Media multitasking and ad congruence; does it affect consumers’ attitude towards the advertisement, television program and brand recall?
Research Master thesis by Laura Kim Nijhuis
10196110
Supervised by H.A.M. Voorveld
University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Communication Amsterdam, January 2015
Abstract
The aim of this study is to investigate whether media multitasking during online television and ad congruence influences attitude towards the advertisement, attitude towards the
television program and brand recall. Media multitasking has developed due to the increase of mobile devices. Therefore, this study focuses on media multitasking with a mobile phone while watching online television. Based on LCM and ELM it was expected that media multitasking and ad congruence influenced attitude towards the advertisements and attitude towards the television program positively and brand recall negatively. Via an online
experiment (N = 128) people watched an online television program with three commercials half way the program. This could be a congruent or incongruent commercial break. Half of the participants got an assignment to find information about the television cooking program ‘Zo aan tafel’ during the program. This study didn’t show any interaction effect. Nevertheless, this study showed that media multitasking resulted in a more positive attitude towards the television program.
Media multitasking and ad congruence; does it affect consumers’ attitude towards the advertisement, television program and brand recall?
Introduction
In the past decade, television’s prosperity has persisted as Internet broadband has become more popular (Waterman, Sherman & Ji, 2012). Since so many households have access to the Internet, watching videos online has become a popular activity for adults. At least 75% of adults with home broadband access regularly watch online video (Purcell, 2010) and this percentage is still growing (Waterman et al., 2012). With the growth of online television, online advertising is growing as well. Studies showed that the total revenue for online video advertising had increased more than sevenfold over the past twelve years and it is expected that this revenue will increase in the future (Prasad et al., 2012).
Although traditional television advertising and online video advertising do have similar advertising systems, the effectiveness is different because of different media environments. Advertisers can control online media and their advertisements more closely than advertisements in offline media (Moe, 2006; Sundar & Kalyanaraman, 2004). Another difference is that during commercial breaks, fast-forwarding is often prevented. It’s hard to ignore the advertisements during the commercial break. The advertisements are designed to attract attention by interrupting the online viewing experience. This makes the in-stream video advertisement different from traditional television (Li & Lo, 2014).
Online television is one of the technical developments in the past decade. Another technical development is the increase of different types of digital devices like a computer, smartphone or a tablet. People start to use more devices at the same time (Yeykelis,
Cummings & Reeves, 2014), which is called media multitasking. It turns out that if people start doing something else (secondary task) while they are watching television (primary task) for example, this affects the primary task negatively because it negatively influences people’s
attention (Pool, Koolstra & Van der Voort, 2003). Attention is necessary to process
information (Goodrich, 2011) to form an attitude and enhance brand recall (Li & Lo, 2014). Recall (Li & Lo, 2014) and attitude (Baltras, 2003) both play a key role in advertising effectiveness and therefore those factors will be studied. Besides a direct effect from media multitasking on attitude towards the advertisement and attitude towards the television program and brand recall several factors can affect this effect.
Advertisers can control online media and their advertisements more closely than advertisements in offline media (Moe, 2006; Sundar & Kalyanaraman, 2004). With this advantage of online media, a factor that becomes important to measure is the congruence between the advertisement and the television program. Similarities between the theme of the television program and the commercial is called thematic congruence. It means that the content of the online television program relates to the advertisement during this online television program (Heckler & Childer, 1992). Thematic congruence can play a key role in the effectiveness of in-stream advertisements during online television. Even though congruent advertisements are easy to process (Lee & Shen, 2009), incongruent advertisement can attract attention because of novelty. Nevertheless in the case of media multitasking people can decide to disengage from incongruent advertisements by selective attention (Harrington, Lane, Donohew & Zimmerman, 2006). Not much research is done media multitasking and ad congruence as a moderator, but a study from Li & Lo (2014), which focused on in-stream advertisements and congruency as a moderator showed that congruence advertisements were more effective than incongruence advertisements.
Like mentioned before, media multitasking affects people’s attention but at the same time a good congruence can affect the way information is processed. These differences rises up the question how both will influence the attitude towards the television program, attitude towards the advertisement and brand recall when the factors will be used in the same study. In
order to investigate this, the following research question is used: To what extent does media multitasking influence attitude towards the advertisement, attitude towards the television program and brand recall regarding fixed time slots advertisements in online television? And to what extent is this relationship affected by the congruence between the television program and the advertisement in the television program?
A combination of development of mobile devices, which ensures more media
multitasking and the growth of online television and his in-stream advertisements brings the effect of commercial breaks to a whole new level. Much is unclear about the effects of the commercials in online television, especially congruency between de advertisement and the television program in combination with media multitasking. Advertisers can have much faith from this study due to the fact that they can decide when to use advertisements in online television. If people don’t remember the brand from the advertisement or if people think the advertisement is annoying, it influences the brand’s reputation and affects the brand directly (Eckler & Bolls, 2011).
Theoretical Framework Online Television and Advertisements
This thesis is focusing on media multitasking while watching online television. Online television can be defined in watching a television program via the Internet. Online television gives advertisers the opportunity to spread their message by different forms of online
advertising since there is a wide variety of advertising formats. Ranging from banners, pre-roll, post-pre-roll, in-stream and overlay advertisements (Hua, Mei & Li, 2008; Mei, Hua, Yang & Li, 2007). This study is specifically focusing on in-stream advertisements in online television. In-stream advertisements are similar as a commercial break on traditional television as they interrupt the story in the same way during a television program (Kastidou & Cohen, 2006;
Thawani, Gopalan & Sridhar, 2004). A difference however, is that in traditional television a television commercial break will take a few minutes. During this break people get up and leave the room or start talking (Jayasinghe & Ritson, 2013). They also have the ability to ‘zap’ to another channel to watch something else (Kim, 2006). This will distract them from the advertisement (Jayasinghe & Ritson, 2013). Reason for acting like this is because people find the commercial break disruptive or annoying and they’re trying to avoid the break (Speck & Elliott, 1997). However, in online television, advertisements are manually inserted at a fixed interval without considering if the advertisement is intrusive or contextually relevant, which is not the case in traditional television (Li & Lo, 2014). In online television, these in-stream commercial breaks are short (e.g., three short twenty seconds commercials, with a total of one minute before the television program is continuing). It’s impossible to fast forward the advertisement or ‘zap’ to another channel (Li & Lo, 2014), which makes it hard to ignore them. Because most in-stream video advertisements are stated as intrusive, boring and without considering user’s attention (Mei, Hua, Yang & Li, 2007), people want to avoid the
advertisements (Speck & Elliot, 1997). This became even more intense when people felt forced to watch an advertisement (Li & Lee, 2002), which is exactly the case in online television. Therefore, people start doing something else.
Media Multitasking While Watching Online Television
Research from SPOT (2014) showed that almost 40% of the people use a mobile phone or tablet while they are watching online television. This thesis is focusing on watching online television and using a mobile phone during advertisements. The reason for using a mobile phone is because it’s a device that has become an important part of our live in the last few years (Kaplan, 2012) and this combination of devices is not studied yet. People who are using two or more media (e.g., television and Internet) are media multitasking (Jeong & Fishbein,
2007). Media multitasking can be defined as people who are engaging in more than one media activity at the same time (Foehr, 2006). Media multitasking has become increasingly
important in the contemporary environment (Jeong & Hwang, 2012) and statistics show that media multitasking is very common when people are using digital devices (Roberts & Foehr, 2008). Media can have different effects when people are multitasking with different media compared to when people use a single medium. Research about the influence of media multitasking on the effectiveness of advertising is scarce but there are some mixed findings. Media multitasking affects the persuasive effects of a medium because of reduced attention and comprehension of the content (Collins, 2008). On the other side, it can influence the effects of media positively by suppressing counter arguing of the content. Collins (2008) showed the positive effects of media when people are multitasking (television – Internet), whereas Jeong, Hwang & Fishbein (2010) studied multitasking (e.g., television – Internet use) and they found a negative effect of media when multitasking. These mixed findings suggest that multitasking plays an important role in media effects.
Even though research on media multitasking and advertising is still scarce, these studies show that media multitasking really influences media effects. These findings about media effects makes it interesting to do more specific research about this topic. In order to explain pro’s and con’s of media multitasking two theories will be described.
Theoretical Explanation About the Effects of Media Multitasking
This thesis focuses on the effects on people who are media multitasking while watching online television. Media multitasking enables people to achieve more goals and to experience more activities at the same time. However, engaging in multiple attention demanding tasks at the same time may have some cognitive and physically limitations (Sanbonmatsu, Strayer, Medeiros – Ward & Watson, 2013). In order to explain these limitations, two theoretical
models can be used.
The first theory that can explain these limitations is the Limited Capacity Information-Processing Model (LCM) (Lang, 2000). This model is developed to explain how people process television messages. This model has two assumptions. The first one is that people are information processors. People process information and turn it in to mental representations. Second assumption is that a person’s ability to process information is limited. Process information and messages requires mental resources. People can think about several topics but there is a limited capacity. At one point people can’t think about a topic without letting the other topic go (Lang, 2000). So, the approach figures that individuals only have a certain amount of cognitive capacity to divide among different tasks (Zhang, Jeong & Fishbein, 2006). The limited amount of capacity forces people to divide their attention between
different tasks (Armstrong & Chung, 2000). So, when people want to pay attention to two or more media, media are competing for cognitive resources and the attention that has to be divided (Chowdhury, Finn, & Olsen, 2007). People’s attention towards media content will be decreased (Jeong & Fishbein, 2007). So, according to the LCM, the model describes that people have a limited capacity when they’re doing multiple things at the same time. A model that elaborates on how people process information, for example in case of a limited capacity, is the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). This ELM explains the effects of people’s decreased attention and thus the effect of media multitasking on people’s behaviour. The ELM explains what’s happening when people pay less attention towards an activity they’re doing and how an attitude is formed. In general, the ELM stated that people could process information in two different ways. The central route of processing information, which means that information will be processed conscious and that an attitude will be formed based on the outcome of the process and cognitive reactions of the consumer. The peripheral route requires little conscious thoughts. There is less attention for the given information. Attitudes will not
be formed based on intensive cognitive thinking but it’s based on more easy and superficial arguments (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).
Based on the ELM the information-processing route of in-stream advertisements while people are media multitasking is periphery. Media multitasking will affect the message
processing and thus the effects of an advertisement (Jeong & Fishbein, 2007). Based on the idea that people following the peripheral route of the ELM they will have less
counter-arguments and lower levels of critical thinking about the message of the advertisement (Jeong & Hwang, 2012) than when people following the central route. Media multitasking is thus a contextual factor of contemporary media exposure that can have impact on processing media. So, media multitasking can enhance the effect of an advertisement.
In summary, based on the LCM, people who are doing different tasks at the same time, got distracted, which ensures a decreased attention for both media content. According to the ELM, when people got decreased attention they will process the information via the
peripheral route. This means people make less counter-arguments and think less critical about the message, which ensures more positive opinions about the advertisement and television program. Based on these findings, the following hypothesis is stated:
H1: In-stream advertisements during online television have a more positive effect on a. the attitude towards the advertisement and b. attitude towards the television program when people are media multitasking than when people are only focused on the in-stream advertisement.
The theoretical descriptions, which explain the effect of media multitasking on attitudes, will also explain the effect of media multitasking on brand recall. The LCM explains why people have less brand recall when they are media multitasking. People have to divide their attention
between several tasks, which means less attention, which ensures less processing of
information. As already stated above, people will follow the peripheral route from the ELM when they are watching the advertisement. In that case, they have less attention to the advertisement, which would result in less recall.
Only a few studies investigated the influence of media multitasking while watching television and the effect on recall specifically. Armstrong and Chung (2000) showed that background television affected recall of newspaper articles negatively. Zhang et al. (2006) showed that participants who viewed television while working on a task scored lower on recall compared to participants who focused on a single activity. Based on these findings, the following hypothesis is stated:
H2: In-stream advertisements during online television have a more negative effect on brand recall when people are media multitasking than when people are only focused on the in-stream advertisement.
Congruence Between Television Program and In-stream Advertisements
The development of devices ensures more media multitasking (Yeykelis et al., 2014). The ability of advertisers to control the advertisements more in online media than in offline media arises the question if there is a factor that moderates the effect of media multitasking on the attitude and recall of people. Advertisements seem to be decreases people’s attention towards the advertisement (Mei et al., 2007), but this seems to be different when people are media multitasking. An important factor that can affect interruption is ad congruence. This is the congruence between advertisement and the television program. McCoy, Everard, Polak and Galetta (2007) showed that if an advertisement is perceived as congruent with the television program, it’s not perceived as interruptive. Several terms are used for a match between
advertisement and video, like fit or ad congruence, but in general it’s just the same. Ad congruence means the fit between the brand and another entity (e.g., another brand or event) (Fleck, Korchia & Le Roy, 2012). More studies focused on ad congruence in the last few years. Mei et al. (2007) figured out that the congruence between the video and the
advertisements showed during the television program is mostly based on textual information about the program. Researchers Liao, Chen and Hsu (2008) have done research about video advertising services because of the opinion that textual information was too limited. The main point of video advertising services is to match the online video with the advertisement via a novel advertising system called AdImage. AdImage automatically associates relevant advertisements to viewed videos by specific objects and characteristic images in the video. The study showed that it enhances ad congruence, which enhances brand recall and less negative impressions on user experience.
Different researchers showed findings about congruency between online
advertisements and videos so far. McCoy et al., (2007) investigated that it is a good option for advertisers to pay attention about targeting their advertisements to programs that are closely related with the content of the advertisement. Furnham, Bergland and Gunter (2002)
investigated congruency between program and advertising and the impact on the
advertisement. They found that a significant degree of similarity between the program content and the advertisement content affects the impact of the advertisement. If the topic of the television program and the advertisement is similar, the television program will prime the memory and thus makes it easier to process the advertisement. Congruent advertising is easy to process and ensures positive emotions. It positively affects attitude towards the television program, attitude towards the advertisement and brand recall (Gasiorowska & Grochowska, 2012; Kocher, Czellar & Usunier, 2006; Moorman, Neijens & Smit, 2002).
Even though, no research is done specifically about media multitasking and ad congruence, expectations can be made based on the findings above. Media multitasking ensures less attention towards the television program and the advertisement. The ELM
explains that people who media multitask process information less consciously, which affects attitude towards the advertisement and attitude towards the television program positively because of less counter-arguing. Congruency of an advertisement can make it easier to process information because it’s less interruptive and easier to remember because of the congruence between the advertisement and the television program. Therefore there can be assumed that ad congruence is a factor that can affect the effects of media multitasking even more. The conceptual model can be found in figure 1. Combine both topics makes it
interesting and well worth to investigate if there is an interaction effect. This will form the following hypotheses:
H3: In-stream advertisements during online television have a positive effect on a. attitude towards the television program and b. attitude towards the television program when people are media multitasking but this effect will be more pronounced when there is congruency between the television program and the advertisement than when there is no congruence between the television program and the advertisement.
H4: In-stream advertisements during online television have a negative effect on brand recall when people are media multitasking but this will be less negative when there is congruency between the television program and the advertisement than when there is no congruence between the television program and the advertisement.
Methodology Experimental Design
For this study, an online experiment was conducted. A 2 (non-media multitasking vs. media multitasking) x 2 (high ad congruence vs. low ad congruence) between subjects design was used. Participants were given an assignment to do on their mobile phone during the
commercial break to manipulate media multitasking. Congruence between the television program and the advertisement was manipulated by different advertisements shown during the experiment.
Sample
The number of participants that participated this experiment was 219. A total of 91 participants were excluded from the experiment because they didn’t finish the experiment completely so at the end 128 participants completed the experiment. This study has used a convenience sample and has been distributed via e-mail and Facebook. The reason to collect participants online is because the experiment itself is about an online activity, namely Figure 1. Conceptual model of this study
Media multitasking (non-media multitasking vs. media multitasking) Ad congruence (low vs. high congruence)
Attitude towards the advertisement
Attitude towards the television program
watching online television. A total of 34 men (26,6%) and 94 women (73,4%) participated in this study. The age of the participants was between 18 and 69 years old (M = 36.07, SD = 13.40). The educational level of the participants ranged between 33,6% lower educated (no education, VMBO & MBO) and 66,4% higher educated (HAVO, VWO, HBO, WO & PhD).
Stimulus Material
In the experiment a short online television cooking program with a commercial break halfway the television program was shown. Reason to choose for a cooking program was because a cooking program is suitable for men and women. To do research about the impact of media multitasking during online television and the commercial break during online television, half of the participants got an assignment to search information about the television cooking program ‘Zo aan tafel’ on their mobile phone during the television program and the commercial break. The other half of the participants didn’t get the assignment to do something on their mobile phone and just had to watch the television program and the commercial break. The commercial break half way of the online television cooking program took one minute, and three different commercials were shown during that time. To manipulate ad congruence, participants saw one of the two commercial breaks made for this experiment. A commercial break with high ad congruence or a commercial break with low ad congruence. To select high congruence advertisements and low congruence advertisements for the
commercial break, a pre-test was done.
Pre-test
Twenty people divided in 8 men (40%) and 12 women (60%) between 22 and 30 year (M = 25.10, SD = 2.08) were asked to imagine they were watching a television cooking program. They got to see eighteen different statements about different advertisements. For each
statement they had to tell how well the advertisement fits with the cooking program on a seven-point scale from 1 – fits really bad to 7 – fits really good (Moorman et al., 2012). The pre-test showed that the advertisements from Tefal (M = 6.25, SD = 0.91), Conimex (M = 6.15, SD = 0.93) and Rudolph’s cooking book (M = 6.05, SD = 0.95) scored the highest which means that these three advertisements had the highest ad congruence. The commercials that scored the lowest were Axe (M = 2.10, SD = 0.64), Audi (M = 1.80, SD = 0.83) and Sony Experia (M = 1.80, SD = 0.89), which means that these three advertisements had the lowest ad congruence. A t-test showed that there was a significant difference between the three
advertisements with the highest scores and the three advertisements with the lowest scores (t (19) = -23.66, p < .001). The three commercials with high congruence had a significant higher score (M = 6.15, SD = 1.59) than the three commercials with the lowest score (M = 1,97, SD = 1.45). Based on the pre-test these advertisements were showed during the television cooking program ‘Zo aan tafel’.
Procedure
Participants were contacted via Facebook and e-mail so people could participate online. Participants were asked to participate in a study from the University of Amsterdam, which was about watching online television. Participants didn’t get an incentive for participate this study. Before participants started the experiment they had to fill in an informed consent. After participants agreed with the informed consent they saw a six-minute during episode of the television cooking program ‘Zo aan tafel’. Halfway during the television program, there was a short commercial break for one minute. Participants were exposed to a commercial break with high congruence advertisements (Tefal, Conimex and Rudolph’s Cooking book) or low congruence advertisements (Audi, Axe and Sony Experia). At the same time, half of the group participants got an assignment to find information about the television cooking program
‘Zo aan tafel’ on their mobile phone. The other half didn’t get an assignment and just had to watch the television program. After the television program the participant got questions about their recall of the ingredients in the video, the recall of the advertisements, the attitude
towards the television program and the attitude towards the advertisements. To check if the manipulation worked out well, participants were asked if they thought there was a good fit or a bad fit between the television program and the advertisements shown during the commercial break of the television program. Participants were also asked what they did during the
television program to make sure they did the assignment well. After these questions some control variables were measured. At the end of the online experiment participants got an explanation about the real goal of this study and they will be thanked for join the experiment (see appendix for the full survey).
Measurement
Dependent variables. The attitude towards the advertisement was measured by five different seven-point semantic differential scales. For each brand the attitude was asked separately. “I think Tefal/Conimex/Rudolph’s cooking book/Audi/Axe/Sony Experia is:” bad – good, negative – positive, unpleasant – pleasant, dislike – like, bad quality – good quality (Coulter & Punj, 2007; Nan & Heo, 2007). Cronbach’s Alpha for the high congruence
advertisements Tefal (α = .97, M = 4.75, SD = 1.60), Conimex (α = .98, M = 5.22, SD = 1.47) and Rudolph’s cooking book (α = .98, M = 5.19, SD = 1.45) was reliable. It means that this was a reliable measurement of attitude towards the brand. Cronbach’s Alpha for the low congruence advertisements Audi (α = .94, M = 4.19, SD = 1.58), Axe (α = .95, M = 3.69, SD = 1.79) and Sony Experia (α = .93, M = 4.65, SD = 1.45) was also reliable. It means that this was a reliable measurement of attitude towards the brand.
semantic differential scales. “I think the television program is:” bad – good, negative – positive, unpleasant – pleasant, dislike – like, bad quality – good quality (Choi, Miracle & Biocca, 2001; Muehling, 1987). Cronbach’s Alpha for attitude towards the television program was reliable (α = .95), which means that this was a reliable measurement of attitude towards the television program (M = 5.14, SD = 1.42). Thus, the mean scores for attitude towards the television program were used.
Brand recall was measured by asking participants the following question: “Which three brands were shown during the advertisement?” The number of correct brands mentioned is the points they got assigned (M = 2.10, SD = 0.94). People who got the assignment to find information about the television cooking program ‘Zo aan tafel’ got an extra question to write down shortly what kind of information they have found.
Control variables. Control variables measured in this study were gender, age and educational level. Also some extra control variables were added. Likeability of the cooking program was controlled with the question: “What do you think of cooking programs in general?” Dislike – like, not interesting – interesting, negative – positive. This was measured with a seven-point scale. Cronbach’s Alpha of likeability of the cooking program was reliable (α = .94), which means that this was a reliable measurement of likeability of cooking program (M = 5.18, SD = 0.34). Frequency of watching cooking programs was controlled with the question: “How often do you watch cooking programs?” with a five-point scale from 1 – never to 5 – daily (M = 3.18, SD = 1.58). Frequency of multitasking in general was controlled by the question: “How often do you multitask in your normal day life?” with a five-point scale from 1 – never to 5 – always (M = 3.65, SD = 0.86). Frequency of multitasking with a mobile phone was controlled with the question: “How often do you multitask with your mobile phone while you are watching online television?” with a five-point scale from 1 –
never to 5 – always (M = 3.47, SD = 1.02). Familiarity with the brand was controlled with the question: “Were you already familiar with the brand shown in the commercial?” 1 – Yes and 2 – No. This question was asked separately for each brand. For this variable all six questions were merged and recoded from 1 – familiar with one brand tot 3 – familiar with all three brands (M = 2.61, SD = 0.64).
Manipulation check. The manipulation was checked by some questions to make sure people multitasked and that they had seen an advertisement with a low congruence with the television program or a high congruence with the television program.
To check if the participants did what they were asked to do during the commercial break, the following questions were asked: “What did you do during the television program?” They had two options: “Watching the television program” and “Searching for information about the television program ‘Zo aan tafel’ and watched the television program”. A total of 72 participants answered “Watching the television program” (56,3%) and 56 participants
answered “Searching for information about the television program ‘Zo aan tafel’ and watched the television program” (43,8%). From the group of 60 people who got the assignment to search information about the television program ‘Zo aan tafel’, 56 people (93,3%) wrote a few sentences about what they have found. This group wrote that ‘Zo aan tafel’ is a cooking program with easy recipes, has a YouTube channel and a Facebook page. Participants found several healthy recipes and instructions how to cook the meal. Four people (6,6%) said they didn’t search for information.
To check if the participants agreed with the congruence or incongruence of the
advertisement the following question was asked to all of the participants: “To what extent you think there is a fit between the advertisement and the television program?” For each brand this question was asked separately. They had to answer the question on a seven-point scale from 1
– fits really bad to 7 – fits really good (Moorman et al., 2012). The three questions about the high congruence advertisements were checked with Cronbach’s Alpha and were reliable (α = .93), which means that this was a reliable measurement of fit between the advertisement and the television program (M = 5.72, SD = 1.00). The three questions about the low congruence advertisements were checked with Cronbach’s Alpha and were reliable (α = .77), which means that this was a reliable measurement of fit between the advertisement and the television program (M = 2.31, SD = 1.40).
Results Manipulation Check
To check if the respondents multitasked during the online television program they had to answer the question: “What did you do during the television program?” A Chi-square (X2
) test was done for the manipulation check to check if the respondents multitasked during the television program. The results showed that there was a significant difference between groups that multitasked during the television program and the group of participants that didn’t
multitasked during the television program (X2 (1) = 58,98, p < .001). Thus, the manipulation check was successful.
To check if the respondents agreed with the low or high congruence, they got the question: “To what extent you think there is a fit between the advertisement and the television program?” for every brand they saw during the commercial break. To check whether the manipulation check for ad congruence was successful, a t-test was done. The results showed that there was a significant difference between the group of participants that have seen the commercials with a high congruence with the television program and the group of participants that have seen the commercials with a low congruence with the television program (F
To summarise, people media multitasked while they were watching the television cooking program and people agreed that the high congruence commercials during the cooking program fits better than the low congruence commercials showed during the cooking
program.
Control Variables
To be sure other variables didn’t affect the results of this study, several control variables have been tested for the dependent variables brand recall, attitude towards the advertisement and attitude towards the television program. Each control variable will be discussed below. To test whether age should be included as a control variable, age was tested with a Pearson correlation coefficient (r). Age doesn’t have a significant correlation with attitude towards the advertisement (r = .105, p = .240) and attitude towards the television program (r = .128, p = .150). Age does have a significant correlation with brand recall (r = -.278, p = .002). So, age has to be included in the analysis for testing the hypotheses for brand recall to be sure age doesn’t affect an effect of online television and the congruence between the advertisement and the television program on brand recall.
The second control variable was likeability of a cooking program. To check if there was a correlation between likeability of a cooking program and attitude towards the
advertisement, attitude towards the television program and brand recall this was tested with a Pearson correlation coefficient (r). Likeability of a cooking program doesn’t have a
significant correlation with attitude towards the advertisement (r = .150, p = .090), attitude towards the television program (r = .110, p = .216) and brand recall (r = -.017, p = .853). Likeability of a cooking program doesn’t influence any of the dependent variables. So, likeability of a cooking program doesn’t have to be included in the analysis for testing the
hypotheses for attitude towards the advertisement, attitude towards the television program and brand recall.
The third control variable was familiarity with the advertisements during the television program. Familiarity with the advertisements was also tested with a Pearson correlation coefficient (r). Familiarity with the advertisements doesn’t have a significant effect on attitude towards the advertisement (r = .087, p = .328) and attitude towards the television program (r = .050, p = .578). Familiarity with the advertisements does have a significant correlation with brand recall (r = .249, p = .005). So, familiarity with the advertisements has to be included in the analysis for testing the hypotheses for brand recall to be sure familiarity with the
advertisements doesn’t affect an effect of online television and congruence between the advertisement and the television program on brand recall.
The fourth control variable was gender. Gender was tested with a spearman’s rho (rs).
Gender doesn’t have a significant correlation with attitude towards the advertisement (rs =
-.058, p = .516), attitude towards the television program (rs = -.093, p = .298) and brand recall
(rs = -.140, p = .115). So, gender doesn’t have to be included in the analysis for testing the
hypotheses for attitude towards the advertisement, attitude towards the television program and brand recall.
The fifth control variable was education. Education was tested with a Chi-square (X2). Education doesn’t have a significant correlation with attitude towards the advertisement (X2 (408) = 376,72, p = .865), attitude towards television program (X2 (208) = 191,60, p = .786) and brand recall (X2 (24) = 18,06, p = .800). Education doesn’t influence any of the dependent variables. So, education doesn’t have to be included in the analysis for testing the hypotheses for attitude towards the advertisement, attitude towards the television program and brand recall.
The sixth and last control variable was frequency of watching cooking programs on television. Frequency of watching cooking programs was tested with a Chi-square (X2). Frequency of watching cooking programs doesn’t have a significant effect on attitude towards the advertisement (X2 (255) = 250,36, p = .570), attitude towards the television program (X2 (130) = 134,68, p = .371) and brand recall (X2 (15) = 10,18, p = .808). Frequency of watching cooking programs doesn’t influence any of the dependent variables. So, frequency of
watching cooking programs doesn’t have to be included in the analysis for testing the
hypotheses for attitude towards the advertisement, attitude towards the television program and brand recall.
In sum, the control variables age and familiarity with the advertisement had to be taken into account when the hypotheses for brand recall were tested. The other control variables can be excluded from the analysis due they don’t affect attitude towards the advertisement, attitude towards the television program and brand recall.
Attitude Towards the Advertisement and Television Program
Hypothesis 1 stated that there was a positive main effect of media multitasking on a. the attitude towards the advertisement and b. attitude towards the television program. To analyze the effect of media multitasking on attitude towards the advertisement and attitude towards the television program, a multivariate analysis (MANOVA) was used which included media multitasking, ad congruence, attitude towards the advertisement and attitude towards the television program. The multivariate analysis was significant (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.95, F (2, 123) = 3.37, p = .038, η2 = 0.05) which means that there are differences between each group. Results show that there was no significant effect of media multitasking on attitude towards the advertisement (F (1, 124) = 0.140, p = .709). So, there was no difference between watching online television or watching online television while media multitasking on the attitude
towards the advertisements. The multivariate analysis for congruence between the
advertisement and television program was also significant (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.88, F (2, 123) = 8.16, p < .001, η2 = .12) which means that there were differences between each group. There was a significant main effect of congruence between the advertisement and television program and the attitude towards the advertisement (F (1, 124) = 15.80, p < .001) Participants who have seen the advertisements with a low congruence with the television program scored significant lower on the attitude towards the advertisement (M = 4.17, SD = 1.16) than participants who have seen the advertisements with a high congruence with the television program (M = 5.05, SD = 1.34). Based on these results, congruence between the
advertisement and television program can affect the attitude towards the advertisement. Despite the significant effect of congruence between the advertisement and the television program hypothesis 1a will be rejected.
Results for attitude towards the television program showed that there was a significant effect from media multitasking on attitude towards the television program (F (1,124) = 6.31, p = .013. So, there was a difference in attitude towards the television program between
participants who watched the television program and participants who multitasked during the television program and participants. Participants who just watched the television program scored lower on the attitude towards the television program (M = 4.84, SD = 1.54) than participants who multitasked during the television program (M = 5.48, SD = 1.19). Results showed that there was no significant main effect from congruence between the advertisement and the attitude towards the television program (F (1,124) = 0.74, p = .392 η2 = .048). Based on these findings, hypothesis 1b was thus accepted.
Interaction Effect on Attitude Towards the Advertisement and the Television Program Hypothesis 3 stated that there was a positive interaction effect between media multitasking
and the ad congruence on a. the attitude towards the advertisement and b. attitude towards the television program. The multivariate analysis for the interaction effect was not significant (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.97, F (2, 123) = 2.21, p = .114) which means that there were no differences between groups. Results show that there was no significant interaction effect (F (1,124) = 0.551, p = .459) between media multitasking and ad congruence on attitude towards the advertisement. Based on these findings, hypothesis 3a will thus be rejected.
Results also show that there was no significant interaction effect (F (1,124) = 2.29, p = .133) between media multitasking and ad congruence on attitude towards the television
program. Based on these findings, hypothesis 3b will thus also be rejected.
The Effects of Media Multitasking on Brand Recall
Hypothesis 2 stated that there was a negative main effect of media multitasking on brand recall. To analyse the results for any effect on brand recall, age and familiarity with the brand will be taken into account. Therefore a uni-variate analysis was used, while controlling for age and familiarity with the advertisement (ANCOVA). Results for brand recall showed that there was no significant effect from media multitasking on brand recall (F (1,122) = 2.52, p = .115). So, there was no difference in brand recall between participants who watched the television program and participants who multitasked during the television program and participants. Results show that there was no significant main effect from congruence between the advertisement and brand recall (F (1,122) = .252, p = .617). Based on these findings, hypothesis 2 will thus be rejected.
Hypothesis 4 stated that there was a positive interaction effect between media multitasking and the ad congruence on brand recall. Results showed that there was no
congruence on brand recall. Based on these findings, hypothesis 2c will thus be rejected.
Conclusion and Discussion
This study answers the research question: “To what extent does media multitasking influence attitude towards the advertisement, attitude towards the brand and brand recall regarding fixed time slots advertisements in online television? And to what extent is this relationship affected by the congruence between the television program and the advertisement in the television program this?” It is the first that combined media multitasking with ad congruence. The results showed that people score higher on attitude towards the television program when they media multitask with their mobile phone while they were watching television compared to when they just watch television. It doesn’t make a difference if people just watching online television or media multitask in the attitude towards the advertisement and brand recall. Also no interaction effect was found between media multitasking and ad congruence on attitude towards the advertisement, attitude towards the television program and brand recall. The effect of media multitasking on attitude towards the television program was in line with the LCM and the ELM, which states that media multitasking affects the attention paid to a task and people will think less critical when they were doing several tasks at the same time.
The message learning theory can explain why no effects were found for the attitude towards the advertisement and brand recall. According to the message learning approach to media effects, it sounds logical that in order to influence the viewer, the viewer must pay attention towards the message (Hovland, Janis & Kelley, 1953). In this case the
advertisement. Because the brain cannot process two messages simultaneously (Meyer & Kieras, 1997; Pashler, 2000), media multitasking means that people pay less attention towards the advertisement, which result in less processing. The message learning approach implicates
that media multitasking thus result in limited effects in general compared to when people advertisements with fully attention.
Media multitasking it self can also affect the results. In the last decade, media multitasking has become a required skill for employees and students (Adler & Benbunan-Fisch, 2012). It can be assumed that media multitasking has become a common behaviour among today’s consumers (Nielson, 2010). This can influence the interaction effect in a way that people are so used to multitasking that the interaction effect of congruence doesn’t affect the fact that people are media multitasking or not. A study from Wang, Irwin, Cooper and Srivastava (2015) assumed the exact same thing. They found a non-significant effect of media multitasking on advertisement evaluation and although there are lots of topics to research about media multitasking, they argue that multitasking is everywhere and therefore it should not be seen as a unique thing to do research about. They suggest combining media
multitasking with a non-task like staring at the clock.
The interaction effect of ad congruence on the direct effect of media multitasking on attitude towards the advertisement, attitude towards the television program and brand recall expected that high ad congruence influences the direct effect positively for all three variables. Nevertheless, no effect was shown. An explanation for these non-found interaction effect is that a study of (Solomon, 2013) stated that advertisings might influence consumers more when they’re placed in unexpected ways or places to capture consumer’s attention. In case of this study, where an interaction effect was expected between media multitasking and ad congruence, people got less attention when they were multitasking. But in case of incongruent ads, they might be more prominent and thus stimulate processing of the advertisement, attract attention and affect people’s attitude and recall more than congruent advertisements.
Limitations
This online experiment was made as real life as possible. People have seen a television program with a commercial break half way the episode of ‘Zo aan tafel’. People were in a private environment where they participate the experiment. Although, in this private environment, there was no check to control for people’s activities during the experiment. It was possible for people to multitask when they shouldn’t have to or the other way around. Therefore, I’m not sure if the answers they gave were correct. In order to control this part of the research, a future experiment in a laboratory can be a good solution to control for
environmental issues.
A technical issue that made it hard to collect enough participants was that Google Chrome ensured some problems with going to the next page of the experiment in Qualtrics and showing the television program ‘Zo aan tafel’. Many people wanted to participate the online experiment but had to quit because of one of these problems. That was the reason that nearly 50% of the people quit the experiment as shown in the method section. The problem was solved partially by adding the link of the YouTube videos to the online experiment. If the television program wasn’t working well in Qualtrics, people could copy and paste the link in their Internet browser and thus still join the online experiment.
Practical Implications
So far, congruency between advertisement and online television is still in developing phase and advertisers don’t pay that much attention towards it while this study showed that it’s quite important. The attitude towards the television program was higher when people were
multitasking, and it was easier to process advertisements when they were congruent with the television program. This showed that it’s important for advertisers and marketers to think about this aspect when they decide to show advertisements in commercial breaks during
online television programs. Media multitasking is becoming a usual habit in people’s life and congruence between the advertisement and television program can bring a huge advantage for advertisers to create more effect of the advertisement. It’s less interruptive and people
therefore remember it better and form a more positive attitude towards the advertisement of create a better brand recall. Advertisers needs to be aware of this phenomenon. This study can be seen as a starting point for combining media multitasking and ad congruence and
advertisers can use this study to better understand consumer’s habits and possibilities for online advertising.
References
Adler, R. F., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2012). Juggling on a high wire multitasking effects on performance. Journal of Human Computer Studies, 70(2), 156–168.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.10.003
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.
doi:10.1177/009365000027003003
Baltas, G. (2003). Determinants of Internet advertising effectiveness: An empirical study. International Journal of Market Research, 45(4), 505–14.
Choi, Y. K., Miracle, G. E., & Biocca, F. (2001). The effects of anthropomorphic agents on advertising effectiveness and the mediating role of presence. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 2(1), 19-32. doi:10.1080/15252019.2001.10722055
Coulter, K. S., & Punj, G. N. (2007). Understanding the role of idiosyncratic thinking in brand attitude formation. Journal of Advertising, 36(1), 7-20.
doi: 10.2753/JOA0091-3367360101
Chowdhury, R. M. M. I., Finn, A., & Olsen, G. D. (2007). Investigating the simultaneous presentation of advertising and television programming. Journal of Advertising, 36(3), 85–96. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367360306
Collins, R. L. (2008). Media multitasking: Issues posed in measuring the effects of television sexual content exposure. Communication Methods & Measures, 2(1), 65–79.
doi:10.1080/19312450802063255
Eckler, P., & Bolls, P. (2011). Spreading the virus: Emotional tone of viral advertising and its effect on forwarding intentions and attitudes. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 11(2), 1-11. doi:10.1080/15252019.2011.10722180
Fleck, N., Korchia, M., & Le Roy, I. (2012). Celebrities in advertising: Looking for congruence or likability? Psychology & Marketing, 29(9), 651-662.
doi:10.1002/mar.20551
Foehr, U. G. (2006). Media multitasking among American youth: Prevalence, predictors and pairings. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Furnham, A., Bergland, J., & Gunter, B. (2002). Memory for television advertisements as a function of advertisement program congruity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(5), 525-545. doi:10.1002/acp.812
Harrington, N. G., Lane D. R., Donohew, L., & Zimmerman R. S. (2006). An extension of the activation model of information Exposure: The addition of a cognitive variable to a model of attention. Media Psychology, 8(2), 139–64.
doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0802_5
Hovland, C., Janis, I., & Kelley, H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gasiorowska, M., & Grochowska, A. (2012). Conceptual coherence of print advertisements: effects of brand knowledge, cognitive resources and emotion. Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Association for Consumer Research, Queenstown, New Zealand. Goodrich, K. (2011). Anarchy of effects? Exploring attention to online advertising and multiple outcomes. Psychology and Marketing, 28(4), 417–40.
doi:10.1002/mar.20371
Heckler, S. E., & Childers, T. L. (1992). The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory for verbal and visual information: What is congruency. Journal of consumer research, 18(4), 475-492.
Hua, X. S., Mei, T., Li, S. (2008). When multimedia advertising meets the new Internet era. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing, 1–5. doi:10.1109/MMSP.2008.4665039
Jayasinghe, L., & Ritson, M. (2013). Everyday advertising context: An ethnography of advertising response in the family living room. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1),
104-121. doi:10.1086/668889
Jeong, S. H., & Fishbein, M. (2007). Predictors of multitasking with media: Media factors and audience factors. Media Psychology, 10(3), 364–384.
doi:10.1080/15213260701532948
Jeong, S. H., & Hwang, Y. (2012). Does multitasking increase or decrease persuasion? Effects of multitasking on comprehension and counter-arguing. Journal of Communication, 62(4), 571-587. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01659.x
Jeong, S. H., Hwang, Y., & Fishbein, M. (2010). Effects of exposure to sexual content in the media on adolescent sexual behaviors: The moderating role of multitasking with media. Media Psychology, 13(3), 222-242. doi:10.1080/15213269.2010.502872 Kaplan, A. M. (2012). If you love something, let it go mobile: Mobile marketing and mobile
social media 4x4. Business Horizons, 55(2), 129-139. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.10.009
Kastidou, G., Cohen, R. (2006). An approach for delivering personalized ads in interactive TV customized to both users and advertisers. In: Proceedings of European Conference on Interactive Television.
Kim, P. (2006). Advertisers face TV reality. Business View Trends, Forrester Research.
Kocher, B., Czellar, S., & Usunier, J. C. (2006). The effect of perceived brand name-logo coherence on brand attitudes. Advances in Consumer Research, 33(1), 274-276.
Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46–70. doi:10.1093/joc/50.1.46
Lee, S. Y., & Shen, F. (2009). Joint advertising and brand congruity: Effects on memory and attitudes. Journal of Promotion Management, 15(4), 484-498.
doi:10.1080/10496490903276874
Li, H., Edwards, S. M., & Lee, J. H. (2002). Measuring the intrusiveness of advertisements: Scale development and validation. Journal of Advertising, 31(2), 37–47.
doi:10.1080/00913367.2002.10673665
Liao, W. S., Chen, K. T., Hsu, W.H. (2008). AdImage: video advertising by image matching and ad scheduling optimization. In: Pro- ceedings of ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 767–768.
doi:10.1145/1390334.1390494
Li, H., & Lo, H. Y. (2014). Do you recognize its brand? The effectiveness of online in-stream video advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 0(0), 1-11.
doi:10.1080/00913367.2014.956376
McCoy, S., Everard, A., Polak, P., & Galletta, D. F. (2007). The effects of online advertising. Communications of The ACM, 50(3), 84–88. doi:10.1145/1226736.1226740
Mei, T., Hua, X. S., & Li, S. (2009). VideoSense: A contextual in-video advertising system. Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, IEEE Transactions on, 19(12),
1866-1879. doi:10.1145/1291233.1291342
Mei, T., Hua, X. S., Yang, L., Li, S. (2007). VideoSense: Towards effective online video advertising. In: Proceedings of ACM Multimedia, Augsburg, Germany, 1075–1084. doi:10.1145/1291233.1291467
Meyer, D., & Kieras, D. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple task performance. Part 1. Psychological Review, 104(1), 3–65.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.1.3
Moe, W. (2006). A field experiment to assess the interruption effect of pop-up
promotions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 20(1), 34–44. doi:10.1002/dir.20054 Moorman, M., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2002). The effects of magazine-induced
psychological responses and thematic congruence on memory and attitude toward the ad in a real-life setting. Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 27-40.
doi:10.1080/00913367.2002.10673683
Muehling, D. D. (1987). An investigation of factors underlying attitude – toward – advertising – in – general. Journal of Advertising, 16(1), 32-40.
doi:10.1080/00913367.1987.10673058
Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63-74. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367360204 Nielsen (2010, March 22). Americans using TV and internet together 35% more than a year
ago. Retrieved from: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire.
Pashler, H. (2000). Task switching and multitask performance. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive process: Attention and performance XVIII, 275–423. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advanced in Experimental Social Psychology, 19(1), 123-205. doi:10.1016/S0065- 2601(08)60214-2
Prasad, S., Lutes, A., Jenvey, E., Sutton, W., Stephenson, A., MacDowell, C., & Scherer, W. T. (2012). Targeted advertising in the online video space. In Systems and Information Design Symposium (SIEDS), 129-133. Doi:10.1109/SIEDS.2012.6215146
Pool, M. M., Koolstra, C. M., & Voort, T. H. (2003). The impact of background radio and television on high school students' homework performance. Journal of
Communication, 53(1), 74-87. doi:10.1093/joc/53.1.74
Purcell, K. (2010). The state of online video. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Strayer, D. L., Medeiros-Ward, N., & Watson, J. M. (2013). Who multitasks and why? Multi-tasking ability, perceived multi-tasking ability, impulsivity, and sensation seeking. Plos one, 8(1), 1-8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054402
Solomon, M. R. (2013). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being. 10th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Speck, P. S., & Elliott M. T. (1997). Predictors of advertising avoidance in print and broadcast media. Journal of Advertising, 26(3) 61–76.
doi:10.1080/00913367.1997.10673529
SPOT (2014). TV Jaarrapport 2013. Retrieved from http://spot.nl/docs/default- source/jaarrapporten/2014---spot-tv-jaarrapport-2013.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Sundar, S., & Kalyanaraman S., (2004). Arousal, memory, and impression-formation effects of animation speed in web advertising. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 7–17.
doi:10.1080/00913367.2004.10639152
Thawani, A., Gopalan, S., Sridhar, V. (2004). Context aware personalized ad insertion in an interactive TV environment. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Personalization in Future TV.
Wang, Z., Irwin, M., Cooper, C., & Srivastava, J. (2015). Multidimensions of media
multitasking and adaptive media selection. Human Communication Research, 41(1), 102-127. doi:10.1111/hcre.12042
Waterman, D., Sherman, R., & Ji, S. W. (2012). The economics of online television: Revenue models, aggregation, and 'TV Everywhere'. Aggregation, and 'TV Everywhere', 1-37. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2032828
Yeykelis, L., Cummings, J. J., & Reeves, B. (2014). Multitasking on a single device: Arousal and the frequency, anticipation, and prediction of switching between media content on a computer. Journal of Communication, 64(1), 167-192. doi:10.1111/jcom.12070
Zhang, W., Jeong, S. H., & Fishbein, M. (2006). Competing for attention: How does multitasking influence the recognition of TV sexual content. Paper presented at the annual conference of International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany.
Appendix Introductie
Geachte deelnemer,
Ik dank u voor uw deelname aan het onderzoek naar online televisie kijken. U bent uitgenodigd deel te nemen aan een onderzoek dat wordt uitgevoerd onder
verantwoordelijkheid van onderzoeksinstituut ASCoR, onderdeel van de Universiteit van Amsterdam. ASCoR doet wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar media en communicatie in de samenleving. Het onderzoek waarvoor ik uw medewerking vraag, gaat over online televisie kijken. Allereerst zal er een aflevering van een kookprogramma ‘Zo aan tafel’ getoond worden en daarna zal naar uw mening gevraagd worden. Het onderzoek duurt ongeveer 10 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 zullen worden verstrekt, tenzij u hiervoor van tevoren 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 voor u met zich meebrengt, geen moedwillige misleiding plaatsvindt, en u niet met expliciet
aanstootgevend materiaal zult worden geconfronteerd.
4. U uiterlijk 5 maanden na afloop van het onderzoek de beschikking over een
onderzoeksrapportage kunt krijgen 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 Laura Kim Nijhuis (laurakim.nijhuis@student.uva.nl).
Mochten er naar aanleiding van uw deelname aan dit onderzoek bij u toch klachten of opmerkingen zijn over het verloop van het onderzoek en de daarbij gevolgde procedure, dan kunt u contact opnemen met het lid van de Commissie Ethiek namens ASCoR, per adres: ASCoR secretariaat, Commissie Ethiek, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV 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.
Met vriendelijke groet, Laura Kim Nijhuis
Ik verklaar hierbij op voor mij duidelijke wijze te zijn ingelicht over de aard en methode van het onderzoek, zoals uiteengezet in de informatietekst voorafgaand aan dit onderzoek. 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 gebruikt worden 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.
Ik begrijp de bovenstaande tekst en ga akkoord met deelname aan het onderzoek
Ik begrijp de bovenstaande tekst en ga NIET akkoord met deelname aan het onderzoek Online televisieprogramma – high congruence
Ik wil graag weten hoe goed mensen informatie uit de media opnemen en begrijpen. Zou u daarom het televisieprogramma 'Zo aan tafel' op de volgende pagina aandachtig willen bekijken? Dit duurt 6:21 minuten. Na de aflevering volgen er een aantal vragen. Bekijk onderstaand televisieprogramma:
Mocht het filmpje niet laden, wilt u dan de volgende link kopiëren in de adresbalk van uw browser?
http://youtu.be/-1i0LLD6new
Online televisieprogramma – low congruence
Ik wil graag weten hoe goed mensen informatie uit de media opnemen en begrijpen. Zou u daarom het televisieprogramma 'Zo aan tafel' op de volgende pagina aandachtig willen bekijken? Dit duurt 6:21 minuten. Na de aflevering volgen er een aantal vragen. Bekijk onderstaand televisieprogramma:
Mocht het filmpje niet laden, wilt u dan de volgende link kopiëren in de adresbalk van uw browser?
http://youtu.be/1CSk1fQNVLk
Online televisieprogramma – high congruence & media multitasken
Sommige mensen kijken televisie terwijl ze tegelijkertijd bezig zijn met hun mobiele telefoon. Dit wordt media multitasken genoemd. Ik wil graag weten hoe goed mensen informatie uit de media opnemen en begrijpen wanneer ze media multitasken. Zou u daarom het
televisieprogramma 'Zo aan tafel' op de volgende pagina aandachtig willen bekijken? Dit duurt 6:21 minuten. Zou u tijdens het getoonde televisieprogramma informatie willen opzoeken over het programma 'Zo aan tafel?' Na de aflevering volgen er een aantal vragen. Bekijk onderstaand televisieprogramma:
Mocht het filmpje niet laden, wilt u dan de volgende link kopiëren in de adresbalk van uw browser?
http://youtu.be/-1i0LLD6new
Online televisieprogramma – low congruence & media multitasken
Sommige mensen kijken televisie terwijl ze tegelijkertijd bezig zijn met hun mobiele telefoon. Dit wordt media multitasken genoemd. Ik wil graag weten hoe goed mensen informatie uit de media opnemen en begrijpen wanneer ze media multitasken. Zou u daarom het
televisieprogramma 'Zo aan tafel' op de volgende pagina aandachtig willen bekijken? Dit duurt 6:21 minuten. Zou u tijdens het getoonde televisieprogramma informatie willen opzoeken over het programma 'Zo aan tafel?' Na de aflevering volgen er een aantal vragen. Bekijk onderstaand televisieprogramma:
Mocht het filmpje niet laden, wilt u dan de volgende link kopiëren in de adresbalk van uw browser?
http://youtu.be/1CSk1fQNVLk
Vergeet niet op te zoeken wat er te vinden is over het programma 'Zo aan tafel'. Brand recall
De volgende vragen gaan over de zojuist getoonde video.
Welke ingrediënten zitten er in het gerecht dat bereid is in de aflevering van 'Zo aan tafel'
Ingrediënt 1 Ingrediënt 2 Ingrediënt 3 Ingrediënt 4 Ingrediënt 5 Ingrediënt 6 Ingrediënt 7 Ingrediënt 8 Ingrediënt 9
Welke merken herinnert u zich nog uit de reclames? Noteer de merknamen die u zich kunt herinneren.
Merk 1
Merk 2
Merk 3
Attitude ten opzichte van de advertentie – high congruence
Tijdens het televisieprogramma werd halverwege reclame gemaakt voor de merken Tefal, Conimex en Rudolph's kookboek. Kunt u per reclame aangeven wat u er van vindt? Ik vind de reclame van Tefal:
Slecht - Goed
Negatief - Positief
Onaangenaam - Aangenaam
Niet leuk - Leuk
Ik vind de reclame van Conimex:
Slecht - Goed
Negatief - Positief
Onaangenaam - Aangenaam
Niet leuk - Leuk
Slechte kwaliteit - Goede kwaliteit Ik vind de reclame van Rudolph's kookboek:
Slecht - Goed
Negatief - Positief
Onaangenaam - Aangenaam
Niet leuk - Leuk
Slechte kwaliteit - Goede kwaliteit
Attitude ten opzichte van de advertentie – low congruence
Tijdens het televisieprogramma werd halverwege reclame gemaakt voor de merken Audi, Sony Experia en Axe. Kunt u per reclame aangeven wat u er van vindt?
Ik vind de Audi autoreclame:
Slecht - Goed
Negatief - Positief
Onaangenaam - Aangenaam
Niet leuk - Leuk
Slechte kwaliteit - Goede kwaliteit Ik vind de reclame van Sony Experia:
Slecht - Goed
Negatief - Positief
Onaangenaam - Aangenaam
Niet leuk - Leuk
Slechte kwaliteit - Goede kwaliteit Ik vind de reclame over Axe deodorant:
Slecht - Goed
Negatief - Positief
Onaangenaam – Aangenaam
Niet leuk - Leuk
Slechte kwaliteit - Goede kwaliteit
Attitude ten opzichte van het televisie programma Ik vind dit televisieprogramma:
Slecht - Goed
Negatief - Positief
Onaangenaam - Aangenaam
Niet leuk - Leuk
