Exploring Perceptions of Presentation Formats: Antecedents and Consequences

Abstract

The literature review establishes that perceptions of information presented in different formats differ significantly. In addition, the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) presents a plausible framework for the impact of presentation formats on attitudes as a potential consequence. The first study presents participants with different presentation formats (text graphical, text numerical, text only) and compares perceived and actual processing as a prerequisite for attitude change. Results show a link between processing and attitude certainty but no link between format and processing can be established. Study 2 expands on the measurement of attitude and measures perceived and actual attitude change. The manipulation of involvement is unsuccessful, and participants’ perceptions of the three different types of format show no significant difference. Study 3 employs estimated and actual recall as more objective measures and observes a significant difference in participants’ estimates of other people’s recall depending on the format they had been presented with but a lack of difference in actual recall. Study 4 examines potential antecedents of the perception of formats and explores the issue of self/other perception in the context of 16 different scenarios. The study finds significant self/other differences in the perception of effectiveness of statistics; however, a factor analysis of participants’ responses fails to provide an explanation for the split of scenarios with and without a difference; Need for Cognition cannot be established as a potential antecedent. Study 5 successfully demonstrates a difference in perception of the three formats employed, but offers no support for subject background as a possible antecedent. Drawing on this, Study 6 examines whether this difference in perception leads to an observable difference in task performance but is unsuccessful in eliciting an effect. The discussion examines implications of the findings and discusses possible limitations of the methodology