winter project5

8/7/2019 Winter Project5

1/23

Perceptions and Recall of Advertising ContentPresented on Mobile Handheld Devices

Suzanne Altobello NascoSouthern Illinois University

Gordon C. Bruner IISouthern Illinois University

Table of Contents

Abstract Introduction Background

o Modality Effects Relevant to Mobile Advertisingo Cognitive Load Theory and Mobile Advertisingo Predicting Behavioral Intentions toward Mobile Devices for Commercial

Content Method

o Participantso Design and Contento Procedureo Dependent Variables

Resultso Demographicso Reliability of Scaleso Perceptions of the Commercial Contento Recall of Commercial Content and Perceptions of the Mobile Deviceo Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions toward using a Mobile Device to

Obtain Commercial Content Discussion Limitations and Future Directions References Appendix 1: Perceptions of Commercial Content and Mobile Device Appendix 2: Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions

Abstract

With the advancements in mobile phone technology and the increase in consumer useof wireless devices to access the internet, there is a need to explore the inevitable effectof these factors on mobile advertising. In this project, we presented commercial contenton wireless devices, designed to represent various modality combinations (text, audio,and pictures) to test hypotheses based on cognitive load theory. Results showed thatmodality significantly affected subjects perceptions toward and recall of the commercial


2/23

content. However, modality did not affect perceptions of the mobile device itself, orinfluence behavioral intentions and attitudes toward mobile advertising on wirelessdevices. Behavioral intentions to use mobile devices were significantly predicted byconsumer perceptions of content and of the device. Marketers can use these results todesign more effective ads to be presented on mobile devices.

Introduction

The nearly universal presence of mobile phones has affected many facets of our dailylives. The rise of this third screen (relative to television screens and computer screens,e.g., Cuneo 2005) presents opportunities and challenges for advertisers seeking toutilize the mobile medium to reach consumers. The knee-jerk reaction might be todeliver the same content as has been used with the older screens, but this wouldprobably be a mistake (Donaton 2006). What is the best form to use when designingadvertising content to appear on wireless devices and what is the effect of thesedifferent presentation formats on consumers perceptions of the commercial content and

perceptions of the device itself? What predicts behavioral intentions toward usingmobile devices to obtain commercial content?

In addition to these practical questions that marketers seek answers to are somefundamental psychological questions as well. Namely, how much information presentedon wireless devices can individuals effectively process? The ubiquity of wireless devicesleads individuals to multi-task across environments, thus, the constraints of workingmemory are likely to play a strong role in information processing of content presentedon wireless devices. The theory of cognitive load could lend insight into the best way topresent information to consumers, as this theory examines the effect of limitations ofhuman working memory capacity on ones ability to process information (Sweller 1988).

These practical and theoretical questions are examined in this study by presentingcommercial content to consumers on a wireless device in a variety of presentationformats. We combined current technological capabilities of handheld devices with thetheoretical concept of cognitive load in order to establish the foundation for ourpresentational design and research hypotheses. Findings from our study can be usedby marketers to understand the best combination of presentation formats to createmobile ads that would enhance comprehension of the commercial message andimprove attitudes toward mobile content and mobile devices.

Background

Computer-based multimedia environments consisting of pictures (animation) and words(textual or audio-presented narration) offer a potentially powerful venue for improvingconsumer experiences. All multimedia messages deliver information to the user, butthey are not equally successful in promoting understanding. Even though web pagescan display text, audio, graphics and animation with little difficulty, the challenge is todesign multimedia messages that promote learning (retention of information and recall),


3/23

while simultaneously appealing to the individuals preferences and not over-taxing theindividuals cognitive capacity.

These are practical issues to address because marketers wanting to utilize the thirdscreen must make decisions about how to present the ads to consumers. With regard

to the format for audio and video, several alternatives exist. Additionally, practitionerswould typically want people to attend to their messages and process them properly. It isreasonable to ask if consumers have a preference for the modality in which advertisingcontent is received on a mobile device. Beyond preference, it is reasonable to ask aboutcontrasting effects of the different formats on consumers product-related attitudes andintentions.

Modality Effects Relevant to Mobile Advertising

The internet, in general, and the ability to connect to the internet via wireless handhelddevices offer consumers a unique combination of traditional communication modalities,

such as TV, print, and radio. Current mobile technology can allow marketers to presentmobile advertising information via an auditory channel (e.g., someone calling a mobilephone and speaking directly to the consumer), a text channel (e.g., using SMStechnology to send a short message to the consumer on their wireless device), or othervisual channels that incorporate multimedia (e.g., sending a picture or video directly tothe consumer on their wireless device). Moreover, the interactive nature of wirelessdevices allows consumers to customize these information modalities depending onpersonal preference and device capabilities (Lewis 1996).

Past research on modality has mostly focused on traditional media formats. Differenttypes of media (through various modality combinations) have been shown todifferentially affect attention, vividness, comprehension, and decision-making. Seminalresearch by Chaiken and Eagly (1976) found that comprehension of an easy messagedid not differ as a function of whether the message was presented in written, auditory,or video form, however, comprehension of a difficult message was best in written form.Jacoby, Hoyer, and Zimmer (1983) found similar results: print messages were bettercomprehended than television or audio messages. Conversely, research by Liu andStout (1987) found that pictures and words, or pictures alone, were more effective thanwords alone in enhancing message recall and inducing positive thoughts and attitudes.Few researchers have examined these implications in a mobile advertising environmentin particular, so predictions regarding directionality of various modalities on attitudesremain speculative. However, extending this research into the mobile environment, wehypothesize that favorable attitudes toward the content presented on the mobile deviceshould be highest when multiple modalities are used to present the message (e.g.,pictures and text, pictures and audio).

H1: Mobile advertising content presented in multiple formats (text withpictures, audio with pictures) will result in higher consumer involvement inand higher perceived importance of the ad content than mobile advertisingcontent presented in single formats (text only, audio only).


4/23

In addition to the number of modalities possible in an interactive environment,technology capabilities also allow marketers to present visual information in a dynamicor static form. On the internet or mobile devices, this distinction translates into the abilityto present pictures one at a time or to present pictures in video form. Past research by

Singer (1980) found that the movement in televisions audio-visual messages createsvisual variation and, hence, increases attention to the moving images. Therefore, in aninteractive environment, we may find that consumers are more involved in content thatis presented dynamically.

H2: Mobile advertising content presented dynamically will result inincreased involvement than mobile advertising content presentedstatically.

In a multimedia environment, we may find that modalities interact to influenceperceptions of the content. Although no published research speaks to this issue in a

mobile advertising context, we specifically designed our study to examine the interactiveeffects of text, audio, and pictures (static vs. dynamic) on consumer perceptions.

Recall is also important to marketers, as consumers should recall advertising content atthe point of purchase when making the decision to purchase a product. Past researchhas shown that textual information is better recalled than auditory information due to theenhanced ability to rehearse a text message (i.e., re-read) than an auditory one. Forexample, Sewell and Moore (1980) found that recall of a list of words was better whenpresented in text form than in audio form. Therefore, extending this research into thepresent project, we hypothesize that consumers recall of the information presented in amobile ad should be highest in the print conditions.

H3: Mobile advertising content presented in text format will result in betterrecall than mobile advertising content presented in auditory formats.

Cognitive Load Theory and Mobile Advertising

Other research that pertains to advertising on mobile devices concerns consumermemory capacity, rather than consumer preference or attention. Human memory iscomposed of two parts: long-term memory and short-term (or working) memory. Longterm memory is conceptualized as a permanent repository for knowledge and skillsacquired via learning; working memory is used to organize incoming stimuli for furtherinformation processing, acting like a filter for long-term memory storage. Long-termmemory has potentially unlimited storage capacity, while working memory is limited inits processing capacity, capable of holding only about seven information elements atany one time (Miller 1956). Due to this limited capacity, all mental activities impose acognitive load on the individual. Cognitive load theory (Sweller 1988; Sweller, VanMerrinboer, and Paas 1998) addresses the limitations of working memory, in terms ofboth capacity to store and ability to process incoming information, and it providesguidelines for minimizing working memory overload. Initially, working memory was


5/23

considered a unitary construct, but modern conceptualizations divide working memoryinto a visual-spatial scratch pad to hold and process visual information and aphonological loop to hold and process auditory information (Baddeley 1992).

Related to the visual field specifically, cognitive load research has found that if two

messages presented simultaneously as pictorial and textual information are redundant(meaning either can be understood in isolation), presenting individuals with only onevisual message is superior to presenting two redundant visual messages. For example,if individuals are trying to learn about how to use a product, they could be presentedwith a diagram or could read the instructions in text format. If the text merely translatesthe diagram into words, research by Chandler and Sweller (1991) found that subjectspresented with both the diagram and the text performed worse on subsequent tasksthan subjects who only viewed the diagram. Extending this idea to mobile advertisingsuggests that an advertisement presented on mobile device with both pictures and textthat describes the pictures should be less effective than a mobile ad presented as justtext.

H4: Mobile advertising content presented as two visual pieces ofredundant information (e.g., pictures with text) will result in more negativeperceptions and lower recall than mobile advertising content presented asone visual source (e.g., text).

Because visual and auditory working memory processors are separate, effectiveworking memory may be increased by using both processors rather than either memorystream alone (Paivio 1986; Penney 1989). Research based on this dual processor ideahas shown that people are better able to understand and process two messages if theyare communicated via different modes (e.g., reading one message while listening toanother) than if two messages are presented in the same modality at the same time(e.g., listening to both messages or reading both messages) (Allport, Antonis, andReynolds 1972; Frick 1984).

Although the dual processor effect is specific to learning two separate messages, wemay be able to extend such thinking to a multimedia context. A mobile advertisementhas the ability to be presented via one mode (e.g., an ad presented through SMS textmessaging or an ad presented as an auditory recording) or via two modes (e.g., an adpresented through visual and auditory channels, such as pictures with a sound file). Ifthe dual processor effect extends to mobile advertising, then ads that utilize dual modeswill be more effective than those that utilize a single mode.

H5: Mobile advertising content presented across dual modes (e.g., avisual plus an auditory mode) will result in higher involvement, higherperceptions of importance and better recall of ad content than mobileadvertising content presented across a single mode (e.g., visual only orauditory only).


6/23

Care must be taken by marketers, however, when utilizing dual modes. This isespecially true if the modes are competing, rather than complementary. When wordsare presented on-screen in text format they must be processed through the visualsystem; any animation or pictures that are on-screen at the same time as the text mustalso be processed visually. In this situation, the text is competing with the animation for

visual attention, causing a split attention effect. However, when words are presented asnarration, they are processed in the auditory channel, thus freeing visual capacity thatcan be devoted to processing the animation more deeply and resulting incomplementary modalities. Consequently, past research has found that learnersprocessing pictures with narration (audio) displayed better performance on subsequenttransfer tasks than learners processing pictures with text (Mayer and Moreno 2002;Mousavi, Low, and Sweller 1995). Hypothesis 6 extends this work in complementaryversus competing processing modes to the domain of mobile advertising.

H6: Mobile advertising content presented in two complementary modes(e.g., pictures with audio) will result in higher involvement, higher

perceptions of importance and better recall of ad content than mobileadvertising content presented in competing modes (e.g., pictures withtext).

Predicting Behavioral Intentions toward Mobile Devices for Commercial Content

Even though the evidence shows that redundancy and split attention increase cognitiveload and reduce task performance, the research on cognitive load theory does notaddress a persons preference fororperceptions ofredundant information. In amultimedia context, it is possible that consumers have come to expect more dynamicmedia for entertainment value. Therefore, if a mobile phone can present video withaudio, consumers may actually prefer redundant information rather than simply readingan SMS message presenting a mobile ad. Thus, behavioral intentions to use a wirelessdevice to obtain commercial content should be higher for dynamic ads than static ads.In addition, recent research has found that including affective measures with cognitivemeasures provide much better prediction of intentions to use a wireless device thanusing cognitive factors alone (Bruner and Kumar 2005; Kulviwat et al. 2007).

H7: Mobile advertising content presented dynamically will result in higherbehavioral intentions to use a mobile device than mobile advertisingcontent presented statically.

H8: Cognitive and affective reactions to using a mobile device to obtainadvertising content should significantly predict behavioral intentions to usea mobile device, over the effect of cognition alone on behavioralintentions.

Method

Participants


7/23

Participants were 116 college students recruited from an introductory marketing courseat a large public university in the midwestern United States. Participants received extracredit toward their course grade in exchange for participation.

Design and Content

All participants viewed one of six different presentations of an advertisement on amobile device. To address the aforementioned hypotheses, we employed a 3 by 2between-subjects design. The first factor was related to what participants saw on themobile device screen and consisted of three levels: no pictures, multiple static pictures(i.e., photos presented in slide show mode), or streaming pictures (i.e., video). To createthe levels for this factor, we downloaded a 30-second car commercial from asubscription-based advertising website (available from the first author upon request).From that primary video, we captured 10 still pictures from the video for the "staticpictures" condition. In the "no picture condition", the mobile device screen was black

and in the "static pictures" condition, the 10 still pictures from the commercial appearedsequentially for 3 seconds each in the center of the screen (simulating a slideshow). Inthe "streaming pictures" condition, the full commercial video appeared in the center ofthe screen. In the latter two conditions, Microsoft Media Player was used to present thecommercial content.

The second factor consisted of two levels and related to whether the participants heardaudio to accompany what they saw (factor 1) or whether they read text that appearedon the screen. For the "audio only" condition, we stripped the 30-second audio trackfrom the original video, saved it as a .wav file, and presented it to participants on thehandheld device using Microsoft Media Player. For the "text only" condition, wetranscribed the audio and presented the script in the center of the mobile device screen(black letters on a white background). When text was presented, along with pictures(either static slideshow or streaming video), the text appeared on the bottom of themobile device screen, simulating a closed-captioning type of screen. Thus,participants were randomly assigned to and experienced one of the following sixconditions: read the text script of the commercial with no pictures (n = 21), heard theaudio track only of the commercial with no pictures (n = 18), read text of the commercialwhile viewing the 10 still pictures presented sequentially (n = 20), heard audio whileviewing the 10 still pictures presented sequentially (n = 19), viewed the text of thecommercial script while viewing the video (n = 20), or viewed the original commercialvideo (heard audio with video, n = 18).

Because these conditions were created specifically for this study to test hypothesesrelated to modality, all audio, text, and picture files had to be saved to a memory cardand loaded onto a mobile device. At the time the data were collected, cell phones thatcould show streaming video content from an external memory card were not available.Therefore, instead of using a mobile phone as the handheld device, we used a ToshibaPocket PDA (model e740) with an external memory card slot that had a similar screensize (2.25 inches by 3 inches), weight (6 ounces), and visual appearance to prototype


8/23

models being developed by cellular phone companies at the time this study wasdesigned (see Figure 1 for photo of device). Respondents participated in the study inexperimental sessions of two to seven people; all participants in a session were in thesame condition to simplify instructions regarding how to use the mobile device.

FIGURE 1.Toshiba Pocket PDA (Model e740) used in Research

Procedure

Participants signed up for a one hour experimental session as part of a larger studyexploring the effects of content presentation using various modalities on mobile devices.Upon entering a small conference room, each participant was given a folder consistingof survey materials and a PDA. The experimenter then held up a PDA anddemonstrated how to use it. Headphones were provided with each PDA in the audioconditions and the experimenter demonstrated how to use the stylus to play a sample10-second Windows Media Player system file. Each participant was encouraged to playthe sample file several times, if necessary, to properly adjust the volume of his/herheadset using the stylus.

Once the demonstration was over, the experimenter fielded any questions concerningoperation of the device before proceeding. Participants were then instructed to use thestylus to click on the "begin" button on the mobile device screen to view the commercialcontent. Participants could only view the commercial one time on the PDA. Followingthe commercial presentation, all participants completed a series of questions.

Dependent Variables

The questionnaire assessed participants reactions to the contentof the informationpresented (i.e., the commercial), as well as their reactions to the mobile deviceitself

(i.e., the PDA). Attitudes toward using the mobile device and behavioral intentions ofusing a mobile device in the future were also measured. (See Appendix 1 forquestionnaire items related to perceptions of content and device; see Appendix 2 foritems related to attitudes and behavioral intentions.)

Perceptions of Commercial Content. In assessing perceptions toward the content, wemeasured personal involvement toward and perceptions of the importance of using amobile device to advertising information. To measure involvement in receiving the


9/23

commercial content, respondents reported their agreement with four statements thatassessed their interest in and diligence in attending to the advertising information. Tomeasure importance of receiving commercial content, we modified some items fromZaichkowsky (1985) to examine the extent to which obtaining ad information on themobile device was perceived as positive by respondents. Participants rated their

agreement with nine adjectives regarding the ad content received on the mobile device.

Perceptions of the Mobile Device. To assess perceptions of the mobile device itself, weasked participants to assess their overall affective experience with the device, theperceived usefulness of the device, and their perception of overall value of such adevice. To measure overall affective experience, we asked participants to rate theirlevel of agreement with six items regarding the extent to which receiving commercialinformation of this type on the mobile device generated positive emotions. To measurecognitive reactions toward the perceived usefulness of the mobile device, we useditems suggested by Lund (1999). Our participants reported their agreement with fivestatements referring to whether the mobile device would help them be more effective.

To measure the perceived value of wireless devices, we asked participants to rate theiragreement with three statements regarding the value, relevance, and quality of wirelessdevices to obtain such content.

Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions toward the Mobile Device. To measure attitudestoward using a mobile device to obtain commercial advertising information, we usedfour items suggested by Bagozzi, Baumgartner, and Yi (1992). Participants assessedtheir attitudes on semantic differential scales anchored by the following descriptors:bad/good, negative/positive, unpleasant/pleasant, and unfavorable/ favorable. Tomeasure participants behavioral intentions to use a mobile device in the future to obtaincommercial information, we asked this item right after receiving the commercialinformation (to measure specific intentions toward mobile advertising) and at the end ofthe study to measure overall likelihood of using a mobile device in the future (tomeasure general intentions toward mobile devices).

Recall of Commercial Content. At the end of the study (after all content, device, anddemographic questions), we inserted a measure of recall regarding the commercialcontent. Respondents completed the recall phase approximately 15 minutes afterviewing/hearing the commercial. We created five questions that asked respondents toname the car manufacturer mentioned in the ad, to name the country mentioned in thead, to identify the car feature that was not mentioned in the ad, to identify the color of anitem in the ad, and to identify the single number mentioned in the ad. Responses tothese items were presented in multiple choice format, thus creating an aided recallmeasure, rather than an unaided recall measure.

Results

Demographics


10/23

The 116 participants were almost evenly distributed by gender, with 48% male (n = 56)and 51% female (n = 59), with one participant not reporting gender. The average age ofparticipants was 22.52 years (SD = 4.54). Eighty-seven percent of respondents (n =100) currently owned a mobile phone (with 65% of the sample reporting an averagemonthly cell phone bill less than $60). Only 30% of respondents (n = 35) reported

currently using their phones to receive any sort of multimedia content.

Reliability of Scales

Exploratory factor analyses were conducted for all multi-item scales used in the study.See Appendices 1 and 2 for internal consistency measures, represented by Cronbachsalpha. The items all loaded on their respective factors and the items from each of the sixscales demonstrated high internal consistency, with alphas for all six scales greaterthan .83. Therefore, for each of the six scales, a single, averaged index was createdwith higher numbers representing more positive perceptions and attitudes. Theseindexes were used as dependent variables in subsequent analyses.

Perceptions of the Commercial Content

To assess the effects of modality on consumer perceptions toward the commercialcontent, the involvement and importance indices were used as dependent variables in amultivariate analysis of variance, with pictures and audio/text as between-subjectsfactors with three and two levels, accordingly. No significant main effects emerged, butthe pictures by audio/text interaction was significant, Wilks = .898, F(4, 218) = 3.007,p< .02.

A similar pattern of means emerged for both perception indices across modality

conditions: when no pictures of the commercial were seen, perceptions of involvementin and importance of commercial content were significantly higher for the text onlycondition (Mtext only - involvement = 4.18 and Mtext only - importance = 3.79) than for the audio onlycondition (Maudio only - involvement = 3.04 and Maudio only - importance = 2.97), Wilks = .940, F(2,109) = 3.46, p< .04. However, when pictures accompanied the audio track or textconditions, the reverse occurred. For the static and streaming pictures conditions,perceptions of importance and involvement were higher in the audio conditionscompared to the text conditions, although these simple effects tests did not reachstatistical significance. See Figure 2 for graphs of both involvement and importanceindexes across conditions.

FIGURE 2.Perceptions of Involvement and Importance by Modality


11/23

textaudio

audio_text

4.20

4.00

3.80

3.60

3.40

3.20

3.00

EstimatedMarginalMeans

streaming pictures(video)

static pictures

no pictures seen

pictures

Perceptions of involvement in the advertising content by Modality

textaudio

audio_text

4.00

3.75

3.50

3.25

3.00

2.75

2.50

EstimatedMarginalMeans


static pictures

no pictures seen

pictures

Perceptions of importance of the advertising content by Modality


12/23

To specifically test Hypothesis 1, we created a contrast comparing the text only andaudio only conditions to the remaining four multiple format conditions for bothperception indexes. Neither contrast was significant (both ts < .40). To test Hypothesis2, we created a contrast comparing the two streaming pictures (video) conditions to thetwo static pictures conditions for both perception indexes. Again, neither contrast was

significant (both ts < .60).

Recall of Commercial Content and Perceptions of the Mobile Device

Hypotheses 3 through 6 relate specifically to recall (H3) and to recall and perceptions(H4, H5, and H6). To create a single recall index, we simply summed the number ofcorrect answers to the five recall questions. As this was a formative index, a measure ofinternal consistency is not relevant (Diamantopoulous and Winklhofer 2001). The valuesfor the index ranged from zero to five and, across all participants, the average numberof items correctly recalled from the commercial was 3.05 (SD = 1.37). The recall indexwas used as the dependent variable in an analysis of variance, with pictures and

audio/text as the independent factors. The pictures main effect and the pictures byaudio/text interaction were not significant, but the audio/text main effect was significant,F(1, 116) = 9.35, p< .004. The pattern of means supports Hypothesis 3: respondentshad better recall of the commercial content in the text conditions (M= 3.41, SD = .169)than for the audio conditions (M= 2.67, SD = 1.78), regardless of the picture condition.See Figure 3 for a graph of recall effects.

FIGURE 3.Recall of Commercial Content by Modality


static picturesno pictures seen

pictures

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

Est

imatedMarginalMeans

text

audio

audio_text

Number of commercial questions recalled correctly (0-5) by Modality


13/23

Hypotheses 4 (related to the effect of two visual pieces of information versus one visualpiece on recall) and 5 (related to the effect of dual modes versus single modes onrecall) were not supported (both ts < 1.4). To test Hypothesis 6, we created a contrastpairing the two text plus picture conditions against the two audio plus picture conditions,with recall as the dependent variable. The contrast was marginally significant, t(110) =

1.69, p< .1, but the means were in the opposite direction with the competing modes(text and pictures) showing higher recall (M= 3.3) than the complementary modes(audio and pictures) (M= 2.79).

Hypotheses 4 through 6 also predicted the effect of modality on perceptions of themobile device itself. Thus, we performed a MANOVA with the affective, usefulness, andvalue indices as dependent variables and the pictures and audio/text factors as theindependent variables. Perceptions of the device were not affected by the modalitypresentations of the commercial content: the audio/text main effect, the picture main

effect, and the pictures by audio/text interaction were not significant, Wilkss = .994,.966, and .914, respectively; all Fs not significant.

Since the hypotheses were generated a priori, we examined the significance of thethree contrasts across the three device perception indexes, even though the overallMANOVA was not significant. Hypothesis 4 was not supported, but Hypotheses 5 and 6were marginally significant for the value index. Specifically, advertising contentpresented across dual modes (audio plus static pictures and audio plus streamingpictures) led to higher perceptions of the value of using wireless devices to accesscommercial content, compared to single modes (visual only or audio only), t(102) =1.88, p< .065. Also, advertising content presented in complementary modes (e.g.,information presented via both visual and audio modes) led to higher perceptions of thevalue of using wireless devices to access commercial content, compared to competing

modes (e.g., two pieces of information presented visually), t(102) = 1.89, p< .062.

Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions toward using a Mobile Device to obtainCommercial Content

Participants attitudes toward the device were not significantly different across thepictures or audio/text factors (both main effects and interaction were not significant).Similarly, the variation in modality presentation of commercial content did not affecteither specific or general behavioral intentions to use a mobile device in the future. Totest Hypothesis 7, we performed the same contrast as Hypothesis 2, but with generalbehavioral intention as the dependent variable. The contrast was not significant.

To examine Hypothesis 8, we ran a hierarchical regression predicting generalbehavioral intention from two cognitive measures (the value of wireless devices and theperceived usefulness of wireless devices to obtain commercial content) and twoaffective measures (the affective/emotional perception of commercial content onwireless devices and the attitude toward using a wireless device to obtain commercialcontent). The cognitive measures significantly predicted 58.5% of general behavioralintention, F(2, 106) = 73.4, p< .001. Both cognitive measures were significant


14/23

predictors of intention (usefulness index: B = .615, t= 6.89,p< .001; value index: B =.504, t= 4.91,p< .001).

Support for Hypothesis 8 was specifically found in the significant improvement ofpredicting behavioral intention with affective measures included in the model. The affect

and attitude indexes combined to predict an additional 5.3% of variance in intention, Fchange (2, 102) = 7.49, p< .002. Both affect indexes were significant predictors(attitude index: B = .252, t= 2.95,p< .005; affect index: B = .304, t= 2.29,p< .025),along with the usefulness index (B = .503, t= 5.64,p< .001). However, with affectindexes in the model, the perceived value of the wireless web no longer significantlypredicted behavioral intention to use a mobile device to obtain commercial content. SeeTable 1 for hierarchical regression results.

TABLE 1.Regression Results Predicting General Behavioral Intentions toward

the Wireless Device from Cognitive and Affective Measures

IndependentVariables

UnstandardizedCoefficient

(Standard error)

t R2

F R2

F

Block 1Cognitive

(Constant) -.202 (.443)Usefulnessindex

.615 (.089) 6.891** .585 73.4**

Value index .504 (.103) 4.906**

Block 2CognitiveandAffective

(Constant) -.952 (.462)Usefulnessindex

.503 (.089) 5.636**

Value index .176 (.145) 1.213 .638 45.0** 053 7.49**Affect index .304 (.133) 2.288*Attitude index .252 (.086) 2.946**

*p< .05, ** p< .01Note:Dependent Variable: Assuming you have access to such a wireless device in the future, what isthe probability you would use it to obtain this type of info?

Discussion

Table 2 presents an overview of the hypotheses, findings, and brief conclusions fromour research. Taking our hypotheses together, in the context of mobile advertising,cognitive load theory may not be adequate to explain recall and perceptions ofcommercial content. While the theory was important in helping to guide thedevelopment of our unique experimental conditions, many of the ideas regardingredundancy and split attention do not apply to interactive mobile content to the sameextent as they do in educational design. The strength and primary contribution of ourresearch is that our conclusions can speak directlyto mobile content designers and


15/23

providers, whereas other communication research may not be as appropriate for themobile landscape. Our creative experimental design is one of the first of its kind that weknow of to design specific mobile content across various modalities and to present it toconsumers on wireless handheld devices to test specific learning hypotheses.

Our first hypothesis tested the assumption that multiple modes (e.g., pictures with textor pictures with audio) were superior to single modes (e.g., text only or audio only) onconsumer involvement in and perceived importance of the commercial content. Thathypothesis was not supported, suggesting that at this time enhanced multimediapresented on mobile devices may not be necessary. Greater movement in the pictorialdimension of the ad design did not affect a consumers involvement in attending to themobile ad, nor affect a consumers perceived importance of the mobile ad content.

The hypothesis regarding dynamic pictures versus static pictures (H2) was also notsignificant, suggesting that, in mobile advertising contexts, a slideshow display of staticpictures is just as effective as streaming video for the time being. Creators of mobile

content can use this information to guide design of mobile ads, as our researchsuggests that content receivers dont necessarily perceive much, if any, differencebetween static pictures and streaming videos. Thus, content providers do not need toallocate as much bandwidth or internal memory of mobile devices to presentcommercial content (as would be required with a video presentation).

We found that perceptions of the commercial content and recall of the advertisinginformation presented on a mobile device varied as a function of whether pictures werepresent or not: when pictures were absent, presenting an ad as text only (as in an SMS-type message) was superior in recall and perceptions to presenting an ad as an audiofile, whereas when pictures were present, accompanying those pictures with an audiofile was better perceived and better recalled than accompanying the pictures with text.The superiority of text to audio (in the absence of pictures) on recall has been supportedin basic psychological research (c.f., Chaiken and Eagly 1976; Jacoby, Hoyer, andZimmer 1983). The implication here is that if content providers of mobile ads cannotaccompany the ad with photos, they should present the ad in text-only format, ratherthan audio.

The detrimental effects of visual redundancy on recall found in cognitive load researchand tested in hypothesis 4 were not supported here. Although we did not find enhancedrecall in the visual redundancy conditions, neither did we find detrimental effects ofvisual redundancy. This is similar to research in the communication literature that hasfound that the addition of redundant pictures to text improves recall in newspaper(Prabu and Kang 1998) and television media (Lang 1995). It is important to rememberthough, that this hypothesis only relates to visual redundancy; when pictures werepresent, our respondents preferred audio accompaniment to text (see H3).

Likewise, the superiority of using dual modes (visual and audio) to present informationfound in previous dual-processing research was not supported for our recall measure inH5. However, dual modes were superior in enhancing consumer perceptions of the
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3677/is_199807/ai_n8793140http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3677/is_199807/ai_n8793140


16/23

value of mobile devices to obtain commercial content. Therefore, if a mobile contentprovider wants to raise consumers perceptions of the value of the device, it shouldpresent commercial content in dual modes, with the caveat that the dual modepresentation will not necessarily enhance recall for the content.

Hypothesis 6 predicted that complementary modes are preferred over competingmodes. This hypothesis was marginally supported for both recall and perceptions ofvalue, but the recall effects were in the opposite direction. Namely, participants whoreceived content information over competing modes (two visual pieces of information)demonstrated better recall than participants who received complementary modes. Thisis also supported in the redundancy findings in H4. Perceptions of value, though, wereenhanced in complementary mode conditions (and consistent with the dual modefindings in H5). These findings suggest that the best type of multimedia presentation ofcommercial content may depend on the goal of the advertiser (e.g., recall versusattitude change).

Hypotheses 7 and 8 related to behavioral intentions to use a mobile device to obtaincommercial content and will be of interest to mobile content providers. We found thatdynamic content did not lead to higher behavioral intentions, compared to static content.As dynamic content is more costly to present, this finding (combined with H2) suggeststhat, at the time our data were collected, consumers may not have expected fullstreaming content presented over wireless handheld devices (as is expected with othermedia, such as television or computer internet media).

Almost two-thirds of the variability in behavioral intentions to use a mobile device toobtain commercial content was predicted in our project. In addition, the inclusion ofscales that measured emotional reactions to the device significantly enhancedpredictions, relative to cognitive measures alone. This result confirms previous work byKulviwat and colleagues (2007), which found that affect measures (capturing pleasureand arousal) significantly improved a model predicting intentions to use handhelddevices, compared to a model with just cognitions (such as perceived usefulness, easeof use, and relative advantage of handheld devices). Together, these studies suggestthat affect is an important component for consumers to consider when using theirmobile devices. It also implies that content providers should consider emotionalresponses of consumers when designing commercial content to be presented overwireless devices.

Even though these results may appear complex, one thing is very clear for practitioners:it would be a mistake to merely replicate the form of advertisements presented on TVand the computer monitor. Mobile advertising is a new medium and, as such, requiresan understanding of new rules of what works and what does not. Although this wassuspected, we now have some empirical evidence to guide marketers in what to do ornot do. Generalizations of our findings are shown in Table 2.


17/23

TABLE 2.Summary of Research Hypotheses, Results, and Conclusions

Hypothesis Finding Conclusion

H1:Mobile advertising content presented inmultiple formats (text with pictures, audio with

pictures) will result in higher consumerinvolvement in and higher perceivedimportance of the ad content than mobileadvertising content presented in single formats(text only, audio only).

Not supported If no pictures are available, text isbetter than audio; if pictures are

available, audio is better thantext.

H2: Dynamic content will result in increasedinvolvement compared to static content.

Not supported Static pictures presented inslideshow mode were perceivedsimilarly as full videopresentation.

H3: Text content will result in better recall thanauditory content.

Supported For recall of commercial contentinformation, presenting themessage in text is superior toaudio presentation.

H4: Two visual pieces of redundant information(e.g., pictures with text) will result in morenegative perceptions and lower recall thancontent presented as one visual source (e.g.,text).

Not supported forrecall orperceptions

Visual redundancy is notdetrimental in a mobileadvertising context.

H5: Mobile advertising content presentedacross dual modes (e.g., a visual plus anauditory mode) will result in higherinvolvement, higher perceptions of importance,and better recall of ad content than mobileadvertising content presented across a singlemode (e.g., visual only or auditory only).

Not supported forrecall; partiallysupported forperceptions ofvalue

Dual modes enhanceperceptions of value but dontaffect recall of commercialcontent.

H6: Mobile advertising content presented in

two complementary modes (e.g., pictures withaudio) will result in higher involvement, higherperceptions of importance, and better recall ofad content than mobile advertising contentpresented in competing modes (e.g., pictureswith text).

Marginally

supported for recall(but in oppositedirection);marginallysupported forperceptions ofvalue

If the goal of the mobile ad is

recall, competing modes arebetter than complementarymodes. The opposite is true if thegoal of the mobile ad isperceptions.

H7: Dynamic content will result in higherbehavioral intentions to use a mobile devicethan static content.

Not supported Static pictures presented inslideshow mode resulted insimilar behavioral intentions tofull video presentation.

H8: Cognitive and affective measures shouldpredict behavioral intentions to use a mobile

device to obtain advertising content, over theeffect of cognition alone.

Supported Cognitive and affective indicescombined to predict almost 65%

of variability in intentions; theaddition of affective measuressignificantly improved predictionand should be taken into accountby content providers.

Limitations and Future Directions


18/23

We did not find as many modality effects as expected in this project and one possibilityis that we did not consider individual differences in modality preferences; it is possiblethat consumers with certain personality traits will always desire full multimedia. Coupeyand Sandgathe (2000) argue that, because interactive media has the potential forcustomization, more emphasis should be placed on personfactors that influence how

consumers want to receive information and how they process such customizedmessages. While the present project does not speak to person factors, future researchon customizability within the mobile advertising environment should examine the effectsof personality variables on preference across modalities.

Our research also does not address whether consumers wantto receive commercialcontent over their wireless devices, nor do we know how customers will perceive themobile device (or the mobile service provider) if they receive mobile advertising contentwithout consent. In our research, it does appear that the commercial contentpresentation did not adversely affect perceptions of the device or intentions to use suchas device in the future. Admittedly, this finding could be due to the fact that respondents

attitudes toward the device were relatively high for all participants across all conditions(the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for this index was greater than themidpoint value for the index (4) for all conditions). As a majority of our participants hadnever used a wireless handheld device to obtain interactive content prior to theirparticipation in our study, our results might have been affected by the novelty of theexperience. Also, we did not survey respondents prior to participation regarding theirinterest in cars or for whom car buying was particularly salient at the time of theirparticipation. However, since we were not examining car purchase intentions orperceptions of the brand presented in the mobile ad specifically, this limitation is notlikely to have influenced perceptions toward the device.

To determine the robustness of our findings, we also suggest field tests whereconsumers would experience noise and distractions typical of mobile device usage. Inour project, participants sat in a relatively quiet environment and focused on just onetask. Thus, the external validity of our results needs to be explored further. Similarly, ourrespondents were all young cell phone users. We dont know if our findings extend toolder users of cell phones (e.g., Baby boomers). Finally, it is possible that our findingsare specific to advertising content. Future studies should examine whether our resultshold across other types of content that can be presented on mobile devices, such asnews, sports, or weather information.

References

Allport, Alan, Barbara Antonis, and Patricia Reynolds (1972), On the Division ofAttention: A Disproof of the Single Channel Hypothesis, Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 24 (2), 225-235.

Baddeley, Alan (1992), Working Memory, Science, 255, 556-559.


19/23

Bagozzi, Richard P., Hans Baumgartner, and Youjae Yi (1992), State versus ActionOrientation Theory of Reasoned Action: An Application to Coupon Usage, Journal ofConsumer Research, 18 (March), 505518.

Bruner II, Gordon C. and Anand Kumar (2005), Applying TAM to Consumer Usage of

Handheld Internet Devices, Journal of Business Research, 58 (5), 553-558.

Chaiken, Shelly and Alice H. Eagly (1976), Communication Modality as a Determinantof Message Persuasiveness and Message Comprehensibility, Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 36 (4), 605-614.

Chandler, Paul and John Sweller (1991), Cognitive Load Theory and the Format ofInstruction, Cognition and Instruction, 8 (4), 293-332.

Coupey, Eloise and Erin Sandgathe (2000), Rethinking Research on CommunicationsMedia: Information Modality and Message Structuring, Advances in Consumer

Research, 27, 224-229.

Cuneo, Alice Z. (2005), Marketers Get Serious about the 'Third Screen', AdvertisingAge, 76 (28), 6.

Diamantopoulous, Adamantios and Heidi M. Winklhofer (2001), Index Construction withFormative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development, Journal of MarketingResearch, 38 (May), 269-277.

Donaton, Scott (2006), Creating Third-Screen Content? TV Should Not be YourTemplate, Advertising Age, 77 (4), 18.

Frick, Robert (1984), Using Both an Auditory and Visual Short-Term Store to IncreaseDigit Span, Memory and Cognition, 12 (5), 507-551.

Jacoby, John, Wayne D. Hoyer, and Mary R. Zimmer (1983), "To Read, View, orListen? A Cross-Media Comparison of Comprehension," in Current Issues andResearch in Advertising, James H. Leigh and Claude R. Martin, eds., Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan, 201-218.

Kulviwat, Songpol, Gordon C. Bruner II, Anand Kumar, Suzanne A. Nasco, and TerryClark (2007), Toward a Unified Theory of Consumer Acceptance of Technology,Psychology & Marketing, forthcoming.

Lang, Annie (1995), Defining Audio/Video Redundancy from a Limited-CapacityInformation Processing Perspective, Communication Research, 22 (1), 86-115.

Lewis, Herschell G. (1996), Copywriting for Interactive Media: New Rules for the NewMedium, in Interactive Marketing: The Future Present, Edward Forrest and RichardMizerski, eds., Chicago, IL: NTC Business Books, 229-240.


20/23

Liu, Scott S. and Patricia A. Stout (1987), "Effects of Message Modality and Appeal onAdvertising Acceptance," Psychology and Marketing, 4 (3), 167-187.

Lund, Arnie (1999), Introduction to USE, Human Factors Ergonomic Society:

Communication Technology Group Newsletter, Winter, 10-13.

Mayer, Richard E. and Roxana Moreno (2002), Aids to Computer-based MultimediaLearning, Learning and Instruction, 12 (1), 107-119.

Miller, George A. (1956), The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limitson our Capacity for Processing Information, Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.

Mousavi, Seyed Y., Renae Low, and John Sweller (1995), Reducing Cognitive Load byMixing Auditory and Visual Presentation Modes, Journal of Educational Psychology,87, 319-334.

Paivio, Allan (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach, New York:Oxford University Press.

Penney, C.G. (1989), Modality Effects and the Structure of Short-term Verbal Memory,Memory and Cognition, 17 (4), 398-422.

Prabu, David and Jagdeep Kang (1998), Pictures, High-Imagery News Language andNews Recall, Newspaper Research Journal, Summer, (accessedon 6/10/2006).

Sewell, Edward H., Jr. and Roy L. Moore (1980), Cartoon Embellishments inInformative Presentations, Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 28(1), 39-46.

Singer, Jerome L. (1980), The Power and Limitations of Television: A Cognitive-Affective Analysis, in The Entertainment Functions of Television, Percy H.Tannenbaum, ed.,Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 31-65.

Sweller, John (1988), Cognitive Load during Problem Solving: Effects on Learning,Cognitive Science, 12 (2), 257-285.

, Jereon J. G. Van Merrinboer, and Fred G. W. C. Paas (1998), CognitiveArchitecture and Instructional Design, Educational Psychology Review, 10 (3), 251-296.

Zaichkowsky, Judith L. (1985), Measuring the Involvement Construct, Journal ofConsumer Research, 12 (December), 341-352.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3677/is_199807/ai_n8793140http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3677/is_199807/ai_n8793140


21/23

About the Authors

Dr. Suzanne Altobello Nasco (Ph.D., University of Notre Dame) is an AssistantProfessor of Marketing at Southern Illinois University. Her research interests span avariety of topics in consumer decision-making, such as sports marketing, mature

consumer choices for services, and consumer perceptions of content presented onmobile/wireless devices.

Dr. Gordon C. Bruner II (Ph.D., University of North Texas) is a Full Professor in theMarketing Department at Southern Illinois University. He is the lead author of theMarketing Scales Handbookseries. Apart from his work with psychometric scales, hisresearch in recent years has focused on the nexus of consumers and technology.

APPENDIX 1.Perceptions of Commercial Content and Mobile Device

Perceptions of Commercial Content

Involvement = .8336

It was important for me to carefully evaluate the advertising information.I was highly involved in obtaining the advertising information.Obtaining advertising information is important to me.In general, advertising information is important to me.

Importance: Obtaining advertising information using a mobile device is = .9539ImportantUsefulValuableBeneficialAbsorbingInterestingEssentialAppealingDesirable

Perceptions of the mobile device

Affective experience with the device: Receiving information like this on amobile device

= .9503

Was a pleasurable experience.Was satisfying to me.Was pleasant.Was valuable.Is useful.Is beneficial.

Perceived usefulness of device = .9399It would help me to be more effective.It would save time to use it.It would require the fewest steps to accomplish what I want to do with it.It would help me be more productive.It would make the tasks I want to accomplish easier to get done.


22/23

Perceived value of wireless device: Rate your agreement with the followingstatements regarding your overall experience.

= .8302

I feel that the information provided through the wireless web is valuable to me.I feel that the information I received on the wireless device was of high quality.I feel that the information I received on the wireless device was relevant to me.

Note: Responses were measured on seven point Likert-type scales, with 1 indicating strongly disagree

and 7 indicating strongly agree.

APPENDIX 2.

Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions

Attitudes toward the mobile device to obtain commercial content:

For me, using a wireless device to obtain this type of commercial informationis:

= .9504

Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good

Negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Positive

Unfavorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable

Unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pleasant

Behavioral intentions toward the mobile deviceSpecific: Assuming you have access to such a wireless device like this in the future, what is theprobability that you would use it to obtainadvertising information?Not probable at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Probable

General: Assuming you have access to such a wireless device like this in the future, what is theprobability that you would use it to obtain information?Not probable at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Probable


23/23

winter project5

Documents