Summary of Burgoon, J. et al., (2002) “Testing the Interactivity Principle.” By Amy
Caryn Warneka – OLS 623 F2009
Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Ramirez, Jr., A., Dunbar, N. E., Kam, K., & Fischer, J. (2002). Testing the interactivity principle: Effects
of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication, 52,
657-677.
Summary: In this article, the authors attempt to gain insight into how modes of communication can be assessed in
relationships with regard to verbal and nonverbal cues in emerging communication technologies. They proposed a
‘principle of interactivity’ to analyze those relationships and whether members are ‘co-located’ or ‘distributed’
makes the availability of other nonverbal information just as distributed as they are varied. They found that
proximity of the members and lack of availability of nonverbal cues affected the communication process and the
social judgments each participant makes of the others and their task performance. Either structural or proclaimed
interactivity, singly or in combination, may be responsible for the positive or negative consequences that a given
interface yields. Therefore this principle becomes a template of sorts for parrying the properties of interfaces and
the processes they enable, augment or suppress and account for the beneficial and detrimental outcomes.
Principle of Interactivity: Human communication processes and outcomes vary systematically with the degree of
interactivity that is afforded or experienced. “Interactivity” means there are various forms of interdependent
messages exchanged using a selected type of media. The structural affordances of mediation and proximity are
interrelated because mediated communication is usually geographically distal. Interactivity is neither positive nor
negative and is essentially value-neutral although the outcomes may be value-laden. Structural affordances do not
determine the influence on the communication process and outcome and are neither constant nor time-invariant.
Although structural input may exert some direct effects on outcomes, they are more likely to influence qualities of
the interaction process itself. The extent to which interactivity helps or hinders the communication processes is a
function of a variety of factors, including the nature of the interaction, the objectives to be accomplished and the
participants themselves.
Hypotheses: From the standpoint of the Principle of Interactivity, the issue is whether mediation and/or reduced
proximity have adverse effects on interaction processes and on interaction outcomes. Both mediation and
proximity can affect nonverbal immediacy.
1. Mediated interaction differs from non-mediated in communication process qualities and outcomes.
2. Proximal interactions result in more favorable interactions processes and outcomes than distal interactions.
3. FTF and audio-based communication formats result in more favorable interaction processes and outcomes than
text-based and video-based formats.
Methods: Using 80 undergraduate students (split between male and female), each participant was paired with a
same sex participant who followed an extensively trained and practiced interaction script. Conducted in a
communication research laboratory, each participant was randomly assigned to one of five experimental
conditions:
1. FTF, unmediated and proximal; affording participants full access to each other’s verbal and nonverbal behavior
2. Proximal; participants were seated obliquely at adjacent computers so they could see each other but not the
others’ computer monitor and conducted their discussion using a synchronous online chat program§.
3. Distributed® text-only; participants were seated in separate rooms, conducted their discussion via synchronous
online chat.
4. Distributed audio-conferencing; participants were completely separated and interacted via the synchronous
chat program with the audio channel enabled.
5. Distributed videoconferencing; the separated participants interacted via the chat program with both video and
audio functions enabled providing access to each other’s vocal and visual information.
Interactivity indicators included perceived involvement, mutuality, and interaction ease supplemented with
assessments of the expectedness and desirability of the partner’s interaction behavior. Using a Likert-format,
measurements were used to capture the multidimensional nature of affinity.
§ Microsoft© NetMeeting™ was used for the synchronous online chat program.
® Distributed partners did not meet FTF.