High-WMC readers view fewer seductive illustrations and spend less time on them than low-WMC readers¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2006 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 High-WMC individuals spent less overall time viewing the seductive illustrations (η2 = .48). → Sanchez 2006 q2 i3 High-WMC individuals viewed significantly fewer of the 12 illustrations (η2 = .46). → Sanchez 2006 (2) q2 i? No group differences in overall reading time, fixations, local regressions, or text-alone reading time. → Sanchez 2006 (3)

Evidence¶

Sanchez 2006¶

Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 344-355. https://link.springer.com/journal/13421

q2 · i3 · causal · r1

Experiment 2 eye-tracking study of 5 high- and 5 low-WMC readers reading the seductively illustrated text with an Eyelink II tracker: high-WMC readers' overall illustration viewing time was significantly shorter (M = 4.27 vs 8.19 sec per Table 1), η2 = .48.

"When the amount of overall time spent on the seductive illustra- tions was specifically looked at, it was found that high-WMC individuals spent less time viewing the illustrations than did the low-WMC group overall [t (8) /H11005 2.73, p /H11021 .03; η2 /H11005 .48]."

Sanchez 2006 (2)¶

Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 344-355. https://link.springer.com/journal/13421

q2 · i3 · causal · r2

Experiment 2: not all subjects viewed all illustrations; high-WMC readers viewed significantly fewer of the 12 seductive illustrations (M = 6.60) than low-WMC readers (M = 8.80), η2 = .46, with no difference in average time per illustration viewed.

"In fact, high-WMC individuals viewed significantly fewer of the 12 presented illustrations than did low-WMC in- dividuals [t (8) /H11005 2.63, p /H11021 .03; η2 /H11005 .46]."

Sanchez 2006 (3)¶

Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 344-355. https://link.springer.com/journal/13421

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 2 eye-tracking analyses: no reliable differences in overall reading time (10.48 vs 10.11 min), fixations, local regressions, or reading time on text alone; the article notes the groups differed only in how they dealt with the irrelevant illustrations.

"In terms of overall reading time and number of fixations for the Web site, there was no reliable difference between high- and low-WMC individuals on either of these mea- sures."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• High-WMC readers show no seductive details effect, with seductive illustrations tending to yield the best performance — reports the opposite
• Working memory capacity interacts with illustration type: seductive illustrations impair comprehension only for low-WMC readers — related
• Interesting but irrelevant details can impair comprehension and transfer, with effects that vary with the material and the learner — a broader claim this one bears on
• WMC shows a main effect on inference verification but not on essay recall — related
• Low-WMC readers recall fewer correct causes when text contains seductive illustrations compared with nonillustrated text — related