THE EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE CD-ROMS ON ATTENTION

BY

MADHUJA BANERJEE

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS IN COMMUNICATION

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY

Edward. R Murrow School of Communication

MAY 2004

ii

To the faculty of Washington State University:

The members of the Committee appointed to examine the thesis of MADHUJA

BANERJEE find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted.

______________________________________

Chair

______________________________________

______________________________________

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Paul Bolls, for all his help in the completion

of my thesis. You have been a wonderful guide and I thank you for all the opportunities

you have given me.

This thesis would not have been possible without the help of my dearest friend,

Matt Whitehead, who helped me in a way only he can.

iv

THE EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE CD-ROMS ON ATTENTION

Abstract

by Madhuja Banerjee, M.AWashington State University

May 2004

Chair: Paul D. Bolls

This thesis looked at the effects of an interactive CD-ROM on both automatic and

controlled attention as well as recognition memory. Automatic attention was measured

through heart rate when the segments changed in the CD-ROM. Controlled attention was

operationalized through a self-reported questionnaire and heart rate data which was

measured when the participants were viewing segments in the CD-ROM and when they

were taking decisions. Results showed that interactivity did not play a significant role in

securing attention. Participants in both the low and high interactive condition had similar

heart rate patterns indicating that no automatic attention had been paid when the

segments changed in the CD-ROM. Participants also had not exerted controlled attention

when they had to take decisions on the interactive screen. Comparison of the self-

reported data and the physiological measures showed that similar amounts of controlled

attention had been paid in both the interactive conditions. Interactivity also did not have a

significant effect on recognition memory. In both the conditions participants showed high

rates of recognition of the stimulus material in a speeded recognition test.

v

Results indicate that structural features failed to elicit orienting response in the

interactive CD-ROM. Interactivity also did not have significant effects on controlled

attention or recognition memory. These findings have far reaching implications for future

message design in the context of the interactive media.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………….iii

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………iv

1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………..1

2. LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………..4

INTERACTIVITY..………………………………………………….4

Definitions of Interactivity……………………………………………5

Process Related Definitions…………………………………………...7

Feature Related Definitions……………………………………………8

Perception Related Definitions………………………………………...9

Definitions with a Combined Approach………………………………10

Key Concepts in Interactivity Research……………………………….11

Human-Computer Interaction…………………………………………12

Advantages and Disadvantages of Interactivity……………………….14

Interactivity Paradox…………………………………………………..17

ATTENTION………………………………………………………………19

Definition……………………………………………………………...19

vii

Controlled and Automatic Attention…………………………………..19

Orienting Response…………………………………………………....21

Selection Theories of Attention……………………………………….22

Resource Theories of Attention……………………………………….23

COGNITIVE PROCESSING AND LIMITED CAPACITY MODEL…24

User Control and Orienting Response………………………………...26

Physiological Measures of Attention…………………………………27

CONTROLLED ATTENTION &

INVOLVEMENT…………………………………………………………...29

METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………31

Independent Variable………………………………………………….31

Dependent Variable…………………………………………………...32

Stimulus Material……………………………………………………...34

Apparatus……………………………………………………………...35

Participants and Procedure…………………………………………….36

RESULTS ………………………………………………………………….37

Hypothesis 1………………………………………………………….37

Hypothesis 2 ………………………………………………………....39

Research Question 1………………………………………………….40

viii

Research Question 2………………………………………………..41

DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………….43

CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………………48

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………..50

APPENDIX……………………………………………………………… 54

Low Interactivity Flow chart………………………………………....54

High Interactivity Flow chart………………………………………...55

Experiment Protocol………………………………………………….56

Self-reported questionnaire…………………………………………...60

ix

Dedication

I dedicate this thesis to my parents Arunodaya and Basabi Banerjee for the love and

support they have given me.

1

INTRODUCTION

One of the most salient aspects of new technology is its interactivity – be it

surfing the Internet, playing sophisticated videogames, staying in touch with the world

through a cell phone or enjoying a lecture in a classroom where the teacher might be

thousands of miles away – the buzzword is interactivity. This phenomenon has been able

to afford control to the users in a way that was unimaginable before. Now information

can be presented to the users exactly how they want it, when they want it and where they

want it.

Even though interactivity has made such a huge impact on our society, very little

research has been done to see its effects. Most of the related literature has been content

on trying to define this concept but very few have actually carried out empirical research

to bolster those definitions.

This study looks at interactivity and its effects on capturing attention.

Specifically, it looks into how an interactive CD-ROM can be used to capture attention.

In order to have a fuller understanding of how the media works, it is imperative to

understand the cognitive processing behind it. While experimenters are busy locating the

effects of a study, it is equally important to ask why those effects are happening in the

first place. This is the area where cognitive processing research can prove vital, as it can

give us a glimpse into what happens in the proverbial “black box” when people are

exposed to mediated messages.

2

Keeping this in mind, the study intends to look into the following research

questions:

R1: How does interactivity affect attention?

R2: How will attention paying differ in interactive and non-interactive situations?

R3: How will post-exposure, self-reported perception of attention compare to

physiological measures of attention in the context of the interactive CD-ROM?

R4: Will the interactive condition be more effective than the non-interactive one?

Answers to these questions hopefully will be a small step towards understanding

this complex concept that researchers have struggled to define. It will also have the

practical application of giving an insight as to how interactive messages on CD-ROMs

should be designed. The ultimate goal of mediated messages is to gain the user’s

attention and ultimately get stored in memory for a timely retrieval. Looking into the

cognitive processing of an interactive experience will give us the tools to understand

these vital questions. Since interactive media can be used for a number of beneficial

purposes, like health communication and teaching, it is to our benefit to know how to

create messages that users will pay attention to and, hopefully, learn the most from.

The independent variable in this study is interactivity which is defined as the

amount of control the user has in actively choosing the consequences of certain situations

presented in the CD-ROM. It will have two levels, a high and a low one. In the high

interactive level, the user will have multiple opportunities to choose the outcomes of the

segments presented in the CD-ROM. In the low interactive condition, the user will have

only one opportunity to choose the consequences of the segments of the CD-ROM.

3

The dependent variables in this study are attention and recognition. Attention will

be operationalized through both physiological measures and self-report. Automatic and

controlled attention will be measured through heart rate data which research has shown to

be a good indicator of how much attention is being paid. Subjects will also complete self-

report questionnaires to measure the amount of controlled attention they were paying to

the messages on the CD-ROM.

In order to measure the effectiveness of the CD-ROMs the recognition of

important message points by the participants will be tested. It will be measured through a

speeded recognition test which will test if the participants can correctly recognize

messages from the CD-ROM by clicking on a computer interface.

Participants will be 70 youths aged 18-19 and the experiments will be carried out

individually in a psychophysiology laboratory.

4

Literature Review

INTERACTIVITY

Interactivity has often been seen as the distinguishing feature of new technologies.

Rice (1984) defined new media in terms of communication technologies that “allow or

facilitate interactivity among users or between users and information.” As will be seen in

the following review of literature, past studies on interactivity have been primarily

interested in defining it or trying to conceptualize it without having enough research to

back up the definitions. Though this concept has been widely studied, there is a lack of

any coherent interactivity theory which explains what causes interactivity, looks in detail

at its processes and effects or explains how it is linked to other concepts in

communication. This lack of theory has prompted Bucy (2003), to mention that most of

the studies on interactivity have strived to explain “what exists” without extending it to

“why things happen”.

The lack of a theory about interactivity has stunted the growth of research in this

field. More research is needed that looks into interactivity and unifies it with other salient

features of communication. By looking into the effects of an interactive CD-ROM on the

attention of the viewers and how well they later recognize the stimuli, this thesis will

hopefully provide a small step towards a better understanding of interactivity.

5

Definitions of interactivity

Fortin (1997) concluded that interactivity meant the shift away from one-way

communication prevalent in traditional media to interchangeable roles of senders and

receivers, which could be humans or machines. For example, while working on the

computer, we are often prompted by the machine to do something. In this scenario, when

we are working on the computer, the humans are the senders and the computers are the

receivers. However, when the computer prompts the subject to take a step, the machine

becomes the sender and the subject becomes the receiver.

Goertz (1995) defined interactivity in terms of the following dimensions. The

degree of choices available referred to the choices available in the medium being used.

The degree to which the content could be modified by the user meant the ability of the

user to add or delete new content that could be stored for later users. The amount of

content that could be selected and modified was also an important aspect of interactivity

to Goertz... One key aspect of interactivity according to Goertz was the degree of

linearity/non-linearity which determined the pace and progression of the communication

process. In a linear process of communication, the sender is in complete control of the

order of the messages being sent out (for example, listening to a radio message), whereas

in the non-linear process of communication, the user can determine the pace and

progression of the communication (for example, surfing the Internet).

Explaining specifically in terms of the computer interface, Laurel (1986) defined

interactivity in the context of frequency of user choices, the significance of interface

actions (which referred to how much the choices made by the user affected the

6

progression and outcome of the communication) and the range of choices available to the

user. Laurel (1991) later added that the feeling of participating in the computer

presentation was a key component of interactivity. She stressed that the more interactive

a medium was, the more it made the user feel as if he/she was participating in a real life

representation. For example, some shopping Web sites have the feature where the user

can input information about his/her physical features and can build a model based on that.

The users can then “try” out the clothes and see how they look on them. This interactive

experience closely represents real life situation where a person can go to different shops

in order to try out the clothes.

Definitions of interactivity have been used in a wide range of fields extending

from advertising, marketing, communication, computers etc. just to name a few

(McMillan & Hwang, 2002). Advertising and marketing research has mostly

conceptualized interactivity in terms of user control where the consumer chooses how

much information to receive and how much information to give out to the manufacturers.

Communication research has often defined interactivity in terms of reciprocated

communication through a mediated technology. Research in computer science has often

defined interactivity in terms of the features available on Web sites. These varied

research areas have led scholars to categorize definitions of interactivity into four broad

groups of process, features, perception and combined approaches.

7

Process related definitions

Defining interactivity in terms of its process, Bezjian- Avery, Calder and

Iacobucci (1988) looked at interactivity from a marketing perspective where the

consumer controls the amount of information to be given out and can communicate with

the manufacturer in a way not possible before. They pointed out that in traditional

advertising, the consumer is just a passive recipient of the information. But in interactive

advertising, the consumer is active in choosing the amount of information to receive or

give out. For example, the user can choose to order things online using the Internet and

give out certain relevant information (like credit card number) for the transaction to be

carried out.

Rafaeli (1988) stressed the aspect of responsiveness - “By interactivity we mean

the extent to which communication reflects back on itself, feeds on and responds to the

past”. He cited the example of computer mediated communication where the users can

communicate with each other in various chat rooms and can reflect and comment on

previous postings.

Ha and James (1998) on a similar note felt that interactivity “should be defined in

terms of the extent to which the communicator and the audience respond to, or are willing

to facilitate each other’s communication needs.” Steuer (1992) believed that interactivity

should be seen as a phenomenon where users can participate and modify a mediated

environment in real-time.

From the above discussion it seems that the researchers looking into the process

of communication are defining it in terms of the activities possible – interchange of

8

information between user and sender, how these messages are responded to and the

ability to control the amount of information being given out or received.

Feature related definitions

Researchers have also stressed the features of interactivity while trying to define

it. Ha and James (1998) identified five characteristics of interactivity – playfulness,

connectedness, choice, reciprocal communication and information collection. To these

researchers playfulness is an important component of interactivity as they feel it can draw

people in with its arousing environment. Connectedness refers to the ease with which

users can gain information by clicking on hypertexts and moving from one site to another

without actually shifting from place to place. Choice is defined in their study as the

available options that users have while navigating on the Web. Reciprocal

communication refers to the unique ability of interactive media to transcend the typical

one-way communication and allow senders and receivers to interchange roles. The

researchers also felt that the ability of the Web to collect information about the users

(when they were willing to provide it) and use it to cater to them better, constituted an

important aspect of interactivity.

Jensen (1998) and Lombard and Snyder-Dutch (2001) both identify user control

as a key feature of interactivity. The number of changes and the kind of changes that the

user can do to the mediated information is of vital importance to Lombard and Snyder-

Dutch. For example, the more the user has control over the order of events in a mediated

9

message presentation and the pacing of it, the more he/she feels it to be an interactive

experience.

Though it might seem that these two groups overlap, it needs to be kept in mind

that the process related definitions are primarily focusing on the activities associated with

interactivity, whereas the features related definitions are focusing on specific

characteristics of interactivity (mainly Web sites). For example, interchange of

information is the activity possible through interactivity, but the feature that helps

execute it is the chat room. Similarly, the ability to control the information being sent out

or received is a process of interactivity, but the feature that helps us do that is the online

search engine.

In this study interactivity has been conceptualized as to the amount of control the

participant has in choosing the outcomes of the segments of the CD-ROM. Since this

control comes from the ability to click on the computer interface to further the progress

of the story in the CD-ROM, this study looks at user control and interactivity more as a

feature than as a process or a perception.

Perception related definitions

Perceptions about interactivity or to the extent users feel they are in an interactive

environment play an important role in some definitions of interactivity. Schumann, Artis

and Rivera (2001) look at interactivity as the users’ choice to interact and thus define

interactivity as an aspect of the user and not of the medium. McMillan (2000) defined

10

interactivity based on users’ perception of two-way communication, user control, sense

of place (where users feel they are in an “online environment”) and time sensitivity (the

speed with which messages can be delivered and processed by users). For these

researchers defining interactivity in terms of perception, the experience the users have

while in an interactive environment is of paramount importance. Their research indicates

when people feel part of an environment without actually being there, it enhances their

sense of place and makes their experience more interactive.

Reeves and Nass (1996) also found in their studies that features of multimedia

presentation can create an illusion where the users might feel transported to the world

presented in the media, thus enhancing their perception of the interactive experience.

The more the users feel they are in control of the mediated communication, the

more interactive they feel the experience is. Users feel the same way about time

sensitivity - the closer to “real time” or the more simultaneous and continuous the

exchange of information gets, the users tend to feel it as more interactive.

Definitions with a combined approach

Other definitions of interactivity have taken a more holistic approach. Coyle and

Thorson (2001) define interactivity in terms of speed, user control and good mapping.

Mapping refers to how similar “controls and manipulations in a mediated environment is

to controls and manipulations in a real environment”. They cite the example of a Web site

which offers information about a particular band, sells their CDs and has a message board

11

for the fans of the band. Just as in real life we would have gone to a shop to buy the CD,

or leafed through a magazine to get information about the band, or talked to other fans,

we can do the exact same things on their Web site. Since the mediated environment

closely resembles the real life environment, this is a good example of mapping.

Heeter (1989) explained interactivity in terms of six dimensions, which include

a) complexity of choices available to the user (extent to which users are provided with

varied choices of information), b) the effort needed on the part of the user to access the

information, c) the degree to which the medium can be responsive to the user,

d) monitoring information use, e) ease of adding information by the user which a mass

audience can access and f) facilitation of interpersonal communication.

In order to posit their definition of interactivity with a combined approach the

researchers blend feature related components like availability of choices and mapping

with process related constituents like user control and access to information along with

perception related features of experiencing an interactive medium.

Key concepts in interactivity research

McMillan and Hwang (2002) went on to identify three key concepts which had

overlapped in these definitions of interactivity – user control, direction of communication

(feed back, responsiveness, senders and receivers becoming indistinguishable etc) and

time (speed of delivering messages, speed of response, getting a response in real time

etc).

12

As can be seen from the above discussion, researchers have tried to define

interactivity from different aspects without actually verifying the validity of previous

definitions. In trying to define interactivity differently than the others, most of the studies

have not looked at interactivity holistically. Defining interactivity is indeed important,

but it is also equally important to relate it to the broad field of communication. Research

is needed to understand the processes and effects of interactivity in relation to other

concepts which could eventually lead to the formulation of a theory of interactivity. It is

also vital to understand the practical implications of interactivity instead of trying to

define it endlessly. With the interactive medium extensively in use today in various fields

it is of utmost importance to know how to structure interactive messages in order to reach

out to the audience better. This study hopes to look at both the theoretical and practical

aspects of interactivity by researching the effects of interactive CD-ROMs on attention

and recognition memory which are vital components in any mediated communication

environment.

Since this study involves participants experiencing an interactive CD-ROM on a

computer, it is necessary to understand how humans react to an interactive medium like

the computer.

Human – computer interaction

Since the human- computer interactions are one of the most prevalent interactive

conditions, researchers have tried to define it in the context of this exchange. According

13

to McMillan (1999) these definitions can be grouped under three categories. One

definition focuses on the individual and his/her interactive behaviors and its effects

(Salomon, 1990). The other category is the structural approach to interactivity, where the

features of the communication channels are researched into, drawing a distinction

between the old and the new media.

The third approach was posited by Rafaeli (1988) who disagreed with the

structuralist approach by maintaining that interactivity was not a characteristic of the

medium but was “… a process related construct about communication. It is the extent to

which messages in a sequence relate to each other, and especially the extent to which

later messages recount the relatedness of earlier messages.” (Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1997).

They researched in the context of group CMC (Computer Mediated Communication) and

termed interactive communication those messages which were responsive to previous

postings and reflected back on it. They did not look into the quantitative aspect of how

many interactive features were available, but rather looked at interactivity as an

interpersonal communication process.

Amongst these myriad definitions a recent distinction looks at online interactivity

as either content interactivity, where the users have control over the presentation and

modification of the content, or interpersonal activity involving interpersonal conversation

mediated by technology (Massey & Levy, 1999).

Bucy (2003) posited interactivity as “reciprocal communication exchanges that

involve some form of media, or information and communication technology”. He thus

restricts interactivity to describe communication mediated through technology and not

just any communication involving a dialogue.

14

As can be seen from the above discussion, interactivity has been defined in

numerous ways by researchers, which has its own strengths and weaknesses. By defining

it in various ways the research has shown us how complex a concept interactivity is but at

the same time by not looking at it in more depth has led to an absence of a coherent

theory of interactivity.

The same scenario can be found in the different approaches to define human-

computer interaction. While some research has been restricted mainly to interpersonal

communication facilitated by the Web, others have looked at it from a reciprocal

communication point of view where the user is in control of the information exchange

using the interactive features available.

As is apparent from the above discussion, interactivity needs to be understood –

not perpetually redefined. This is where a cognitive processing approach can prove vital

as it can look at interactivity not just from a feature, process or perception point of view

but study it at the very root level of information processing of an interactive message.

Advantages and disadvantages of interactivity

Even though researchers have been working on the conceptualization of

interactivity for a long time, results have been divided regarding the benefits of

interactivity. Rafaeli (1988) stressed on the advantages of interactive media as it led to

increased motivation, satisfaction, learning and more involvement with the process.

15

Recent studies however have shown that interactivity might not be always

beneficial. Sundar (2000) experimented with multimedia in an online news Web site by

varying the modalities available to the users. He manipulated interactivity in terms of

user control in five conditions where users could access the information with a) text only,

b) text and pictures, c) text and audio, d) text, pictures and audio and e) text, pictures and

video. Results showed that in general, audio and video downloads tended to hinder

memory for story content and led to negative evaluations of the site and its content.

He posited that online interactive features might make greater demands on the

user in terms of expertise and cognitive resources leading to confusion and reduced

memory. He also felt that the multimedia downloads could have triggered automatic

processing in the participants, causing their minds to wander across the screen and the

site, thus diverting them from exerting controlled attention. Yet another reason posited by

the researcher dealt with the participants’ reception of the audio and video downloads as

similar to their reception of radio and television. Research has shown these two media to

involve comparatively low levels of attention and that might have been responsible for

the low levels of memory regarding audio and video downloads.

In the marketing context, Ariely (2000) researched into the advantages and

disadvantages of interactivity by looking at controlling information on a Web site in the

context of consumer’s decision quality, memory, knowledge and confidence. In his study

he utilized two different levels of information control. In the high information control

condition, participants had complete freedom to choose the different sequences in which

they wanted to see the information being displayed. In the low information control

16

condition, the participants had no freedom to choose the sequencing of the information

presentation, viewing the information presented like a movie.

He observed that greater interactivity was associated with consumers finding it

easier to take decisions, having better memory and knowledge and being more confident

in their decisions. However, it had a detrimental effect when the information control

created greater demands on the processing resources as it tended to hinder the subjects’

ability to use the information presented on the Web site. In Web sites which required

lesser processing resources, information control proved advantageous.

Liu & Shrum (2002) posit that one of the reasons causing the divided results

regarding the benefits of interactivity might stem from the fact that they have been

conceptualized differently in the studies. Since these studies measure different concepts

of interactivity and define and manipulate it in the study in different ways, the results can

vary as to whether interactivity is a positive or a negative aspect of the medium.

By looking at interactivity from a cognitive processing point of view, this study

hopes to avoid the pitfalls of previous experiments. The advantages and disadvantages of

the interactive CD-ROM will be mainly based on the information processing results

recorded in real time while the participant is being exposed to it. It will be based on an

understanding of how people process interactive messages and will not be solely

dependent on how interactivity is conceptualized in the study.

17

Interactivity paradox

Researchers have found that interactivity produces favorable evaluations while at

the same time eliciting frustration. Sundar (2000) found that even though multimedia

generally tended to hinder memory for online news content and contributed to negative

evaluations of the Web site, a majority of the participants really appreciated the audio and

video downloads on the site.

Similarly, Bucy (2003) researched with the interactive and non-interactive news

Web sites in order to determine how the subjects responded to it emotionally and how

they evaluated the Web site. The subjects tended to rate the interactive situation as more

participatory and involving but at the same time were more confused and frustrated than

subjects in a non-interactive reading task. He came to the conclusion that even though

interactivity was able to bring users closer to news through interactive features that

entailed more involvement, at the end they were left rather confused. This seemingly

discordant scenario has led researchers to term it as the “interactivity paradox” (Bucy,

2003). In the context of cognitive processing this paradox might be thought of in terms of

cognitive overload where the user has too much information offered to him/her. This

might explain the fact that even though the interactive features might seem appealing to

them, the sheer load of information to go through leaves them confused.

Keeping this discussion in mind, it needs to be determined how the interactive

CD-ROM will fare with the users. Its interactive features might lead to more involvement

and more appreciation, but what if it led to confusion and frustration? The goal for the

18

CD-ROM is not to make the users confused, but to help them remember the important

message points. The divided results regarding the benefits of interactivity along with the

“interactivity paradox” prompt the first research question:

R1: Will the Interactive CD-ROM be more effective than the non-interactive CD-

ROM?

As mentioned earlier, researchers have been long content to define interactivity

without trying to understand it holistically. This study adopts a cognitive processing

approach which has the potential to understand interactivity at the very base level of how

people process an interactive message and thus give us a better understanding of the

effects of interactivity – whether it is seen from a feature, process or perception related

point of view.

In order to understand how people process these mediated interactive messages an

important concept that needs to be studied is attention. As with any mediated message, it

is necessary to determine how it can be presented in the best way so that people pay

attention to it and remember it. Paying attention is the first step in processing a message

and understanding how people pay attention to interactive messages would help us

understand the whole cognitive process better.

19

ATTENTION

The concept of attention has long been studied by researchers. Though it was

shunned for a while by the behaviorists, who did not believe that the internal activities of

the human brain could be studied or measured, it was revived in the 1950s when it was

becoming increasingly apparent that there were limitations and variations in performance

levels (Kahneman & Treisman, 1984).

Definition

Though attention has been defined in a number of ways, James (1890) succinctly

stated that, “It is the taking possession of the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of

what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought.” One pays

attention when he or she blocks out other stimuli and focuses on one by making use of

the available cognitive resources. It acts as a control mechanism where it helps a living

organism focus and move towards accomplishing goals.

Controlled and automatic attention

Over the years attention has been categorized in a number of ways. An important

categorization for this thesis is that of controlled and automatic attention (Schneider,

20

Dumais & Shiffrin, 1984). They defined controlled attention as a “slow, generally serial,

effortful, capacity-limited, subject-regulated processing mode that must be used to deal

with novel or inconsistent information.” When we consciously choose to pay attention to

stimuli, we exert controlled attention. For example, choosing to listen to our favorite

music is an example of exerting controlled attention. Research has shown that controlled

attention requires more resources to execute.

On the other hand Schneider et al (1984) define automatic attention as “a fast,

parallel, fairly effortless process that is not limited by short-term memory (STM)

capacity, is not under direct subject control, and is responsible for the performance of

well-developed skilled behaviors.” For example, hearing the fire alarm go off makes us

pay attention to it automatically, without us exerting any control over it. Over time, with

repeated exposures to a task, it is possible to switch from controlled attention to

automatic attention. For example, the task of dialing the same number can be learnt so

thoroughly that we need not consciously decide to pay attention to it anymore.

In order to establish how controlled and automatic attention operate, Schneider et

al. did extensive research involving stimuli and responses which were consistently

mapped (CM) – where the subjects make the same responses to the stimuli presented, and

variably mapped (VM) – where subjects have to vary their responses to the different

stimuli presented. Results showed that when stimuli and responses were variably mapped

over trials, no automatic processing developed. But with stimuli and responses

consistently mapped, automatic processing did develop over the trials. Results also

showed that automatic processing, once acquired, became rigid and inflexible. This is

known as the rehearsal effect where through continuous practice controlled processing

21

can be switched to automatic processing. Controlled processing remained highly flexible

in their studies since the subjects had to consciously decide how much cognitive

resources were going to be used. The researchers came to the conclusion that almost all

tasks involved varying amounts of automatic and controlled processing.

Orienting response

Stimuli that elicit automatic attention also tend to elicit a reflex action called

orienting response in us (Sokolov, 1963). This response was called the “what-is-it”

response by Pavlov (1927) who encountered it in his research on classical conditioning of

dogs. He thought it to be a reflex action which brought about immediate response in the

subject when there were novel or signal stimuli in the environment. For example, our

reaction to a sudden loud sound (novel stimulus) or our name being called out in a crowd

(signal stimulus) is an orienting response – it helps us orient to the new stimuli in our

environment.

The automatic processing that leads to orienting response (to be referred to as OR

from here on) however is different from automatic processing learned through rehearsal.

Through repeated practice, we learn to execute a task more efficiently, paying minimum

attention towards it. But we never grow accustomed to the novel or signal stimuli that

prompt an OR in us. For example, a sudden loud noise will always elicit an attention

switch in us leading to an OR.

22

Sokolov & Cacioppo (1997) explain OR in terms of stimuli presented to the

central nervous system as a neural model. We have neural models in our brain of

thousands of stimuli that we have been exposed to. These models are connected through

extensive neural networks which get activated when we are exposed to stimuli. These

stimuli are evaluated in terms of the existing neural models in our brain. If there are

discrepancies between the model and the new stimuli, then more attention is paid to it.

But if there is a match between the stimuli and the neural model then no extra attention

needs to be paid. In this manner, a person can orient to new stimuli and get habituated

with the same repeated stimuli.

Näätänen (1986) proposed two different aspects of the OR. The arousal

component of OR help facilitate sensory and motor functions and is controlled by

energetical (arousal) aspect of brain function. The attentional component is characterized

by an attention switch to the novel stimulus which is controlled by the informational

aspect of brain function.

Graham and Clifton (1966) proposed that phasic (short-term) heart rate response

to stimuli was a reliable index to OR and this is the method that is widely in use in

psychophysiology. Other indicators of OR include decrease in irrelevant motor activity,

high-frequency and low-voltage EEG activity.

Selection theories of attention

23

Since the human cognitive capacity is limited, it follows that not every stimuli

will catch our attention and this is the concept of the attention “bottleneck” (Kahneman,

1973). According to him, selective attention was the process where the subject can

selectively choose to pay attention to a stimulus while disregarding other stimuli.

Researchers have proposed several different theories as to why the attentional

“bottleneck” occurs – the point where cognitive processing becomes limited and subjects

have to resort to selective attention. The early and late selection theories both proposed

that at any given moment attention could be paid to only one task. The researchers

proposed that attention could be switched back and forth between tasks very quickly in a

dual-task situation (Broadbent, 1982). Hoffman (1986) posited that in tasks which were

continuous, subjects may be able to “queue” certain processes and switch attention at

critical points in order to carry out the tasks.

Resource theories of attention

Radically different to the idea of selection theories is the concept of the resource

theory which sees attention as a resource that can be shared between two parallel tasks

(Wickens, 1984). Attention can also be allocated flexibly between two parallel tasks. This

allocation of resources can depend on the nature of the task, the stimulus or its relevance.

Resource theory essentially characterizes attention as shareable, flexible and allocatable,

though in different proportions. When resources or capacities are exceeded, enough

attention cannot be paid and this results in information being missed.

24

Though both the selection theory and the resource theory looked at how subjects

pay attention when exposed to stimuli, they approached it in two very different ways. The

main thrust of the selection theories were that since we possessed limited attention,

attention could only be paid to one task at a time. On the other hand, resource theories

looked at attention as a pool of resources that could not only be shared between two

tasks, but could also be allocated in varying amounts.

Keeping these two theories in mind, Basil (1994) proposed that attention has been

used in two distinct senses in psychological and communication literature. In selection

theories, it is seen as the “selection” of information from the environment at the exclusion

of others. In the resource theories, attention is seen as the “amount” of resources being

allocated towards stimuli.

In order to understand how attention is paid in terms of available pools of

resources, it is important to understand the human cognitive system and how it allocates

resources towards various tasks.

COGNITIVE PROCESSING AND LIMITED CAPACITY MODEL

The act of understanding how the human cognitive system processes media is a

complex one. Earlier research had predominantly asked the question “what” when it tried

to understand the cognitive system, adopting an essentially media effects approach. It

thought of the brain as a black box where messages pass through and produce an effect

25

on the consumer – but what goes on in the black box was out of bounds for this kind of

research.

The Limited Capacity Model (Lang, 2000) looks at information processing to

understand how the “black box” of the brain works. It essentially assumes that humans

are not passive receivers, but active processors of the stimuli presented to them.

Secondly, their powers of processing are limited – when they have too many tasks to

accomplish, their performance will diminish when the processing powers will fall short

of the processing demands. It may either happen that the person chooses to allocate fewer

resources towards a stimulus or it might happen that processing a stimulus requires more

resources than is available to allocate towards it.

In this model, information processing is seen as comprising of both automatic

and controlled processes (Shiffrin & Schneider, 1997). These processes are termed

encoding, storage and retrieval and can go on in a parallel manner in the brain. In the

process of encoding, attention must be paid to the stimuli, but since we only have limited

capacity to process them, only bits of information actually get processed and stored in the

working memory. As mentioned earlier, this attention paying can be controlled

(voluntary) or automatic (involuntary). Controlled attention paying is directly related to

the person’s goals whereas the stimuli that tend to elicit automatic attention are novel in

nature or are learned signals.

It is expected that when the participants are faced with the interactive screen and

have to choose the next segment that the CD-Rom will progress to, they will have to

exert considerable amount of attention, consciously choosing to allocate resources

towards it. This is going to be controlled attention paying where the focusing is done

26

internally in order to make a decision. Research has shown that controlled attention when

directed internally elicits faster heart rate (Lang, 1994).

This leads to the first hypothesis:

H1: Users will experience faster heart-rate when taking decisions on the

interactive screen than when they are watching the CD-ROM.

User control and orienting response

As mentioned earlier, this experiment uses two types of interactive CD-ROMs,

one with high interactivity and one with low interactivity. In the high interactivity CD-

ROM the users have complete control to choose the outcome of the segment, whereas in

the low interactivity one, the user has limited over the outcome of the segments presented

in the CD-ROM.

Lang, Borse, Wise & David (2002) proposed that the component of user control

in computer-mediated communication might prove important in information processing

among subjects. This user control would have an effect on the newness of the stimulus, as

the subject would be consciously choosing to start its onset. This in turn, may have an

effect on the size or occurrence of OR, as the stimulus might not be that novel anymore.

However, despite the stimulus being expected, it might produce OR as new stimulus is

27

still going to be introduced into the environment. Based on this reasoning, they tested

whether control over stimulus (in this case, headlines appearing on computer screens)

changed the size or occurrence of OR or not. The results showed that it did not.

The subjects viewing the two forms of CD-ROMs in this study are in a different

situation than subjects looking at headlines on the computer screen. The CD-ROM is

more akin to an interactive movie where the user is in control of the flow of story from

one segment to the other. But as explained earlier, the high interactivity CD-ROM will

allow for much more user control than the low-interactive one. It can be expected that

since the high interactive CD-ROM user already knows which segment is going to occur

based on his/her conscious decision, he/she might experience lesser OR than the low

interactive user who doesn’t know what is going to happen next. It might be expected that

their expectation predictability regarding how the segment is going to progress

(according to the decisions they consciously made), will take away some of the novelty

of the situation. This leads to the second hypothesis:

H2: Subjects will experience greater OR in the low-interactive situation than in

the high-interactive situation during change of segments in the CD-ROM.

Physiological measures of attention

As mentioned earlier research has shown heart rate to be a reliable indicator of attention

(Lang, 1994). The heart is controlled by the autonomic nervous system which is split into

28

the sympathetic division and the parasympathetic division. The sympathetic division

functions to make us excited about new stimuli, while the parasympathetic function

calms us down.

When heart rate is used to measure how much attention is being paid to a task,

attention is usually thought of in terms of phasic or tonic. Tonic refers to long-term

attention while phasic refers to short term attention.

Research has shown that when a person orients, his/her heart rate slows down.

This slowing down of the heart rate occurs over two to five heartbeats immediately

following the exposure that caused the OR. So phasic attention can be studied in order to

determine which aspects of the CD-ROM brought about OR among subjects.

Tonic attention refers to long-term attention and is associated with concentration,

vigilance etc. Research has shown that tonic attention is characterized by the heart

beating faster and it generally continues to beat faster as long as the task continues.

Lang (1994) came to the conclusion that though the slowing down of the heart

interacted with the speeding up of the heart beats, the causal mechanism behind it was

still not determined. However, paying attention internally necessarily resulted in a faster

heart beat, whereas paying attention externally to take in new information resulted in a

slower heart beat.

As controlled attention forms an integral part of this study it is also important to

know how engaged or involved the subjects are in the interactive conditions. It is of vital

importance to know how much controlled attention they are paying and how involved

they are when they are being exposed to the CD-ROM. It would also be useful to

29

physiologically measure how much controlled attention they are paying and compare it to

a self-report in order to have a better understanding of their involvement.

Controlled attention and Involvement

Involvement has been variously conceptualized and operationalized in the field of

consumer research. (Zaichkowsky, 1985; Yoon, Bolls & Muehling, 1999). For example,

Batra and Ray (1983) posit that involvement has mainly been defined in terms of product

class or involvement with an advertising message. The definition in the context of

processing advertising message looks at involvement in terms of the “amount and type of

mental effort or attention consumers are willing to invest in cognitively processing and

storing commercial information in memory.”(Gardener, Mitchell & Russo, 1985).

Liu & Shrum (2002) also defined involvement as the “extent of cognitive

elaboration that occurs in a communication process”. They propositioned that the two key

aspects of interactivity – user control and two-way communication would lead to more

user cognitive involvement. They reasoned that active control meant that the users would

have to pay more attention and be more involved in making decisions. This necessarily

meant that the users would have to expend more processing power and cognitively

elaborate on the interactive decisions. So a measure of cognitive involvement would also

be a good indicator of the amount of controlled attention being paid by the users.

Liu & Shrum (2002) also maintained that since interactivity entailed two-way

communication it would also be more engaging than one-way communication where the

30

user can be a mere passive receiver of messages. In an interactive situation, the user is an

active processor and creator of messages which entails more cognitive elaboration and

thus involvement.

It would be interesting to determine the level of involvement of the users while

using the interactive CD-ROMs as that will indicate the amount of controlled attention

being paid. The results could then be compared to the results of actual controlled

attention paying using the physiological measures discussed above. Comparing the

results between the high-interactive and low-interactive CD-ROMs would help us

pinpoint the features that require more involvement and attention. It would lead to a

better understanding of the aspects of interactivity which are highly involving and engage

the user’s controlled attention and aspects that do not. It would also help us understand if

participants don’t need all the resources they think they need to process the messages.

Research has shown that people allocate more controlled cognitive resources in

processing high-imagery radio advertisements than maybe is required. (Bolls & Lang,

2003, in press).

This leads to the second research question:

R2: How will post-exposure, self-reported perception of attention compare to

physiological measures of attention in the context of the interactive CD-ROM?

31

METHODOLOGY

Independent Variable

.The independent variable in this study is interactivity which has a low and a high

level and is a between subject’s variable. Interactivity was defined in this experiment as

to the amount of control the participants had in actively choosing the consequences of

certain situations presented in the CD-ROM.

For example, in the high-interactivity CD-ROM the two protagonists were shown

to be left alone in the house for a night. (The participants were instructed to identify with

the main protagonist and asked to take decisions on his behalf). Taking advantage of

being alone, one of the friends offered the other an alcoholic drink. At this juncture an

interactive screen popped up where the participant could either choose to say “No way”,

“No Thanks. You go ahead” or “Pour me some”. Depending on which of these options

the participants chose, they progressed further on these three paths. More of these

interactive options were presented to them at frequent intervals as they proceeded with

the CD-ROM. For example, if the participants chose “No way” then he got offered a

drink again. If the participant refused it and chose not to have a party in the house then

the protagonist ended in a positive situation where he got rewarded by being given movie

passes. On the other hand, if the participant chose to drink by deciding on “Pour me

some” or allowed the protagonist’s friend to drink and have a party in the house by

32

deciding on “You go ahead”, then the protagonist could find himself in a range of

negative situations including being responsible for the arrests or deaths of his partying

friends or being killed himself in a drug abuse incident.

In the low-interactive CD-ROM, the same scenario was shown but the participant

was given far fewer choices to make. For example, when the participant had decided

which of the three initial interactive options to choose (“No way”, “No thanks. You go

ahead” or “Pour me some”) he/she was not given any further choices. If the participant

chose “No way” then the protagonist was rewarded with a car at the end. If the

participant chose “No thanks. You go ahead”, then the protagonist ended up with the guilt

of being responsible for the deaths of his partying friends in a car crash. If the participant

chose “Pour me some” then the protagonist died at the end from drug abuse.

Dependent Variables

One dependent variable in this experiment was attention. Automatic attention was

measured through an orienting response which is an involuntary response to novel or

signal stimuli. This experiment analyzed the orienting response when the viewing

segments changed in both the high and low interactive conditions.

Controlled attention was measured through a self-reported questionnaire as well

as heart rate. The self-reported questionnaire had a four-point scale that was modified

from the Muehling and Lacziak’s (1998) self-reported attention scale (Wang, 2003). The

questionnaire measured how involved the participants were when they were exposed to

33

the CD-ROM and consequently showed how much controlled attention was being paid by

them. The questionnaire featured a 7 point semantic differential scale with the bi-polar

terms “not at all” – “very much”. Participants were required to indicate if they “paid

attention to the claims made in the CD-ROM”, “concentrated on the messages presented

in the CD-ROM”, “put thought into evaluating the messages in the CD-ROM” and “felt

the information presented in the CD-ROM was relevant to their needs”.

The other dependent variable was recognition which tested how well content was

encoded into memory (Zechmeister & Nyberg, 1987). Encoding necessarily is an

indicator of the amount of resources that were allocated towards processing the message.

By giving us an idea about how well the messages in the CD-ROM had been encoded

into memory, it indicated how effective the CD-ROMs were.

After being exposed to the CD-ROMs, the participants were given a distracter

task where they were shown 3 minutes of an episode from “Friends” to clear their short

term memory. After they had viewed the clip, their recognition memory was tested. It

was measured through a speeded recognition test where the participants saw 2 second

long audio-visual clips of 4 correct and 4 incorrect message points that they were exposed

to in the CD-ROM. The clips were randomly edited from the CD-ROMs using Adobe

Premiere 6.0 and there was one clip edited from each of the viewing segments present in

the CD-ROM. The 4 correct clips were chosen randomly from the segments the

participants had seen in the CD-ROM and the 4 incorrect clips were chosen randomly

from the segments they had not seen in the CD-ROM. For example, if in the high

interactive condition the participant chose “you go ahead” then the researcher showed 4

correct clips from the segments that the participant had seen and which the researcher had

34

mapped on the flow chart (see appendix). For the 4 incorrect clips the researcher chose

segments from either “Pour me some” or “No way”, segments that the participant had not

seen.

After each of the clips played on the screen, a message box appeared on the

screen asking them if they remembered seeing the clip or not. The participants were

instructed to click on the “yes” button if they remembered seeing the clip and “no” if they

did not. Recognition data was coded for percent correct.

Stimulus Material

Participants were randomly assigned to any of the four CD-ROMs which either

had high interactivity/fast pace, high interactivity/slow pace, low interactivity/high pace

or low interactivity/slow pace. The pacing manipulation was used for another study.

These CD-ROMs were developed for an ADA grant meant to prevent impaired teen

driving. The content for the CD-ROM was decided after extensive discussions amongst

members of PLADD and the members of the Benton-Franklin (Washington) Substance

Abuse Coalition group which deals with at-risk teenagers. In these discussions common

situations where an adolescent might be tempted to indulge in substance abuse were

brought up. The scenario presented in the CD-ROM (where parents are gone for the

weekend, leaving the kids alone at home) was decided upon finally as it was thought to

have suitable impact as a situation that can happen to anyone.

35

These CD-ROMs presented participants with varying levels of control (depending

on whether it had high or low interactivity) to choose how the story progressed. In the

high interactive condition the participants had multiple opportunities to decide the

outcome of the segments while in the low interactive condition they were given only one

opportunity. Participants were asked to sit in front of a 14” screen laptop computer where

the CD-ROM was shown. The researcher monitored his/her progress with it on

flowcharts for the high and low conditions.

Apparatus

To measure OR and controlled attention, heart rate data was collected using three

Beckman standard silver-silver chloride (AG-AGCL) electrodes filled with conducting

gel. Initially, two of the electrodes were placed on the two collar bones and two were

placed on the participants’ non-dominant fore-arm - one on the wrist and one near the

elbow. However, in later stages of the study, the electrode from the collar bone was put

on the dominant forearm to get a better heart rate signal. The signal collected from these

electrodes was passed through a Coulbourne bio-amplifier, then to a Coulbourne bipolar

comparator connected to a Coulbourne one-shot and finally into the computer. Raw data

were collected as milliseconds between heart beats which was converted into beats per

minute averaged over one second intervals. The data was cleaned through a program

called VPMEVENT (Cook, 1990) which flagged any data that fell outside the range of

500 -1300 milliseconds as was specified for this study. The researcher manually started

36

and stopped data collection when orienting response (OR) was recorded at segment

points.

Participants and Procedure

There were 71 participants aged 18-19 for this experiment. The participants were

assigned to the two conditions randomly and there were 28 in the high interactive

condition and 34 in the low interactive condition. Data from 9 participants had to be

discarded due to bad sensors. The participants were randomly chosen from the freshmen

class at Washington State University. They participated in the experiment individually at

the Laboratory of Communication, Emotion and Cognition at WSU. On arrival at the

psychophysiology laboratory they were greeted by the researcher and were asked to a

sign an informed consent form which stated the procedures and risks involved in the

collection of physiological data. The researcher prepared the participant for the data

collection and asked if they had any questions and when they were ready began playing

the CD-ROM. After the participants had been exposed to the CD-ROM, the researcher

instructed verbally how to complete the self-reported attention questionnaire. After

completing the report the participants were given a distracter task in which they watched

an episode from “Friends” for 3 minutes. After this they were given the speeded

recognition test. The participants were thanked for their participation and were

compensated with $15 in exchange for completing the study.

37

RESULTS

Hypothesis 1

This hypothesis predicted that users would experience faster heart rate when they

were taking decisions on the interactive screen than when they were viewing the

segments on the interactive CD-ROMs. When attention is focused internally, heart rate

goes up and since in the decision making segment it was expected that the participants

would think through the process, it was predicted that their heart rate would be faster than

their heart rate when they were just watching the segments.

It needs to be kept in mind that even though participants in the high interactive

conditions took as many as five decisions when they experienced the CD-ROM, the

analysis could only include two decisions, as that was the minimum number of decisions

taken by everyone in the high interactive situation. Participants always took one decision

in the low interactive situation.

For the purpose of this analysis the first 4 seconds of decision making for the first

two decision making segments in the high interactive CD-ROM were utilized. This was

compared against 4 seconds of viewing segment for the first two viewing segments in the

high interactive CD-ROM. Since participants only took one decision in the low-

interactive CD-ROM, it was not used for this analysis.

38

Graph 1

73.9

74

74.1

74.2

74.3

74.4

74.5

74.6

74.7

Decision Heart Rate Viewing Heart Rate

MEANS

HE

AR

T R

ATE

Comparison of heart rate means for decision making (M=74.179) and segment

viewing (M=74.572) shows no significant difference as can be seen in graph 1. This

translates to the participants not paying attention internally during decision making and

thus showing no significant difference in heart rate during viewing segments and decision

making.

39

Hypothesis 2

This hypothesis predicted that users in the low interactive condition experienced

greater OR than users in the high interactive condition when the viewing segments

changed. This would have occurred because the change of segments in the CD-ROM

would be novel for the low interactive users whereas for the users in the high interactive

condition, the change of segments would be brought about by their conscious decision

making.

To get the OR in the high interactive condition, heart rate signals were collected

for 10 seconds. Data collection started with the last second of the first decision making

segment and carried on to the next 9 seconds of the ensuing viewing segment because

that is the time period over which OR should occur. For the same reasons as mentioned

before, only the first two decision making segments and the two consequent viewing

segments were considered for the analysis. In the low interactive condition, time points

where the segments changed after the decision making were manually found out. Data

was collected for 1 second before the segments changed and 9 seconds after it did and

OR was analyzed for these 10 seconds for the first two segment changes.

When the data was subjected to a repeated measures ANOVA

2(segment) X 10(time) no significant cubic or quadratic trend (which is an indicator of an

OR) was found. As seen in graph 2, results showed that regardless of the interactive

condition heart rate did not change over time. Thus participants did not orient in either

the high or the low interactive situation when the segments changed.

40

Graph 2

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SECONDS

HE

AR

T R

AT

E

HEART RATE HIGH

HEART RATE LOW

Research Question 1

The first research question looked into which of the CD-ROMs was more effective in

terms of the participants’ recognition memory (as tested through the speeded recognition

test). Results of a t-test show that there is no significant difference between participants’

recognition in the high or low interactive condition t (67) = -1.212, p< .05.

The participants scored quite highly in both the high (M= 7.06) and low interactive

condition (M= 7.41) for the 8 clips that they were shown for the speeded recognition test.

41

Research Question 2

This research question looked into how physiological measures of attention

compared to post-exposure, self-reported attention measured through a questionnaire.

For the analysis, the data from the questionnaire was subjected to a factor analysis

with varimax rotation for an easier interpretation of the results. The factor analysis

showed that the 4 items from the self-reported attention scale did not make up a uni-

dimensional scale. It produced two different factors as all the four items on the scale were

not measuring the same concept. The two questions regarding whether the participants’

paid attention or not and whether they concentrated on the messages in the CD-ROM

directly measured attention and so these two variables were used to form a new attention

scale which had a reliability of .82 ( Cronbach’s alpha). One –way ANOVA results

showed that participants in the high (M=5.9) and low (M=5.8) conditions did not differ in

self-reported attention. So interactivity did not have an effect on self-reported attention.

To compare these self-reported data with physiological ones, heart rate was

measured for 28 time points. In the high interactive condition the first 9 time points of the

first viewing segment (after they had taken their first decision) and the first 19 time

points of the second viewing segment (after they had taken the second decision) were

analyzed as these were the minimum number of time points that every participant had

been exposed to in the high interactive condition.

In the low interactive condition, the first 28 time points after their sole decision

making segment were analyzed. Results of a repeated measures ANOVA 2 (condition) X

28 (time) showed no significant effect of interactivity on attention. As can be seen in

42

graph 3, participants seemed to have paid attention in both the high and low interactive

conditions as measured through the heart rate. So in the analyses, the self-reported

attention results mirror the physiological measures.

Graph 3

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28

SECONDS

HE

AR

T R

ATE

HEART RATEHIGH

HEART RATELOW

43

DISCUSSION

The main purpose of this study was to find out how interactivity affected

attention. The results show clearly that interactivity did not have a significant effect on

attention. Whether participants were in the high or low condition, whether they were just

viewing segments or taking decisions on the screen, attention levels did not change

significantly. Attention levels measured through both physiological means and self-

reported attention questionnaire also did not change over the two conditions. As was

corroborated by the self-reported attention questionnaire the participants paid similar

amounts of attention in both the high and low interactive condition.

One possible explanation for interactivity not having any effect on attention could

be the fact that people orient differently to traditional media than they do towards an

interactive media like the computer. Whereas research has shown that people don’t

habituate towards structural features eliciting OR in traditional media like radio and TV,

it might be different for an interactive media like the computer. It might be possible that

the young participants are so used to interacting with a computer that it did not elicit an

OR in them when it normally might have done so in the traditional media. Using an

interactive CD-ROM did not alter their attention significantly because they might have

expected their whole experience with it.

Lang et al. (2002) also found that plain text and boxed text shown on a computer

screen did not elicit cardiac orienting, neither did user control over the onset of

information on the computer have any effect on OR. This study seems to replicate the

findings of Lang et al. (2002) as user control also did not affect OR in either of the

44

conditions. Whether the participants were in the high interactive condition, (knowing

what to expect when the segments changed) or whether they were in the low interactive

situation, (not knowing what is going to happen when the segments changed), the data

showed no OR in either of the conditions when the segments changed.

The theoretical reasons behind the findings might be embedded in the workings of

the neural model and the OR as posited by Sokolov, Nezlina, Polyanskii & Evitikhin

(2002). They explained that an OR was mainly geared to recognize new and significant

stimuli in the environment. OR occurs when one is exposed to novel stimuli – something

different from what one has observed before. The human brain has numerous neural

models of the stimuli it has been exposed to and all these neural models are

interconnected through extensive neural networks. When we are exposed to stimuli they

are evaluated in terms of the existing neural models in our brain. If the stimuli is novel

then the “novelty signal” sent to these neural models is very high as there are no previous

neural models to compare the new stimuli with. This results in an OR as more attention

needs to be paid in order to analyze the new information. However, if the stimuli are

repeated, then the novelty signal weakens as neural models of that stimuli already exist in

our brain. Since there is a match between the neural models and the stimuli, no extra

attention needs to be paid to it and thus no OR is elicited. In this way, a person can orient

to novel stimuli and get habituated by being exposed to the same repeated stimuli.

The threshold of novelty needs to be crossed in order to orient and in the CD-

ROM presentation it seems that the features failed to do so and thus was unable to elicit

an OR. The students might have had extensive neural models for stimuli generated by an

interactive media like the computer possibly because they might have had extensive

45

exposure to it. It might also be possible that they have had previous experience of

watching similar stimuli in high school driving classes. Since the CD-ROM did not offer

them anything novel, they did not orient towards it. It can be expected that if the CD-

ROM had something entirely novel and unique in its content or presentation then the

students would orient towards it.

The reason for interactivity not having a significant effect on the participants’

recognition memory of the CD-ROM clips might be attributed to the fact that the content

presented was very simple. The CD-ROM had a simple storyline with just two main

protagonists and most of the episodes involved the two of them talking in a single setting.

It may also have happened that the clips chosen to administer the speeded recognition test

were really easy to recognize because of the simplicity of the content. Since the content

itself was so simple, it did not matter whether the participant was in the high or low

interactive condition – recognition memory was high for both of them and interactivity

had no significant effect on it.

It should be kept in mind that information processing does not comprise of

encoding only – it also includes storage and retrieval of the message. Just because

interactivity did not have a significant effect on attention does not mean that it doesn’t

affect the other processes too. It might be possible that interactivity might lead to users

elaborating more on the message, processing it with more effort and thus becoming more

involved with it. This might lead to the messages getting well stored in memory and

getting retrieved in an effective way. A cued recall can be administered to test how well

these messages have been stored in memory and a free recall can be used to test how well

these messages can be retrieved from memory. A lot more research needs to be carried

46

out in this field and interactivity should not be discarded as an intervention method based

only on its inability to significantly affect attention.

It is also interesting to note that heart rate did not become faster when the

participants were taking decisions compared to when they were viewing segments. A

possible reason for this could be that in the interactive decision screen, a voice over was

present for each of the decisions. So when a participant pointed the cursor towards a

decision, he/she also heard the voice-over repeat that decision. The fact that they had to

take in more information from the outside on the decision screen, might have prevented

them from focusing attention internally and thus not showing a faster cardiac rate.

However, it needs to be kept in mind that participants took varying lengths of

time to decide and took different number of decisions depending on the condition they

were assigned to. For the purpose of this analysis only the first 4 seconds of heart rate in

the first two decision making segments in the high interactive condition could be used as

that was the minimum amount of time taken by the participants to decide in that

condition. The results would possibly alter if data was analyzed for participants who had

taken a lot longer to decide in both the high and low interactive condition. The very fact

that they had taken longer to decide would be an indicator that they were weighing the

options and thus focusing attention internally, making their heart rate faster.

Since the results show that change of segments failed to elicit any significant OR,

maybe structural features are not as efficient at eliciting an OR in an interactive media

like the computer as it is with traditional media like radio and TV. To grab attention in an

interactive media stress might need to be laid more on capturing controlled attention

through content as it might be hard to grab automatic attention unless the experience is

47

incredibly novel and unique. As seen with the participants, they seemed to have expected

the way the CD-ROM would function and thus regardless of whether they were in the

high or low condition, they did not orient to the changing of segments.

48

CONCLUSIONS

The fact that there were no significant results of this study is in itself significant.

From the results of this study and that of Lang et al. (2002) it seems that the computer as

an interactive media might work differently at eliciting cardiac orienting than other

media. A lot more research is needed to find which features elicit OR and are able to grab

automatic attention in the interactive media. It would also be interesting to find out if a

non-interactive movie shown on a computer elicits OR or not. Even though people don’t

get habituated to structural features eliciting OR on TV, they might act differently when

watching a movie on a computer screen as they might be habituated towards it more.

An interesting area for future research might be to look into recognition memory

in CD-ROMs with complex stimuli involving very interesting content and novel

structural features. Presenting well-targeted content could make the users pay controlled

attention and including novel structural features might grab their automatic attention.

Lang et al (2002) found that animated banner advertisements did elicit orienting response

and it can be hoped that an animated, flashy CD-ROM might be able to capture people’s

automatic attention. However, attention does not equal memory and more research needs

to be done to find out how best to present an interactive message so that it is recognized

better.

The results of this study also shed an interesting light on message design. Since it

would seem from this study that in interactive media structural features fail to elicit

cardiac orienting and thus fail to grab automatic attention, it follows that we need more

novel stimulus to get an OR. Unless the stimuli is absolutely unique and offers the viewer

49

an unexpected experience, it would be hard to get an OR in an interactive medium and

thus get the increase in attention. The other possibility for message design in the

interactive media is to concentrate more on the content and thus hope to capture

controlled attention. In order to do that message designers need to understand the target

audience better and have messages geared towards them.

As a laboratory experiment, this study has several limitations. Conditions in the

laboratory did not represent a natural environment to experience a CD-ROM, but in order

to physiologically measure how people pay attention while they are being exposed to an

interactive medium in real time, such a set-up was necessary. It also seems likely that the

variables present in a more natural environment may have some effect on user’s attention

and recognition, but would not probably change the direction of the results.

Therefore, despite the limitations the results of this study have important

implications. The fact that interactivity did not have any significant effect on either

attention or recognition memory in the study might be an indicator that the interactive

media needs to be treated a lot differently than the traditional media. Trying to

understand the processes and effects of the interactive media in terms of traditional media

might prove futile. A lot more research is needed to understand the complexity of

interactivity and the interactive medium.

Since computers have become an integral part of our society it is of immense

importance to find out how this interactive medium affects us. A better understanding of

this would lead to more efficient ways of communication with this interactive medium.

50

REFERENCES

Ariely, D. (2000) Controlling the Information Flow: Effects on Consumers' Decision-Making and Preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (September), 233-248.

Basil, M. D. (1994). Multiple resource theory I: Application to television viewing. Communication Research, 21, 177-207.

Batra & Ray (1983). Advertising Situations: The Implications of Differential Accompanying Affect Responses, In Harris, R.J, Information Processing Research in Advertising (pp 127-151). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Bezjian-avery, A., Calder, B., & Iacobucci, D. (1998) New Media Interactive Advertising vs.Traditional Advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, July/August, 23-32.

Bolls, Paul D. & Lang, Annie. (In press). I saw it on the radio: The allocation of attention to high imagery radio advertisements. Media Psychology.

Bucy, E.P. (2003) Interactivity in society: Towards a theory of elusive concept. Manuscript submitted for consideration in The Information Society: An International Journal

Bucy, E. P. (2003) The interactivity paradox: Closer to news but confused. In E. P Bucy & J. E. Newhagen (Eds.), Media Access: Social and Psychological dimensions of new technology use. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cook, E.W.I. (1990). VPMEVENT (Version 4.2). Birmingham, AL.

Coyle, J. E., & Thorson, E. (2001). The Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in Web Marketing Sites. Journal of Advertising, 30 (Fall), 65-77

Fortin, D. (1997) The Impact of Interactivity on Advertising Effectiveness in the New Media" Doctoral Dissertation, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.

Gardener, M.P., Mitchell, A.A., & Russo, J.E. (1985) Low Involvement strategies for processing advertisements. Journal of advertising, 14 (2), 4-16, 56.

Goertz, Lutz: Wie interaktiv sind Medien? Auf dem Weg zu einer Definition von Interaktivität. [How interactive are the new media? On the way towards a definition of interactivity] In: Rundfunk und Fernsehen 4, 1995, 477-493.

Graham, F.K. & Clifton, R.K. (1966). Heart rate change as a component of the orienting response. Psychological Bulletin, 65, 305-320.

51

Ha, Louisa and James, E. Lincoln (1998). Interactivity Reexamined: A Baseline Analysis of Early Business Websites. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, Vol. 42, (4), 457-474.

Heeter, C. (1989) Implications of New Interactive Technologies for Conceptualizing Communication. Media In Salvaggio, J.L., & Bryant, J (Eds.), Use in the Information Age: Emerging Patterns of Adoption and Consumer Use. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 217-35.

Hoffman, J.E. (1986). Spatial attention in vision: Evidence for early selection. Psychological Research, 48, 221-230.

Jensen, J. F. (1998) Interactivity: Tracing a New Concept in Media and Communication Studies. Nordicom Review, 19 (1), 185-204.

Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Broadbent, D.E. (1982). Task combination and selective intake of information. Acta Psychologica, 50, 253-290.

Kahneman, D. & Treisman, A. M. (1984) Changing views of attention and automaticity. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (eds.), Varieties of Attention, 29-61, Acad. Press.

Laurel, B. (1986). Interface as Mimesis. In (Eds.) Norman, D.A. & Draper, S.W. UserCentered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 67-85.

Laurel, B. (1993) Computers as theatre (2nd ed). New York: Addison – Wesley.

Lang, A. (Ed.) (1994) Measuring Psychological Responses to Media Messages. Lawrence Erlbaum; NJ.

Lang, A. (2000).The Limited Capacity Model of Mediated Message Processing. Journal of Communication 50:46-70.

Lang, A., Borse, J., Wise, K., David, P. (2002). Captured by the World Wide Web: Orienting to structural and content features of computer presented information. Communication Research, 29(3), 215-245.

Lang, A., & Thorson, E. (1989). The effects of television videographics and lecture familiarity on adult cardiac orienting responses and memory. Paper presented to the Information Systems Division of the International Communication Association, San Francisco.

Laurel, B. (1991), Computers as Theater, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

52

Lombard, M., & Snyder-Dutch, J. (2001). Interactive Advertising and Presence: A Framework. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 1 (1)

Liu, Y. & L. J. Shrum. (2003). What Is Interactivity and Is It Always Such a Good Thing?: Implications of Definition, Person and Situation for the Influence of Interactivityon Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 31 (4), 53-64.

Massey, B.L. &. Levy, M.R (1999). Interactivity, Online Journalism, and English-Language Web Newspapers in Asia. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76 (1), 138-151.

McMillan, S. J. (1999). Health communication and the Internet: Relations between interactive characteristics of the medium and site creators, content, and purpose. Health Communication, 11, 375-390.

McMillan, S. J. (2000). Interactivity Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Function, Perception, Involvement, and Attitude toward the Web Site. In M. A. Shaver (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2000 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 71-78). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University

McMillan, S.J. and Hwang, J.S. (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 Advertising, 31(3), 41-54.

Näätänen, R. (1986). The orienting response: a combination of informational and energetical aspects of brain function. In: G.R.J. Hockey, A.K.W. Gaillard & M. Coles (Eds.) Energetics in human information processing. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

Pavlov, I.P. (1927) Conditioned Reflexes; An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex [G.V. Anrep, ed. tr.]. London: Oxford University Press.

Rafaeli, S (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication, In Sage Annual Review of Communication Research: Advancing Communication Science, Vol. 16, eds R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann and S. Pingree, 110-134. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rafaeli, S. & Sudweeks, F. (1997) Networked Interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication.

Reeves, B. & Nass, C. (1996) The Media Equation: How people treat computers, television and new media like real people and places. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press.

Rice, R.E., & Associates (1984). The new media: Communication, research, and technology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

53

Salomon, G. (1990). Cognitive effects with and of computer technology. Communication Research, 17:1, 26-44.

Schneider, W., Dumais, S.T. and Shiffrin, R.M. Automatic and control processing and attention. Varieties of Attention, New York: Academic Press, 1-27 (1984).

Schumann, D. W., Artis, A., & Rivera, R. (2001). The Future of Interactive Advertising Viewed through an IMC Lens. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 1 (2).

Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977) Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: Perceptual Learning, Automatic Attending and a General Theory.Psychological Review, 84 (March), 127-190.

Sokolov, E.N. (1963). Perception and the conditioned reflex. NY: Pergamon Press.

Sokolov, E. N., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1997). Orienting and defense reflexes: Vector coding the cardiac response. In P. J. Lang, R. F. Simons, & M. T. Balaban (Eds.), Attention and orienting: Sensory and motivational processes (pp. 1-22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

E. N. Sokolov, N. I. Nezlina, V. B. Polyanskii & D. V. Evtikhin (2002). The Orientating Reflex: The "Targeting Reaction" and "Searchlight of Attention". Neuroscience and Behavorial Physiology. New York Vol. 32, Iss. 4; p. 347

Steuer, J. (1992). Defining Virtual Reality. Dimensions Determining Telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42 (4), 73-93

Sundar, S. S. (2000). Multimedia effects on processing and perception ofonline news: A study of picture, audio, and video downloads. Journalismand Mass Communication Quarterly, 3, 480-499.

James, W. (1890) The principles of psychology, New York: Holt, pp. 403-404.

Wang, L. (2003) Promotion of Destinations after Disasters: An Experimental Investigation of Memory-Message Incongruent Conditions, Memory Valence and the Effectiveness of Communication-Evoked-Imagery on attitude toward Tourism Destinations. Diss. Washington State University.

Wickens, C.D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & D.R. Davies (Eds.). Varieties of Attention. New York: Academic Press.

Yoon, K., Bolls, P., & Muehling, D. (1999) The Effect of Involvement, Arousal, and Pace on Claim and Non-claim Components of Attitude toward the Ad. Media Psychology, 1, 331-351.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985) Measuring the Involvement Construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (December), 341-352

54

APPENDIX

Low Interactivity Flow Chart

Low Interactivity

You go ahead Pour me some

1 (Intro) 1 (Intro)

3 (You goahead) 4 (Drink)

5 ( Don’t drink)

9 ( Don’t need beer)

7 (Party)13 (Yes to drugs)

14 ( Don’t drink)

17 (Get out)

No way

1 (Intro)

2 ( No way)

3 (You go ahead)

5 ( Don’t drink)

6 (No party)

11 (Let’s stay)

55

No way ( 2 )

You go ahead (3)

Don’t drink (5)

Drink (4)

No party (6)

Party (7)

Let’s stay(11)

Just go (12)

Let’s go (10)

End End End

Introduction

Don’t drink (14) Drink (15)

I’m driving (16) Out (17) Ok (18) No (19)

End End End End

Go get some (8)

Don’t need beer (9)

We’ll go get some (10)

Yes (to drugs) (13)

No (13)

EndEnd

EndEnd

Pour me some (4)

High Interactivity Flow Chart

56

CD-ROM EXPERIEMNT PROTOCOL

Before subject arrives:

In the researcher area, turn on power strip, Coulbourn Lablinc stack, researcher monitor and VCR. Make sure the VCR is on channel A1.

In the subject area, turn on the TV. Make sure volume on TV is set to 18.

Make sure radio/television switcher is set to TV.

Prep electrodes.

Skin conductance requires two standardsHeart rate requires two standardsZygomatic (smile) requires two minisCorrugator (frown) requires two minisJust put collars on electrodesWait to put gel into electrodes until participant arrives

Look on subject form and note which CD-ROM order is mentioned. There will be four folders on the computer which will be named “ High/Fast”, “ High/Slow”, “ Low/Fast” and “ Low/Slow”, which will all be stored under the folder “CD-ROM conditions”, which will also be on the desktop.

Condition 1 = High Interactivity/ Fast Pace

Condition 2 = High Interactivity/ Slow Pace

Condition 3 = Low Interactivity/ Fast Pace

Condition 4 = Low Interactivity/ Slow Pace

Only the condition is going to be mentioned next to the subject’s name. When they come in, open the relevant condition’s manila folder and choose the next ID for them. So they will get their ID # only when they come in to participate. Then create a folder with their ID#.

57

Make sure the “Friends” tape is in the VCR and cued correctly. It need not be a specific clip, they just need to see 3 minutes of the show.

Place informed consent form on clipboard for subject to read and sign. Start VPM data collection program.

If you aren't in the vpm directory get there! Type "cd\vpm" and hit return, note, you should get the vpm prompt

Type "vpm cdhi" or “vpm cdlow” (depending on the order of the participant) and hit return.

When you are prompted to type in a specification file type "defcdhi.vpm" or “defcdlow.vpm” (depending on whether the condition has high interactivity or low interactivity) and hit return.

When you are prompted to type in subject ID number, do so and hit return

Once subject arrives:

Welcome subjects, have them sit in the subject chair, then give them informed consent forms to read and sign. Ask them to take off earrings and watch. Check their driver’s license to make sure they are 18-19 years old.

Put gel in electrodes while subject reads and signs consent forms

Remember to put KY Jelly in the skin conductance electrodes, electrode gel goes in all other electrodes.

Take the consent form back and put it in the consent forms folder

Place the relevant flowchart on a clipboard for you to track their decisions. The flowcharts are stored in two manila folders called “high interactivity” and “low interactivity”.

Place electrodes on subject Note: Remember that ground electrode now goes on subject's right earlobe and plugs into center hole of the zygomatic lead

58

During data collection you need to monitor VPM. You will know you are in the right place by looking at the message on the VPM monitor.

The first message you will see is "waiting to collect baseline"

Collect the baseline data for 5 seconds. Then the screen will say “waiting for introductory scene”. Open the correct CD-ROM folder for them and click on the last file in the folder called “Pladd”. Ask them to follow the prompts they see on the screen and click “Begin” when they are ready. They will be asked to enter their personal information in the CD-ROM and then will be prompted to start taking decisions on behalf of the characters in the CD-ROM. Once they click “start” to begin the interactive segments, start collecting data.

In the course of the movie on the CD-ROM, the screen is going to go gray and that’s when you click the right shift key. You will see an interactive screen pop up and the participant will choose one of the options presented to him/her. Click on right shift key again as soon as they have clicked an option. You need to hit the right shift key only once in the low interactive situation as they only get to choose once. But in the high interactive situation, they can choose up to 6 times. If they go through different paths and get to choose less than 6 options, then you need to keep on hitting the right shift key until “User count” is 6 and the screen says that data collection is complete. Track participant’s choices on the flowchart. (VERY important). You can look through the glass and see which decisions are being made on the computer and track it accordingly. After the 6th decision, VPM will write the data to memory and then kick out back to the VPM prompt. If in the high interactive condition, they choose “no way” and then choose “I am your friend, but no drinking”, then you need to keep on pressing the right shift key and wait for the program to end data collection. You need to re-record their data and ask them to take a different option by asking them to click on “try again”. When done with the CD-ROM, ask them to exit the program. (VERY important).

Give them the questionnaire. Ask them to indicate their choices with a check mark.

59

While they are filling out the questionnaire, turn the monitor away and open the folder called “Speed Recognition”. Under that folder open the correct folder with the order that the participant has been assigned to. In the folder open the program called “speedRecog”.

You will be prompted to enter participant’s study ID#. Do it.

In the box that appears next, enter 4 (or 3) clips the participant has just seen (refer to the flowchart) and 4 (or 5) clips they haven’t seen (also refer to the flowchart). Make sure that the correct 4 clips are entered first, followed by the 4 foil clips. (VERY important).Make a note on the flowchart if they are watching 3 correct clips and 5 foil clips.

Click begin. The interface will then have a prompt “click begin when you are ready”. This prompt is for the participant. Put the laptop screen down and collect the questionnaire.

Start playing “Friends”.

Stop “Friends” after 3 minutes.

Pull up the laptop screen. Tell them that they are going to see very short clips from the CD-ROM that they just saw. After each of the clips they will see a message box appear on the screen asking them if they remembered having seen the clip or not. If they remembered having seen it, they should click “yes”, if not, then “no”. Ask them to click on the interface when they are ready.

When done, thank them for their participation. Tell them to please not talk to anyone about the study.

Write down their address where the want the check to be mailed. (VERY important). Tell them that their check will be mailed in a couple of weeks.

Ask them to take back their jewelry and watch.

Make sure the questionnaire and the flowchart are in subject's folder. Put this folder in the correct conditions folder titled “1 = High/Fast”, 2 = High/Slow”, “3 = Low/Fast” and “4 = Low/Slow”.

Clean the electrodes and prepare for the next subject unless it is the end of the day. If it is the end of the day, remember to clean out the gel syringes and then shut of all power and lock the lab area as you leave.

60

SELF REPORTED QUESTIONNAIRE

Please indicate the extent to which you believe the following statements to be true about how you experienced the CD-ROM.

I paid attention to the claims made in the CD-ROM.

Not at all _____: _____: _____: _____: _____: ____: _____ Very much

I concentrated on the messages in the CD-ROM.

Not at all ____: _____: _____: _____: _____: _____: _____ Very much

I put thought into evaluating the messages in the CD-ROM.

Not at all _____: _____: _____: _____: _____: _____: _____ Very much

I felt the information in the CD-ROM might be relevant for my needs.

Not at all _____: _____: _____: _____: _____: _____: _____ Very much