Visualizing science: The impact of infographics on free recall,elaboration,and attitude change for genetically modified foods news

Abstract

Within the theoretical frameworks of the dual coding theory, this study examined how the implementation of infographics would influence audiences’ cognitive responses to science news reporting topics of genetically modified food and bioengineering. A total of 280 participants were randomly assigned to view news articles that report genetically modified food information presented via infographics or text. Findings showed that the participants recalled more information, elaborated more message-relevant thoughts, and had more favorable attitude changes toward the genetically modified foods when science news content is presented in infographics compared with text. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed herein.

Keywords

dual coding theory GMO infographics information elaboration science communication visualization

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akin

Hardy

Jamieson

(2020) Countering identity-protective responses to climate change data. Environmental Communication 14(8): 1111–1126.

Anderson

Scheufele

Brossard

Corley

(2011) The role of media and deference to scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging technologies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 24(2): 225–237.

Augoustinos

Crabb

Shepherd

(2010) Genetically modified food in the news: Media representations of the GM debate in the UK. Public Understanding of Science 19(1): 98–114.

Blancke

Grunewald

De Jaeger

(2017) De-problematizing ‘GMOs’: Suggestions for communicating about genetic engineering. Trends in Biotechnology 35(3): 185–186.

Brossard

(2013) New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110(suppl. 3): 14096–14101.

Cacioppo

Petty

(1980) Persuasiveness of communications is affected by exposure frequency and message quality: A theoretical and empirical analysis of persisting attitude change. Current Issues and Research in Advertising 3(1): 97–122.

Cacioppo

Petty

(1984) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research 11: 673–675.

Christiansen

(2018) Visualizing science: Illustration and beyond. In: Scientific American. Available at: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-science-illustration-and-beyond/

Clark

Paivio

(1987) A dual coding perspective on encoding processes. In: McDaniel

Pressley

(eds) Imagery and Related Mnemonic Processes. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 5–33.

10.

Cohen

(1992) A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112(1): 155–159.

11.

Collins

Shiffman

Rock

(2016) How are scientists using social media in the workplace? PLoS One 11(10): e0162680.

12.

Cook

(2006) Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education 90: 1073–1091.

13.

Cui

Shoemaker

(2018) Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A nationwide Chinese consumer study. npj Science of Food 2(1): 10.

14.

Delbaere

McQuarrie

Phillips

(2011) Personification in advertising: Using a visual metaphor to trigger anthropomorphism. Journal of Advertising 40(1): 121–130.

15.

Diamond

Bernauer

Mayer

(2020) Does providing scientific information affect climate change and GMO policy preferences of the mass public? Insights from survey experiments in Germany and the United States. Environmental Politics 29(7): 1199–1218.

16.

Eveland

Cortese

Park

Dunwoody

(2004) How web site organization influences free recall, factual knowledge, and knowledge structure density. Human Communication Research 30(2): 208–233.

17.

Frankel

(2005) Translating science into pictures: A powerful learning tool. In: Cunningham

(ed.) Invention and Impact: Building Excellence in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 155–158.

18.

Frisch

Camerini

Schulz

(2013) The impact of presentation style on the retention of online health information: A randomized-controlled experiment. Health Communication 28(3): 286–293.

19.

Funk

Kennedy

(2016) Public Opinion about Genetically Modified Foods and Trust in Scientists Connected with These Foods. Washington, DC: Science and Society, Pew Research Center.

20.

Funk

Kennedy

Hefferon

(2018) Public Perspectives on Food Risks. Washington, DC: Science and Society, Pew Research Center.

21.

Gkiouzepas

Hogg

(2011) Articulating a new framework for visual metaphors in advertising. Journal of Advertising 40(1): 103–120.

22.

Harrison

Reinecke

Chang

(2015) Infographic aesthetics: Designing for the first impression. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 18–23 April, pp. 1187–1190. New York, NY: ACM.

23.

Kennedy

Thigpen

(2020) Many Publics Around World Doubt Safety of Genetically Modified Foods. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

24.

Krum

(2013) Cool Infographics: Effective Communication with Data Visualization and Design. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons.

25.

Lang

(2000) The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication 50(1): 46–70.

26.

Lang

(2006) Using the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing to design effective cancer communication messages. Journal of Communication 56(s1): S57–S80.

27.

Lazard

Atkinson

(2015) Putting environmental infographics center stage: The role of visuals at the elaboration likelihood model’s critical point of persuasion. Science Communication 37(1): 6–33.

28.

Lee

Kim

(2016) Effects of infographics on news elaboration, acquisition, and evaluation: Prior knowledge and issue involvement as moderators. New Media & Society 18(8): 1579–1598.

29.

Lee

Dockter

(2020) Effects of message presentation type on GM food risk perception, similarity judgment, and attitude. Health Communication. Epub ahead of print 9 July. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1787926.

30.

Lester

(2006) Visual Communication: Images with Messages. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing.

31.

Nicolia

Manzo

Veronesi

Rosellini

(2013) An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 34: 77–88.

32.

Nyhan

Reifler

(2019) The roles of information deficits and identity threat in the prevalence of misperceptions. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 29(2): 222–244.

33.

Paivio

(1971) Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

34.

Paivio

(1986) Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

35.

Paivio

Csapo

(1973) Picture superiority in free recall: Imagery or dual coding? Cognitive Psychology 5(2): 176–206.

36.

Perilli

(2019) Scientific Illustration: What Is It? Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin Institute.

37.

Petermann

Harper

Doetz

(2017) History of Human Genetics: Aspects of Its Development and Global Perspectives. Berlin: Springer.

38.

Petty

Cacioppo

(1981) Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context. Advances in Consumer Research 8: 20–24.

39.

Petty

Cacioppo

(1984) The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46(1): 69–81.

40.

Petty

Cacioppo

(1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Petty

Cacioppo

(eds) Communication and Persuasion, vol. 19. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 1–24.

41.

Petty

Wegener

(1998) Matching versus mismatching attitude functions: Implications for scrutiny of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24(3): 227–240.

42.

Petty

Barden

Wheeler

(2009) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion: Developing health promotions for sustained behavioral change. In: Diclemente

Crosby

Kegler

(eds) Emerging Theories in Health Promotion Practice and Research. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass/Wiley, pp. 185–214.

43.

Petty

Cacioppo

Schumann

(1983) Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research 10(2): 135–146.

44.

Pjesivac

Geidner

Miller

(2017) Using infographics in television news. Electronic News 11(3): 166–185.

45.

Rendgen

(2019) History of Information Graphics (ed Wiedemann

; Multilingual edition). Cologne: TASCHEN Books.

46.

Rigutto

(2017) The landscape of online visual communication of science. Journal of Science Communication 16(2): C06.

47.

Rodríguez Estrada

Davis

(2015) Improving visual communication of science through the incorporation of graphic design theories and practices into science communication. Science Communication 37(1): 140–148.

48.

Sadoski

Paivio

(2004) A dual coding theoretical model of reading. In: Ruddell

Unrau

(eds) Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 5th edn. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, pp. 1329–1362.

49.

Sadoski

Goetz

Fritz

(1993) Impact of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and memory for text: Implications for dual coding theory and text design. Journal of Educational Psychology 85(2): 291–304.

50.

Smiciklas

(2012) The Power of Infographics: Using Pictures to Communicate and Connect with Your Audiences. Indianapolis, IN: Que Publishing.

51.

Spears

Singh

(2004) Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 26(2): 53–66.

52.

Tremayne

Dunwoody

(2001) Interactivity, information processing, and learning on the World Wide Web. Science Communication 23(2): 111–134.

53.

Van Noorden

(2014) Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature 512(7513): 126–129.

54.

Van Ransbeek

(2015) Science communication: Engaging data to engage people. In: Nature Jobs. Available at: http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2015/09/29/science-communication-engaging-data-to-engage-people/

55.

Wiseman

MacLeod

Lootsteen

(1985) Picture recognition improves with subsequent verbal information. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition 11(3): 588–595.

56.

Wunderlich

Gatto

(2015) Consumer perception of genetically modified organisms and sources of information. Advances in Nutrition 6(6): 842–851.

57.

Yang

(2014) Does multimedia support individual differences?—EFL learners’ listening comprehension and cognitive load. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 30(6): 699–713.

58.

Yau

(2011) Visualize This: The Flowingdata Guide to Design, Visualization, and Statistics. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.83 MB