This study investigated how infographics may affect individuals’ news processing, focusing on multimodality and interactivity as its signature characteristics. News readers’ prior knowledge and issue involvement, which affect their ability and motivation to process information, were considered as potential moderators. In a 3 (text vs graphic vs text + graphic) × 2 (hyperlinks vs no hyperlinks) between-subjects experiment (N = 360), participants read a news article concerning economic issues. Adding graphics to the news heightened the extent to which they engaged in news elaboration, albeit only among those with higher issue involvement. However, in-text hyperlinks hindered information recall among those with less prior knowledge, creating an information acquisition gap between more and less resourceful individuals. The graphical representation of news appeared to have heuristic appeals to those less involved in and less knowledgeable about the news topic, leading to more favorable news evaluation.
BucyEP (2003) The interactivity paradox: closer to the news but confused. In: BucyEPNewhagenJE (eds) Media Access: Social and Psychological Dimensions of New Technology Use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 47–72.
2.
BucyEP (2004) Interactivity in society: locating an elusive concept. Information Society20(5): 373–383.
3.
ChabaniEHommelB (2014) Effectiveness of visual and verbal prompts in training visuospatial processing skills in school age children. Instructional Science42(6): 995–1012.
4.
CookMP (2006) Visual representations in science education: the influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education90(6): 1073–1091.
5.
EvelandWPDunwoodyS (2001) User control and structural isomorphism or disorientation and cognitive load? Learning from the Web versus print. Communication Research28(1): 48–78.
6.
EvelandWPDunwoodyS (2002) An investigation of elaboration and selective scanning as mediators of learning from the Web versus print. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media46(1): 34–53.
7.
EvelandWPMartonKSeoM (2004) Moving beyond “just the facts”: the influence of online news on the content and structure of public affairs knowledge. Communication Research31(1): 82–108.
8.
GriffinJLStevensonRL (1996) The influence of statistical graphics on newspaper reader recall. Visual Communication Quarterly3(3): 9–11.
9.
JewittCKressGOgbornJ. (2001) Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: the multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review53(1): 5–18.
10.
KalyugaSChandlerPSwellerJ (2001) Learner experience and efficiency of instructional guidance. Educational Psychology21(1): 5–23.
11.
KimEMLimSHamSH (2008) Effects of interactivity and involvement in the user’s information processing and emotional responses. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies52(4): 250–277.
12.
KosickiGMMcLeodJM (1990) Learning from political news: effects of media political information processing. In: KrausS (ed.) Mass Communication and Political Information processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 96–83.
13.
KressG (1997) Visual and verbal modes of representation in electronically mediated communication: the potentials of new forms of text. In: SnyderI (ed.) Page to Screen: Taking Literacy into the Electronic Era. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 51–79.
14.
KressGJewittCOgbornJ. (2001) Multimodal Teaching and Learning: The Rhetorics of the Science Classroom. London: Continuum.
15.
KsiazekTBPeerLLessardK (2014) User engagement with online news: conceptualizing interactivity and exploring the relationship between online news videos and user comments. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 11 August. DOI:10.1177/1461444814545073.
16.
LangA (2000) The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication50(1): 46–70.
17.
McMillanSJHwangJS (2002) Measures of perceived interactivity: an exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising31(3): 29–42.
18.
MayerRE (2005) Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In: MayerRE (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–48.
19.
MessickS (1984) The nature of cognitive styles: problems and promises in educational research. Educational Psychologist19(2): 59–74.
20.
MichasICBerryDC (2000) Learning a procedural task: effectiveness of multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology14(6): 555–575.
21.
NailosMAWhitmanTLMaxwellSE (1994) Verbal and visual instruction with mental retardation: the role of subject characteristics and task factors. Journal of Behavioral Education4(2): 201–216.
22.
NarayananNHHegartyM (2002) Multimedia design for communication of dynamic information. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies57(4): 279–315.
23.
OpgenhaffenMD’HaenensL (2011) The impact of online news features on learning from news: a knowledge experiment. International Journal of Internet Science6(1): 8–28.
24.
PaivioA (1971) Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
25.
PaivioA (1986) Mental Representations: A Dual-Coding Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1979) Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37(10): 1915–1926.
27.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1983) Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: application to advertising. In: PercyLWoodsideA (eds) Advertising and Consumer Psychology. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, pp. 3–23.
28.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: BerkowitzL (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 19. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp. 123–205.
29.
PlassJLChunDMMayerRE. (2003) Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior19(2): 221–243.
30.
PriceVCzilliEJ (1996) Modeling patterns of news recognition and recall. Journal of Communication46(2): 55–78.
31.
PriceVZallerJ (1993) Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly57(2): 133–164.
32.
RidingRCheemaI (1991) Cognitive styles—an overview and integration. Educational Psychology11(3–4): 193–215.
33.
RitterfeldUShenCWangH. (2009) Multimodality and interactivity: connecting properties of serious games with educational outcomes. Cyberpsychology & Behavior12(6): 691–697.
34.
SeverinWJ (1967) Another look at cue summation. AV Communication Review15(3): 233–245.
35.
ShoemakerPJSchoolerCDanielsonWA (1989) Involvement with the media recall versus recognition of election information. Communication Research16(1): 78–103.
36.
SmiciklasM (2012) The Power of Infographics: Using Pictures to Communicate and Connect With Your Audiences. Indianapolis, IN: Que Publishing.
37.
SundarSS (2000) Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: a study of picture, audio, and video downloads. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly77(3): 480–499.
38.
SundarSS (2008) The MAIN model: a heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In: MetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (eds) Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 73–100.
39.
SundarSSLimperosAM (2013) Uses and grats 2.0: new gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media57(4): 504–525.
40.
SundarSSHesserKMKalyanaramanS. (1998) The effect of website interactivity on political persuasion. Paper presented at the 21st scientific conference and general assembly of the International Association for Media and Communication Research, Glasgow. Available at: http://www.psu.edu/dept/medialab/researchpage/newabstracts/interactivity.html
41.
SundarSSKalyanaramanSBrownJ (2003) Explicating website interactivity: impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research30(1): 30–59.
42.
TremayneMDunwoodyS (2001) Interactivity, information processing and learning on the World Wide Web. Science Communication23(2): 111–134.
43.
van der MolenJHWKlijnME (2004) Recall of television versus print news: retesting the semantic overlap hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media48(1): 89–107.
44.
VordererPKnoblochSSchrammH (2001) Does entertainment suffer from interactivity? The impact of watching an interactive TV movie on viewers’ experience of entertainment. Media Psychology3(4): 343–363.
