Citation

Lang A, Potter RF, Bolls PD. Media Psychol. 1999; 1(2): 145-163.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1999, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1207/s1532785xmep0102_4

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Two experiments tested the hypothesis that visual encoding of television messages is a relatively automatic process, whereas verbal encoding is a relatively controlled process. Subjects viewed 30 messages crossed on Production Pacing (slow, medium, fast) and Arousing Content (calming, arousing). It was argued that as pacing and arousal increased, the resources required to process the messages would increase, which would interfere with the controlled process of verbal encoding but not with the automatic process of visual encoding. As expected, visual recognition was not affected by the increased resource requirements, but verbal recognition declined.
Two experiments tested the hypothesis that visual encoding of television messages is a relatively automatic process, whereas verbal encoding is a relatively controlled process. Subjects viewed 30 messages crossed on Production Pacing (slow, medium, fast) and Arousing Content (calming, arousing). It was argued that as pacing and arousal increased, the resources required to process the messages would increase, which would interfere with the controlled process of verbal encoding but not with the automatic process of visual encoding. As expected, visual recognition was not affected by the increased resource requirements, but verbal recognition declined.