Multitasking and Persuasion: The Role of Structural Interference

REFERENCES

• Armstrong, G. B., & Chung, L. (2000). Background television and reading memory in context: Assessing TV interference and facilitate context effects on encoding versus retrieval processes. Communication Research, 27, 327–352. doi:10.1177/009365000027003003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong, G. B., & Greenberg, B. S. (1990). Background television as an inhibitor of cognitive processing. Human Communication Research, 16, 355–386. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1990.tb00215.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong, G. B., & Sopory, P. (1997). Effects of background television on phonological and visuo-spatial working memory. Communication Research, 24, 459–480. doi:10.1177/009365097024005001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bardhi, F., Rohm, A. J., & Sultan, F. (2010). Tuning in and tuning out: Media multitasking among young consumers. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 9, 316–332. doi:10.1002/cb.320
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolls, P. D., & Muehling, D. D. (2007). The effects of dual-task processing on consumers' responses to high- and low-imagery radio advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 35–47. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367360403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education, 54, 927–931. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brock, T. C. (1967). Communication discrepancy and intent to persuade as determinants of counterargument production. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 296–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buller, D. B. (1986). Distraction during persuasive communication: A meta-analytic review. Communication Monographs, 53, 91–114. doi:10.1080/03637758609376130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foehr, U. G. (2006). Media multitasking among American youth: Prevalence, predictors, and pairings. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/7592.cfm
   Google Scholar
• Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2003). The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15, 46–64. doi:10.1007/BF02940852
   Google Scholar
• Holmes, M. E., Papper, R. A., Popovich, M. N., & Bloxham, M. (2006). Engaging the ad-supported media: A Middletown Media Studies whitepaper. Muncie, IN: Ball State University Center for Media Design. Retrieved from https://www.bsu.edu/webapps2/cmdreports/product_select.asp?product_id=7
   Google Scholar
• Jeong, S.-H., & Fishbein, M. (2007). Predictors of multitasking with media: Media factors and audience factors. Media Psychology, 10, 364–384. doi:10.1080/15213260701532948
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeong, S.-H., & Hwang, Y. (2012). Does multitasking increase or decrease persuasion? Effects of multitasking on comprehension and counterarguing. Journal of Communication, 62, 571–587. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01659.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeong, S.-H., Hwang, Y., & Fishbein, M. (2010). Effects of exposure to sexual content in the media on adolescent sexual behaviors: The moderating role of multitasking with media. Media Psychology, 13, 222–242. doi:10.1080/15213269.2010.502872
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657–690. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.657
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keating, J. P., & Brock, T. C. (1974). Acceptance of persuasion and the inhibition of counterargumentation under various distraction tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 301–309. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(74)90027-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang, A. (1995). Defining audio/video redundancy from a limited-capacity information processing perspective. Communication Research, 22, 86–115. doi:10.1177/009365095022001004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50, 46–70. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.xb
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 136–314). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Niederdeppe, J., Shapiro, M. A., & Porticella, N. (2011). Attributions of responsibility for obesity: Narrative communication reduces reactive counterarguing among liberals. Human Communication Research, 37, 295–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Papper, R. A., Holmes, M. E., & Popovich, M. N. (2004). Middletown media studies: Media multitasking and how much people really use the media. The International Digital Media and Arts Association Journal, 1(1), 9–50.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., Wells, G. L., & Brock, T. C. (1976). Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding to propaganda: Thought disruption versus effort justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 874–884. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.5.874
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pilotta, J. J., & Schultz, D. (2005). Simultaneous media experience and synesthesia. Journal of Advertising Research, 45(1), 19–26. doi:10.1017/S0021849905050087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pool, M. M., Koolstra, C. M., & van der Voort, T. H. A. (2003). The impact of background radio and television on high school students' homework performance. Journal of Communication, 53, 74–87. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb03006.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pool, M. M., van der Voort, T. H. A., Beentjes, J. W. J., & Koolstra, C. M. (2000). Background television as an inhibitor of performance on easy and difficult homework assignments. Communication Research, 27, 293–326. doi:10.1177/009365000027003002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shavitt, S., & Brock, T. (1986). Self-relevant responses in commercial persuasion: Field and experimental tests. In K. Sentis & J. Olson (Eds.), Advertising and consumer psychology (pp. 149–171). New York, NY: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Shavitt, S., Swan, S., Lowrey, T. M., & Wanke, M. (1994). The interaction of endorser attractiveness and involvement in persuasion depends on the goal that guides message processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3, 137–162.
   Google Scholar
• Srivastava, J. (2013). Media multitasking performance: Role of message relevance and formatting cues in online environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 888–895. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voorveld, H. (2011). Media multitasking and the effectiveness of combining online and radio advertising. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2200–2206. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.06.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Z., David, P., Srivastava, J., Powers, S., Brady, C., D'Angelo, J., & Moreland, J. (2012). Behavioral performance and visual attention in communication multitasking: A comparison between instant messaging and online voice chat. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 968–975. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickens, C. D. (1991). Processing resources and attention. In D. L. Damos (Ed.), Multiple task performance (pp. 3–34). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Wickens, C. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 159–177. doi:10.1080/14639220210123806
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, W., Jeong, S.-H., & Fishbein, M. (2010). Effects of multitasking and arousal on television content recall and secondary task performance. Journal of Media Psychology, 22, 2–13. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000002
   Google Scholar