In Sundar’s Theorizing Interactivity’s Effects, he discusses how interactivity can be theorized in three different ways: behavioral, attitudinal, and cognitive. The essay is broken down into these three sections and he goes into depth on the combination effects of interactivity and these three classes. 

Sundar begins by introducing the concept of interactivity and discusses the role it plays in changing the media. Interactivity, he claims, undermines the idea of a passive audience and allows individuals to become “veritable gatekeepers” of information. Before diving into the three classes Sundar discusses initially, he begins his discussion by comparing interactivity as an attribute of technology. He uses the term “perceptual variable” throughout this portion of the essay and makes the claim that “perception stresses the experience of interactivity.” I found this concept to be very interesting and he furthers this claim with an example to connect the reader. He states that a high-end VR gaming system that requires advanced skills would likely be rated lower than e-mail, which requires little technological skill on an interactivity scale. Perceived interactivity, Sundar says, allows us, as the user, to reflect on technology and determine the interactivity level. If advanced, like the VR system, users typically rate the interactivity as low, leading to their perceptual shift of the technology. I found this perceptual approach to be really interesting and I like how Sundar gave these examples before making his conclusive statement: “technology is constant and so are the medium and message, the only thing varying is the users’ ability to use the given interface.” After discussing technology and interactivity, Sundar goes into defining his three classes. Starting with its effects on behavior, we learn that interaction is “a behavioral consequence of interface interactivity.” Rather than the technology itself, Sundar sheds light on how pop-up ads vs. television ads can dictate one’s behavioral reaction to different interactions. Moreover, the second class he discusses is attitude. One’s expectation of interactivity can shift the outcome of the interaction. There are positive and negative expectations that can lead to more positive or negative social responses to different technologies. Lastly, by asking for users to interact with technology, users are required to think about their communication. Purposive user involvement is discussed primarily in this section to show that “interactively transmitted information will be processed consciously.”

Sundar does a really great job breaking down this paper to give examples and go in greater depth of how these three classes can affect one’s interaction with technology and communication. I found it really interesting how Sundar allowed the reader to see the collective whole of these three classes and then broke down each section to provide specific examples of the nuances between the three. I am curious if there are any other classes that may affect interactivity, and if so, if they have as large of an effect as behavior, attitude, and cognition?