Is an Infographic Worth a Thousand Words?:
Comparing the Power of Infographics and Text on Recall and Persuasion Marc Yannick Eshuijs
Abstract
This study focuses on the differences between infographics and text-based content in the field of political communication. These two ways of presenting information will be examined on how they have an effect on recall and persuasion power. With recall is meant how much the respondent can remember from the given content in the message. With persuasion power is meant how persuasive the design of the message is. In this study, infographics is constantly compared with text-based content to find out if there are differences in the aforementioned concepts (recall and persuasion power). The study tries to find answers with the use of an experiment in the form of a questionnaire. While doing the experiment, the respondents were randomly assigned to one of the two designs, an infographic or text. The infographic and text-based content consisted of the same kind of information to ensure internal validity. The messages were both political motivated and it is based on an existing infographic of the Dutch political party D66. In the results came out that there is not a significant difference on both recall and persuasion power when exposed to an infographic and text. A main reason of these findings can be that the stimuli that was used in this research might not differ enough from one another to find what was expected. An explanation could be that the definition of infographics is not yet fully explored and a broader research on the definition of infographics might be needed.
Is an Infographic Worth a Thousand Words?
Infographics have been here quite longer than one might suspect. In fact, they date back some 10,000 to 20,000 years ago, when our prehistoric ancestors made drawings on cave walls and ceilings (Lankow, Ritchie & Crooks, 2013). Just as back then, such illustrations can be used today as a way to communicate through visual display, which is inherent to infographics. Infographics “helps deliver complex information in a way that is more quickly and easily understood.” (Smiciklas, 2012). They can be a powerful tool to inform or even persuade people to certain actions. Especially in a time where people are overwhelmed by the amount of information, also known as the digital or information age (Polat, 2005).
This is especially the case when we zoom in on a specific field such as political communication, where to inform and persuade citizens are two important parameters for being ahead in the polls or winning the elections (Kim, Rao & Lee, 2009). In the age where the access to - and the amount of information is increasing due to the development of the Internet, it has become a tough environment for political parties and their political campaigns in the race for attention (Xenos & Moy, 2007). People’s average attention span seems to decline and people are distracted much faster (Brey, 2006). Also, a research report written by Gausby (2015), on behalf of Microsoft, formulated this quite clearly: “Our environment is rapidly changing and we’re adapting. Consumers’ lives are increasingly digital - at work, home and everywhere in between. With news reduced to 140 characters and conversations condensed to emojis, how is this affecting the way people see and interact with the world?” This new environment makes it hard for political parties to make new strategies which will be sufficient enough to make sure their political views will be picked up by the people. An idea would be to join the digital consensus, by making use of messages which are easy and quick to digest such as infographics. An example would be the rise of Instagram, a popular app
among young people in which users can quickly snap and transform a photo, by adding filters and effects, and share it online with their peers (Tekulve & Kelly, 2013). An interesting study by Tekulve and Kelly (2013) even examined how this technology could be sufficient on behalf of their institutions. They wanted to know if Instagram could be a new way to engage the younger public. With this in mind, the infographic is an interesting tool to evaluate in the field of political communication, because it could have a positive effect on political
engagement.
In previous research, the impact of infographics is mostly compared with information solely based on textual content. Lazard and Atkinson (2015) made a comparison when studying the effect of pro-environmental messaging. They found that visuals matter and that infographics are more engaging than information based on text only. They also found that visual cues can be processed as central elements, meaning infographics most likely have the capability to facilitate heuristic processing. Something which also characterises text-based content (Lazard & Atkinson, 2015). Another study, done by Choi, Lee and Park (2013), also examined that infographics can be a successful tool for persuasion, just as text-based content has a stronger heuristic facilitation. They examined interactive infographics and how people could easily distinguish and recognise a topic in question as an effective way of
communication.
However, there are almost no studies on how infographics play a role in the specific field of political communication. As stated earlier, new media has changed the media environment. Meaning, it’s getting harder for political parties to stand out and to reach the targeted audience they are aiming for, let alone persuading them (Flanagin & Metzger, 2001). This research could be of help. Political parties need to know if the use of infographics is a new and successful strategic communication tool, especially used in new media such as social network sites Facebook or Twitter (Smiciklas, 2012).
In additivity, this research could also be an enrichment for the limited research that yet is done on the heuristic and persuasive power of infographics. There is a real gap in knowledge about how infographics have an effect on people. This study focuses primarily on the persuasive power of an infographic and if it has a positive effect on people’s memory. Next to that, this study will focus on political communication. This is why this study is scientific relevant, because there is deficiency of previous research that studies the effects of infographics used by political parties. It is important because infographics might inform and persuade people better than text-based content. To measure and understand if infographics persuade people, this study addresses to the persuasion power of visual and textual messages. With persuasion power is meant that different kind of message tools have different kind of persuasion abilities.
Correspondingly, this research aims to find the heuristic and persuasive power of infographics in comparison with text-based content. To effectively find a difference in effect between infographics and text-based content, the following question is stated: Does an infographic have a positive effect on recall and does it have greater persuasive power than text-based content depending on recall of the message?
Further below, the theoretical framework of the study will be discussed. After that, there will be an explanation of the methodology, which will be used to conduct the
experiment. Later on, the results of the experiment will be discussed and explained. In the end you will find a conclusion of the overall study.
Theoretical framework
To understand more of what will be researched in this study, it is important to find out what an infographic really is. There are several definitions found in previous literature. Firstly, infographics stands for ‘information graphics’. Meaning that infographics are visual representations of textual data, information and knowledge with the assumption that it should
make the presented information quicker and easier to understand (Newsom & Haynes, 2004). It’s in line with how Smiciklas (2012) defines infographics: “An infographic … is a type of picture that blends data with design, helping individuals and organizations concisely communicate messages to their audience.” Furthermore, Smiciklas (2012) stated, just like Newsom and Haynes (2004), that an infographic is a visualisation that has a purpose to make complex information easier to understand. This will be seen as an essential characteristic of infographics, because this study is researching the impact of infographics on memory. In overall, information that is understood better has a greater chance to be remembered than information that is understood less (Fleming & Mills, 1992). This way, an infographic can have a better potential on recall than text-based content. Although infographics, in contrast with text-based content, mostly have less textual information people can potentially
remember, it does not have to mean people will actually remember less of what is presented in those messages. A part of this study wants to find this out; which way of presenting messages or which message tool has a more positive effect on recall?
As mentioned before, there will also be a highlight on the persuasive power of both the infographic and text-based content. The persuasion power described by Winn and Beck (2002) and the emotive impact of visuals Joffe (2002) illustrated in their researches will be examined. Two kinds of messages (infographics versus text-baes content) will be constantly compared on their persuasion power and the ability to recall information.
Visuals versus text
A similar comparison was already made by Houts et al. (2006), pictures closely linked to written text have an increased effect in attention and recall. Although this study is done in a setting for health communication, it could have the same kind of impact for political communication, and thus political messages. There are more studies following this example.
For instance, visual communication strategies explain how visuals can overpower text-based content in political campaign messages (Lazard & Atkinson, 2014; Griffin, 2008; Messaris, 1994). As Lazard and Atkinson (2014) state: “Images often “win out” with their message persuasiveness over text or speech.” It also explains that the relationship of both visual and text-based content, that what is inherent to infographics, has a stronger persuasive effect than just text itself (Lazard & Atkonson, 2014; Trumbo, 1999). Furthermore, the outcome of the VARK-mode explains that a greater amount of people experience that visual content is more important for recalling information than text-based content (Fleming & Mills, 1992). The VARK-model is an interesting model, because it can zoom in on a more individual level on how information is processed. According to Othman & Amuriddan (2010), it allows to find different perspectives of learning styles. Although this could be interesting as well, this study will only focus on the outcome why a greater amount of people recall more information from visual content.
The fact that “images often win out” is interesting in a political point of view, because in the voting process the greater amount of people matters. The more votes a political party during elections get, the more successful a political party is (Bram & Fishburn, 2005). The concept recall is important in this study, because, and it will be described more extensively later in this paper, a lot of researchers are still examining how recall has an effect on likening the message. This can come in handy, for example, when advertorials need to persuade their customers to buy things or political parties need to win people’s votes (Newell, Henderson & Wu, 2001; Kim, Rao & Lee, 2009). That is why this study wants to test whether an
infographic has a greater positive effect on recall than text based content.
H1: People exposed to an infographic will experience a greater effect on recall than those exposed to text based content.
In political communication, it is important to be convincing. The end goal is to override other people’s opinions, or at least making them vote on your political party during certain elections. In this case, the persuasive power of a political message is an important feature. The elaboration likelihood model (ELM-model), a theory first coined by Petty and Cacioppo (1984), can explain if certain people will be persuaded by the way a message is presented. The ELM-model has two continuums, to process information through the central route or to process information through the peripheral route. To process information through the central route means that people have to have the motivation as well as the ability to elaborate the message. People need to have an interest in the given topic. People who are less interested in the given topic, will mostly process information through the peripheral route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984). It is an important model, because there is tendency to believe that there is a lack of political interest (CBS, 2008). Having said that, the ELM-model describes that when people are less motivated and just as interested in a message on a certain topic, the message should not be difficult to understand or hard to elaborate if it wants to have impact. Knowing that not all people will be just as motivated or interested in certain topics, it’s interesting to know how to reach an inactive and disinterested audience. The concept
persuasion power, also meaning the persuasiveness of a message, is an import concept in this matter. The reason is that research from different communication disciplines have widely examined the persuasiveness of visual messages (Messaris, 1994; Joffe, 2008). That is why this study wants to test if a visual entity such as an infographic has a greater persuasion power than text-based content.
H2: People exposed to an infographic will experience a greater effect on persuasion than those exposed to text-based content.
Because this study is aiming to find out if an infographic has a greater effect on recall and has a greater persuasive power than text-based content, it could be interesting to understand if
there is a connection between the presentation of the message and the persuasion power on recall. That’s why this study wants to test whether a higher score on persuasion power of the presentation means also have a greater effect on recall. Although the focus lies on
infographics, it is also interesting to look if this prediction also takes hold for text-based content.
H3: Exposure to an infographic (vs. text-based content) has a positive effect on recall through higher levels of perceived persuasiveness.
Again, this is to find out if there is an interaction effect between persuasion power of the message and recall. This is relevant to examine, because it’s important to find out why certain messages (infographics and text-based content) enhances a higher degree of recall. For example, previous research examined if repetition of messages improved recall of information in messages (Cacioppo & Petty, 1989; Anand & Sternthal, 1990), an already widely accepted phenomenon (Toppino & Gerbier, 2014). Other researchers examined if pleasure or arousal levels of viewers enhanced recall of ads, also called the processing efficiency principle (Newell, Henderson & Wu, 2001). By addressing these examples, it’s clear that academics in the communication science are widely questioning which way messages should be shaped and framed for a high performance on recalling information. Repetition or arousing messages can have a positive influence on recall. This could also said about how persuasive a message can be and if that persuasiveness (i.e. persuasion power) is inherent to the way information is presented. In the case of this study, there will be a
comparison between an infographic (visual) and text-based content. A messages which contain more visual information (such as an infographic) have a higher persuasion power than text according to a study done by Winn and Beck (2002) about the persuasive power of design elements on an e-commerce website. Another argument why visuals might have a greater persuasion power is stated by Joffe (2002). According to Joffe (2002), visuals have
the ability to arouse emotion, which is less present when people are exposed to textual material. The persuasion power or qualities of the visual stir more engagement by their abilities to have a higher emotive impact. This is explained by McQuarrie and Mick (1999), because visuals are an easier gateway to imagination than just text. The visual figures, which were used in the study, produced more elaboration and led to a more positive attitude toward the message in contrast toward the message in textual form. Although textual messages do create imagination or understanding as well, visuals are quicker and easier to comprehend and thus can have a higher persuasion power (Choi, Lee & Park, 2013).
As mentioned before, there is not a lot of research done about the effects of infographics on recall nor its persuasiveness. It would be a great addition to the academic field of communication to find out if the persuasiveness of infographics can have a more positive influence on recall than text-based content.
Method
In order to get an answer on the research question, this study will make use of a true experiment. It is quite important to find a causal relationship between the researched
variables to make sure there will be the possibility to draw a relevant conclusion. These kind of relationships can only be found by the means of an experiment. Experiments are also useful to get answers on new formulated hypotheses. The key is to approve or disapprove the stated propositions (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2016). It is essential for this study to make use of a true experiment, because this research needs people (i.e. consulted participants) to participate in this study and to find a causal relationship between the way a message is presented, how it will have an effect on memory and if the degree of persuasion power of a message influences it. As said earlier, making use of an experiment makes it easier to find the answers on the hypothesis formulated in this study and draw relevant conclusions on how infographics can have a positive effect on memory and persuasion power.
Participants
To conduct a valid study, it is important to get enough participants. There was aimed for a minimum of 150 participants. There is made use of a convenience sample to find the sufficient amount of participants. Most of them were approached by e-mail or contacting via Facebook. Some might be approached offline and personally. It is important to address that the participants needed to be 18 years or older, because people younger than 18 aren’t yet able to participate in the elections.
After closure of the questionnaire, the number of entries stood on 197, and only 159 participants finished the questionnaire. The sample included a total of 158 respondents (Mage
= 28.49, SDage = 13.19; 50.6% female), because one of participants was younger than 18. The
participants were randomly assigned to one of the two aforementioned conditions (an
infographic or text). A total of 80 participants (50.1%) were exposed to an infographic, and a total of 78 (49.1%) participants were exposed to text-based content.
Design
There will be made use of a one-factorial between-subject design with two levels; infographic and plain text. The design also consist of a pre-test measuring the attitude in relation to the theme, a random assignment to one of the two conditions and
post-measurements of other variables. Participants are randomly assigned, which is necessary for a true experiment.
The reason why there is chosen for a between-subject design, which means that all participants will be exposed to only one of the two conditions, is to make sure that there will be no serial position or testing effects. Secondly, when participants will be exposed to both conditions there could be a bigger chance that these participants will be more aware about the studied subject. This foreknowledge could affect results and disadvantages the intern validity
of this research. There will be two conditions, the experimental condition and the control group condition. The control group condition is the condition where the participants will be exposed to the message designed as text. The experimental group condition is the condition where the participants will be exposed to an infographic.
Procedure
The actual experiment will start with some demographic questions. After this, some questions which measure political interest and political preference. Later, the participants will be exposed to an infographic or text-based content. After being exposed to one of the two stimuli, the participants will be asked about their political preference again. At this stage, there will also be questions which measure the attitude towards the presentation of the message and questions which measure the recall of information presented in both of the conditions.
Pre-test
To be sure that the topic of the content used in the experiment is suitable, a pre-test is done with a handful of participants before the actual experiment to make sure the generated results are demonstrable. Participants were exposed to infographics with several different themes: EU austerity plans; sustainability and education. The same question, that measures attitude towards the several given themed infographics, was asked both before and after the exposure. This way it was possible to measure the highest mean in attitude towards a given theme and to know which theme will have the biggest influence on people’s opinion. The theme with the highest mean would be chosen to use in the experiment. In the results of the pre-test could be seen that the theme about EU austerity plans (M = 3.95, SD = 1.54) had the highest mean, comparing with sustainability (M = 3.20, SD = 1.61) and education (M = 3.80, SD = 1.47), and therefore chosen to be the subject in the stimuli.
Experimental stimuli
As stated earlier, this experiment will make use of two kinds of stimuli, meaning there will be two different experimental groups. One group will only be exposed to a message in the form of ‘simple’ text and the other group will only be exposed to a message designed as an infographic. The randomization will be steered by the software program Qualtrics. It’s important to address that both groups will be exposed to same kind of information. Both the text-based only content and the content presented as an infographic will have a similar message. This is to make sure that the content itself, or the topic presented in both of the conditions, doesn’t have too much influence on the results, because the focus of this experiment is on how the message is presented and not on what is presented. To be clearer, the only difference between the conditions is how the messages are presented.
Both messages contain information about the EU austerity plans of Dutch political party D66. There is chosen for D66, because in terms of left-right politics this political party is considered most central comparing to all other political parties active in the House of Representatives (Castles & Mair, 1984). It’s important that there is chosen for the most centric party, because it makes sure that both right and left political orientated people are equally represented in the experimental stimuli.
Variables
This research will measure several output variables; presentation of the message, attitude towards presentation of the message, attitude towards the content of the message, ‘message recall’ and persuasive power of the message (later: ‘persuasion power’). Also, this study will measure moderators like political interest and political preference. With the
exception of message recall, all variables will be measured by means of a 7-point Likert scale (from ‘strongly disagree’ till ‘strongly agree’). Variable message recall will be measured by
enquiring the participants with four specific questions and operationalized as a dichotomous variable. The respondents were asked if they remembered what kind of message they were assigned to (infographic or text) and questions that could measure if the respondents remembered anything of the content in the messages. To measure persuasion power, the respondents were asked five questions: if the message was convincing, credible, clear, effective or powerful. Next to that, the participants were asked about their gender (M = 1.51, SD = 0.50), age (M = 28.49, SD = 13.19) and highest level of education (M = 5.62, SD = 0.98). This could be interesting in the end, when it’s possible to control on some of those variables and to make interesting conclusions. It’s important to address that only the
variables, presentation of the message (M = 1.49, SD = 0.50), message recall and persuasion power will be conducted in this research.
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Participants
Variable Mean (M) Standard Deviation (SD)
Gender 1.51 0.50 Age 28.49 13.19 Education 5.62 0.98 Presentation 1.49 0.50 Recall 2.59 1.15 Persuasion 4.42 1.00
Other aforementioned variables will not be discussed in the results and discussion. The other variables were included, because this research was done in group form.
Factor- and reliability analyses
In the experiment, several questions were asked to measure message recall. To form a measurable dependent variable, these five items were brought together. At first, a factory analysis was done with all four items measuring message recall to secure for any underlying variables. Using the Kaiser criterion (Kaiser, 1958), both the eigenvalue and scree plot(see
table 2) showed that there is just one component bigger than 1, which means they all together cover about 45.53% of the variance in the original variables. However, one of the items in the component matrix (see table 3) scored lower than 0.45, which means that one item could not be included for creating a scale for the dependent variable message recall. Because the scale would then only have 3 items, it was decided to not remove the item from the scale because 3 wouldn’t be enough to create a sufficient new variable.
Table 2
Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cum. % Total % of Var. Cum. %
1 1,821 45,527 45,527 1,821 45,527 45,527
2 ,930 23,255 68,782
3 ,752 18,802 87,584
4 ,497 12,416 100,000
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Table 3
Component Matrixa
Component 1
Had de boodschap een duidelijk onderwerp? ,762
Werd er een politieke partij genoemd in de
boodschap? ,403
In de boodschap werd aangegeven dat er bezuinigd moest worden. Waren er specifieke onderdelen waarop bezuinigd moest worden?
,811 Was er een onderdeel waarop duidelijk het meest
bezuinigd moest worden? ,649
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 1 components extracted.
Because recall is operationalized as a dichotomous variable, the scale for the variable recall should have been tested on reliability by the hand of a psychometric method data reduction called the Mokken Scale (Mokken, 1971). Due to the complexity of this method, the Mokken Scale will be executed nor discussed in this research. Despite the lack of a reliability test, a
scale was made for the variable message recall (M = 2.59, SD = 1.15), with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 3 (see table 1).
The moderator persuasion power was measured by means of five different questions. These five items were also analyzed to see if one of the items was not an underlying variable. Again, using the Kaiser criterion (Kaiser, 1958), both the eigenvalue and scree plot (see table 4) showed that there is just one component bigger than 1, which means they all together cover about 55.27% of the variance in the original variables.
Table 4
Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cum. % Total % of Var. Cum. %
1 2,764 55,272 55,272 2,764 55,272 55,272
2 ,809 16,177 71,449
3 ,619 12,389 83,838
4 ,480 9,598 93,436
5 0,328 6,564 100,000
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Table 5 Component Matrixa Component 1 Ik vond de boodschap...-...overtuigend ,745 Ik vond de boodschap...-...geloofwaardig ,576 Ik vond de boodschap...-...helder ,758 Ik vond de boodschap...-...doeltreffend ,842 Ik vond de boodschap...-...krachtig 0,770
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 1 components extracted.
Table 6
Item-Total Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted
Ik vond de boodschap...-...overtuigend ,753
Ik vond de boodschap...-...geloofwaardig ,803
Ik vond de boodschap...-...helder ,753
Ik vond de boodschap...-...doeltreffend ,713
To test if the items are reliable, an analysis was done for the items which measured persuasion power, which demonstrated that these items form a reliable scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79). Although the scale could have improved to 0.80 by removing one of the items, I didn’t chose to remove the item. The improvement is 0.1, which is not a good argument for removing it from the scale (see table 6). A scale is made for the variable persuasion power (M = 4.42, SD = 1.00), with a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 6.60 (see table 1).
Results
Randomization
To test for any differences between the experimental groups, a separate analysis of variance (ANOVAs) with sex, age and education as dependent variables and the presentation of the subject as independent variable was conducted. The results demonstrated that the experimental groups did not differ with respect to sex F(1, 175) = 0.103, p = 0.75 and education F(1, 157) = 3.13, p = 0.08. In contrast, the experimental groups did differ with respect to age F(1, 157) = 4.25, p > 0.05. Meaning, age can be seen as a confounding variable. To control on variable age, it must be included as a confounding variable in the upcoming analyses.
Manipulation check
In the manipulation check, participants were asked to report on how the subject was presented, or to test if the participants remembered where they were randomly assigned to. They could choose between infographic and regular text. The manipulation check is to find out if the manipulation of the independent variable was successful. In overall, the
for independence, X2(1) = 114.20, p < 0.05. It is significant, meaning the manipulation and manipulation check are dependent of one another and the manipulation was successful.
Effect of presentation
This research will have two independent variables; presentation message (infographic versus text) and a moderator persuasion power (measured by the means of a 7-point Likert scale) and one dependent variable: message recall.
To get an answer on the first hypothesis, weather people who were exposed to an infographic will experience a greater effect on recall than those exposed to text based content, an independent samples t-test is conducted with presentation message as independent variable and message recall as dependent variable, because we need to compare the means of two different groups. The independent variable will be measured on a nominal scale and the moderator will be measured on an interval scale. This test could be performed, because the dependent variable is numerical and N is bigger than 30. In disagreement with H1, the results showed that an infographic does not have a significant effect on message recall. From
participants between 18 and 68 years who were exposed to text-based content (M = 2.68, SD = 1.14), do not differ significantly from the participants who were exposed to an infographic (M = 2.49, SD = 1.15) regarding to message recall, t(156) = 1.02; p = 0.31; 95% CI [-0,18, 0,55].
For testing the second hypothesis the same procedure is used. To get an answer, weather people who were exposed to an infographic will experience a greater effect on being persuaded than those exposed to text based content, an independent samples t-test is
conducted with presentation message as independent variable and persuasion power as dependent variable, because we need to compare the means of two different groups. The independent variable will be measured on a nominal scale and the moderator will be
measured on an interval scale. This test could be performed, because the dependent variable is numerical and N is bigger than 30. In disagreement with H2, the results showed that an infographic does not have a significant effect on message recall. From participants between 18 and 68 years who were exposed to text-based content (M = 4.33, SD = 0.96), do not differ from the participants who were exposed to an infographic (M = 4.50, SD = 1.04) regarding to ‘persuasion power’, t(156) = -1.06; p = 0.29; 95% CI [-0.48, 0.15].
To test the third hypothesis, it’s essential to find an answer if the effect of presentation message on message recall changes, depending on the level of persuasion power. Finding an answer is possible by making use of a mediator analysis. If the interaction effect between the independent variable and mediator is significant, it’s valid to say that the mediator persuasion power does have a significant effect on the relation between de independent variable
presentation message and dependent variable message recall. The independent variable will be measured on a nominal scale, the moderator will be measured on an interval scale and the dependent variable will measured on an interval scale.
To conduct a mediator analysis, a program called PROCESS of Hayes (2013) will be used. Before PROCESS, a mediator analysis was done by making use of linear regression model, but according to Hayes (2013), this is a quick and easy alternative to run a mediator analysis. The independent variable presentation message was used as variable X, the both independent and mediator variable persuasion power as variable M and the dependent variable message recall as the outcome variable Y. After running PROCESS, the analysis showed that the independent variable presentation message had a Beta of 0.13 and a p = 0.16 for predicting the mediator persuasion power. The results showed that it was not significant, meaning that the independent variable presentation message did not appear to predict the moderator persuasion power. Furthermore, the analysis also showed that de independent variable presentation message had a Beta of -0.26 and a p = 0.15 for predicting the dependent
variable message recall. This also showed that the results were not significant, meaning that the independent variable presentation message did also not predict the dependent variable message recall. Thirdly, the results showed that there was also no significant result in presentation power predicting the dependent variable message recall. The results showed a Beta of 0.26 and a p = 0.15. There was controlled on the variable age and showed a Beta of -0.01 and a p = 0.06, which means the variable age did also not predict the mediator
persuasion power.
In PROCESS, to know if a mediator succeeded, one must look at the conference interval. The conference interval in this program exists out of two bounds, each consisting a value, and the amount that is between those bounds predicts for 95% that the effect is truly between those two values. Also, if the conference interval has a value of ‘0’ between both bounds, it means that that the results are not significant and the mediator did not succeed. This is not the case when both bounds are above or below ‘0’. So again, it is important that one of the two values in both bounds should be negative (under ‘0’) and the other positive (above ‘0’) (Hayes, 2013). To find out if the mediator in this study was significant, it is important to look at the indirect effect of the independent variable presentation message (X) on the dependent variable recall message (Y) through the mediator persuasion power (M). When looking at the results the conference interval in this study lays between -0.01 and 0.11 and the indirect effect was bigger than -0.26 (SD = 0.03). This means that it is possible to say that is for 95% sure that the effect lies between -0.01 and 0.11, concluding the mediator analysis did not succeed.
Conclusion and discussion
To answer the main question of this study, an infographic does not have substantial positive effect on recall and does not have a substantial greater persuasive power than
text-based content. Furthermore, the question if the relationship between how a presentation was presented and persuasiveness of the message had a more positive effect on recall was also not supported. To be more elaborate, this study focused on how infographics have an effect on recalling the information that was presented in the message. Studies showed that the visual cues that are inherent to infographics should have a positive effect on heuristic processing (Lazard & Atkinson, 2015). Meaning, people exposed to information packed in a visual matter would have a more positive effect on recalling information than those exposed to information presented solely as text. Next to that, this study wanted to examine if people experienced an infographic as persuasive (the persuasion power of the message), so that it would trigger an even more positive effect on recalling information of the message. This prediction was made, because previous studies showed that when information is perceived as more interesting, the information would be less hard to elaborate thus easier to remember (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984). Additionally, a comprehensive study by of Fleming and Mills (1992), the VARK-model showed that the greatest amount of people used in the experiment experienced that visual matter was more important for recalling information that text-based content. Although this model was not further tested or examined in this study, it could be interesting to include it in next studies on this matter. It’s interesting, because the VARK-model zooms in on a more individual level and could get a better understanding on how information is processed. It allows to find different perspectives of learning styles than those that are already widely examined (Othman & Amuriddan, 2010).
An overview of the expectations
Unfortunately, when looking at the results of the first tested hypothesis, the prediction that infographics would have a positive effect on recalling information was not supported in this study. A reason could be, according to findings of Levie and Lentz (1982), that the information that was presented as text did not have the right amount of words which could
distort someone’s memory in such a way, that it would have a lower effect on recall than that of the visual counterpart. Maybe because the presented message as text counted ‘only’ 107 words, the stimuli in this experiment couldn’t predict the more positive relation between infographics and recalling information. Also, which actually contradicts the first statement, the infographic used in this experiment does contain a significant amount of words (103). Although visual information and textual information together is inherit to infographics (Smiciklas, 2012), the amount of words used in this infographic could distort the prediction of the first hypothesis. It contradicts the first statement, because the amount of words used in both presentations (107 versus 103) are almost equal. You would expect that an infographic with almost the same amount of words than the message presented as text would have a greater effect on recall. Especially when multiple research have shown that visuals alone already have a higher impact on recall than text (Lazard & Atkinson, 2015; Smiciklas, 2012).
The second hypothesis, if an infographic would have a positive effect on how the presentation is perceived, was also not supported in this study. Although it’s hard to find any explanations, because lots of studies report that visuals are mostly received as more
persuasive than text (Griffin, 2008; Messaris, 1994), an explanation could be that of how the participants interpreted the stimuli. The ELM-model of Petty and Cacioppo (1984), which is also used in this study to explain the effect of infographics on recall, explains that people can process information both peripherally and centrally. When perceiving information centrally, a higher level of elaboration is needed, which means that there will be a higher chance that people find the messages more persuasive. There are studies that explain that people tend to elaborate more (Petty & Cacioppo, 2012; Stiff 1986) or are less distracted, when they have to go through textual information, in contrast with visual information. The same studies explain that visual matter distracts more and thus have a negative effect on the level of elaboration
when people are presented images. This could also have been the case for the infographic in this experiment.
The suggestion that recalling information depended on the interaction between the presentation of the message and the persuasion power of the message did not get support. If both the presentation and the persuasiveness of the infographic did not had an effect on recall solely, it is not strange that the interaction of these two don’t have a positive on effect on recalling information from infographics either. As for all hypotheses, explanations could be found in the stimuli that was used for this research. As said earlier, a stronger difference must be made between the infographic and the text-based content. This study made use of existing infographic from political party D66 and it’s valid to question if this infographic fulfils the requirements described by previous studies (Smiciklas, 2012; Newsom & Haynes, 2004).
Future research
In future research, when it’s important to find a positive effect between infographics (or other visual matter) and recall of information, it’s important to look critically to the stimuli to be used for the experiment. It can be said afterwards, that the stimuli used in this experiment weren’t sufficient enough to create the proper environment for testing these predictions. The infographic used in this experiment didn’t differ enough from the message as text. That’s why it is important to do a broader research about the definition of an
infographic. Also, there must be a significant difference in the amount of text between the infographic and text message. If you want to study the effects between visuals and text, it’s important that there is a clear difference. Again, it would be enriching if there would be a broader and more extensive research on infographics. Although communication designs similar as infographics have been widely studied, there is a lack of research solely on
persuasion and recall. Although one could wonder that the assumption is a bit farfetched, it does not mean it deserves examination. In a next study, it’s also possible to examine a different outcome. Does recall have a positive influence on the persuasiveness of a message? Because both increases likening of the message, it is interesting if the increase of recall is a precursor for persuasiveness. As mentioned earlier in this paper, the persuasiveness of a message has the ability to change people’s minds. An interesting theory to be tested when political parties like to make sure that they are the top favourite when heading for elections or that advertorials want to be successful in persuading people to buy the stuff they advertise (Newell, Henderson & Wu, 2001; Kim, Rao & Lee, 2009; Messaris, 1994; Joffe, 2008).
In the political field of communication, it would still be interesting to know if there could be a positive effect on recall when using infographics. In history, most political parties made use of text based content or speech to override the opinions of people. Today, we live in a different time where people are overwhelmed by the amount of information (Polat, 2005). Which is becoming a tough environment for political parties and their political campaigns (Xenos & Moy, 2007). Although the results of this research did not supported the predictions, it would still be interesting to try and study if infographics does have a positive on memory. As consensuses suggest, people’s average attention span seems to decline and people are distracted must faster these days (Brey, 2006; Gausby, 2015). A message solely based on text won’t be sufficient to have the persuasive power to increase the liking and recall of what is presented by political parties during the elections. Making use of
infographics could still be an empowering tool to reach the voting audience. Because in the era of Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat, visual messages could be dominating the future’s public discourse.
Literature
Anand, P., & Sternthal, B. (1990). Ease of message processing as a moderator of repetition effects in advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 345-353. doi: 10.2307/3172591 Brams, S. J., & Fishburn, P. C. (2005). Going from theory to practice: the mixed success of
approval voting. Social Choice and Welfare, 25(2-3), 457-474. doi: 10.1007/s00355-005-0013-y
Brey, P. (2006). Evaluating the social and cultural implications of the internet. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 36(3), 41-48. doi:10.1145/1215932.1215933
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1984). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in consumer research, 11(1), 673-675.
http://130.18.86.27/faculty/warkentin/SecurityPapers/Merrill/CacioppoPetty1984_ELMPe rsuasion.pdf
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1989). Effects of message repetition on argument processing, recall, and persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(1), 3-12. doi:
10.1207/s15324834basp1001_2
Castles, F. G., & Mair, P. (1984). Left–right political scales: Some ‘expert’judgments. European Journal of Political Research, 12(1), 73-88.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.1984.tb00080.x
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Herziene versie: Politieke betrokkenheid groter, maar ook scepsis over politiek neemt toe. (2008).
Choi, B., Lee, Y., & Park, S. (2006). A Research on Interactive Infographics for Effective Visual Communication. Journal of Korean Society of Design Science, 19(2), 229-240. http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/ArticleDetail/NODE02367419
Colman, A. M., Morris, C. E., & Preston, C. C. (1997). Comparing rating scales of different lengths: Equivalence of scores from 5-point and 7-point scales. Psychological Reports, 80(2), 355-362. doi:10.2466/pr0.1997.80.2.355
Griffin, M. (2008). Visual competence and media literacy: Can one exist without the other? Visual Studies, 23, 113-129. doi:10.1080/14725860802276255
Gausby, A. (2015). Attention spans. Retrieved from
https://advertising.microsoft.com/en/WWDocs/User/display/cl/researchreport/31966/en/mi crosoft-attention-spans-research-report.pdf
Gravetter, F., & Wallnau, L. (2016). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. Cengage Learning. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Houts, P. S., Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G., & Loscalzo, M. J. (2006). The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient education and counseling, 61(2), 173-190.
doi:10.1016/j.pec.2005.05.004
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary media environment. Human communication research, 27(1), 153-181. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00779.x
Fleming, N.D. & Colleen, M. (1992). "Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection" (1992). To Improve the Acadamy, 11(1), 137-149. doi:10.1.1.547.7075 Joffe, H. (2008). The power of visual material: Persuasion, emotion and identification.
Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23(3), 187-200. doi:10.1007/bf02289233
Kim, H., Rao, A. R., & Lee, A. Y. (2009). It's time to vote: The effect of matching message orientation and temporal frame on political persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 877-889. doi:10.1086/593700
Lazard, A., & Atkinson, L. (2014). Putting Environmental Infographics Center Stage: The Role of Visuals at the Elaboration Likelihood Model’s Critical Point of Persuasion. Science Communication, 37(1), 6-33. doi:10.1177/1075547014555997
Lankow, J., Ritchie, J., & Crooks, R. (2012). Infographics: The power of visual storytelling. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. ECTJ, 30(4), 195-232. doi: 10.1007/bf02765184
McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1999). Visual rhetoric in advertising: text‐interpretive, experimental, and reader‐response analyses. Journal of consumer research, 26(1), 37-54.
Messaris, P. (1994). Visual “literacy”: Image, mind, & reality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. doi:10.2307/1213593
Mokken, R. J. (1971). A theory and procedure of scale analysis: With applications in political research (Vol. 1). Walter de Gruyter.
Nelson, T. O., Metzler, J., & Reed, D. A. (1974). Role of details in the long-term recognition of pictures and verbal descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102(1), 184-186. doi:10.1037/h0035700
Newell, S. J., Henderson, K. V., & Wu, B. T. (2001). The effects of pleasure and arousal on recall of advertisements during the Super Bowl. Psychology & Marketing, 18(11), 1135-1153. doi:10.1002/mar.1047
Newsom, D., & Haynes, J. (2007). Public relations writing: Form & style. Cengage Learning.
Nielsen, J. (2008). How little do users read? Retrieved February, 23, 2016. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-little-do-users-read/
Othman, N., & Amiruddin, M. H. (2010). Different perspectives of learning styles from VARK model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 652-660.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.10.088
Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2012). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer Science & Business Media.
Polat, R. K. (2005). The Internet and political participation exploring the explanatory links. European journal of communication, 20(4), 435-459. doi:10.1177/0267323105058251
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of educational and behavioral statistics, 31(4), 437-448.
doi:10.3102/10769986031004437
Smiciklas, M. (2012). The power of infographics: Using pictures to communicate and connect with your audiences. Que Publishing.
Stiff, J. B. (1986). Cognitive processing of persuasive message cues: A meta‐analytic review of the effects of supporting information on attitudes. Communications Monographs, 53(1), 75-89. doi:10.1080/03637758609376128
Tekulve, N., & Kelly, K. (2013). Worth 1,000 Words: Using Instagram to Engage Library Users. In Brick and Click Libraries Symposium. Northwest Missouri State University. http://ecommons.udayton.edu/roesch_fac/20/
Toppino, T. C., & Gerbier, E. (2014). About practice: repetition, spacing, and abstraction. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 60, 113-189. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-800090-8.00004-4
Trumbo, J. (1999). Visual literacy and science communication. Science Communication, 20, 409-425. doi:10.1177/1075547099020004004
Winn, W., & Beck, K. (2002). The persuasive power of design elements on an e-commerce web site. Technical communication, 49(1), 17-35.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233607442_The_Persuasive_Power_of_Design_ Elements_on_an_E-Commerce_Web_Site
Xenos, M., & Moy, P. (2007). Direct and differential effects of the Internet on political and civic engagement. Journal of communication, 57(4), 704-718. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00364.x
Appendix 1: Stimuli
Infographic
Appendix 2: Measurement instrument
Q1: Ik ben een… Man Vrouw
Q2: Wat is uw leeftijd in jaren? … jaar (zelf invullen)
Q3: Wat is de hoogst genoten opleiding die u hebt afgerond? 1. geen opleiding
2. lagere school/ basisschool
3. middelbaar voortgezet onderwijs (MAVO, VMBO)
4. middelbaar beroepsonderwijs en beroepsbegeleidend onderwijs (MBO)
5. hoger algemeen en voorbereidend wetenschappelijk onderwijs (HAVO, VWO, Gymnasium)
6. hoger beroepsonderwijs (HBO)
7. wetenschappelijk onderwijs (Universiteit)
Stemintentie - afhankelijke variabele
Q4: De volgende Tweede Kamerverkiezingen vinden plaats op 15 maart 2017. Hoe groot is de kans dat u gaat stemmen bij deze verkiezingen?
2. Klein 3. Enigszins klein 4. Neutraal 5. Enigszins groot 6. Groot 7. Zeer groot
Q5: Hoe groot acht u de kans dat u in de toekomst op [partij] gaat stemmen? 1. Zeer klein 2. Klein 3. Enigszins klein 4. Neutraal 5. Enigszins groot 6. Groot 7. Zeer groot
Partijen waarvoor bovenstaande vraag wordt ingevuld: GroenLinks
PvdA (Partij van de Arbeid) SP (Socialistische Partij)
CDA (Christen-Democratisch Appèl) D66 (Democraten 66)
ChristenUnie
VVD (Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie) 50Plus
PvdD (Partij voor de Dieren) PVV (Partij voor de Vrijheid)
SGP (Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij)
Politieke interesse - moderator
Q6: In welke mate vindt u uzelf geïnteresseerd in politiek? 1. Zeer ongeïnteresseerd
2. Ongeïnteresseerd
3. Enigszins ongeïnteresseerd
4. Niet geïnteresseerd, niet ongeïnteresseerd 5. Enigszins geïnteresseerd
6. Geïnteresserd 7. Zeer geïnteresseerd
[BLOOTSTELLING STIMULUS: infographic of tekst]
Attitude ten opzichte van presentatie boodschap – mediator
[De volgende vragen hebben betrekking op de vormgeving van de boodschap die u hebt gezien.]
Q7: De vormgeving van de boodschap was mooi. 1. Zeer mee oneens
3. Enigszins mee oneens 4. Neutraal
5. Enigszins mee eens 6. Mee eens
7. Zeer mee eens
Q8: De vormgeving van de boodschap was aantrekkelijk. 1. Zeer mee oneens
2. Mee oneens
3. Enigszins mee oneens 4. Neutraal
5. Enigszins mee eens 6. Mee eens
7. Zeer mee eens
Q9: De vormgeving van de boodschap was duidelijk. 1. Zeer mee oneens
2. Mee oneens
3. Enigszins mee oneens 4. Neutraal
5. Enigszins mee eens 6. Mee eens
Persuasion message - afhankelijke variabele
[De volgende vragen vragen hebben betrekking op de inhoud van de boodschap die u hebt gezien]
Q10: Ik vond de boodschap overtuigend. 1. Zeer mee oneens
2. Mee oneens
3. Enigszins mee oneens 4. Neutraal
5. Enigszins mee eens 6. Mee eens
7. Zeer mee eens
Q11: Ik vond de boodschap geloofwaardig. 1. Zeer mee oneens
2. Mee oneens
3. Enigszins mee oneens 4. Neutraal
5. Enigszins mee eens 6. Mee eens
7. Zeer mee eens
Q12: Ik vond de boodschap helder 1. Zeer mee oneens
2. Mee oneens
3. Enigszins mee oneens 4. Neutraal
5. Enigszins mee eens 6. Mee eens
7. Zeer mee eens
Q13: Ik vond de boodschap doeltreffend 1. Zeer mee oneens
2. Mee oneens
3. Enigszins mee oneens 4. Neutraal
5. Enigszins mee eens 6. Mee eens
7. Zeer mee eens
Q14: Ik vond de boodschap krachtig 1. Zeer mee oneens
2. Mee oneens
3. Enigszins mee oneens 4. Neutraal
5. Enigszins mee eens 6. Mee eens
Recall message - mediator
Q15: Had de boodschap een duidelijk onderwerp? Er was geen duidelijk onderwerp.
Er was wel een duidelijk onderwerp, maar ik weet niet meer wat. Er was wel een duidelijk onderwerp, namelijk ...
Q16: Werd er een politieke partij genoemd in de boodschap? Er werd geen politieke partij genoemd in de boodschap.
Er werd wel politieke partij genoemd in de boodschap, maar ik weet niet meer welke. Er werd wel politieke partij genoemd in de boodschap, namelijk …
Q17: In de booschap werd aangegeven dat er bezuinigd moest worden. Waren er specifieke onderdelen waarop bezuinigd moest worden?
Er waren geen specifieke onderdelen waarop bezuinigd moest worden.
Er waren wel specifieke onderdelen waarop bezuinigd moest worden, maar ik weet niet meer welke.
Er waren wel specifieke onderdelen waarop bezuinigd moest worden, namelijk …
Q18: Was er een onderdeel waarop duidelijk het meest bezuinigd moest worden? Er was geen onderdeel waarop duidelijk het meest bezuinigd moest worden.
Er was wel een onderdeel waarop duidelijk het meest bezuinigd moest worden, maar ik weet niet meer welke.
Er was een onderdeel waarop duidelijk het meest bezuinigd moest worden, namelijk ..
Stemintentie - afhankelijke variabele
Q19: Na het zien van deze boodschap, bent u meer geneigd om te gaan stemmen op 15 maart 2017? 1. Helemaal niet 2. Niet 3. Waarschijnlijk niet 4. Neutraal 5. Waarschijnlijk wel 6. Wel 7. Helemaal wel
Q20: Zoals eerder is uitgelegd, vinden de volgende Tweede Kamerverkiezingen plaats op 15 maart 2017. U hebt net infomatie gelezen over D66. Na het zien van deze boodschap, bent u meer geneigd om op D66 te stemmen bij de volgende Tweede Kamerverkiezingen? 1. Helemaal niet 2. Niet 3. Waarschijnlijk niet 4. Neutraal 5. Waarschijnlijk wel 6. Wel 7. Helemaal wel
Attitude ten opzichte van thema boodschap - afhankelijke variabele
Q21: Nu u deze boodschap gezien heeft, wat is uw houding ten opzichte van meer bezuinigingen op de Europese Unie?
1. Zeer negatief 2. Negatief 3. Enigszins negatief 4. Neutraal 5. Enigszins positief 6. Positief 7. Zeer positief
Attitude ten opzichte van politieke partij - mediator
Q22: Na het zien van deze boodschap vind ik dat D66 … is.
1. Ongeloofwaardig 2. … 3. … 4. … 5. … 6. … 7. Geloofwaardig
Q23: Na het zien van deze boodschap vind ik dat D66 … is. 1. Niet leuk
2. … 3. … 4. … 5. … 6. … 7. Leuk
Q24: Na het zien van deze boodschap vind ik dat D66 … heeft.
1. Slechte standpunten 2. … 3. … 4. … 5. … 6. … 7. Goede stanpunten
Q25: Na het zien van deze boodschap, is mijn houding tegenover D66 …
1. Negatief 2. … 3. … 4. … 5. … 6. … 7. Positief
Manipulatiecheck
[Voor het beantwoorden van de volgende vraag is het belangrijk dat u weet wat een
infographic is. Een infographic is een vorm van communicatie waarbij tekstuele informatie visueel aantrekkelijk wordt weergegeven, bijvoorbeeld door middel van afbeeldingen.] Q26: Hoe was de boodschap van D66 over bezuinigingen op de EU, vormgegeven?
In de vorm van een gewone tekst. In de vorm van een infographic.
