Despite a growing trend of using multimedia to enhance online news and audience engagement, little is known about the actual benefit of such a practice. Empirical evidence regarding multimedia effects on user evaluations of news websites has been mixed and scanty. The current undertaking utilizes theoretical frameworks from modality and vividness effects research as well as the congruency/incongruency literature in an effort to bring greater insight into effects of multimedia enhancements on user responses. A 3 × 3 factorial experiment was conducted with multimedia use and multimedia congruency serving as two between-subjects factors. User perceptions were gauged through attitudes and behavioral intentions toward a news website. As the results indicate, multimedia elements serve to appeal to news consumers. However, online journalists need to consider the limitations of blending multimedia with text, including a ceiling effect on evaluations and possible side effects of incongruent multimedia on news processing.
AppiahO. (2006). Rich media, poor media: The impact of audio/video vs. text/picture testimonial ads on browsers’ evaluations of commercial web sites and online products. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 28, 73–86. doi:10.1080/10641734.2006.10505192
2.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
3.
ChaikenS.EaglyA. H. (1983). Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 241–256. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.241
ChenS. Y.GhineaG.MacredieR. D. (2006). A cognitive approach to user perception of multimedia quality: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 1200–1213. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.08.010
6.
CoupeyE.SandgatheE. (2000). Rethinking research on communication media: Information modality and message structuring. Advances in Consumer Research, 27, 224–229.
7.
CoyleJ.ThorsonE. (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30, 65–77. doi:10.1080/00913367.2001.10673646
8.
DaftR. L.LengelR. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. In StawB. M.CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in organization behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 191–233). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
9.
DaftR. L.LengelR. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
10.
DeuzeM. (2004). What is multimedia journalism?Journalism Studies, 5, 139–152. doi:10.1080/1461670042000211131
11.
DimitrovaD.NeznanskiM. (2006). Online journalism and the war in cyberspace: A comparison between U.S. and international newspapers. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 248–263. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00324.x
12.
FortinD. R.DholakiaR. R. (2005). Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement. Journal of Business Research, 58, 287–296. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(03)
13.
FrazierP. A.TixA. P.BarronK. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115
14.
HongW.ThongJ.TamK. Y. (2004). Designing product listing pages on e-commerce websites: An examination of presentation mode and information format. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61, 481–503. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.01.006
15.
HoogeveenM. (1997). Toward a theory of the effectiveness of multimedia systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 9, 151–168. doi:10.1207/s15327590ijhc0902_4
16.
JacobsonS. (2010). Emerging models of multimedia journalism: A content analysis of multimedia packages published on nytimes.com. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 8, 63–78. doi:10.1080/15456870903554882
17.
JacobsonS. (2012). Transcoding the news: An investigation into multimedia journalism published on nytimes.com 2000–2008. New Media and Society, 14, 867–885. doi:10.1177/1461444811431864
18.
JamesL. R.BrettJ. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307–321. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.307
19.
JuddC. M.KennyD. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602–619. doi:10.1177/0193841X8100500502
20.
KahnemanD.SlovicP.TverskyA. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21.
KalyanaramanS.IvoryJ. (2009). Enhanced information scent, selective discounting, or consummate breakdown: The psychological effects of web-based search results. Media Psychology, 12, 295–319. doi:10.1080/15213260903052232
22.
KalyanaramanS.SundarS. S. (2006). The psychological appeal of personalized content in web portals: Does customization affect attitudes and behavior?Journal of Communication, 56, 110–132. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00006.x
23.
KalyanaramanS.SundarS. S. (2008). Impression formation effects in online mediated communication. In KonijnE. A.TanisM.UtzS.LindenA. (Eds.), Mediated interpersonal communication (pp. 217–233). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
KarlssonM.ClerwallC. (2012). Patterns and origins in the evolution of multimedia on broadsheet and tabloid news sites. Journalism Studies, 13, 550–565. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2011.639571
25.
KiousisS. (2006). Exploring the impact of modality on perceptions of credibility for online news stories. Journalism Studies, 7, 348–359. doi:10.1080/14616700500533668
26.
KisieliusJ.SternthalB. (1984). Detecting and explaining vividness effects in attitudinal judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 54–64. doi:10.2307/3151792
27.
LiuS. H.LiaoH. L.PrattJ. A. (2009). Impact of media richness and flow on e-learning technology acceptance. Computers & Education, 52, 599–607. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.002
28.
MarmolinH. (1991). Multimedia from the perspective of psychology. In KjellhahlL. (Ed.), Multimedia. Systems, interactions and applications (pp. 301–315). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
29.
MayerR. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
30.
McGregorM. (2003). Mind the gap: Problems of multimedia journalism. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 9, 8–17. doi:10.1177/135485650300900302
31.
NisbettR. E.RossL. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
32.
OpgenhaffenM.d’HaenensL. (2011). The impact of online news features on learning from news: A knowledge experiment. International Journal of Internet Science, 6, 8–28.
33.
PaivioA. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
34.
PenneyC. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory & Cognition, 17, 398–422. doi:10.3758/BF03202613
35.
PippsV.WalterH.EndresK.TabatcherP. (2009). Information recall of internet news: Does design make a difference? A pilot study. Journal of Magazine & New Media Research, 11, 1–20.
36.
RockwellS. C.SingletonL. A. (2007). The effect of the modality of presentation of streaming multimedia on information acquisition. Media Psychology, 9, 179–191. doi:10.1080/15213260701279689
37.
RussellC. A. (2002). Investigating the effectiveness of product placements in television shows: The role of modality and plot connection congruence on brand memory and attitude. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 306–318. doi:10.1086/344432
SmithS. M.ShafferD. R. (2000). Vividness can undermine or enhance message processing: The moderating role of vividness congruency. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 769–779. doi:10.1177/0146167200269003
StreetR. L.ManningT. (1997). Information environments for breast cancer education. In StreetR. L.GoldW. R.ManningT. (Eds.), Health promotion and interactive technology: Theoretical applications and future directions (pp. 121–139). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.
SundarS. S. (2000). Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: A study of picture, audio, and video downloads. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 480–499. doi:10.1177/107769900007700302
43.
TaylorS. E.ThompsonS. C. (1982). Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psychological Review, 89, 155–181. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.89.2.155
44.
TranH. (2012). Exemplification effects of multimedia enhancements. Media Psychology, 15, 396–419. doi:10.1080/15213269.2012.723119
45.
XuH.OhL.-B.TeoH.-H. (2009). Perceived effectiveness of text vs. multimedia location-based advertising messaging. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 7, 154–177. doi:10.1504/IJMC.2009.022440
46.
YarosR. (2009, August/September). Mastering multimedia. American Journalism Review, 31, 28–31.
