Media Effects of Multimedia Journalism -
A study on cognitive and affective effects of embedded multimedia journalism
By
Pincus, Hanna Gjertsen Student number: 10583564
Master Thesis;
Erasmus Mundus; Journalism, Media and Globalisation Amsterdam Graduate School of Communication
Supervisor: Wojcieszak, Magdalena
Abstract
The use of embedded multimedia journalism has grown drastically within the past few years, as focusing on bigger projects that incorporate multimedia has become an important way for newspapers to diversify themselves in an ever increasingly competitive media landscape.
However, little is known about how the audience perceives these stories, and even less is known about the cognitive and affective effects these technological advances within online journalism have on readers. By comparing the influence of three journalistic formats; embedded
multimedia-, traditional multimedia- and print only journalism, on narrative transportation, emotional affect, learning, and perception, this study seeks to advance journalism-effect research and to bridge gaps between psychology, communication, and journalism theory. Results revealed no significant differences in terms of perception, transportation or emotional affect between the three stimuli, and while learning and knowledge gain was significantly lower among those exposed to the multimodal stories compared to text-only, no significant difference was found when comparing all three stimuli. This formative, experimental study, designed as a first step in understanding the effects of embedded multimedia journalism mainly exposed the need for further research before any conclusions about effects of multimodality — and in particular embedded multimodality — can be drawn. Given the decreasing levels of political and factual knowledge, studying the most effective newspaper formats for increasing learning is crucial to creating an informed society — starting with its citizens.
Media Effects of Multimedia Journalism -
A study on cognitive and affective effects of embedded multimedia journalism.
The digital shift gave rise to new opportunities within journalism and the possibility to combine a variety of media, such as, but no limited to: text, audio, video, photographs and visuals, arose. The term multimedia journalism describes precisely this development (Harper, 2005); however, the Internet and multimedia use have not yet redefined journalistic practices (Jacobson, 2012). Then came Snowfall.
Snowfall: The Avalanche at Tunnel Creek1 was published on the front page of the NYTimes.com in late 2012. The article which embedded various media elements (e.g. video, audio clips, graphic visualizations and pictures) within the textual story line, created a seamless and compelling narrative reading experience which achieved three million views in the first three months, a Twitter -storm and a Pulitzer Prize (Radü, 2013). The embedded multimedia story Snowfall was far from the first of its kind, but according to Rue (2013) it redefined online journalistic narratives and has triggered an avalanche in the media industry.
Since Snowfall, embedded multimedia journalism has increased drastically within the past few years — despite the fact that multimedia productions consume both time and resources, and is “a kind of online journalism that doesn’t fit well with the discourse of immediacy that dominates online news production” (Steensen, 2010, p. 93). Focusing on bigger projects that incorporate multimedia has become an increasingly important way for newspapers and media outlets to diversify themselves in an ever more competitive media landscape (Steensen, 2010). However, little is known about how the audience perceives these stories, and even less is known about the cognitive and affective effects these technological advances within online journalism
have on readers. Do we get more engaged? Do we learn more? Moreover, do we even appreciate new formats?
This study aims to examine the perceptions and cognitive and affective effects of embedded multimedia journalism in a comprehensive manner, and – in so doing - seeks to advance journalism-effect research and to bridge gaps between psychology, communication, and journalism theory. It proposes and tests several hypotheses that blend key communication and media concepts (i.e., transportation and affect) with important democratic outcome variables (i.e., knowledge gain and learning). Building on extant literature, this experiment will examine the relationship between (1) the type of modality and (2) the type of layout used in an article on the readers perception of the story, the level of narrative transportation, emotional reactions and information recall, and knowledge gain. The findings will provide some insight into a
journalistic genre that, despite its quickly increasing popularity, is still in its infancy. Hopefully this study can provide a platform upon which future research on multimedia journalism can be advanced.
This article will first briefly present and define the three formats the different stimuli is built upon: print-only, embedded, and traditional multimedia journalism; a review of literature pertaining to the areas of effects that are being measured will be described, and a set of focused hypotheses will be presented. The methods and results of an experiment designed to test these hypotheses will follow. Lastly, this article will discuss the research findings, outline limitations, provide directions for future research, and discuss theoretical, practical, and methodological implications.
Multimedia Journalism
Although several studies focus on multimedia and online journalism (e.g. Deuze, 2004; Jacobson, 2010; Jacobson, 2012; Kiuttu, 2013; Larrondo Ureta, 2010; Steensen, 2009; Steensen, 2010), most of this research tends to “focus on how hard/breaking news is produced and
presented” (Steensen, 2010, p. 27), by describing the multimedia and online journalism
landscape or content analysis of websites. Research pertaining to emerging genres, such as the quickly increasing field of embedded multimedia journalism — which this study will focus on — is relatively scant. Scant can also be used to describe the understanding of psychological
importance and potential effects of these new additions to online communication, as well as to what extent Web users appreciate the addition of multimedia functionality (Sundar, 2010).
Before we proceed to a review of the effects literature, it is useful to first give an overview of what is meant with the terms multimedia journalism and in particular embedded multimedia journalism.
Multimedia journalism can be defined as a “presentation of a news story package on a website using two or more media formats, such as (but not limited to) spoken and written word, music, moving and still images, graphic animations, including interactive and hyper textual elements” (Deuze, 2004, p. 140). Multimedia journalism differs from online journalism in its intentions or goals as “online journalism is not driven by the purpose of multimedia” (Deuze, 2004, p. 140). Since an online news story with text and a photo is generally not considered to be multimedia (Steensen, 2010), in this paper, multimedia journalism refers to articles and stories where more than two media modes are utilized.
A typical approach within multimedia journalism has been to tie together everything available on topic in an attempt to create depth on an issue (O’Leary, 2010; Radü, 2103).
However, the sum of texts, videos and graphics on a topic does not make for good multimedia journalism (O’Leary, 2010). Interactivity has further been a central term within multimedia journalism, and despite it being a controversial concept, Jensen defines it as “a measure of a media’s potential ability to let the user exert an influence on the content and/or form of the mediated communication” (1998, p. 201, cited in Steensen, 2010, p. 116). Within multimedia articles, interactivity can be exemplified as the reader having to scroll down to read the story, or press play on a video. However, this paper defines interactivity as primarily referring to
navigational interactivity; as such interactivity presents a challenge for multimedia features, as the navigational control no longer rests with the author (Segel & Heer, 2010, p. 9). With a layout that emphasizes a fixed narrative flow, the author can draw discrete boundaries between different story segments. Therefore, the element of storytelling becomes a topic of focus. If the reader’s navigational interactivity is high, such as the example of the Christmas tree layout described below, storytelling might rather approach story creating.
The prevailing layout within multimedia journalism has been the Christmas tree format, which according to Grabowicz, Hernandez and Rue (2014) refers to multimedia stories where “multimedia elements like videos, photo slideshows, maps and graphics are just add-ons, placed to the side of the main text story like ornaments hung on a tree” (para. 1). This suggests that multimedia is being used as an extension of the written word, not as a primary storytelling format (e.g. Deuze, 2004; Jacobson, 2010; Jacobson, 2012; Kiuttu, 2013; Larrondo Ureta, 2010; Steensen, 2009). For the purpose of this paper multimedia journalism with the Christmas tree layout will be referred to as traditional multimedia journalism, with high navigational
The second type of multimedia journalism referred to in this paper is embedded multimedia journalism. In this form of multimedia storytelling the main story is usually text-based, and is told in a linear fashion, but compared to the Christmas tree layout; the multimedia elements in an embedded layout are “integrated into the main story so they're viewed at
appropriate points in the narrative” (Grabowicz et al., 2014, para. 1). The layout emphasizes narrative flow, resulting in “a more seamless transition between text and videoor graphics and back to text, with the multimedia a part of the narrative, rather than separated out” (Grabowicz et al., 2014, para. 3). Navigational interactively within embedded multimedia rests with the author, and thereby storytelling is in primary focus. Although embedded multimedia stories have been around for some time now (Grabowicz et al., 2014; Rue, 2013), the New York Times article Snowfall- the avalanche at Tunnel Creek, was the story that truly put embedded multimedia journalism into the public limelight. Widely praised for how it carefully blended the multimedia content into the text narrative, Rue (2013) argues that Snowfall redefined narrative form online, and has further triggered an avalanche in the media industry. Subsequently “to snowfall” a story has now become a verb for creating an embedded multimedia journalistic pieces (Rue, 2013; Pompeo, 2013).
Lastly, the third prevalent format, also tested in this paper, is the simple print format where the only modality used to tell the story is text.
Literature Review
Academic attention to media effects of multimedia journalism is relatively scant. Despite bodies of prior research on modality in psychology and communication, Sundar (2000) argues that “its applicability to current multimedia systems is somewhat limited because of two primary reasons” (p. 30)”: (1) most studies in this field focus on the presentation of multiple modalities in
a simultaneous fashion (such as television which presents two modalities-audio and video-at the same time). In multimedia journalism online however, additional modalities are attended to separately, not simultaneously; (2) much of the research addresses competition between media modalities, (for example, do people remember best what they hear or see). Therefore, they may not adequately address the complexity of multimedia journalism, which can feature a number of modalities in a single story and a unique ability to switch back and forth between these
modalities. Despite these concerns, comparative studies — in particular between print and visuals — still give us some insight into which differences we can expect between our stimuli based upon their modality and layout.
Narrative Transportation
The first effect tested and proposed in this study is one on narrative transportation. In general transportation is recognized as readers ‘‘lose track of time, fail to observe events going on around them, and feel they are completely immersed in the world of the narrative’’ (Green, Brock & Kaufman, 2004, p. 247). When it comes to studies on narrative transportation, print has received significant attention (e.g. de Graaf, Hoeken, Sanders & Beentjes, 2009; de Graaf & Hustinx, 2011; Bilandzic & Busselle, 2008; Green & Brock, 2000). The relationship between multimedia and transportation on the other hand, is more limited (Sundar, 2010). However, research on visuals and audiovisuals versus text only can give us an indication of which differences in effect we can expect between the multimedia stories and the text only.
Visual elements should increase transportation. Firstly, visuals are perceived to be ‘‘easier’’ mediums to be transported into compared to print “which may require more mental effort” (Green, Kass, Carrey, Herzig, Feeney & Sabini, 2008, p. 530). Visuals can transport the audience to a different time or place as “viewers are given a vivid, concrete set of images” which
“may increase the ease or fluency with which individuals can enter the narrative world” (Green et al, 2008, p. 517). Secondly, visuals “make it easier to identify with people and situations and to become emotionally involved” and by “giving the viewer a sense of participating in an event or, at least, witnessing it personally…the perceived realism of visuals lends them credibility. Seeing is, in-deed, believing”(Graber, 1996, p. 86). Several studies further support the notion that the perceived reality of visuals does indeed increase narrative transportation (e.g. Green et al., 2004; Wilson & Busselle, 2004; Zhang, Hmielowski & Busselle, 2007). Specifically, LaMarre and Landreville argue that “the more real a narrative is perceived, the more absorbed and engaged the audience becomes” (2009, p. 541). It is thus expected that the added elements of video and pictures in the multimedia articles will lead to higher levels of transportation and perceived reality compared to the text only stimuli (H1a).
Secondly, the aim of the layout used in embedded multimedia stories is — as mentioned above — narrative flow, which is closely related to transportation (Green et al., 2004; Green & Brock, 2000). Due to this narrative layout, combined with its multimodality, the levels of
narrative transportation are expected to be higher on average with the embedded story, compared to the other two stimuli (H1b).
Emotions
The second effect that has received attention in extant literature and that will be tested in this study is the effect of modality and layout on emotional involvement. As with research on transportation, audiovisual and visual messages have been positively related with heightened levels of emotions (Detenber, Simons & Bennett, 1998; Parkinson, 2012; Graber, 1996; Schill, 2012; Salomon, 1984). Visuals can quickly communicate the full spectrum of emotions and are uniquely equipped to produce and activate powerful emotional responses from viewers (Hill,
2004 as cited in Schill, 2012). Visuals tap into reservoirs of collectively held knowledge (Schill, 2012) and engage the reader’s imagination by stimulating other areas of the brain (Bobrow & Norman, 1975); thus, visuals have a unique ability to raise emotional levels. Based upon the visual aspects of the multimodal stories, higher levels of emotion are expected among the embedded and the traditional multimedia story compared to the text only stimulus (H2a).
Studies have shown that transported viewers “loses awareness of his or her surroundings” (Murphy, Frank, Moran & Patnoe‐Woodley, 2011, p 410), which leads to feelings of
“heightened emotions and motivations’’ (Green & Brock, 2000, p. 702). It is thus expected that the embedded multimedia story will generate higher levels of emotions than the traditional multimedia and the text only story (H2b).
Lastly, research in both emotion psychology (e.g., Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989) and political science (Marcus, Neuman, &MacKuen, 2000 as cited in Laudreville & LaMarre, 2009) indicate that negative emotions have a particular ability to increase attention, interest, and learning compared to positive affect (Laudreville & LaMarre, 2009). As significant differences have been recorded between various negative emotions, this study will not only look at negative emotions as a whole, but also focus on individual emotions. For example, Nabi (2002) examined anger versus fear and found results that suggest that anger promotes deeper information
processing than fear. LaMarre & Laundreville (2009) also found that the feeling of disgust yielded increased levels of knowledge gain, while guilt on the other hand showed negative impact on the same measure. As both disgust and anger are relevant for the nature of the stimuli, this study will examine the relationship between disgust and anger in particular, in addition to negative emotions on participants level of learning, and suggests that increased emotional levels will lead to increased learning levels (H2c).
Recall and Knowledge Gain
The last outcome examined in this study and often discussed in the literature is knowledge. It is expected that multimodality, and in particular embedded multimodality, will lead to increased levels of information recall and knowledge gain2. The human brain absorbs larger amounts of information with greater fidelity when the messages are visual or audiovisual, compared to solely print (Graber, 1996) and the explanation for this is that images, which are the dominant mode of learning (Barry, 2005), help us decode text and attract attention to information (Parkinson, 2012). By entwining textual and visual modalities, a visual language arises which “has the potential for increasing ‘human bandwidth'—the capacity to take in, comprehend, and more efficiently synthesize large amounts of new information" (Parkinson, 2012). Combining pictures with words in a multimedia article may therefore “augment our communal intelligence” (Parkinson, 2012) and make messages more memorable than print only — thereby increasing the likelihood that the audience will remember the content and information given (Levie & Lentz, 1982; Graber, 1996). However, there are conflicting theories when it comes to multimodality and memory processing. The cue-summation theory, found support in journalism literature, argues “that when textual information is presented along with images it provides additional learning cues, particularly at the time of retrieval from memory” (Sundar, 2000, p. 482). The dual-coding theory, which has a long history of support in psychology, assumes that there are two cognitive sub-systems, “one specialized in processing verbal stimuli, and the other specialized in non-verbal or image stimuli- that operate independently as far as encoding into memory is
2 Knowledge and recall is closely related. In this study, knowledge will pertain to remembering the facts given in the
stimuli, while recall will pertain to remembering story consistent details.
concerned” (Sundar, 2000, p. 482). These theories would predict that delivering information in different modalities would enhance the storage potential of that information.
On the other hand however, ” the Limited-Capacity Information Processing theory and the Multiple Resource theory argue “that media messages, delivered simultaneously in a number of modalities, are cognitively complex and serve to overload the processing system” (Sundar, 2000, p. 482). This theoretical perspective posits that the added resources utilized for encoding different modalities, will be at the cost of rehearsal and storage and “the addition of multimedia to text-only systems should result in superior recognition memory, but inferior recall memory” (Sundar, 2000, p. 482). A number of studies support this conclusion: adding extra modalities to text degrades memory for content, and some explanations for this include interference,
distraction, and fatigue (Sundar, 2000).
Based on this theory, there is no clear suggestion whether or not multimodality might lead to higher levels recall and knowledge. However, the counterarguments do seem to adhere more to multimedia journalism with the Christmas tree layout, rather than the embedded layout. The reason for why layout matters is related to differences in how we consume various
modalities. For example while human brain deciphers image elements simultaneously, textual elements are decoded in a linear manner, taking more time to process (Parkinsons, 2012) and also psychological studies in visual salience have showed that “outliers among visual features such as color, size, and orientation preferentially attract one’s attention” (Segel & Heer, 2010, p. 2). If for example an image is placed on the side of the text (as is often the case in Christmas tree layouts), the research suggests that this will distract the reading process. Therefore, by creating a narrative flow layout where each media mode has its fixed place in the layout and in the
levels on recall might thereby increase. The assumption here is therefore that based on the duality of both multimodality and narrative flow, the embedded story will have higher levels of recall and knowledge than the other two stories (H3a). Due to the conflicting theory, we will also examine whether or not multimodality might lead to increased levels of learning compared to the text only stimulus (RQ1).
Lastly, engagement theories further suggests that increased levels of transportation are related to learning and increased knowledge of information relevant to the storyline (Green et al., 2004; LaMarre and Landreville, 2009; Murphy et al., 2011). Thereby, another mediating effect is expected, with participants with higher levels of transportation expected to show higher levels of knowledge gain and recall in the experiment (H3b).
Embedded Multimedia and Perception
The last general factor relevant to the hype surrounding the arrival of multimedia regards individual perceptions of multimedia stories, with some scholars proposing that the value added by introducing multimedia to existing interfaces is merely perceptual. That is, “multimedia enhancements will serve to generate positive impressions about a website because of their sheer presence and not because of their greater cognitive utility” (Sundar, 2000, p. 483). Considering the time and resources effort put into creating feature multimedia stories, determining whether the users actually appreciate the extra effort involved in designing and producing multimodal narratives, will give valuable information and insight into whether multimedia feature production actually might be a fruitful solution for newspapers in the seek for preventing decreasing
readership, and even perhaps increasing it. To examine these prepositions, this study, in addition to testing the effects, will also assess whether the multimodality and narrative flow layout of the embedded multimedia story influences readers’ content and site perceptions (RQ2).
Methodology
The experiment was conducted to assess cognitive and affective effects, as well as perception of embedded multimedia journalism and was administered by the panel company Research Now. After being welcomed to the experiment and asked to furnish informed consent forms, all participants (N=259) were exposed to one of three versions of an article, each with identical content, but differing in layout and in modality. After exposure to the articles the participants were asked to return to qualtrics, where a posttest measured levels of transportation, emotions, information recall, and perception. Demographics and media usage were collected lastly (see Appendix A for question wording).
Participants
259 respondents participated in the experiment. The sample was collected in the UK through the survey company Research Now and the respondents got compensation for their participation. 58% of the sample is female, 41% have higher education (4 years of college or over) and age is equally dispersed between 18 and 91 with an average of 43,7 years. The
participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions, however due to an unknown technical problem more people were sent to the text only version (36,7%) compared to the traditional multimedia story (31,7%) and the embedded multimedia story (31,7%). A comparison of the three stimulus groups revealed no significant differences on gender, (x2 (2)=1.63, p .443), age (F (2,256)=0.99, p .373) or education (x2 (14)=13,22, p .510).
Stimulus Material
The stimuli were especially constructed for the use in this experiment and were based, with permission from the newspaper, on Betrayed- Janne’s Story3, a published embedded
multimedia story by the Norwegian newspaper Bergens Tidene. The feature tells the story of Janne, a woman suffering severe health problems as the result of prolonged sexual abuse and negligence throughout her childhood. The stimuli used in the experiment were shortened versions of the initial story. In addition to the content from the original story, general facts and statistics about child sexual abuse were added in order to be able to measure knowledge recall.
The story was chosen for a number of reasons. Firstly, as learning levels were to be measured, and no pre-test on knowledge levels was conducted, it was advantageous to choose a taboo topic such as child abuse due to the expected lack of prior knowledge about the issue. Secondly, studies have shown that increased levels of transportation have occurred where narratives of higher quality were consumed, while poor narrative quality may even disrupt engagement and lessen a narrative’s persuasive power (Bilandzic & Busselle, 2008; LaMarre & Landreville, 2009). Janne’s Story, which was one of Norway's most-read stories in 2013 with over 1,000,000 views, has been awarded two of the most prestigious journalistic distinctions in Norway, The Norwegian Union of Journalists and The Norwegian Foundation for Investigative Journalism4. Thirdly, research suggests that negative emotions have an ability to increase attention, interest, and learning (e.g. Landreville & LaMarre, 2011; Sinclair & Marks, 1992). As Janne’s Story revolves around a topic expected to evoke a number of negative emotions, such as anger, disgust and sadness, overall levels of recall and knowledge gain might be increased. Lastly, research suggests that if a story is perceived as real, an increased level of transportation has occurred (Green et al., 2004; Wilson & Busselle, 2004; Zhang et al., 2007). By presenting a personal story with actual images of Janne from her childhood and a video from her state today, the visuals might increase the perceived reality, which again affects levels of transportation.
Experimental Treatment Conditions
All versions of the stimulus were made to look similar in order to optimize treatment equivalence. The only differences pertained to modality and layout (for screen shots of the stimuli, see appendix B). In the first condition (henceforth referred to as embedded) all modalities (text, video and pictures) are present, and the layout emphasizes embedding of the multimedia modes, resulting in a fixed, linear narrative flow. As the reader scrolls down they are presented with one modality at the time, which tells a unique part of the story, and the general facts on sexual abuse are embedded in the storyline. In the second condition (henceforth referred to as traditional) the same modalities as in version 1 are present, but instead of an embedded layout, the Christmas tree layout has been adopted. The text occupies the place in the center, pictures are placed in a carousel on the top, and the video is placed on the bottom. Additional facts on sexual abuse are placed in a text box on the side of the text. The third version
(henceforth referred to as text-only) utilizes the same layout as used in version 1 is used
(emphasizing linear, narrative flow). The additional facts are embedded in the storyline, but all modalities have been transcribed to plain text.
Dependent measures
Transportation. To measure narrative transportation, respondents were asked 11
questions about how engaged they were in the storyline. These 11 items were based on Green and Brock’s (2000) scale, which is a scale that has been shown to be valid and reliable by multiple studies (Green et al., 2004; Green & Brock, 2000). This study also produced a reliable scale (Cronbach’s α =. 654). Participants were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed on a 7-point Likert scale with statements such as, ‘‘I was mentally involved with the story line while watching it”. (M=4.52, SD=0.64).
Emotion. Respondents were asked to rate to what extent Janne’s story made them feel on
a 7 point scale from none of this feeling to a great deal of this feeling. Six basic emotions were listed (sad, disgusted, happy, guilty, indifferent, angry, afraid, anxious, scared). All emotions besides indifferent and happy were grouped together to create the variable negative emotions and were found to be reliable (Cronbach’s α = .843). (M=3.48, SD=1.24).
Recall and knowledge. In this study, knowledge pertains to remembering facts and
information related to sexual abuse, while recall pertained to story related details. Due to simplicity, and the fact that the two variables are closely related, they are combined into one single scale Learning (Cronbach’s α = .680). The respondents were given both multiple choice and fill in the blank questions. Correct answers were given one point and for the fill in the blank answers, the participants were given one point for each correct answer. The participants total score for each category, recall and knowledge, was calculated by adding up the points achieved by each question and then grouped into three categories; low (2 or less correct answers), middle (3-5 correct answers) and high (6 or more correct answers) knowledge levels. The average mean was quite low (total score of 10 with M=2.37, SD=2.59) resulting in 60% of the participants included in the low knowledge level category.
Perception. Respondents are asked to evaluate 13 descriptions of the article content
(such as organized, fair, well written) on a 7 point scale from describes very poorly to describes very well. 5 questions were concerned about how they experienced the site itself and the layout were they were asked to evaluate a number of statements and descriptions of the stimuli on 7 points scales (such as How much do you think the layout of the website affected your browsing of the information on it?). In addition to these items, an open-ended question was included asking participants to list in what way they would improve the site, followed by three blank lines for
participants to fill out. If a participant made one suggestion, it was coded as one; if he/she made two, it was coded as two, and so on. Therefore, the greater the number of improvements
suggested by the participant, the poorer his/ her evaluation of the site. The scale measuring perception is based on a study by Sundar (2000).
Control Variables
For measuring perceived reality respondents were asked to rate to what extent the story was believable, factual and objective on a 7-point scale. The scale was found to be reliable (Cronbach’s α = .820) (M=4.68, SD=1.11). Demographic measures were also included (gender, education, and age).
Results
All the analyses controlled for age, gender and education, which can be related to the effects of transportation, emotion, learning and perception. Before we turn to the effects of transportation, emotion, recall and knowledge, we briefly consider how the different stimuli were perceived.
Content and Site Perception
When it comes to perception of the content, only two out of 13 variables were significant at the .1 significance level. This was factual F (2, 256) = 2.69, p .070, η2 = .021 and persuasive F (2, 256) = 2.76, p .065, η2 = .021. The text only is perceived significantly more factual than the traditional, and more persuasive (see table 1 for means and standard deviations). That text only is evaluated higher than the traditional stimuli is further reflected in the means. Although not significant, on 11 variables out of 13 (accurate, believable, clear, comprehensive, fair, informative, objective and well written) the text only gets the highest score, while traditional scores the lowest. On the variables, biased and sensationalistic, traditional scores highest and text-only scores lowest.
Comparing the perceptions of the layout and site in general, an ANOVA test found no significant differences between the stimuli on any of the perception measures. Nor on the 12 closed ended Likert scale questions, nor on the open ended question that asked participants about possible improvements. In comparison to the content perception above where the means,
although no significant, showed a clear pattern, no similar pattern can be found in relation to layout and site perceptions.
Table 1
Summary table of means and F-values for content perception as a function of stimuli manipulation
Stimuli
Traditional (n = 82) Text Only (n = 95) Embedded (n = 82) F Accurate 4.34 (1.22) 4.64 (1.14) 4.60 (1.16) 1.37 Believable 4.66 (1.37) 4.91 (1.51) 4.85 (1.24) 0.76 Biased 3.30 (1.22) 3.27 (1.43) 3.18 (1.18) 0.20 Clear 4.57 (1.23) 4.87 (1.32) 4.68 (1.19) 1.32 Comprehensive 4.40 (1.33) 4.60 (1.41) 4.52 (1.13) 0.51 Factual 4.40 (1.33) 4.85 (1.37) 4.61 (1.15) 2.69* Fair 4.38 (1.33) 4.42 (1.37) 4.41 (1.02) 0.03 Informative 4.94 (1.19) 5.25 (1.27) 5.06 (1.23) 1.46 Important 4.84 (1.35) 5.17 (1.35) 5.00 (1.25) 1.37 Objective 4.52 (1.10) 4.67 (1.35) 4.60 (1.10) 0.34 Persuasive 4.33 (1.20) 4.69 (1.15) 4.35 (1.15) 2.76* Sensationalistic 3.74 (1.28) 3.81 (1.42) 3.85 (1.15) 0.15 Well written 4.74 (1.26) 4.97 (1.31) 4,77 (1.07) 0.91 *p < .1, **p < .05; ***p < .01.
Note: Higher scores indicate higher evaluation. Standard deviation in parentheses.
Transportation
H1a suggests that those exposed to the multimedia stories will experience increased levels of transportation and perceived reality compared to those exposed to the text only
condition. Two t-tests assessed the influence of exposure to stimuli in conjunction with the effect of perceived reality, and then transportation. The two t-tests comparing those exposed to a multimodal story, to those exposed to text only, revealed no significant difference in perceived
reality, F (1, 240) = 2.65, p .105, η2 = .011 nor in transportation F (1, 240) = 0.27, p .605, η2 = .001. Looking at the means, those exposed to text only scored marginally higher both for transportation (M=4.54, SD=0.64) and perceived reality (M=4.84, SD=1.19), compared to the multimedia stories (transportation M=4.50, SD=0.65 and perceived reality M=4.59, SD=1.06). This result does not support our hypothesis (H1a).
The second part of our first hypothesis, H1b, predicted higher levels narrative
transportation for the embedded story compared to the other two formats. Looking at the means of transportation among all three stimuli, the text only has the highest levels of transportation (M=4.54, SD=0.64), while the traditional has the lowest levels (M=4.49, SD=0.71). An ANOVA showed however no significant difference between the three stories F (2, 239) = .136, p .873, η2 = .001. While these findings do not support the second hypothesis (H2b), the tendency might indicate that narrative layout, which the text-only and the embedded stimuli have, might have a bigger impact on transportation than multimodality.
Lastly, examining the relationship between perceived reality and transportation, a regression model with the level of transportation as dependent variable and the two dummy variables representing the text only and traditional format (with embedded being a reference category) was constructed. In the second block, the model included perceived reality to test whether it was a significant mediator. The model also controlled for demographic variables, which may be theoretically related with the outcome variable. Firstly, we see no moderate significance between the embedded story and the text only (.476) and the traditional (.898) on the effects of transportation (see table 2). We do see significant differences in gender (.001) and age (.013), indicating that women and the older you get the more transported you get. The second block finds that perceived reality was significantly related with transportation (b* = 0.49,
t = 8.92, p < .001). Roughly 30% of the transportation level can be predicted on the basis of perceived (R2 = 0.32); yet because there were no significant effects of stimulus, perceived reality is not a mediator on the effect of the stimuli on transportation.
The results, when it comes to transportation, suggests that format does not significantly differ levels of transportation, however increased levels of perceived reality do predict higher levels of transportation, as the theory suggested.
Table 2
Summary of regression analysis for variables predicting transportation
Model 1 Model 2 Variable B SE B β B SE B β Traditional -0.01 0.10 -0.01 0.02 0.09 0.02 Text Only 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.08 0.01 Age 0.27 0.08 0.21*** 0.17 0.07 0.13** Gender -0.01 0.00 -0.16** -0.01 0.00 -0.29*** Education 0.04 0.02 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.07 Perceived reality 0.29 0.03 0.49*** R2 .084 .116 F for change in R2 4.34*** 18.10*** *p < .1, **p < .05, ***p < .01. Emotion
H2a predicts that the multimedia stories will yield higher levels of emotion than the non-multimedia story. A t-test comparing the levels of emotion between the non-multimedia stories and the non-multimedia story revealed no significant difference between the two groups F (1, 240) = 0.72, p .398, η2 = .003. Although not significant, the means does show a tendency towards higher levels of negative emotions for those exposed to the multimedia stimuli (M=3.52, SD=1.15) compared to the text only (M=3.47, SD=1.22). Secondly, the embedded multimedia story was expected to reveal higher levels of emotions than the other two according to he next hypothesis (H2b). An ANOVA test however revealed no significant difference in the levels of negative emotions between the three stimulus groups F (2, 239) = 0.86, p .423, η2 = .007. The means
however suggests a pattern of higher emotional reactions among those exposed to the embedded story (M=3.61, SD=1.16) compared to the traditional (M=3.42, SD=1.15) and the text-only (M=3.38, SD = 1.32).
By comparing the negative emotions separately the same tendency as above is seen (see table 3). Firstly, while the participants exposed to multimedia stories compared to text-only were moderate significantly more afraid F (1, 240) = 2.87, p .092, η2 = .012, the participants exposed to the embedded story compared to those exposed to the text only were significantly more afraid F (2, 239) = 3.28, p .039, η2 = .027. Even though no other emotional differences were
significant, taking the results above into consideration, and adding that on average the embedded multimedia story had the highest score on six out of a total of eight emotions, as well as the lowest score on indifference, might indicate that the duality of multimodality and narrative layout of the embedded story might lead to higher emotional levels in general, as expected in H2b.
Table 3
Summary table of means and F-values for negative emotions as a function of stimuli manipulation
Stimuli F Stimuli F Multimedia (n = 164) Non-Multimedia (n = 95) Traditional (n = 82) Text Only (n = 95) Embedded (n = 82) Sad 4.40 (1.73) 4.52 (1.98) 0.25 4.34 (1.72) 4.52 (1.98) 4.45 (1.76) 0.20 Disgusted 4.24 (1.86) 4.22 (2.09) 0.00 4.09 (1.85) 4.22 (2.09) 4.39 (1.87) 0.50 Guilty 2.80 (1.54) 2.52 (1.46) 2.10 2.77 (1.50) 2.52 (1.46) 2.83 (1.59) 1.08 Indifferent 2.76 (1.52) 2.60 (1.45) 0.66 2.93 (1.58) 2.60 (1.45) 2.59 (1.45) 1.40 Angry 4.08 (1.65) 4.08 (1.93) 0.00 3.94 (1.66) 4.08 (1.93) 4.22 (1.63) 0.52 Afraid 3.08 (1.59) 2.72 (1.67) 3.03* 2.85 (1.59) 2.72 (1.67) 3.30 (1.57) 3.14** Anxious 3.18 (1.63) 3.00 (1.77) 0.71 3.13 (1.72) 3.00 (1.77) 3.23 (1.54) 0.42 Scared 2.98 (1.67) 2.66 (1.69) 2.17 2.88 (1.70) 2.66 (1.69) 3.09 (1.64) 1.40 *p < .1, **p < .05; ***p < .01.
Note: Higher scores indicate stronger emotional levels. Standard deviation in parentheses
Turning to the last hypothesis dealing with emotions, H2c suggests that negative emotions in general, disgust and anger in particular, might lead to higher levels of recall and
knowledge. A regression model with the level of learning as dependent variable, negative emotions as a mediator, and the two dummy variables representing the text only and traditional format (with embedded being a reference category) was constructed (see table 4). When
controlling for demographics, we see a moderate significance between the embedded story and the text only (p .075) on learning, but not compared to traditional (p .971). We also see
significant differences in gender (p .005) and education (p .006), meaning that women and those with higher education remembered significantly more from the stimuli. When negative emotions are included in the model, we see a significant relationship with learning b* = 0.16, t = 2.57, p < .05. Negative emotions can therefore be used to predict learning, but only 10 per cent of the learning level can be predicted on the basis of negative emotions (R2 = 0.10). Negative emotions are not a partial mediator on the effect of text on learning, as the text’s effect on learning does not decrease5.
Table 4
Summary of regression analysis for variables predicting learning
Model 1 Model 2 Variable B SE B β B SE B β Traditional -0.00 0.12 -0.00 0.02 0.11 0.01 Text Only 0.20 0.11 0.13* 0.22 0.11 0.14** Age 0.26 0.09 0.18 0.24 0.09 0.16 Gender 0.00 0.00 0.05*** 0.00 0.00 0.08** Education 0.07 0.03 0.18*** 0.07 0.03 0.18*** Negative Emotions 0.10 0.04 0.16** R2 .078 .103 F for change in R2 3.99*** 4.51*** *p < .1, **p < .05, ***p < .01.
5 A regression test also found significant relationships between learning and the emotions anger (b* = 0.36, t =
6.05, p < .001) and disgust (b* = 0.38, t = 6.56, p < .001). Anger and disgust therefore has a moderately strong association with learning, as 22.1 percent of the learning level can be predicted by disgust and 20.2 per cent by anger.
When controlling for anger we see that anger is not a partial mediator on the effect of text on learning, as the emotion increases the significance text has on learning from .075 to .050. Controlling for disgust the significance increases even more (from .075 to .046).
These findings support the hypothesis that negative emotions, in particular anger and disgust, can predict higher levels of recall and knowledge gain, but they are not partial mediators on the relationship text has on the effect on learning.
Recall and Knowledge
Examining the relationship between multimodality and knowledge levels, a t-test revealed that text only scored moderately significantly higher than the multimedia stories F (1, 240) = 3.84, p .051, η2 = 0.02 (see table 5). This result suggest that multimodality, as argued by the Limited-Capacity Information Processing theory and the Multiple Resource theory, might serve to overload the processing system and thereby decreases our ability to recall and learn.
Table 5
Summary table of means and F-values for knowledge and recall as a function of stimuli manipulation
Stimuli F Stimuli F Multimedia (n = 153) Non-Multimedia (n = 89) Traditional (n = 82) Text Only (n = 95) Embedded (n = 82) Learning 1.45 (0.69) 1.64 (0.79) 3.84* 1.39 (0.67) 1.64 (0.79) 1.51 (0.68) 1.91 *p < .1, **p < .05; ***p < .01.
Note: Higher scores indicate higher knowledge levels. Standard deviation in parentheses.
Besides the research question, our hypothesis assumed that the embedded story would get higher levels of recall and knowledge than the other two stories (H3a). When we compare the three stories to each other, an ANOVA test reveals no significant difference between the three stories F (2, 239) = 1.91, p .15, η2 = .016. Looking at the means shows that those exposed to the text only learned more than those exposed to embedded and traditional (see table 5). While these findings do not support our hypothesis (H3a), the fact that embedded scored higher than the
traditional multimedia story suggests that the narrative layout to a greater extent might facilitate learning than the Christmas tree layout as suggested in the literature review.
The last hypothesis pertaining to recall and knowledge, suggests that increased levels of transportation will affect levels on recall and knowledge gain (H3c). A regression model with the level of learning as dependent variable, transportation as a mediator, and the two dummy variables representing the text only and traditional format (with embedded being a reference category) was constructed (see table 6). When controlling for demographics, we see that when it comes to learning embedded differs moderately significantly to text only (p .075), but not to traditional (p .971). When we control for transportation we see that transportation is significant b* = 0.26, t = 4.08, p < .001, indicating that transportation can predict learning. As adding transportation to the model decreases the effect text has on learning (from p .075 to p .100), transportation is a partial mediator on the effect of text on learning. All in all, the model explains 14 per cent of learning (R2 = 0.14). This supports our final hypothesis (Hc3), indicating that the more engaged you become in the story line, the more you remember.
Table 6
Summary of regression analysis for variables predicting learning
Model 1 Model 2 Variable B SE B β B SE B β Traditional -0.00 0.12 -0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 Text Only 0.20 0.11 0.13* 0.18 0.11 0.12* Age 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.09 Gender 0.26 0.09 0.18*** 0.19 0.09 0.13** Education 0.07 0.03 0.18*** 0.06 0.03 0.15** Transportation 0.29 0.07 0.26*** R2 .08 .14 F for change in R2 3.99*** 6.32*** *p < .1, **p < .05, ***p < .01.
Discussion
This was a formative, experimental study, designed as a first step in understanding the differential effects between embedded multimedia-, traditional multimedia- and print only journalism. The goal of this study was to advance journalism effect research and bridge gaps between psychology, communication and journalism with regard to multimedia journalism. As such, several hypotheses that blend key entertainment media concepts (i.e. transportation, and affect) with important democratic outcome variables (i.e., learning) were proposed.
Overall, there were few significant differences between the three stories presented to the participants across all tested effects; transportation, emotions, recall and knowledge gain. While this study mainly exposed the need for further research before any conclusions about effects of multimodality — and in particular embedded multimodality — can be drawn, there are some tendencies that might indicate that there are some cognitive and affective effects embedded in these new advancements in online journalism. For example, the findings show indications that readers felt more emotions when they were presented with images and video, and compared to print only, the added multimodality did manage to make the readers significantly more afraid. The added modality did however also make one remember less. Considering traditional multimedia scored lowest on transportation and learning, the findings might indicate that the Christmas tree layout is perhaps confusing readers to that extent that they become less engaged, and also remember less. By focusing on a narrative flow layout, that limits visual confusion, the findings suggests that the reader might get more engaged, and then also remember and learn more.
When it came to audience’s perceptions of the three stories in terms of layout, no real difference was observed. This indicated that respondents did not like the embedded story more,
nor did they dislike it. However, when it came to content perception, the text only story received the overall highest score and traditional the lowest. Considering the content in all three stories were identical, the findings may indicate that when it comes to feature stories, a narrative layout may be considered rather than the Christmas tree layout.
The results of the experiment also found evidence that support the extant theory: perceived reality predicts effects on transportation, and transportation, as well as negative emotions in general, and anger and disgust in particular, can predict higher levels of recall and knowledge gain. This suggests that by focusing on narrative flow and emotional appeal might increase the amount of how much one remembers and learns.
The explanation for the low level of supported hypotheses might be many. For one, embedded multimedia journalism is still a relatively new format in the mainstream media,
compared to print (which has been around for centuries) and traditional multimedia (for at least a decade). Thereby, perhaps some of the non-significant findings may have to do with the fact that the audience is trying to get acquainted with how to read the new format of embedded
multimedia journalism.
Another reason that may explain the overall low variance between the three stories could be that that the stimuli were too similar. Due to academic standards it was important that the stimuli material were as similar as possible in all other factors with exceptions to multimodality and narrative flow layout. However, these two features did not seem to have the effects
originally predicted in this study. Future research should take this into consideration and perhaps create stimuli that differ more distinctly in their layout and multimodality.
Lastly, the fact that the respondents were paid might have had implications for the findings. The low average knowledge levels might be an indicator that respondents might have
cared less about taking the time read and answer the survey thoroughly, then about finishing and receiving the compensation offered by the panel company.
Improvements for future research should consider the stimuli becoming a periphery of focus in regards to the effects that are being measured. If transportation and emotions are the main focus, the story should appeal greatly to the participants. The low level of transportation and emotions might in this case be related to the fact that the narrative took place in Norway, while the participants were from UK and thereby did not identify as much as they perhaps would if the main character was British. Further, if measuring cognitive effects such as recall and knowledge are the goal, focusing on a topic that deals with a rather complex issue (e.g. explaining how the financial crises happened) might give more of an indication on whether multimodality or narrative layout affects how much we remember and learn.
Effect studies on multimedia journalism is still a rather unexplored field, and although there were few significant differences found between the three stimuli, this study takes an important step forwards bridging gaps between psychology, communication, and journalism theory, opening doors to further research. In a media landscape characterized by decreasing readership of newspapers and an increasing popularity of entertainment, focusing on
understanding in which ways embedded multimedia journalism affects, influences and engages the public matters as multimedia productions have the potential to bring the media industry back towards quality and in-depth journalism. The increasingly popular format thereby can play a vital role in both informing and engaging the electorate. Studying the most effective media formats for increasing learning is crucial to creating an informed society — starting with its citizens.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Bergens Tidene for letting me use their article in my experiment. All help from Qualtrics support, especially thanks to Tanner. Mark Deuze and Bas Broekhuizen for guidance. Hajo Boomgarden and my thesis supervisor Magdalena Wojcieszak for all the assistance, feedback and support. And last, but not least-- after two years, three countries, mind blowing discussions and amazing memories, I want to thanks my fellow Mundusians for an incredible journey resulting in this paper.
References
Barry, A.M. (2005). Perception theory. In K. Smith, S. Moriarty, G. Barbatsis, & K. Kenney (Eds.), Handbook of visual communication (pp. 45-62). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bilandzic, H., & Busselle, R. W. (2008). Transportation and Transportability in the Cultivation of Genre‐Consistent Attitudes and Estimates. Journal of Communication, 58(3), 508-529. Bobrow, D and Norman, D. (1975) Some Principles of Memory Schemata In D. Bobrow and
A.Collins [eds.], Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science. New York: Academic Press, 131-149.
de Graaf, A., Hoeken, H., Sanders, J., & Beentjes, H. (2009). The role of dimensions of narrative engagement in narrative persuasion. Communications, 34(4), 385-405.
de Graaf, A. M., & Hustinx, L. G. M. M. (2011). The effect of story structure on emotion, transportation, and persuasion. Information Design Journal 19(2), 142–154.
Detenber, B. H., Simons, R. F., & Bennett Jr, G. G. (1998). Roll ‘em!: The effects of picture motion on emotional responses. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(1), 113- 127.
Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212–228. Graber, D. A. (1996). Say it with pictures. The annals of the American academy of political
and social science, 85-96.
Grabowicz, P., Hernandez, R., and Rue, J. (2014, March 9). Taxonomy of digital story
packages- Embedded Multimedia. kdmcBerkeley. Retrieved from:
http://multimedia.journalism.berkeley.edu/tutorials/taxonomy-digital-story-packages/embedded-multimedia/.
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(5), 701.
Green, M. C., Brock, T. C., & Kaufman, G. F. (2004). Understanding media enjoyment: The role of narrative engagement into narrative worlds. Communication Theory, 14(4), 311– 327.
Green, M. C., Kass, S., Carrey, J., Herzig, B., Feeney, R., & Sabini, J. (2008). Transportation across media: Repeated exposure to print and film. Media Psychology, 11(4), 512-539. Harper, C. (2005). Journalism in a digital age. Health, 34(27), 29.
Jacobson, S. (2010). Emerging Models of Multimedia Journalism: A Content Analysis of Multimedia Packages Published on nytimes.com. Atlantic Journal of
Communication, 18(2), 63-78.
Jacobson, S. (2012). Transcoding the news: An investigation into multimedia journalism published on nytimes.com 2000–2008. New Media & Society, 14(5), 867-885. Kiuttu, S. (2013). Integrate Multimedia, Make Fingers Happy: Journalistic Storytelling on
Tablets. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism- University of Oxford. Retrieved from: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/Publications/ fellowspapers/2012-2013/INTEGRATEMULTIMEDIAMAKEFINGERS HAPPY-JOURNALISTICSTORYTELLINGONTABLETS.pdf.
LaMarre, H. L., & Landreville, K. D. (2009). When is fiction as good as fact? Comparing the influence of documentary and historical reenactment films on engagement, affect, issue interest, and learning. Mass Communication and Society, 12(4), 537-555.
Larrondo Ureta, A. (2011). The Potential of Web-only Feature Stories: A Case Study of Spanish Media Sites. Journalism Studies, 12(2), 188-204.
Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. ECTJ, 30(4),
195-232.
Murphy, S. T., Frank, L. B., Moran, M. B., & Patnoe‐Woodley, P. (2011). Involved, Transported, or Emotional? Exploring the Determinants of Change in Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior in Entertainment‐Education. Journal of Communication, 61(3), 407-431.
Nabi, R. (2002). Anger, fear, uncertainty, and attitudes: A test of the cognitive-functional model. Communication Monographs, 69(3), 204-216.
O’Leary, A. (2010). The sound and the blurry. Third coast international audio festival-
Conference Audio. Audio retrieved from:
http://www.thirdcoastfestival.org/library/959-the-sound-and-the-blurry.
Parkinson, M. (2012). The Power of Visual Communication. Billion Dollar Graphics. Retrieved from: http://www.billiondollargraphics.com/infographics.html.
Pompeo, J. (2013, May 7). ‘Times’ editor Jill Abramson likes ‘snowfalling’ a lot better than ‘native advertising’. Capital. Retrieved from:
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2013/05/8529791/times-editor-jill-abramson-likes-snowfalling-lot-better-native-adverti.
Radü, J. (2013, December 19). Multimediareportagen- Verzichtet!. Journalist, 12(13). Retrieved from: http://www.journalist.de/ratgeber/handwerk-beruf/redaktionswerkstatt/
multimediareportagen-verzichtet.html. Accessed: April 22, 2014.
Rue, J. (2013, December 9). Dissecting "Snow Fall": New Effects in Multimedia Storytelling. Photo District News. Retrieved from:
http://www.pdnonline.com/features/New-Features-Article-9666.shtml#sthash.lIC4EXo1.dpuf.
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is ‘‘easy’’ and print is ‘‘tough’’: The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (4), 647–658.
Schill, D. (2012). The Visual Image and the Political Image: A Review of Visual Communication Research in the Field of Political Communication. Review of Communication, 12(2), 118-142.
Segel, E., & Heer, J. (2010). Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data. Visualization and Computer Graphics, IEEE Transactions on, 16(6), 1139-1148.
Sinclair, R. C., & Mark, M. M. (1992). The influence of mood state on judgment and action: Effects on persuasion, categorization, social justice, person perception, and judgmental accuracy.
practice, 3(1), 13-29.
Steensen, S. (2010). Back to the feature: online journalism as innovation, transformation and practice. PhD diss., University of Oslo.
Sundar, S. S. (2000). Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: A study of picture, audio, and video downloads. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 77(3), 480-499.
Wilson, B., & Busselle, R. (2004). Transportation into the narrative and perceptions of media realism. International Communication Association (Information Systems Division), New Orleans, LA.
Zhang, L., Hmielowski, J. D., & Busselle, R. W. (2007, June). The role of distraction in altering transportation and perceived realism in experiencing television narrative. In meeting of the International Communication Association.
Appendix A Question Wording
Dependent variables Transportation
“How strongly do you agree or disagreed with the following statements?” (Measured on a 7-point Likert scale from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree).
1. While I was reading the article, I could easily picture the events in it taking place.
2. While I was reading the article, activity going on in the room around me was on my mind. 3. I could picture myself in the scene of the events described in the article.
4. I was mentally involved in the article while reading it.
5. After finishing the article, I found it easy to put it out of my mind. 6. I wanted to learn how the article ended.
7. The story affected me emotionally.
8. I found myself thinking of ways the story could have turned out differently. 9. I found my mind wandering while reading the article.
10. The events in the article are relevant to my everyday life. 11. The events in the article have changed my life.
Emotion
“How did this article make you feel?” (Measured on a 7-point Likert scale from None of This Feeling to A Great Deal of This Feeling).
Recall and Knowledge
1. “How old was Janne when she collapsed?” (Multiple choice: 14; 24; 27; The answer to this question was not present in the article; I don’t remember).
2. “What was the main cause of Janne’s crippling?” (Multiple choice: Cardiac arrest; Bulimia; Coma; The answer to this question was not present in the article; I don’t remember).
3. “Who was Carmen Kvitting?” (Multiple choice: Janne’s psychiatrist; Janne’s best friend; Janne’s doctor; The answer to this question was not present in the article; I don’t remember). 4. “Why does Janne enjoy living at the nursing home?” (Multiple choice: Because she no longer have to see her step-father; Because she feels safe; She does not enjoy it; Because Carmen Kvitting visits her; The answer to this question was not present in the article; I don’t remember). 5. “What is the most common relationship young female victims of sexual abuse have with their perpetrator?” (Multiple choice: Father; Stranger; Uncle; Friend of the family; Step-father; Teacher; The answer to this question was not present in the article; I don’t remember).
6. “How many girls are approximately sexually abused worldwide each year?” (Multiple choice: One in five girls; One in six girls; One in seven girls; The answer to this question was not present in the article; I don’t remember).
7. “Name all the typical effects victims of sexual abuse you remember mentioned in the story”. (Fill in the blank)
Content Perception.
“For each word below, indicate how well it describes the article you just read”. (Measured on a 7-point Likert scale from Describes Very Poorly to Describes Very Well).
Accurate; Believable; Biased; Clear; Comprehensive; Factual; Fair; Informative; Important; Objective; Persuasive; Sensationalistic; Well-Written.
Layout and website Perception
1. “How well does the following words below indicate how well the word describes
the article you just browsed?” (Measured on a 7-point Likert scale from Describes Very Poorly to Describes Very Well). Organized; Interactive; Useful; Coherent; Confusing; Enjoyable; Sophisticated; User-Friendly.
2. “Thinking about the article you browsed today as a whole, how well would you say it utilized the multimedia capabilities? (Measured on a 7-point Likert scale from Poorly to Excellent). 3. “How likely are you to read similar stories as the one you read on a daily basis?” (Measured on a 7-point Likert scale from Very Unlikely to Very Likely).
4. “How likely are you to recommend this article to friends/ relatives?” (Measured on a 7-point Likert scale from Very Unlikely to Very Likely).
5. “How much do you think the layout of the website affected your browsing of the information on it?” (Measured on a 7-point Likert scale from Did Not Affect to Affected Very Much). 6. “In what ways would you improve this site?” (Fill in the blanks).
Control variables Perceived reality
“For each word below, indicate how well it describes the article you just read”. (Measured on a 7-point Likert scale from Describes Very Poorly to Describes Very Well).
Believable; Factual; Objective.
Demographics
“What is your gender?” (Male; Female).
“What is the highest level of education you have completed?” (Less than High School; High School/ GED; Some College; 2-year College Degree; 4-year College Degree; Masters Degree; Doctoral Degree; Professional Degree (JM, MD).
Appendix B
