1. Smartphone recall: Understanding the need for new research Kenny Smith CIS 602 11.03.09

2. Abstract

• Researchers have long studied and debated the efficiency of news recall in print, television, radio and online mediums. While no true consensus has been reached on the question of superior recognition and recall, another medium has emerged. The rapid increase of smartphone use as an online tool, and predictions of market penetration to the point where smartphones may be the dominant tool for web access within the next few years, justifies an examination of recall on mobile phones. This paper establishes the foundation for future work on iPhone recall as measured against more traditional forms of news media. Smartphone trends are examined, recall is considered and previous research is presented which will ultimately help in the creation of a future experiment in an attempt to determine where a smartphone user fits into the news recall spectrum.

3. Smartphone growth

• 18.9 percent of mobile phone consumers use smartphones

• 49.2 percent of survey respondents look to enter the smartphone market within two years

• -- Nielsen

4.

5. Mobile Internet

• 42 million use smartphones to access the Internet

• Projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 19 percent through 2012

• -- Nielsen

6. Gains on traditional mobile phones

• New smartphone sales reach 28 percent of overall purchases

• 47 percent increase in the categorys share since 2008

• -- NPD Group

7.

8. Predictions on the future

• Pew surveyed 1,196 Internet activists, leaders and creators about the effect of the Internet on social, political, and economic life in the near future.

9. Predictions on the future

• Prediction: mobile devices will be the worlds primary connection tool to the Internet by 2020.

• --Pew

10. iPhone

• 6.4 million in the U.S. (April 2009)

• Up from 2.1 million (spring of 2008)

• --Nielsen

11. iPhone

• Age diverse

• 55+ approximately equal to 13-24

• -- Nielsen

12. Recall

• The extent to which readers correctly recollect information from the source.

• Determined by retrieval of information as originally encoded in the memory.

• Different models of message encoding (Hastie & Park, 1986).

13. Recall

• When information is presented in a way analogous to knowledge representation, people are more likely to retain the information and show a better capability to recall it at a later time (Paivio, 1979).

14. Recall

• Different presentation formats may well affect the way information is encoded and subsequent retrieved (Umanath & Scamell, 1988).

15. Factors that influence recall

16. Chunking

• A structural element that can combine primacy and recency (Petty et al., 2001).

• Information clearly blocked or grouped into segments allowing readers to distinguish between sets of information.

17. Other factors influencing recall

• News frames (Valkenburg, Semetko & De Vreese, 1999)

• Simple story structure (Mandler & Johnson, 1977)

18. Other factors influencing recall

• Proximity, and perhaps social desirability, is an important key to recall (Donnelly, 2005)

• Time of day that news was consumed and the medium used for recall (Furnham and Gunter, 2006)

19. Other factors influencing recall

• Supplementing 40-50 percent of verbal information with related visuals helps television recall (Van Der Molen and Klijn, 2004)

• Visual imagery through photographs or verbal imagery through language (David and Kang, 1998)

20. Other factors influencing recall

• Television screen size: Very large, average and very small (Kelley, 2007).

21. Internet

• Not limited by space or time, various structural modalities.

• Structural and modal effects of online news sites (Eveland et al., 2004; Eveland, Seo, & Marton, 2004a; Tewksbury & Althaus, 2000).

22. Internet

• The differing structures of The New York Times and The Times on the web impacted recall (Tewsbury and Althaus, 2000).

23. Internet

• A linear print-like design produced a higher level of factual knowledge; Participants in the more user-dependent hypertext structure were more able to convey a denser level of understanding (Eveland, Cortese, Park, and Dunwoody, 2004).

24. Learning print compared to Internet

• The evidence generally supports the argument that the web is an inferior tool for learning media (Eveland and Dunwoody, 2001; Sundar, Narayan, Obregon, and Uppal, 1998; Tewksbury and Althaus, 2000).

25. Advertising recall on mobile phones

• Nasco and Bruner (2007) examined text, audio and pictures, finding that modality impacts perceptions toward products and recall of content.

26. Seeking a definitive answer

• DeFleur, Davenport, Cronin and DeFleur (1992) controlled against contextual interference.

• Accounted for prior knowledge, proximity and importance. Tested recall by recitation and a multiple choice test.

27. Defleur et al

• The newspaper presentations were remembered best, followed by the computer screen, then television and, finally, radio.

28. Implications, reasons for study

• Theoretical Pragmatic

• Marketing End user

29. Smartphone recall: Understanding the need for new research Kenny Smith CIS 602 11.03.09