IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/meanco/v8y2020i1p218-231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Remains in Mind? Effectiveness and Efficiency of Explainers at Conveying Information

Author

Listed:
  • Pascal Schneiders

    (Department of Communication, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Germany)

Abstract

Whether and to what extent mass media contribute to the acquisition of knowledge depends fundamentally on the senses addressed by a particular medium. However, there is a lack of current research investigating the effectiveness and efficiency of (new) media, like scrollytelling and explainer videos, at conveying information, compared to established formats like text and audio. To fill this research gap, I conducted an experimental online survey (N = 381) with medium as the independent variable (explainer text vs. audio vs. video vs. scrollytelling) and the recall of information as the dependent variable. The subjects were presented with a popular scientific presentation on the environmental consequences of meat consumption in order to examine a socially relevant, controversial topic and to explore the possible consequences of dissonance on recalling information. As the present study demonstrates, the traditionally lower reputation of moving images in regard to the effectiveness of information transfer is not always justified. Rather, the results show that scrollytelling and video lead to a significantly more extensive recall than audio and in part text media. However, when considering exposure time, text turns out to be the most efficient medium. The dissonance perceived by the participants did not have any significant influence on their recall of information.

Suggested Citation

  • Pascal Schneiders, 2020. "What Remains in Mind? Effectiveness and Efficiency of Explainers at Conveying Information," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 218-231.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:8:y:2020:i:1:p:218-231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/2507
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Monika Taddicken & Laura Wolff, 2020. "‘Fake News’ in Science Communication: Emotions and Strategies of Coping with Dissonance Online," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 206-217.
    2. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Monika Taddicken & Anne Reif, 2020. "Between Evidence and Emotions: Emotional Appeals in Science Communication," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 101-106.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    2. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    3. Ronja Sczepanski, 2023. "European by action: How voting reshapes nested identities," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(4), pages 751-770, December.
    4. Tomi Rajala, 2019. "Mind the Information Expectation Gap," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(1), pages 104-125, March.
    5. Jensen, Carsten & Naumann, Elias, 2016. "Increasing pressures and support for public healthcare in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(6), pages 698-705.
    6. Byungdoo Kim & David L. Kay & Jonathon P. Schuldt, 2021. "Will I have to move because of climate change? Perceived likelihood of weather- or climate-related relocation among the US public," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-8, March.
    7. Caroline Le Pennec & Vincent Pons, 2019. "How Do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multi-Country Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates," NBER Working Papers 26572, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Ahlquist, John S. & Ichino, Nahomi & Wittenberg, Jason & Ziblatt, Daniel, 2018. "How do voters perceive changes to the rules of the game? Evidence from the 2014 Hungarian elections," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 906-919.
    9. David L. Dickinson, 2020. "Deliberation enhances the confirmation bias. An examination of politics and religion," Working Papers 20-06, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    10. Rui Gaspar & Sílvia Luís & Beate Seibt & Maria Luísa Lima & Afrodita Marcu & Pieter Rutsaert & Dave Fletcher & Wim Verbeke & Julie Barnett, 2016. "Consumers’ avoidance of information on red meat risks: information exposure effects on attitudes and perceived knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 533-549, April.
    11. Gravelle, Timothy B. & Lachapelle, Erick, 2015. "Politics, proximity and the pipeline: Mapping public attitudes toward Keystone XL," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-108.
    12. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2016. "Public Awareness of the Scientific Consensus on Climate," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(4), pages 21582440166, November.
    13. Buser, Thomas, 2024. "Adversarial Economic Preferences Predict Right-Wing Voting," IZA Discussion Papers 16711, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Rogers, Todd & Nickerson, David W., 2013. "Can Inaccurate Beliefs about Incumbents be Changed? And Can Reframing Change Votes?," Working Paper Series rwp13-018, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    15. Gabriel Miao Li & Josh Pasek & Jon A. Krosnick & Tobias H. Stark & Jennifer Agiesta & Gaurav Sood & Trevor Tompson & Wendy Gross, 2022. "Americans’ Attitudes toward the Affordable Care Act: What Role Do Beliefs Play?," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 41-54, March.
    16. Jacob B. Rode & Peter H. Ditto, 2020. "Comparing the effects of a news article’s message and source on fracking attitudes in an experimental study," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(3), pages 255-269, September.
    17. Michael Thaler, 2020. "Good News Is Not a Sufficient Condition for Motivated Reasoning," Papers 2012.01548, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    18. Bertoli, Paola & Grembi, Veronica & Morelli, Massimo & Rosso, Anna Cecilia, 2023. "In medio stat virtus? Effective communication and preferences for redistribution in hard times," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 105-147.
    19. Ben M. Tappin & Adam J. Berinsky & David G. Rand, 2023. "Partisans’ receptivity to persuasive messaging is undiminished by countervailing party leader cues," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(4), pages 568-582, April.
    20. Javdani, Moshen & Chang, Ha-Joon, 2019. "Who Said or What Said? Estimating Ideological Bias in Views Among Economists," MPRA Paper 91958, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:8:y:2020:i:1:p:218-231. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.