Comparisons of Physical and Digital Media's Effect on Recall: Physiological and Subjective Measures

Abstract

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. The cognitive fit theory suggests that the perceived fit between the technology (medium) and task influences performance. Therefore, we predict that a social media feed presented in a digital medium will result in better performance than when it is presented on printed paper. The present study assesses the impact of different visual formats and media on information processing and recall.

Full text

Comparisons of Physical and Digital Media’s Effect on
Recall: Physiological and Subjective Measures
Zoe Loh1, Helia Hosseinpour1, Lace Padilla2 & Spencer C. Castro1
University of California, Merced1, Northeastern University2
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]. The cognitive fit theory [2] suggests that the
perceived fit between the technology (medium) and task
influences performance. Therefore, we predict that a social
media feed presented in a digital medium will result in better
performance than when it is presented on printed paper. The
present study assesses the impact of different visual formats
and media on information processing and recall.
Method
Exp. 1: Participants (n = 72, 56 female, 14 male, 2 nonbinary/
third gender, mean age = 21 yrs , SD = 4.28) read excerpts from
two sections of the IPCC Climate Change Report Summary, one
in PDF and one in scrolling feed format on a computer screen
Exp. 2: Participants (n = 72, 53 female, 17 male, 2 non-binary/
third gender, mean age = 21 yrs, SD = 2.08) performed the
same task, but on printed paper
Recall Measure: Multiple choice
test on report content
Perceived Processing Workload
Measure: NASA Task Load Index
Physiological Workload Measure:
Pupil size
Results
Contact: zloh@ucmerced.edu
Discussion
Acknowledgements
References: 1. Perrin, A. (2015). Social Media Usage: 2005-2015. Pew Research Center, 12. 2. Vessey, I., & Galletta, D. (1991).
Cognitive Fit: An Empirical Study of Information Acquisition. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 63–84.
.
Thank you to my collaborators Dr. Spencer Castro, Dr. Lace
Padilla, Helia Hosseinpour and RAs Xavier Canas, Kaylee Davis,
Eileen Blanchard, Hana Ruiz, and Eva Devanathan.
•Lower perceived workload for information
presented as scrolling feed and when it is presented
on physical paper
•Similar performance and physiological workload
between the two formats or two media
•Disconnect between preference and actual benefit
Accuracy by Medium and Format Perceived Workload by Medium and Format
We could not conclude a difference in
recall accuracy between the two media
(b = 0.14, SE = 0.10, z = 1.32, p = .19) or
the two formats (b = 0.03, SE = 0.08, z =
0.43, p = .67)
Pupil Size by Medium and Format
Similar pupil size during test phase for
the two formats (b = 6.55, SE = 3.57, t =
1.83, p = .07 ) and the two media (b =
44.89, SE = 28.17, t = 1.59, p = .11)
Abstract No. 2100
Digital
Physical
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Accuracy
Presentation
Type
PDF
Scrolling
n.s
n.s
Lower perceived effort for the physical medium
compared to the digital medium (b = -1.08, SE = 0.45, t
= -2.39, p < .05) and for the scrolling feed compared to
the PDF (b = -1.35, SE = 0.20, t = -6.91, p < .001)