Post on 11-Jan-2022
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF EMOTIONAL VISUAL AIDS ON LEARNING PERFORMANCE AND MENTAL EFFORT IN ONLINE HEALTH
EDUCATION
By
Sungwon Chung, B.A., M.A., M.Ed., Ph.D.
A Dissertation
In
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
Approved
Dr. Jongpil Cheon Chair of Committee
Dr. Steven M. Crooks
Dr. Nancy J. Maushak
Mark Sheridan
Dean of the Graduate School
August, 2015
Copyright 2015, Sungwon Chung
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am pleased to finally acknowledge everyone who supported and advised me to
complete this dissertation.
I would like to sincerely express my deepest gratitude and thanks to my
dissertation chair and advisor, Dr. Jongpil Cheon, for his guidance, encouragement,
patience, and mentorship during my graduate studies at Texas Tech University. He
always encouraged and constantly supported me to grow up as a researcher and educator.
I am also very grateful to my dissertation committee members, Drs. Steven
Crooks and Nancy Maushak, for their supportive and valuable feedback, in-depth and
thoughtful comments, suggestions, and advices for the improvement of my dissertation.
Finally and most importantly, I am very thankful to my wife Junghwa. Without
your unwavering love and support, I could never complete this dissertation. With the
same love, special thanks should be also given to my lovely little daughters, Rachel Han-
byeol and Kaylee Han-sol. We are happy because of you, and both of you always inspire
me to be a better person and father.
For all of these, thank you Lord for lighting the path that led me to all of my
accomplishments. All of my inspiration and wisdom have undoubtedly come from your
unwavering guidance.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................ ii
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem ...............................................................................................1
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................2
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................3
Significance of the Study ...............................................................................................5
Research Questions ........................................................................................................6
Definitions of Terms ......................................................................................................6
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................9
The Limited Capacity of Working Memory ..................................................................9
Motivated Cognitive System........................................................................................10
Emotion and Learning..................................................................................................13
Separate Processing of Visual Aids and Written-Text Instruction ..............................14
Learning Performance ..................................................................................................16
Mental Effort ................................................................................................................16
CHAPTER III: METHOD ..............................................................................................18
Participants and Research Design ................................................................................18
Materials ......................................................................................................................19 A Slideshow of Visual Instructional Content ........................................................19 Emotional Tone of Visual Aids: Valence and Arousal ..........................................22 The Selection of Visual Aids .................................................................................23
Measures ......................................................................................................................24 Emotional Responses .............................................................................................25 Prior Knowledge Scores ........................................................................................26 Multiple-Choice Recognition Test Scores .............................................................26 Cued-Recall Test Scores ........................................................................................27
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
iv
Mental Effort Scores ..............................................................................................27 Procedures ..............................................................................................................28
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS ..............................................................................................30
Manipulation Check .....................................................................................................30
RQ1: Multiple-Choice Recognition Test Scores .........................................................31 Recognition for All Risk Factors ...........................................................................32 Recognition for Uncontrollable Risk Factors ........................................................35 Recognition for Controllable Risk Factors ............................................................37
RQ2: Cued Recall Test Scores .....................................................................................40 Cued-Recall for All Risk Factors ...........................................................................40 Cued-Recall for Uncontrollable Risk Factors ........................................................42 Recognition for Controllable Risk Factors ............................................................45
RQ3: Mental Effort Scores for the Instructions ...........................................................47
RQ4: Mental Effort Scores for the Recognition Test ..................................................49
RQ5: Mental Effort Scores for the Cued-Recall Test ..................................................50
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION....................................................52
Summary of the Study .................................................................................................52
Discussion of the Findings ...........................................................................................53
Practical Implications...................................................................................................57
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research .............................................58
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................61
APPENDICES
A. IRB APPROVAL LETTER .......................................................................................71
B. PRETEST QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................................72
C. RESULTS OF THE PRETEST .................................................................................75
D. SCREENSHOTS OF AMAZON MTURK ...............................................................82
E. ACTUAL QUESTIONNIARE ...................................................................................83
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
v
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate how emotional visual aids influence
learning performance and mental effort in online health education. This study is guided
by the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing (LC4MP)
explicating how media content is motivationally, emotionally, and cognitively processed.
The emotional tone of media content (i.e., health-related instructional content) can vary
by two dimensions, valence and arousal as follows: (a) low-arousing positive, (b) low-
arousing negative, (c) high-arousing positive, and (d) high-arousing negative.
A 2 (valence: positive/negative) × 2 (arousal: low/high) between-subjects factorial
design experiment (N = 100) for this study was conducted. For the experiment, a
slideshow of visual instructional content about health was designed to have varying
emotional tones in valence and arousal within moderate ranges of arousal levels. The
participants were randomly assigned to each of the four emotional conditions.
The results of the study showed interaction effects between valence and arousal
on multiple-choice recognition test scores and cued-recall test scores. Both test scores
were the highest during low-arousing negative emotion but the poorest during high-
arousing negative emotion within moderate ranges of arousal levels. However, both test
scores were not significantly different between low-and high-arousing positive emotions.
Regarding mental effort for the instructions, recognition test, and recall test, no
significant differences were found across valence and arousal. The findings of the study
support the LC4MP in the context of online health education. They imply the benefits of
utilizing visual aids with moderately low-arousing negative emotional tone to enhance
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
vi
learning performance but recommend to avoid the use of visual aids with highly arousing
negative emotional tone.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
vii
LIST OF TABLES
3.1 Learning Materials: Six Risk Factors of Type 2 Diabetes ..................................... 22
4.1 Means and Standard Deviations for All Measures ................................................ 32
4.2 T-Tests Results on Recognition Test Scores (All Risk Factors) ............................ 34
4.3 T-Tests Results on Recognition Test Scores (Uncontrolled Risk Factors) ............ 36
4.4 T-Tests Results on Recognition Test Scores (Controlled Risk Factors) ................ 39
4.5 T-Tests Results on Cued-Recall Test Scores (All Risk Factors) ........................... 41
4.6 T-Tests Results on Cued-Recall Test Scores (Uncontrolled Risk Factors) ........... 44
4.7 T-Tests Results on Cued-Recall Test Scores (Controlled Risk Factors) ............... 46
4.8 T-Tests Results on Mental Effort Scores for the Instructions ................................ 48
4.9 T-Tests Results on Mental Effort Scores for the Recognition Test ....................... 49
4.10 T-Tests Results on Mental Effort Scores for the Cued-Recall Test ....................... 51
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 Empirical evidence on motivated cognitive processing ......................................... 12
3.1 Instructional materials (i.e., gestational diabetes) .................................................. 21
4.1 Results for the manipulation check in the experiment ........................................... 31
4.2 ANOVA interaction on recognition test scores (all risk factors) ........................... 33
4.3 Mean comparisons on recognition test scores (all risk factors) ............................. 34
4.4 ANOVA interaction on recognition test scores (uncontrollable only) .................. 35
4.5 Mean comparisons on recognition test scores (uncontrollable only) ..................... 37
4.6 ANOVA interaction on recognition test scores (controllable only) ...................... 38
4.7 Mean comparisons on recognition test scores (controllable only) ......................... 39
4.8 ANOVA interaction on cued-recall test scores (all risk factors) ........................... 40
4.9 Mean comparisons on cued-recall test scores (all risk factors) ............................. 42
4.10 ANOVA interaction on recognition test scores (uncontrollable only) .................. 43
4.11 Mean comparisons on cued-recall test scores (uncontrollable only) ..................... 44
4.12 ANOVA interaction on cued-recall test scores (controllable only) ....................... 45
4.13 Mean comparisons on cued-recall test scores (controllable only) ......................... 47
4.14 Mean comparisons on mental effort scores for the instructions ............................ 48
4.15 Mean comparisons on mental effort scores for the recognition test ...................... 50
4.16 Mean comparisons on mental effort scores for the cued-recall test ....................... 51
5.1 Resources allocated to the processing of the written-text instruction .................... 54
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
1
CHAPTER I:
INTRODUCTION
“Emotions are not just the fuel that powers the psychological mechanism of a
reasoning creature, they are parts, highly complex and messy parts, of this creature’s
reasoning itself.” (Nussbaum, 2001, p. 3)
Statement of the Problem
Media content including instructional content can have emotional tone through
various presentation formats such as text, narrations, pictures, animations, and videos
(Lang, 2006; Um, Plass, Hayward, & Homer, 2012). Thus, the content viewers can
experience emotional feelings during learning. Previous studies have demonstrated
that learners’ emotional states during learning influence their learning performance
(i.e., comprehension and test scores) (e.g., Goetz, Frenzel, Pekrun, Hall, & Ludtke,
2007; Pekrun & Stephens, 2010; Trautwein, Niggli, Schnyder, & Ludtke, 2009). They
suggest that positive emotion improves learners’ attention, motivation for learning,
and learning performance (e.g., test scores) whereas negative emotion would hinder
the learning processes.
However, emotion is not so simple to be categorized only into positive and
negative. The previous studies have not considered the simultaneous effects of
emotional arousal or intensity (i.e., how strong or weak the positive/negative emotion
is) (Chung, Cheon, & Lee, 2015). According to emotion studies (e.g., Feldman &
Russell, 1998; Pekrun, Goetz, Frenzel, Barchfeld, & Perry, 2011; Russell, 2003),
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
2
emotional experience can be identified by two dimensions, valence (positive/negative)
and arousal (low/high). Under this theoretical approach, low-arousing positive
emotion (e.g., relaxed) may be less effective for learning than high-arousing positive
emotion (e.g., enjoyment) (e.g., Linnenbrink, 2007). Moderately arousing negative
emotion (e.g., stress and anxiety) may be effective for learning as they can motivate
learners to avoid academic failure and to achieve better performance (e.g., Pekrun,
Elliot, & Maier, 2009; Pekrun, Frenzel, Goetz, & Perry, 2007). Therefore, the
influence of emotional valence for learning should be investigated within certain
ranges of emotional arousal levels.
Theoretical Framework
The current study is guided by the limited capacity model of motivated
mediated message processing (LC4MP: Lang, 2006, 2009) providing a theoretical
insight into how human emotionally, motivationally, and cognitively processes media
content. According to the LC4MP, all humans have two underlying motivational
systems, appetitive and aversive systems. Positive content automatically activates the
appetitive system and so the individual involuntarily and simultaneously feels positive
emotional experience. Negative content automatically activates the aversive system
and thus the individual involuntarily and simultaneously feels negative emotional
experience. Higher arousing content results in the greater activation of the
motivational system and more intense emotional feelings. By the two dimensions,
valence and arousal, the emotional tone of media content can be categorized as
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
3
follows: (a) low-arousing positive, (b) low-arousing negative, (c) high-arousing
positive, and (d) high-arousing negative.
The emotional tone of media content can also regulate cognitive processing of
the content through motivational system activation (Chung et al., 2015; Lang, 2006).
The processing of media content requires to occupy some part of the cognitive
resources (Fox, Park, & Lang, 2007; Lang, 2006). However, cognitive resources of
human working memory are limited (Baddeley, 1992). Thus, if a sufficient amount of
resources are not allocated and available for the processing of the content, cognitive
overload occurs (i.e., learning is more likely to fail) (Baddeley, 1992; Chung et al.,
2015; Fox et al., 2007; Lang, 2006). According to the LC4MP, emotional valence and
arousal differently regulate the amount of resources allocated for the processing
(Lang, 2006, 2009). Ample evidence for the motivated cognitive processing has been
observed with various types of media (e.g., television, photographs, radios, and
computers) and content/contexts (e.g., television shows, commercials, political
advertisements, public service announcements, and video game content) (e.g.,
Gibbons, Lukowski, & Walker, 2005; Lang, 2006; Potter, 2009). However, there has
been little research examining motivated cognitive processing of emotional learning
content.
Purpose of the Study
Content about health can contain information rich in emotional tone (e.g.,
Lang, 2006, 2009; Norris, Bailey, Bolls, & Wise, 2012). Based on the LC4MP, for
example, content about maintaining a healthy lifestyle or preventing, treating, or
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
4
overcoming a disease (e.g., benefit information from direct-to-consumer drug
advertisements) can be beneficial to sustain our lives, thus eliciting positive emotional
feelings (e.g., Norris et al., 2012). On the other hand, content about suffering from a
fatal disease or feeling painful can contain information hurting our survival impulse
(e.g., risk information), thus eliciting negative emotional feelings (Lang, 2006; Norris
et al., 2012). The intensity of the significance of the opportunity or threat information
to our lives and survival is associated with arousal levels of emotional feelings (Lang,
2006). However, there has been little research on the influence of emotion in health
education contexts.
Visuals (e.g., photographs, drawings, graphs, presentation slides, videos, etc.)
can be useful to elicit emotional experience (e.g., Lang, 2006; Yegiyan & Lang, 2010).
In learning environments, visuals can be utilized to make instruction more engaging,
interesting, and memorable (e.g., McCannon & Morse, 1999; Tangen, Constable,
Durrant, Teeter, Beston, & Kim, 2011). Especially, in online or multimedia learning,
visuals have been often used to aid the understanding of given instruction. However,
some visual aids may lead to split visual attention and thus interfere with the
processing of simultaneously presented on-screen text (e.g., Cheon, Crooks, & Chung,
2014; Mayer & Moreno, 1998; Moreno & Mayer, 1999).
Therefore, based on the LC4MP, the current study aimed to investigate how
emotion valence and arousal of visual aids interactively influence learning
performance (i.e., multiple-choice recognition test scores and cued-recall test scores)
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
5
and the efficiency of mental effort (i.e., for the instructions, the recognition test, and
the cued-recall test) in an online health education context.
Significance of the Study
This dissertation will advance the understanding of the effects of emotion in
online learning environments as well as build on the existing literature about the
relationships among emotion, motivation, and cognition (i.e., learning).
Most previous LC4MP studies (e.g., Lang, 2006, 2009) examined the effects of
the emotional tone of media content on cognitive processing of that content. However,
media content including instructional content may contain multiple tasks to be
processed. When the content contains multiple sources for visual processing (i.e.,
visual aids and on-screen text instruction), there may be some challenges for both or
either one of them to be successfully processed. From this perspective, it is unclear
whether learners’ emotional experience induced by visual aids enhance or distract
learning from the written-text instruction (e.g., spilt visual attention). Therefore, the
current study aimed to investigate how valence and arousal in visual aids influence
learning performance from the simultaneously presented written-text instruction and
mental effort during learning and tests.
The findings of this study will provide valuable information to advance the
understandings of the limited capacity of working memory, cognitive load/overload,
and motivated cognitive processing as well as the effective design and development of
emotional interventions to enhance online health education.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
6
Research Questions
This study had five research questions:
• RQ1: Do valence and arousal of visual aids interactively influence multiple-choice
recognition test scores for simultaneously presented written-text instruction in
online health education?
• RQ2: Do valence and arousal of visual aids interactively influence cued-recall test
scores for simultaneously presented written-text instruction in online health
education?
• RQ3: Do valence and arousal of visual aids interactively influence mental effort
for the instructions in online health education?
• RQ4: Do valence and arousal of visual aids interactively influence mental effort
for the recognition test in online health education?
• RQ5: Do valence and arousal of visual aids interactively influence mental effort
for the cued-recall test in online health education?
Definitions of Terms
For this study, the following terms are defined:
• Working memory: Working memory is short-term memory with limited capacity.
For example, working memory cannot permanently hold incoming information
from the environment and may not be able to encode all the pieces of the incoming
information at once or simultaneously.
• Cognitive overload: Because of the above-mentioned limited capacity of working
memory, some of the pieces of the incoming information may not be successfully
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
7
processed (i.e., remembered) in the memory. In this manner, when mental load
required for the processing of information exceeds the working memory capacity,
cognitive overload occurs.
• Split attention effects: Working memory has limited capacity to process multiple
sources of information. For example, while a particular bit of information (e.g.,
visuals) is selectively attended and cognitively processed, the other bit of the
information (e.g., on-screen text) simultaneously presented with the visuals may
not be attended and processed.
• LC4MP: LC4MP is an abbreviation of the limited capacity model of motivated
mediated message processing. The LC4MP explains how media content with
emotional tone influences human emotional, motivational, and cognitive
processing.
• Dimensions of emotion: Emotion consists of two dimensions, valence
(positive/negative) and arousal (low/high). Valence refers to how positive or
negative emotional experience is. Arousal indicates how low or high the intensity
of emotional feelings is.
• Motivational system: All humans have two types of motivational systems:
appetitive and aversive systems. They unconsciously and involuntarily activate in
response to emotional tone of media content, thus eliciting emotional responses
and simultaneously influencing cognitive processing. The appetitive system
responds to positive emotional tone. The aversive system responds to negative
emotional tone.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
8
• Visual aids: Visuals can be effective to aid learning, especially in the contexts of
online or multimedia learning by making instruction more engaging, interesting,
and memorable.
• Learning performance: Learning performance can be assessed in different types of
tests, depending on learning goals. Recognition tests assess relatively low levels of
memory performance by examining whether learners can identify correctly the
information they just learned among the list of all the information they learned and
did not learn. Cued-recall tests assess the ability to write down what they learned
based on given cues.
• Mental effort: Mental effort indicates the amount of the learner’s mental effort
invested during learning or a specific type of tests.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
9
CHAPTER II:
LITERATURE REVIEW
To guide the research questions of this dissertation, this chapter introduced the
theoretical foundation and related empirical evidence on (a) the limited capacity of
working memory, (b) the relationships among human emotion, motivation, and
cognitive systems, (c) emotion and learning, (d) the processing of visual aids, (e)
learning performance, and (f) mental effort.
The Limited Capacity of Working Memory
Human working memory is short-term memory with limited capacity in
cognitively processing information including media content (Baddelely, 1992;
Unsworth & Engle, 2007). Although information is attended and recognized by human
senses (e.g., sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch), working memory cannot
permanently retain or may not be able to successfully process all or some bits of the
encoded information at once. Working memory may not be capable of retrieving
particular bits of information from long-term memory. Cognitive overload occurs
when resources required for the processing exceed the limits of the working memory
capacity (Baddeley, 1992; Lang, 2006, 2009; Unsworth & Engle, 2007). Especially,
multiple sources of the information simultaneously require only one channel for the
processing (i.e., video-only channel), split attention and cognitive overload of visual
processing may easily occur (Baddeley, 1992; Mayer & Moreno, 1998). The LC4MP
suggests that emotional valence and arousal influence motivational system activation
and so regulate the amount of resources allocated to the processing of information in
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
10
working memory (Lang, 2006). In the next section, the LC4MP was introduced with
related emotion, motivation, and cognition theories.
Motivated Cognitive System
Media content can contain motivationally relevant information such as
opportunity or threat information to the content viewers (Lang, 2006). Opportunity is
perceived by containing beneficial information to individuals (e.g., food or health)
whereas threat is perceived by containing harmful or risky information (e.g., snakes or
violence).
The LC4MP theorizes that motivational relevance of the information
unconsciously and automatically activates two underlying motivational systems and
simultaneously elicits relevant emotional experience (Lang, 2006). Specifically,
opportunity information activates the appetitive system eliciting positive emotion.
Threat information activates the aversive system eliciting negative emotion (Cacioppo
& Gardner, 1999; Lang, 2006, 2009). The degree of the significance of the
motivational relevance (e.g., how significant the information is to sustain human life)
is associated with activation levels of the motivational systems which are associated
with emotional arousal. For example, less opportunity (e.g., flowers) or threat
information (e.g., trash cans) would elicit lower activation of the appetitive and
aversive systems, whereas greater opportunity (e.g., victory) or threat information
(e.g., violence) would lead to higher activation of the systems (Chung et al., 2015;
Lang, 2006).
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
11
The motivational system activation also influences cognitive processing of
media content (Cacioppo & Gardner, 1999; Lang, 2006, 2009). The appetitive and
aversive systems have dissimilar functions for the activation for resource allocation.
The appetitive system activates to approach and remember opportunity information
for promoting survival in an environment as much as possible. The aversive system
activates to avoid or protect the self from (potential) threat by identifying and
remembering threatening information as much as possible. Heightened activation of
the systems leads to greater memory for the information.
Importantly, the baselines of both systems’ activation and the increasing rates
of the activation are different; therefore, their influence on memory performance also
differs (see Figure 2.1). Human has instinctive curiosity to seek pleasantness in a safe
or neutral environment. Thus, in low ranges of environmental/stimulus arousal levels,
(i.e., between levels 0 and 3 in Figure 2.1), individuals can remember better for
positive content than negative content. The higher baseline of the appetitive activation
is called positivity offset (Cacioppo & Gardner, 1999; Lang, 2006). Overall, greater
activation of both systems result in better memory performance. However, once threat
is detected, the aversive system, associated with defensive and protective responses,
more rapidly and vigorously activates than the appetitive system. The prominent
activation rate of the aversive system is called negativity bias (Cacioppo & Gardner,
1999; Lang, 2006). Thus, in moderate ranges of arousal levels (i.e., between levels 3
and 6 in Figure 2.1), individuals can remember better for negative content than
positive content. However, the aversive system tends to refuse to remember too risky
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
12
or repulsive content. In other words, within high ranges of arousal levels (i.e., between
levels 6 and 9 in Figure 2.1), memory for negative content becomes worst because the
aversive activation works primarily for internal retrieval processing (e.g., involuntary
responses to promote escape from the fatal danger) (Lang, 2006).
Figure 2.1 Empirical evidence on motivated cognitive processing
Evidence for the relationship between motivational activation and cognitive
processing has been observed in various media contexts including television shows,
television/radio PR campaign messages, television commercials for over-the-counter
drugs, and in-game advertisements (e.g., Bartsch & Oliver, 2011; Chung & Sparks,
2015; Dardis, Schmierbach, & Limperos, 2012; Gibbons et al., 2005; Lang, 2006; Lee
& Lang, 2009; Norris et al., 2012; Potter, 2009). The LC4MP studies have focused
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
13
mainly on entertainment and communication media contexts. However, there has been
little research on motivated cognitive processing of learning content. Memory for
learning content may require deeper cognitive processing (e.g., comprehension,
organization, or integration) than simple memorization of information. In the next
section, related studies on the effects of emotion in learning contexts were introduced.
Emotion and Learning
Previous studies utilized various types of media (e.g., images, animations,
videos, narrations, background music, and on-screen written-text) to elicit learners’
emotional experience during computer-assisted learning (e.g., Chung et al., 2015;
Tractinsky, Katz, & Ikar, 2000; Um et al., 2012; Wolfson & Case, 2000). Most of the
studies suggested the superiority of positive emotion for learning over negative
emotional experience; for example, such positive influence can be induced while
learners listen to blithe music during educational game play (Fassbender, Richards,
Bilgin, Thompson, & Heiden, 2012) or watch images of people away from a hurricane
(Park & Lim, 2007) and human-like shapes of characters in instructional animations
(Plass, Heidig, Hayward, Homer, & Um, 2014; Um et al., 2012). According to the
studies, positive emotion can increase learners’ attention to learning content, facilitate
cognitive interest, motivation for learning, satisfaction, and learning outcomes (e.g.,
knowledge retention and comprehension test scores. However, the relative benefits of
positive emotion were found without consideration of the arousal levels that may
simultaneously or interactively influence the effects of emotional valence for learning.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
14
A recent study (Chung et al., 2015), guided by the LC4MP, examined the
simultaneous effects of valence and arousal on multimedia learning. Consistent with
the LC4MP predictions, they found that for both positive and negative emotions,
higher arousing emotions within moderate ranges led to better learning performance
(i.e., free-recall test scores) in an instructional animation with on-screen text than
lower arousing emotions.
However, the study revealed several limitations to generalize the findings of
the study. First, the study examined the effects of emotional induction (i.e., emotional
video clips) presented prior to learning content (i.e., an instructional animation).
Second, the content of emotional induction (i.e., sports events and natural disaster)
was not related to learning content (i.e., how lightning works). Thus, the effects of
emotional experience may not be sufficiently sustained during the cognitive learning
process. Third, the experiment for the study of Chung et al. (2015) was manipulated
merely within a narrow range of learners’ arousal states. According to the LC4MP,
there could be optimal levels of arousal levels to find the relative benefits of negative
emotion because of negativity-bias characteristic seen in Figure 2.1. Therefore, more
research is needed to suggest the application of the LC4MP and advance the utilization
of learners’ motivated cognitive processing in mediated learning environment.
Separate Processing of Visual Aids and Written-Text Instruction
Most LC4MP studies focused on examining the processing of primary content
of media (see Figure 2.1; e.g., Lang, 2006). However, media content can contain
multiple sources of information (i.e., primary, secondary, and/or more information).
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
15
For example, an instructional unit can contain both visuals and written-text. Previous
studies have suggested that resource allocation may be competitive for multiple task
processing because cognitive resources allocated for primary task processing cannot
be available for secondary task processing (Grigorovici & Constantin, 2004;
Kahneman, 1973; Lee & Faber, 2007; Lynch & Srull, 1982). In this perspective,
resources allocated to the processing of visual aids will not be available to the
processing of written-text instruction.
Because emotional tone of visual aids unconsciously and involuntarily elicits
automatic resource allocation, media users (i.e., learners) are more likely to give more
attention to the visuals than simultaneously presented written-text. However, the
visual aids may function as cues to facilitate learning from the written-text (e.g., Chen,
Mo, Honomichl, & Sohn, 2010; Cronin & Myers, 1997). Thus, as greater resources are
automatically allocated to the processing of visual aids, greater resources are more
likely to be allocated to the processing of the written-text instruction. However, it is
still unclear whether the automatic resource allocation for the processing of the
written-text instruction influences learning because learning may require, to some
degree, learners’ conscious cognitive effort. Additionally, resource allocation patterns
will be similar between the visual aids and written-text processing. However, when
compared to the visual aids processing, fewer resources will be available for the
written-text processing and cause cognitive overload in lower levels of arousal (i.e.,
moderate ranges of arousal levels) (e.g., Chung & Sparks, 2015). In the following
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
16
sections, learning performance and mental effort that would be examined in this study
were introduced.
Learning Performance
Retention knowledge tests are one of the most common assessments for
learning performance (Mayer, 2002). Retention refers to the ability to remember what
had been learned after the time was lapsed (Narli, 2011). The retention ability of
factual knowledge has been assessed by using recognition and recall memory tests
(e.g., Conway, Cohen, & Stanhope, 1991; Hamann & Squire, 1995; Kim & Gilman,
2008; Knight, Ball, Brewer, DeWitt, & Marsh, 2012). Recognition memory is the
ability to identify or discern what was learned (e.g., true-false (or yes-no), matching,
and multiple-choice questions). Recall memory is the ability to write down what was
remembered and learned based on given cues (Clariana & Lee, 2001). Consistent with
the LC4MP, all or some in learning content may not be successfully cognitively
processed because of the limited storage capacity of human sensory and working
memories (Baddeley, 1992). Thus, the current study expects that emotional valence
and arousal differently influence two different types of learning performance,
multiple-choice recognition and cued-recall test scores. Specific research questions
were presented in the Introduction chapter.
Mental Effort
Mental effort is considered as a dimension of cognitive load which is rated
differently according to task characteristics (e.g., task difficulty) (Paas & Van
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
17
Merriënboer, 1994). The efficiency of mental effort has been used as an indicator of
cognitive load invested during a given task (i.e., instruction and tests) (Cheon, Crooks
et al., 2014; Chung et al., 2015; Sweller, 2010).
The current study expects that emotional valence and arousal influence the
efficiency of mental effort invested for the instructions and/or related tests while they
modulate resource allocation for the cognitive processing of learning content. Specific
research questions were presented in the Introduction chapter.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
18
CHAPTER III:
METHOD
The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate how emotional valence and
arousal of visual aids influence learning performance and the efficiency of mental
effort in online health education. An experiment for this study was designed. Learning
materials were visual slideshows of which content was about major risk factors of type
2 diabetes. Participants viewed different visual aids (i.e., photographs) with various
emotional tones while learning about the risk factors. Prior to the experiment, a pretest
was conducted for a strong manipulation of valence and arousal of the visual aids. The
manipulation check was also analyzed in the actual experiment.
Five research questions were investigated for this study. Specifically, learning
performance was examined through comparing multiple-choice recognition test scores
(RQ1) and cued-recall test scores (RQ2). Mental effort was examined through
comparing mental effort scores for the instructions (RQ3), recognition test (RQ4), and
cued-recall test (RQ5).
In the following sections, participants and research design, learning materials,
independent and dependent variables, and the procedure of data collection were
described.
Participants and Research Design
Participants in this study were college students (N = 100; male: 42, female: 58;
average age = 26.70 years; SD = 6.51) residing in the United States. They were
recruited through an online human subjects data collection platform, Amazon
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
19
Mechanical Turk (MTurk) (see Procedure for details). They received a $1.00
compensation for participation.
A 2 (valence: positive/negative) × 2 (arousal: low/high) between-subjects
factorial design experiment was used for this study. A slideshow of visual instructional
content about health served as experimental stimuli because the topic of health can be
rich in motivationally and personally relevant content eliciting emotional experience
(e.g., Lang, 2006; Norris, et al., 2012). Valence and arousal levels of the emotional
tone of the visual slideshow were manipulated by different visual aids (i.e.,
photographs) used in the slideshow which were pre-determined through a pretest for
the manipulation. The positive/negative valence and the low/high arousal
manipulation were determined within a moderate range of arousal levels. In the
experiment, participants were randomly assigned to each of the four conditions: (a)
low-arousing positive, n = 25, (b) low-arousing negative, n = 25, (c) high-arousing
positive, n = 25, and (d) high-arousing negative, n = 25. All procedures of data
collection with human subjects were reviewed and approved by Texas Tech
University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) (see Appendix A).
Materials
A Slideshow of Visual Instructional Content
Learning materials for this study were a three-minute system-controlled
slideshow of six-page presentation slides. Each of the six-page slides was viewed
during an equal period of 30 seconds and then automatically moved to the next page
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
20
slide. Each slide’s content was about each of six major risk factors of type 2 diabetes:
ethnicity, gestational diabetes, lower birth weight, some types of medications, drinking
habits, and smoking habits (see Table 3.1). The presentation order of the six risk
factors was automatically randomized by survey software, Qualtrics.
Each slide consisted of two visual components: (1) on-screen text instruction
describing each risk factor and (2) a differently categorized emotional visual aid (i.e.,
low-arousing positive, low-arousing negative, high-arousing positive, and high-
arousing negative). This study had four different emotional conditions. Thus, four
between-subjects groups in the study viewed differently categorized emotional visual
aids during learning from the same instructional text about each risk factor.
For the design of the learning materials, content about the instructional text
was adopted from American Diabetes Association’s official website
www.diabetes.org. The visual aids were photographs which were purchased and
downloaded from www.shutterfly.com supplying an online professional photo gallery.
All the slides and the visual aids were sized to 1025 × 576 pixels and the instructional
text appeared on the right side over the visual aids (see Figure 3.1).
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
21
(a) Low-arousing positive
(b) High-arousing positive
(c) Low-arousing negative
(d) High-arousing negative
Figure 3.1 Instructional materials (i.e., gestational diabetes)
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
22
Table 3.1 Learning Materials: Six Risk Factors of Type 2 Diabetes
Risk Factor Content of On-Screen Text Instruction
(1) Ethnicity Compared to non-Hispanic Whites, the risk of diagnosed diabetes is 18% higher among Asian, 66% higher among Hispanics/Latinos, and 77% higher among non-Hispanic Blacks.
(2) Gestational Diabetes
Gestational diabetes occurs in 2 to 10% of pregnancies. Women who have had gestational diabetes have a 35 to 60% chance of developing diabetes, in the next 10 to 20 years.
(3) Lower Birth Weight
People who weighed less than 5.5 pounds (2.5 kg) at birth are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes later in life. The risk of diabetes in old age was five-fold among those born small.
(4) Medications Some medications (e.g., depression and stain drugs) can dramatically increase your risk. Talk to your doctor about finding an alternative medication for your condition that doesn’t have this negative side effect.
(5) Drinking Habits Heavy alcohol use can permanently damage the pancreas and impair its ability to secrete insulin and regulate blood sugar levels. Limit alcohol intake to no more than 1 drink per day for women, and no more than 2 drinks per day for men.
(6) Smoking Habits Smokers are 50 to 90% more likely to develop diabetes than nonsmokers. Smoking can harm the pancreas, increase blood sugar levels, impair your body’s ability to use insulin, and cause other health problems.
Emotional Tone of Visual Aids: Valence and Arousal
Two independent variables, valence and arousal, were manipulated for the
experiment of this study. Appropriate visuals were chosen through a pretest prior to
the experiment. The procedure of the pretest was described in the next section.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
23
Valence. This study had two types of valence, positive and negative emotions.
Valence was manipulated by visuals (i.e., visual aids) of the slideshow used as
learning materials. The visuals depicted a person(s)’s health status. Visuals with
positive tone depicted the person(s)’s status in sound health or recovery from the
disease (i.e., diabetes). Visuals with negative tone depicted the person(s)’s unhealthy
status or suffering from the disease.
Arousal. This study had two levels of arousal, low-arousing and high-arousing,
within a moderate range. Low and high arousal levels were manipulated by varying
the degree of the intensity of the visuals depicting the person(s)’s health status. High-
arousing tone showed direct depictions of the person(s)’s health status (e.g., close-ups,
smiling or painful faces, etc.). Low-arousing tone showed indirect depictions of the
person(s)’s health status (e.g., blurred shots of the health status, images showing body
part but not showing the person(s)’s faces, etc.).
The Selection of Visual Aids
Instructional presentation slides with total 48 different visuals were prepared.
Then, a pretest was conducted to choose appropriate 24 visuals (see Figure 3.1) among
them so as each to be embedded within the slideshow composed of six-page
instructional slides in four different emotional conditions.
The pretest (N = 29; average age = 27.55, SD = 8.08) was performed through
the same data collection procedure in Amazon MTurk where the actual experiment
would be carried out. All the participants received $1.00 compensation for taking part
in the pretest. In the pretest, three-item self-report ratings of emotion (see Measures)
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
24
(e.g., Chung et al., 2015; Chung & Sparks, 2015; Lee & Lang, 2009; Yegiyan & Lang,
2010) were used for the manipulation of valence and arousal. The participants rated
how positive, negative, and aroused they felt from each of instructional slides
containing the 48 visuals they just saw.
After the pretest, mean comparisons on positive valence, negative valence, and
arousal ratings for the 48 visuals were analyzed and finally 24 visuals were chosen.
Specifically, six visuals with low arousal, high positivity, and low negativity ratings
were chosen to be categorized as low-arousing positive; six visuals with low-arousal,
low positivity, and high negativity ratings were chosen as low-arousing negative; six
visuals with high arousal, high positivity, and low negativity ratings were chosen to be
categorized as high-arousing positive; and six visuals with high arousal, low
positivity, and high negativity ratings were chosen as high-arousing negative. A
questionnaire (see Appendix B) and the results of the pretest (see Appendix C) were
provided.
A manipulation check was performed to confirm the successful manipulation
of valence and arousal with data of the actual experiment. The manipulation check
results were presented in the Results chapter.
Measures
Data collected for this study included as follows: emotional responses (for a
manipulation check of valence and arousal), prior knowledge about diabetes, multiple-
choice recognition test scores, cued-recall test scores, and mental effort scores for the
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
25
instructions, the recognition test, and recall test. Specific items for each measure were
described below.
Emotional Responses
Three-item one-to-nine point self-report ratings of emotion (positive valence,
negative valence, and arousal), accompanied with pictorial Self-Assessment
Mannequin (SAM: Bradley & Lang, 1994) depicting identical emotional states, were
used for the pretest and the manipulation check of valence and arousal in the actual
experiment. Previous studies have demonstrated that the self-report responses are
reliable and consistent with responses of physiological measurements such as heart
rates and skin conductance (e.g., Ivory & Kalyanaraman, 2007; Schneider, Lang, Shin,
& Bradley, 2004). Thus, it has been used to measure which type of the motivational
system activates (i.e., valence type) and how intense its activation is (i.e., arousal
level) (e.g., Bolls, Lang, & Potter, 2001; Bradley, Angelini, & Lee, 2007; Chung et al.,
2015; Chung & Sparks, 2015; Lee & Lang, 2009; Leshner, Bolls, & Thomas, 2009;
Wang & Lang, 2012; Yegiyan & Lang, 2010).
As an individual’s emotional experience is collective experience induced by all
of the multiple information sources (i.e., visual aids and written-text instruction) (e.g.,
Chung & Sparks, 2015), the participants’ emotional responses were rated about
instructional presentation slides with the visual aids. Specifically, positive valence
reflecting appetitive system activation was measured by asking as follows: “please rate
how positive you felt from the presentation slides you just saw,” ranging from 1 = not
at all positive, happy, or please to 9 = extremely positive, happy, or pleased. Negative
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
26
valence reflecting aversive system activation was measured by asking as follows:
“please rate how negative you felt from the presentation slides you just saw,” ranging
from 1 = not at all negative, unhappy, or annoyed to 9 = extremely negative, unhappy,
or annoyed. Arousal reflecting the level of activation was measured by asking as
follows: “please rate how aroused (= intensity of emotional feelings) you felt from the
presentation slides you just saw,” ranging from 1 = extremely calm to 9 = extremely
aroused.
Prior Knowledge Scores
Prior knowledge about diabetes was measured to control individual differences
in the basic knowledge about learning content in this study (e.g., Cheon, Chung,
Crooks, Song, & Kim, 2014; Cheon, Crook et al., 2014) which was adopted from
http://livehealthy.chron.com/basic-knowledge-diabetes-1158.html. Four questions
asked the participants to indicate the degree of their diabetes knowledge on a four-item
five-point scale (1 = very little; 5 = very much) regarding the knowledge in terms of
(1) the function and role of insulin in diabetes, (2) the differences between type 1 and
type 2 diabetes, (3) major causes of type 2 diabetes, and (4) risk factors of type 2
diabetes. Reliability test scores (Cronbach’s α = .941) with the four items were highly
acceptable.
Multiple-Choice Recognition Test Scores
Multiple-choice recognition tests have been used to assess a type of learning
performance, the ability of recognition memory for instructional content and
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
27
information (e.g., Harskamp, Mayer, & Suhre, 2007; James, Fogler, & Tauber, 2008;
Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller, 2004; Kim & Gilman, 2008). In this study, the
recognition test consisted of questions regarding 12 factual knowledge taken directly
from the learning content (two questions were taken from each of six risk factors).
Each question had four possible choices but there was only one correct answer. One
correct response was scored as one point; thus, a participant could receive up to 12
points for this recognition test.
Cued-Recall Test Scores
Cued-recall tests have been used to assess an individual’s ability to recall
previously learned factual knowledge based on given cues (Chung & Sparks, 2015;
Knight et al., 2012; Yue, Soderstrom, & Bjork, 2015). In this study, the cued-recall
test asked the participants to write the names of the risk factors which they could
remember from the learning content based on given cues (i.e., uncontrollable or
controllable risk factors) as among six risk factors as three factors were uncontrollable
and the other three factors were controllable. A correctly identified name could be
scored as one point; therefore, a participant could receive up to six points in this cued-
recall test.
Mental Effort Scores
Mental effort scores have been measured using an one-item nine-point Likert
scale (1 = extremely low; 9 = extremely high) which was used by previous studies
(Chung et al., 2015; Cheon, Chung et al., 2014; Cheon, Crooks, et al., 2014; Paas,
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
28
1992; Paas, Tuovinen, Tabbers, & Van Gerven, 2003). In this study, the participants
were asked to rate the degree of their mental effort invested during the instructions, the
recognition test, and the cued-recall test, respectively (i.e., “please indicate how much
mental effort you invested in _____”).
Procedures
Data for this study were collected through Amazon MTurk (see Appendix D)
which has become a popular online data collection platform to recruit
subjects/participants for various types of research including surveys and experiments
(Mason & Suri, 2011; Rouse, 2015). Amazon MTurk functions as an online labor
market where requesters (i.e., experimenters) post jobs (i.e., their own
surveys/experiments) and workers (i.e., subjects) can choose the jobs and get paid for
the completion of the jobs (i.e., competition of the surveys/experiments).
In the procedure, the purpose of this study and briefs descriptions about what
they would learn were posted in Amazon MTurk. An online questionnaire (see
Appendix E) was created by using Qualtrics survey software and linked to the posting
in Amazon MTurk. Workers who want to participate in the study were asked to click
on a link to the online questionnaire. As this study was intended to obtain data from
college students who are currently residing in the United States, a screening question
was presented before entering to the online questionnaire. Only the workers who
responded as “yes” could participate in the study. Others who responded as “no” were
informed that they were disqualified to participate in the study, and then were thanked
and dismissed.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
29
There were four different versions of the online questionnaire because the
experiment had four different emotional conditions. Thus, the participants were
randomly assigned to one of the four versions of the questionnaire. In the
questionnaire, question items were presented in the following order: demographic
questions, prior knowledge questions, a slideshow of visual instructional content,
mental effort for the instructions, cued-recall test, mental effort for the cued-recall test,
multiple-choice recognition test, and mental effort for the recognition test. After
completing the questionnaire, the participants were appreciated for their participation
and received an automatically generated eight-digit number which can be entered into
their Amazon MTurk account to receive $1.00 compensation.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
30
CHAPTER IV:
RESULTS
In this chapter, results for manipulation check and investigations of research
questions were presented. The manipulation check was analyzed by independent
samples t-tests and the research questions for the study were examined by two-way
ANOVAs and independent t-tests analyses.
Manipulation Check
A manipulation check was performed through independent samples t-tests on
each of positive valence, negative valence, and arousal ratings. On the positive rating
scale, instructional presentation slides with positive visual aids (n = 50; M = 4.34; SD
= 2.15) were rated greater than slides with negative visual aids (n = 50; M = 3.44; SD
= 2.18), t(98) = 2.078, p < .05. On the negative rating scale, slides with negative visual
aids (n = 50; M = 5.32; SD = 2.50) were rated greater than slides with positive visual
aids (n = 50; M = 4.18; SD = 2.35), t(98) = -2.347, p < .05. The arousal ratings were
higher for slides with high-arousing visual aids (n = 50; M = 5.08; SD = 1.86) than
slides with low-arousing visual aids (n = 50; M = 3.96; SD = 2.21), t(98) = -2.739, p
< .01. Thus, the valence and arousal manipulation for this study was determined
within a moderate range of arousal ratings (see Figure 4.1). Additionally, there was no
significant difference in prior knowledge about diabetes among the four different
emotional groups, (F(3, 96) = 1.932, p = .130).
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
31
Figure 4.1 Results for the manipulation check in the experiment
RQ1: Multiple-Choice Recognition Test Scores
To examine research questions, two-way ANOVAs were performed to
examine interactions between valence (positive n = 50; negative n = 50) and arousal
(low n = 50; high n = 50). Further, independent samples t-tests were analyzed to
examine significant differences between emotional conditions. Table 4.1 presents
means and standard deviations for all measures among four different emotional
groups. Then, regarding both recognition and cued-recall test scores, the analyses
additionally reported to examine how valence and arousal influence learning
performance for the two different types of learning content, uncontrollable and
controllable risk factors.
Low 3.96
High 5.08
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
32
Table 4.1 Means and Standard Deviations for All Measures
Low-arousing positive (n = 25)
Low-arousing negative (n = 25)
High-arousing positive (n = 25)
High-arousing negative (n = 25)
RQ1 Multiple-choice recognition test scores
T 7.56 (1.90)
8.76 (1.69)
8.28 (2.05)
7.04 (2.23)
U 4.12 (1.30)
4.44 (1.39)
4.64 (1.11)
3.68 (1.38)
C 3.44 (1.08)
4.20 (.96)
3.64 (1.22)
3.36 (1.15)
RQ2 Cued-recall test scores
T 3.08 (1.66)
4.04 (1.02)
3.60 (1.44)
2.76 (1.45)
U 1.44 (.87)
1.80 (.71)
1.40 (1.00)
1.00 (.82)
C 1.64 (1.15)
2.24 (.60)
2.20 (.76)
1.76 (.83)
RQ3 Mental effort scores for the instructions
6.16 (2.67)
7.24 (2.05)
7.00 (1.53)
7.36 (1.52)
RQ4 Mental effort scores for the recognition test
7.36 (1.80)
7.84 (1.14)
8.08 (.91)
7.52 (1.66)
RQ5 Mental effort scores for the cued-recall test
7.08 (1.80)
7.32 (1.89)
7.72 (1.34)
7.44 (1.76)
Notes. T = Total risk factors; U = Uncontrollable factors only; C = Controllable factors only.
Recognition for All Risk Factors
Regarding RQ1, a 2 (valence) × 2 (arousal) ANOVA analysis was performed
on multiple-choice recognition test scores (learning of all risk factors including
uncontrollable and controllable factors). As shown in Figure 4.2, the results revealed a
significant valence × arousal interaction, (F(1, 96) = 9.533, p = .003, partial η2 = .090).
However, significant main effects were not found for valence, (F(1, 96) = .003, p
= .960), and for arousal, (F(1, 96) = 1.601, p = .209).
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
33
Figure 4.2 ANOVA interaction on recognition test scores (all risk factors)
Based on the results for RQ1, independent t-tests analyses (see Table 4.2) were
performed to examine significant differences between emotional groups. The
recognition test scores were significantly higher for low-arousing negative (M = 8.76;
SD = 1.69) than high-arousing negative (M = 7.04; SD = 2.23), (t(44.766) = 3.077, p
= .004). However, no significant difference was found between low-arousing positive
(M = 7.56; SD = 1.90) and high-arousing positive emotions (M = 8.28; SD = 2.05),
(t(48) = -1.289, p = .204) although the mean scores increased with increasing levels of
arousal. At the same time, the recognition test scores were significantly higher for
low-arousing negative than low-arousing positive, (t(48) = -2.363, p = .022), and
higher for high-arousing positive than high-arousing negative emotion, (t(48) = 2.048,
p = .046). Overall, the patterns were similar to the LC4MP’s interaction patterns of
7.56
8.288.76
7.04
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Low-Arousing High-Arousing
Recognition Test Scores (All Risk Factors)
Positive Valence
Negative Valence
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
34
valence and arousal in moderate to high ranges of arousal. Mean comparisons among
the four emotional groups are illustrated in Figure 4.3.
Table 4.2 T-Tests Results on Recognition Test Scores (All Risk Factors)
Compared Variables Mean Difference t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Low-arousing positive High-arousing positive
-.720 -1.289 48 .204
Low-arousing negative High-arousing negative
1.720 3.077 44.766 .004**
Low-arousing positive Low-arousing negative
-1.200 -2.363 48 .022*
High-arousing positive High-arousing negative
1.240 2.048 48 .046*
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.
Figure 4.3 Mean comparisons on recognition test scores (all risk factors)
7.56
8.768.28
4.28
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Low-ArousingPositive
Low-ArousingNegative
High-ArousingPositive
High-ArousingNegative
Recognition Test Scores (All Risk Factors)
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
35
Recognition for Uncontrollable Risk Factors
Additionally, this study examined how the findings for RQ1 differ between
two different types of learning topics, uncontrollable and controllable risk factors.
Regarding learning about uncontrollable risk factors, ANOVA analysis showed
a significant valence × arousal interaction, (F(1, 96) = 6.068, p = .016, partial η2
= .059) (see Figure 4.4). However, no significant main effects were found for valence,
(F(1, 96) = 1.517, p = .221), and for arousal, (F(1, 96) = .213, p = .645).
Figure 4.4 ANOVA interaction on recognition test scores (uncontrollable only)
Independent t-tests analyses (see Table 4.3) showed no significant differences
between low-arousing negative (M = 4.64; SD = 1.11) and high-arousing negative (M
= 3.68; SD = 1.38), (t(48) = 1.945, p = .058), and between low-arousing positive (M =
4.12; SD = 1.30) and high-arousing positive emotions (M = 4.64; SD = 1.11), (t(48) = -
4.12
4.644.44
3.68
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Low-Arousing High-Arousing
Recognition Test Scores (Uncontrollable Risk Factors)
Positive Valence
Negative Valence
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
36
1.518, p = .136). At the same time, the recognition test scores were not also
significantly different between low-arousing negative and low-arousing positive
emotions, (t(48) = -.841, p = .404). However, significantly greater scores were found
for high-arousing positive than high-arousing negative emotion, (t(48) = 2.712, p
= .009). Mean comparisons among the four emotional groups are illustrated in Figure
4.5.
Table 4.3 T-Tests Results on Recognition Test Scores (Uncontrolled Risk Factors)
Compared Variables Mean Difference t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Low-arousing positive High-arousing positive
-.520 -1.518 48 .136
Low-arousing negative High-arousing negative
.760 1.945 48 .058
Low-arousing positive Low-arousing negative
-.320 -.841 48 .404
High-arousing positive High-arousing negative
.960 2.712 48 .009*
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
37
Figure 4.5 Mean comparisons on recognition test scores (uncontrollable only)
Recognition for Controllable Risk Factors
Regarding learning about controllable risk factors, ANOVA analysis indicated
a significant interaction between valence and arousal, (F(1, 96) = 5.515, p = .021,
partial η2 = .054) (see Figure 4.6). However, no significant main effects were found
for valence, (F(1, 96) = 1.175, p = .281), and for arousal, (F(1, 96) = 2.088, p = .152).
4.124.44
4.64
3.68
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Low-ArousingPositive
Low-ArousingNegative
High-ArousingPositive
High-ArousingNegative
Recognition Test Scores (Uncontrollable Risk Factors)
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
38
Figure 4.6 ANOVA interaction on recognition test scores (controllable only)
Independent t-tests analyses (see Table 4.4) indicated that the recognition test
scores for uncontrolled risk factors were significantly higher with low-arousing
negative (M = 4.20; SD = .96) than high-arousing negative emotions (M = 3.36; SD =
1.15), (t(48) = 2.806, p = .007). However, no significant difference between low-
arousing positive (M = 3.44; SD = 1.08) and high-arousing positive emotions (M =
3.64; SD = 1.22) was found, (t(48) = -.613, p = .543). At the same time, the
recognition test scores were significantly higher with low-arousing negative than low-
arousing positive emotions, (t(48) = -2.629, p = .011). However, no significant
difference was found between high-arousing positive and high-arousing negative
emotion, (t(48) = .835, p = .408). Mean comparisons among the four emotional groups
are illustrated in Figure 4.7.
3.443.64
4.2
3.36
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Low-Arousing High-Arousing
Recognition Test Scores (Controllable Risk Factors)
Positive Valence
Negative Valence
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
39
Table 4.4 T-Tests Results on Recognition Test Scores (Controlled Risk Factors)
Compared Variables Mean Difference t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Low-arousing positive High-arousing positive
-.200 -.613 48 .543
Low-arousing negative High-arousing negative
.840 2.806 48 .007**
Low-arousing positive Low-arousing negative
-.760 -2.629 48 .011*
High-arousing positive High-arousing negative
.280 .835 48 .408
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.
Figure 4.7 Mean comparisons on recognition test scores (controllable only)
3.44
4.2
3.643.36
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Low-ArousingPositive
Low-ArousingNegative
High-ArousingPositive
High-ArousingNegative
Recognition Test Scores (Controllable Risk Factors)
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
40
RQ2: Cued Recall Test Scores
Cued-Recall for All Risk Factors
Regarding RQ2, as displayed in Figure 4.8, a significant valence × arousal
interaction was found, (F(1, 96) = 10.159, p = .002, partial η2 = .096). No significant
main effects were found for valence, (F(1, 96) = .045, p = .832), and for arousal, (F(1,
96) = 1.811, p = .182).
Figure 4.8 ANOVA interaction on cued-recall test scores (all risk factors)
Further, independent t-tests analyses (see Table 4.5) indicated that the cued-
recall test scores were significantly higher for low-arousing negative (M = 4.04; SD =
1.02) than high-arousing negative (M = 2.76; SD = 1.45), (t(48) = 3.608, p = .001).
However, no significant difference was found between low-arousing positive (M =
3.08
3.6
4.04
2.76
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Low-Arousing High-Arousing
Cued-Recall Test Scores (All Risk Factors)
Positive Valence
Negative Valence
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
41
3.08; SD = 1.66) and high-arousing positive emotions (M = 3.60; SD = 1.44), (t(48) = -
1.183, p = .242) although the mean scores increased with increasing levels of arousal.
At the same time, the recognition test scores were significantly higher for low-
arousing negative than low-arousing positive, (t(39.910) = -2.468, p = .018), and
higher for high-arousing positive than high-arousing negative emotion, (t(48) = 2.052,
p = .046). Overall, the patterns were consistent with the interaction patterns of valence
and arousal in moderate to high arousal ranges in the LC4MP. Comparisons of the
mean scores are displayed in Figure 4.9.
Table 4.5 T-Tests Results on Cued-Recall Test Scores (All Risk Factors)
Compared Variables Mean Difference t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Low-arousing positive High-arousing positive
-.520 -1.183 48 .242
Low-arousing negative High-arousing negative
1.280 3.608 48 .001**
Low-arousing positive Low-arousing negative
-.960 -2.468 39.910 .018*
High-arousing positive High-arousing negative
.840 2.052 48 .046*
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
42
Figure 4.9 Mean comparisons on cued-recall test scores (all risk factors)
Cued-Recall for Uncontrollable Risk Factors
Additional analyses were conducted to examine how valence and arousal
influence cued-recall test scores for each of uncontrollable and controllable risk
factors.
Regarding uncontrollable risk factors, as shown in Figure 4.10, ANOVA
analysis showed a significant valence × arousal interaction, (F(1, 96) = 4.940, p
= .029, partial η2 = .049) and also a significant main effect for arousal (F(1, 96) =
6.034, p = .016, partial η2 = .059). However, valence did not have a significant main
effect, (F(1, 96) =.014, p = .907).
3.08
4.04
3.6
2.76
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Low-ArousingPositive
Low-ArousingNegative
High-ArousingPositive
High-ArousingNegative
Cued-Recall Test Scores (All Risk Factors)
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
43
Figure 4.10 ANOVA interaction on recognition test scores (uncontrollable only)
Further, independent t-tests analyses (see Table 4.6) found that low-arousing
negative emotion (M = 1.80; SD = .71) led to higher cued-recall test scores than high-
arousing negative emotion (M = 1.00; SD =.82), (t(48) = 3.703, p = .001). However,
no significant difference was found between low-arousing positive (M = 1.44; SD
= .87) and high-arousing positive emotions (M = 2.20; SD =.76), (t(48) = .151, p
= .881). At the same time, the cued-recall test scores were not also significantly
different between low-arousing negative and low-arousing positive emotions, (t(48) =
-1.606, p = .115) and between high-arousing positive and high-arousing negative
emotions, (t(48) = 1.549, p = .128). Comparisons of the mean scores are illustrated in
Figure 4.11.
1.44 1.4
1.8
1
0
1
2
3
Low-Arousing High-Arousing
Cued-Recall Test Scores (Uncontrollable Risk Factors)
Positive Valence
Negative Valence
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
44
Table 4.6 T-Tests Results on Cued-Recall Test Scores (Uncontrolled Risk Factors)
Compared Variables Mean Difference t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Low-arousing positive High-arousing positive
.040 .151 48 .881
Low-arousing negative High-arousing negative
.800 3.703 48 .001**
Low-arousing positive Low-arousing negative
-.360 -1.606 48 .115
High-arousing positive High-arousing negative
.400 1.549 48 .128
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.
Figure 4.11 Mean comparisons on cued-recall test scores (uncontrollable only)
1.44
1.8
1.4
1
0
1
2
3
Low-ArousingPositive
Low-ArousingNegative
High-ArousingPositive
High-ArousingNegative
Cued-Recall Test Scores (Uncontrollable Risk Factors)
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
45
Recognition for Controllable Risk Factors
Regarding controllable risk factors, as displayed in Figure 4.12, ANOVA
analysis revealed there was a significant interaction between valence and arousal,
(F(1, 96) = 9.156, p = .003, partial η2 = .087). However, significant main effects were
not found for valence, (F(1, 96) = .217, p = .643), and for arousal, (F(1, 96) = .054, p
= .816).
Figure 4.12 ANOVA interaction on cued-recall test scores (controllable only)
Additionally, independent t-tests analyses (see Table 4.7) indicated that the
cued-recall test scores for uncontrolled risk factors were significantly higher with low-
arousing negative (M = 2.24; SD = .60) than high-arousing negative emotions (M =
1.76; SD = .83), (t(48) = 2.806, p = .007). However, there was no significant
difference between low-arousing positive (M = 1.64; SD = 1.15) and high-arousing
1.64
2.22.24
1.76
0
1
2
3
Low-Arousing High-Arousing
Cued-Recall Test Scores (Controllable Risk Factors)
Positive Valence
Negative Valence
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
46
positive emotions (M = 2.20; SD = .76), (t(48) = -.613, p = .543), although the mean
scores increased with an increase in arousal levels. At the same time, the cued-recall
test scores were significantly higher with low-arousing negative than low-arousing
positive emotions, (t(48) = -2.629, p = .011). However, there was no significant
difference between high-arousing positive and high-arousing negative emotions, (t(48)
= .835, p = .408). Mean comparisons among the four emotional groups are displayed
in Figure 4.13.
Table 4.7 T-Tests Results on Cued-Recall Test Scores (Controlled Risk Factors)
Compared Variables Mean Difference t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Low-arousing positive High-arousing positive
-.560 -2.028 41.716 .049*
Low-arousing negative High-arousing negative
.480 2.346 48 .023*
Low-arousing positive Low-arousing negative
-.600 -2.315 36.061 .026*
High-arousing positive High-arousing negative
.440 1.950 48 .057
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
47
Figure 4.13 Mean comparisons on cued-recall test scores (controllable only)
RQ3: Mental Effort Scores for the Instructions
Regarding RQ3, the results found no significant interaction effect between
valence and arousal, (F(1, 96) = .811, p = .370), and no main effects for valence, (F(1,
96) = 3.243, p = .075), and for arousal, (F(1, 96) = 1.441, p = .233). Additionally,
independent t-tests analyses (see Table 4.8) revealed no significant differences
between low-arousing positive (M = 6.16; SD = 2.67) and high-arousing positive, (M =
7.00; SD = 1.53), (t(38.173) = 1.365, p = .180), between low-arousing negative (M =
7.24; SD = 2.05) and high-arousing negative (M = 7.36; SD = 1.52), (t(48) = -.235, p
= .815), and between low-arousing positive and low-arousing negative, (t(48) = -
1.604, p = .115), and between high-arousing positive and high-arousing negative
1.64
2.24 2.2
1.76
0
1
2
3
Low-ArousingPositive
Low-ArousingNegative
High-ArousingPositive
High-ArousingNegative
Cued-Recall Test Scores (Controllable Risk Factors)
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
48
emotions, (t(48) = -.834, p = .408). Figure 4.14 displays comparisons of the mean
scores.
Table 4.8 T-Tests Results on Mental Effort Scores for the Instructions
Compared Variables Mean Difference t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Low-arousing positive High-arousing positive
-.840 -1.365 38.173 .180
Low-arousing negative High-arousing negative
-.120 -.235 48 .815
Low-arousing positive Low-arousing negative
-1.080 -1.604 48 .115
High-arousing positive High-arousing negative
-.360 -.834 48 .408
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.
Figure 4.14 Mean comparisons on mental effort scores for the instructions
6.16
7.24 77.36
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Low-ArousingPositive
Low-ArousingNegative
High-ArousingPositive
High-ArousingNegative
Mental Effort Scores for the Instructions
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
49
RQ4: Mental Effort Scores for the Recognition Test
Regarding RQ4, no significant interaction effect between valence and arousal,
(F(1, 96) = 3.325, p = .071), and no main effects for valence, (F(1, 96) = .020, p
= .889), and for arousal, (F(1, 96) = .492, p = .485) were found. In addition,
independent t-tests analyses (see Table 4.9) indicated no significant differences
between low-arousing positive (M = 7.36; SD = 1.80) and high-arousing positive, (M =
8.08; SD = .909), (t(35.498) = -1.785, p = .083), between low-arousing negative (M =
7.84; SD = 1.14) and high-arousing negative (M = 7.52; SD = 1.66), (t(48) = .793, p
= .431), and between low-arousing positive and low-arousing negative, (t(48) = -
1.126, p = .266), and between high-arousing positive and high-arousing negative
emotions, (t(37.193) = 1.478, p = .148). Figure 4.15 displays mean comparisons of the
mental effort scores for the recognition test.
Table 4.9 T-Tests Results on Mental Effort Scores for the Recognition Test
Compared Variables Mean Difference t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Low-arousing positive High-arousing positive
-.720 -1.785 35.498 .083
Low-arousing negative High-arousing negative
.320 .793 48 .431
Low-arousing positive Low-arousing negative
-.480 -1.126 48 .266
High-arousing positive High-arousing negative
.560 1.478 37.193 .148
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
50
Figure 4.15 Mean comparisons on mental effort scores for the recognition test
RQ5: Mental Effort Scores for the Cued-Recall Test
Regarding RQ5, the results found no significant interaction effect between
valence and arousal, (F(1, 96) = .578, p = .449), and no significant main effects for
valence, (F(1, 96) = .003, p = .953), and for arousal, (F(1, 96) = 1.236, p = .269). At
the same time, independent t-tests analyses (see Table 4.10) showed no significant
differences between low-arousing positive (M = 7.08; SD = 1.80) and high-arousing
positive, (M = 7.72; SD = 1.34), (t(48) = -1.426, p = .160), between low-arousing
negative (M = 7.32; SD = 1.89) and high-arousing negative (M = 7.44; SD = 1.76),
(t(48) = -.233, p = .817), and between low-arousing positive and low-arousing
negative, (t(48) = -.460, p = .648), and between high-arousing positive and high-
7.367.84
8.087.52
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Low-ArousingPositive
Low-ArousingNegative
High-ArousingPositive
High-ArousingNegative
Mental Effort Scores for the Recognition Test
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
51
arousing negative emotions, (t(48) = .634, p = .529). Comparisons of the mental effort
scores for the cued-recall test are illustrated in Figure 4.16.
Table 4.10 T-Tests Results on Mental Effort Scores for the Cued-Recall Test
Compared Variables Mean Difference t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Low-arousing positive High-arousing positive
-.640 -1.426 48 .160
Low-arousing negative High-arousing negative
-.120 -.233 48 .817
Low-arousing positive Low-arousing negative
-.240 -.460 48 .648
High-arousing positive High-arousing negative
.280 .634 48 .529
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.
Figure 4.16 Mean comparisons on mental effort scores for the cued-recall test
7.087.32
7.727.44
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Low-ArousingPositive
Low-ArousingNegative
High-ArousingPositive
High-ArousingNegative
Mental Effort Scores for the Cued-Recall Test
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
52
CHAPTER V:
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Based on the results of data analyses reported in the previous chapter, this
chapter described a summary of the study, discussions of the findings to advance
related theories, practical implications, and limitations of the study and
recommendations for future research.
Summary of the Study
The purpose of this dissertation was to investigate the effects of emotional
visual aids on learning performance and mental effort in online health education.
Based on the dimensional theory of emotion (Lang, 2006; Russell, 2003), the
emotional tone of visual aids varied as follows: (a) low-arousing positive, (b) low-
arousing negative, (c) high-arousing positive, and (d) high-arousing negative. An
experiment was conducted to examine the interaction effects between valence and
arousal within moderate ranges of arousal levels for two different types of learning
performance (multiple-choice recognition test scores and cued-recall test scores) and
three different types of mental effort (for the instructions, the recognition test, and the
cued-recall test) in a online health education context utilizing visual presentation slides
consisting of visual aids and on-screen text instruction.
Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVAs and individual samples t-tests. The
results showed that there were significant interaction effects between valence and
arousal on learning performance, both recognition and cued-recall test scores,
supporting the LC4MP’s interaction patterns. However, there were no significant
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
53
effects between valence and arousal on all the three types of mental effort. The
findings were discussed in the next section.
Discussion of the Findings
This study was the first attempt to examine how emotional tone of visual aids,
one of the sources composed in an instructional unit, influences learning from written-
text instruction, which is another visual information source, and mental effort in the
context of online health education. The results of the study fairly support the LC4MP
predictions on valence and arousal interaction patterns in cognitive processing of
learners with multiple information sources.
In regard to learning performance, overall, the effects of valence and arousal
on both multiple-choice recognition and cued-recall test scores followed interaction
patterns shown in higher arousal ranges in the LC4MP prediction. However,
unexpectedly, the valence and arousal interaction occurred in moderate ranges of
arousal levels (i.e., between arousal levels 3.96 and 5.08; see Figure 5.1) which was
lower than in the processing of primary media content only (i.e., between arousal
levels 6 and 7; see Figure 2.1). This interaction occurred because most of the test
scores (i.e., recognition test scores for all risk factors, controllable only, and cued-
recall test scores for all risk factors, uncontrollable, and controllable risk factors) were
highest during moderately low-arousing negative emotion. Only recognition test
scores for uncontrollable risk factors were highest with high-arousing positive, then
followed by low-arousing negative emotion. All the test scores were poorest during
higher arousing negative emotion which was a sign of cognitive overload. Thus,
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
54
overall the findings for the interaction effects of valence and arousal are fairly
consistent with the LC4MP patterns.
Figure 5.1 Resources allocated to the processing of the written-text instruction
Cognitive overload could occur easily with higher arousing negative emotion
because both visual aids and written-text instruction are visual information to be
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
55
processed only through the visual channel of working memory (Baddeley, 1992).
Simultaneous presentations of multiple visual information sources could lead to split
visual attention effects (Cheon, Chung, et al., 2014; Cheon, Crooks, et al., 2014;
Mayer & Moreno, 2002). In other words, because of the limited capacity of the visual
channel (e.g., Baddeley, 1992), resources allocated to processing a task (i.e., visual
aids) cannot be available for the processing of another task (i.e., written-text
instruction) (e.g., Chung & Sparks, 2015; Grigorovici & Constantin, 2004; Kahneman,
1973). Additionally, based on the LC4MP perspective, as resources can be
automatically allocated by emotional tone of media content, visuals with such
emotional tone are more likely to receive greater attention than the written-text
instruction. Thus, fewer resources could be available for the resource allocation to
processing the written-text, when compared with processing the visuals as shown in
Figure 5.1, thus resulting in easier cognitive overload of the written-text processing.
Moreover, the findings of the study showed the greater benefits of using
moderately low-arousing negative emotional visuals for learning performance over
positive emotions. Such negative visuals are thought to make learners concerned about
health and thus increase motivation to learn how to maintain health based on previous
studies (e.g., Pekrun et al., 2009; Pekrun et al., 2007) suggesting that moderate
negative emotion (e.g., stress and anxiety) can motivate learners to achieve better
performance. More importantly, consistent with the LC4MP theoretical explanations,
the greater activation rate of the aversive systems, characterized as negativity bias
(Lang, 2006), led to better learning performance than positive emotions. However, as
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
56
suggested by the LC4MP, highly arousing negative visuals seemed to occupy more
resources to the processing of visual aids, leaving fewer resources available for
learning. Also, higher arousing negative visuals may cause repugnance or discomfort
and thus decrease learners’ attention to the learning content.
Moreover, in all the test scores (regardless of the learning topics,
uncontrollable and controllable risk factors), the results showed no significant
differences between low-arousing and high-arousing positive emotions within
moderate arousal ranges. Several previous studies (e.g., Chung et al., 2015) suggested
positive effects of emotional arousal on learning. However, the findings of the current
study found that arousal may not always be effective for learning. In other words, the
relative benefits of positive emotion over negative emotion may be subjective to its
arousal levels because the activation rate of the appetitive system becomes slower with
increasing levels of arousal (Lang, 2006). Thus, future research may explore to find
optimal levels of arousal to cause the relative benefits of positive emotion (i.e.,
between arousal levels 3 and 4 or lower).
Furthermore, the majority of the LC4MP studies have demonstrated that the
automatic resource allocation can take place in response to emotional tone of media
content (e.g., Lang, 2006). However, successful learning demands learners’ active or
conscious cognitive effort. The findings of this study show that learners’ emotional
experience promoted both automatic and controlled resource allocation for better
learning outcomes (i.e., both recognition and recall test scores). More studies are
required to further understand the relationships among emotion, automatic, and
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
57
controlled resource allocation through employing additional cognitive perception
variables such as cognitive engagement, cognitive attitudes, and motivation to learn.
Additionally, valence and arousal did not significantly influence mental effort
during all the processes, the instructions, recognition test, and recall test. The results of
this study are consistent with previous studies’ findings (Chung et al., 2015; Um et al.,
2012) suggesting that learners’ emotional experience does not reduce or increase
mental effort. To furthur understand the relationships between emotion and mental
effort, future studies may need to explore how valence and arousal influence thee
different types of cognitive load involved in instructional design, which are intrinsic,
germane, and extraneous load (e.g., Antonenko & Niederhauser, 2010; Brünken, Plass,
& Leutner, 2003; Paas et al., 2003). Practical implications were discussed in the
following section.
Practical Implications
The findings of this study provide important practical implications. In online or
computer-mediated health education, visuals such as images and photographs have
often utilized to aid learning. However, even if visual aids may have emotional tone
influencing learning from central learning content, instructional designers have not
considered the possible influence of the emotional tone of the visual aids.
The findings of the study found that learners’ emotional states during learning
influence their learning performance (i.e., recognition and retention test scores) for
written-text instruction regarding online health education. Thus, they suggest to utilize
visual aids to elicit appropriate emotional experience during the learning process.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
58
Specifically, moderately low arousing negative visuals are highly recommended
because they outperformed other emotional tones on both recognition and recall test
scores. However, the elicitation of negative emotion in visuals should be careful
because higher arousing (i.e., moderately high arousing) negative visuals are more
likely to cause a cognitive overload of the visual channel (i.e., split visual attention) to
process the simultaneously presented written-text instruction. Or, such higher arousing
negative visuals may make learners feel repugnance or discomfort and so fail to focus
on learning content.
Additionally, the influence of positive visuals seemed not to be intervened by
different arousal levels; for example, higher arousing positive visuals did not lead to a
cognitive overload of the visual channel. Thus, instructional designers may consider to
utilize positive visuals if they concern the use of visuals that may elicit high-arousing
negative tone.
Further, the findings of the study may be applicable in other mediated learning
contexts utilizing visuals to aid text-based instruction, such as online education, blogs,
and news content.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
This study had several limitations due to the nature of experimental research.
First, the findings of the study might be limited to a specific learning context (i.e.,
learning about risk factors of type 2 diabetes) and so may not be generalizable with
other learning topics in health. Second, participants’ emotional experience in this
study was induced by visual aids, which were not directly from the written-text
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
59
instructional messages. Thus, split attention effects of visual information processing
occurred and less cognitive resources might be available for the processing of the
written-text instruction. To increase resources allocated to the processing during the
negative emotional experience, future studies may design the instructional unit to
directly elicit the emotional tone or use visuals containing learning content. Third, the
visuals used in this study were manipulated within narrow ranges of arousal levels.
For further understanding of the application of the LC4MP in learning environments,
future studies should investigate the influence of emotional valence in multiple levels
or broader ranges of arousal. For example, they are still unclear whether an interaction
of valence and arousal also exists in low ranges of arousal levels as predicted in the
LC4MP (see Figure 2.1) and whether the positive tone of visual aids in higher arousal
ranges would lead to split visual attention interfering with the processing of the
written-text instruction. Fourth, this study only used visual information for both visual
aids and written-text instruction. The modality principle suggests that multimedia
learning can be improved through using two modalities (i.e., audiovisual information)
rather than only one modality (i.e., audio-only or video only) (Mayer & Moreno,
2002). Thus, to minimize the possible visual split attention effects, future studies may
utilize audiovisual information for the instructional unit design. Fifth, the assessments
for performance in this study were retention knowledge tests including multiple-
choice recognition and cued-recall tests. Future studies need to examine the effects of
emotion on deeper learning performance through using essay, transfer, or
comprehension tests. Last, in health education, attitude, intention, and behavior
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
60
changes are also important variables to be observed after the treatment (i.e., emotional
interventions). Thus, to provide more meaningful implications for practitioners, future
studies should need to examine the relationships between motivated cognition and
such perception or behavior change.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
61
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Antonenko, P. D., & Niederhauser, D. S. (2010). The influence of leads on cognitive
load and learning in a hypertext environment. Computers in Human Behavior,
26(2), 140-150.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.
Bartsch, A., & Oliver, M. B. (2011). Making sense of entertainment: On the interplay
of emotion and cognition in entertainment experience. Journal of Media
Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 23(1), 12-17.
Bolls, P. D., Lang, A., & Potter, R. F. (2001). The effects of message valence and
listener arousal on attention, memory, and facial muscular responses to radio
advertisements. Communication Research, 28(5), 627-651.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The Self-Assessment
Manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and
Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49-59.
Bradley, S. D., Angelini, J. R., & Lee, S. (2007). Psychophysiological and memory
effects of negative political ads: Aversive, arousing, and well remembered.
Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 115-127.
Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load
in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53-61.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 50,
191-214.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
62
Chen, Z., Mo, L., Honomichl, R., & Sohn, M.-H. (2010). Analogical symbols: The
role of visual cues in long-term transfer. Metaphor and Symbol, 25(2), 93-113.
Cheon, J., Chung, S., Crooks, S. M., Song, J., & Kim, J. (2014). An Investigation of
the Effects of Different Types of Activities during Pauses in a Segmented
Instructional Animation. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(2),
296-306.
Cheon, J., Crooks, S. M., & Chung, S. (2014). Does segmenting principle counteract
modality principle in instructional animation? British Journal of Educational
Technology, 45(1), 56-64.
Chung, S., & Sparks, J. V. (2015). Motivated processing of peripheral advertising
information in video games. Communication Research. Advance online
publication. doi: 10.1177/0093650214566623
Chung, S., Cheon, J., & Lee, K. (2015). Emotion and multimedia learning: An
investigation of the effects of valence and arousal on different modalities in an
instructional animation. Instructional Science. Advance online publication.
doi: 10.1007/s11251-015-9352-y
Clariana, R. B., & Lee, D. (2001). Recognition and recall study tasks with feedback.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 23-35.
Conway, M. A., Cohen, G., & Stanhope, N. (1992). Very long-term memory of
knowledge acquired at school and university. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6,
467-482.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
63
Cronin, M. W., & Myers, S. L. (1997). The effects of visuals versus no visuals on
learning outcomes from interactive multimedia instruction. Journal of
Computing in Higher Education, 8(2), 46-71.
Dardis, F. E., Schmierbach, M., & Limperos, A. M. (2012). The impact of game
customization and control mechanisms on recall of integral and peripheral
brand placements in videogames. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12(2), 1-
12.
Fassbender, E., Richards, D., Bilgin, A., Thompson, W. F., & Heiden, W. (2012).
VirSchool: The effect of background music and immersive display systems on
memory for facts learned in an educational virtual environment. Computers &
Education, 58(1), 490-500.
Feldman, B. L., & Russell, J. A. (1998). Independence and bipolarity in the structure
of current affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 976-
984.
Fox, Julia R., Park, Byungho, & Lang, Annie. (2007). When available resources
become negative resources: The effects of cognitive overload on memory
sensitivity and criterion bias. Communication Research, 34(3), 277-296.
Gibbons, J. A., Lukowski, A. F., & Walker, W. R. (2005). Exposure increases the
believability of unbelievable news headlines via elaborate cognitive
processing. Media Psychology, 7(3), 273-300.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
64
Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R. H., Hall, N. C., & Ludtke, O. (2007). Between-
and within-domain relations of students' academic emotions. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(4), 715-733.
Grigorovici, D. M., & Constantin, C. D. (2004). Experiencing interactive advertising
beyond rich media: Impacts of ad type and presence on brand effectiveness in
3D gaming immersive virtual environments. Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 5(1), 1-26.
Hamann, S. B., & Squire, L. R. (1995). On the acquisition of new declarative
knowledge in amnesia. Behavioral Neuroscience, 109(6), 1027-1044.
Harskamp, E. G., Mayer, R. E., & Suhre, C. (2007). Does the modality principle for
multimedia learning apply to science classrooms? Learning and Instruction,
17(5), 465-477.
Ivory, J. D., & Kalyanaraman, S. (2007). The effects of technological advancement
and violent content in video games on players’ feelings of presence,
involvement, physiological arousal, and aggression. Journal of
Communication, 57(3), 532-555.
James, L. E., Fogler, K. A., & Tauber, S. K. (2009). Psychology and Aging, 23(3),
657-664.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2004). When redundant on-screen text in
multimedia technical instruction can interfere with learning. Human Factors,
46(3), 567-581.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
65
Kim, D., & Gilman, D. A. (2008). Effects of text, audio, and graphic aids in
multimedia instruction for vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 11(3), 114-126.
Knight, J. B., Ball, B. H., Brewer, G. A., DeWitt, M. R., & Marsh, R. L. (2012).
Testing unsuccessfully: A specification of the underlying mechanisms
supporting its influence on retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4),
731-746.
Lang, A. (2006). Using the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message
processing (LC4MP) to design effective cancer communication messages.
Journal of Communication, 56(S1), S57-S80.
Lang, A. (2009). The limited capacity model of motivated mediated message
processing. In R. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The Sage handbook of mass
media processes and effects (pp. 193-204). New York: Sage.
Lee, M., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Effects of product placement in on-line games on
brand memory: A perspective of the limited-capacity model of attention.
Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 75-90.
Lee, S., & Lang, A. (2009). Discrete emotion and motivation: Relative activation in
the appetitive and aversive motivational systems as a function of anger,
sadness, fear, and joy during televised information campaigns. Media
Psychology, 12(2), 148-170.
Leshner, G., Bolls, P., & Thomas, E. (2009). Scare’em or disgust’em: The effects of
graphic health promotion messages. Health Communication, 24(5), 447-458.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
66
Linnenbrink, E. A. (2007). The role of affect in student learning: A multi-dimensional
approach to considering the interaction of affect, motivation, and engagement.
In P. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 107-124). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Srull, T. K. (1982). Memory and attentional factors in consumer
choice: Concepts and research methods. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 18-
37.
Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2011). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1-23.
Mayer R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41(4),
226-232.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning:
evidence for dual-processing systems in working memory. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312-320.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning.
Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 107-119.
McCannon, M., & Morse, G. E. (1999). Using multimedia visual aids in presentations:
The demise of the transparency has been greatly exaggerated. TechTrends,
43(6), 29-31.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The
role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2),
358-368.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
67
Narli, S. (2011). Is constructivist learning environment really effective on learning and
long-term knowledge retention in mathematics? Example of the infinity
concept. Educational Research and Review, 6(1), 36-49.
Norris, R. L., Bailey, R. L., Bolls, P. D., & Wise, K. R. (2012). Effects of emotional
tone and visual complexity on processing health information in prescription
drug advertising. Health Communication, 27(1), 42-48.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Upheavals of thoughts: The intelligence of emotions.
Cambridge University Press.
Paas, F. G. W. C. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving
skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84(4), 429-434.
Paas, F., & Van Merrienboer, J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer
of geometric problem-solving skills: A cognitive load approach. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86, 122-133.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load
measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational
Psychologist, 38(1), 63-71.
Park, S., & Lim, J. (2007). Promoting positive emotion in multimedia learning using
visual illustrations. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,
16(2), 141-162.
Pekrun, R., & Stephens, E. J. (2010). Achievement emotions: A control-value
approach. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(4), 238-255.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
68
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement
emotions: Testing of a model of their joint relations to academic performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 115-135.
Pekrun, R., Frenzel, A., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2007). The control-value theory of
achievement emotions: An integrative approach to emotions in education. In P.
A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotions in education (pp. 13-36). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring
emotions in students’ learning and performance: The achievement emotions
questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36-48.
Plass, J. L., Heidig, S., Hayward, E. O., Homer, B. D., & Um, E. (2014). Emotional
design in multimedia learning: Effects of shape and color on affect and
learning. Learning and Instruction, 29(1), 128-140.
Potter, R. F. (2009). Double the units: How increasing the number of advertisements
while keeping the overall duration of commercial breaks constant affects radio
listeners. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(4), 584-598.
Rouse, S. V. (2015). A relaiability analysis of Mechanical Turk data. Computes in
Human Behavior, 43(10), 304-307.
Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion.
Psychological Review, 110(1), 145-172.
Schneider, E. F., Lang, A., Shin, M., & Bradley, S. D. (2004). Death with a story:
How story impacts emotional, motivational, and physiological responses to
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
69
first person shooter video games. Human Communication Research, 30(3),
361-375.
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane
cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123-138.
Tangen, J. M., Constable, M. D., Durrant, E., Teeter, C., Beston, B. R., & Kim, J. A.
(2011). The role of interest and images in slideware presentations. Computers
& Education, 56(3), 865-872.
Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting
with Computers, 13(2), 127-145.
Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., Schnyder, I., & Ludtke, O. (2009). Between-teacher
differences in homework assignments and the development of students'
homework effort, homework emotions, and achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101(1), 176-189.
Um, E., Plass, J. L., Hayward, E. O., & Homer, B. D. (2012). Emotion design in
multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 485-498.
Unsworth, N. & Engle, R. W. (2007). The nature of individual difference in working
memory capacity: Active maintenance in primary memory and controlled
search from secondary memory. Psychological Review, 114(1), 104-132.
Wang, Z., & Lang, A. (2012). Reconceptualizing excitation transfer as motivational
activation changes and a test of the television program context effects. Media
Psychology, 15(1), 68-92.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
70
Wolfson, S., & Case, G. (2000). The effects of sound and color on responses to a
computer game. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 183-192.
Yegiyan, N. S., & Lang, A. (2010). Processing central and peripheral detail: How
content arousal and emotional tone influence encoding. Media Psychology,
13(1), 77-99.
Yue, C. L., Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, E. L. (2015). Partial testing can potentiate
learning of tested and untested material from multimedia lessons. Journal of
Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:
10.1037/edu0000031
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
71
APPENDIX A
IRB APPROVAL LETTER
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
72
APPENDIX B
PRETEST QUESTIONNAIRE
Title of Study: Emotion and Health-Related Images
This is an academic survey to know how students feel about various emotional visual materials related to diabetes. After a few demographic questions, your task is to rate your emotional feelings about each of 48 different visual learning materials. This study has minimal risks and requires only survey responses for the research. For questions or concerns about this study, you may contact the primary investigator, Dr. Jongpil Cheon (jongpil.cheon@ttu.edu or 806-742-1997) or Sungwon Chung (sungwon.chung@ttu.edu or 806-742-1998). This study will take about 10-15 minutes to complete. Your participation is voluntary and so you may stop and quit answering questions at any time you want by closing your web browser. You will be compensated $1.00 for your time after your submission is completed and verified (typically within one week). At the end of the survey, you will receive a code to paste into the survey code box, to receive credit for taking this study. To participate in this study, you should meet the follow criteria:
• are currently college students and residing in the United States. When you are ready to begin, please click "Next" button now. Screening Question: This is a screening question to determine eligibility for this study. Are you current undergraduate students and residing in the United States?
(1) Yes (2) No
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
73
Survey Please tell us about yourself. 1. What is your gender?
(1) Male (2) Female
2. What is your age? _______________
3. What is your academic classification?
(1) Freshman (2) Sophomore (3) Junior (4) Senior
4. What is your major? ____________
Now, you are going to look at visual learning materials which consist of a picture and text content related to causes of diabetes. Your task is just to rate your emotional feelings, on 3 scales, how you felt while viewing each of 48 different materials. For example, you will be asked to rate (1) How aroused (= intensity of your emotional feelings), (2) How positive, and (3) How negative you felt from the visual material. Additionally, you will be asked to rate how you think about the appropriateness of each picture to the given text. If you are ready, please click the "Next" button.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each of 48 Presentation Slides
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
74
Self-Report of Emotional Responses (Self-Assessment Mannequin (SAM)) 7. Please rate how AROUSED (= INTENSITY of emotional feelings) you felt about
the presentation slides you just saw.
Extremely calm Extremely aroused
8. Please rate how POSITIVE you felt about the presentation slides you just saw.
Not at all positive, happy, or pleased Extremely positive, happy, or pleased
9. Please rate how NEGATIVE you felt about the presentation slides you just saw.
Not at all negative, unhappy, or annoyed Extremely negative, unhappy, or annoyed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
75
APPENDIX C
RESULTS OF THE PRETEST
A pretest was conducted to choose appropriate 24 visuals among prepared 48
visuals through two phases. First, means for positive valence, negative valence, and
arousal ratings for each visual were compared across the 48 visuals. Then,
independent t-test analyses were computed to confirm significant differences between
emotionally categorized visuals in each of total six learning topics.
The first table shows the results for mean comparisons. Next, the second table
presents independent t-tests results between selected visuals in each emotional
category. The results showed that the valence and arousal manipulation were
successful.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
76
Learning Topic 1: Ethnicity
Eight Different Visuals #1
P = 3.86 N = 3.79 A = 2.83
#2
P = 3.48 N = 3.66 A = 3.21
#3
P = 2.00 N = 5.07 A = 4.31
#4
P = 2.28 N = 5.21 A = 3.86
#5
P = 3.31 N = 3.66 A = 3.07
#6
P = 3.45 N = 3.03 A = 3.21
#7
P = 3.03 N = 4.52 A = 3.45
#8
P = 1.86 N = 5.14 A = 3.72
Notes. P = Positive valence ratings; N = Negative valence ratings; A = Arousal ratings.
Valence Positive Negative
Arousal
High
#6
#3
Low
#1
#7
Independent t-test results for manipulation check:
• On positive ratings, positive visuals (M = 3.66; SD = 1.86) were rated greater than negative visuals (M = 2.52; SD = 1.68), t(28) = 4.635, p < .001.
• On negative ratings, negative visuals (M = 4.79; SD = 2.28) were rated greater than positive visuals (M = 3.41; SD = 1.95), t(28) = -4.255, p < .001.
• On arousal ratings, arousing high-arousing visuals (M = 3.76; SD = 1.68) were rated greater than low-arousing visuals (M = 3.14; SD = 2.10), t(28) = -2.400, p < .05.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
77
Learning Topic 2: Gestational Diabetes
Eight Different Visuals #9
P = 3.34 N = 3.14 A = 3.24
#10
P = 4.07 N = 3.00 A = 3.52
#11
P = 2.03 N = 5.48 A = 4.59
#12
P = 2.00 N = 5.66 A = 4.55
#13
P = 3.62 N = 2.90 A = 3.03
#14
P = 3.93 N = 2.86 A = 3.07
#15
P = 1.66 N = 5.72 A = 4.07
#16
P = 1.83 N = 4.79 A = 4.38
Notes. P = Positive valence ratings; N = Negative valence ratings; A = Arousal ratings.
Valence Positive Negative
Arousal
High
#10
#11
Low
#13
#15
Independent t-test results for manipulation check:
• On positive ratings, positive visuals (M = 3.85; SD = 2.44) were rated greater than negative visuals (M = 1.85; SD = 1.48), t(28) = 5.097, p < .001.
• On negative ratings, negative visuals (M = 5.60; SD = 1.76) were rated greater than positive visuals (M = 2.95; SD = 2.00), t(28) = -7.148, p < .001.
• On arousal ratings, arousing high-arousing visuals (M = 4.05; SD = 1.98) were rated greater than low-arousing visuals (M = 3.55; SD = 1.85), t(28) = -2.239, p < .05.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
78
Learning Topic 3: Lower Birth Weight
Eight Different Visuals #17
P = 3.90 N = 2.97 A = 3.34
#18
P = 3.83 N = 3.24 A = 3.62
#19
P = 1.90 N = 6.76 A = 5.59
#20
P = 1.66 N = 7.00 A = 5.93
#21
P = 3.24 N = 3.55 A = 3.76
#22
P = 3.38 N = 3.17 A = 3.17
#23
P = 2.21 N = 5.24 A = 5.03
#24
P = 2.28 N = 5.24 A = 4.90
Notes. P = Positive valence ratings; N = Negative valence ratings; A = Arousal ratings.
Valence Positive Negative
Arousal
High
#18
#20
Low
#22
#24
Independent t-test results for manipulation check:
• On positive ratings, positive visuals (M = 3.60; SD = 2.33) were rated greater than negative visuals (M = 1.97; SD = 1.54), t(28) = 5.094, p < .001.
• On negative ratings, negative visuals (M = 6.10; SD = 1.73) were rated greater than positive visuals (M = 3.21; SD = 2.16), t(28) = -7.810, p < .001.
• On arousal ratings, arousing high-arousing visuals (M = 4.78; SD = 2.06) were rated greater than low-arousing visuals (M = 4.04; SD = 2.15), t(28) = -2.594, p < .05.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
79
Learning Topic 4: Medication
Eight Different Visuals #25
P = 3.14 N = 3.14 A = 2.90
#26
P = 3.69 N = 2.59 A = 3.00
#27
P = 1.93 N = 5.76 A = 4.83
#28
P = 1.93 N = 5.41 A = 4.59
#29
P = 3.76 N = 2.79 A = 2.55
#30
P = 3.79 N = 2.55 A = 3.21
#31
P = 3.17 N = 2.90 A = 2.72
#32
P = 2.45 N = 4.07 A = 4.00
Notes. P = Positive valence ratings; N = Negative valence ratings; A = Arousal ratings.
Valence Positive Negative
Arousal
High
#30
#27
Low
#31
#32
Independent t-test results for manipulation check:
• On positive ratings, positive visuals (M = 3.48; SD = 2.12) were rated greater than negative visuals (M = 2.19; SD = 1.59), t(28) = 4.113, p < .001.
• On negative ratings, negative visuals (M = 4.91; SD = 1.85) were rated greater than positive visuals (M = 2.72; SD = 1.94), t(28) = -6.142, p < .001.
• On arousal ratings, arousing high-arousing visuals (M = 4.02; SD = 1.87) were rated greater than low-arousing visuals (M = 3.36; SD = 2.03), t(28) = -2.896, p < .01.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
80
Learning Topic 5: Drink Habits
Eight Different Visuals #33
P = 4.14 N = 2.34 A = 3.34
#34
P = 4.34 N = 2.55 A = 2.83
#35
P = 2.00 N = 5.66 A = 4.28
#36
P = 1.69 N = 6.03 A = 5.45
#37
P = 3.66 N = 2.62 A = 2.90
#38
P = 3.69 N = 3.00 A = 3.14
#39
P = 2.52 N = 4.07 A = 3.62
#40
P = 2.45 N = 3.90 A = 3.45
Notes. P = Positive valence ratings; N = Negative valence ratings; A = Arousal ratings.
Valence Positive Negative
Arousal
High
#33
#36
Low
#37
#40
Independent t-test results for manipulation check:
• On positive ratings, positive visuals (M = 3.90; SD = 2.30) were rated greater than negative visuals (M = 2.07; SD = 1.69), t(28) = 4.853, p < .001.
• On negative ratings, negative visuals (M = 4.97; SD = 1.90) were rated greater than positive visuals (M = 2.48; SD = 1.96), t(28) = -7.174, p < .001.
• On arousal ratings, arousing high-arousing visuals (M = 4.40; SD = 2.09) were rated greater than low-arousing visuals (M = 3.17; SD = 1.89), t(28) = -4.649, p < .001.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
81
Learning Topic 6: Smoking Habits
Eight Different Visuals #41
P = 5.28 N = 2.83 A = 3.79
#42
P = 5.24 N = 2.69 A = 3.28
#43
P = 2.34 N = 5.00 A = 4.28
#44
P = 2.31 N = 5.03 A = 4.45
#45
P = 3.93 N = 3.14 A = 3.45
#46
P = 4.07 N = 3.07 A = 3.38
#47
P = 2.31 N = 4.79 A = 4.00
#48
P = 2.72 N = 4.17 A = 3.59
Notes. P = Positive valence ratings; N = Negative valence ratings; A = Arousal ratings.
Valence Positive Negative
Arousal
High
#41
#44
Low
#46
#48
Independent t-test results for manipulation check:
• On positive ratings, positive visuals (M = 4.67; SD = 2.28) were rated greater than negative visuals (M = 2.52; SD = 2.05), t(28) = 5.255, p < .001.
• On negative ratings, negative visuals (M = 4.60; SD = 2.10) were rated greater than positive visuals (M = 2.95; SD = 2.18), t(28) = -4.889, p < .001.
• On arousal ratings, arousing high-arousing visuals (M = 4.12; SD = 2.06) were rated greater than low-arousing visuals (M = 3.48; SD = 2.14), t(28) = -2.696, p < .05.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
82
APPENDIX D
SCREENSHOTS OF AMAZON MTURK
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
83
APPENDIX E
ACTUAL QUESTIONNIARE
The purpose of the study
This is an academic survey to know how students process various emotional visual contents related to health. After a few demographic questions, your task is to learn from the visual contents and then answer related questions. This study has minimal risks and requires only survey responses for the research. For questions or concerns about this study, you may contact the primary investigator, Dr. Jongpil Cheon (jongpil.cheon@ttu.edu) or Sunwon Chung (sungwon.chung@ttu.edu). This study will take about 10-15 minutes to complete. Your participation is voluntary and so you may stop and quit answering questions at any time you want by closing your web browser. You will be compensated $1.00 for your time after your submission is completed and verified (typically within one week). At the end of the survey, you will receive a code to paste into the survey code box, to receive credit for taking this survey. To participate in this study, you should meet the follow criteria:
• are currently undergraduate students and residing in the United States. When you are ready to begin, please click “Next” button now. Screening Question: This is a screening question to determine eligibility for this study. Are you current undergraduate students and residing in the United States?
(3) Yes (4) No
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
84
Survey Please tell us about yourself. 5. What is your gender?
(3) Male (4) Female
6. What is your age? _______________
7. What is your academic classification?
(5) Freshman (6) Sophomore (7) Junior (8) Senior
8. What is your major? ____________
Prior Knowledge Test 9. Please place a check mark next to the items that apply to you.
Statements Very little Very much
(1) Please indicate how much knowledge you have about the function and role of insulin in diabetes.
(2) Please indicate how much knowledge you have about the differences between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
(3) Please indicate how much knowledge you have about major causes of type 2 diabetes.
(4) Please indicate how much knowledge you have about risk factors of type 2 diabetes.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
85
Learning Content: Introduction In the US, about 25.8 million people have been diagnosed by diabetes. Diabetes is the 7th leading cause of death and may lead to serious complications such as heart disease, stroke, vision, loss, kidney failure, and amputations. There are two types of diabetes: type 1 and type 2. Generally, people with diabetes either have a total lack of insulin (type 1 diabetes) or have too little insulin or cannot use insulin effectively (type 2 diabetes). Especially, type 2 diabetes accounts of 0 to 95% of all cases of diabetes. Now, you will learn from 6 presentation slides describing major risk factors of type 2 diabetes. You will be given 30 seconds for each slide, and will be automatically directed to the next slide. (So, total 3 minutes for all 6 slides). If you are ready, please click the “Next” button.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
86
Now, you will learn from 6 presentation slides describing major risk factors of type 2 diabetes. You will be given 30 seconds for each slide, and will be automatically directed to the next slide. (So, total 3 minutes for all 6 slides). The slides do not have audio. SO, you don’t need headsets. If you are ready, please click the “Next” button.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six continuous visual displays are presented in a random order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
87
Self-Report of Emotional Experience during the Instructions 10. Please rate how AROUSED (= INTENSITY of emotional feelings) you felt about
the presentation slides you just saw.
Extremely calm Extremely aroused
11. Please rate how POSITIVE you felt about the presentation slides you just saw.
Not at all positive, happy, or pleased Extremely positive, happy, or pleased
12. Please rate how NEGATIVE you felt about the presentation slides you just saw.
Not at all negative, unhappy, or annoyed Extremely negative, unhappy, or annoyed
Mental Effort for the Instruction 13. Please indicate how much mental effort you invested in learning from the
presentation slides.
Extremely low Extremely high
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
88
Recall Test
Please list the names of all the risk factors you just learned in the lesson in the appropriate groups (uncontrollable risk factors / controllable risk factors).
Uncontrollable Risk Factors Controllable Risk Factors
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
Mental Effort for the Recall Test 14. Please indicate how much mental effort you invested in this test.
Extremely low Extremely high
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
89
Recognition Test Last, you will have presented with 12 multiple-choice questions about the lesson. Based on the lesson you just studied, please respond to the following questions by choosing the best answer for each question. * answer mark Uncontrollable Risk Factors: (1) Ethnicity:
Compared to non-Hispanic Whites, the risk of diagnosed diabetes is 18% higher among Asian, 66% higher among Hispanics/Latinos, and 77% higher among non-Hispanic Blacks.
Q1. What racial and ethnic groups are most affected by type 2 diabetes?
(a) White/Caucasian (b) Asian American (c) Black or African American* (d) Hispanic or Latino
Q2. What racial and ethnic groups are LEAST affected by type 2 diabetes?
(a) White/Caucasian* (b) Asian American (c) Black or African American (d) Hispanic or Latino
(2) Gestational Diabetes:
Gestational diabetes occurs in 2 to 10% of pregnancies. Women who have had gestational diabetes have a 35 to 60% chance of developing diabetes, in the next 10 to 20 years.
Q3. What percentage of pregnancies have gestational diabetes?
(a) Less than 2% (b) 2-10%* (c) 10-15% (d) 15-20%
Q4. What percentage of women with gestational diabetes are diagnosed with type
2 diabetes following pregnancy? (a) 2-10% (b) 10-35% (c) 35-60%* (d) More than 60%
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
90
(3) Lower Birth Weight: People who weighed less than 5.5 pounds (2.5 kg) at birth are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes later in life. The risk of diabetes in old age was five-fold among those born small.
Q5. What birth weight is more likely to develop type 2 diabetes later in life?
(a) Less than 5.5 pounds* (b) 5.5 to 7.5 pounds (c) 7.5 to 9 pounds (d) More than 9 pounds
Q6. How much higher is the diabetes risk caused by lower birth weight, when compared to those with normal birth weight?
(a) Two-fold (b) Three-fold (c) Four-fold (d) Five-fold*
Controllable Risk Factors: (1) Medications:
Some medications (e.g., depression and stain drugs) can dramatically increase your risk. Talk to your doctor about finding an alternative medication for your condition that doesn’t have this negative side effect.
Q7. Which medication can increase the diabetes risk?
(a) Metformin (b) Stains* (c) Cold/flue medications (d) Insulin-releasing drugs
Q8. Which medication is associated with an increased risk of developing diabetes?
(a) Anti-hyperglycemic (b) Metformin (c) Anti-depressant* (d) Blood-sugar lowering drugs
(2) Drinking habits: Heavy alcohol use can permanently damage the pancreas and impair its ability to secrete insulin and regulate blood sugar levels. Limit alcohol intake to no more than 1 drink per day for women, and no more than 2 drinks per day for men.
Texas Tech University, Sungwon Chung, August 2015
91
Q9. Which organ can be permanently damaged directly by heavy alcohol, so causing an increased risk of developing diabetes?
(a) Gallbladder (b) Pancreas* (c) Intestine (d) Rectum
Q10. Which statement is true about the relationship between alcohol and diabetes?
(a) Two servings of alcohol per day are risky for women* (b) One serving of alcohol per day is risky for men (c) Two servings of alcohol per day are risky for men (d) The effect of alcohol on developing diabetes does not differ across gender
(3) Smoking habits:
Smokers are 50 to 90% more likely to develop diabetes than nonsmokers. Smoking can harm the pancreas, increase blood sugar levels, impair your body’s ability to use insulin, and cause other health problems.
Q11. Compared to non-smokers, what percentage of smokers are more likely to develop diabetes?
(a) 5-10% (b) 10-30% (c) 30-50% (d) 50–90%*
Q12. Among these, what does smoking damage?
(a) Insulin (b) Blood sugar (c) Pancreas (d) All of the above*
Mental Effort for the Retention Test 15. Please indicate how much mental effort you invested in this test.
Extremely low Extremely high
Thank you for your participation in this study!
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9