Interaction

**Definition**

The concept of interaction is used in a multitude of academic disciplines to identify an exchange or pattern of reciprocal influence between two or more entities. In natural-scientific fields such as physics, interaction is often indicative of a more specialized definition: the action between atomic and subatomic particles (Interaction, 2012). Because the core idea of interaction is quite similar to the concept of communication, a terminology of interaction in communication scholarship tends to signal a particular set of preferred epistemologies, methodologies, or analytical objects, rather than precise definitions (Neuman, 2008).


 * Interaction as Epistemological Orientation **

The idea of interaction has influenced approaches to communication research at a variety of levels. Because interaction is critical to the frameworks of some of the most notable social and cultural theorists, several scholars (e.g., Bourdieu, 1992; Giddens, 1984; Jensen, 1995) have developed new concepts to capture the specific role of interaction processes in their theory construction. In most cases, the theorists' motivation has been to acknowledge communication as a multi-directional behavioral phenomenon, rather than a one-way transmission process (Neuman, 2008).


 * Interactional Sociolinguistics and Language **

Fields such as interactional sociolinguistics focuses on situated meaning and meaning-making practices in interaction, aiming at understanding and identifying the functions of language. Generally in these approaches, communication is conceptualized as system or structure. Language is seen as a resource by many scholars (e.g., Hymes, 1996), addressing issues such as language and communication (Bommaert, 2010; Rampton, 2006) or interpersonal relations in intercultural communication (Spencer-Oatey, 2000).

Language is also seen as part of a wider collection of semiotic resources (gestures, artifacts, etc.), which people use to construct meaning (Goodwin, 2000). In order to understand the construction of meaning, it is vital to look at how actors function in interaction in relation to others (Schiffirin, 1994, referring to Goffman, 1959). In social interaction, people perform actions through the use of varying semiotic resources, either through talk, embodied actions, or combinations of these.


 * Interpersonal Interaction **

Many references to interaction in communication studies fall under the realm of interpersonal communication, i.e., the micro-analysis of contextualized, routinized, and usually dyadic exchanges between individuals (Neuman, 2008).

Within interpersonal communication, scholars looking at interaction often draw on models such as Giles et al.’s (1991) communication accommodation theory, which argues that when people interact, they regulate their speech, vocal patterns and gestures to accommodate to others (Turner & West, 2010). Scholars also frequently draw on interaction adaptation theory (IAT; Burgoon et al., 1995), which predicts and explains how, when, and why people adapt to another’s verbal and nonverbal communication in similar and dissimilar ways. IAT concentrates on how pairs of communicators (actors) coordinate their communication styles with each other in ongoing conversational interactions.


 * Symbolic Interaction **

The symbolic interactionist perspective (Blumer, 1969) is a specific position in the field of sociology, communication, and other related disciplines. Some of the features of the symbolic interaction perspective are use of symbols in communication, placing importance on interactions among people, self as constructed by others through interaction, interpretation as part of action, and modifiable social processes. Generally, symbolic interaction is concerned with the interaction of order of daily life and practices, rather than the structures associated with large scale and relatively stagnant social forces.


 * Statistical Interaction **

Statistical interaction refers to an assortment of research techniques (e.g., regression analyses, analysis of variance, etc.) that, except for the terminology, has been entirely independent of theoretical and analytical approaches to communication studies, such as the interactionist perspective (Neuman, 2008). Specifically, statistical interaction refers to a phenomenon in which the value of a third variable appears to influence the affiliation between two other variables. In other words, the strength or direction of a relation between at least two variables is different depending on the value of at least one other variable.


 * Interactivity **

Wagner (1994, 1997) proposed a distinction between the concepts of interaction and interactivity. Wagner (1997) states that interactions “occur when objects and events mutually influence one another. On the other hand, interactivity … appears to emerge from descriptions of technology for establishing connections from point to point … in real time” (p. 20).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">One commonly cited definition of interactivity originates from Rafaeli (1988), who defined interactivity as: “An expression of the extent that, in a given series of communication exchanges, any third (or later) transmission (or message) is related to the degree to which previous exchanges referred to even earlier transmissions” (p. 11). Rafaeli examined interactivity as a process-related variable based on relatedness of sequential messages (Rafaeli, 1990; Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1997). To date, many scholars have suggested that interactivity may be a multi-dimensional construct worthy of significant attention in technology studies (e.g., Durlak, 1987; Ha & James, 1998; Heeter, 1989; Jensen, 1998; Massey & Levy, 1999; McMillan, 1998).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">As new interactive technologies of mediated communication develop, including the World Wide Web, video games, etc., it is very likely that interactivity will continue to be of great interest to scholars researching computer-mediated communication, online social networking, human-computer interaction, and other concepts related to technology.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Written by Nathan McCullough (2012).

include component="comments" page="page:Interaction" limit="10"


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">References **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Blommaert, J. (2010). //The sociolinguistics of globalization.// Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Blumer, H. (1969). //Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method.// Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Bourdieu, P. (1991). //Language and symbolic power.// Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. (1995). //Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interaction patterns.// New York: Cambridge University Press.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Durlak, J. T. (1987). A typology for interactive media. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), //Communication yearbook 10// (pp. 743-757). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Giddens, A. (ed.) (1984). //The constitution of society.// Berkeley: University of California Press.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Giles, H., Coupland, J., & Coupland, N. (eds.) (1991). //Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics.// New York: Cambridge University Press.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Goffman, E. (1959). //The presentation of self in everyday life.// New York, NY: Doubleday.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. //Journal of Pragmatics, 32,// 1489-1522.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Ha, L., & James, L. (1998). Interactivity re-examined: A baseline analysis of early business web sites. //Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42//(4), 457-474.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Heeter, C. (1989). Implications of new interactive technologies for conceptualizing communication. In J. L. Salvaggio & J. Bryant (Eds.), //Media use in the information age: Emerging patterns of adoption and computer use// (pp. 217-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Hymes, D. (1996). //Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality. Toward an understanding of voice.// London, England: Taylor & Francis.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Interaction. (n.d.). In Oxford English Dictionary Online. Retrieved June 14, 2012 from http://dictionary.oed.com.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Jensen, J. F. (1998). Interactivity: Tracing a new concept in media and communication studies. //Nordicom Review, 19//(1), 185-204.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Jensen, K. B. (1995). //The social semiotics of mass communication.// Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">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.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">McMillan, S. J. (1998). Who pays for content? Funding in interactive media. //Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 4//(1).

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Neuman, W. R. (2008). Interaction. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The Blackwell International Encyclopedia of Communication (pp. 2305-2309). Blackwell Publishing.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins & J. M. Wiemann & S. Pingree (Eds.), //Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal process// (pp. 110-134). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Rafaeli, S. (1990). Interacting with media: Para-social interaction and real interaction. In B. D. Ruben & L. A. Lievrouw (Eds.), //Mediation, information and communication: Information and behavior// (Vol. 3, pp. 125-181). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2(4), Available: http://www.usc.edu/dept/annenberg/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Rampton, B. (2006). //Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban school.// Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Schumacker, R. E. (2002). Latent variable interaction modeling. //Structural Equation Modeling//, 9, 40-54.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Schiffirin, D. (1994). //Approaches to discourse.// Oxford, England: Blackwell.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed). (2000). //Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures.// London, England: Continuum.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Turner, L. H., & West, R. (2010). “Communication Accomodation Theory”. //Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application// (4th ed.). New York: NY: McGraw-Hill.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. //The American Journal of Distance Education, 8//(2), 6-29.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. In T. E. Cyrs (Ed.),//Teaching and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver, and evaluate programs//. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.