Running Head: TASK LOADS AND ADVERTISEMENTS 1

Task Loads and Advertisements

Devin A Farnsworth

Weber State University

Task Loads and Advertisements 2

Abstract

Hardly any research has studied the differences between types of task load, perceptual and

cognitive. This study examined how cognitive and perceptual task loads affect advertisement

familiarity/preference and brand recognition. We analyzed the effects of task load through our

own experiment and through previous research. Participants were asked to complete a survey of

cognitive and perceptual load tasks. Afterward, participants answered questions pertaining to the

recognition, familiarity and preference of ads shown throughout the survey. Unlike past research

studying perceptual load, we found that cognitive load had a greater effect on familiarity,

preference and recognition than perceptual load. However, consistent with previous research,

under conditions of high cognitive load, participants exhibited less familiarity and recognition

toward ads and brands. Future research examining task load would benefit from differentiating

between perceptual and cognitive load. Implications of our research may help advertisers

understand the effects of cognitive task load on media processing.

Task Loads and Advertisements 3

Task Loads and Advertisements

It is estimated that the average American is exposed to around 4,000 to 10,000

advertisements every day (Simpson, 2017). In every form of media one is exposed to,

advertisements are usually tactically placed to gain our attention. The attention that one gives to

these calculated messages is usually shared with other attention-seeking posts. As such,

advertisements are not the sole focus of one’s attention, but rather task-irrelevant distractors

(Wang & Duff, 2016). Many studies in cognitive psychology have tried to better understand how

people process media information.

An important factor on how we process media is task load. Task load is the amount of

difficulty performing an operation, and can be measured by the certain tasks performed. A

common interpretation of task load is cognitive load. The cognitive load theory suggests that

individuals have a limited amount of cognition to assign to perception processing or retrieving

information. When a certain task requires a large amount of cognitive processing, only small

amounts of attention can be given to advertisements (Bang & Wojdynski, 2016). The present

research seeks to examine the question: will cognitive loads affect the preference or familiarity

for central or peripheral advertisements?

Past literature has tested the effects of cognitive load on perception. First, advertisements,

with the help of cookies and other information, can be personalized to the user of whichever

social media platform that is used. About 90% percent of online websites use personal

information to create personal advertising suited to the individual (Bang & Wojdynski, 2016). In

a study by Bang and Wojdysnski (2016), personalized advertisements were used to determine if
Task Loads and Advertisements 4

cognitive demanding tasks affected attention given to personalized ads versus non-personalized

ads.

Findings of the study indicate that when given a cognitive demanding task, participants

gave more attention to personalized ads than non-personalized ones. Overall, a demanding task

resulted in less attention toward the advertisements for the participant. It was theorized that non-

demanding tasks would leave room for more attention to advertisements.

Trust can be a crucial component of advertisements. Advertisements must work on one’s

trust, the more one trusts an advertisement, the more one will be more willing to give it attention.

Samson and Kostyszyn (2015), found that trust was higher in the conditions with no cognitive

load, while conditions with high cognitive load had the least amount of trust (Samson &

Kostyszyn, 2015). Also, in conditions of high cognitive load, participants were more likely to

make impulsive decisions about trust rather than decisions involving strategy. In situations of

high cognitive load, individuals may be more likely to make impulsive decisions and not trust

what is stated to them. Thus, in situations of higher cognitive load, peripheral advertising may

have more preference.

Research has not extensively studied the differentiation between cognitive and perceptual

loads. A study by Wang and Duff (2016) express the importance of the two loads on

advertisements. Cognitive load and perceptual load are similar but distinct. Cognitive load works

on memory and cognitive tasks. Perceptual load works on our perception and attention given

toward something. The study focuses on the effects of cognitive load versus perceptual load on

processing ads that are peripheral in nature. Many advertisements that are found on mainstream

media outlets are oftentimes overlooked or purposefully ignored (Wang & Duff, 2016).
Task Loads and Advertisements 5

Advertisements are often placed on the side of media outlets, away from the main stream of

information. These type of advertisements are also known as peripheral advertisements (Wang &

Duff, 2016).

The results showed that high perceptual load decreased ad familiarity and perception. On

the other hand, high cognitive load increased ad familiarity. Overall, it was found that when one

wants an advertisement to be remembered, low perceptual load is needed. When loads are

evaluated for ad recognition, perceptual loads may have the greatest effect on recognition.

This research shows the importance of cognitive load in several aspects vital to

advertisements. Specifically, perceptual and cognitive loads have different influences on

distractor processing. High cognitive load can lead to more attention to distractors compared

with low cognitive load. When perceptual load is high, people tend to have perceptual exhaustion

and can only select relevant items to pay attention to, therefore reducing attention to irrelevant

distractors (Wang & Duff, 2016).

Hardly any research has been made regarding the difference in cognitive load and

perceptual load effects on media and advertisements. The purpose of this study is to determine

the effects of cognitive load and perceptual load on different kinds of advertisements. Two types

of advertisements can be found in media, central and peripheral. Central advertisements usually

contain more words and facts while peripheral advertising focuses on simple and eye-pleasing

advertisements. Understanding the importance of these loads and their effects on central and

peripheral advertisements is crucial for a better understanding of when and where advertisements

should be placed in media.

Task Loads and Advertisements 6

In order to better understand the effects of these loads, we conducted a study using each

load. We measured the familiarity and fondness (which advertisements were preferred) toward an

advertisement. We hypothesized that advertisements presented with a higher cognitive and

perceptual loads will have lower familiarity and fondness directed toward them. We also

hypothesized that higher perceptual loads would have a greater negative effect on advertisement

familiarity than cognitive loads. Lastly, we hypothesized that peripheral advertising would be

more familiar to participants under all loads than central advertisements.

Method

Participants

Participants to the study ranged in age from 18 to 71 (mean age of 27.26, SD = 11.37),

with 73.08% female, 23.71% male and 3.21% other. The study consisted of 156 participants.

Participants were recruited via email notification, social media invitation and through Qualtrics

Survey tool (by Weber State University). Participants were asked to volunteer their time to

participate (overall participation time was about 15-20 minutes). No monetary motivation was

offered, however some students did receive partial course credit for their psychology class. Each

participant was randomly assigned to one of four cognitive/perceptual load surveys.

Materials & Design

The survey was created via Weber State University’s Qualtrics Survey tool. Each survey

was able to be accessed by any personal computer or phone. The location from which

participants were able to participate was not controlled. The Qualtrics Survey tool program

randomly assigned each participant to one of four conditions. The ads that were used in the study

were found through Google. Six ads were used in the study, three were peripheral (i.e., ads that
Task Loads and Advertisements 7

try to persuade by visual cues and contain more subtle information through “looking good” from

Acer, MSL, Compaq) and three were central (i.e., ads that try to persuade by context, and usually

contain more information like words and explanations from Vaio, Asus, Lenovo). The survey

consisted of multiple choice and Likert scale questions and responses.

The study was a 2x2 between-subjects experiment. The independent variables were

cognitive load (low, high) and perceptual load (low, high) each participant was assigned to. The

study consisted of 4 potential cognitive/perceptual load activities in which the participants were

assigned to (high cognitive load/low perceptual load, high cognitive load/high perceptual load,

low cognitive load/low perceptual load and low cognitive load/high perceptual load). The

dependent variables consisted of three types of survey questions. The first question testing brand

recognition, the second testing familiarity and the third testing preference. Once the participant

completed the perceptual/cognitive load activity, a survey, consisting of questions about ads that

were shown throughout the activity, was taken.

The activity that was presented prior to the administration of the survey questions was a

task load activity. The activity involved a timed slide (five seconds) that showed several words

(one or two syllable words: baby, duck, run, etc.); in the following slide, participants were shown

another set of words, some of which matched the previous slides’ words. The participants were

then asked to click and drag all matching words into a box before moving on to the next slide

(timed for 7 seconds). All words presented in the activity were random and not intentionally

related to one another.

The slides during the task load activity were separated into four task types, high cognitive

load/low perceptual load, high cognitive load/high perceptual load, low cognitive load/low
Task Loads and Advertisements 8

perceptual load and low cognitive load/high perceptual load. Each activity showed the same ads,

but the higher perceptual load activities contained more ads, while the higher cognitive load

activities had a greater number of words the participants had to remember. The high perceptual

activity contained 36 ads (each ad appearing in random places 6 times), while the low perceptual

activity contained 18 ads (each ad appearing in random places 3 times). The high cognitive load

activity contained 6 words that needed to be memorized and a choice of 12 words for the

matching game, while the low cognitive load activity contained 3 words that needed to be

memorized and a choice of 6 words for the matching game.

The purpose of the study was to measure whether cognitive load or perceptual load could

effect the preference and memory retention of peripheral and central ads. To measure these

differences, the end survey contained ads that were peripheral and central in nature. Three set of

questions were created to measure the preference and memory. The first set contained one

multiple choice question with 28 overall choices. The participants were asked to choose all the

brand names they remembered seeing in the activity. The second set was a Likert scale. Each

participant was asked to rate their familiarity with each presented ad on a scale of 1 (not at all

familiar) to 5 (extremely familiar). Twelve Likert scale questions were used (6 contained the

same ads from the activity, 6 contained random ads not found in the activity). The final set of

questions (six total) asked for participants to choose which brand they preferred (giving a gut

reaction). The brand name preference questions had two choices of brands, one peripheral ad

choice and one central ad choice. Each set of questions tested familiarity and preference for each

presented ad.

Procedure
Task Loads and Advertisements 9

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. Prior to the activity, all

participants read a consent form and agreed to continue. Participants could participate from any

personal computer or smart phone device. Participants were then given examples of how the

cognitive/perceptual load activity would work. Then a practice test (one practice question) was

administered.

Next, all participants were to complete the randomly assigned cognitive/perceptual load

activities. Each activity contained 12 slides with the matching game following after. After every

slide and matching game (which was timed), the participant was given a break period where they

decided when to move on to the next slide. Participants were not given any feedback or shown

their score on the activity.

Once the activity was completed, the participants were shown the survey questions, each

one on a separate page of the survey. The first question tested memory, each participant was to

choose which brand they remembered seeing in the activity. The participants were able to select

as many brands as they wanted. Next, the participants were given 12 Likert scale questions to

test familiarity. Lastly, the participants were given 6 multiple choice questions showing only the

brands found in the activity. Participants chose between 2 brands, which brand, giving a gut

reaction, was their preference. The final questions were to test preference.

After the survey was completed, two questions about demographics were given. We

asked the participants age and gender. The last page of the whole study was a debriefing where

participants could read what the study was about.

Results

The purpose of this study was to determine if there were any significant effects on

advertisement familiarity and preference under cognitive and perceptual loads. To test these
Task Loads and Advertisements 10

effects, four cognitive/perceptual load conditions were used. Each activity contained a certain

amount of testing words and ad “distractors.” After the activity, a survey was taken by the

participants to determine brand recognition, ad familiarity and ad preference. A one-way ANOVA

was used to determine the results. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests.

First, we examined the effects of cognitive loads and perceptual loads on brand

recognition. We hypothesized that under higher cognitive load, brand recognition would be

poorer, while under high perceptual load, brand recognition would be greater. There was a

significant effect of condition on brand recognition, F (3, 151) = 8.85, p < .001. The highest

brand recognition was among low cognitive high perceptual (M = 1.805, SD = 1.249), followed

by low cognitive low perceptual (M = 1.692, SD = 1.398). Brand recognition was lowest among

high cognitive high perceptual (M = .821, SD = 1.097) and high cognitive low perceptual (M = .

725, SD = 1.037). More specifically, results showed participants were able to remember more

brands in lower cognitive loads (M = 1.75, SD = 1.32) than in high cognitive loads (M = .77, SD

= 1.06), t (157) = 5.151, p < .001. However, there were no significant effects on brand

recognition between high and low perceptual loads, t (157) = .597, p = .551.

Next, we examined the load effects on ad familiarity. We hypothesized that higher

cognitive loads would produce less familiarity to the shown ads than lower cognitive loads. We

also hypothesized that higher perceptual loads would decrease ad familiarity in the participants,

due to perceptual exhaustion. The results showed that cognitive loads had a significant effect on

ad familiarity, F (3, 151) = 7.459, p < .001. Ad familiarity was lowest among high cognitive high

perceptual (M = 14.622, SD = 5.166) and high cognitive low perceptual (M = 14.875, SD =

5.734). Ad familiarity was highest among low cognitive low perceptual (M = 20.026, SD =
Task Loads and Advertisements 11

7.646) followed by low cognitive high perceptual (M = 19.750, SD = 8.002). More specific

results, through an independent t-test, showed that lower cognitive loads produced higher ad

familiarity (M = 19.88, SD = 7.78) than higher cognitive loads (M = 14.75, SD = 5.43), t (153) =

4.754, p < .001. There were no significant effects on ad familiarity between high and low

perceptual loads, t (153) = -.086, p = .932.

During the survey, participants were also given 6 other random ads to rank with the same

Likert scale question to test familiarity. These extra ads were never shown in the activity and

were used as a control. Results for these ads show that there was no significant effects, F (3, 151)

= 1.203, p = .311. These results show that participants were able to distinguish between ads seen

during the activity and ads that were never shown.

Lastly, we examined the load effects on brand preference. Each ad in the activity was

either a central ad (ads that try to persuade by context, and usually contain more information like

words and explanations) or a peripheral ad (ads that try to persuade by visual cues and contain

more subtle information through “looking good”). We hypothesized that peripheral ads would be

more preferred over central ads in all conditions. Results show that there was no effect of

condition on preference, F (3, 152) = .997, p = .396.

Discussion

Not much research has tested the difference between cognitive and peripheral load tasks,

or explicitly tested the effects on advertisements for those load tasks. The present study was one

of very few research studies that examined the difference between cognitive and perceptual loads

on advertisement effects. Research by Wang and Duff (2016) expressed the importance of the

difference between the two task load. Their study concluded that high perceptual load tasks
Task Loads and Advertisements 12

create a lack of attention to advertisements. It was also concluded that high cognitive load tasks

increased familiarity with brands (Wang & Duff, 2016).

Due to past research on cognitive load we hypothesized that higher cognitive and

perceptual load would reduce ad familiarity and recognition. Our findings supported what we

first predicted: that higher cognitive load actually caused the participants to have less familiarity/

recognition with ads. Also perceptual load did not create a significant difference in familiarity/

recognition. The reasons for the discrepancy between Wang and Duff’s research and our result

may have been in the way perceptual and cognitive load tasks were set up. Unlike previous

studies, our study’s cognitive load tasks were memory based on words, not shapes and puzzles as

with Wang and Duff’s research.

Our results indicate that lower cognitive load produced higher familiarity and

recognition. The study by Bang and Wojdysnski (2016) indicated that higher cognitive

demanding tasks would create less attention to personalized advertisements. Our results were

consistent with this study. It was theorized that non-demanding tasks leave room for more

cognitive space. We can see from our study the effects of working memory. Our study created an

activity in which participants had to memorize a list of words, while the participants’ working

memory was being used up with the list of words, the advertisements did not have room to

coincide with the words. Thus we can see that our results could have been different from Wang

and Duff’s experiment (which primarily focused on shapes and puzzles), but consistent with

Bang and Wojdysnski’s experiment.

Ad familiarity and brand recognition had the same results indicating that higher cognitive

load led to decreased familiarity and recognition in both ads and brand names. In the study by

Wang and Duff, it was found that higher perceptual load led to decreased ad and brand
Task Loads and Advertisements 13

familiarity and recognition. Our results showed no significant effects of perceptual load. This

may be due to the constraints and design of the study, as will be discussed later.

In advertisement, companies have to choose between advertising in a central or

peripheral manner. The difference between each has been discussed earlier in this paper.

However, between central and peripheral ads, our findings indicate that, under conditions of

higher cognitive load, central ads were slightly preferred over peripheral ads. To the best of our

knowledge, research studying the effect of cognitive task load against central and peripheral ads

is not extensively studied. We hope that some implications of our research can show that central

and peripheral ad preference may be an important factor in advertising locations that are under

higher cognitive load, such as providing advertisements for online memory games.

As discussed, our study’s activity created a manipulation of working memory. Working

memory is our cognitive system that allows us to hold limited information for a limited amount

of time. Our study may add to this psychological theory; our results show that cognitive load can

create a deficiency in recognizing and familiarizing ads. When trying to attract consumers to an

ad, advertisers should be concerned with advertising in environments with higher cognitive load,

especially when working memory is limited.

We did hope our study would create a more in depth evaluation of the differences in

cognitive and perceptual load, however due to some limitations, we did not see significant

differences between high and low perceptual loads. Unlike previous studies, our study measured

perceptual load by the number of ads presented in the activity. Higher perceptual load would

have a greater number of ads. One confounding variable that could have affected the results is

“banner blindness.” Participants tend to ignore distractors (such as the advertisements we

showed) if they know when and where they will appear (Wang & Duff, 2016).
Task Loads and Advertisements 14

Another limitation to our study was the potential effects of the environment. Considering

that our participants could engage in our activity and survey from any mobile or computer

device, the environments in which the participants could be in varied dramatically. Our study

could not control for environmental factors such as noise, distraction from TV or other media, or

help from outside sources (friends, family, etc.). However, when thinking of advertisements, we

find advertisements in our everyday activities. Advertisers cannot control the environmental

factors consumers find themselves in when engaging with advertisements. Aligned with our

study, environmental factors often cannot be controlled by advertisers.

There are numerous studies that manipulate cognitive load, however few use perceptual

load manipulations. Future research may benefit from experimenting with perceptual load to

understand future advertisement considerations. Testing perceptual load has many difficulties,

including getting participants to focus on visual stimulation. Future research may shed more light

as the the difference in cognitive and perceptual load on media advertisements.

Overall, we suggest that more research be done on perceptual load. Little is known about

perceptual load, whereas cognitive load manipulation research is numerous. Cognitive and

perceptual load can cause distinct and different influences on media processing (Wang & Duff,

2016). Advertisers can gain important information about media processing by studying both the

effects of cognitive and perceptual load.