FIGURE 3-5 KEY COMPONENTS OF PERCEIVED INTERACTIVITY

Several studies surveyed key components that make up and influence interactivity. Dholakia, Zhao, Dholakia, and Fortin (2000) proposed six dimensions of interactivity, namely: responsiveness, personalisation, playfulness, real time interaction, connectedness, and user control. Downes and McMillan (2000) qualitatively examined interactivity to come up with six aspects including flexibility of timing, level of responsiveness, level of control, sense of place, perceived purpose of communication and direction of communication. Similarly, Coyle and Thorson (2001) studied interactivity from a functional perspective and determined three dimensions as speed, user control and mapping.

Hanssen, Jankowski and Etienne (1996) outlined three components including responsiveness, equality and functional communicative environment to define interactivity. Straubhaar and Larose (1996) use the word “interactivity” to mean situations in which “real-time feedback is collected” (p. 12). Lombard and Ahren, Stromer-Galley and Neuman, (2000) suggested features, which facilitate two-way communication. Novak, Hoffman, and Yung (2000) observed that the required interaction time is the key component. Aoki (2000) categorised interaction time into synchronous and asynchronous. She further argued that the instruments required to measure interactivity include “… the immediacy of responses, and the degree of personalization or customization” (p. 5).

Williams, Rice and Rogers (1988) found that perceptions of online interactivity are affected by the speed of communication and who is able to process messages. According to Crawford (1990), ‘interactivity’ refers to the connection between

messages and responses. Similarly, this aspect of interactivity was emphasised by Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1997). They described interactivity as the degree to which messages in the same sequence show a relationship to each other, in particular, how successful subsequent messages were in recalling the relatedness of earlier messages. Similarly, Deighton (1996) stressed the ability to relate to a particular person and the ease of collecting and remembering responses in order to be able to engage in a ‘conversation’ with that person.

Wu (2000) underlined perceived responsiveness, perceived control and perceived personalisation as dimensions of interactivity. This study was taken as a foundation by Sohn and Lee (2005) in identifying responsiveness, control and interaction efficacy as three compound variables of interactivity. Wu (2000) used a scale consisting of nine items reflecting multiple dimensions (perceived responsiveness, control and personalisation) of perceived interactivity.

Although several key components of perceived interactivity were identified in the literature survey, the four primary components were further studied in this research, including responsiveness, real time interaction, interpersonal communication and synchronicity (see Figure 3-5). They are central to the concept of perceived interactivity. They are instrumental in assessing how perceived interactivity is influenced by sense of presence and social features. Cui et al (2010) suggested perceived responsiveness “reflects the direction of the communication; and perceived synchronicity includes both feedback and timeliness” (p. 37). The significance of synchronicity has been long established in interactivity literature (Dholakia, Zhao, Dholakia, & Fortin, 2000; Ha & James, 1998; Liu, 2003; McMillan & Hwang, 2002). 1. Responsiveness: Perception of responsiveness refers to how fast and relevant an interactive system responds to users’ input. Consumers can measure responsiveness from either direct or indirect communication. They can do so by responding to an email in a direct form of communication, or by changes in the environment resulting from certain actions (Dholakia, Zhao, Dholakia, & Fortin, 2000). Users’ perception of responsiveness is affected by three entities when it comes to an interaction with a website. These entities are: other online users, the website itself and site navigation. Consumers expect the website to respond within a certain time period. How fast a web

site responds to users’ input affects users’ perception of responsiveness (Wu & Wu, 2006).

2. Real time interactions: Real time interaction is the key in defining interactivity, as proposed by Steuer (1992), and it refers to fast response time or speedy communication. Fortin and Dholakia (2005), however, argued that not every interactive interaction has to take place in real time. In his view, interactive interaction can happen “either in real time (as in video teleconferencing) or on a store-and-forward basis (as with electronic mail)” (p. 388). Websites provide the feature of instant messaging in order to enhance users’ perception of interactivity. It takes into account that perception of interactivity increases when users receive quicker responses (Dholakia, Zhao, Dholakia, & Fortin, 2000).

3. Synchronicity: Synchronicity refers to the speed of delivery and process of messages in web-based applications. “Faster the response, greater the perception of interactivity” (Dholakia, Zhao, Dholakia, & Fortin, 2000, p. 7). Perceived interactivity increases when a faster response is generated by a system; this is because users feel less inhibited. Communication on mobile devices makes immediate response a possibility. Synchronised conversations are possible because people tend to leave their mobile devices switched on, no matter when and where a conversation is carried out (Gao, Rau, & Gavriel, 2009).

4. Interpersonal communication: Interpersonal communication was believed to be a critical part of an interactive system in interactivity literature (DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1989; Durlak, 1987; Heeter, 1989; Williams, Rice, & Rogers, 1988), and it refers to the extent the mediated interaction is similar to unmediated interpersonal communication. Heeter (1989) suggests that interactivity of interaction increases when mediated communication is comparable to interpersonal communication between two or more users. A website can improve the sense of interactivity of users by integrating specific attributes which strengthen interpersonal communication.

3.1.3.2 Factors affecting customers’ perception of interactivity

The study on interactivity by Jee & Lee (2002) looked into the way in which personal factors affect customers’ perception of a website interactivity. Employing a framework

of consumer search behaviour, personal factors are grouped into two categories, which include general factors as well as those specific to the Internet. Three general factors were identified, namely, need for cognition (NFC), expertise about the product, and product involvement. The three web specific elements were: skills, challenges, and the experience of purchasing online. These factors and their relationship with perceived interactivity is presented in the figure below (Figure 3-6). NFC proved to be an important indicator of perceived interactivity of a website. Skills were also a predictor, although of marginal significance.