The medium can influence the message: Print-based versus digital reading influences how people process different types of written information.
attitude change
information processing
matching effects
reading
Journal
British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953)
ISSN: 2044-8295
Titre abrégé: Br J Psychol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0373124
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
11
01
2019
revised:
18
06
2019
pubmed:
13
7
2019
medline:
29
12
2020
entrez:
13
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
While electronic reading devices are extremely popular, research is equivocal regarding their benefits for outcomes such as reader comprehension. Integrating literatures on reading medium comparisons and matching effects in persuasion, this research tested whether comprehension is maximized when the content of the material (e.g., whether it is traditional vs. modern) matches the medium (e.g., reading from a traditional book vs. digital e-reader). In Study 1, participants read a traditional- or modern-themed short story from either a book or an e-reader. Story comprehension was greater when participants read from the printed medium compared to the e-reader, an effect that was marginally moderated by story content, consistent with a matching effect. In Study 2, participants read a persuasive message that emphasized either a traditional versus modern solution to improving health in either a magazine format or on an iPad. Message comprehension was marginally greater among participants who read their message in a printed format. Participants' interest in weight loss showed evidence of a matching effect - participants were more interested in losing weight when a modern solution to obesity article was presented on an iPad compared to a printed format. The results are applied to the study of reading and attitude change.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
443-459Informations de copyright
© 2019 The British Psychological Society.
Références
Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 18-32. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022086
Behler, A. (2009). E-readers in action. American Libraries, 40, 56-59.
Bradbury, R. (1951/2008). The illustrated man. London, UK: Harper Voyager.
Chekhov, A. (1887/2000). Selected stories of Anton Chekhov. New York, NY: Modern Library.
Dal Cin, S., Gibson, B., Zanna, M. P., Shumate, R., & Fong, G. T. (2007). Smoking in movies, implicit associations of smoking with the self, and intentions to smoke. Psychological Science, 18, 559-563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01939
Dal Cin, S., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2004). Narrative persuasion and overcoming resistance. In E. Knowles & J. Linn (Eds.), Resistance to persuasion (pp. 175-191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003
Gable, T., & Thompson, C. (2011). Electronic readers might be viable education tools. iPad News Daily. Retrieved from: http://www.iPadnewsdaily.com/electronic-readers-might-beviable-education-tools-study-shows-1348/.
Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds: On the psychological activities of reading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Green, M. C. (2006). Narratives and cancer communication. Journal of Communication, 56, S163-S183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00288.x
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701-721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2005). Persuasiveness of narratives. In T. C. Brock & M. C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (2nd ed.) (pp. 117-142). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701
Green, M. C., & Clark, J. M. (2013). Transportation into narrative worlds: Implications for entertainment media influences on tobacco use. Addiction, 108, 477-484. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.04088.x
Haddock, G., & Maio, G. R. (2019). Inter-object and inter-individual differences in attitude content: Cognition, affect, and attitudes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 59, 53-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2018.10.002
Haddock, G., Maio, G. R., Arnold, K., & Huskinson, T. L. (2008). Should persuasion be affective or cognitive? The moderating effects of need for affect and need for cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 769-777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208314871
Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kreuter, M. W., Green, M. C., Cappella, J. N., Slater, M. D., Wise, M. E., Storey, D., Clark, E. M., O'Keefe, D. J., Erwin, D. O., Holmes, K., Hinyard, L. J., Houston, T., & Woolley, S. (2007). Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: A framework to guide research and application. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 33, 221-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02879904
Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2010). Investigating gender differences in reading. Educational Review, 62, 175-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911003637006
Maio, G. R., Haddock, G., & Verplanken, B. (2018). The psychology of attitudes and attitude change (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Mangen, A., & Kuiken, D. (2014). Lost in an iPad: Narrative engagement on paper and tablet. Scientific Study of Literature, 4, 150-177. https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.4.2.02man
Mangen, A., Olivier, G., & Velay, J. L. (2019). Comparing comprehension of a long text read in print book and on Kindle: Where in the text and when in the story? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 38. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00038
Mangen, A., & van der Weel, A. (2016). The evolution of reading in the age of digitisation: An integrative framework for reading research. Literacy, 50, 116-124. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12086
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 51, 61-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002
Mayer, N. D., & Tormala, Z. L. (2010). “Think” versus “feel” framing effects in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 443-454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210362981
Mazzocco, P. M., Green, M. C., Sasota, J. A., & Jones, N. W. (2010). This story is not for everyone: Transportability and narrative persuasion. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 1, 361-368. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610376600
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
McQueen, A., Kreuter, M. W., Kalesan, B., & Alcaraz, K. (2011). Understanding narrative effects: The impact of breast cancer survivor stories on message processing: Attitudes and beliefs in African American women. Health Psychology, 30, 674-682. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025395
Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D. (1995). Aspects of literary response: A new questionnaire. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 37-58.
Noyes, J. M., & Garland, K. J. (2003). VDT versus paper-based reading: Reply to Mayes, Sims, and Koonce. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 31, 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(03)00027-1
Ross, B., Pechenkina, E., Aeschliman, C., & Chase, A.-M. (2017). Print vs. digital texts: Understanding the research and challenging the dichotomies. Research in Learning Technology, 25, 1976. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1976
Rothman, A. J., Bartels, R. D., Wlaschin, J., & Salovey, P. (2006). The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 56, s202-s220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00290.x
Sackstein, S., Spark, L., & Jenkins, A. (2015). Are e-books effective tools for learning? Reading speed and comprehension: iPad versus paper. South African Journal of Education, 35, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.15700/201409161038
Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Reading on paper and digitally: What the past decades of empirical research reveal. Review of Educational Research, 87, 1007-1041. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317722961
Thompson, R., & Haddock, G. (2012). Sometimes stories sell: When are narrative appeals most likely to work? European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 92-102. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.850
Wästlund, E., Reinikka, H., Norlander, T., & Archer, T. (2005). Effects of VDT and paper presentation on consumption and production of information: Psychological and physiological factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 377-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.007
Woody, W. D., Daniel, D. B., & Baker, C. A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computer and Education, 55, 945-948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.005