Physiological and Perceived Processing and Recall of Information from Social Media Scrolling Feeds

Full text

0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Accuracy
Presentation
Type
pdf
scroll
Physiological and Perceived Processing and Recall of
Information From Social Media Scrolling Feeds
Zoe Loh, Helia Hosseinpour, Lace Padilla, PhD & Spencer C. Castro, PhD
Background
As the popularity of social media has dramatically
increased, it is crucial to understand how individuals process
the information from these social media scrolling
information feeds [1]. Most scrolling feed media tend to
summarize and chunk information into discrete units. In
memory, this approach can improve recall performance by
expanding the amount of information in each item within
the limited capacity of working memory [2]. The present
study assesses how the format (of a scrolling feed compared
to traditional page-based forms of information) impacts how
people process and remember information.
Method
Task: Participants read excerpts from two sections of
the IPCC Climate Change Report Summary, one in PDF
and one in scrolling feed format
Recall Measure: Multiple choice test on report content
Perceived Processing Effort Measure: NASA Task Load
Index
Results
Contact: zloh@ucmerced.edu
Part 1: Calibrating Recall Questions (n =49)
•Mean = 0.63, SD = 0.19
•Aiming for about 75% for overall scores
•Creates a baseline for later parts
Discussion
Acknowledgements
References: 1. Perrin, A. (2015). Social Media Usage: 2005-2015. Pew Research Center, 12. 2. Thalmann, M., Souza, A. S., & Oberauer, K.
(2019). How does chunking help working memory?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(1), 37.
Thank you to Dr. Spencer Castro, Dr. Lace
Padilla, the TECH lab, and the SPACE lab for
your support.
Future Steps
•Accounting for words per line and text size
•Add pupillometry as a physiological measure
of workload
Part 2: PDF vs. Scrolling Feed (n = 100)
Effort
Frustration
Mental
Performance
Physical
Temporal
0 5 10 15 20
Rating (1−21)
Task Load Index Sub−Categories
Presentation
Type
pdf
scroll
Perceived Effort for PDF and Scrolling Feed Formats
•Higher recall accuracy for scrolling feed compared
to PDF (b = 0.22, SE = 0.10, z = 2.28, p< .05)
•Lower perceived effort for scrolling feed compared
to PDF (b = -0.77, SE = 0.22, t = -3.60, p < .001),
significant for Mental, Effort, and Frustration
Accuracy for PDF and Scrolling Feed Formats
*
•Better recall for information presented in
the scrolling feed compared to the PDF
•Suggests that scrolling feeds provide
advantage through chunking
•Lower perceived effort for processing
information presented in scrolling feed
compared to PDF
***
**
**