Recall and learning from broadcast news: Is print better?

Stauffer, John; Frost, Richard; Rybolt, William

doi:10.1080/08838158109386449

Cited by 45 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furnham et al studies show audio-only superiority over audiovisual. To the extent that they show it in some cases, the results are not confirmed by other studies (Findahl, 1971;Stauffer et al, 1981;Renckstorf, 1977). Certain procedural, but more likely stimulus difference are likely to account for these contradictions.…”

contrasting

confidence: 51%

“…Other work has failed to yield consistent audio-only superiority over audiovisual presentation (Findahl, 1971 ;Furnham, Benson and Gunter, 1987;Furnham, Proctor and Gunter, 1988;Gunter, 1979Gunter, , 1980Gunter, Furnham and Gietson, 1984a). Some researchers have also failed to find print superiority over audiovisual presentation (Stauffer, Frost and Rybolt, 1981). Where inter-modality differences have emerged various explanations have been put forward to account for them.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Remembering science: The recall of factual information as a function of the presentation mode

Furnham

Gunter

Green

1990

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies are reported on the recall of 'scientific' factual material as a function of the medium or channel of communication through which it was presented. Programmatic research by authors of this paper using widely different stimulus materials on different subject samples has indicated that, compared to information received through audiovisual or audio-only channels, stimulus 'material received through print is best remembered. In the first study subjects either saw part of an actual television science programme in the audiovisual medium, heard it in the audio-only medium or read a transcript in the print medium. As predicted, subjects who read the transcript remembered most details in both cued and free recall. In the second study a 'talking-head' video was made of the reading of a comparatively easy and difficult scientific extract of comparable length. Subjects randomly assigned to one of six groups either saw audiovisually, heard in audio-only, or read the print extract of either extract, and were then tested on free and cued recall. Again, material that was read was recalled best, though there were also a number of interesting medium by content interactions. These results are discussed in terms of the literature on the comprehension and recall of factual material.

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 51%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remembering science: The recall of factual information as a function of the presentation mode

Furnham

Gunter

Green

1990

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The self-pacing and rearrangement properties of the print modality may explain the learning superiority of complex material presented in print, and they may also explain why this superiority is not apparent for simple material (Chaiken & Eagly, 1976), because simple information can presumably be assimilated easily without repetition or rearrangement. This explanation may also account for the apparently contradictory findings of Williams, Paul, and Ogilvie (1957), Stauffer, Frost, and Rybolt (1981), Wogalter and Young (1991), and Ogloff and Vidmar (1994), because the messages used in those studies appear to have been relatively simple and easy to assimilate.…”

mentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Several decades ago Williams, Paul, and Ogilvie (1957) reported significantly better recall for abstract material presented via video than audio, and via audio than print. More recently Stauffer, Frost, and Rybolt (1981) failed to find any superiority of print over video in the recall of news stories, although they did find that both print and video presentation led to significantly better recall than audio. In a later study, Wogalter and Young (1991) reported two laboratory experiments and a field experiment in all of which safety warnings were more effective in achieving compliance when delivered in the audio than the print modality, with audio plus print most effective of all.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Modality of Communication and Recall of Health-related Information

Corston

Colman

1997

J Health Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A health warning was presented to 89 female and 19 male students aged 17-36 years via three modalities or channels of communication: a "talking head" (video), an audiotape recording (audio), or a printed transcript (print). The verbal content of the message was identical in all three conditions. Participants' free recall, cued recall (recognition), and global recall of the message was then measured. On two separate dependent measures and a combined measure, recall was significantly (p < .005) better in both the audio and print conditions than in the video condition. No significant differences in recall were found between the audio and print conditions. These results, and those of earlier studies of modality effects on recall of information, are discussed in terms of self-pacing and distraction theories.

show abstract

“…Other studies also found that print was a better predictor of detailed political and current affairs knowledge (Chaffee & Frank, 1996;Culbertson & Stempel, 1986). Meanwhile, these claims of ‛print superiority' were challenged by other scholars who reported no modality differences (Stauffer, Frost, & Rybolt, 1981) or that television was a more effective medium for information processing compared to print (Heim, Asting, & Schliemann 2002;Just & Crigler, 1989;Kozma, 1994). Norris and Sanders (2003) conducted a study on the effects of communication modalities on campaign issue knowledge and found no significant differences between different media, although there was a significant difference in knowledge of the experimental groups compared to the control group that was not exposed to any political content.…”

Section: Experimental Researchmentioning

confidence: 86%

Podcasting and Politics in Singapore: An Experimental Study of Medium Effects

Škorić¹,

Sim²,

Juan³

et al. 2009

J. Contemp. East. Asia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A ban on political podcasting during the General Elections 2006 in Singapore was justified by the Singaporean government on the grounds that the new medium had a greater power to influence voters than traditional modes of political discourse.A between-subjects controlled experiment was conducted to test whether podcasts of political speeches had a greater power to influence voters' evaluations of political candidates and likelihood of voting for them than online text-based transcripts of the same speeches. The study also examined whether mere exposure to political speeches online, irrespective of the modality, had an effect on voters' more general political preferences, i.e. the likelihood of support and voting for the opposition. The findings suggest that political podcasts were no more persuasive than text-based websites and that the effects on political preferences, if any, were likely due the exposure to political content online, not because of the nature of the medium. The implications of the findings are discussed.

show abstract

Recall and learning from broadcast news: Is print better?

Cited by 45 publications

References 13 publications

Remembering science: The recall of factual information as a function of the presentation mode

Remembering science: The recall of factual information as a function of the presentation mode

Modality of Communication and Recall of Health-related Information

Podcasting and Politics in Singapore: An Experimental Study of Medium Effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About