Vogel’s study on the impact of presentation visuals on persuasion (1998) did not really provide conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of animations. Some improvements in comprehension and perception of the presenter were noted, but these did not translate into a significant improvement in persuasive effect. The quality of the graphics and the way animations were used in the study could have contributed to their lack lustre performance.

This article adds some interesting information from a 1991 study to our emerging understanding of animation effectiveness.

Professor Wesley King, Jr. is the Chair of the Management/Marketing Department at the University of Dayton. He teaches organizational behavior and theory at both the graduate and undergraduate level. In 1991, King along with Marie Dent and Edward Miles published the results of a study entitled: The Persuasive Effect of Graphics in Computer-Mediated Communication. The study results were published in Volume 7 of Computers in Human Behavior. The purpose of this study was to investigate how presentation graphics might influence a group or individual to accept an action or point of view. Interestingly, King and his colleagues compared both static visuals along with what they called dynamic (moving) graphics. While we are interested in all of the results of this study, it is the comparison of static to dynamic graphics that is most important to our understanding of the effectiveness of animations.

Study Design
Subjects for this study were 179 students at a major state university in the Southeast. The group had about the same number of men and women. The average age of the subjects was 22 years. All subjects received a message designed to persuade them to commit now to donate $50 to the university’s business school in the future, after they graduate and secure their first job. The theme of the message was that the value of their degree increases along with the stature of the business program. The message was delivered in three different “communication modes”. One group read a text form of the message. A second group saw the same information presented in projected visuals using IBM’s Storyboard software. The last group saw the same visuals to which animation effects had been added. Effects included; implosions and explosions (??), fades, wipes, scrolls in different directions, changes in color and font size as well as moving elements of graphs and other figures. These were designed “to create visual appeal”, although it is impossible to know if this was done in a way that would be consistent with Presentation Professional standards today.

None of the presentations involved a live presenter, so this variable was completely (and wisely) removed from the equation. Following the presentation of the information, subjects completed a questionnaire. The questionnaire was carefully designed to measure the subjects pre-disposition to making a pledge, their change in inclination to make a pledge, their agreement with the primary theme of the presentation and their willingness to actually making a pledge (action). All in all, this seemed to be a well designed study that was conducted in a high quality manner.

Results
Both the static and dynamic visuals were significantly better than text only. In general, the visual groups were more inclined to donate money as a result of viewing the presentation than the text only group. They were also more willing to commit themselves to pledging money. There was however no significant difference whatsoever between the static and dynamic graphics.

Discussion
Many of the studies we have looked at confirm the persuasive effect of presentation visuals. They do not offer information however about why visuals are effective. King offers a possible theory based on the work of other researchers. Presentation graphics may serve as persuasive evidence that effects both persuasion and attitude change (Reinard, 1988). When left to draw their own conclusions from the graphics, viewers may become more cognitively involved in the process and therefore more committed to the attitude change (Perloff & Brock, 1980).

Another theory might explain the lack of effectiveness seen with the addition of animations. If components of the visual presentation are viewed as irrelevant to the message itself, they may well serve as a distracter that can actually reduce attitude change (Buller, 1986). Buller notes that “communication irrelevant distraction generally reduces the efficacy of a persuasive message”. I suspect that much, if not all of the animations in this study as well as the animations and transitions in Vogel’s study might qualify as “communication irrelevant distractions”. I also suspect there is a great deal of irrelevant distraction going on in the typical amateur PowerPoint presentation today. This theory is consistent with the coherence principal in multimedia development studied extensively and described by Richard Mayer. Richard Mayer’s work will be the subject of an upcoming series of Presentation Facts.

Presentation Fact: Use of animations and transitions should be left to professionals who know how to create “communication relevant distractions“.