All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.

Seeing the Big Picture: Multitasking and Memory for the Ad
Unformatted Document Text:  orientations. Brand-Scene Matching. A 2 (thinking orientation: analytic vs. holistic) x 2 (task: single vs. two tasks) ANOVA performed on the number of correct brand-scene matching revealed a main effect of secondary task F(1, 46) = 4.12, p < .05). As would be predicted by literature that looks at detrimental main effects of additive tasks, participants correctly identified the commercial scene that corresponded with the brand when no secondary task was required than when they were engaged in the secondary task (M-single = 3.82 vs. M-two tasks = 2.64). As expected, this main effect of secondary task was qualified for a two-way interaction F(1, 46) = 5.32, p = .03). Planned comparisons revealed that analytic thinkers made greater number of correct brand-scene matches when they had only one task- to watch the ads- than when they had a secondary task (M-single = 4.38 vs. M-two tasks = 2.14), t(25) = 3.16, p = .002). This is similar to what is typically thought to occur with multitasking, in that a detriment is found for memory or performance of the primary task. However, holistic thinkers did not differ number of correct brand-scene matches with the engagement in secondary task (M-single = 3.0 vs. M-two tasks = 3.14), t(21) = .092, p > .85). Brand Name Recognition. There were no significant differences between groups on brand name recognition however, means indicated a pattern by which analytic processers performed better when only given one task versus two tasks. The findings also showed that analytic processors performed better on recognition on the recognition task overall compared to holistic processers. Additionally, trait holistic processing was positively correlated with increased self- reported enjoyment of multitasking in general (r= .3117). Seeing the Big Picture: Submitted to AEJMC 2011 12

Authors: Duff, Brittany., Sar, Sela., Oh, Sangdo., Lutchyn, Yulia. and Chinchanachokchai, Sydney.
first   previous   Page 12 of 32   next   last

background image
Brand-Scene Matching. A 2 (thinking orientation: analytic vs. holistic) x 2 (task: single 
vs. two tasks) ANOVA performed on the number of correct brand-scene matching revealed a 
main effect of secondary task F(1, 46) = 4.12, p < .05). As would be predicted by literature that 
looks at detrimental main effects of additive tasks, participants correctly identified the 
commercial scene that corresponded with the brand when no secondary task was required than 
when they were engaged in the secondary task (M-single = 3.82 vs. M-two tasks = 2.64). As 
expected, this main effect of secondary task was qualified for a two-way interaction F(1, 46) = 
5.32, p = .03). Planned comparisons revealed that analytic thinkers made greater number of 
correct brand-scene matches when they had only one task- to watch the ads- than when they had 
a secondary task (M-single = 4.38 vs. M-two tasks = 2.14), t(25) = 3.16, p = .002). This is 
similar to what is typically thought to occur with multitasking, in that a detriment is found for 
memory or performance of the primary task. However, holistic thinkers did not differ number of 
correct brand-scene matches with the engagement in secondary task (M-single = 3.0 vs. M-two 
tasks = 3.14), t(21) = .092, p > .85).  
Brand Name Recognition.  There were no significant differences between groups on 
brand name recognition however, means indicated a pattern by which analytic processers 
performed better when only given one task versus two tasks.  The findings also showed that 
analytic processors performed better on recognition on the recognition task overall compared to 
holistic processers. 
Additionally, trait holistic processing was positively correlated with increased self-
reported enjoyment of multitasking in general (r= .3117).
Seeing the Big Picture:  Submitted to AEJMC 2011

Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 12 of 32   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.