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.
AndersonAAScheufeleDABrossardDCorleyEA (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 Research24(2): 225–237.
3.
AugoustinosMCrabbSShepherdR (2010) Genetically modified food in the news: Media representations of the GM debate in the UK. Public Understanding of Science19(1): 98–114.
4.
BlanckeSGrunewaldWDe JaegerG (2017) De-problematizing ‘GMOs’: Suggestions for communicating about genetic engineering. Trends in Biotechnology35(3): 185–186.
5.
BrossardD (2013) New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America110(suppl. 3): 14096–14101.
6.
CacioppoJTPettyRE (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 Advertising3(1): 97–122.
7.
CacioppoJTPettyRE (1984) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research11: 673–675.
ClarkJMPaivioA (1987) A dual coding perspective on encoding processes. In: McDanielMAPressleyM (eds) Imagery and Related Mnemonic Processes. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 5–33.
10.
CohenJ (1992) A power primer. Psychological Bulletin112(1): 155–159.
11.
CollinsKShiffmanDRockJ (2016) How are scientists using social media in the workplace?PLoS One11(10): e0162680.
12.
CookMP (2006) Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education90: 1073–1091.
13.
CuiKShoemakerSP (2018) Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A nationwide Chinese consumer study. npj Science of Food2(1): 10.
14.
DelbaereMMcQuarrieEFPhillipsBJ (2011) Personification in advertising: Using a visual metaphor to trigger anthropomorphism. Journal of Advertising40(1): 121–130.
15.
DiamondEBernauerTMayerF (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 Politics29(7): 1199–1218.
16.
EvelandWPCorteseJParkHDunwoodyS (2004) How web site organization influences free recall, factual knowledge, and knowledge structure density. Human Communication Research30(2): 208–233.
17.
FrankelF (2005) Translating science into pictures: A powerful learning tool. In: CunninghamS (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.
FrischALCameriniLSchulzPJ (2013) The impact of presentation style on the retention of online health information: A randomized-controlled experiment. Health Communication 28(3): 286–293.
19.
FunkCKennedyB (2016) Public Opinion about Genetically Modified Foods and Trust in Scientists Connected with These Foods. Washington, DC: Science and Society, Pew Research Center.
20.
FunkCKennedyBHefferonM (2018) Public Perspectives on Food Risks. Washington, DC: Science and Society, Pew Research Center.
21.
GkiouzepasLHoggM (2011) Articulating a new framework for visual metaphors in advertising. Journal of Advertising40(1): 103–120.
22.
HarrisonLReineckeKChangR (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.
KennedyBThigpenCL (2020) Many Publics Around World Doubt Safety of Genetically Modified Foods. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
24.
KrumR (2013) Cool Infographics: Effective Communication with Data Visualization and Design. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons.
25.
LangA (2000) The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication50(1): 46–70.
26.
LangA (2006) Using the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing to design effective cancer communication messages. Journal of Communication56(s1): S57–S80.
27.
LazardAAtkinsonL (2015) Putting environmental infographics center stage: The role of visuals at the elaboration likelihood model’s critical point of persuasion. Science Communication37(1): 6–33.
28.
LeeEKimYW (2016) Effects of infographics on news elaboration, acquisition, and evaluation: Prior knowledge and issue involvement as moderators. New Media & Society18(8): 1579–1598.
29.
LeeSLeeNDockterCE (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.
NicoliaAManzoAVeronesiFRoselliniD (2013) An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology34: 77–88.
32.
NyhanBReiflerJ (2019) The roles of information deficits and identity threat in the prevalence of misperceptions. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties29(2): 222–244.
33.
PaivioA (1971) Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
34.
PaivioA (1986) Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
PaivioACsapoK (1973) Picture superiority in free recall: Imagery or dual coding?Cognitive Psychology5(2): 176–206.
36.
PerilliK (2019) Scientific Illustration: What Is It?Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin Institute.
37.
PetermannHIHarperPSDoetzS (2017) History of Human Genetics: Aspects of Its Development and Global Perspectives. Berlin: Springer.
38.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1981) Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context. Advances in Consumer Research8: 20–24.
39.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1984) The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology46(1): 69–81.
40.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: PettyRECacioppoJT (eds) Communication and Persuasion, vol. 19. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 1–24.
41.
PettyREWegenerDT (1998) Matching versus mismatching attitude functions: Implications for scrutiny of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin24(3): 227–240.
42.
PettyREBardenJWheelerSC (2009) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion: Developing health promotions for sustained behavioral change. In: DiclementeRJCrosbyRAKeglerMC (eds) Emerging Theories in Health Promotion Practice and Research. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass/Wiley, pp. 185–214.
43.
PettyRECacioppoJTSchumannDW (1983) Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research10(2): 135–146.
44.
PjesivacIGeidnerNMillerLE (2017) Using infographics in television news. Electronic News11(3): 166–185.
45.
RendgenS (2019) History of Information Graphics (ed WiedemannJ; Multilingual edition). Cologne: TASCHEN Books.
46.
RiguttoC (2017) The landscape of online visual communication of science. Journal of Science Communication16(2): C06.
47.
Rodríguez EstradaFCDavisLS (2015) Improving visual communication of science through the incorporation of graphic design theories and practices into science communication. Science Communication37(1): 140–148.
48.
SadoskiMPaivioA (2004) A dual coding theoretical model of reading. In: RuddellRBUnrauNJ (eds) Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 5th edn.Newark, DE: International Reading Association, pp. 1329–1362.
49.
SadoskiMGoetzETFritzJB (1993) Impact of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and memory for text: Implications for dual coding theory and text design. Journal of Educational Psychology85(2): 291–304.
50.
SmiciklasM (2012) The Power of Infographics: Using Pictures to Communicate and Connect with Your Audiences. Indianapolis, IN: Que Publishing.
51.
SpearsNSinghSN (2004) Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising26(2): 53–66.
52.
TremayneMDunwoodyS (2001) Interactivity, information processing, and learning on the World Wide Web. Science Communication23(2): 111–134.
53.
Van NoordenR (2014) Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature512(7513): 126–129.
WisemanSMacLeodCMLootsteenPJ (1985) Picture recognition improves with subsequent verbal information. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition11(3): 588–595.
56.
WunderlichSGattoKA (2015) Consumer perception of genetically modified organisms and sources of information. Advances in Nutrition6(6): 842–851.
57.
YangHY (2014) Does multimedia support individual differences?—EFL learners’ listening comprehension and cognitive load. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology30(6): 699–713.
58.
YauN (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.
