The Effect of Media Multitasking on Cognitive Processing Style and
Advertising Effectiveness Kazakova, S., Cauberghe, V.
I. Media Multitasking Contexts
and
Cognitive
Processing
Style
STUDY II: : Abstract versus Concrete Construals STUDY I: Global versus Local Perceptual Processing Context: Media mul%tasking, mul%ple devices (TV-­‐ website) DVs: perceptual processing (global vs. local) Predictor: Switching frequency Theory Context: Media mul%tasking, mul%ple devices (TV-­‐ website) DVs: conceptual processing (abstract vs. concrete construal) Predictor: conceptual vs. visual switching Construal level measure Perceptual processing measure Theory è Task switching (Monsell, 2003) è Dual-­‐task interference (Pashler, 1994) è GLOMO processing model (Foerster & Dannenberg, 2010) Method Geometric Comparison Task (Kimchi & Palmer, 1982) 2-­‐between subjects design (n=77) Mul?tasking condi%on à short films + a website simultaneously Control condi%on à short films + a website sequen-ally Measures: perceptual processing; switching frequency, mood, cogni%ve load •  Media mul%tasking à more local perceptual processing •  Higher switching ! more local perceptual processing Local processing Mul?tasking (M=8.29, SD=4.61) Control (M=10.51, SD=4.93) Abstract construal 16 THEN Results 0 è Switching literature (Monsell, 2003) è Ac%on Iden%fica%on Theory (Vallacher & Wegner, 1987)) Method ! 3-­‐between subjects design (n=73); THEN • 
• 
• 
• 
BIF (e.g.): Making a list a) 
Wri?ng things down (how) b) 
Geang organized (why) Global processing Conceptual switching
Sequen?al
16 14 14.08 12 10 8 6 4 2 13 9.89 Sequen%al Results Visual switching
•  More concrete construals in conceptual switching Visual Switching condi%on compared to sequen%al (t(47)=-­‐1.95, p<.05) and the visual switching condi%on (t(49) = -­‐2.99, p < .01). Conceptual Switching •  No difference in construal level between the sequen?al and visual switching condi%ons (t(44)=.71, p=.48). 0 II. Media Multitasking Contexts and Advertising Effectiveness: The Mediating Role of Attention
STUDY I: Media Mul?tasking with Mul?ple Devices STUDY II: Media Mul?tasking with a Single Device Context: Mul%tasking with mul$ple devices DVs: brand memory, adver-sing intrusiveness Mediator: A4en-on alloca-on Context: Mul%tasking with a single media device DVs: brand memory, adver-sing intrusiveness Mediator: A4en-on alloca-on •  Limited Processing models (e.g. Lang, 2000) •  Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994) •  Task switching (Monsell, 2003) •  Limited Processing models (e.g. Lang, 2000) •  Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994) Single device mul?tasking Theory Method • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Theory Method Mul?ple devices mul?tasking 79 par%cipants, two condi%ons Mul?tasking condi%on à TV program + website simultaneously Control condi%on à only TV program In both condi%ons, an adver?sing block interrupted the TV program Measures: brand recall, perceived ad intrusiveness, aMen%on, cogni%ve load, mood Results • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
120 par%cipants, two condi%ons (instruc%on manipula%on) S?muli: a website, an embedded video, banners ads (single screen) Mul%tasking condi%on à cooking video + ar%cle simultaneously Control condi%on à cooking video + ar%cle sequen$ally Same measures were used as in Study I + brand recogni?on • 
s •  Brand recall was lower in the mul%tasking vs. control condi%on (t(77)=-­‐2.28, p<.05), Results •  The ad block was less intrusive in the mul%tasking condi%on (t(77)=-­‐2.43, p<.05). •  Recogni?on was lower in the mul%tasking vs. control condi%ont(118)=2.50, p<.05 •  AGen?on mediated the effect of media mul%tasking on brand recall and ad •  Banner intrusiveness was lower in the mul%tasking condi%on t(118)=2.29, p<.05 intrusiveness. 4 3.66 3.5 AGen?on
AGen?on
3.04 AGen?on mediated the effect of media 3 2.33 2.5 mul%tasking o
n: Mul%tasking 2 1.43 • 
r
ecogni?on (
b=-­‐.604, 9
5% C
I=-­‐1.18 t
o -­‐
.02) 1.5 Control Experimental Ad b
lock Brand recall Experimental Condi?on
1 •  banner intrusiveness (b=-­‐.336, 95% CI=-­‐.
b=-­‐.23 Intrusiveness
Condi?on
b=-­‐.25 0.5 671 to -­‐ .017) (95% CI=-­‐.607 to -­‐.025) 0 (95% CI=-­‐.586 to -­‐.040) Brand Recogni%on Banner Intrusiveness Conclusions è 
M
edia m
ul%tasking c
ontexts a
lso c
hange t
he w
ay a
dver?sing s
?muli a
re p
rocessed a
nd è Due to their fragmented nature, media mul%tasking contexts change the way we evaluated. process informa?on, both on a perceptual and conceptual level. è Future studies should inves%gate the poten%al long term impact of media mul%tasking è Further research is needed to help adver%sers develop effec?ve strategies to capture consumers’ l
imited a
Men%on.
on informa%on processing styles.