THE INFLUENCE OF VIVID VS. PALLID PRESENTATIONS IN TELEVISION NEWS ON
INTEREST, RECALL AND PERCEPTION OF NEWSWORTHINESS
by
Michael E. Cremedas, Ph. D., Catherine A. Steele, Ph. D.,
and A. Randall Wenner, B. S.
S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications
Syracuse University
215 University Place
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
(315) 443-4036
[log in to unmask]
Submitted to the Radio-Television Journalism Division of the Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication 1995 Annual
Conference,
Washington, D. C.
THE INFLUENCE OF VIVID VS. PALLID PRESENTATIONS IN TELEVISION NEWS ON
INTEREST, RECALL AND PERCEPTION OF NEWSWORTHINESS
by
Michael E. Cremedas, Ph. D., Catherine A. Steele, Ph. D.,
and A. Randall Wenner, B. S.
S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications
Syracuse University
215 University Place
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
(315) 443-4036
[log in to unmask]
ABSTRACT
This experiment investigated how vivid versus pallid portrayals in
television news affected three dependent variables: interest, recall
and
perception of newsworthiness. The results demonstrated that a vivid
presentation may raise the interest level of a story that is already quite
dramatic, but may not do so for a story that is less inherently
compelling.
The researchers also found some evidence that vividness may interfere with
the imparting of useful information.
_
THE INFLUENCE OF VIVID VS. PALLID PRESENTATIONS IN TELEVISION NEWS ON
INTEREST, RECALL AND PERCEPTION OF NEWSWORTHINESS
One of the dominant values of television journalism is the belief that news
should be presented in the most dramatic manner possible in order to gain
and hold the interest of viewers. A former president of NBC news,
Reuven
Frank noted more than two decades ago that, "Every news story should,
without any sacrifice of probity or responsibility, display the
attributes
of fiction, or drama. It should have structure and conflict, problem
and
denouement, rising action and falling action, a beginning, a middle
and an
end" (quoted in Epstein, 1973, p. 242).
Such a dictum, even today, describes a seemingly universal attitude among
television journalists that places extraordinary emphasis on
vividness.
Professionals argue that for viewers to understand and learn from TV
news,
they must be drawn in so that they will pay attention. A story rich in
strong visuals, action, emotion, and conflict commands more time and
prominence than one that lacks these dynamics.
Vividness may be thought of as having two dimensions: substance and form.
Substance refers to the informational "angle," i.e., what the
story is
about. Professionals argue that the more dramatic and confrontational
the
substance, the better: "You're more likely to attract an audience to a
story about a real estate developer who is about to evict four
impoverished
families from a rundown apartment building than to a story about a
developer who proposes a shopping center on a vacant city block" (Gibson,
1991, p. 137). Form refers to the physical and editorial structure of
the
story, i.e., the visual and aural elements that are included to
support the
substance. In the example quoted above, if faced with the choice of
including a soundbite of a weeping mother pleading that she not be evicted
from her home, or using one in which she more calmly admits that she
squandered her meager monthly income on entertainment instead of paying
the
rent, the TV reporter is more likely to use the one in which the mother is
weeping: "The best television journalism...is what we can see, hear and
experience...it's what we remember because it touched us and was
important
to us in some way" (Shook, 1994, p. 5).
By professional habit, then, TV news practitioners seek out stories that
are inherently vivid (substance), and strive to enhance vividness
by
including the most dramatic elements (form). With little time for
reflection or thought, viewers often are caught up in the emotional power
of the vividness effect. However, as Kennamer (1988) cautions: "Vivid
information may not be the best information for use in decision-making
and
inference drawing, and over-reliance on it can lead to errors of
perception
and judgment" (p. 108).
The present study examines the influence of vividness in TV news
presentations on three dependent variables: interest, recall and
perception
of newsworthiness. The results contribute to an established body of
cognitive psychological research into how news information is processed
(e.g., Berry, Gunter & Clifford, 1982; Findahl & Hoijer, 1985; Lang,
1989;
Schleuder, White & Cameron, 1993; Stauffer, Frost & Rybolt, 1983).
The Vividness Effect. The concept of vividness has been defined as the
qualities of a message that enhance cognitive elaboration, i.e.,
that make
the message more likely to be thought about, remembered and
incorporated in
judgmental and inferential processes (Taylor & Thompson, 1982). The effect
is thought to be achieved by the use of pictorial symbols (visual images)
and concrete (specific) language. Vividness may enhance judgmental
impact
because such information is more successful in attracting attention,
and
eliciting memorable imagery, specific emotions or generalized arousal
(e.g., Bell & Loftus, 1985; Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Kisielius & Sternthal,
1984, 1986; Mitchell, 1983).
As described by Nisbett and Ross (1980), information is vivid "to the
extent that it is (a) emotionally interesting, (b) concrete and
imagery
provoking, and (c) proximate in a sensory, temporal or spatial way" (p.
45). Emotional interest is greatest, according to Nisbett and Ross,
when an
event involves the motives, needs, desires and values of the participants.
Because perceivers of the event have the same motives, needs, desires and
values, vivid information permits a surrogate experience. "Pallid"
inform
ation is the opposite of vivid. It is more general, abstract and,
therefore, less "interesting." The pervasive assumption is that vivid
messages have some special power that pallid information does not.
Nisbett and Ross warn of a vividness bias that gives "inferential weight to
information in proportion to its vividness" (1980, p. 62). While this
hypothesis seems intuitively compelling, the research literature
does not
support it unequivocally. In a review of more than twenty studies,
Taylor
and Thompson (1982) found that concrete (vivid) descriptions proved to
have
no significantly greater effect on judgments than did more general
(pallid) ones. Furthermore, pictorially illustrated or videotaped informati
on was no more persuasive than oral or written communication. They
concluded that: (1) communications containing concrete and specific
language are not reliably more persuasive than communications containing
more abstract and general language; (2) vivid information is only
moderately more memorable than pallid information and may even have reverse
effects on memory. In a more recent study, Frey and Eagly (1993) confirmed
that vivid messages can be less memorable and less persuasive than pallid
ones.
A number of studies have found evidence of vividness bias in at least one
distinct situation: when vividness is operationally defined as individual
case histories, as contrasted to abstract statistical
information. In one
experiment, for example, a report of a single mother on welfare had
significantly more influence on participants' beliefs about the motivation
and character of welfare recipients than did a story summarizing
statistical information on the characteristics of all welfare recipients
(Hamill, Wilson & Nisbett, 1980). Taylor and Thompson (1982) also
found
support for the vividness hypothesis under similar experimental
conditions.
Other researchers, however, have observed contrary evidence in TV news
presentations. Iyengar and Kinder (1987) performed experiments
comparing
the impact of vivid and pallid portrayals on participants' rating of
the
importance of national issues. In one experiment using news reports
of
unemployment, viewers presented with dull, statistical information were
more likely to rate joblessness as an important issue than participants
who
were shown an additional story depicting the impact of unemployment on a
single family. The researchers concluded: "Viewers may get so caught
up
in one family's troubles that they fail to make the connection back to
the
national condition. Overwhelmed by concrete details, they miss the
general
point" (p.42).
Some research indicates that the vividness effect manifests only after a
delay (Reyes, Thompson & Bower, 1980), while other studies
demonstrated no
such effect (Shedler & Manis,1986). Collins, Taylor, Wood and Thompson
(1988) argue that the vividness effect is illusory. Their research found
that vivid presentations produced an effect on judgments about a
message's
persuasiveness, but not on actual attitude change.
Overall, the relevant literature on the vividness effect presents a mixed
picture. In some experiments, the impact of vividness was clearly
demonstrated, while other studies failed to find significant evidence of
it. The discrepancies raise fundamental questions about the faith that
TV
news places on vividness.
Hypotheses
The primary focus of this study is on how TV viewers cognitively process
vivid versus pallid news messages. While previous findings are
inconclusive
regarding evidence of vividness bias in persuasion and judgmental impact,
much of the literature does lend support to a vividness effect in
attracting and holding attention. Therefore, within the context of TV news
presentations, we predict:
H1: Level of interest will be higher for vivid television news
presentations than for pallid.
H2: Perception of newsworthiness will be higher for vivid television news
presentations than for pallid.
H3: Recall of story facts will be higher for vivid television news
presentations than for pallid.
H4: Interest, perception of newsworthiness, and recall will have a strong
positive correlation.
Study Objectives.
This experiment is one of a series examining how encoding practices of
television journalists influence the way viewers perceive and
internalize
news messages. "Encoding," as per Schramm's model (1971, p. 23),
refers to
the form in which TV news is portrayed, and includes such factors as
the
use of videotape, graphics, soundbites, camera angles, reporter/anchor
narration, story formats, and so on.
Our general purpose is to authenticate how variations in encoding can
influence the ways that viewers "decode" the information and
interpret the
meanings of what they have seen and heard. The goal is to develop a
body of
knowledge that is more methodical than currently exists regarding the
influence of encoding choices by TV news practitioners. Ultimately, the
inquiry can lead to an encoding theory for television news.
Method
Stimulus Stories. Two local news stories that had been previously
broadcast in a medium-sized television market were selected as stimulus
material. They were chosen because both were vivid in substance and in
form
of presentation. To preclude the possible influence of the experiment's
subjects having prior knowledge of the stories, the reports were not
of
recent events that would have been likely to be remembered. As a
further
precaution, primary factual information was altered and fictitious
names
used.
One story concerned a demonstration by several hundred citizens in a nearby
town who gathered to disrupt a planned rally by white supremacists. The
other report was of a controversial parade celebrating gay pride
in the
city. Both stories fit Nisbett and Ross's (1980) criteria for vividness
in
that they were emotionally interesting, image-provoking and
proximate.[1]
Each story was produced in both a vivid and a pallid version. The vivid
treatment of the white supremacists report was nearly identical to
the one
that originally was broadcast. It contained tense, dramatic scenes of
confrontation. They included a segment in which a counter-demonstrator
threw punches at a white supremacist, and various shots of angry
participants shouting and chanting anti-white supremacist slogans. Also
included was an emotionally-charged soundbite with a Nazi death camp
survivor. These scenes were all removed for the pallid version. What
remained was a report of the anti-white supremacist crowd gathering, a
couple of soundbites from those opposed to the white-supremacists,
slogan
chanting and singing of peace songs, and a brief segment of the van
carrying white supremacists arriving, then immediately being escorted by
police away from the demonstration site.
The vivid rendition of the gay pride celebration was, with only minor
modification, the same version that aired on the local television
station.
It contained an interview with a Christian minister who came out to
demonstrate against homosexuality. Also, the reporter's narration told of
an attempt by some city council members earlier in the week to block
the
parade. The pallid presentation eliminated the two elements of
controversy,
merely reporting on the parade, including interviews with gay rights
supporters.
The two reports were embedded in a ten-minute newscast consisting of four
stories, using a "newsbrief" format typical of local stations. To
ensure
that the stories and newscast fit the general style, time constraints
and
other "encoding" features of local news, the writing, editing and
production were handled by professional television journalists.
Subjects and Procedure. The 163 participants in the experiment were
students in an introductory mass communication course at a mid-sized
private university in the northeastern United States. Separate groups were
assigned to the two experimental conditions to view a newscast
containing
the vivid and pallid stories.[2]
The order in which the vivid/pallid treatments appeared was alternated
between the subject groups. In the newscast viewed by Group I, the
vivid
version of the white supremacists story was first followed later by
the
pallid rendition of the gay pride parade. For Group II, the pallid
white
supremacists report came first followed by the vivid gay pride story.
After viewing the assigned newscast, the subjects completed a
questionnaire. It included an aided-recall test (multiple-choice)
consisting of five questions about each report. The questions covered major
facts common to both the vivid and pallid versions. The sum of the
correct answers was the recall score. The subjects' judgment of a story's
interest was measured by a simple five-position rating scale, ranging
from
very interesting (level 5) through a neutral point (level 3) to not at
all
interesting (level 1). Perception of newsworthiness was ascertained
using
the same type of scale.
Statistical Tests. Three statistical strategies were employed to examine
the data. Analyses of Variance tested for differences in the
dependent
measures (interest, recall, newsworthiness) attributable to the
independent
conditions (vivid/pallid). Paired t-tests were performed to look for
contrasts by story across both versions. Finally, Pearson correlation
coefficients were computed to evaluate relationships among the dependent
measures.
Results
Table 1 summarizes the results for the dependent variables in an Analysis
of Variance (ANOVA). For the white supremacists story, the
difference in
interest between the vivid and pallid versions was significant, with a
higher mean score for the vivid presentation. The gay pride parade story
demonstrated no significant difference for the interest variable.
Therefore, H1 was supported for the highly vivid story, but not for the
low-to-moderately vivid one. Differences for perception of
newsworthiness
and recall were not significant for either of the two stories. Thus,
H2 and
H3 were not supported.
[Table 1 about here]
Table 2 presents the results of paired t-tests comparing means by story
(both versions combined). The interest and newsworthiness
variables scored
significantly higher for the white supremacists report, while recall
was
significantly higher for the gay pride story.
[Table 2 about here]
In assessing the relationship of dependent measures, Pearson correlation
coefficients showed a strong positive association between interest and
perception of newsworthiness for the two versions of both stories
combined
(r = .51, p < .001). The correlation for recall and interest was also
positive, but extremely weak (r = .14, p < .001). There was no
significant
association between recall and newsworthiness. Therefore, H4 was
partially
supported, i.e., for a relationship between interest and
newsworthiness.
Discussion and Implications
Within the limited scope of this study, the results demonstrated that
vividness can heighten interest in a news report; the white
supremacists
story was seen as more interesting when it was portrayed in a form
that
emphasized its most vivid elements. The gay pride parade story,
however,
was not made more interesting in its vivid rendition. The implication
is
that vivid presentation can raise the interest level of a story that
is
already quite dramatic, but cannot do so for a story that is less
inherently compelling. It is also possible, of course, that our
manipulation of vivid/pallid for the gay pride story was not strong enough
to demonstrate differences in the ANOVA comparison.
For both stories, there were no differences between vivid and pallid
versions in how newsworthy they were perceived to be. This suggests
that
perception of newsworthiness may be a function of a story's substance
and
may not be influenced by the form of portrayal. In other words, when a
story is newsworthy on its own merits, emphasizing the vivid aspects may
not enhance the perception of its value as news.
A somewhat surprising finding concerned the recall variable. We had
predicted that vivid portrayal would increase a viewer's ability to
remember facts about a story. However, the vivid versions were recalled no
better than the pallid. Even more surprisingly, while interest and
newsworthiness were significantly higher across both versions of the white
supremacists story compared to the gay pride report, recall was
significantly lower.
A possible explanation is that viewers may get so caught up in the
emotionality and drama of a highly vivid news portrayal that they are
distracted from the story's informational content. This finding is
consistent with research in psychology which argues that emotional arousal
causes a focusing of attention on the vivid and, therefore,
inattention to
peripheral details (e.g., Bruner, Matter, & Papanek, 1955;
Easterbrook,
1959; Loftus, 1982; Mandler, 1975).
We also had expected a fairly robust relationship among the dependent
measures, i.e., that a story perceived to be interesting would be
considered newsworthy as well, and that recall would be correlated. While
the Pearson correlation coefficients revealed that interest and
newsworthiness were indeed strongly associated, the relationship of recall
to both was weak. We can surmise, therefore, that a viewer may perceive a
news story as both interesting and newsworthy, yet those two factors
do not
necessarily stimulate the recall of story details.
This experiment was designed to investigate how vivid versus pallid
portrayals in television news affected cognitive information
processing.
Overall, the results support a conclusion that the vividness effect is
elusive if not illusory. We challenge, therefore, the pervasive belief
by
TV news practitioners in the power of vividness to explain events and
issues. To the contrary, as the findings on recall suggest, vivid
portrayals may actually interfere with the imparting of useful information.
Professional news values traditionally have had the impact of sifting out
and separating the vivid from the pallid. Television often covers
events
based on the potential for "good" visuals while ignoring stories that
involve "talking heads." More than thirty years ago Boorstin (1961) noted
that many "colorful" news stories were the outcome of "pseudo-events"
staged for the express purpose of gaining media attention. The oft-cited
deficiencies of television news D that it is superficial,
sensationalistic,
obsessed with conflict and violence D to some degree stem from the
fixation on the vivid.
As noted previously, Iyengar and Kinder observed that viewers may "miss the
general point" when exposed to vivid portrayals. What is more disturbing
is that TV journalists also may be "missing the point" while
pursuing
vividness in stories. What is vivid is not necessarily what is important,
and the element of vividness should be seen as only one measure D an
inexact one at that D of a story's worth. By primarily attending to the
vivid, reporters and producers may produce "good television" but
neglect a
story's real significance.
__________ Notes
[1]
Three television journalists and a communications schola
r judged
independently and unanimously that the two
stories fit the vividness
"criteria." Also, the fo
ur judges were unanimous in rating the white
suprem
acists story as "highly" vivid, and the gay pride story as "low t
o
moderately" vivid.
[2] Pre-test measures on
the subjects demonstrated near-perfect
"between-gr
oups" comparability on such measures as age, education, family
income level, political ideology, and opinions about
both mainstream and
deviant political and social gr
oups.
References
Bell, B. E., & Loftus, E. F. (1985). Vivid persuasion in the courtroom.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 659-664.
Berry, C. , Gunter, B. & Clifford, B. (1982). Research on television
news. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society , 35, 301-304.
Boorstin, D. J. (1961). The image. New York: Atheneum.
Bruner, J., Matter, J., & Papanek, M. (1955). Breadth of learning as a
function of drive level and mechanization. Psychological Review, 41,
1-10.
Collins, R. L., Taylor, S. E., Wood, J. V. & Thompson, S. C.. (1988). The
vividness effect: Elusive or illusory? Journal of Personality and
Social
Psychology, 24, 1-18.
Easterbrook, J. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the
organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 183-201.
Epstein, E. (1973). News from nowhere. New York: Random House.
Findahl, O. & Hoijer, B. (1985). Some characteristics of news memory and
comprehension. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media , 29,
379-396.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Frey, K. P., & Eagly, A. H. (1993). Vividness can undermine the
persuasiveness of messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65, 32-44.
Gibson, R. (1991). Radio and television reporting. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Hamill, R., Wilson, T. D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1980). Insensitivity to sample
bias: Generalizing from atypical cases. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39, 578-579.
Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Kennamer, J. D. (1988). News values and the vividness of information.
Written Communication, 5, 108-123.
Kisielius, J. & Sternthal, B. (1984). Detecting and explaining vividness
effects in attitudinal judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 21,
54-64.
Kisielius, J., & Sternthal, B. (1986). Examining the vividness controversy:
An availability-valence interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 12,
418-431.
Lang, A. (1989). Effects of chronological presentation of information on
processing and memory for broadcast news. Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media , 33, 441-452.
Loftus, E. F. (1892). Remembering recent experiences. In L. Cermak (Ed.),
Human memory and amnesia (pp. 239-255). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mandler, G. (1975). Mind and emotion. New York: Wiley.
Mitchell, A. A. (1983). Cognitive processes initiated by exposure to
advertising. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Information processing research in
advertising. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and
shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Reyes, R. M., Thompson, W. C., & Bower, G. H. (1980). Judgmental biases
resulting from differing availabilities of arguments. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 2-12.
Schleuder, J. D., White, A. V., & Cameron, G. T.. (1993). Priming effects
of television news bumpers and teasers on attention and memory.
Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media , ??, 437-452.
Schramm, W. (1971). The nature of communication between humans. In W.
Schramm & D. F. Roberts (Eds.),The process and effects of mass
communication, (p. 23). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Shedler, J., & Manis, M. (1986). Can the availability heuristic explain
vividness effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
26-36.
Shook, F. (1994). Television newswriting. White Plains, NY: Longman
Publishing Group.
Stauffer, J., Frost, R., & Rybolt, W. (1983). The attention factor in
recalling network television news. Journal of Communication , 33, 29-37.
Taylor, S. E. & Thompson, S. C. (1982). Stalking the elusive vividness
effect. Psychological Bulletin, 98 (2), 155-181.
|
