COUNTER-finding: Oh & Sundar 2015 also showed modality interactivity REDUCED the number of message-related thoughts — absorption can come at the cost of deep elaboration; Sundar warns of "too much interactivity"
Summary
Counter-claim: Interactivity is NOT uniformly positive. Oh & Sundar 2015 (Oh & Sundar (2015), Journal of Communication 65(2) — N=167 factorial experiment: modality interactivity (slider) produced more positive interface assessment, greater cognitive absorption, more favourable attitudes) also found modality interactivity REDUCED the number of message-related thoughts (absorption can come at the cost of deep elaboration). Sundar's broader work warns of a "too much interactivity" cost — added interactive features can overload and reduce processing/attitudes for some users/tasks.
Source: Oh & Sundar (2015), JoC (same paper); Sundar broader work.
Confidence: Verified (limit).
Why this matters for Candid: Most under-appreciated finding in the brief. Anchors R5 — Pair interactivity with restraint: add interactive features ONLY where they let the user do something they need to; "too much interactivity" reduces deep elaboration — adding more interactive features can hurt if the user becomes absorbed in the interaction rather than processing the message. Discipline: add interactivity where it lets the user do something they need to; not as decoration.
Related entries
Referenced by (3)
- research-notes Research notes (capture-layer top-up): why interactive online tools are psychologically engaging — six additional mechanisms (June 2026) relates-to
- reference Caveats for the engagement-mechanisms top-up: strong independent evidence sits at the MECHANISM level not the business-outcome level; nearly every effect is moderated relates-to
- rule R5 — Pair interactivity with restraint: add interactive features ONLY where they let the user do something they need to; "too much interactivity" reduces deep elaboration depends-on