Perceptions and Recall of Advertising Content

Presented on Mobile Handheld Devices

Suzanne Altobello Nasco

Southern Illinois University

Gordon C. Bruner II
Southern Illinois University

Table of Contents

● Abstract
● Introduction
● Background
o Modality Effects Relevant to Mobile Advertising
o Cognitive Load Theory and Mobile Advertising
o Predicting Behavioral Intentions toward Mobile Devices for Commercial
Content
● Method
o Participants
o Design and Content
o Procedure
o Dependent Variables
● Results
o Demographics
o Reliability of Scales
o Perceptions of the Commercial Content
o Recall of Commercial Content and Perceptions of the Mobile Device
o Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions toward using a Mobile Device to
Obtain Commercial Content
● Discussion
● Limitations and Future Directions
● References
● Appendix 1: Perceptions of Commercial Content and Mobile Device
● Appendix 2: Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions

Abstract

With the advancements in mobile phone technology and the increase in consumer use
of wireless devices to access the internet, there is a need to explore the inevitable effect
of these factors on mobile advertising. In this project, we presented commercial content
on wireless devices, designed to represent various modality combinations (text, audio,
and pictures) to test hypotheses based on cognitive load theory. Results showed that
modality significantly affected subjects’ perceptions toward and recall of the commercial
content. However, modality did not affect perceptions of the mobile device itself, or
influence behavioral intentions and attitudes toward mobile advertising on wireless
devices. Behavioral intentions to use mobile devices were significantly predicted by
consumer perceptions of content and of the device. Marketers can use these results to
design more effective ads to be presented on mobile devices.

Introduction

The nearly universal presence of mobile phones has affected many facets of our daily
lives. The rise of this “third screen” (relative to television screens and computer screens,
e.g., Cuneo 2005) presents opportunities and challenges for advertisers seeking to
utilize the mobile medium to reach consumers. The knee-jerk reaction might be to
deliver the same content as has been used with the older screens, but this would
probably be a mistake (Donaton 2006). What is the best form to use when designing
advertising content to appear on wireless devices and what is the effect of these
different presentation formats on consumers’ perceptions of the commercial content and
perceptions of the device itself? What predicts behavioral intentions toward using
mobile devices to obtain commercial content?

In addition to these practical questions that marketers seek answers to are some
fundamental psychological questions as well. Namely, how much information presented
on wireless devices can individuals effectively process? The ubiquity of wireless devices
leads individuals to multi-task across environments, thus, the constraints of working
memory are likely to play a strong role in information processing of content presented
on wireless devices. The theory of cognitive load could lend insight into the best way to
present information to consumers, as this theory examines the effect of limitations of
human working memory capacity on one’s ability to process information (Sweller 1988).

These practical and theoretical questions are examined in this study by presenting
commercial content to consumers on a wireless device in a variety of presentation
formats. We combined current technological capabilities of handheld devices with the
theoretical concept of cognitive load in order to establish the foundation for our
presentational design and research hypotheses. Findings from our study can be used
by marketers to understand the best combination of presentation formats to create
mobile ads that would enhance comprehension of the commercial message and
improve attitudes toward mobile content and mobile devices.

Background

Computer-based multimedia environments consisting of pictures (animation) and words

(textual or audio-presented narration) offer a potentially powerful venue for improving
consumer experiences. All multimedia messages deliver information to the user, but
they are not equally successful in promoting understanding. Even though web pages
can display text, audio, graphics and animation with little difficulty, the challenge is to
design multimedia messages that promote learning (retention of information and recall),
while simultaneously appealing to the individual’s preferences and not over-taxing the
individual’s cognitive capacity.

These are practical issues to address because marketers wanting to utilize “the third
screen” must make decisions about how to present the ads to consumers. With regard
to the format for audio and video, several alternatives exist. Additionally, practitioners
would typically want people to attend to their messages and process them properly. It is
reasonable to ask if consumers have a preference for the modality in which advertising
content is received on a mobile device. Beyond preference, it is reasonable to ask about
contrasting effects of the different formats on consumers’ product-related attitudes and
intentions.

Modality Effects Relevant to Mobile Advertising

The internet, in general, and the ability to connect to the internet via wireless handheld
devices offer consumers a unique combination of traditional communication modalities,
such as TV, print, and radio. Current mobile technology can allow marketers to present
mobile advertising information via an auditory channel (e.g., someone calling a mobile
phone and speaking directly to the consumer), a text channel (e.g., using SMS
technology to send a short message to the consumer on their wireless device), or other
visual channels that incorporate multimedia (e.g., sending a picture or video directly to
the consumer on their wireless device). Moreover, the interactive nature of wireless
devices allows consumers to customize these information modalities depending on
personal preference and device capabilities (Lewis 1996).

Past research on modality has mostly focused on traditional media formats. Different
types of media (through various modality combinations) have been shown to
differentially affect attention, vividness, comprehension, and decision-making. Seminal
research by Chaiken and Eagly (1976) found that comprehension of an easy message
did not differ as a function of whether the message was presented in written, auditory,
or video form, however, comprehension of a difficult message was best in written form.
Jacoby, Hoyer, and Zimmer (1983) found similar results: print messages were better
comprehended than television or audio messages. Conversely, research by Liu and
Stout (1987) found that pictures and words, or pictures alone, were more effective than
words alone in enhancing message recall and inducing positive thoughts and attitudes.
Few researchers have examined these implications in a mobile advertising environment
in particular, so predictions regarding directionality of various modalities on attitudes
remain speculative. However, extending this research into the mobile environment, we
hypothesize that favorable attitudes toward the content presented on the mobile device
should be highest when multiple modalities are used to present the message (e.g.,
pictures and text, pictures and audio).

H1: Mobile advertising content presented in multiple formats (text with

pictures, audio with pictures) will result in higher consumer involvement in
and higher perceived importance of the ad content than mobile advertising
content presented in single formats (text only, audio only).
In addition to the number of modalities possible in an interactive environment,
technology capabilities also allow marketers to present visual information in a dynamic
or static form. On the internet or mobile devices, this distinction translates into the ability
to present pictures one at a time or to present pictures in video form. Past research by
Singer (1980) found that the movement in television’s audio-visual messages creates
visual variation and, hence, increases attention to the moving images. Therefore, in an
interactive environment, we may find that consumers are more involved in content that
is presented dynamically.

H2: Mobile advertising content presented dynamically will result in

increased involvement than mobile advertising content presented
statically.

In a multimedia environment, we may find that modalities interact to influence

perceptions of the content. Although no published research speaks to this issue in a
mobile advertising context, we specifically designed our study to examine the interactive
effects of text, audio, and pictures (static vs. dynamic) on consumer perceptions.

Recall is also important to marketers, as consumers should recall advertising content at

the point of purchase when making the decision to purchase a product. Past research
has shown that textual information is better recalled than auditory information due to the
enhanced ability to rehearse a text message (i.e., re-read) than an auditory one. For
example, Sewell and Moore (1980) found that recall of a list of words was better when
presented in text form than in audio form. Therefore, extending this research into the
present project, we hypothesize that consumers’ recall of the information presented in a
mobile ad should be highest in the print conditions.

H3: Mobile advertising content presented in text format will result in better
recall than mobile advertising content presented in auditory formats.

Cognitive Load Theory and Mobile Advertising

Other research that pertains to advertising on mobile devices concerns consumer

memory capacity, rather than consumer preference or attention. Human memory is
composed of two parts: long-term memory and short-term (or working) memory. Long
term memory is conceptualized as a permanent repository for knowledge and skills
acquired via learning; working memory is used to organize incoming stimuli for further
information processing, acting like a filter for long-term memory storage. Long-term
memory has potentially unlimited storage capacity, while working memory is limited in
its processing capacity, capable of holding only about seven information elements at
any one time (Miller 1956). Due to this limited capacity, all mental activities impose a
“cognitive load” on the individual. Cognitive load theory (Sweller 1988; Sweller, Van
Merriënboer, and Paas 1998) addresses the limitations of working memory, in terms of
both capacity to store and ability to process incoming information, and it provides
guidelines for minimizing working memory overload. Initially, working memory was
considered a unitary construct, but modern conceptualizations divide working memory
into a “visual-spatial scratch pad” to hold and process visual information and a
“phonological loop” to hold and process auditory information (Baddeley 1992).

Related to the visual field specifically, cognitive load research has found that if two
messages presented simultaneously as pictorial and textual information are redundant
(meaning either can be understood in isolation), presenting individuals with only one
visual message is superior to presenting two redundant visual messages. For example,
if individuals are trying to learn about how to use a product, they could be presented
with a diagram or could read the instructions in text format. If the text merely translates
the diagram into words, research by Chandler and Sweller (1991) found that subjects
presented with both the diagram and the text performed worse on subsequent tasks
than subjects who only viewed the diagram. Extending this idea to mobile advertising
suggests that an advertisement presented on mobile device with both pictures and text
that describes the pictures should be less effective than a mobile ad presented as just
text.

H4: Mobile advertising content presented as two visual pieces of

redundant information (e.g., pictures with text) will result in more negative
perceptions and lower recall than mobile advertising content presented as
one visual source (e.g., text).

Because visual and auditory working memory processors are separate, effective
working memory may be increased by using both processors rather than either memory
stream alone (Paivio 1986; Penney 1989). Research based on this dual processor idea
has shown that people are better able to understand and process two messages if they
are communicated via different modes (e.g., reading one message while listening to
another) than if two messages are presented in the same modality at the same time
(e.g., listening to both messages or reading both messages) (Allport, Antonis, and
Reynolds 1972; Frick 1984).

Although the dual processor effect is specific to learning two separate messages, we
may be able to extend such thinking to a multimedia context. A mobile advertisement
has the ability to be presented via one mode (e.g., an ad presented through SMS text
messaging or an ad presented as an auditory recording) or via two modes (e.g., an ad
presented through visual and auditory channels, such as pictures with a sound file). If
the dual processor effect extends to mobile advertising, then ads that utilize dual modes
will be more effective than those that utilize a single mode.

H5: Mobile advertising content presented across dual modes (e.g., a

visual plus an auditory mode) will result in higher involvement, higher
perceptions of importance and better recall of ad content than mobile
advertising content presented across a single mode (e.g., visual only or
auditory only).
Care must be taken by marketers, however, when utilizing dual modes. This is
especially true if the modes are competing, rather than complementary. When words
are presented on-screen in text format they must be processed through the visual
system; any animation or pictures that are on-screen at the same time as the text must
also be processed visually. In this situation, the text is competing with the animation for
visual attention, causing a split attention effect. However, when words are presented as
narration, they are processed in the auditory channel, thus freeing visual capacity that
can be devoted to processing the animation more deeply and resulting in
complementary modalities. Consequently, past research has found that learners
processing pictures with narration (audio) displayed better performance on subsequent
transfer tasks than learners processing pictures with text (Mayer and Moreno 2002;
Mousavi, Low, and Sweller 1995). Hypothesis 6 extends this work in complementary
versus competing processing modes to the domain of mobile advertising.

H6: Mobile advertising content presented in two complementary modes

(e.g., pictures with audio) will result in higher involvement, higher
perceptions of importance and better recall of ad content than mobile
advertising content presented in competing modes (e.g., pictures with
text).

Predicting Behavioral Intentions toward Mobile Devices for Commercial Content

Even though the evidence shows that redundancy and split attention increase cognitive
load and reduce task performance, the research on cognitive load theory does not
address a person’s preference for or perceptions of redundant information. In a
multimedia context, it is possible that consumers have come to expect more dynamic
media for entertainment value. Therefore, if a mobile phone can present video with
audio, consumers may actually prefer redundant information rather than simply reading
an SMS message presenting a mobile ad. Thus, behavioral intentions to use a wireless
device to obtain commercial content should be higher for dynamic ads than static ads.
In addition, recent research has found that including affective measures with cognitive
measures provide much better prediction of intentions to use a wireless device than
using cognitive factors alone (Bruner and Kumar 2005; Kulviwat et al. 2007).

H7: Mobile advertising content presented dynamically will result in higher

behavioral intentions to use a mobile device than mobile advertising
content presented statically.

H8: Cognitive and affective reactions to using a mobile device to obtain

advertising content should significantly predict behavioral intentions to use
a mobile device, over the effect of cognition alone on behavioral
intentions.

Method

Participants
Participants were 116 college students recruited from an introductory marketing course
at a large public university in the midwestern United States. Participants received extra
credit toward their course grade in exchange for participation.

Design and Content

All participants viewed one of six different presentations of an advertisement on a

mobile device. To address the aforementioned hypotheses, we employed a 3 by 2
between-subjects design. The first factor was related to what participants saw on the
mobile device screen and consisted of three levels: no pictures, multiple static pictures
(i.e., photos presented in slide show mode), or streaming pictures (i.e., video). To create
the levels for this factor, we downloaded a 30-second car commercial from a
subscription-based advertising website (available from the first author upon request).
From that primary video, we captured 10 still pictures from the video for the "static
pictures" condition. In the "no picture condition", the mobile device screen was black
and in the "static pictures" condition, the 10 still pictures from the commercial appeared
sequentially for 3 seconds each in the center of the screen (simulating a slideshow). In
the "streaming pictures" condition, the full commercial video appeared in the center of
the screen. In the latter two conditions, Microsoft Media Player was used to present the
commercial content.

The second factor consisted of two levels and related to whether the participants heard
audio to accompany what they saw (factor 1) or whether they read text that appeared
on the screen. For the "audio only" condition, we stripped the 30-second audio track
from the original video, saved it as a .wav file, and presented it to participants on the
handheld device using Microsoft Media Player. For the "text only" condition, we
transcribed the audio and presented the script in the center of the mobile device screen
(black letters on a white background). When text was presented, along with pictures
(either static slideshow or streaming video), the text appeared on the bottom of the
mobile device screen, simulating a “closed-captioning” type of screen. Thus,
participants were randomly assigned to and experienced one of the following six
conditions: read the text script of the commercial with no pictures (n = 21), heard the
audio track only of the commercial with no pictures (n = 18), read text of the commercial
while viewing the 10 still pictures presented sequentially (n = 20), heard audio while
viewing the 10 still pictures presented sequentially (n = 19), viewed the text of the
commercial script while viewing the video (n = 20), or viewed the original commercial
video (heard audio with video, n = 18).

Because these conditions were created specifically for this study to test hypotheses
related to modality, all audio, text, and picture files had to be saved to a memory card
and loaded onto a mobile device. At the time the data were collected, cell phones that
could show streaming video content from an external memory card were not available.
Therefore, instead of using a mobile phone as the handheld device, we used a Toshiba
Pocket PDA (model e740) with an external memory card slot that had a similar screen
size (2.25 inches by 3 inches), weight (6 ounces), and visual appearance to prototype
models being developed by cellular phone companies at the time this study was
designed (see Figure 1 for photo of device). Respondents participated in the study in
experimental sessions of two to seven people; all participants in a session were in the
same condition to simplify instructions regarding how to use the mobile device.

FIGURE 1.
Toshiba Pocket PDA (Model e740) used in Research

Procedure

Participants signed up for a one hour experimental session as part of a larger study
exploring the effects of content presentation using various modalities on mobile devices.
Upon entering a small conference room, each participant was given a folder consisting
of survey materials and a PDA. The experimenter then held up a PDA and
demonstrated how to use it. Headphones were provided with each PDA in the audio
conditions and the experimenter demonstrated how to use the stylus to play a sample
10-second Windows Media Player system file. Each participant was encouraged to play
the sample file several times, if necessary, to properly adjust the volume of his/her
headset using the stylus.

Once the demonstration was over, the experimenter fielded any questions concerning
operation of the device before proceeding. Participants were then instructed to use the
stylus to click on the "begin" button on the mobile device screen to view the commercial
content. Participants could only view the commercial one time on the PDA. Following
the commercial presentation, all participants completed a series of questions.

Dependent Variables

The questionnaire assessed participants’ reactions to the content of the information

presented (i.e., the commercial), as well as their reactions to the mobile device itself
(i.e., the PDA). Attitudes toward using the mobile device and behavioral intentions of
using a mobile device in the future were also measured. (See Appendix 1 for
questionnaire items related to perceptions of content and device; see Appendix 2 for
items related to attitudes and behavioral intentions.)

Perceptions of Commercial Content. In assessing perceptions toward the content, we

measured personal involvement toward and perceptions of the importance of using a
mobile device to advertising information. To measure involvement in receiving the
commercial content, respondents reported their agreement with four statements that
assessed their interest in and diligence in attending to the advertising information. To
measure importance of receiving commercial content, we modified some items from
Zaichkowsky (1985) to examine the extent to which obtaining ad information on the
mobile device was perceived as positive by respondents. Participants rated their
agreement with nine adjectives regarding the ad content received on the mobile device.

Perceptions of the Mobile Device. To assess perceptions of the mobile device itself, we
asked participants to assess their overall affective experience with the device, the
perceived usefulness of the device, and their perception of overall value of such a
device. To measure overall affective experience, we asked participants to rate their
level of agreement with six items regarding the extent to which receiving commercial
information of this type on the mobile device generated positive emotions. To measure
cognitive reactions toward the perceived usefulness of the mobile device, we used
items suggested by Lund (1999). Our participants reported their agreement with five
statements referring to whether the mobile device would help them be more effective.
To measure the perceived value of wireless devices, we asked participants to rate their
agreement with three statements regarding the value, relevance, and quality of wireless
devices to obtain such content.

Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions toward the Mobile Device. To measure attitudes
toward using a mobile device to obtain commercial advertising information, we used
four items suggested by Bagozzi, Baumgartner, and Yi (1992). Participants assessed
their attitudes on semantic differential scales anchored by the following descriptors:
bad/good, negative/positive, unpleasant/pleasant, and unfavorable/ favorable. To
measure participants’ behavioral intentions to use a mobile device in the future to obtain
commercial information, we asked this item right after receiving the commercial
information (to measure specific intentions toward mobile advertising) and at the end of
the study to measure overall likelihood of using a mobile device in the future (to
measure general intentions toward mobile devices).

Recall of Commercial Content. At the end of the study (after all content, device, and
demographic questions), we inserted a measure of recall regarding the commercial
content. Respondents completed the recall phase approximately 15 minutes after
viewing/hearing the commercial. We created five questions that asked respondents to
name the car manufacturer mentioned in the ad, to name the country mentioned in the
ad, to identify the car feature that was not mentioned in the ad, to identify the color of an
item in the ad, and to identify the single number mentioned in the ad. Responses to
these items were presented in multiple choice format, thus creating an “aided recall”
measure, rather than an unaided recall measure.

Results

Demographics
The 116 participants were almost evenly distributed by gender, with 48% male (n = 56)
and 51% female (n = 59), with one participant not reporting gender. The average age of
participants was 22.52 years (SD = 4.54). Eighty-seven percent of respondents (n =
100) currently owned a mobile phone (with 65% of the sample reporting an average
monthly cell phone bill less than $60). Only 30% of respondents (n = 35) reported
currently using their phones to receive any sort of multimedia content.

Reliability of Scales

Exploratory factor analyses were conducted for all multi-item scales used in the study.
See Appendices 1 and 2 for internal consistency measures, represented by Cronbach’s
alpha. The items all loaded on their respective factors and the items from each of the six
scales demonstrated high internal consistency, with alphas for all six scales greater
than .83. Therefore, for each of the six scales, a single, averaged index was created
with higher numbers representing more positive perceptions and attitudes. These
indexes were used as dependent variables in subsequent analyses.

Perceptions of the Commercial Content

To assess the effects of modality on consumer perceptions toward the commercial

content, the involvement and importance indices were used as dependent variables in a
multivariate analysis of variance, with pictures and audio/text as between-subjects
factors with three and two levels, accordingly. No significant main effects emerged, but
the pictures by audio/text interaction was significant, Wilks’ Λ = .898, F (4, 218) = 3.007,
p < .02.

A similar pattern of means emerged for both perception indices across modality
conditions: when no pictures of the commercial were seen, perceptions of involvement
in and importance of commercial content were significantly higher for the text only
condition (Mtext only - involvement = 4.18 and Mtext only - importance = 3.79) than for the audio only
condition (Maudio only - involvement = 3.04 and Maudio only - importance = 2.97), Wilks’ Λ= .940, F (2,
109) = 3.46, p < .04. However, when pictures accompanied the audio track or text
conditions, the reverse occurred. For the static and streaming pictures conditions,
perceptions of importance and involvement were higher in the audio conditions
compared to the text conditions, although these simple effects tests did not reach
statistical significance. See Figure 2 for graphs of both involvement and importance
indexes across conditions.

FIGURE 2.
Perceptions of Involvement and Importance by Modality
 Perceptions of involvement in the advertising content by Modality

4.20 pictures
no pictures seen
static pictures
streaming pictures
4.00 (video)
Estimated Marginal Means

3.80

3.60

3.40

3.20

3.00

audio text

audio_text

Perceptions of importance of the advertising content by Modality

4.00 pictures
no pictures seen
static pictures
streaming pictures
3.75 (video)
Estimated Marginal Means

3.50

3.25

3.00

2.75

2.50

audio text

audio_text
To specifically test Hypothesis 1, we created a contrast comparing the text only and
audio only conditions to the remaining four multiple format conditions for both
perception indexes. Neither contrast was significant (both t’s < .40). To test Hypothesis
2, we created a contrast comparing the two streaming pictures (video) conditions to the
two static pictures conditions for both perception indexes. Again, neither contrast was
significant (both t’s < .60).

Recall of Commercial Content and Perceptions of the Mobile Device

Hypotheses 3 through 6 relate specifically to recall (H3) and to recall and perceptions
(H4, H5, and H6). To create a single recall index, we simply summed the number of
correct answers to the five recall questions. As this was a formative index, a measure of
internal consistency is not relevant (Diamantopoulous and Winklhofer 2001). The values
for the index ranged from zero to five and, across all participants, the average number
of items correctly recalled from the commercial was 3.05 (SD = 1.37). The recall index
was used as the dependent variable in an analysis of variance, with pictures and
audio/text as the independent factors. The pictures main effect and the pictures by
audio/text interaction were not significant, but the audio/text main effect was significant,
F (1, 116) = 9.35, p < .004. The pattern of means supports Hypothesis 3: respondents
had better recall of the commercial content in the text conditions (M = 3.41, SD = .169)
than for the audio conditions (M = 2.67, SD = 1.78), regardless of the picture condition.
See Figure 3 for a graph of recall effects.

FIGURE 3.
Recall of Commercial Content by Modality

Number of commercial questions recalled correctly (0-5) by Modality

5.00 audio_text
audio
text

4.00
Estimated Marginal Means

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

no pictures seen static pictures streaming pictures

(video)

pictures
Hypotheses 4 (related to the effect of two visual pieces of information versus one visual
piece on recall) and 5 (related to the effect of dual modes versus single modes on
recall) were not supported (both t’s < 1.4). To test Hypothesis 6, we created a contrast
pairing the two text plus picture conditions against the two audio plus picture conditions,
with recall as the dependent variable. The contrast was marginally significant, t (110) =
1.69, p < .1, but the means were in the opposite direction with the competing modes
(text and pictures) showing higher recall (M = 3.3) than the complementary modes
(audio and pictures) (M = 2.79).

Hypotheses 4 through 6 also predicted the effect of modality on perceptions of the

mobile device itself. Thus, we performed a MANOVA with the affective, usefulness, and
value indices as dependent variables and the pictures and audio/text factors as the
independent variables. Perceptions of the device were not affected by the modality
presentations of the commercial content: the audio/text main effect, the picture main
effect, and the pictures by audio/text interaction were not significant, Wilks’Λs = .994,
.966, and .914, respectively; all F’s not significant.

Since the hypotheses were generated a priori, we examined the significance of the
three contrasts across the three device perception indexes, even though the overall
MANOVA was not significant. Hypothesis 4 was not supported, but Hypotheses 5 and 6
were marginally significant for the value index. Specifically, advertising content
presented across dual modes (audio plus static pictures and audio plus streaming
pictures) led to higher perceptions of the value of using wireless devices to access
commercial content, compared to single modes (visual only or audio only), t (102) =
1.88, p < .065. Also, advertising content presented in complementary modes (e.g.,
information presented via both visual and audio modes) led to higher perceptions of the
value of using wireless devices to access commercial content, compared to competing
modes (e.g., two pieces of information presented visually), t (102) = 1.89, p < .062.

Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions toward using a Mobile Device to obtain

Commercial Content

Participants’ attitudes toward the device were not significantly different across the
pictures or audio/text factors (both main effects and interaction were not significant).
Similarly, the variation in modality presentation of commercial content did not affect
either specific or general behavioral intentions to use a mobile device in the future. To
test Hypothesis 7, we performed the same contrast as Hypothesis 2, but with general
behavioral intention as the dependent variable. The contrast was not significant.

To examine Hypothesis 8, we ran a hierarchical regression predicting general

behavioral intention from two cognitive measures (the value of wireless devices and the
perceived usefulness of wireless devices to obtain commercial content) and two
affective measures (the affective/emotional perception of commercial content on
wireless devices and the attitude toward using a wireless device to obtain commercial
content). The cognitive measures significantly predicted 58.5% of general behavioral
intention, F (2, 106) = 73.4, p < .001. Both cognitive measures were significant
predictors of intention (usefulness index: B = .615, t = 6.89, p < .001; value index: B =
.504, t = 4.91, p < .001).

Support for Hypothesis 8 was specifically found in the significant improvement of

predicting behavioral intention with affective measures included in the model. The affect
and attitude indexes combined to predict an additional 5.3% of variance in intention, F
change (2, 102) = 7.49, p < .002. Both affect indexes were significant predictors
(attitude index: B = .252, t = 2.95, p < .005; affect index: B = .304, t = 2.29, p < .025),
along with the usefulness index (B = .503, t = 5.64, p < .001). However, with affect
indexes in the model, the perceived value of the wireless web no longer significantly
predicted behavioral intention to use a mobile device to obtain commercial content. See
Table 1 for hierarchical regression results.

TABLE 1.
Regression Results Predicting General Behavioral Intentions toward
the Wireless Device from Cognitive and Affective Measures

Unstandardized t R2 F Δ R2 ΔF
Independent
Coefficient
Variables
(Standard error)
Block 1
Cognitive
(Constant) -.202 (.443)
Usefulness .615 (.089) 6.891** .585 73.4**
index
Value index .504 (.103) 4.906**
Block 2
Cognitive
and
Affective
(Constant) -.952 (.462)
Usefulness .503 (.089) 5.636**
index
Value index .176 (.145) 1.213 .638 45.0** 053 7.49**
Affect index .304 (.133) 2.288*
Attitude index .252 (.086) 2.946**
*p < .05, ** p < .01
Note: Dependent Variable: Assuming you have access to such a wireless device in the future, what is
the probability you would use it to obtain this type of info?

Discussion

Table 2 presents an overview of the hypotheses, findings, and brief conclusions from
our research. Taking our hypotheses together, in the context of mobile advertising,
cognitive load theory may not be adequate to explain recall and perceptions of
commercial content. While the theory was important in helping to guide the
development of our unique experimental conditions, many of the ideas regarding
redundancy and split attention do not apply to interactive mobile content to the same
extent as they do in educational design. The strength and primary contribution of our
research is that our conclusions can speak directly to mobile content designers and
providers, whereas other communication research may not be as appropriate for the
mobile landscape. Our creative experimental design is one of the first of its kind that we
know of to design specific mobile content across various modalities and to present it to
consumers on wireless handheld devices to test specific learning hypotheses.

Our first hypothesis tested the assumption that multiple modes (e.g., pictures with text
or pictures with audio) were superior to single modes (e.g., text only or audio only) on
consumer involvement in and perceived importance of the commercial content. That
hypothesis was not supported, suggesting that at this time enhanced multimedia
presented on mobile devices may not be necessary. Greater movement in the pictorial
dimension of the ad design did not affect a consumer’s involvement in attending to the
mobile ad, nor affect a consumer’s perceived importance of the mobile ad content.

The hypothesis regarding dynamic pictures versus static pictures (H2) was also not
significant, suggesting that, in mobile advertising contexts, a slideshow display of static
pictures is just as effective as streaming video for the time being. Creators of mobile
content can use this information to guide design of mobile ads, as our research
suggests that content receivers don’t necessarily perceive much, if any, difference
between static pictures and streaming videos. Thus, content providers do not need to
allocate as much bandwidth or internal memory of mobile devices to present
commercial content (as would be required with a video presentation).

We found that perceptions of the commercial content and recall of the advertising
information presented on a mobile device varied as a function of whether pictures were
present or not: when pictures were absent, presenting an ad as text only (as in an SMS-
type message) was superior in recall and perceptions to presenting an ad as an audio
file, whereas when pictures were present, accompanying those pictures with an audio
file was better perceived and better recalled than accompanying the pictures with text.
The superiority of text to audio (in the absence of pictures) on recall has been supported
in basic psychological research (c.f., Chaiken and Eagly 1976; Jacoby, Hoyer, and
Zimmer 1983). The implication here is that if content providers of mobile ads cannot
accompany the ad with photos, they should present the ad in text-only format, rather
than audio.

The detrimental effects of visual redundancy on recall found in cognitive load research
and tested in hypothesis 4 were not supported here. Although we did not find enhanced
recall in the visual redundancy conditions, neither did we find detrimental effects of
visual redundancy. This is similar to research in the communication literature that has
found that the addition of redundant pictures to text improves recall in newspaper
(Prabu and Kang 1998) and television media (Lang 1995). It is important to remember
though, that this hypothesis only relates to visual redundancy; when pictures were
present, our respondents preferred audio accompaniment to text (see H3).

Likewise, the superiority of using dual modes (visual and audio) to present information
found in previous dual-processing research was not supported for our recall measure in
H5. However, dual modes were superior in enhancing consumer perceptions of the
value of mobile devices to obtain commercial content. Therefore, if a mobile content
provider wants to raise consumers’ perceptions of the value of the device, it should
present commercial content in dual modes, with the caveat that the dual mode
presentation will not necessarily enhance recall for the content.

Hypothesis 6 predicted that complementary modes are preferred over competing

modes. This hypothesis was marginally supported for both recall and perceptions of
value, but the recall effects were in the opposite direction. Namely, participants who
received content information over competing modes (two visual pieces of information)
demonstrated better recall than participants who received complementary modes. This
is also supported in the redundancy findings in H4. Perceptions of value, though, were
enhanced in complementary mode conditions (and consistent with the dual mode
findings in H5). These findings suggest that the best type of multimedia presentation of
commercial content may depend on the goal of the advertiser (e.g., recall versus
attitude change).

Hypotheses 7 and 8 related to behavioral intentions to use a mobile device to obtain

commercial content and will be of interest to mobile content providers. We found that
dynamic content did not lead to higher behavioral intentions, compared to static content.
As dynamic content is more costly to present, this finding (combined with H2) suggests
that, at the time our data were collected, consumers may not have expected full
streaming content presented over wireless handheld devices (as is expected with other
media, such as television or computer internet media).

Almost two-thirds of the variability in behavioral intentions to use a mobile device to

obtain commercial content was predicted in our project. In addition, the inclusion of
scales that measured emotional reactions to the device significantly enhanced
predictions, relative to cognitive measures alone. This result confirms previous work by
Kulviwat and colleagues (2007), which found that affect measures (capturing pleasure
and arousal) significantly improved a model predicting intentions to use handheld
devices, compared to a model with just cognitions (such as perceived usefulness, ease
of use, and relative advantage of handheld devices). Together, these studies suggest
that affect is an important component for consumers to consider when using their
mobile devices. It also implies that content providers should consider emotional
responses of consumers when designing commercial content to be presented over
wireless devices.

Even though these results may appear complex, one thing is very clear for practitioners:
it would be a mistake to merely replicate the form of advertisements presented on TV
and the computer monitor. Mobile advertising is a new medium and, as such, requires
an understanding of new rules of what works and what does not. Although this was
suspected, we now have some empirical evidence to guide marketers in what to do or
not do. Generalizations of our findings are shown in Table 2.
 TABLE 2.
Summary of Research Hypotheses, Results, and Conclusions

Hypothesis Finding Conclusion

H1: Mobile advertising content presented in Not supported If no pictures are available, text is
multiple formats (text with pictures, audio with better than audio; if pictures are
pictures) will result in higher consumer available, audio is better than
involvement in and higher perceived text.
importance of the ad content than mobile
advertising content presented in single formats
(text only, audio only).
H2: Dynamic content will result in increased Not supported Static pictures presented in
involvement compared to static content. slideshow mode were perceived
similarly as full video
presentation.
H3: Text content will result in better recall than Supported For recall of commercial content
auditory content. information, presenting the
message in text is superior to
audio presentation.
H4: Two visual pieces of redundant information Not supported for Visual redundancy is not
(e.g., pictures with text) will result in more recall or detrimental in a mobile
negative perceptions and lower recall than perceptions advertising context.
content presented as one visual source (e.g.,
text).
H5: Mobile advertising content presented Not supported for Dual modes enhance
across dual modes (e.g., a visual plus an recall; partially perceptions of value but don’t
auditory mode) will result in higher supported for affect recall of commercial
involvement, higher perceptions of importance, perceptions of content.
and better recall of ad content than mobile value
advertising content presented across a single
mode (e.g., visual only or auditory only).
H6: Mobile advertising content presented in Marginally If the goal of the mobile ad is
two complementary modes (e.g., pictures with supported for recall recall, competing modes are
audio) will result in higher involvement, higher (but in opposite better than complementary
perceptions of importance, and better recall of direction); modes. The opposite is true if the
ad content than mobile advertising content marginally goal of the mobile ad is
presented in competing modes (e.g., pictures supported for perceptions.
with text). perceptions of
value
H7: Dynamic content will result in higher Not supported Static pictures presented in
behavioral intentions to use a mobile device slideshow mode resulted in
than static content. similar behavioral intentions to
full video presentation.
H8: Cognitive and affective measures should Supported Cognitive and affective indices
predict behavioral intentions to use a mobile combined to predict almost 65%
device to obtain advertising content, over the of variability in intentions; the
effect of cognition alone. addition of affective measures
significantly improved prediction
and should be taken into account
by content providers.

Limitations and Future Directions

We did not find as many modality effects as expected in this project and one possibility
is that we did not consider individual differences in modality preferences; it is possible
that consumers with certain personality traits will always desire full multimedia. Coupey
and Sandgathe (2000) argue that, because interactive media has the potential for
customization, more emphasis should be placed on person factors that influence how
consumers want to receive information and how they process such customized
messages. While the present project does not speak to person factors, future research
on customizability within the mobile advertising environment should examine the effects
of personality variables on preference across modalities.

Our research also does not address whether consumers want to receive commercial
content over their wireless devices, nor do we know how customers will perceive the
mobile device (or the mobile service provider) if they receive mobile advertising content
without consent. In our research, it does appear that the commercial content
presentation did not adversely affect perceptions of the device or intentions to use such
as device in the future. Admittedly, this finding could be due to the fact that respondents’
attitudes toward the device were relatively high for all participants across all conditions
(the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for this index was greater than the
midpoint value for the index (4) for all conditions). As a majority of our participants had
never used a wireless handheld device to obtain interactive content prior to their
participation in our study, our results might have been affected by the novelty of the
experience. Also, we did not survey respondents prior to participation regarding their
interest in cars or for whom car buying was particularly salient at the time of their
participation. However, since we were not examining car purchase intentions or
perceptions of the brand presented in the mobile ad specifically, this limitation is not
likely to have influenced perceptions toward the device.

To determine the robustness of our findings, we also suggest field tests where
consumers would experience noise and distractions typical of mobile device usage. In
our project, participants sat in a relatively quiet environment and focused on just one
task. Thus, the external validity of our results needs to be explored further. Similarly, our
respondents were all young cell phone users. We don’t know if our findings extend to
older users of cell phones (e.g., Baby boomers). Finally, it is possible that our findings
are specific to advertising content. Future studies should examine whether our results
hold across other types of content that can be presented on mobile devices, such as
news, sports, or weather information.

References

Allport, Alan, Barbara Antonis, and Patricia Reynolds (1972), “On the Division of
Attention: A Disproof of the Single Channel Hypothesis,” Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 24 (2), 225-235.

Baddeley, Alan (1992), “Working Memory,” Science, 255, 556-559.

Bagozzi, Richard P., Hans Baumgartner, and Youjae Yi (1992), “State versus Action
Orientation Theory of Reasoned Action: An Application to Coupon Usage,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 18 (March), 505–518.

Bruner II, Gordon C. and Anand Kumar (2005), “Applying TAM to Consumer Usage of
Handheld Internet Devices,” Journal of Business Research, 58 (5), 553-558.

Chaiken, Shelly and Alice H. Eagly (1976), “Communication Modality as a Determinant

of Message Persuasiveness and Message Comprehensibility, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 36 (4), 605-614.

Chandler, Paul and John Sweller (1991), “Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of
Instruction,” Cognition and Instruction, 8 (4), 293-332.

Coupey, Eloise and Erin Sandgathe (2000), “Rethinking Research on Communications

Media: Information Modality and Message Structuring,” Advances in Consumer
Research, 27, 224-229.

Cuneo, Alice Z. (2005), “Marketers Get Serious about the 'Third Screen',” Advertising
Age, 76 (28), 6.

Diamantopoulous, Adamantios and Heidi M. Winklhofer (2001), “Index Construction with

Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 38 (May), 269-277.

Donaton, Scott (2006), “Creating Third-Screen Content? TV Should Not be Your

Template,” Advertising Age, 77 (4), 18.

Frick, Robert (1984), “Using Both an Auditory and Visual Short-Term Store to Increase
Digit Span,” Memory and Cognition, 12 (5), 507-551.

Jacoby, John, Wayne D. Hoyer, and Mary R. Zimmer (1983), "To Read, View, or
Listen? A Cross-Media Comparison of Comprehension," in Current Issues and
Research in Advertising, James H. Leigh and Claude R. Martin, eds., Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan, 201-218.

Kulviwat, Songpol, Gordon C. Bruner II, Anand Kumar, Suzanne A. Nasco, and Terry
Clark (2007), “Toward a Unified Theory of Consumer Acceptance of Technology,”
Psychology & Marketing, forthcoming.

Lang, Annie (1995), “Defining Audio/Video Redundancy from a Limited-Capacity

Information Processing Perspective,” Communication Research, 22 (1), 86-115.

Lewis, Herschell G. (1996), “Copywriting for Interactive Media: New Rules for the New
Medium,” in Interactive Marketing: The Future Present, Edward Forrest and Richard
Mizerski, eds., Chicago, IL: NTC Business Books, 229-240.
Liu, Scott S. and Patricia A. Stout (1987), "Effects of Message Modality and Appeal on
Advertising Acceptance," Psychology and Marketing, 4 (3), 167-187.

Lund, Arnie (1999), “Introduction to USE,” Human Factors Ergonomic Society:

Communication Technology Group Newsletter, Winter, 10-13.

Mayer, Richard E. and Roxana Moreno (2002), “Aids to Computer-based Multimedia

Learning,” Learning and Instruction, 12 (1), 107-119.

Miller, George A. (1956), “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits
on our Capacity for Processing Information,” Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.

Mousavi, Seyed Y., Renae Low, and John Sweller (1995), “Reducing Cognitive Load by
Mixing Auditory and Visual Presentation Modes,” Journal of Educational Psychology,
87, 319-334.

Paivio, Allan (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach, New York:
Oxford University Press.

Penney, C.G. (1989), “Modality Effects and the Structure of Short-term Verbal Memory,”
Memory and Cognition, 17 (4), 398-422.

Prabu, David and Jagdeep Kang (1998), “Pictures, High-Imagery News Language and
News Recall,” Newspaper Research Journal, Summer,
<http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3677/is_199807/ai_n8793140> (accessed
on 6/10/2006).

Sewell, Edward H., Jr. and Roy L. Moore (1980), “Cartoon Embellishments in
Informative Presentations,” Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 28
(1), 39-46.

Singer, Jerome L. (1980), “The Power and Limitations of Television: A Cognitive-

Affective Analysis,” in The Entertainment Functions of Television, Percy H.
Tannenbaum, ed., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 31-65.

Sweller, John (1988), “Cognitive Load during Problem Solving: Effects on Learning,”
Cognitive Science, 12 (2), 257-285.

———, Jereon J. G. Van Merriënboer, and Fred G. W. C. Paas (1998), “Cognitive

Architecture and Instructional Design,” Educational Psychology Review, 10 (3), 251-
296.

Zaichkowsky, Judith L. (1985), “Measuring the Involvement Construct,” Journal of

Consumer Research, 12 (December), 341-352.
About the Authors

Dr. Suzanne Altobello Nasco (Ph.D., University of Notre Dame) is an Assistant

Professor of Marketing at Southern Illinois University. Her research interests span a
variety of topics in consumer decision-making, such as sports marketing, mature
consumer choices for services, and consumer perceptions of content presented on
mobile/wireless devices.

Dr. Gordon C. Bruner II (Ph.D., University of North Texas) is a Full Professor in the
Marketing Department at Southern Illinois University. He is the lead author of the
Marketing Scales Handbook series. Apart from his work with psychometric scales, his
research in recent years has focused on the nexus of consumers and technology.

APPENDIX 1.
Perceptions of Commercial Content and Mobile Device

Perceptions of Commercial Content

Involvement α = .8336
It was important for me to carefully evaluate the advertising information.
I was highly involved in obtaining the advertising information.
Obtaining advertising information is important to me.
In general, advertising information is important to me.

Importance: “Obtaining advertising information using a mobile device is…” α = .9539

Important
Useful
Valuable
Beneficial
Absorbing
Interesting
Essential
Appealing
Desirable

Perceptions of the mobile device

Affective experience with the device: “Receiving information like this on a α = .9503
mobile device…”
Was a pleasurable experience.
Was satisfying to me.
Was pleasant.
Was valuable.
Is useful.
Is beneficial.

Perceived usefulness of device α = .9399

It would help me to be more effective.
It would save time to use it.
It would require the fewest steps to accomplish what I want to do with it.
It would help me be more productive.
It would make the tasks I want to accomplish easier to get done.
Perceived value of wireless device: “Rate your agreement with the following α = .8302
statements regarding your overall experience.”
I feel that the information provided through the wireless web is valuable to me.
I feel that the information I received on the wireless device was of high quality.
I feel that the information I received on the wireless device was relevant to me.
Note: Responses were measured on seven point Likert-type scales, with 1 indicating “strongly disagree”
and 7 indicating “strongly agree”.

APPENDIX 2.
Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions
Attitudes toward the mobile device to obtain commercial content:
“For me, using a wireless device to obtain this type of commercial information α = .9504
is:”
Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good
Negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Positive
Unfavorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable
Unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pleasant

Behavioral intentions toward the mobile device

Specific: “Assuming you have access to such a wireless device like this in the future, what is the
probability that you would use it to obtain advertising information?
Not probable at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Probable

General: “Assuming you have access to such a wireless device like this in the future, what is the
probability that you would use it to obtain information?”
Not probable at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Probable