-07171; No of Pages 8

Journal of Business Research xxx (2011) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Experience effects on interactivity: Functions, processes, and perceptions

Juran Kim a,, Nathalie Spielmann b, Sally J. McMillan c
a b c

Jeonju University, School of Business Administration, 518 Research Bldg., 303 Cheonjamro, Wansangu, Jeonju, Jeollabukdo 560-759, South Korea Reims Management School, 59 rue Pierre Taittinger-BP 302, 51061 Reims Cedex, France University of Tennessee, 521 Andy Holt Tower, Knoxville, TN 37996-0343, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
To clarify interactivity as functions, processes, and perceptions, and to examine the moderating role of experience, this study uses an experimental design to investigate key questions about functional features, actual interactions and perceptions, and the consequences (i.e., attitude, trust, and purchase intention) within human-to-human and human-to-computer contexts. The ndings for experience as a moderator show clear differences between those two contexts. With human-to-human interactivity, experience does not moderate actual interaction, but does so in the human-to-computer context when introduced to action/transaction functions. This study contributes to the body of knowledge by clarifying the relationships between interactive features, actual interaction, and perceived interactivity. Results also show that experience is a moderator in an important marketing communication context. 2011 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Article history: Received 1 June 2010 Received in revised form 1 October 2010 Accepted 1 January 2011 Available online xxxx Keywords: Functional interactivity Interactive process Perceived interactivity Experience

1. Introduction Interactivity is central to Internet marketing communication. However, the concept is still evolving and in need of clarication (Kim and McMillan, 2008; McMillan, 2006). Advances in interactive technology inuence marketing management to the extent that interacting with consumers and eventually building relationships with them become easy to perform (Rust and Espinoza, 2006). The growth of interactive media, especially the Internet, inspires an examination of the impact of marketing communication using new media (Klein, 1998). Even though many practitioners and researchers suggest that interactivity is a boon for marketing communication (e.g., Chen et al., 2005; Wu, 2005), some nd negative consequences of interactivity (e.g. Bezjian-Avery et al., 1998; Bucy and Chen-Chao, 2007; Sundar and Kim, 2005). Scholars attempt to conceptualize interactivity in their research. Rafaeli (1988) denes interactivity as an expression of the extent that, in a given series of communication exchanges, any later transmission is related to the degree to which previous exchanges referred to even earlier transmissions. He considers dimensions of interactivity to include conceptual factors of communication (exchange and transmission), a degree of interactivity, and a time factor. While research has worked toward conceptualizing interactivity at least since the 1980s, technologies develop rapidly; thus, computer-mediated interactivity is

steadily evolving as well, which means that the concept of interactivity is still contested and needs clarication. The purpose of this study is to explain multifaceted interactivity as functions, processes, and perceptions by examining its relationships in terms of functional features, actual interactions and perceptions, the moderating role of experience, and the consequences (i.e., attitudes, trust, and purchase intentions), thereby shedding light on interactivity by parsing out the different elements and exploring the importance of a key moderating variable on key consumer outcomes. Understanding interactivity is important to marketing communication researchers and practitioners. The value of this study lies in untangling the relationships between functional, actual, and perceived interactivity in human-to-human and human-to-computer contexts. The interactivity concept also claims that experience plays a signicant moderating role, particularly in action/transaction functions within the context of human-to-computer interaction. 2. Types of interactivity Research on interactivity has seen numerous attempts to classify the various types. First, a dual approach paradigm to dening interactivity is present in much of the literature. Massey and Levy (1999) identify one dimension as interpersonal interactivity, or the extent to which audiences can have computer-mediated conversations in the spaces created for them, and the other dimension as content interactivity in which journalists technologically empower consumers using content. Schultz (2000) suggests a dual approach: reader-to-reader and journalist-to-reader. Hoffman and Novak (1996) discuss person interactivity and machine interactivity. Carey (1989) denes interactive media as technologies that provide person-to-person communications

The authors thank Barry J. Babin from Louisiana Tech University and Adilson Borges from Reims Management School for their invaluable comments and help on this manuscript. Corresponding author. Tel.: + 82 63 220 2972; fax: + 82 63 220 2052. E-mail addresses: jrkim@jj.ac.kr (J. Kim), nathalie.spielmann@reims-ms.fr (N. Spielmann), sjmcmill@utk.edu (S.J. McMillan). 0148-2963/$ see front matter 2011 Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.038

Please cite this article as: Kim J, et al, Experience effects on interactivity: Functions, processes, and perceptions, J Bus Res (2011), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.038

J. Kim et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2011) xxxxxx

and person-to-machine interactions. Most dual approaches consider human-to-human interaction as primary and identify a secondary type of interaction with content or machine. Some approaches expand on the dual approach and consider three types of interactivity. Szuprowicz (1995) identies user-to-user, userto-documents, and user-to-computer (or user-to-system) interactivity. Kayany et al. (1996) identify a three-part typology on the basis of types of control: relational (or interpersonal), content (or documentbased), and process/sequence (or interface-based). McMillan (2005) proposes three types: human-to-human, human-to-content, and human-to-computer interactivity. Clearly, multiple ways are available for subdividing interactivity. Rather than testing the outcomes of all types, this study focuses on two key forms that have a long history in the literature. The rst is humanto-human (H-to-H) interactivity, which is at the heart of some of the earliest interactivity studies in computer-mediated environments (e.g. Chilcoat and DeWine, 1985). More recent research identies multiple types of H-to-H interaction (e.g., Cho and Cheon, 2003; Liu and Shrum, 2002). The second form examined in this study is human-to-computer (H-to-C) interactivity, which also has a very long history in the literature (e.g., Alter, 1977). Recent research parses out different types of H-to-C interactivity (McMillan et al., 2007). Considering H-to-H and H-to-C interactivity as well as two dominant functions for each adds depth to the understanding of interactivity, the moderators, and the consequences. 3. Functions, processes, and perceptions of interactivity The literature denes and measures interactivity in multiple ways often in the context of functional features, actions and/or processes, and perceptions of interactivity. Research on interactivity as a function focuses on clarifying manifest features of interactivity in websites. Some studies focus on developing tools for coding interactive features (Bucy, 2004; De Marsico and Levialdi, 2004; Gonzalez and Palacios, 2004; Ha and James, 1998; Jankowski et al., 2005; Massey and Levy, 1999; McMillan et al., 2007; Okazaki, 2005; Paul, 2001). Others experimentally manipulate interactive functions available to website users (Fortin and Dholakia, 2005; McMillan, 2000; McMillan et al., 2003; Ritterband et al., 2006; Sundar et al., 2003; Sundar and Kim, 2005; Tremayne, 2005; Tremayne and Dunwoody, 2001). Most of the functional feature-based studies of interactivity expand upon Heeter's (1989) conceptual denition. One function of H-to-H interactivity is a way to facilitate communication between the organization and the users through e-mail links, contact us pages, and so on (Liu and Shrum, 2002; McMillan et al., 2008; Reardon and Rogers, 1988). Another function enables individuals to communicate with others through tools such as tell a friend links (Liu and Shrum, 2002; McMillan et al., 2008; Rafaeli, 1988). In line with more recent research, this study focuses specically on two dominant H-to-H functions: (1) facilitating communication between an organization and individuals, and (2) enabling communication between an individual (user) and another individual (other user). One H-to-C function is navigation, which includes hyperlinks, various types of menu bars, and search engines (Ha and James, 1998; McMillan et al., 2003, 2008), allowing users to nd their way around various elements of a site. A second H-to-C function enables actions such as lling out online surveys and personalized login scripts (Blattberg and Deighton, 1991; Coyle and Thorson, 2001; McMillan et al., 2008) and conducting transactions (Blattberg and Deighton, 1991; Coyle and Thorson, 2001; Haeckel, 1998; Lynn et al., 2002; McMillan et al., 2008). The action/transaction functions enable consumer activities other than information searching. Specically, the functions allow users to give information to the computer but do not result in a purchase or other transactional exchange. Transaction functions allow individuals to receive something requested through the website. Navigational and action/transaction functions are two dominant functions of H-to-C that the current study considers.

A second stream of research focuses on interactive processes, or the real actions that go into making something interactive. Among the actions seen as interactive are two-way communication or exchange of information (Cho and Leckenby, 1999), user control (Bezjian-Avery et al., 1998) and responsiveness (Rafaeli, 1988). The latter denes interactivity as a process of variable quality within a communication setting, referring to how reciprocal a particular exchange is. Cho and Leckenby (1999), examining the effectiveness of banner ads, conceptualize interactivity as a processspecically, the degree to which a person interacts with an advertisement. The third research stream focuses on what individuals perceive of as interactive (Day, 1998; Liu and Shrum, 2002; McMillan and Hwang, 2002). While perception and function often overlap, other issues such as timeliness and engagement also become important from the perspective of perceived interactivity. Perceived interactivity corresponds to three correlated but distinct dimensions: control, two-way communication (Liu and Shrum, 2002; McMillan and Hwang, 2002), and time (Liu and Shrum, 2002; McMillan and Hwang, 2002). Some studies cast perceived interactivity as having a positive impact on both attitude (Chung and Zhao, 2004; McMillan and Hwang, 2002) and memory (Chung and Zhao, 2004). Several researchers raise critical issues regarding the interrelationships between interactivity as function and as perception (McMillan et al., 2003) or between interactivity as an actual action and as perception (Chung and Zhao, 2004). The studies highlight the importance of carefully operationalizing interactivity and developing measures appropriate for the specic type examined. A perception of high interactivity can occur even when most of the interactive infrastructure is missing but a single highly valued feature is present (McMillan et al., 2003). The perception can be low even when many interactive features are available if, for whatever reason, participants are not using them. McMillan et al. (2003) state that functional and perceptual interactivity go beyond the mere presence or absence of certain features. Chung and Zhao (2004) illustrate the need to include a detailed measure of actual use by each study participant. Designs in which each type of interactivity is measured are best for causal identication because the perception of interactivity and actual interaction with the content shape dependent variables. Empirical examinations test relationships between functional, actual, and perceived interactivity among the multiple types. The study presented here attempts to bring together the aforementioned multiple streams of research by manipulating interactive functions available to users. Key additional measures of interactivity track interactive processes by observing the use of those features. Perceived interactivity is a key variable measured. The study examines the relationships among interactivity as functional features, actual interaction, and perception in order to help clarify the overall concept of interactivity. 4. Experience as a moderator An early stream of research emphasizes that experience may be an important individual difference factor in the traditional marketing communication context. According to Fazio and Zanna (1981), attitudes developed through direct experience are more enduring and more resistant than those developed through indirect experience. Direct experiences also lead to greater consistency between attitudes and behaviors (Fazio and Zanna, 1978, 1981; Smith and Swinyard, 1983). In the traditional marketing communication context, several studies focus on direct experience. Hoch and Deighton (1989) explain learning from experience as a four-stage process (hypothesizing exposureencodingintegration) with moderating factors (e.g., motivation). Wright and Lynch (1995) consider involvement in the communication effects of direct product experience versus advertising. Singh et al. (2000) argue that both direct experience and infomercial formats produce greater impact on recall, attitudinal, and purchase

Please cite this article as: Kim J, et al, Experience effects on interactivity: Functions, processes, and perceptions, J Bus Res (2011), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.038

J. Kim et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2011) xxxxxx

intent variables when compared to the ad format. Recently, Chang (2004) proposes that knowledgeable participant responses toward a product that generates positive experiences vary in terms of responses toward one that generates negative experiences in the degree of expectation disconrmation, level of valenced attributional thoughts, ad attitudes, brand attitudes, and purchase intentions. In the interactive marketing communication context, a few studies (e.g., Coyle and Thorson, 2001; Grifth and Chen, 2004) focus on direct experience as a moderator. In contrast, most studies examine antecedents in the context of interactivity, focusing on how involvement and personality inuence perceived interactivity and other outcomes, such as attitude toward the site and purchase intention (e.g. Sicilia et al., 2005). Some studies focus on online experiences (Bridges and Florsheim, 2008) and online shopping experiences (Jarvenpaa and Todd, 1997; Lowengart and Tractinsky, 2001; Meyer, 2008), showing mixed results in the use of experience as a moderating variable in the interactive marketing context. This study denes direct experience as personal encounters with an object (i.e., a website) and the trial inspection/use of an object (i.e., a website) (Singh et al., 2000). The present study focuses on direct experience in the context of a website, and applies direct experience as a potential moderator in the context of online interactions. As consumers become more familiar with online technology and have more overall experience with using technologies such as the Internet, determining the inuences of the level of experience on key outcomes becomes important. 5. Consequences of interactivity Several researchers report that perceived interactivity has positive inuences on attitudes toward websites, attitudes toward brands, and purchase intentions (Cho, 2004; Cho and Leckenby, 1999; Lee et al., 2002). Attitude toward a website leads to consequences similar to ndings in earlier attitude research, in which attitude toward an ad is a good indicator of the ad's effectiveness (Batra and Ray, 1986; MacKenzie et al., 1986; Petty et al., 1983). Ghose and Dou (1998) nd that greater interactivity is an important predictor of experts' evaluation of a website as of good quality. Further, from an experimental study, Yoo and Stout (2001) observe that consumers' intention to interact with a website positively inuences their attitudes toward the site and their purchase intention. Thus, interactivity, both from a perceptual and a functional perspective, is associated with positive outcomes such as attitude and purchase intention. Persuasion researchers suggest that source credibility has important links to trustworthiness. Parasuraman et al. (1985) propose trustworthiness as a part of credibility, which determines perceptions of service quality. Priester and Petty (1995) nd that the trustworthiness of the source leads to a reduction in message elaboration. Harmon and Coney (1982) demonstrate that trust leads to positive attitudes toward buying and increased purchase intentions. A few studies (Ha, 2005; Kim et al., 2004) focus on trust in the interactive context. Lee (2002) nds that heightened trust perception is likely to lead to increased purchase intention in H-to-C interactions. Thus, trust perception is noteworthy to study as a possible positive consequence of interactivity. 6. Hypotheses Interactive features are multifaceted and each facet performs multiple functions. Possible differences may result from varied ways of operationalizing interactive functions. The primary questions addressed by this study are: What are the relationships among functional, actual, and perceived interactivity in the H-to-H and H-to-C contexts? How does experience moderate those relationships? What are the consequences of interactivity on attitude, trust perception, and purchase intention?

First, the study hypothesizes that experience moderates increases both in use of interactive features and in perceived interactivity. However, the moderating effect of experience may differ for the two types of interactivity examined. Within the two dominant functions of H-to-H interactivity, the tools and techniques required for communicating with other individuals are virtually identical to those used for communication between organizations and individuals (Liu and Shrum, 2002; McMillan et al., 2008). Some scholars suggest focusing on ways to facilitate communication between an organization and the visitors to its site through e-mail links and contact us pages (Reardon and Rogers, 1988). Distinguishing H-to-H interaction that enables individuals to communicate with others through tools such as tell a friend links may be important (Liu and Shrum, 2002; Rafaeli, 1988). Communication with the organization is distinguished from communication with other individuals (McMillan et al., 2008), which can lead to different levels of interaction for the two types of H-to-H interactivity. H1a. Within the H-to-H type of interactivity, experience has a different moderating effect on actual interaction and perceived interactivity in both websites with different H-to-H functions (individual/individual and organization/individual communication). Direct experience may inuence the two dominant functions of interactivity examined in the context of H-to-C. Using a website to identify a destination site or book a room requires a different type of expertise than does using navigational tools such as site maps and hyperlinks. Direct experience with tourism websites is more likely to moderate the relationship between actual and perceived interactivity in this context. H1b. Within the H-to-C type of interactivity, experience has a different moderating effect on actual action and perceived interactivity in both websites with different H-to-C functions (action/ transaction and navigation functions). Increasing actual interaction (using the features that facilitate some form of interactivity) may lead to increased overall perceptions of interactivity. Chung and Zhao (2004) suggest a distinction between interactivity as an actual action and as perception, and emphasize the need to include a detailed measure of actual use by each study participant. McMillan et al. (2003) clarify the relationship between functional and perceptual interactivity, maintaining that perception of interactivity can be high when a highly valued functional feature is present. The relationship between actual interaction and perceived interactivity should differ for functions within H-to-H and H-to-C types. H2a. Within the H-to-H type of interactivity, heightened actual interaction leads to increased perceived interactivity for both dominant functions (individual/individual and organization/individual communications). H2b. Within the H-to-C type of interactivity, heightened actual interaction leads to increased perceived interactivity for both dominant functions (action/transaction and navigation functions). The study also examines the relationship between perceived interactivity and outcome variables for each type. H3a. Within the H-to-H type of interactivity, increased perceived interactivity leads to heightened attitude and heightened trust perception. H3b. Within the H-to-C type of interactivity, increased perceived interactivity leads to heightened attitude and heightened trust perception. Finally, this study tests the relationship between attitude and trust perception and a key behavioral outcome: purchase intention. However,

Please cite this article as: Kim J, et al, Experience effects on interactivity: Functions, processes, and perceptions, J Bus Res (2011), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.038

J. Kim et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2011) xxxxxx

because purchase intention may not be universally affected by all types of interactivity, the study examines the relationship between attitude, perception, and purchase intention in the context of both H-to-H and H-to-C interactivity. H4a. Within the H-to-H type of interactivity, heightened attitude and trust perception lead to increased purchase intention. H4b. Within the H-to-C type of interactivity, heightened attitude and trust perception lead to increased purchase intention. 7. Method 7.1. Design of the experiment This study reports on U.S. undergraduate students (n = 170) recruited from several different undergraduate courses at a large southeastern university who, with the permission of instructors for the corresponding courses, attended an experimental session in return for extra credit. The experimental design involves four treatment conditions. Two focus on H-to-H interactivity and employ a 2 (dominant functions: individual/individual, organization/individual) 2 (experience: high, low) design. The other two conditions focus on H-to-C interactivity and employ a 2 (dominant functions: action/transaction, navigation) 2 (experience: high, low) design. 7.2. Interface development: manipulating independent variables Four interfaces have been developed. Two conditions manipulate independent variables for H-to-H sites: one with individual/individual communication functions dominant and one with individual/organization communication functions dominant. The other two manipulate independent variables for H-to-C sites: a site with action/transaction functions dominant and one with navigation functions dominant. Content analysis of existing travel websites helped identify sites that met the conditions. From twenty-six state tourism sites randomly selected from those representing ofcial tourism organizations of the fty US states and the District of Columbia (McMillan et al., 2006), the analysis revealed a Tennessee tourism site that showed high frequency of the targeted features of all four functions (i.e., individual/individual, organization/individual, action/transaction, and navigation). Four travel-related websites were developed by adapting the Tennessee tourism site and manipulating for dominant functions while retaining all other contents of the site. The H-to-H site with dominant individual/individual communication functions includes features that enable sending a virtual post card and an email about a Web page to a friend. The individual/organization communication function-dominant site includes features for tourism contacts and a contact us link. The H-to-C site with dominant action/transaction functions includes features that enable ordering a free travel kit and features for online reservations. The dominant navigation function site includes menus and drop-down boxes and hyperlinks. No other functional features appear. 7.3. Moderator: experience Experience is operationalized as direct online experience with travel-related websites and online shopping experience for travelrelated products (e.g., reservations for airlines and hotels). A sevenpoint Likert scale, adapted from Celly and Frazier (1996), displaying a high coefcient alpha (.94) indicates participants' agreement or disagreement with the pre-tested experience. Tertile analysis identies three groups of respondents based on experience level. The hypothesis testing keeps respondents in the top tertile (high experience) and bottom tertile (low experience). The

hypothesis tests exclude the middle tertile. The results show statistically signicant differences between the top (high experience) and bottom (low experience) tertiles (chi-square = 8.85, p b .05). 7.4. Descriptions of dependent variables 7.4.1. Actual interaction Actual interaction is operationalized as the actual clicking behaviors and time spent on interactive features by considering participants' choice and input (Heeter, 1989). Researchers record and measure each participant's actual use of the targeted interactive features during the rst 5 min of the experiment, using Camtasia studio software to record the subject computer screens. The number of clicks and the time spent in an interactive function provide data points. The recorded actual interaction is measured by the number of clicking behaviors during the rst 5 min on the targeted interactive features. Five minutes serves as the unit of analysis for two reasons. First, the pre-test requires the minimum amount of time for the task. Second, the data provided by Camtasia is very dense and no additional benet is achievable by coding more than 5 min worth of data. 7.4.2. Perceived interactivity Perceived interactivity is measured by user evaluations of the interactivity of the evaluated website using the Measures of Perceived Interactivity (MPI) developed by McMillan and Hwang (2002). The MPI, which uses seven-point scales and averages user responses to 18 items, nds the scale to be reliable (coefcient alpha .84). 7.4.3. Trust perception Five-point Likert scales measure respondents' perceptions of how well they trust the site creators using benevolence (Ganesan, 1994; Lee, 2002), competence (Lee, 2002; Moorman et al., 1992), and credibility (Ganesan, 1994; Lee, 2002). The scale to measure overall trust perception that includes the three items is reliable, with a high coefcient alpha (.94). 7.4.4. Attitude Attitude toward the travel-related website serves to signify whether the participants liked or disliked the site. While researchers such as Chen and Wells (1999) argue that attitude includes cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions, many attitude studies propose that attitude toward ad (Aad) simply indicates whether participants like or dislike the ad (Petty et al., 1983; Schumann et al., 1990). Some researchers (Liu and Shrum, 2002; McMillan and Hwang, 2002; Sicilia et al., 2005) study websites as a form of advertising; thus, the simpler measure of attitude would be appropriate. In the current study, measures of attitude toward the travel-related websites uses a vepoint Likert scale (I liked this site/I had a favorable attitude toward this site) (Schumann et al., 1990), and the correlation of the two items is .91 (p b .01). 7.4.5. Purchase intention Finally, the study measures purchase intention by three sevenpoint semantic differential scales (likely/unlikely, probable/improbable, and possible/impossible) (MacKenzie et al., 1986), informing participants that they might be purchasing travel-related products (e.g., reserving a hotel room and booking a ight) through travel. Reliability is high, with a coefcient alpha of .95. 7.5. Procedure Participants were given an online individual difference survey to measure experience before the actual laboratory experiment. From the results of the tertile analysis mentioned earlier, those in the top (high experience) and bottom (low experience) tertiles were brought to a computer laboratory and assigned to one of the four treatments.

Please cite this article as: Kim J, et al, Experience effects on interactivity: Functions, processes, and perceptions, J Bus Res (2011), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.038

J. Kim et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2011) xxxxxx Table 1 Test of effects of independent variables: descriptive statistics for dependent variables by each function of H-to-H and H-to-C. Types Functions Experience Actual interaction Perceived interactivity Attitude Trust PI H-to-H OI High N = 13 M = .62 SD = 1.19 M = 4.67 SD = .70 M = 5.19 SD = 1.07 M = 5.17 SD = 1.06 M = 4.26 SD = 1.20 Low N = 19 M = .16 SD = .69 M = 4.74 SD = .81 M = 5.05 SD = 1.46 M = 5.46 SD = .71 M = 4.37 SD = 1.34 II High N = 11 M = .18 SD = .60 M = 4.54 SD = .76 M = 4.90 SD = 1.2 M = 5.22 SD = .87 M = 4.15 SD = 1.51 Low N = 18 M = .00 SD = .00 M = 4.43 SD = .72 M = 4.75 SD = 1.32 M = 4.83 SD = 1.02 M = 4.0 SD = 1.14 H-to-C TD High N = 17 M = 8.55 SD = 8.35 M = 4.64 SD = .76 M = 5.18 SD = 1.39 M = 5.11 SD = 1.48 M = 3.40 SD = 1.81 Low N = 11 M = 2.82 SD = 1.78 M = 4.4 SD = .97 M = 4.95 SD = 1.71 M = 5.01 SD = 1.48 M = 3.40 SD = 1.81 ND High N = 16 M = 6.75 SD = 7.38 M = 4.41 SD = .45 M = 4.88 SD = 1.85 M = 4.96 SD = 1.42 M = 4.79 SD = 1.80 Low N = 14 M = 8.54 SD = 3.26 M = 4.77 SD = .93 M = 4.93 SD = 1.38 M = 4.85 SD = 1.06 M = 4.03 SD = 1.93

After reading instructions on the screen, most went through the computer simulation in about 10 to 15 min. All participants rst read a scenario on the screen, then looked at the assigned travel site. After interacting with the site, they took part in an online survey to complete questionnaire items measuring perceived interactivity, trust perceptions, attitude, and purchase intention. 8. Analysis and results 8.1. Manipulation checks Before the main experiment, each of the twenty-six participants responds to an item asking whether any interactive features are present in the manipulated travel websites. Camtasia studio software records their actual interactions to show whether the participants actually click the targeted functional features in each functiondominant site. In the pretest, participants recognize the targeted functional features and click them. 8.2. Descriptive statistics Table 1 provides an overview of descriptive statistics for all key variables of the study and presents mean values for all scale items as well as standard deviations separately for each type and dominant function of interactivity. Clearly, actual numbers of interactions and scores on the scales measuring perceived interactivity are not uniform across the four experimental conditions. 8.3. Effects of experience Within the H-to-H type of interactivity, experience has no signicant moderating effect on actual interaction and perceived interactivity in both websites with different H-to-H functions (Wilks's lambda = .95, F = 1.45, p = .24). Consequently, the ndings do not support Hypothesis 1a (see Table 2 and Fig. 1), validating the assertion made earlier that the basic skills are the same for organization/ individual and individual/individual interactions. Thus, differences in experience level do not inuence either the ability to use the functions or the perceptions of those two different types of functions as interactive. As Table 1 shows, the overall actual interactions with these H-to-H types of interactivity are relatively low for users of all experience levels. Within the H-to-C type of interactivity, the results show the signicant interaction effects of two dominant functions (action/ transaction and navigation) and experience (Wilks's lambda = .85, F = 4.44, p b .05) and the signicant interaction effect of experience by all dominant functions on actual interaction (F = 7.41, p b .01). Fig. 1 shows the substantial interaction effect of experience by action/ transaction and navigation on actual interaction. However, the

interaction effect on perceived interactivity is not signicant (F = 1.94, p = .17) consequently, the ndings partially support H1b (see Table 2).

8.4. Actual interaction and perceived interactivity For the H-to-H type of interactivity, the results show that the effect of actual interaction on perceived interactivity is not signicant for either individual/individual functions (B = .68, t = 1.91, p = .07) or individual/organization functions (B = .15, t = 1.04, p = .31) (see Table 3). Thus, the ndings do not support H2a. One of the reasons for the lack of signicance for H-to-H communication might be due to the relatively low use of those features. But a discrepancy may occur between this type of interactive function and how individuals perceive interactivity. The results also show that the effect of actual interaction on perceived interactivity is signicant in both action/transaction functions (B=.07, t=3.95, pb .05) and the navigation functions (B=.08, t=3.97, pb .001). This result means that heightened actual interaction with the action/transaction functions leads to greater perceived interactivity, while in the navigation functions heightened actual interaction leads to decreased perceived interactivity. The results partially support Hypothesis 2b.

8.5. Perceived interactivity and consequences As Table 3 shows, the effect of perceived interactivity on attitude is signicant (B= 1.33, t = 9.18, p b .001) within the H-to-H type of interactivity, as is the effect of perceived interactivity on trust perception (B= .91, t = 8.71, p b .001). Consequently, the ndings support H3a. Results also show that within H-to-C the effect of perceived interactivity
Table 2 Multivariate analysis of effects of experience. H-to-H Wilks's Functions Experience Experience functions .95 .95 .98 H-to-H Actual interaction F Experience functions p b .01. p b .05. 5.72 Perceived interactivity F .80 F 1.54 1.45 .47 H-to-C Wilks's .99 .95 .85 H-to-C Actual interaction F 7.41 Perceived interactivity F 1.94 F .26 1.42 4.44

Please cite this article as: Kim J, et al, Experience effects on interactivity: Functions, processes, and perceptions, J Bus Res (2011), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.038

J. Kim et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2011) xxxxxx

Fig. 1. Actual interaction within H-to-H and within H-to-C.

is signicant on both attitude (B= 1.51 t = 9.10, p b .001) and trust perception (B= 1.16, t = 9.26, p b .001), also supporting H3b. The effect of attitude on purchase intention is signicant (B = .29, t = 2.38, p b .05) within H-to-H, but the effect of trust perception on purchase intention is not (B = .32, t = 1.87, p = .07). The ndings partially support H4a. The effect of attitude on purchase intention is signicant (B = .77, t = 7.37, p b .001) within H-to-C (see Table 3), as is the effect of trust perception (B = .80, t = 4.96, p b .001), thereby supporting H4b. 9. Discussion The study presented here provides a framework for examining relationships among interactivity as functional features, actual interaction and perception, the moderating role of experience, and the consequences (i.e., attitude, trust, and purchase intention) within H-to-H and H-to-C types of interactivity.

This study presents distinctions between the two types of interactivity, with different ndings for relationships among functional, actual, and perceived interactivity and experience as a moderator within H-to-H and H-to-C. As for H-to-C, the study offers the concept of interrelation among functional, actual, and perceived interactivity by illuminating the underlying processes between functional features and actual interaction and between actual interaction and perceived interactivity. The interrelated concept explains why a perception of high interactivity can occur with only a few but highly valued features, whereas perception of interactivity can be low even when many interactive features are available if participants are not using them or do not nd them to be helpful. The study further offers important insights on how to operationalize interactivity. Researchers may use different types and functions by employing individual/individual and individual/organization communication functions for H-to-H type sites and action/transaction and navigation functions for H-to-C type sites. The descriptive designs measuring the key constructs are particularly useful in the H-to-H and H-to-C contexts. The ndings for experience as a moderator show clear differences within H-to-H and H-to-C types of interactivity. Within H-to-H, experience does not moderate actual interactions. In contrast, when introduced to action/transaction functions, experience strongly moderates actual interaction within H-to-C. The results highlight the important role of experience as a moderator within H-to-C, especially in action/transaction functions. Individuals with high experience may know the usefulness of the action/transaction functions, as well as how to interact in their context. For example, people with high experience may actually conduct transactions on a travel-related website, while those with low experience may interact more with navigation functions because they may not know how to search the targeted information on the site. Findings of this study show several potential areas of improvement for online marketing communication practitioners and website creators. Within H-to-C interactivity, the study supports the different effects of interactive processes on perceived interactivity between action/transaction functions and navigation functions. With respect to H-to-C interactivity, the Internet offers the technological opportunity to create an individualized experience that can further enhance the sense of a personal relationship with the content creator. Action/ transaction functions are more likely to enhance interactive processes and perceived interactivity on websites. For example, visitors can engage with the sites more fully through quizzes, surveys, games, and transactions, gaining more opportunities to interact with the site and increase the perceived interactivity. For practitioners, the moderating role of experience is noteworthy, particularly in action/transaction functions in the H-to-C context. Online marketing practitioners need to consider carefully how much interactivity their users are prepared to engage in. In particular, they may need to limit action/transaction features if the audience is relatively inexperienced. Considering users' experience could be particularly important on travel-related sites that often depend on user actions and transactions. Future research could develop along two pathways. The rst would be to examine travel-related sites with an expanded sample to verify these ndings and offer more specic recommendations to enhance interactivity. The results need replicating on a larger and wider scale than the scale in the present study, particularly with a comparison of websites by target users. Examining user responses to various forms of interactivity in the expanded marketing communication contexts is a second approach to consider. The use of a travel website is limiting, so future projects may consider alternative marketing communication categories, including other forms of websites, interactive TV, and mobile communication. Interactivity is multifaceted with respect to functions, processes, and perceptions. This concept should be adaptable enough to expand to any current

Please cite this article as: Kim J, et al, Experience effects on interactivity: Functions, processes, and perceptions, J Bus Res (2011), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.038

J. Kim et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2011) xxxxxx Table 3 Actual interaction, perceived interactivity and consequences. Perceived interactivity H-to-H B Actual interaction II OI Attitude H-to-H B Perceived interactivity 1.33 t 9.18 Perceived interactivity H-to-H B Attitude Trust p b .001. p b .01. .29 .32 t 2.38 1.87 H-to-C B .77 .80 t 7.37 4.96 H-to-C B 1.51 t 9.10 .68 .15 t 1.91 1.04 TD ND Trust H-to-H B .91 t 8.08 H-to-C B 1.16 t 9.27 H-to-C B .07 .08 t 3.95 3.97

website and exible enough to analyze new interactive contexts as they evolve. References
Alter Steven. Why is mancomputer interaction important for decision support systems? Interfaces 1977;7(2):10915. Batra Rajeev, Ray Michael L. Affective responses mediating acceptance of advertising. J Consum Res 1986;13:23449 (Sept). Bezjian-Avery Alexa, Calder Bobby, Iacobucci Dawn. New media interactive advertising vs. traditional advertising. J Adv Res 1998;38(4):2332. Blattberg Robert C, Deighton John. Interactive marketing: exploiting the age of addressability. Sloan Manage Rev 1991;33:5-14 (Fall). Bridges Eileen, Florsheim Rene. Hedonic and utilitarian shopping goals: the online experience. J Bus Res 2008;61(4):30914. Bucy Erik P. Second generation net news: interactivity and information accessibility in the online environment. Int J Media Manage 2004;6(1/2):10213. Bucy Erik P, Chen-Chao Tao. The mediated moderation model of interactivity. Media Psychol 2007;9(3):64772. Carey James. Interactive media. In: Barnouw Erik, editor. International encyclopedia of communications. New York: Oxford University Press; 1989. p. 32830. Celly Kirti S, Frazier Gary L. Outcome-based and behavior-based coordination efforts in channel relationships. J Mark Res 1996;33(2) 220-10. Chang Chingching. The interplay of product class knowledge and trial experience in attitude formation. J Advert 2004;33(1):8392. Chen Qimei, Wells William D. Attitude toward the site. J Advert Res 1999;39(5):2737. Chen Qimei, Grifth David A, Shen Fuyuan. The effects of interactivity on cross-channel communication effectiveness. J Interact Advert 2005;5(2). http://jiad.org/vol5/ no2/chen/index.htm accessed January 10, 2008. Chilcoat Yvonne, DeWine Sue. Teleconferencing and interpersonal communication perception. J Appl Commun Res 1985;13(1):1432. Cho Chang-Hoan. Effects of banner clicking and attitude toward the linked target ads on brand-attitude and purchase-intention changes. J Korean Acad Mark Sci 2004;14:1-16. Cho Chang-Hoan, Cheon Hongsik John. Korean vs. American corporate web sites: interactivity, comparative appeals and use of technology. J Korean Acad Mark Sci 2003;11:79-101. Cho Chang-Hoan, Leckenby John D. Interactivity as a measure of advertising effectiveness. In: Roberts Marylyn S, editor. Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising. FL: University of Florida: Gainesville; 1999. p. 16279. Chung Hwiman, Zhao Xinshu. Effects of perceived interactivity on web site preference and memory: role of personal motivation. J Comput Mediat Comm 2004;10(1). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/chung.html Art. 7., accessed March 5, 2006. Coyle James R, Thorson Esther. The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. J Advert 2001;30(3):6577. Day George. Organizing for interactivity. J Interact Mark 1998;12(1):4753. De Marsico Maria, Levialdi Stefano. Evaluating websites: exploiting users' expectations. Int J Hum Comput St 2004;60(3):381416. Fazio Russell H, Zanna Mark P. On the predictive validity of attitudes: the roles of direct experience and condence. J Pers 1978;46(2):22843. Fazio Russell H, Zanna Mark P. Direct experience and attitudebehavior consistency. In: Berkowitz Leonard, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology, 14. New York: Academic Press; 1981. p. 161202. Fortin David R, Dholakia Ruby Roy. Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement. J Bus Res 2005;58(3):38796.

Ganesan Shankar. Determinants of long-term orientation in buyerseller relationships. J Mark 1994;58(2):1-19. Ghose Sanjoy, Dou Wenyu. Interactive functions and their impacts on the appeal of Internet presence sites. J Adv Res 1998;38(2):2933. Gonzalez FJ Miranda, Palacios TM Banegil. Quantitative evaluation of commercial web sites: an empirical study of Spanish rms. Int J Inf Manage 2004;24(4):31328. Grifth David, Chen Qimei. The inuence of virtual direct experience on online ads message effectiveness. J Advert 2004;33(1):5569. Ha Hong-Youl. Determinants inuencing consumer perception of web site trust and outcomes. J Korean Acad Mark Sci 2005;15(2):1-25. Ha Louisa, James Lincoln. Interactivity reexamined: a baseline analysis of early business web sites. J Broadcast Electron Media 1998;42(4):45774. Haeckel Stephan H. About the nature and future of interactive marketing. J Interact Mark 1998;12(1):6371. Harmon Robert R, Coney Kenneth A. The persuasive effects of source credibility in buy and lease situations. J Mark Res 1982;19:25560 (May). Heeter Carrie. Implications of new interactive technologies for conceptualizing communication. In: Salvaggio Jerry L, Bryant Jennings, editors. Media use in the information age: emerging patterns of adoption and computer use. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1989. p. 21735. Hoch Stephen J, Deighton John. Managing what consumers learn from experience. J Mark 1989;53(2):1-20. Hoffman Donna L, Novak Thomas P. Marketing in hypermedia computer mediated environments: conceptual foundations. J Mark 1996;60(3):5068. Jankowski Nicholas W, Foot Kirsten, Kluver Randolph, Schneider Steven. The Web and the 2004 EU election: comparing political actor web sites in 11 EU member states. J Informat Polity 2005;10(34):16576. Jarvenpaa Sirrka L, Todd Peter A. Consumer reactions to electronic shopping on the World Wide Web. Int J Electron Comm 1997;1(2):5988. Kayany Joseph M, Wotring C Edward, Forrest Edward J. Relational control and interactive media choice in technology-mediated communication situations. Hum Comm Res 1996;22(3):399421. Kim Juran, McMillan Sally J. Evaluation of Internet advertising research: a bibliometric analysis of citations from key sources. J Advert 2008;37(1):99-112. Kim Kyung Hoon, Yeo Il Goo, Kim Dong Yul. Antecedents and consequences of trust in on- and ofine internet banking. J Korean Acad Mark Sci 2004;13:15982. Klein Lisa R. Evaluating the potential of interactive media through a new lens: search versus experience goods. J Bus Res 1998;41(3):195203. Lee Eunju. Factors that enhance consumer trust in humancomputer interaction: an examination of interface factors and moderating inuences. Unpublished dissertation, Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee. 2002. Lee JongHo, Sin Jonhguk, Kim Mihea, Kong Heykyung. A study on web shopping attitude and purchasing intention of internet self-efcacy. J Korean Acad Mark Sci 2002;10:1-26. Liu Yuping, Shrum LJ. What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? implications of denition, person, and situation for the inuence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness. J Advert 2002;31(4):5364. Lowengart Oded, Tractinsky Noam. Differential effects of product category on shoppers' selection of web-based stores: a probabilistic modeling approach. J Electron Comm Res 2001;2(4):14256. Lynn Gary S, Lipp Sharon M, Akgun Ali E, Cortez Alexander. Factors impacting the adoption and effectiveness of the World Wide Web in marketing. Ind Market Manage 2002;31(1):3549. MacKenzie Scott B, Lutz Richard J, Belch George E. The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: a test of competing hypotheses. J Mark Res 1986;23(2):13043.

Please cite this article as: Kim J, et al, Experience effects on interactivity: Functions, processes, and perceptions, J Bus Res (2011), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.038

J. Kim et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2011) xxxxxx Rafaeli Sheizaf. Interactivity: from new media to communication. In: Hawkins Robert P, Wiemann John M, Pingree Suzanne, editors. Advancing communication science: merging mass and interpersonal process. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1988. p. 11034. Reardon Kathleen K, Rogers Everett M. Interpersonal versus mass media communication: a false dichotomy. Hum Commun Res 1988;15(2):284303. Ritterband Lee M, Cox Daniel J, Gordon Tynessa L, Borowitz Stephen M, Kovatchev Boris P, Walker Lynn S, et al. Examining the added value of audio, graphics, and interactivity in an internet intervention for pediatric encopresis. Child Health Care 2006;35(1):4759. Rust Roland T, Espinoza Francine. How technology advances inuence business research and marketing strategy. J Bus Res 2006;59(1011):10728. Schultz Tanjev. Mass Media and the concept of interactivity: an exploratory study of online forums and reader email. Media Cult Soc 2000;22(2):20521. Schumann David, Petty Richard E, Scott Clemons D. Predicting the effectiveness of different strategies of advertising variation: a test of the repetition-variation hypotheses. J Consum Res 1990;17(2):192202. Sicilia Maria, Ruiz Salvador, Munuera Jose L. Effects of interactivity in a web site: the moderating effect of need for cognition. J Advert 2005;34(3):3145. Singh Mandeep, Balasubramanian Siva K, Chakraborty Goutam. A comparative analysis of three communication formats: advertising, infomercial, and direct experience. J Advert 2000;29:5972. Smith Robert E, Swinyard William R. Attitude-behavior consistency: the impact of product trial versus advertising. J Mark Res 1983;20(3):25767. Sundar Shyam, Kim Jinhee. Interactivity and persuasion: inuencing attitudes with information and involvement. J Interact Advert 2005;5(2). http://www.jiad.org/ accessed March 5, 2008. Sundar Shyam, Kalyanaraman Sriram, Brown Justin. Explicating web site interactivity: impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Commun Res 2003;30(1): 3059. Szuprowicz Bohdan O. Implementing multimedia for business. Charleston, NC: Computer Technology Research Corporation; 1995. Tremayne Mark. Lessons learned from experiments with interactivity on the web. J Interact Advert 2005;5(2). http://www.jiad.org/ accessed March 5, 2008. Tremayne Mark, Dunwoody Sharon. Interactivity, information processing and learning on the World Wide Web. Sci Commun 2001;23(2):11134. Wright Alice A, Lynch Jr John G. Communication effects of advertising vs. direct experience when both search and experience attributes are present. J Consum Res 1995;21:70818 (March). Wu Guohua. The mediating role of perceived interactivity in the effect of actual interactivity on attitude toward the website. J Interact Advert 2005;5(2). http://jiad. org/vol5/no2/wu/index.htm accessed January 10, 2008. Yoo Chan Y, Stout Patricia A. Factors affecting users' interactivity with the web site and the consequences of users' interactivity. In: Taylor Charles R, editor. Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising. Villanova, PA: Villanova University; 2001. p. 536.

Massey Brian L, Levy Mark R. Interactivity, online journalism, and English-language web newspapers in Asia. J Mass Comm Q 1999;76(1):13851. McMillan Sally J. Interactivity is in the eye of the beholder: function, perception, involvement, and attitude toward the web site. In: Shaver Mary Alice, editor. Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University; 2000. p. 718. McMillan Sally J. The researchers and the concept: moving beyond a blind examination of interactivity. J Interact Advert 2005;5(2). http://www.jiad.org accessed January 10, 2008. McMillan Sally J. Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: users, documents, systems. In: Lievrouw Leah A, Livingstone Sonia, editors. The handbook of new media. Updated Student Edition. London: Sage; 2006. p. 20529. McMillan Sally J, Hwang Jang-Sun. Measures of perceived interactivity: an exploration of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. J Advert 2002;31(3):4154. McMillan Sally J, Hwang Jang-Sun, Lee Guiohk. Effects of structural and perceptual factors on attitudes toward the website. J Adv Res 2003;43(4):4009. McMillan Sally J, Kim Juran, McMahan Carolyn A, Fall Lisa T. Analyze this: developing a coding scheme for measuring interactivity features in the context of state tourism web sites. In: Richards Jeff, editor. Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising. Austin, TX: University of Texas; 2006. p. 22231. McMillan Sally J, Hoy Mariea G, Kim Juran, McMahan Carolyn A. Tool to clear interactive deadwood: coding interactivity at health-related web sites. In: Sheehan Kim B, editor. Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising. University of Oregon: Eugene, OR; 2007. p. 2234. McMillan Sally J, Hoy Mariea G, Kim Juran, McMahan Carolyn. A multifaceted tool for a complex phenomenon: coding web-based interactivity as technologies for interaction evolve. J Comput Mediat Comm 2008;13(4):794826. Meyer Tracy. Experience-based aspects of shopping attitudes: the roles of norms and loyalty. J Retail Cons Ser 2008;15(4):32433. Moorman Christine, Zaltman Gerald, Deshpande Rohit. Relationships between providers and users of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations. J Mark Res 1992;29:31428 (Aug). Okazaki Shintaro. Searching the Web for global brands: how American brands standardize their web sites in Europe. Eur J Mark 2005;39(1/2):87-109. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml Valarie A, Berry Leonard L. A conceptual model service quality and its implications for future research. J Mark 1985;49:4151 (Fall). Paul Mary Jae. Interactive disaster communication on the internet: a content analysis of sixty-four disaster relief home pages. J Mass Comm Q 2001;78(4):73953. Petty Richard E, Cacioppo John T, Schumann David. Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. J Consum Res 1983;10(2):13547. Priester Joseph R, Petty Richard E. Source attributions and persuasion: perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1995;21(6): 63754.

Please cite this article as: Kim J, et al, Experience effects on interactivity: Functions, processes, and perceptions, J Bus Res (2011), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.038