What media multitasking means for marketers
An Experimental Study Examining the Effects of Different Types of Media
Multitasking on Affective and Cognitive Responses and the Moderating Role of
Age.
Rebecca Speyer
10758348
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s programme Communication Science
Persuasive Communication
dr. M. J. van der Goot
Abstract
Media multitasking, a phenomenon in which people engage in more than one media activity at a time, exists for a while already. People of different ages use different kinds of media combinations, and this may lead to age-related differences in advertising attitudes for these types of media multitasking as well. This study examined the effects of different types of media multitasking (social media plus radio vs. newspaper plus radio) on the affective response brand attitude and on the cognitive responses brand recall and brand recognition, and the moderating role of age. This study was conducted using a 2 x 2 experiment (N = 274) in which participants were either assigned to a social media advertisement (social media plus radio) or to a newspaper advertisement (newspaper plus radio) while at the same time they had to listen to a radio fragment about the weather forecast. This study did not find any significant results from different types of media multitasking on affective or cognitive responses and it did also not find a moderating effect of age. For advertisers and marketers it becomes more clear with these results whether they should still advertise differently for different age groups or on different platforms or not.
Introduction
Media multitasking is an important issue in the advertising field nowadays. Consumers are used to engage in multiple platforms at the same time instead of that they are focusing on one single platform (Pangis, 2011). Advertisers and marketers do not have any influence on this, they can only search for ways to deal with this reality.
So, what is media multitasking exactly? Pilotta, Schultz, Drenik and Rist (2004) define the concept as ‘engaging in more than one media activity at a time’ or ‘multiple exposures to various media forms at a single point in time for the same media consumer’. With today’s new technologies and innovations, it becomes more and more common for consumers to engage in media multitasking: almost a quarter of the time consumers are using media, they are engaging in media multitasking (MediaTijd, 2018). What kind of media consumers use differs between consumers of different ages. Young people aged between 17 and 34 years old use the internet most frequently and old people aged between 54 and 81 years old read
newspapers most frequently (van der Goot, Rozendaal, Opree, Ketelaar, & Smit, 2018).
However, consumers of different ages do not only differ in what kind of media platforms they use, they make use of different media combinations as well. It is found that young people like to combine music with their online activities, while old people like to combine listening to the radio with reading a newspaper or with writing an email (Voorveld & van der Goot, 2013). These differences in media use in general and the differences in the use of media combinations show that young people are used to different types of media multitasking than old people.
It has been found that these age-related differences in media use, can lead to differences in advertising attitudes towards these media as well (van der Goot et al., 2018). These
differences in advertising attitudes are caused by the fact that over time, consumers adopt a certain pattern of media use (van der Goot, Beentjes, & van Selm, 2015). Because consumers are used to certain media and to certain media combinations, their attitude towards those particular media is more positive. Because of this, they are more positive about advertising in this medium as well (van der Goot et al., 2018). Studies also found that media multitasking has an impact on brand recall and brand recognition (Jeong & Hwang, 2012). It is informative to investigate whether these cognitive advertising outcomes differ between consumers of different ages as well.
Previous research focused a lot on the effects of media multitasking versus single tasking on advertising outcomes (e.g. Voorveld, 2011; Angell, Gorton, Sauer, Bottomley, & White, 2016; Bellman, Robinson, Wooley, & Varan, 2017), but not a lot of research focused on the earlier described different media combinations used by consumers of different age groups. The only research that focused on age differences in different types of media multitasking is the diary study from Voorveld and van der Goot (2013),which makes the current study the first experimental study investigating this. On top of that, this is the first study investigating what the effects are of age differences in different types of media multitasking on the advertising outcomes brand attitude, brand recall and brand recognition.
Studying the effects of age differences in different types of media multitasking on
advertising outcomes can be informative for brands. With the results of this study, advertisers and marketers are able to find out if it is needed to create different advertisements for
multitasking consumers’ brand attitudes are positive, and that brand recall and brand recognition are high.
These reasons make it that this study is both scientifically and practically valuable. The research question that will be discussed is as follows: How do different types of media multitasking influence consumers’ affective responses and cognitive responses and what is the moderating role of age?
Theoretical background
The effects of Media Multitasking on Affective Responses
Media multitasking is defined as ‘engaging in more than one media activity at a time’ or ‘multiple exposures to various media forms at a single point in time for the same media consumer’ (Pilotta et al., 2004). Advertising outcomes of consumers who are engaging in media multitasking can differ. It is expected that media multitasking will have a positive effect on the affective response brand attitude. Brand attitude is the standpoint people have in relation to a certain brand (Segijn, Voorveld, & Smit, 2016).
Theories that have been used to explain the possible effect of media multitasking on brand attitude are the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and the
counterarguing inhibition theory (Segijn et al., 2016). People process information via two different routes, the central route and the peripheral route. Jeong and Hwang (2012) found that when a person is media multitasking, the information he or she receives will most of the time be processed peripherally. When information is processed peripherally, there will be less attention paid to the information and therefore counterarguing to the message will be reduced. Because of this reduction in counterarguing, a message will sooner be accepted which results in more positive brand attitudes (Jeong & Hwang, 2016). This explanation is supported by
empirical research of Segijn et al. (2016). They found that a decrease in counterarguing can lead to more positive brand attitudes.
The moderating role of age
The current study investigates whether the effects of different types of media multitasking (social media plus radio vs. newspaper plus radio) on the affective response brand attitude will be different for consumers of different ages. Van der Goot et al. (2018) found with a diary study that consumers of different ages use different kinds of media. Young people aged between 17 and 34 years old use the internet most frequently and old people aged between 54 and 81 years old read newspapers most frequently. Consumers of different ages do not only differ in what kind of media platforms they use, they make use of different media
combinations as well. It is found that young people combined most of the time music with online activities, while old people combined mostly radio with reading newspapers or e-mailing (Voorveld & van der Goot, 2013).
Van der Goot et al. (2018) also found that there are age-related differences in advertising attitudes for different types of media. These differences in advertising attitudes are caused by people’s media use. People that grew up with newspapers are very likely to continue reading newspapers when they are old because they adopted a personal pattern of media use
(Voorveld & van der Goot, 2013). Because they are used to reading newspapers, they are more positive about newspapers and therefore more positive about advertising in this medium as well (van der Goot et al., 2018). The same goes for social media, young people aged between 17 and 34 years old who are used to social media were most positive towards mobile
advertising and old people aged between 54 and 81 old years who are less used to social media were most negative towards mobile advertising.
Based on these earlier findings, the present study tests whether advertising attitudes of consumers of different ages are more positive towards media and towards media
combinations that they are used to. Because young people are most used to social media (Voorveld & van der Goot, 2013), they probably have more positive brand attitudes when they are engaged in the combination social media plus radio then when they use the combination newspaper plus radio. Since old people are most used to reading newspapers, they probably have more positive brand attitudes when they are engaged in the media
combination newspaper plus radio. Lastly, it is expected that there will not be a difference in brand attitudes for the two media combinations for people in the middle age group, so between 35 and 53 years old, because they are probably used to both social media and newspapers (Voorveld & van der Goot, 2013).
H1: The effect of different types of media multitasking on brand attitudes will be moderated by age. Such that young people will have a more positive brand attitude towards social media advertising combined with radio (compared to newspaper advertising combined with radio), old people will have a more positive brand attitude towards newspaper
advertising combined with radio, and the middle age group does not show difference in brand attitude between the two media combinations.
The effects of Media Multitasking on Cognitive responses
The current study focuses on two types of cognitive responses. The first one is brand recall. Brand recall requires retrieval from memory meaning that participants have to recall a brand name from their memory (Segijn, Xiong & Duff, 2018). The second cognitive response
this study focuses on is brand recognition. Brand recognition can be defined as identifying a brand by its name after exposure (Krippendorff, 2005). To measure brand recognition, the brand to be recognized is shown to the participant (Tulving & Thompson, 1973) but the participant has to distinguish the brand from other brands (Segijn, Xiong & Duff, 2018).
Three theories explain the potential effect of media multitasking on cognitive responses: the capacity model of attention (Kahneman, 1973), the capacity interference theory
(Armstrong & Chung, 2000) and the limited-capacity model of motivated mediated message processing (Lang, 2000). These theories state that people have a limited cognitive capacity for information processing. According to Lang (2000), messages are processed via three sub-processes: encoding, storage and retrieval. The first sub-process, encoding, is the selection of important pieces of information. These important pieces of information will be stored as mental representations. The second sub-process is storage. In this process, encoded
information is linked to information that was already stored. The third and last sub-process is retrieval. During retrieval, previously stored information can be activated (Lang, 2000). Processing media messages requires these cognitive resources, which is a demand, and people have to distribute their cognitive resources to process the messages, which is the supply. If the supply of cognitive resources is lower than the demand of cognitive resources, information processing can fail. Messaging processing capacity is limited, which means that messages can result in cognitive overload when they need more resources than available. This is the case with media multitasking. Segijn et al. (2016) found in a previous study that during media multitasking, the encoding process and the storage process of message processing are affected because of cognitive overload, making it harder to recognize a brand.
The present study specifically aims to test whether there are age differences in the effects of different types of media multitasking (social media plus radio vs. newspaper plus radio) on cognitive responses. Brasel and Gips (2011) found age differences in cognitive responses after media multitasking and explained them in the light of age-related changes in perception and cognitions. They state that when people get older, the brain becomes less flexible. This is because the working memory performance of old people decreases when they are being exposed to multiple media at the same time. For example, research showed that old people found it more difficult to switch back to their first task once they were interrupted than young people (Clapp et al., 2011).
Another possible explanation for age differences in the effects of different types of media multitasking on cognitive responses is that people of different ages are used to different kinds of media (Brasel & Gips, 2011) but also, to the media they use simultaneously
(Voorveld & van der Goot, 2013). Research showed that young people combined most of the time online music with online activities while old people combined most of the time radio with reading newspapers or e-mailing (Voorveld & van der Goot, 2013).
When limited cognitive resources are available to process a message, this will lead to lower brand recall and lower brand recognition (Armstrong & Chung, 2000; Jeong & Hwang, 2012). It is therefore expected that brand recall and brand recognition of consumers of
different ages are higher towards media and towards media combinations that they are used to because they probably need fewer cognitive resources to process messages. Young people are most used to social media, so they probably have the highest brand recall and brand
recognition towards the media combination social media plus radio. Old people are most used to reading newspapers, so they probably have the highest brand recall and brand recognition towards the media combination social media plus newspaper. Lastly, it is expected that people in the middle age group, so between 35 and 53 years old, do not show difference in brand
recall and brand recognition between the two media combinations since they are probably used to both social media and newspapers (Voorveld & van der Goot, 2013).
H2: The effect of different types of media multitasking on brand recall will be moderated by age. Such that young people will have a higher brand recall towards social media advertising combined with radio (compared to newspaper advertising combined with radio), old people will have a higher brand recall towards newspaper advertising combined with radio, and the middle age group does not show difference in brand recall between those two media combinations.
H3: The effect of different types of media multitasking on brand recognition will be moderated by age. Such that young people will have a higher brand recognition towards social media advertising combined with radio (compared to newspaper advertising combined with radio), old people will have a higher brand recognition towards newspaper advertising combined with radio, and the middle age group does not show difference in brand recognition between those two media combinations.
Figure 1
Media multitasking effects on affective and cognitive responses, and the moderating role of age. Media multitasking (newspaper ad + radio vs. social media ad + radio) Brand attitude Brand recall Brand recognition Age H1 H2 H3
Methods Design & participants
To test the hypotheses, a 2 x 2 (media multitasking: social media plus radio versus media multitasking: newspaper plus radio) between-subjects design was conducted. The experiment was programmed in Qualtrics. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions, either the social media plus radio condition or the newspaper plus radio condition.
In total, 274 participants participated in this research in the period between 10 and 17 May. The participants were recruited with convenience sampling via the social networks Facebook, WhatsApp and an online forum called Ouder Alleen. Also, people were recruited via snowball sampling, because the participants were asked to share the survey with their acquaintances (Peet, Namesnik, & Hox, 2005). Participants had to be 18 years or older to participate in this research, this was made clear in the informed consent form. The informed consent form also stated that participation in the research was voluntary and anonymous. Participants who did not fill out their age and participants with missing data were removed.
Participants who failed the manipulation check which was implemented to make sure they listened to the radio fragment were removed as well. This was done because in this study it was important that all the participants paid attention to both of the media platforms, so the social media advertising or the newspaper advertising and the radio fragment. After cleaning the dataset, a total of 122 participants (Mage = 43.02, SDage = 15.79) was left. Both men (n =
14.8%) and women (n = 85.2%) participated in this research.
Stimuli
The social media plus radio condition consisted of an ad from the brand Nestlé Pure Life in an Instagram post (Appendix 1.1, Stimuli). This brand was chosen because overall this
is not a well-known brand. In the ad, the brand promotes a water bottle. The advertisements were about a water bottle from Nestlé Pure Life because this is a neutral product and it is suitable for men and women. At the same time, a radio spot with the weather forecast was playing in the background. The newspaper plus radio condition consisted of the same ad from the brand Nestlé Pure Water but now in a newspaper, de Volkskrant (Appendix 1.1, Stimuli). In this condition, a radio spot with the weather forecast was playing in the background as well.
Pre-test
Before the real experiment took place, a pre-test was conducted via an online
experiment between May 7th and May 9th. The goal of this pre-test was to check whether the brand used in this research was good to use. The brand Nestlé Pure Life was supposed to be neutral, meaning that respondents of different ages would not already have a certain opinion about it. Also, the brand Nestlé Pure Life should be evaluated the same in the social media plus radio condition as in the newspaper plus radio condition. If not, it could harm the causal relationship between type of media multitasking and brand attitude because the difference in brand attitude may be caused by an already existing opinion towards the brand instead of that the difference in brand attitude is caused by the type of media multitasking the participant is in. To measure this, a one-factorial within-subjects design was conducted with ‘type of media’ (social media versus newspaper) as an independent variable and brand attitude as a dependent variable. 12 Participants (Mage = 32.67, SDage = 15.47) were exposed to the two conditions in random order, so that this order wouldn’t have an effect on the results (Hart et al., 2005). The social media condition and the newspaper condition consisted of the
advertisements as described in the stimuli section.
advertisement, their brand attitude was measured with five seven-point semantic differential scales: ‘I perceive the brand Nestlé Pure Life as: unappealing - appealing/ bad – good / pleasant – unpleasant / unfavourable – favourable / unlikeable – likeable (Zuwerink & Cameron, 2003).
A principal axis factoring analysis showed that the five items that measured brand attitude formed a single scale. Two components had an eigenvalue above 1 (𝐸𝑉1 = 3.32; 𝐸𝑉2 = 1.12). All five items were used in one scale. The reliability of the scale is good (α = .86) and will not get higher when an item is deleted. Therefore, a new variable was constructed out of all five items measuring brand attitude towards Nestlé Pure Life (M = 23.33, SD = 3.89). A paired samples-t-test found that there was no significant difference in brand attitude for the social media advertisement and the newspaper advertisement t (11) = 1.54, p = .150. This means that the brand attitude towards Nestlé Pure Life did not differ between the social media condition and the newspaper condition.
A One Way Anova showed that the three different age groups did not differ in brand attitude F(11) = 2.42, p = .144.
Based on these results, the decision has been made that the advertising materials are suitable to use in the current study.
Procedure
Before the participants started the experiment, they filled out an informed consent form. Participants could only participate in this study once they agreed with this informed consent form. At the beginning of the questionnaire, participants were asked to fill out their gender and age. After this, half of the participants saw an advertisement about Nestlé Pure Life water in the social media plus radio format and the other half of the participants saw an
at the advertisement and listening to the radio fragment, the participants got questions about their attitude towards the advertisement, about the recall from the brand in the advertisement, and about the recognition of the brand in the advertisement. To check if the manipulation succeeded, participants were asked what kind of weather it would be tomorrow according to the weather forecast in the radio fragment to make sure that they listened to the radio
fragment. This manipulation check was done because it was important for this study that the participant paid attention to both the advertisement and to the radio fragment.
Measurement Dependent variables
Brand attitude
The affective response that was measured in this research was attitude towards the brand. Brand attitude is the standpoint people have in relation to a certain brand or product (Segijn et al., 2016). To measure what kind of attitude participants had towards Nestlé, five seven-point semantic differential scales were used: ‘I perceive the brand Nestlé Pure Life as: unappealing - appealing/ bad – good / pleasant – unpleasant / unfavourable – favourable / unlikeable – likeable (Zuwerink & Cameron, 2003).
A principal axis factoring analysis showed that the five items that measured brand attitude formed a single scale. One component had an eigenvalue above 1 (𝐸𝑉1 = 4.27). This
factor explained 85.35% of the variance in the original items together. KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy is .92 and Barlett’s test of sphericity was significant which meant that the factor analysis was good to use. The variable ‘I perceive the brand Nestlé Pure Life as
unfavourable – favourable’ had the strongest association (factor loading was .95). Reliability of the scale was very good (α = .96) and it did not get higher when an item was deleted. Thus,
a new variable was constructed out of all the 5 items measuring brand attitude of Nestlé Pure Life (M = 4.43, SD = 1.28) with a minimum score of 1 and a maximum score of 7.
Brand recall
Brand recall was measured with an open-ended question by asking participants which brand they saw in the advertisement. The only correct answers were Nestlé or Nestlé Pure Life. Voorveld (2011) measured recall in this way in previous research. Participants were assigned a score of 1 (n = 53.3%) when they mentioned Nestlé or Nestlé Pure Life, and a score of 0 (n = 46.7%) when they mentioned something else.
Brand recognition
To measure brand recognition, the brand to be recognized is shown to the participant (Tulving & Thompson, 1973) but the participant has to distinguish the brand from other brands (Segijn, Xiong & Duff, 2018). Brand recognition requires retrieval from memory. This retrieval can be open-ended or contain a prompt to aid specific recall (Segijn, Xiong & Duff, 2018).
Brand recognition was measured based on previous research of Segijn et al. (2016). The participants were given a multiple-choice question asking them which brand they saw in the advertisement. They could choose between three different answers: Nestlé Pure Life, Spa and TUI. Participants were assigned a score of 1 (n = 89.8%) when they indicated that they saw the brand Nestlé in the advertisement, and a score of 0 when they indicated that they saw Spa or TUI (n = 10.2%).
Moderator
To measure the moderator age in this research, the participants were asked with an
age groups of the study of van der Goot et al. (2018). The youngest age group (aged between 18 and 34) were assigned a 1, the middle age group (aged between 35 and 53) were assigned a 2 and the oldest age group (aged between 54 and older) were assigned a 3.
Manipulation check
To find out if the participants were really engaging in multitasking, they were asked a
multiple-choice question about the radio fragment: ‘What was, according to the radio fragment, the weather forecast?’ For answering this question, participants had to choose an answer out of two options, ‘chance of snow’ and ‘chance of a heat wave’. Participants who picked the wrong answer ‘chance of a heat wave’ were deleted from the dataset (n = 98)
because in this study it was important that all the participants really paid attention to both the newspaper advertisement as to the radio fragment.
Results Control variables
To check if participants’ gender was comparable across conditions with different types of media multitasking formats, a Chi-square test was conducted with media multitasking format (social media plus radio vs. newspaper plus radio) and gender. The Chi-square test showed that participants’ gender was not significantly different across the conditions, χ2 (1) = 2.291, p = 0.111. This means that randomization of participants across conditions was
successful in terms of participants’ gender.
Affective responses: The influence of different types of Multitasking and Age on Brand Attitude
(social media plus radio vs. newspaper plus radio) and age (18-34 vs. 35-53 vs. 54 and older) as independent variables and brand attitude as dependent variable. No significant main effect was found for media multitasking on brand attitude, F(1, 121) = .03, p = .868, η2 = .00. The brand attitude of participants in the social media in combination plus radio condition (M = 4.42, SD = 1.35) was not significantly different from the brand attitude of participants in the newspaper plus radio condition (M = 4.46, SD = 1.20). Also, no significant effect was found for age on brand attitude, F(1, 121) = 1.86, p = .159, η2 = .03. Thus, the brand attitude of participants in the youngest age group (M = 4.69, SD = .93) was not significantly different from the brand attitude of the participants in the middle age group (M = 4.43, SD = 1.40) or of the brand attitude of the participants in the oldest age group (M = 4.11, SD = 1.41).
No significant interaction effect was found between media multitasking and age on brand attitude, F(1, 121) = .75, p = .473, η2 = .01). There was no difference between
participants of different age groups in the social media plus radio condition (𝑀𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔 = 4.67,
𝑆𝐷𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔= .74; 𝑀𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑒= 4.30, 𝑆𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑒= 1.59; 𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑑= 4.31, 𝑆𝐷𝑜𝑙𝑑= 1.50) or in the newspaper plus radio condition (𝑀𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔 = 4.71, 𝑆𝐷𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔= 1.14; 𝑀𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑒= 4.58, 𝑆𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑒= 1.16; 𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑑=
3.86, 𝑆𝐷𝑜𝑙𝑑= 1.31). Thus, hypothesis 1 can not be confirmed. For different types of media
multitasking, brand attitude does not differ, and this effect is also not moderated by age.
Cognitive responses: The influence of different types of Multitasking and Age on Brand Recall
The second hypothesis stated that the effect of media multitasking on brand recall will be moderated by age. Such that old people will have a higher recall when radio is combined with newspaper advertising, young people will have a higher recall when radio is combined with social media advertising and the middle age group does not show difference in brand recall. To test this, a two-way analysis of variance was conducted with media multitasking
(social media plus radio vs. newspaper plus radio) and age (18-34 vs. 35-53 vs. 54 and older) as independent variables and brand recall as dependent variable. No significant main effect was found for media multitasking on brand recall, F(1, 121) = 1.22, p = .272, η2 = .01. Brand recall of the participants in the social media plus radio condition (M = .58, SD = .50) was not significantly different from brand recall in the newspaper plus radio condition (M = .47, SD = .50). By testing the second hypothesis with a two-way analysis of variance, some classical assumptions were violated. Because recall is a binary outcome, the errors and residuals will not be normally distributed, and they will not have constant variance. Heteroskedastic (2018) suggested in the Online Forum Post ‘Anova with binary dependent variable’ that this does not matter in practice because a two-way analysis of variance maintains the nominal error rate when a null hypothesis is true (Glass, Peckham & Sanders, 1972). To obtain further insights in the differences in brand recall between the social media plus radio condition and the newspaper plus radio condition, a Chi-square test was conducted with media multitasking format (social media plus radio vs. newspaper plus radio) and brand recall. The Chi-square test showed that participants’ brand recall was not significantly different across the
conditions, χ2 (1) = 1.45, p = 0.228. 58.2% percent of the participants in the social media plus radio condition recalled the brand name versus 47.3% in the newspaper plus radio condition.
Also, no significant effect was found for age on brand recall, F(1, 121) = .14, p = .871, η2 = .00. Thus, the young age group (M = .56, SD = .50), the middle age group (M = .53, SD
= .50) and the old age group (M = .50, SD = .51) did not differ in brand recall. To be able to check what the differences were in brand recall between the different age groups, another Chi-square test was conducted with age (18-34 vs. 35-53 vs. 54 and older) and brand recall. The Chi-square test showed that participants’ brand recall was not significantly different across the three age groups, χ2 (2) = .29, p = 0.866. 56.4% of the youngest age group recalled the brand name versus 52.8% in the middle age group and 50.0% in the oldest age group.
No significant interaction effect was found between condition and age on brand recall, F(1, 121) = .04, p = .966, η2 = .00. There was no difference between participants of different age groups in the social media combined with radio condition on brand recall (𝑀𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔 = .62, 𝑆𝐷𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔= .50; 𝑀𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑒= .59, 𝑆𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑒= .50; 𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑑= .53, 𝑆𝐷𝑜𝑙𝑑= .51) or in the newspaper combined with radio condition on brand recall (𝑀𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔 = .50, 𝑆𝐷𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔= .51; 𝑀𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑒= .46,
𝑆𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑒= .51; 𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑑= .46, 𝑆𝐷𝑜𝑙𝑑= .52). Thus, hypothesis 2 can not be confirmed. For different types of media multitasking, brand recall does not differ, and this effect is also not moderated by age.
Cognitive responses: The influence of different types of Multitasking and Age on Brand Recognition
The third hypothesis stated that the effect of different types of media multitasking on brand recognition will be moderated by age. Such that old people will have a higher brand recognition when radio is combined with newspaper advertising, young people will have a higher brand recognition when radio is combined with social media advertising and the middle age group does not show difference in brand recognition. To test this, another two-way analysis of variance was conducted with media multitasking (social media plus radio vs. newspaper plus radio) and age (18-34 vs. 35-53 vs. 54 and older) as independent variables and brand recognition as dependent variable.
No significant main effect was found for media multitasking on brand recognition, F(1, 117) = 2.76, p = .099, η2 = 0.02. Thus, the social media plus radio condition (M = .94, SD = .24) did not have a significant stronger effect on brand recall compared to the
newspaper plus radio condition (M = .84, SD = .37). To check what the differences were in recognition between the social media plus radio condition and the newspaper plus radio condition, again a Chi-square test was conducted with media multitasking format (social
media plus radio vs. newspaper plus radio) and brand recognition. The Chi-square test showed that participants’ recognition was not significantly different across the conditions, χ2 (1) = 2.99, p = 0.080. 94.0% percent of the participants in the social media plus radio condition recognized the brand name versus 84.3% in the newspaper plus radio condition. This shows that almost every participant in both conditions recognized the brand name.
Also, no significant effect was found for age on brand recognition, F(1, 117) = .31, p = .737, η2 = 0.01. Brand recognition of the participants in the youngest age group (M = .92, SD = .27) was not significantly higher compared to brand recognition of the participants in the middle age group (M = .90, SD = .30) or the brand recognition of the participants in the oldest age group (M = .86, SD = .35). To check what the differences were in brand
recognition between the youngest age group, the middle age group and the oldest age group, a Chi-square test was conducted with age (18-34 vs. 35-53 vs. 54 and older) and brand
recognition. The Chi-square test showed that participants’ brand recognition was not significantly different across different age groups, χ2 (2) = .68, p = 0.712. 92.3% percent of the participants in the youngest age group recognized the brand name versus 90.0% in the middle age group and 86,2% in the oldest age group.
No significant interaction effect was found between condition and age on brand recognition, F(1, 117) = .38, p = .687, η2 = .01. Participants of different ages did not differ in brand recognition for the social media plus radio condition (𝑀𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔 = 1.00, 𝑆𝐷𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔= .00; 𝑀𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑒= .93, 𝑆𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑒= .26; 𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑑= .88, 𝑆𝐷𝑜𝑙𝑑= .33) and the newspaper plus radio condition (𝑀𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔 = .84, 𝑆𝐷𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔= .37; 𝑀𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑒= .86, 𝑆𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑒= .36; 𝑀𝑜𝑙𝑑= .83, 𝑆𝐷𝑜𝑙𝑑= .39). Thus,
hypothesis 3 can not be confirmed either. For different types of media multitasking, brand recognition does not differ and this effect is also not moderated by age.
The goal of this study was to find out how different types of media multitasking influence consumers’ affective responses and cognitive responses and to find out what is the moderating role of age in this potential relationship. The results showed that brand attitude, brand recall and brand recognition do not differ for different types of media multitasking. It also does not make a difference for brand attitude, brand recall or brand recognition if people of different ages engage in different types of media multitasking.
The results showed that brand attitude does not differ for different types of media multitasking. This finding is in line with the Elaboration Likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and with the Counterarguing inhibition theory (Segijn, Voorveld & Smit 2016) which state both that when you are being distracted from a persuasive message because you are media multitasking, your ability to counterargue will be reduced. Because of this, you will accept a message sooner, and this will result in more positive brand attitudes. In this case, both conditions contained media multitasking. This means that in both conditions people’s ability to counterargue was reduced and this potentially explains why brand attitude was relatively positive in both conditions.
We also expected a difference in brand attitude for people of different ages who are engaging in different types of media multitasking because young people and old people distinguish themselves in terms of media they consume simultaneously and because of these differences in media use they also differ in attitudes towards these different types of media (Voorveld & van der Goot, 2013; van der Goot et al., 2018).
A possible explanation for the fact that we did not found this moderating effect of age lies in the media used in this research. Voorveld and van der Goot (2013) found that in general, young people combine most of the time music with online activities and old people combine mostly radio with reading newspapers. Also, participants of the middle age group are in general most used to television (van der Goot et al., 2018). In this study, only the combination
of social media and radio, and the combination of newspaper and radio were present. This means that the media combination mostly used by old people was present, so old people participating in this survey were probably already used to combining the two different media. However, the media combination mostly used by young people was not present in this study. Young people participating in this research were exposed to a combination of media they were not used to, because the radio fragment contained a weather forecast and not music. The same goes for participants in the middle age group. They were exposed to a combination of media they were probably not used to as well. For future research, it’s important to include more conditions in which more different media are combined so that all participants can engage in a type of media multitasking that they are already used to.
The fact that there is no effect found of different types of media multitasking on brand recall and brand recognition can be explained with the help of the capacity model of attention (Kahneman, 1973), the capacity interference theory (Armstrong & Chung, 2000) and the limited-capacity model of motivated mediated message processing (Lang, 2000). These theories state that people have a limited cognitive capacity for information processing. If the supply of cognitive resources does not meet the demand of cognitive resources, information processing can fail (Kahneman, 1973). In this study, two different types of media multitasking were compared. This means that in both conditions, information processing and in this case brand recall and brand recognition could easily fail. This could be an explanation for the fact that there were no differences found. We also expected a moderating effect of age within the relationship from different types of media multitasking on brand recall and brand recognition because Clapp et al. (2011) found that old people find it more difficult to switch between tasks than young people, but this effect was not found as well.
A possible explanation for this can be that it was not measured whether the participant really engaged in media multitasking. While filling out the survey, participants were asked to
listen to the radio fragment and to look at the advertisement simultaneously. Unfortunately, due to restrictions in Qualtrics, it was possible for participants to first listen to the radio fragment and look at the advertisement afterwards. Because the survey also did not include a question asking if both tasks were fulfilled at the same time, it is not sure whether all the participants really engaged in media multitasking. For future research, it is really important that the radio fragment immediately starts playing and that the advertisement is only visible during this time so that participants are forced to do the two tasks at the same time so that media multitasking is ensured.
Notwithstanding the limitations, this research provides some practical implications for advertisers and marketers. According to the results, in this study it does not matter on which platforms consumers see an advertisement when they are media multitasking. In this study, consumers of all different ages evaluate brands that advertise on social media (M = 4.42) or in a newspaper (M = 4.46) equally positive when they are listening to the radio at the same time. Also, in this study consumers of all different ages recalled the name of a brand equally in the social media plus radio condition (58.2%) compared to the newspaper plus radio condition (47.3%) and they recognized the name of a brand equally in the social media plus radio condition (94.0%) compared to the newspaper plus radio condition (84,3%). This is a positive outcome for organizations. It suggests that advertisers and marketers do not have to create separate advertisements for different platforms nor for different age groups, which will save time and money.
References
Angell, R., Gorton, M., Sauer, J., Bottomley, J., & White, J. (2016) Don't distract me when I'm media multitasking: Toward a theory for raising advertising recall and recognition. Journal of Advertising, 45(2), 198-210.
Armstrong, G. B., & Chung, L. (2000). Background television and reading memory in context: Assessing tv interference and facilitative context effects on encoding versus retrieval processes. Communication Research, 27(3), 327-352.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F009365000027003003
Bellman, S., Robinson, J. A., Wooley, B., & Varan, D. (2017) The effects of social TV on television advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Communications, 23(1), 73- 91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2014.921637
Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J. (2011). Media multitasking behavior: Concurrent television and computer usage. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(9), 527-534. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2158244018824505
Clapp, W. C., Rubens, M. T., Sabharwal, J., & Gazzaley, A. (2011). Deficit in switching between functional brain networks underlies the impact of multitasking on working memory in older adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(17), 7212-7217. https://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1015297108
Glass, G. V., Peckham, P. D., & Sanders, J. R. (1972). Consequences of Failure to Meet Assumptions Underlying the Fixed Effects Analyses of Variance and Covariance. Review of Educational Research, 42(3), 237–288.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543042003237
van der Goot, M. J., Beentjes, J. W., & van Selm, M. (2015). Older adults’ television viewing as part of selection and compensation strategies.
van der Goot, M. J., Rozendaal, E., Opree, S. J., Ketelaar, P. E., & Smit, E. G. (2018). Media generations and their advertising attitudes and avoidance: a six-country
comparison. International Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 289-308. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2016.1240469
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2012). Forzano LAB. Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. 4th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 78.
Heteroskedastic, J. (2018, July 9). Anova with binary dependent variable [Online Forum Reaction]. Message posted to
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/340129/anova-with-binary-dependent variable
Hsieh, Y. C., & Chen, K. H. (2011). How different information types affect viewer’s attention on internet advertising. Computers in human Behavior, 27(2), 935-945.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.019
Jeong, S.-H., & Hwang, Y. (2012). Does multitasking increase or decrease persuasion? Effects of multitasking on comprehension and counterarguing. Journal of
Communication, 62, 571–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01659.x Jeong, S. H., & Hwang, Y. (2016). Media multitasking effects on cognitive vs.
attitudinal outcomes: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 42(4), 599 618. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12089
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort (Vol. 1063). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Krippendorff, K. (2005). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. crc Press. Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of communication, 50(1), 46-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x MediaTijd. (2018). Retrieved June 17, from
https://www.mediatijd.nl/images/pdf/Brochure_MediaTijd_2018.pdf
Pangis, N. (2011, June 10). What Multitasking Consumers Mean for Marketers. Retrieved June 21, 2019, from https://www.clickz.com/what-multitasking-consumers-mean-for
Pea, R., Nass, C., Meheula, L., Rance, M., Kumar, A., Bamford, H., ... & Zhou, M. (2012). Media use, face-to-face communication, media multitasking, and social well-being among 8-to 12-year-old girls. Developmental psychology, 48(2), 327. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027030
van Peet, A. A. J., Namesnik, K. & Hox, J. J. (2005). Toegepaste statistiek: Inductieve technieken. Groningen: Noordhoff Uitgevers bv.
Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springler-Verlag.
Pilotta, J. J., Schultz, D. E., Drenik, G., & Rist, P. (2004). Simultaneous media usage: A critical consumer orientation to media planning. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 3(3), 285-292. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.141 Segijn, C. M., Voorveld, H. A. M., & Smit, E. G. (2016). The underlying mechanisms of multiscreening effects. Journal of Advertising, 45(4), 391-402.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1172386
Segijn, C. M., Xiong, S., & Duff, B. R. (2018). Manipulating and measuring media multitasking: Implications of previous research and guidelines for future research. Communication Methods and Measures, 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1555797
Srivastava, J. (2013). Media multitasking performance: Role of message relevance and formatting cues in online environments. Computers in Human
Behavior, 29(3), 888-895. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.023
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological review, 80(5), 352.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0020071
radio advertising. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2200-2206. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2011.06.016
Voorveld, H. A., & van der Goot, M. (2013). Age differences in media multitasking: A diary study. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(3), 392-408.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2013.816709
Zuwerink Jacks, J., & Cameron, K. A. (2003). Strategies for resisting persuasion. Basic and applied social psychology, 25(2), 145-161.
Appendix 1.2 Survey
Beste deelnemer,
Hierbij wil ik u uitnodigen om deel te nemen aan een onderzoek dat wordt uitgevoerd onder verantwoordelijkheid van de College of Communication, onderdeel van de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Voordat het onderzoek begint, is het belangrijk dat u op de hoogte bent van de procedure die in dit onderzoek wordt gevolgd. Lees daarom onderstaande tekst zorgvuldig door.
Het onderzoek waar wij uw medewerking voor willen vragen betreft een onderzoek naar advertenties. In de online survey zal een advertentie te zien zijn, waarbij u gevraagd wordt om deze aandachtig te bekijken. Hierna volgen een aantal vragen over de afbeelding. Ook wordt u gevraagd om te luisteren naar een radio fragment. Ook hier zullen een aantal vragen over worden gesteld. Om deel te nemen aan dit onderzoek dient u 18 jaar of ouder te zijn. Het onderzoek duurt ongeveer 5 minuten.
Omdat dit onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd onder de verantwoordelijkheid van ASCoR, Universiteit van Amsterdam, heeft u de garantie dat:
1) Uw anonimiteit is gewaarborgd en dat uw antwoorden of gegevens onder geen enkele voorwaarde aan derden worden verstrekt, tenzij u hiervoor van te voren uitdrukkelijke toestemming hebt verleend.
2) U zonder opgaaf van redenen kunt weigeren mee te doen aan het onderzoek of uw deelname voortijdig kunt afbreken. Ook kunt u achteraf (binnen 24 uur na deelname) uw toestemming intrekken voor het gebruik van uw antwoorden of gegevens voor het onderzoek.
3) Deelname aan het onderzoek geen noemenswaardige risico’s of ongemakken met zich meebrengt, geen moedwillige misleiding plaatsvindt, en u niet met expliciet aanstootgevend materiaal zult worden geconfronteerd.
4) U uiterlijk vijf maanden na afloop van het onderzoek de beschikking kunt krijgen over een onderzoeksrapportage, waarin de algemene resultaten van het onderzoek worden toegelicht. Voor meer informatie over dit onderzoek en de uitnodiging tot deelname kunt u te allen tijde contact opnemen met de projectleider Rebecca Speyer (rebecca.speyer@student.uva.nl). Mochten er naar aanleiding van uw deelname aan dit onderzoek klachten of opmerkingen bij u zijn, dan kunt u contact opnemen met het lid van de Commissie Ethiek van de afdeling Communicatiewetenschap, per adres: ASCoR secretariaat, Commissie Ethiek, Universiteit van Amsterdam, postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐525 3680;
ascor‐secr fmg@uva.nl. Een vertrouwelijke behandeling van uw klacht of opmerking is daarbij gewaarborgd.
Ik hoop u hiermee voldoende te hebben geïnformeerd en dank u bij voorbaat hartelijk voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek dat voor mij van grote waarde is.
Met vriendelijke groet, Rebecca Speyer
Met het accepteren van onderstaande voorwaarden verklaart u dat u de deelnemersinformatie heeft gelezen en begrepen. Verder geeft u aan dat u akkoord gaat met de gang van zaken zoals deze staat beschreven in de voorgaande informatie.
Ik stem geheel vrijwillig in met deelname aan dit onderzoek. Ik behoud daarbij het recht deze instemming weer in te trekken zonder dat ik daarvoor een reden hoef op te geven. Ik besef dat ik op elk moment mag stoppen met het onderzoek.
Als mijn onderzoeksresultaten worden gebruikt in wetenschappelijke publicaties, of op een andere manier openbaar worden gemaakt, dan zal dit volledig geanonimiseerd gebeuren. Mijn persoonsgegevens worden niet door derden ingezien zonder mijn uitdrukkelijke
toestemming.
Als ik meer informatie wil, nu of in de toekomst, dan kan ik me wenden tot Rebecca Speyer (rebecca.speyer@student.uva.nl). Voor eventuele klachten over dit onderzoek kan ik me wenden tot het lid van de Commissie Ethiek namens ASCoR, per adres: ASCoR secretariaat, Commissie Ethiek, Universiteit van Amsterdam, postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐ 525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl.
o ik begrijp de bovenstaande tekst en ga akkoord met deelname aan het onderzoek o ik begrijp de bovenstaande tekst, maar ga niet akkoord met deelname aan het
onderzoek
Voordat het onderzoek begint, zou ik u willen vragen om de volgende gegevens in te vullen. Wat is uw geslacht?
o Man o Vrouw o Anders
Wat is uw leeftijd in jaren? ____________________
Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleiding? o Basisonderwijs
o Voortgezet Onderwijs o MBO
o HBO o WO
Explanation newspaper plus radio condition
Op de volgende pagina zult u een radio fragment beluisteren en krijgt u een advertentie uit de krant te zien. Het is erg belangrijk dat u zich in een rustige omgeving bevindt waarin u geluid kunt afspelen.
Start het radiofragment en bekijk tegelijkertijd de advertentie eronder. In het volgende gedeelte zullen namelijk een aantal vragen over zowel het radiofragment als over de
advertentie worden gesteld en er is geen mogelijkheid meer om deze opnieuw te beluisteren of te bekijken. Na 14 seconden is het mogelijk om door te klikken naar de volgende pagina, maar u kunt zo lang naar de advertentie kijken als u wilt.
Explanation social media plus radio condition
Op de volgende pagina zult u een radio fragment beluisteren en krijgt u een advertentie op social media te zien. Het is erg belangrijk dat u zich in een rustige omgeving bevindt waarin u geluid kunt afspelen.
Start het radiofragment en bekijk tegelijkertijd de advertentie eronder. In het volgende gedeelte zullen namelijk een aantal vragen over zowel het radiofragment als over de
advertentie worden gesteld en er is geen mogelijkheid meer om deze opnieuw te beluisteren of te bekijken. Na 14 seconden is het mogelijk om door te klikken naar de volgende pagina, maar u kunt zo lang naar de advertentie kijken als u wilt.
U krijgt nu een aantal vragen te zien die gaan over het radio fragment dat u zojuist beluisterd heeft en over de advertentie die u zojuist gezien heeft.
Welk merk heeft u zojuist gezien? Indien u zich dit niet meer kan herinneren, laat dit veld leeg en ga door naar de volgende vraag.
_______________________
Welk merk heeft u zojuist in de advertentie gezien? o Nestlé Pure Life
o TUI o Spa
U heeft zojuist naar een radio fragment geluisterd. Welke weersvoorspelling werd hier onder andere in gedaan?
o Kans op sneeuw o Kans op een hittegolf
U krijgt nu een stelling te zien die gaat over de het merk van de advertentie die u zojuist gezien heeft. Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens of oneens bent met de volgende stelling. Ik vind het merk Nestlé Pure Life:
Onaantrekkelijk . . . Aantrekkelijk Slecht . . . Goed
Ongunstig . . . Gunstig Niet leuk . . . Leuk
