Media and Affect: A Comparison of Video-Tape,Audio-Tape,and Print

Abstract

Students at the University of Illinois and the University of Michigan participated in an experiment to determine if different affective responses would result from exposure to three different forms of media, each presenting the same content. One group of students viewed a video tape, another listened to an audio tape, and a third read a printed transcript. A semantic differential was used to measure affective response, and an objective test was administered to measure cognitive learning. Results showed the video group to be perceiving the presentation less favorably than were the other two groups, however, they were perceiving two of the participants more favorably than were the others. An analysis of covariance between pre- and post-test scores of cognitive learning showed that subjects receiving the audio taped version had learned significantly less than those receiving the other treatments.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chu

G. C.

and Schramm

, Learning from Television: What Research Says, rev. ed., National Association of Educational Broadcasters, Washington, D.C., 1975.

Silber

, An Experimental Study of the Degree of Non-Mediated Instructional Methods, unpublished manuscript, University of Southern California, 1969.

McGinnies

E. A.

, A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Printed Communication Versus Spoken Communication in Persuasion, Journal of Psychology, 60, pp. 1–8, May 1965.

Evans

R. I.

, Conversations With Carl Jung, Princeton University Press, N.J., pp. 159–168, 1964.

Roper

, What People Think of Television and Other Mass Media, 1959–1972, Television Information Office, New York, ERIC ED 079 944, 1973.

Treneman

, Communication and Comprehension, Longmans, London, 1967.

Addis

, Media Credibility: An Experimental Comparison of the Effects of Film, Audio Tape and Written Communication on Beliefs in the Existence of Unusual Phenomena, unpublished manuscript, University of Oklahoma, p. 78, 1969.

Haase

R. F.

and Tepper

D. T.

Jr. , Nonverbal Components of Emphathic Communication, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19, pp. 417–424, 1972.

Mehrabian

and Ferris

S. R.

, Inference of Attitudes from Nonverbal Communication in Two Channels, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 31, pp. 248–252, 1967.

10.

Soskin

W. F.

, Some Aspects of Communication and Interpretation in Psychotherapy, paper read at the American Psychological Association, Panel on Communication in the Counseling Situation, Cleveland, September 1953.

11.

Chandler

M. J.

Greenspan

and Barenboim

, Judgments of Intentionality in Response to Video-Taped and Verbally Presented Moral Dilemmas: The Medium is the Message, Child Development, 44, pp. 315–320, 1974.

12.

Osgood

C. E.

Suci

G. J.

and Tannenbaum

P. H.

, The Measurement of Meaning, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois, 1957.

13.

Heise

D. R.

, Methodology of the Semantic Differential, Psychology Bulletin, 72, pp. 35–40, February 1961.

14.

Wall

V. D.

and Boyd

J. A.

, Channel Variation and Attitude Change, Journal of Communications, 21, p. 366, December 1971.

15.

Davitz

J. R.

, The Communication of Emotional Meaning, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964.

16.

Powers

, The Medium and Three Messages: Perceptions of a Televised Debate, Library Quarterly, 45, pp. 27–34, January 1975.