advantages and disadvantages of presentation method of teaching

• Onsite training

3,000,000+ delegates

15,000+ clients

1,000+ locations

• KnowledgePass
• Log a ticket

01344203999 Available 24/7

Advantages and Disadvantages of Presentation

Exploring the 'Advantages and Disadvantages of Presentation,' this blog explores how presentations can effectively communicate ideas yet sometimes hinder creativity. It discusses the ease of conveying complex information visually and the potential for engaging audiences but also considers the challenges of over-reliance on visuals and potential misinterpretation.

Exclusive 40% OFF

Training Outcomes Within Your Budget!

We ensure quality, budget-alignment, and timely delivery by our expert instructors.

Share this Resource

• Effective Communication Skills
• Presenting with Impact Training
• Interpersonal Skills Training Course
• Effective Presentation Skills & Techniques
• Public Speaking Course

Table of Contents  

1) What is a Presentation: A brief introduction 

2) Advantages of Presentations 

3) Disadvantages of Presentations 

4) How to make a successful Presentation? 

5) Conclusion 

What is a Presentation: A brief introduction  

A Presentation refers to a method of conveying information, ideas, or data to an audience using visual aids and spoken words. It is a formal or informal communication tool used in various settings, such as business meetings, educational environments, conferences, or public speaking engagements. 

During a Presentation, the presenter uses visual elements like slides, charts, graphs, images, and multimedia to support and enhance their spoken content. The goal of a Presentation is to engage the audience, effectively communicate the message, and leave a lasting impact on the listeners. You can ace your presentation skill by understanding various presentation skills interview questions and answers . It will expand your horizon to elevate your skills. 

Presentation Skills can be used to cover a wide variety of Presentations, from business proposals and academic research to sales pitches and motivational speeches.The success of a Presentation depends on the presenter's ability to organize the content coherently, engage the audience, and deliver the information in a clear and compelling manner, showcasing strong principles of presentation skills. Therefore, it is essential to understand the elements of presentation .

Unlock your full potential as a presenter with our Presentation Skills Training Course. Join now!  

Advantages of Presentations  

Effective communication  

One of the primary advantages of Presentations is their ability to facilitate effective communication. Whether you're addressing a small group of colleagues or a large audience at a conference, Presentations help you to convey your message clearly and succinctly. By structuring your content and using visuals, you can ensure that your key points are highlighted and easily understood by the audience. 

Visual appeal  

"Seeing is believing," and Presentations capitalise on this aspect of human psychology. The use of visuals, such as charts, graphs, images, and videos, enhances the overall appeal of the content. These visual aids not only make the information more engaging but also help reinforce the main ideas, making the Presentation more memorable for the audience. 

Engaging the audience  

Captivating your audience's attention is crucial for effective communication. Presentations provide ample opportunities to engage your listeners through various means. By incorporating storytelling, anecdotes, and real-life examples, you can nurture an emotional connection with your audience. Additionally, interactive elements like polls, quizzes, and group activities keep the audience actively involved throughout the Presentation. 

Simplifying complex information  

Complex ideas and data can often be overwhelming, making it challenging to convey them effectively. However, Presentations excel in simplifying intricate information. By breaking down complex concepts into digestible and interconnected slides, you can present the information in a logical sequence, ensuring that the audience grasps the content more easily. 

Persuasive impact  

Presentations are powerful tools for persuasion and influence. Whether you're convincing potential clients to invest in your product, advocating for a particular cause, or delivering a motivational speech, a well-crafted Presentation can sway the audience's opinions and inspire action. The combination of visual and verbal elements enables you to make a compelling case for your ideas, leaving a lasting impact on the listeners. 

Versatility in delivery methods  

Another advantage of Presentations lies in their flexibility and versatility in terms of delivery methods. Gone are the days when Presentations were limited to in-person meetings. Today, technology allows presenters to reach a wider audience through various platforms, including webinars, online videos, and virtual conferences. This adaptability makes Presentations an ideal choice for modern communication needs. 

Enhanced understanding and retention  

When information is presented in a visually appealing and structured manner, it aids in better understanding and retention. Human brains process visuals faster and more effectively than plain text, making Presentations an ideal medium for conveying complex concepts. The combination of visual elements and spoken words create a multi-sensory experience, leading to increased information retention among the audience. 

Professionalism and credibility  

In professional settings, well-designed Presentations lend an air of credibility and professionalism to the presenter and the topic being discussed. A thoughtfully crafted Presentation shows that the presenter has put effort into preparing and organising the content, which in turn enhances the audience's trust and receptiveness to the information presented. 

Take your Presentations to the next level with our Effective Presentation Skills & Techniques Course. Sign up today!  

Disadvantages of Presentations  

Time-consuming  

Creating a compelling Presentation can be a time-consuming process. From researching and gathering relevant information to designing visually appealing slides, a significant amount of effort goes into ensuring that the content is well-structured and impactful. This time investment can be challenging, especially when presenters have tight schedules or are faced with last-minute Presentation requests. 

Technical glitches  

Presentations heavily rely on technology, and technical glitches can quickly turn a well-prepared Presentation into a frustrating experience. Projectors may malfunction, slides might not load correctly, or audiovisual components may fail to work as expected. Dealing with such technical issues during a Presentation can disrupt the flow and distract both the presenter and the audience. 

Overdependence on technology  

In some cases, presenters may become overly reliant on the visuals and technology, neglecting the importance of direct engagement with the audience. Overloaded slides with excessive text can make presenters read directly from the slides, undermining the personal connection and interaction with the listeners. This overdependence on technology can lead to a lack of spontaneity and authenticity during the Presentation. 

Lack of interactivity  

Traditional Presentations, particularly those delivered in large auditoriums, may lack interactivity and real-time feedback. In comparison, modern Presentation formats can incorporate interactive elements; not all Presentations provide opportunities for audience participation or discussions. This one-sided communication can lead to reduced engagement and limited opportunities for clarifying doubts or addressing queries. 

Public speaking anxiety  

For many individuals, public speaking can be a nerve-wracking experience. Presenting in front of an audience, especially in formal settings, can trigger anxiety and stage fright. This anxiety may affect the presenter's delivery and confidence, impacting the overall effectiveness of the Presentation. Overcoming public speaking anxiety requires practice, self-assurance, and effective stress management techniques. 

Not suitable for all topics  

While Presentations are an excellent medium for conveying certain types of information, they may not be suitable for all topics. Some subjects require in-depth discussions, hands-on demonstrations, or interactive workshops, which may not align well with the traditional slide-based Presentation format. Choosing the appropriate communication method for specific topics is crucial to ensure effective knowledge transfer and engagement. 

Accessibility concerns  

In a diverse audience, some individuals may face challenges in accessing and comprehending Presentation materials. For instance, people with visual impairments may find it difficult to interpret visual elements, while those with hearing impairments may struggle to follow the spoken content without proper captions or transcripts. Addressing accessibility concerns is vital to ensure inclusivity and equal participation for all attendees. 

Information overload  

Presentations that bombard the audience with excessive information on each slide can lead to information overload. When the audience is overwhelmed with data, they may struggle to absorb and retain the key points. Presenters should strike a balance between providing adequate information and keeping the content concise and focused. 

How to make a successful Presentation?  

Now that we know the Advantages and Disadvantages of Presentations, we will provide you with some tips on how to make a successful Presentation. 

1) Know your audience: Understand your audience's needs and interests to tailor your content accordingly. 

2) Start with a strong opening: Begin with an attention-grabbing introduction to captivate the audience from the start of presentation .

3) Organise your content logically: Structure your Presentation in a clear and coherent manner with a beginning, middle, and end. 

4) Limit text on slides: Keep slides simple and avoid overcrowding with excessive text; use bullet points and keywords. 

5) Use visuals effectively: Incorporate high-quality images, graphs, and charts to enhance understanding and engagement. 

6) Practice, practice, practice: Rehearse your Presentation multiple times to improve your delivery and confidence. 

7) Be enthusiastic and confident: Show passion for your topic and maintain good eye contact to build trust with the audience. 

8) Tell stories and use examples: Include relevant anecdotes and case studies to make your points more relatable and memorable. 

9) Keep it interactive: Encourage audience participation through questions, polls, or discussions to keep them engaged. 

10) Manage time wisely: Respect the allotted time for your Presentation and pace your delivery accordingly. 

11) End with a strong conclusion: Summarise your key points and leave the audience with a clear takeaway or call to action. 

Conclusion  

All in all, Presentations have altered the way we communicate and share information. While they offer numerous advantages, such as effective communication, visual appeal, and persuasive impact, they also come with their share of disadvantages, including technical challenges and public speaking anxiety. By understanding the advantages and disadvantages of presentations and employing best practices, we can Improve Presesntation Skills , create engaging and impactful presentations that leave a lasting impression on the audience.

Want to master the art of impactful Presentations? Explore our Presentation Skills Courses and elevate your communication prowess!  

Frequently Asked Questions

Upcoming business skills resources batches & dates.

Fri 7th Jun 2024

Fri 5th Jul 2024

Fri 2nd Aug 2024

Fri 6th Sep 2024

Fri 4th Oct 2024

Fri 1st Nov 2024

Fri 6th Dec 2024

Get A Quote

WHO WILL BE FUNDING THE COURSE?

My employer

By submitting your details you agree to be contacted in order to respond to your enquiry

• Business Analysis
• Lean Six Sigma Certification

Share this course

Our biggest spring sale.

We cannot process your enquiry without contacting you, please tick to confirm your consent to us for contacting you about your enquiry.

By submitting your details you agree to be contacted in order to respond to your enquiry.

We may not have the course you’re looking for. If you enquire or give us a call on 01344203999 and speak to our training experts, we may still be able to help with your training requirements.

Or select from our popular topics

• ITIL® Certification
• Scrum Certification
• Change Management Certification
• Business Analysis Courses
• Microsoft Azure Certification
• Microsoft Excel Courses
• Microsoft Project
• Explore more courses

Press esc to close

Fill out your  contact details  below and our training experts will be in touch.

Fill out your   contact details   below

Thank you for your enquiry!

One of our training experts will be in touch shortly to go over your training requirements.

Back to Course Information

Fill out your contact details below so we can get in touch with you regarding your training requirements.

* WHO WILL BE FUNDING THE COURSE?

Preferred Contact Method

No preference

Back to course information

Fill out your  training details  below

Fill out your training details below so we have a better idea of what your training requirements are.

HOW MANY DELEGATES NEED TRAINING?

HOW DO YOU WANT THE COURSE DELIVERED?

Online Instructor-led

Online Self-paced

WHEN WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THIS COURSE?

Next 2 - 4 months

WHAT IS YOUR REASON FOR ENQUIRING?

Looking for some information

Looking for a discount

I want to book but have questions

One of our training experts will be in touch shortly to go overy your training requirements.

Your privacy & cookies!

Like many websites we use cookies. We care about your data and experience, so to give you the best possible experience using our site, we store a very limited amount of your data. Continuing to use this site or clicking “Accept & close” means that you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about our privacy policy and cookie policy cookie policy .

We use cookies that are essential for our site to work. Please visit our cookie policy for more information. To accept all cookies click 'Accept & close'.

What is ‘Presentation, Practice, Production’ (PPP)?

And how can i best use it in my classroom.

Presentation, practice, production (PPP) is a lesson structure, a way to order activities in your lessons.

Although quite old and heavily criticised over the years, PPP is probably the most commonly used lesson structure in teaching English to foreign learners today. It’s also still widely taught to new teachers and seen on initial teacher training courses like the CELTA and CertTESOL.

Most course books that you’re likely to use will structure their chapters in ways similar or the same as PPP, meaning that you’ll get a lot of exposure to this method.

As the name suggests, there are three stages to this lesson structure, which we’ll look at now.

Thanks for reading Barefoot TEFL Teacher! Subscribe for free to receive new posts.

The ‘presentation’ stage

This is where the language is introduced, or ‘presented’ to the learners, usually by introducing a context or situation. For example, you could:

Tell or act out a short story or anecdote ( “I woke up this morning with a nasty cold… AHHH-CHOOO! I went to the doctor and…”)

Play a short audio clip

Show a clip from a movie or TV show.

Show objects you’ve brought in (e.g. newspaper cuttings, plane tickets, hobby materials)

The aim is to ensure students understand the context and get them thinking about it. You could elicit ideas or suggestions from students, get them to talk to each other about what they know or think about the situation, etc. This also helps them start to remember the language and vocabulary they already know about the topic (or ‘activate the schemata’, if you want the fancy term for it).

The ‘practice’ stage

The ‘practice’ stage is when students use the language in a controlled way. This stage is sometimes divided into two — a controlled practice and a freer practice. Again, among many things, you could get students to:

Drill sentences or sounds, chorally or individually.

Substitution drill in pairs

Sentence matching activities

Gap-fill exercises

Pair work asking and answering questions

The aim of this stage is accuracy . Error correction is important in this stage, so monitor the students closely and take time to correct errors immediately. A delayed error correction section after the activity would be useful for target language errors that seem to be common.

The ‘production’ stage

The ‘production’ stage is where the language is used more openly. Things like:

Communication tasks

Collaborative tasks

Discussion activities

The focus of this stage is using the language as fluently and naturally as possible , as students would do outside of the classroom.

Theory behind Presentation, Practice, Production

This is where PPP gets criticised. It started in the 1960s, and language learning theory has developed considerably since then. Academics who study second language acquisition get annoyed at how PPP doesn’t tick any of the boxes for how we’re supposed to learn a language and yet is still so widespread.

Some learning assumptions behind presentation, practice, production are:

Students should be told the grammar rules and then practice them (a deductive approach).

Language learning is a skill like any other and should be practised as such.

There should be a high level of teacher control, slowly handed over to learners as the lesson progresses.

Language is a series of items that can be learned in sequence.

The target language should be practised by removing unnecessary language to help focus.

All of these have been shown that this isn’t how we best learn languages (in fact, the opposite is largely true!).

However, it isn’t all bad. Here’s my opinion on the advantages and disadvantages of PPP:

It’s easy to learn for new teachers.

It’s very flexible.

It’s easy to plan for and has a logical progression.

It works for most types of classes, including larger classes.

Most course books use this or a similar method to structure their lessons and chapters.

Disadvantages

Research shows that it may not be the best way to teach/learn a language.

Weaker learners may overuse the target language from the practice session, so it sounds unnatural.

Learners may not know how to use the target language in different contexts.

It can be boring if used repeatedly for higher-level students.

Thoughts on Presentation, Practice, Production

Academics are often far removed from the classroom and the real world, studying the individual phenomenon in isolation.

I’ve often seen a light bulb moment for students whilst teaching PPP (although one could argue that it’s not strict PPP, and it’d be hard to isolate the teaching method from other variables). Teaching over a period of time with this method, you do see students improve. Consider also that it’s not done in isolation — you should be getting your learners to interact in English naturally and read extensively outside of class, for starters.

Presentation, practice, production works. Maybe not as well as something like task-based learning (TBL), but TBL takes longer to plan and implement, which becomes very difficult when your teaching hours are high.

Sure, so it might not be theoretically perfect, but it does work.

How to adapt the PPP method

Also, I believe it has evolved from the ‘traditional’ PPP approach described above. Here are some ways you can adapt the classic PPP structure:

Spend more time in the presentation stage eliciting.

Turn the deductive aspect of explicit grammar instruction into an inductive aspect (so learners have to figure out the patterns themselves).

Add collaborative tasks during the practice stage, which learners must use the target language to complete successfully.

Include meta-learning strategies so students can learn how to learn.

Include more incidental language throughout the class so learners hear language in a more natural context.

Change the final stage into a task, such as you’d find in task-based learning .

These changes turn PPP into something else, a blended approach that addresses many of the criticisms of PPP.

Other structures have sought to improve upon the model of PPP. Variants include ESA (engage, study, activate) and CAP (context, analysis, practice)

However, the simplicity of PPP and its notoriety have kept it the most widely used model. I doubt it’s going away any time soon.

If you liked this article, you’ll love my books:

📝 Lesson Planning for Language Teachers - Plan better, faster, and stress-free (4.5 ⭐ , 175 ratings).

👩‍🎓 Essential Classroom Management - Develop calm students and a classroom full of learning (4.5 ⭐, 33 ratings).

🏰 Storytelling for Language Teachers - Use the power of storytelling to transform your lessons (4.5 ⭐, 11 ratings).

🤖 ChatGPT for Language Teachers - A collection of AI prompts and techniques to work better, faster (4.5 ⭐, 10 ratings).

💭 Reflective Teaching Practice Journal - Improve your teaching in five minutes daily (4.5 ⭐, 16 ratings).

📄 PDF versions available here.

Ready for more?

• PRESENTATION SKILLS

Deciding the Presentation Method

Search SkillsYouNeed:

Presentation Skills:

• A - Z List of Presentation Skills
• Top Tips for Effective Presentations
• General Presentation Skills
• What is a Presentation?
• Preparing for a Presentation
• Organising the Material
• Writing Your Presentation
• Managing your Presentation Notes
• Working with Visual Aids
• Presenting Data
• Managing the Event
• Coping with Presentation Nerves
• Dealing with Questions
• How to Build Presentations Like a Consultant
• 7 Qualities of Good Speakers That Can Help You Be More Successful
• Self-Presentation in Presentations
• Specific Presentation Events
• Remote Meetings and Presentations
• Giving a Speech
• Presentations in Interviews
• Presenting to Large Groups and Conferences
• Giving Lectures and Seminars
• Managing a Press Conference
• Attending Public Consultation Meetings
• Managing a Public Consultation Meeting
• Crisis Communications
• Elsewhere on Skills You Need:
• Communication Skills
• Facilitation Skills
• Teams, Groups and Meetings
• Effective Speaking
• Question Types

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and start improving your life in just 5 minutes a day.

You'll get our 5 free 'One Minute Life Skills' and our weekly newsletter.

We'll never share your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time.

There is much to consider in deciding on an appropriate presentation method.

This page assumes that you have already prepared your presentation , or at least decided on the key messages that you wish to get across to your audience, and given at least some thought to how to organise your material .

On this page, then, we focus on the mechanics of your presentation method: how you will present.

This includes using sound systems, how to manage visual aids, how you stand, and how much interaction you want with your audience.

What Helps you to Decide your Presentation Method?

In making a decision about your presentation method, you have to take into account several key aspects. These include:

The facilities available to you by way of visual aids, sound systems, and lights. Obviously you cannot use facilities that are not available. If you are told that you will need to present without a projector, you’re going to need to decide on a method that works without slides.

The occasion. A formal conference of 200 people will require a very different approach from a presentation to your six-person team. And a speech at a wedding is totally different again. Consider the norms of the occasion. For example, at a wedding, you are not expected to use slides or other visual aids.

The audience, in terms of both size and familiarity with you, and the topic. If it’s a small, informal event, you will be able to use a less formal method. You might, for example, choose to give your audience a one-page handout, perhaps an infographic that summarises your key points, and talk them through it. A more formal event is likely to need slides.

Your experience in giving presentations. More experienced presenters will be more familiar with their own weak points, and able to tailor their preparation and style to suit. However, few people are able to give a presentation without notes. Even the most experienced speakers will usually have at least some form of notes to jog their memory and aid their presentation.

Your familiarity with the topic. As a general rule, the more you know about it, the less you will need to prepare in detail, and the more you can simply have an outline of what you want to say, with some brief reminders.

Your personal preferences. Some people prefer to ‘busk it’ (or ‘wing it’) and make up their presentation on the day, while others prefer detailed notes and outlines. You will need to know your own abilities and decide how best to make the presentation.  When you first start giving presentations you may feel more confident with more detailed notes. As you become more experienced you may find that you can deliver effectively with less.

Some Different Methods of Presentation

Presentation methods vary from the very formal to the very informal.

What method you choose is largely dictated by the occasion and its formality: very formal tends to go with a larger audience, whose members you do not know well. Your role is likely to be much more providing information, and much less about having a discussion about the information.

Form Follows Function

It’s not going to be possible, for instance, to present to 200 people from a chair as part of the group, because most of your audience will not see or hear you. You need to apply common sense to your choice of presentation method.

Audience Participation

While much of your presentation method will be dictated by the event, there is one area where you have pretty much free rein: audience interaction with you and with each other.

It is perfectly feasible, even in a large conference, to get your audience talking to each other, and then feeding back to you.

In fact, this can work very well, especially in a low-energy session such as the one immediately after lunch, because it gets everyone chatting and wakes them up. It works particularly well in a room set out ‘café-style’, with round tables, but it can also work in a conference hall.

The key is to decide on one or two key questions on which you’d welcome audience views, or on which audience views could improve your session. These questions will depend on your session, but it’s always more helpful to invite views on:

• Something that you haven’t yet decided; or
• Something that the audience is going to do themselves.

For example, you might ask people to talk to their neighbour and identify one thing that they could do to put your speech into action when they return to work and/or home. You can then ask four or five people to tell you about their action points.

Handling your Notes

You also have a choice over how you manage your text, in terms of notes. For more about this, see our page on Managing Your Notes in a Presentation .

The Importance of Iteration

You will probably find that deciding on the presentation method means that you need to change or amend your presentation.

For example, if you want to include some audience participation, you will need to include that in your slides, otherwise, you might well forget in the heat of the moment.

Fortunately, revisiting your presentation in light of decisions about how you will present is probably a good idea anyway. It will enable you to be confident that it will work in practice.

Continue to: Managing your Presentation Notes Working with Visual Aids

See also: Preparing for a Presentation Organising the Presentation Material Dealing with Questions

PPP Approach according to Scott Thornburry

PPP Approach according to Scott Thornbury

According to Scott Thornbury, the Presentation Practice Produce ( PPP) model to teaching has advantages and disadvantages.  Debating the pros and cons of a “presentation-practice-production” language teaching model, he shows that although the PPP approach has limitations in its theoretical basis, it has the advantage of priming language to raise awareness about language points. Watch the video!

Scott Thornbury on the PPP model to language teaching

Here is the link to the video on Scott Thornbury’s blog

P is for PPP

Comments are closed.

Presentations and lectures

A lecture is delivered to a large number of learners by a teacher (usually in person, but can be by broadcast, video or film). A conventional lecture would be 50–55 minutes of uninterrupted discourse from the teacher with no discussion, the only learner activity being listening and note-taking. Lectures will not necessarily include visual aids. Presentations follow a similar pattern but are more likely to happen outside formal education for example in the workplace. Presentations might be shorter and would definitely include visual aids — possibly of a high-tech nature.

There are many advantages to using presentations and lectures as a delivery method for training. Although the disadvantages are fewer, it is important to acknowledge them and to take measures to minimise them as they are significant and can undermine the learning experience.

There has been a lot of research carried out on learning experiences which sheds light on the appropriateness and value of presentations and lectures as a delivery technique. When preparing your presentation it is good to bear in mind the following:

• The brain has an average attention span of 10 minutes unless the trainer does something to stimulate attention, e.g. ask a question, show a slide, change the pace
• When a message is given once, the brain remembers only 10 per cent a year later — when the message is repeated six times, recall rises to 90 per cent
• The brain is more likely to remember the beginning and end of events
• Recall is high when mnemonics or analogy is used
• Recall falls rapidly after 24 hours without review
• The brain prefers rounded diagrams and figures to square
• The brain prefers colour to black and white
• The brain remembers unusual things very well

Tips for delivering effective presentations and lectures

There are some people who are natural speakers. They can speak without preparation, without notes, without visual aids and put together a presentation on their chosen or accepted subject that will impress, inform and captivate their audience. In so doing they might violate all the tips and guidance offered in this section but they will nevertheless be gifted trainers. Most of us need to develop and practice our speaking and presentation skills and following the guidance below will assist in preparing and delivering an effective and professional presentation or lecture. Some of the tips will also be relevant to other kinds of delivery methods.

Introduction

• Say whether the learners may ask questions
• Tell them whether and when to take notes
• Tell them about the handouts
• Outline your presentation

Find out about your participants’ existing knowledge

This is also a good way to “warm up” the class.

• Ask the class questions
• Give them a (brief) written test or quiz
• Find out what they have done before

Organise your information well

• Make sure you know enough about the subject to be able to respond to searching questions which are not part of your presentation
• Your lecture/presentation should have a beginning, a middle and an end or follow some other logical structure
• Remember you might need to re-orient your learners half way through
• Explain how the presentation fits into the overall training
• Relate your session to previous and subsequent elements of the training

Relate to learners

• Place subject in context
• Identify with something they will find useful
• Use analogies
• Use illustrations and diagrams to help clarity
• Use examples which will make the topic interesting for learners
• Use plain and simple language
• Use words that the learners know
• Write up definitions for complex terms or provide a glossary handout
• Explain abbreviations
• Avoid jargon and unnecessary repetition (but remember to reinforce important points)

Body language

• Be sure to make eye contact with the class without focusing too much on any one individual
• Remember to smile and look confident
• Avoid excessive gesturing which can be distracting
• Find a comfortable posture so that you stand balanced and relaxed
• Use voice tone and pitch to avoid monotony
• Pace yourself slowly enough to be clear — you will need to speak much more slowly than your usual talking speed
• Pause to allow time for words to be digested
• Wear clothes that make you feel confident and comfortable
• Aim to wear clothes that will not alienate your audience — if in doubt it is best to be smarter
• If “lucky” ties and ear-rings help boost your confidence, wear them
• Remember loud or inappropriate clothes can distract your audience

General tips

• Know your subject
• Keep to your time (practice delivering the presentation to be sure that the timing is right)
• Be honest — even if it means admitting you don’t know the answer
• Be enthusiastic
• Be yourself
• Summarise content and/or review main points
• Refer to bibliography and further reading as appropriate
• Allow time for questions

Visual aids

The most common technique for making lectures and presentations more interesting and effective is the use of visual aids . Lecturing can be a boring and therefore ineffectual way of delivering learning. Visual aids are used in presentations and lectures to illustrate the subject, they can help to break up the monotony, providing a visual stimulant to reinforce what the learners are listening to. The most common forms of visual aids are:

• Overheads (also know as OHPs, slides or transparencies)
• Photographic slides
• Powerpoint presentations
• Objects, pictures or documentation which is handed around the class but which do not constitute a handout

More detail on developing effective visual aids is given in the Teaching aids section.

How are presenters and lecturers assessed by the audience?

Making presentations and delivering lectures can be a very daunting experience, particularly as most of us have been on the receiving end of speeches in the past. It can be helpful to remember how we might be judged or received by our audience. There are three main areas on which a speaker’s competence may be judged:

• Knowledge: technical competence and practical experience
• Design and delivery: the “performance”, including: voice control; eye contact; body language; audio-visual use and support; facilitating discussion; making learning fun
• Enthusiasm: interest in the subject; listening skills; ability to answer questions

How to make lectures and presentations more interactive

Lectures can be the best way to get a lot of factual information over to a large group of people. However, they do not have to involve lengthy periods of monologue from the speaker as there are ways of breaking up the delivery to add variety and interest. Here are some suggestions:

• Interrupt the lecture with questions to the class
• String together a set of mini lectures and class activities
• Buzz groups — set a specific question and ask the learners to discuss it in pairs
• Provide partial handouts to be filled in by the class during the lecture
• Give the class a short piece of relevant reading
• Give the class quiet time (time to think: ask learners to read their notes, think about a problem, or summarise an idea in their heads)

Last updated: 20 December 2005

The Pros and Cons of Popular Instructional Strategies

Often, students find a benefit in mixing things up a bit with content presentation or assessment, and teachers may find moving out of their traditional practice, stretching, and trying something new is super gratifying as well. I love a design sprint workshop or an impromptu planning experience; however, during the school week, educators do not always have the time to step back and take part. In the past few years, planning periods may have been devoured up by attending meetings, covering a class, or simply trying to catch up. Professional learning has unfortunately taken a backseat to survival. While there are many different types of students and classes, people learn best when they are stimulated and engaged. For teachers to accomplish this, there are different teaching methods and plans they can employ. These are collectively called instructional strategies . Exploring some different instructional strategies and discovering how to incorporate them into the classroom process can rekindle a love affair with teaching. Finding the right instructional strategy to fit your classroom can make a world of difference to your students by allowing them to make meaningful connections with what they are learning. Take a look at a few different strategies, and see which one might suit your students this academic year.

Constructivism and Questioning

Asking questions and listening for learning in the answers is both fun and engaging for students of all ages. Educators naturally do this, but by simply becoming a bit more intentional and process driven with the questions, educators can create an environment that supports a unique experience of learning.

The Socratic Method

Named after the Greek philosopher Socrates, the Socratic method is often used to promote critical thinking. Students come to class prepared for discussion. Educators need to guide student preparation with a pre-class assignment. It is the discussion that leads the way through material. Inquiry is promoted through open-ended questions, and students have the option to explore different perspectives. Each question leads to discussion and can produce more than one answer. The meat of the learning is found in the process, teaching students to think about the material. In this method, educators ask questions of students, listen to the answers, and continue until any contradictions are exposed. Socrates also used this method of questioning to encourage people to question the things they were told and to look beyond the obvious. This process helps students develop critical-thinking skills, gets them to think quickly, and requires them to be prepared and attentive. Examples of questions to pose include: “What exactly do you mean?” and “Why is it vital?” and “What else can we assume?” Questions can focus on viewpoint, such as “Why is it better than the alternative (What is the alternative?)?” and “What would be the effect of that?” and “What made you feel that way?”

Project-Based Learning

Project-based learning or problem-based learning (PBL) is designed to engage students in solving a real-world problem or answering a complex question. Project-based learning unleashes a contagious, creative energy among students and teachers. It is NOT a moment in the curriculum when students build a diorama. PBL begins with teachers assigning an open-ended problem with more than one solution. With the problem presented, students then investigate potential solutions, often within small groups. The role of educators is to facilitate and support. Ultimately, students demonstrate their knowledge and skills by creating a public product or presentation for a real audience. As a result, students develop deep content knowledge, as well as critical-thinking, collaboration, creativity, and communication skills. PBL can vary in length from one class to an entire semester depending on the complexity of the problem. The project should contain and frame curriculum and instruction. Projects tend to be more open-ended than problem-based learning, giving students more choice when it comes to demonstrating what they know. Different from projects that are the culmination of a learning unit, PBL projects ARE the learning unit, meaning that fundamental concepts and skills are learned throughout the project. PBL is an evidence-based practice under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), and it meets the evidence requirements for tiers 1 and 2 under ESSA, which is exciting on so many levels. There are a few steps for learning to be considered PBL versus just another classroom project. While the core problems will vary among disciplines, some characteristics of good PBL problems transcend school subjects.

Inquiry-Based Learning

Inquiry-based learning is based on constructivist theories of learning, where knowledge is “constructed” from experience and process. Constructivists believe that learning happens through actively “mulling over” information. This encompasses an array of approaches, including fieldwork, case studies, investigations, individual and group projects, and research ventures. This is in contrast to theories like behaviorism , which proposes that students should be told information from a teacher rather than learning it themselves through experiences. It may sound similar to PBL, but there are subtle differences. Inquiry-based learning places an emphasis on finding answers to questions through discovery. In 1961, psychologist Jerome Bruner introduced the discovery learning model as a technique of inquiring-based learning. In discovery learning, teachers guide the process and investigations, whereas in true PBL, the student discovers everything themselves, even the questions. Both are considered constructivist approaches, where the process of learning is achieved actively through experiences such as investigation and observation in a student-centered environment rather than through passive learning, which is a teacher-centered environment, a contrasting educational approach that favors repetition and memorization. An inquiry-based approach asks students to investigate concepts using research and analysis. When executed correctly, this approach focuses on the use of higher-order-thinking skills like problem-solving to reach conclusions. Students are expected to use logic and reason to come to conclusions about topics. Specific learning processes that students engage in during inquiry include refining questions, seeking evidence to answer questions, explaining evidence, and justifying or laying out an argument for the evidence. Progress and outcomes are assessed through observing students’ learning development over time through conversations, notebook entries, student questions, procedural skills, the use of evidence, and other techniques. In this method, the process is more important than the solution. Effective questioning plays a role in focusing students on unit learning goals or overarching themes.

Bloom’s Approach

This approach and its iterations have been the framework for categorizing educational goals since 1956. It is a hierarchical model that categorized learning objectives into varying levels of complexity. Its theory advocated individualized learning over a universal curriculum. In 2001, Bloom’s was revised to call out the process of learning as active rather than passive.

Mastery-Based Learning

Mastery-based learning was introduced by psychologist Benjamin Bloom (perhaps best known for his taxonomy framework). It applies the principles of individualized instruction and tutoring to whole-class learning. In this model students are assessed multiple times throughout the learning process rather than at the end of a unit or semester. It is an instructional approach where students need to demonstrate a deep understanding before progressing to another topic or subject area. Educators provide individual feedback, diagnose learning needs/difficulties, prescribe specific remediation or enrichment strategies, and reassess with a parallel assessment. Mastery learning is basic to many textbook programs and has promoted formative assessments as a routine of classrooms. It honors the idea that students learn at different levels or paces and follows the philosophy that learning is unique to every student and that by instruction being closely monitored, educators learn and understand what students truly know.

Scaffolded Instruction

Scaffolded instruction focuses on delivering content gradually to support high-quality and unforced learning. It is a teaching technique used to build connections for learners by establishing details surrounding content prior to instruction. With scaffolded instruction, students do not learn new concepts in isolation, but as part of the big picture. Teachers may model a task and slowly transfer the knowledge to learners. Instruction could look like chunking the material into small steps to reach the desired content outcome. Strategies that work with scaffolded instruction include simple steps like pre-teaching vocabulary words before reading a text or using a timeline to teach historical content to allow students to see both when and how events impacted each other.

Teacher-Led, Directed, or Reciprocal/Cooperative Teaching

Teacher led instruction, using experience to share knowledge with students has slowly been moving away from “sage on the stage” to “guide on the side.” However, there are some instructional practices that leverage the techniques that made teacher led instruction popular for so many years.

Reciprocal Teaching

Reciprocal teaching is an instructional approach in which students become the teachers in small-group reading (or other content) sessions. Teachers model and then help students learn to guide group discussions using strategies such as summarizing, question generating, clarifying, and predicting. Once students understand and can apply the strategies, they take turns assuming the role of the teacher in a dialogue. In another version, students take the roles of predictor, summarizer, questioner, and clarifier.

Collaborative Learning

Collaborative learning, another research-based strategy for teaching, follows closely in the vein of peer learning, with students working in pairs or small groups and employing reciprocal teaching methods.

Structured Academic Controversy (SAC)

Structured academic controversy (SAC) is a cooperative learning strategy developed by David and Roger Johnson in order to structure and focus classroom discussions. One practice involves students working in pairs and then coming together in four-person teams, where students explore a question by reading about (or viewing) content and then presenting contrasting positions. Afterward, they engage in discussion to reach consensus. A discussion using SAC moves students beyond “either/or” thinking, examining controversial issues from multiple perspectives.

The Jigsaw Classroom

The jigsaw classroom is a research-based cooperative learning technique invented and developed in 1971 by Elliot Aronson and his students at the University of Texas and later at the University of California. It focuses on fostering student cooperation rather than competition. It strives to create a social environment where student learning is dependent on positive relationships. 

In this process, a large amount of educators’ time is devoted to building student relationships through a culture of mutual respect, modeling, and teaching. In a jigsaw classroom, students are placed in groups where they must work together toward a common goal. Each member of a small group is assigned to learn one part of a lesson and then expected to teach that information back to the group. Students learn to listen to and respect each other and the lessons being taught. 

The primary focus is developing the groups intentionally, building collaboration between students who may not get along or who struggle to understand each other. The content is secondary; it is a means to the collaboration.

Realia refers to real-life objects used in classroom instruction in order to improve students' understanding. It typically refers to instruction of other cultures and real-life situations. 

Teachers of English language learners and global languages employ realia to strengthen associations between words and the objects themselves. Teachers of young students also use this process to provide a tangible resource that connects to their developmental stage. 

Realia is used to link learners with the tactile and multidimensional connections between learned material and the object of the lesson. Primary objectives of this strategy include increasing comprehensible input, using language in context, and promoting verbal interaction and active involvement.

As a former kindergarten and special education teacher, I do not know how we can teach without understanding all aspects of the child. This is an approach to learning that embraces the concept that education should consider all influences on a child's development. It prioritizes all the developmental and personal needs of students in addition to their academic achievements. Hungry children do not learn; anxious children do not learn either. Sometimes, the baseball coach can get more from students than the classroom teacher. It is important, and in many ways, a no-brainer, to meet and understand the needs of students. However, this requires a team and support from the school and district, many of which are stretched thin already.

Get the latest education insights sent directly to your inbox

Subscribe to our knowledge articles.

• Headphones for Schools
• Customer cases
• Become a reseller

Language education , Language Teaching Strategies

Using the ppp lesson structure to teach grammar and vocabulary.

More about us

Understanding the grammatical elements and key vocabulary of a language are essential parts of achieving a good degree of fluency. Without them, it is pretty difficult to communicate clearly with a native language speaker. Grammar and vocabulary can therefore be seen as structural parts of a language and usually require a specific teaching methodology to deliver effectively.

Deductive approaches to teaching grammar and vocabulary are commonly used in this regard and form part of initial teacher training courses like the CELTA and CertTESOL . In such approaches a teacher presents a rule / structure to the class and the class then produces language based on that rule. This technique easily fits into a lesson structure known as PPP (Presentation, Practice and Production) . This blog post explores the PPP language lesson plan structure in detail, outlining how and where it can be most effectively used in English language and foreign language teaching classrooms.

The PPP lesson structure

As outlined in the image above, the PPP model consists of three progressive stages, which combine to engage and motivate language learners. Best practice suggests that a 60-minute lesson should feature equal time (i.e 20 minutes) to each stage – language teachers can therefore plan out their lessons in advance allowing enough time to address any issues that students may encounter. It is worth noting that this structure therefore works best with classes of uniform ability – otherwise less able students can be left behind if the key learning outcomes have not been fully understood. (Remember to check out our other post for ideas on how to tailor lessons based on students’ different language levels ).

Let’s work through each of the PPP stages in turn.

1. The ‘Presentation’ Stage

In this stage the teacher presents the new grammar concept or vocabulary in a meaningful context or situation to their learners. Building up stories on the board, using realia (e.g newspaper cuttings, household items, hobby materials), flashcards and miming are fun ways to present the language. Short audio or film clips can also be highly effective. 

The aim of this stage is to ensure that the students understand the context you are presenting and to get them to start thinking about it. Always try to get their thoughts on the context you’ve presented – ask them if they have been in this situation, has a family member? How did it make them feel and what happened next? This helps students to bring the situation to life and helps them remember previous scaffolding on the topic (i.e grammar and vocab that they already know). 

2. The ‘Practice’ Stage

In this stage, students begin to use the elements of the target language that they learnt previously through activities developed by the educator. The stage is usually controlled by the teacher and learners practice saying or writing the language structure or vocabulary correctly. Teachers should certainly model and correct if mistakes occur.

Typical practice stage activities include:

• Drill sentences / sounds – individually, in pairs or whole class
• Multiple-choice exercises
• Gap fill tasks
• Directed, paired conversation practice

The aim of these practice activities is building students’ accurate use of target language. If common errors persistently occur, then a specific exercise or recap session might be useful.

3. The ‘Production’ Stage

Once learners have demonstrated that they fully understand the key learning points and are able to demonstrate this without mistakes in controlled exercises, they can move onto the (free) production stage. In this stage, students are encouraged to use the target language as fluently and naturally as possible to replicate use outside of the language classroom.

Typical production stage activities include 

• Communication tasks (e.g presentations, speeches, debates, articles)
• Collaborative tasks
• Discussion activities

In this stage the teacher should not intervene or correct whilst students are “producing” language. Rather if mistakes have been made, it is better to address them after the exercise has been completed.

Advantages and disadvantages of the PPP lessons in language teaching

As with all language teaching strategies and lesson structures, the PPP approach is not 100% guaranteed to work brilliantly in all classrooms and with all students. A review of the literature relating to the PPP approach identifies a number of advantages and disadvantages which we summarise below.

• The PPP method is easy to adopt and is good for new language teachers
• The approach is widely applicable and can be used very flexibly
• It’s easy to plan a lesson around and has a clear, logical structure for students (and educators) to follow
• Evidence suggests that teachers trained on this method are more likely to use new teaching methods than those who do not.

Disadvantages

• It encourages and prioritises accuracy over fluency
• The presentation stage is too teacher-focused and has limited student engagement
• It can become boring to students if used repeatedly, particularly for higher language proficiency students
• Research suggests that it might not be the most effective way to teach or learn a language

As always, our recommendation would be to test it and try it in your setting and then tailor it to your specific circumstances. Maybe see how some form of learner-focused guided discovery could be incorporated into the presentation stage. Collaborative learning activities could, for example, also be included in the practice stage and a task, such as you might find in a task based learning approach would also fit well into the final stage.

How do Sanako products help educators to teach using the PPP lesson plan?

Sanako produces a range of language learning and teaching tools that help educators to improve their students’ reading skills. For example our browser-based language teaching solution Sanako Connect supports educators across all stages of the PPP language teaching approach.

• PRESENTATION – Educators can create distinctive contexts and situations in Sanako Connect using a wide variety of easily uploadable stimulus materials including text files, PDFs, presentations, audio clips, video, and web pages.
• PRACTICE – Test students’ understanding of grammar concepts and key vocabulary by creating exercises and questions for them to answer through gap-fill and multiple-choice quizzes.
• PRODUCE – Students can be easily divided into pairs or group discussions and be assigned role play and discussion activities. Outputs and deliverables can be collected, and reviewed on the same platform.

If you’d like to find out more about how Sanako’s dedicated language teaching solutions could transform your approach to teaching English or other modern languages, please contact us now to arrange your FREE demo!

This blog post was last updated 26 September, 2023.

Block "feature-request-pop-up" not found

Become a partner

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Does a presentation’s medium affect its message? PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentations

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America, Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America

Affiliation Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America

Affiliation Minerva Schools at the Keck Graduate Institute, San Francisco, California, United States of America

• Samuel T. Moulton, 
• Selen Türkay, 
• Stephen M. Kosslyn

• Published: July 5, 2017
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774
• Reader Comments

12 Oct 2017: The PLOS ONE Staff (2017) Correction: Does a presentation's medium affect its message? PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentations. PLOS ONE 12(10): e0186673. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186673 View correction

Despite the prevalence of PowerPoint in professional and educational presentations, surprisingly little is known about how effective such presentations are. All else being equal, are PowerPoint presentations better than purely oral presentations or those that use alternative software tools? To address this question we recreated a real-world business scenario in which individuals presented to a corporate board. Participants (playing the role of the presenter) were randomly assigned to create PowerPoint, Prezi, or oral presentations, and then actually delivered the presentation live to other participants (playing the role of corporate executives). Across two experiments and on a variety of dimensions, participants evaluated PowerPoint presentations comparably to oral presentations, but evaluated Prezi presentations more favorably than both PowerPoint and oral presentations. There was some evidence that participants who viewed different types of presentations came to different conclusions about the business scenario, but no evidence that they remembered or comprehended the scenario differently. We conclude that the observed effects of presentation format are not merely the result of novelty, bias, experimenter-, or software-specific characteristics, but instead reveal a communication preference for using the panning-and-zooming animations that characterize Prezi presentations.

Citation: Moulton ST, Türkay S, Kosslyn SM (2017) Does a presentation’s medium affect its message? PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentations. PLoS ONE 12(7): e0178774. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774

Editor: Philip Allen, University of Akron, UNITED STATES

Received: November 2, 2016; Accepted: May 18, 2017; Published: July 5, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 Moulton et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All data files are available from the Open Science Framework https://osf.io/fgf7c/ .

Funding: This research was supported by a grant from Prezi ( http://www.prezi.com ) to SMK. In the sponsored research agreement (which we are happy to provide) and in our conversations with Prezi leadership, they agreed to let us conduct the study as we wished and publish it no matter what the results revealed. Aside from funding the research, the only role that any employees of Prezi played was (as documented in the manuscript) 1) to provide us with a distribution list of Boston-area Prezi customers (8 of whom participated in the first experiment) and 2) as experts in Prezi, review the background questionnaire to ensure that we were accurately describing Prezi’s purported benefits and features (just as PowerPoint and oral presentation experts did the same). No employees at Prezi had any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. None of the authors have any professional or financial connection to Prezi or personal relationships with any Prezi employees. We do not plan to conduct any follow-up research on this topic or obtain future funding from Prezi. As evident in the manuscript, we took special care not to allow bias or demand characteristics to influence this research.

Competing interests: This research was supported by a grant to SMK from Prezi ( http://www.prezi.com ), a commercial funder. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Introduction

How do the characteristics of a communication medium affect its messages? This question has been the subject of much philosophical and empirical inquiry, with some (e.g., [ 1 ]) claiming that the medium determines the message (“the medium is the message”), others (e.g., [ 2 ]) claiming that characteristics of a medium affect the message, and others claiming that the medium and message are separable (e.g.,[ 3 , 4 ]). As psychologists, we ask: What mental mechanisms underlie effective communication and how can presenters leverage these mechanisms to communicate better? These questions—at the intersection of psychology and communication practice—motivate this research.

That said, the relative efficacy of different communication media or technologies informs the primary questions of interest. If we can demonstrate that oral presentations are less or more effective than those that rely on presentation software—or that presenters who use one type of presentation software tend to be more effective than those who use another—then we advance our psychological and practical understanding of effective communication. Thus, in the tradition of use-inspired basic research [ 5 ]—and as a means to an end, rather than an end unto itself—we compare the effectiveness of three commonly-used formats for communication: oral, PowerPoint, and Prezi presentations.

We focused on presentations because they populate our academic, professional, and even personal lives in the form of public speeches, academic lectures, webinars, class presentations, wedding toasts, courtroom arguments, sermons, product demonstrations, and business presentations [ 6 – 8 ], and because basic questions remain about how to present effectively. Should we present with or without presentation software? If we should present with software, which software? We examined PowerPoint and Prezi because they are popular and psychologically interesting alternatives: Whereas PowerPoint’s linear slide format might reduce cognitive load, focus attention, and promote logical analysis, Prezi’s map-like canvas format and heavy reliance on animation (see the Background section and https://prezi.com for examples) might facilitate visuospatial processing, conceptual understanding, and narrative storytelling.

To inform the present research, we explore the methodological challenges of media research and review past research on presentation formats.

Methodological challenges of media research

To research the efficacy of different communication formats fairly and accurately, one must overcome two stubborn methodological challenges. First, because correlation is not causation and the variables that underlie media usage are heavily confounded, such research requires true experimentation. To study whether a blended learning “flipped classroom” is a more effective instructional medium than traditional lecturing, for example, researchers gain little insight by comparing outcomes for students who enroll in one type of course versus the other. To control for audience (in this case, student) self-selection effects, researchers need to 1) randomly assign audience members to different communication conditions (in this case, pedagogies) or 2) manipulate format within participants. Moreover, the same methodological controls need to be applied to presenters (in this case, instructors). Instructors who choose to teach with emerging, innovative methods probably differ in numerous other respects (e.g., motivation) from those who teach with more traditional methods. If students assigned randomly to a flipped classroom format perform better than those assigned randomly to a traditional classroom format, we risk drawing inferences about confounds instead of causes unless instructors are also assigned randomly to instructional media. To make strong, accurate inferences, therefore, researchers interested in communication must control for audience and presenter self-selection effects. Such control introduces new complexities; when randomly assigning presenters to formats, for example, one must ensure that all presenters receive sufficient training in the relevant format. Moreover, such control is often cumbersome, sometimes impractical, and occasionally unethical (e.g., randomly assigning students in actual courses to hypothetically worse instructional conditions). But there are no adequate methodological substitutes for proper experimental control.

A second thorny methodological challenge inherent in conducting media research concerns how to draw general inferences about formats instead of specific inferences about exemplars of those formats. For example, if one advertising expert is assigned randomly to design a print ad and another expert a television ad—and a hundred consumers are assigned randomly to view the television or print ad—can we actually infer anything about print versus television ads in general when the two groups of consumers behave differently? Arguably not, because such a finding is just as easily explained by other (confounding) differences between the ads or their creators (e.g., ratio of print to graphics, which sorts of people—if any—are shown, and so forth). In other words, even with proper random assignment, researchers who intend to study different forms of communication risk merely studying different instances of communication. Statistically speaking, one should assume a random not fixed effect of the communication objects of interest (e.g., presentations, lectures, advertisements). To overcome this challenge and draw generalizable inferences, one must (at the very least) sample a sufficiently large set of examples within each medium.

Research on presentation software

Methodological shortcomings..

Considerable research has been conducted on how different presentation formats (particularly PowerPoint) convey information (for review, see [ 9 ]). However, much of this research is anecdotal or based on case studies. For example, Tufte [ 10 ] claims that PowerPoint’s default settings lead presenters to create bulleted lists and vacuous graphs that abbreviate arguments and fragment thought. And Kjeldsen [ 11 ] used Al Gore’s TED talk on climate change as a positive example of how visuals can be used to effectively convey evidence and enhance verbal communication.

Research that goes beyond mere anecdote or case study is plagued by the aforementioned methodological shortcomings: failure to control for audience self-selection effects (71% of studies), failure to control for presenter self-selection effects (100% of studies), and a problematic assumption of fixed effects across content and presenters (91% of studies). As is evident in Table 1 , no studies overcame two of these shortcomings, let alone all three. For example, in one of the most heavily-cited publications on this topic Szabo and Hasting [ 12 ] investigated the efficacy of PowerPoint in undergraduate education. In the first study, they examined whether students who received lectures with PowerPoint performed better on a test than students who received traditional lectures. Students were not assigned randomly to lecture conditions, however; rather, the comparison was across time, between two cohorts of students enrolled in different iterations of the same course. Any observed outcome difference could have been caused by student or instructor variables (e.g., preparedness), not lecture format. The fact that no such differences were found does not obviate this concern: Such differences may in fact have been present, but were overshadowed by confounding characteristics of students or instructors. In the second study, the authors varied presentation format within the same cohort of students, but confounded format with order, time, content, and performance measure: student performance was compared between lectures on different days, on different topics, and using different tests. As the authors themselves note, the observed differences may have had nothing to do with PowerPoint. In the third study, they counterbalanced lecture order and content; some students received a PowerPoint lecture first and others a traditional lecture first, and the same topics were presented in both formats. However, students were assigned to conditions based on their course enrollment, not randomly, but more importantly the study included only four presentations, all by one presenter. Any advantages of the two PowerPoint lectures (none were found) might have been particular to those instances or that presenter and not representative of the format more generally.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t001

Most studies—even those that control experimentally for audience self-selection—relied on only a single self-selected presenter, and some relied on only one presentation per format. In one study ([ 13 ]: Experiment 1), for example, one of the authors varied the format of his lecture instruction randomly across the semester, using transparences or PowerPoint slides. In another study [ 14 ], students who were enrolled in one of the authors’ courses were assigned randomly to a PowerPoint or Prezi e-lecture that contained identical audio narration and written text. In a third study [ 15 ], one of the researchers gave the same lecture over the course of the year to rotating medical students, using PowerPoint on odd months and overhead slides on even months. What reason is there to think that we can make general claims about presentation format based on studies of single lectures or single presenters? That is, how can we reasonably assume fixed as opposed to random effects? If the use of presentation software does meaningfully influence student learning or experience, surely that effect is not constant across all presenters or presentations—some instructors use it more effectively than others, and within any format some presentations are more effective than others (see [ 16 ]). And how can we assume that presenters who select both the content and format of their presentations are not designing them in ways that favor one format over another?

Research on the efficacy of presentation software has numerous other flaws, most notably the failure to control for experimenter effects or demand characteristics. In 82% of studies we identified, for example, the researchers investigated their own instruction and studied their own students. It is difficult to imagine that one would make these instructional and research efforts (e.g., creating new course material, conducting a field experiment) without a strong belief in the efficacy of one format over the other, and it is plausible (if not likely) that such beliefs would influence students or confound instructional format with instructional effort and enthusiasm.

Another common issue is the confounding of lecture format with access to study materials—in studies that contrast PowerPoint with traditional lecturing (e.g., [ 17 – 19 ]), students in the PowerPoint condition (but not the control condition) sometimes have access to PowerPoint slides as study material. This access could bias student motivation, behavior (e.g., attendance), course satisfaction, and performance (see [ 20 ]).

PowerPoint: Performance, perception, and persuasion.

Despite their methodological shortcomings, what are the findings of this research literature? The majority of studies examined the use of PowerPoint in higher education and measured both objective and subjective outcomes (see Table 1 ). They typically involved students enrolled in one or more of the researchers’ courses, and contrasted the efficacy of lectures (or whole lecture courses) that used PowerPoint with those that used a more traditional technology (e.g., blackboards, overhead projectors). In terms of student performance, their findings were notably mixed: Of the 28 studies we identified, 17 found no effect of PowerPoint lectures relative to traditional lectures ([ 12 ]: Experiments 1,3; [ 13 , 15 , 21 – 33 ]), 9 found a performance benefit of PowerPoint over traditional instruction ([ 12 ]: Experiment 2; [ 17 – 19 , 34 – 38 ]), and 2 found a performance benefit of traditional over PowerPoint instruction [ 39 , 40 ].

There is near consensus in the literature, however, when it comes student perception: Of the 26 studies we identified, 21 found that students preferred PowerPoint over traditional instruction ([ 12 ]: Experiment 1; [ 13 , 17 – 19 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 31 – 33 , 35 , 39 , 41 – 45 ]), 2 found that students preferred traditional over PowerPoint instruction [ 40 , 46 ], and 3 other studies found no preference for one or the other formats [ 15 , 22 , 37 ]. As one example, Tang and Austin [ 45 ] surveyed 215 undergraduates in business courses about their general perceptions of different lecture formats; on measures of enjoyment, learning, motivation, and career relevance, they found that students rated lectures with PowerPoint slides more favorably than lectures with overheads or without visual aids. An additional 7 studies did not contrast student perceptions of PowerPoint with another technology—they simply surveyed students about PowerPoint; these studies all found that students had, on average, favorable impressions of PowerPoint-based instruction [ 36 , 47 – 52 ].

In addition to these studies of how presentation software impacts student performance and perception, two studies examined PowerPoint‘s impact on audience persuasion. Guadagno, Sundie, Hardison, and Cialdini [ 53 ] argue that we heuristically use a presentation’s format to evaluate its content, particularly when we lack the expertise to evaluate the content on its merits. To test this hypothesis, they presented undergraduates with key statistics about a university football recruit and asked them to evaluate the recruit’s career prospects. The same statistics were presented in one of three formats: a written summary, a graphical summary via printed-out PowerPoint slides, or a graphical summary via animated PowerPoint slides (self-advanced by the participant). Participants shown the computer-based PowerPoint presentation tended to rate the recruit more positively than other participants, and there was some evidence that this effect was more pronounced for football novices than for experts. The findings of this study suggest that some presentation formats may be more persuasive than others, perhaps because audience members conflate a sophisticated medium with a sophisticated message.

In the second study to examine the impact of PowerPoint on persuasion, Park and Feigenson [ 54 ] examined the impact of video-recorded presentations on mock juror decision-making. Participants were more persuaded by attorneys on either side of a liability case when the attorney used PowerPoint slides as opposed to merely oral argument. They also remembered more details from PowerPoint than oral presentations, and evaluated both attorneys as more persuasive, competent, credible, and prepared when they presented with PowerPoint. Based on mediation analyses, the researchers argue that the decision-making benefit of PowerPoint results from both deliberative and heuristic processing (“slow” and “fast” thinking, respectively, see [ 55 ]).

Both of these studies, however, share the methodological limitations of the educational research on PowerPoint. The first study [ 53 ] used only one PowerPoint presentation, and the second [ 54 ] used only two. The presentations used were not selected at random from a larger stimulus pool but instead were created by researchers who hypothesized that PowerPoint would enhance presentations. But even if the presentations had been sampled randomly, the sample is too small to allow one to generalize to a broader population. In studying performance, perception, or persuasion, one cannot reasonably assume that all presentation effects are equal.

Prezi: A zoomable user interface.

Released in 2009, Prezi has received generally favorable reviews by researchers, educators, and professional critics [ 56 – 60 ]. With a purported 75 million users worldwide, it is increasingly popular but still an order of magnitude less so than PowerPoint (with as many as one billion users; [ 61 ]). Like PowerPoint and other slideware, Prezi allows users to arrange images, graphics, text, audio, video and animations, and to present them alongside aural narration to an in-person or remote audience. In contrast to PowerPoint and other slideware in which users create presentations as a deck of slides, Prezi users create presentations on a single visuospatial canvas. In this regard, Prezi is much like a blackboard and chalk. But unlike a physical blackboard, the Prezi canvas is infinite (cf. [ 62 ]) and zoomable: in designing presentations, users can infinitely expand the size of their canvas and can zoom in or out. When presenting, users define paths to navigate their audience through the map-like presentation, zooming and panning from a fixed-angle overhead view.

Like Google Maps or modern touchscreens, Prezi is an example of what scholars of human-computer interaction label a zoomable user interface (ZUI). These interfaces are defined by two features: They present information in a theoretically infinite two-dimensional space (i.e., an infinite canvas) and they enable users to animate this virtual space through panning and zooming. Some of the original ZUIs were used to visualize history, navigate file systems, browse images, and—in the Prezi predecessor CounterPoint—create presentations [ 63 , 64 ].

As communication and visualization tools, ZUIs in general and Prezi in particular are interesting psychologically for several reasons. First, they may take advantage of our mental and neural architecture, specifically the fact that we process information through dissociable visual and spatial systems. Whereas the so-called “ventral” visual system in the brain processes information such as shape and color, the “dorsal” spatial system processes information such as location and distance [ 65 – 68 ]. When working in concert, these systems result in vastly better memory and comprehension than when they work in isolation. For example, in the classic “method of loci” individuals visualize objects in specific locations; when later trying to recall the objects, they visualize navigating through the space, “seeing” each object in turn. This method typically doubles retention, compared to other ways of trying to memorize objects [ 69 , 70 ]. Similarly, in research on note-taking, students learned more when they used spatial methods than when they used linear methods (e.g., [ 71 ]). Mayer’s multimedia learning principles and evidence in their favor also highlight the importance of spatial contiguity [ 72 ].

Thus, by encouraging users to visualize and process information spatially, ZUIs such as Prezi may confer an advantage over traditional tools such as PowerPoint that do not encourage such visuospatial integration. As Good and Bederson [ 64 ] write: “Because they employ a metaphor based on physical space and navigation, ZUIs offer an additional avenue for exploring the utilization of human spatial abilities during a presentation.”

Furthermore, ZUIs may encourage a particularly efficacious type of spatial processing, namely graphical processing. In graphical processing, digital objects (or groups of objects) are not just arranged in space, they are arranged or connected in a way makes their interrelationships explicit. Randomly placing animal stickers on a blank page, for example, engages mere spatial processing; drawing connecting lines between animals of the same genus or arranging the animals into a phylogenetic tree, however, engages graphical processing. Because ZUIs force users to “see the big picture,” they may prompt deeper processing than software that segments content into separate spatial canvases. By facilitating such processing, ZUIs may leverage the same learning benefits of concept maps and other graphical organizers, which have been studied extensively. For example, in their meta-analysis of the use of concept maps in education, Nesbit and Adesope [ 73 ] found that these graphical representations (especially when animated) were more effective than texts, lists, and outlines. By requiring one to organize the whole presentation on a single canvas instead of a slide deck, therefore, Prezi may prompt presenters (and their audiences) to connect component ideas with each other, contextualize them in a larger narrative, and remember, understand, and appreciate this larger narrative. Slideware, on the other hand, may do just the opposite:

PowerPoint favours information that can be displayed on a single projected 4:3 rectangle. Knowledge that requires more space is disadvantaged … How to include a story on a slide? Distributing the associated text over several slides literally breaks it into fragments, disturbing its natural cohesion and thus coherence … PowerPoint renders obsolete some complex narrative and data forms in favour of those that are easily abbreviated or otherwise lend themselves to display on a series of slides [ 74 ] (p399)

Of course these arguments are speculative, and one can also speculate on the psychological costs of ZUI or benefits of standard slideware. Perhaps PowerPoint does confer some of same spatial processing benefits of Prezi—after all, slides are spatial canvases, and they must be arranged to form a narrative—but in a way that better manages the limited attentional resources of the presenter or audience. Our point here is simply that Prezi, as a ZUI presentation tool, offers a psychologically interesting alternative to standard deck-based slideware, with a range of possible advantages that could be explored empirically to discover the psychological mechanisms of effective communication.

Like the PowerPoint literature, most of the published literature on Prezi is limited to observational reports or case studies. Brock and Brodahl [ 75 ] evaluated Prezi favorably based on their review and students’ ratings of course presentations. Conboy, Fletcher, Russell, and Wilson [ 76 ] interviewed 6 undergraduates and 3 staff members about their experiences with Prezi in lecture instruction and reported generally positive experiences. Masood and Othman [ 77 ] measured the eye movements and subjective judgments of ten participants who viewed a single Prezi presentation; participants attended to the presentation’s text more than to its other components (e.g., images, headings), and favorably judged the presentation. Ballentine [ 78 ] assigned students to use Prezi to design text adventure games and reported benefits of using the medium. Two other studies [ 79 , 80 ] surveyed college students about their course experiences with Prezi, and both reported similarly positive perceptions.

All of these studies, however, suffer from major demand characteristics, due to the fact that the researchers observed or asked leading questions of their own students about their own instruction (e.g., “Do you find lectures delivered with Prezi more engaging then[sic] other lectures?”, from [ 79 ]). Moreover, all suffer from the methodological limitations discussed earlier.

Other literature that addresses Prezi is purely theoretical and speculative: In discussing the pedagogical implications of various presentation software, Harris [ 81 ] mostly just describes Prezi’s features, but does suggest that some of these features provide useful visual metaphors (e.g., zooming in to demonstrate otherwise hidden realities). Bean [ 82 ] offers a particularly compelling analysis of PowerPoint and Prezi’s histories, user interfaces, and visual metaphors, and argues that Prezi is the optimal tool for presenting certain types of information (e.g., wireflow diagrams).

The experimental literature on Prezi is limited to three published studies. Castelyn, Mottart and Valcke [ 14 ] investigated whether a Prezi e-lecture with graphic organizers (e.g., concepts maps) was more effective than a PowerPoint e-lecture without graphic organizers. Claiming that Prezi encourages the use of graphic organizers, they purposefully confounded the type of presentation software with the presence of graphic organizers. Undergraduates randomly assigned to the different e-lectures did not differ in their knowledge or self-efficacy gains, but did prefer the graphically-organized Prezi lecture over the PowerPoint control lecture. In a follow-up study [ 83 ], the same researchers assigned undergraduates to create Prezi presentations that did or did not use graphic organizers, and found no effects of this manipulation on students’ self-reported motivation or self-efficacy. Chou, Chang, and Lu [ 24 ] compared the effects of Prezi, PowerPoint and traditional blackboard instruction on 5 th graders’ learning of geography. Whereas the Prezi group performed better than the control group (which received blackboard instruction) in formative quizzes and a summative test, the PowerPoint group did not; however, on a delayed summative test, both Prezi and PowerPoint students performed better than those in the control group. In direct comparisons of PowerPoint and Prezi, there were no differences in any of the learning measures. Taken together, the studies are not just limited in number: They present uncompelling findings and suffer from the same methodological shortcomings of the PowerPoint research.

The current study

In short, the extant literature does not clarify whether presenters should present with or without visual aids—and, if the latter, whether they should use standard deck-based slideware such as PowerPoint or a ZUI such as Prezi. One of the reasons why these basic questions remain unanswered is the methodological challenges inherent in comparing different presentation formats. We designed the current study to overcome these challenges.

To control for individual differences among presenters, we randomly assigned presenters to different presentation conditions. To control for individual differences among audience members, we used a counterbalanced, within-participants design for the first experiment, and between-participants random assignment in the second experiment. And to draw general inferences about the impact of presentation format—instead of specific inferences about particular presenters or presentations—we sampled from a large number of presentations, each created by a different presenter. Our methods have their own challenges, such as recruiting participants sufficiently trained in all presentation methods, allowing presenters adequate preparation time and context, approximating the psychological conditions of real-world presentations, and measuring the “signal” of presentation format among the added “noise” of so many presenters and presentations. In addition, the studies had to be double-blind: Neither presenters nor audience members could be aware of any hypotheses, and had to be free from any sorts of confirmation bias conveyed by the investigators.

To focus on presentations as a form of presenter-audience communication and limit the number of confounded variables, we purposefully controlled for other possible impacts of presentation software on professional practices or outcomes, including 1) the use of presentation artifacts (e.g., PowerPoint files, printed-out slides, online Prezis), and 2) facilitated collaboration among presentation designers. Unlike other research (e.g., [ 32 , 33 ]) we did allow for the possibility that presentation format not only affects how audiences perceive presentations, but also how presenters design or deliver them (e.g., by increasing their conceptual understanding of the topic, or decreasing their cognitive load during live narration; cf. [ 84 ]). In other words, presentation technologies might affect the cognition of both the audience and the presenter, so we designed the present studies to accommodate both sets of mechanisms.

To maximize the real-world relevance of this research, we relied on multimedia case materials from Harvard Business School [ 85 ]; these materials recreate the actual professional circumstances in which presentations are typically used. Because presentations are designed commonly both to inform and convince audiences, we examine outcome measures of learning as well as persuasion. And to minimize demand characteristics, we avoided the typical flaws of existing research (e.g., researcher-designed presentations, the researchers’ students as research participants) and adopted several countermeasures (e.g., recruitment language and participant instructions that obscured the research hypotheses, between-participant manipulation).

We adopted a two-phased approach in this research. In the first phase, participants with sufficient experience in oral, PowerPoint, and Prezi presentation formats were randomly assigned to create a presentation in one of those formats. We provided the necessary context, instruction, and time to create a short but realistic presentation. Participants then presented live to an actual audience, who judged each presentation’s efficacy. In the second phase, recorded versions of these presentations were presented to a larger online audience, affording us greater statistical power and allowing us to measure the impact of presentation format on decision-making and learning.

Experiment 1

Participants..

We recruited presenter participants via online postings (on Craigslist, the Harvard Psychology Study Pool, the Harvard Decision Science Lab Study Pool), email solicitations to the local Prezi community, and campus flyers. To create the fairest comparison between PowerPoint and Prezi, we recruited individuals who “have expertise in using both PowerPoint and Prezi presentation software.” Interested individuals were directed to a prescreening survey in which they reported their experience with and preference for giving different types of presentations. Only individuals who reported that they were “not at all experienced” with PowerPoint, Prezi or giving oral presentations were excluded from research participation. Out of the 681 respondents who completed the prescreening survey, 456 of them were eligible and invited to sign up for an available timeslot. Out of this group, 146 individuals—105 from the Harvard study pools, 33 from Craigslist, and 8 from the Prezi community—participated as presenters in the study and were compensated $40 for approximately two hours of their time. There were no significant differences between the three presentation groups on any demographics variables.

We also recruited 153 audience participants from the Harvard Decision Science Lab Study Pool and Craigslist using the following announcement:

Do you use Skype? Does your computer have a large screen (13 inches or larger)? If so, you may be eligible to participate in a 45 minute long online study. In this study, you will watch professional presentations over Skype from home on your personal computer.

Anyone who responded to the recruitment notice was eligible, provided that they were available during one of the prescheduled testing sessions. Audience participants were compensated $10 for approximately 45 minutes of their time. Table 2 presents demographic information for the presenter and audience participants. This study was approved by the Harvard Committee on the Use of Human Subjects (Study #IRB14-1427), and all participants in both experiments provided written consent.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t002

Presenter procedure.

Presenter participants completed a survey remotely before attending the in-person, group sessions with other participants. In the online pre-survey, presenters first answered basic demographic questions (gender, age, education level, English fluency, and occupation). Next, they answered questions about their prior experience with, opinions about, and understanding of the different presentation formats (oral, Prezi, and PowerPoint). This section was prefaced with the following note:

A note on language: When we use the term "presentation," we mean a formal, planned, and oral presentation of any duration, including a public speech, an academic lecture, a webinar, a class presentation, a wedding toast, a sermon, a product demonstration, a business presentation, and so on. Examples of things we do NOT mean are: a theatrical performance, an impromptu toast at dinner, and any presentation with no audience. When we say PowerPoint presentations, we mean presentations that were made using Microsoft PowerPoint, not other software such as Apple's Keynote. When we say Prezi presentations, we mean presentations that were made using Prezi presentation software. Also, when we refer to "oral presentation", we mean a presentation that is only spoken and does not include any visual aids or the use of presentation software.

Participants were asked the following questions for each type of presentation:

• How experienced are you at making the following types of presentations? [5-level rating]
• When you give a presentation, how effective are the following types of presentations for you? [5-level rating, with “not applicable” option]
• When somebody else gives a presentation, how effective are the following types of presentations for you? [5-level rating, with “not applicable” option]
• How difficult is it for you to make the following types of presentations? [5-level rating, with “not applicable” option]
• In the last year, approximately how many of the following types of presentations did you make? [free response]
• In your lifetime, approximately how many of the following types of presentations have you made? [free response]
• For approximately how many years have you been making the following types of presentations? [free response]

As part of the expertise-related measures, we also asked the participants to identify the purported advantages and disadvantages of each presentation format, according to its proponents and critics, respectively. For PowerPoint and Prezi, we asked participants to identify whether or not it had particular functionalities (e.g., the capacity to record narration, create custom backgrounds, print handouts). Finally, participants viewed three sets of four short Prezi presentations and rank-ordered them from best to worst. In each set we manipulated a key dimension of Prezi effectiveness, according to its designers: the use of zooming, the connection of ideas, and the use of visual metaphor.

Presenter participants were tested in person at the Harvard Decision Science Lab, and randomly assigned to one of the three groups: Prezi, PowerPoint, or oral presentation. A total of 50 data collection sessions were held. In each session, there were typically three presenter participants (one for each presentation format); as a result of participants who failed to arrive or overbooking, there were ten sessions with only two presenters and six sessions with four presenters.

After providing informed consent, participants completed an online survey (in the lab) in which they rank-ordered three sets of recorded example PowerPoint and oral presentations. Identical in form to the example Prezi presentations they judged in the pre-survey, these short presentations were designed to assess their understanding of effective presentation design by manipulating a key aspect specific to each format. For PowerPoint presentations, we manipulated the use of text, use of extraneous “bells and whistles,” and graph design; for oral presentations, the three dimensions were verbal behavior, nonverbal behavior (other than eye contact), and eye contact. In selecting these dimensions (and those for Prezi), we consulted with a variety of experts, including software designers, speaking coaches, and researchers.

Next, presenters were shown material from a multimedia case created for and used by the Harvard Business School. Specifically, they were told the following (the company featured in the business case will be referred to anonymously here as “Company X” to respect their contractual agreement with the school):

For the next two hours, you are going to pretend to be the chief marketing officer of i-Mart, a large chain of retail stores. i-Mart recently made an offer to [Company X] to sell their products in i-Mart stores. Your boss, the CEO of i-Mart, has asked you to make a presentation to [Company X]’s leadership that persuades them to accept i-Mart’s offer. In your presentation, you will need to argue that accepting i-Mart’s offer is in [Company X]’s strategic interests, and address any concerns they may have about how accepting the offer might affect their corporate identity.

As a participant in this study, your primary job today is to prepare and then deliver this presentation. The presentation will be very short (less than 5 minutes) and made live (via Skype) to an audience of participants who are playing the part of [Company X] executives. Before you start planning your presentation, you will first learn more about [Company X] and how they’re thinking about i-Mart’s offer.

On their own computer workstation, participants studied the multimedia case for 30 minutes and were invited to take notes on blank paper provided for them. The multimedia case material included video and textual descriptions of Company’s X’s corporate culture, business model, and constituent communities.

Following this study period, participants were given 45 minutes to create a presentation in one of three randomly assigned presentation formats: PowerPoint, Prezi, or oral. To assist participants in the PowerPoint and Prezi conditions, we provided them with a set of digital artifacts including text, data, and graphics related to the case. Participants were not told that other participants were asked to present in different formats, and the workstations were separated from each other to prevent participants from discovering this manipulation.

After this preparation period, participants were taken individually (in a counterbalanced order) to another room to present to a live audience via Skype. For PowerPoint and Prezi presentations, we shared each participant’s presentation with the audience via screen sharing; thus they viewed both the presenter and the presentation. For those presenters who consented, we also recorded their presentations for future research purposes. After making their presentations, presenters completed a final survey about their presentation (e.g., “How convincing do you think your presentation will be to [Company X’s] board members”), the corporate scenario (e.g., What do you think [Company X] should do?”), and their presentation format (e.g., “How likely are you to recommend the presentation tool or presentation format you used to others to make professional presentations?”).

Audience procedure.

Audience participants completed the entire experiment remotely and online. Their participation was scheduled for the end of the presenter sessions so that the in-lab presenters could present live to a remote audience via Skype. We recruited between three and six audience participants per session, although participants who failed to arrive or Skype connectivity issues resulted in some sessions with only one or two audience participants: Five sessions had one participant, twelve sessions had two participants, sixteen sessions had three participants, eleven sessions had four participants, four sessions had five participants, and two sessions had six participants.

Individuals who responded to the recruitment notice completed a consent form and three online surveys prior to their scheduled Skype session. The first survey was a slightly modified form of the presenter pre-survey (demographics, background on presentation formats, rank-ordering of example Prezis) in which they also scheduled their Skype session. In the second survey, audience participants were told that they were “going to play the role of a corporate executive listening to several short business presentations,” and that their task was “to evaluate the quality of these presentations, each made by another participant engaged in a similar role-playing scenario.” They were then shown a brief video and textual description of the fictionalized corporate scenario (an abridged version of what presenter participants studied), and told the following:

You are a board member for [Company X], an innovative clothing company. Another company, i-Mart, wants to sell [Company Y’s products] in its stores. You and your fellow board members must decide whether or not to accept i-Mart's offer.

And in the third survey they rank-ordered the three sets of recorded example PowerPoint and oral presentations.

At the time of the scheduled session, the audience participants logged into Skype using a generic account provided by the research team, and were instructed to turn on their webcams and put on headphones. Once the first presenter participant was ready to present, the experimenter initiated the group Skype call, confirmed that the software was functioning properly, invited the presenter into the room to begin, left the room before the start of the presentation, monitored the presentation remotely via a closed-circuit video feed, and re-entered the room at the presentation’s conclusion. For Prezi and PowerPoint presentations, Skype’s built-in screen-sharing function was used to share the visual component of the presentation; audience participants viewing these presentations were instructed to use the split-screen view, with windows of equal size showing the presenter and the accompanying visuals.

Immediately after viewing each presentation, participants evaluated it via an online survey. They rated each presentation on how organized, engaging, realistic, persuasive, and effective it was using a five-level scale with response options of not at all , slightly , somewhat , very , and extremely . They were also invited to offer feedback to the presenter on how the presentation could be improved. After the final presentation, participants rank-ordered the presentations on the same dimensions (e.g., effectiveness, persuasiveness). Halfway through the experiment we added a final question in which we asked participants to rank-order PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentation formats “in terms of their general effectiveness, ignoring how well individual presenters (including today's) use that format,” and to explain their rank-ordering.

Prior experience and pre-existing beliefs.

Participants’ prior experience with and pre-existing beliefs about each presentation format provide a baseline that informs the research findings. If presenter participants had more experience with and more positive beliefs about one format than the others—and those assigned to that format induced more positive assessments from the audience members than did those assigned to the other formats—then the results are less compelling than if there was no correlation between these baseline measures and the experimental outcomes. The same applies to audience participants: Are they merely judging presentations according to their initial biases? Conversely, the results are most compelling if there is a negative association between the baseline measures and the experimental findings. For this reason—and to check that presenters assigned to the different formats did not happen to differ in these baseline measures—we analyzed participants’ prior experience with and pre-existing beliefs about PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentation formats.

Both audience and presenter participants were least experienced with Prezi and most experienced with oral presentations. At the outset, they rated PowerPoint as the most effective and easiest to use to present material and Prezi as the least effective and most difficult to use to present. For watching presentations, audience participants rated PowerPoint most effective and oral presentations least effective, but rated Prezi as more enjoyable than other formats. For watching presentations, presenter participants did not find any format more effective than the others. Table 3 presents full descriptive and inferential statistics for all self-reported measures of prior experience with and preexisting beliefs about Prezi, PowerPoint, and oral presentations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t003

Presenters assigned to different formats did not differ in their experience with or pre-existing beliefs about presentations formats. They also did not differ in how well they identified the purported advantages and disadvantages of each presentation format, how well they identified the software features of PowerPoint and Prezi, or how accurately they could identify effective presentations of each format.

Audience ratings.

In term of their prior experience with and pre-existing beliefs about presentation formats, both audience and presenter participants were biased in favor of oral and PowerPoint presentations and against Prezi. After presenters were randomly assigned to these different formats, how did the audience evaluate their presentations?

In examining how presentation format affected the audience’s ratings of the presentations, two complications arose. First, sessions with two presentations were missing one presentation format, and sessions with four presentations had two presentations of the same format. To address this complexity we only conducted pairwise comparisons of different formats (e.g., PPT versus oral) instead of omnibus tests, and—for those sessions with four presentations—we averaged ratings for the two same-format presentations. To be certain that the differing number of presentations per session did not somehow bias the results even after adopting these measures, we also conducted an analysis on the subset of sessions that had exactly three presentations.

Second, the number of audience participants per session ranged from one to six. In calculating descriptive statistics, some sessions would be weighted more heavily than others unless ratings were first averaged across participants within the same session, then averaged across sessions. In calculating inferential statistics, averaging across ratings from different participants within the same session who received presentations in the same format was necessary to ensure that the sampling units were independent of each other, an assumption of all parametric and most nonparametric tests. In other words, for both descriptive and inferential statistics, we treated session (instead of participant) as the sampling unit.

As an empirical matter, this multi-step averaging—within participants across identical presentation formats, then across participants within the same session—had little impact on the condition means (i.e., the average ratings of PowerPoint, Prezi, or oral presentations on each dimension). Compared to the simplest, raw averaging of all ratings in one step, the maximum absolute difference between these two sets of means was .07 (on a 1–5 scale) and the mean absolute difference was .04.

To test whether the presentations’ format affected their ratings, therefore, we conducted paired t -tests for each rating dimension, with presentation format as the repeated measure and mean session rating as the dependent variable. Because we conducted three tests for each dimension—pairing each format with every other—we controlled for multiple comparisons by dividing our significance threshold by the same factor (i.e., α = .05/3 = .017). Results revealed that presentation format influenced audience ratings. In particular, the audience rated Prezi presentations as significantly more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective than both PowerPoint and oral presentations; on a five-level scale, the average participant rated Prezi presentations over half a level higher than other presentations. The audience did not rate PowerPoint presentations differently than oral presentations on any dimension. Table 4 and Fig 1 present these results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t004

Audience members rated presentations on each dimension on a 5-level scale (1 = “not at all,” 5 = “extremely”). The figure shows session-level means from all available data, including those from sessions with two or four presentations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.g001

By limiting the analysis to the 34 sessions with exactly three presentations (one of each format), we could ensure that the sessions with two or four presentations did not somehow bias the results. Moreover, this procedure enabled us to conduct omnibus tests of presentation format for each rating dimension. These omnibus tests revealed significant effects for organization, F (2,66) = 12.9, p < .0001, engagement, F (2,66) = 4.6, p = .01, persuasion, F (2,66) = 3.9, p = .03, and effectiveness, F (2,66) = 7.2, p = .001. The results from post-hoc tests (Fisher’s LSD) aligned with the original pairwise comparisons: On all dimensions, the audience rated Prezi presentations higher than PowerPoint and oral presentations, p s < .05; PowerPoint and oral presentations were not rated differently on any dimension, p s>.05. (Note: All p -values for pairwise tests here and elsewhere are two-tailed.)

To explore whether the obtained results were somehow the result of demand characteristics, we analyzed ratings from only the first presentation in each session. This analysis yielded the same pattern of findings, with a to-be-expected reduction in statistical significance due to the loss of power. On all four dimensions, a one-way, independent-measures ANOVA yielded significant or marginally-significant results: organized, F (2,49) = 5.1, p = .01; engaging, F (2,49) = 2.5, p = .09; persuasive, F (2,49) = 2.6, p = .09; and effective, F (2,49) = 5.8, p = .006. In all cases, Prezi was rated higher than oral and PowerPoint presentations (post-hoc LSD p s ≤.08).

On average, the audience rated the presentations as realistic, with a modal rating of “very realistic.” Our intent in including this rating dimension was merely to verify that our experimental protocol resulted in realistic rather than contrived presentations; we therefore did not test for differences in these ratings as a function of group differences.

Audience rankings.

As just noted, participants randomly assigned to present using Prezi were rated as giving more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective presentations compared to those randomly assigned to the PowerPoint or oral presentation conditions. In addition, at the end of each session audience participants rank-ordered each type of presentation on the same dimensions used for the ratings. Here we ask: Did the audiences’ rank-orderings align with the ratings?

The same complexities with the ratings data—the variable number of conditions and audience participants per session—applied as well to the ranking data. We therefore adopted a similar analytic strategy, with one exception: we conducted non-parametric rather than parametric pairwise tests, given the rank-ordered nature of the raw data and distributional assumptions that underlie parametric tests.

Using the session-level mean ranks, we tested the effect of presentation format with three sets of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. The results had the identical pattern as those from the ratings data: the audience rated Prezi presentations as significantly more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective than both PowerPoint and oral presentation (all p s ≤ .006); the audience did not rate PowerPoint presentations differently than oral presentations on any dimension. Table 5 and Fig 2 present these results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t005

Audience members ranked the presentations from best to worst, with lower ranks indicating better presentations. The figure shows session-level means from all available data, including those from sessions with two or four presentations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.g002

As with the ratings data, we also conducted omnibus tests of only those sessions with exactly three presentations to validate that unbalanced sessions did not somehow bias the results. These tests (Friedman ANOVAs) revealed significant effects for organization, exact p = .0005, engagement, exact p = .04, and effectiveness, exact p = .003; we found only a marginally significant effect for persuasion, exact p = .08. Post-hoc tests (Fisher’s LSD) showed that the audience ranked Prezi presentations higher than PowerPoint and oral presentations on all dimensions, p s < .05; PowerPoint and oral presentations were not ranked differently on engagement, persuasion, or effectiveness, p s>.05, but the audience did rank PowerPoint presentations as more organized than oral presentations, p = .04.

Audience omnibus judgments of effectiveness.

Before and after the experimental session, audience participants judged the general effectiveness of the three presentation formats. In the pre-survey, they rated each format on its effectiveness for them as presenters and audience members. In the post-survey, they rank-ordered the formats on their “general effectiveness” and were instructed to ignore “how well individual presenters (including today's) use that format.” Although the pre- and post-questions differed in their phrasing and response formats, they nonetheless afford us an opportunity to investigate if and how their judgments changed over the course of the experiment.

As already described (see Table 3 ), the audience began the experiment judging PowerPoint presentations as most effective for presenters and audiences. They ended the experiment, however, with different judgments of efficacy: A majority (52%) ranked Prezi presentations as the most effective, a majority (57%) ranked oral presentations as least effective, and a plurality (49%) ranked PowerPoint presentations second in effectiveness. A Friedman’s ANOVA test (on the mean rankings) confirmed that participants rated presentation formats differently, exact p = .00007. Post hoc analysis with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed that the audience ranked both Prezi and PowerPoint presentations as more effective than oral presentations, ps ≤.003). They did not rank Prezi and PowerPoint presentations significantly differently ( p = .15). Fig 3 presents these results.

Note: Means shown from pre-survey items are calculated based on responses from all participants (as opposed to only those who had experience with all presentation formats).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.g003

In the pre-survey, some audience participants reported prior experience viewing Prezi presentations but others did not (i.e., those who selected the “not applicable” response option). Compared to participants with no prior experience watching Prezi presentations ( n = 34), participants with prior Prezi experience ( n = 117) rated PowerPoint presentations (but not oral presentations) as less effective, t (149) = 2.7, p = .007, mean difference = .47, and less enjoyable for them, t (149) = 2.9, p = .004, mean difference = .53. Thus, prior experience with Prezi was associated with negative pre-existing judgments of PowerPoint.

Audience correlates of presentation ratings and rankings.

What, if any, individual-level variables—demographics and baseline survey responses—correlated with the audience’s judgments of the presentations? If, for example, the more experience the audience had with Prezi, the worse they evaluated those presentations, such a correlation would suggest that the current findings reflect a novelty effect.

We did not find any significant relationships between the audiences’ prior experience with a given presentation format (presenter experience rating, number of years, number of presentations watched last year or lifetime) and their ratings or rank-orderings of that presentation format on any dimensions, all | r| s < .16. The only pre-existing audience beliefs about the presentation formats (presenter effectiveness, presenter difficulty, audience effectiveness, audience enjoyableness) that correlated with their ratings or rankings were for oral presentations: the more effective participants rated oral presentations for them as audience members before the experiment, the more effective they rated and ranked oral presentations in the experiment as engaging, r = .22 and .26, respectively, p s < .01.

Among demographic variables, only age showed reliable correlations with the audiences’ evaluations of presentations: the older the participant, the more effective they rated PowerPoint presentations, r = .23, p = .007, the more persuasive they ranked PowerPoint presentations, r = .24, p = .006, and the less organized and persuasive they rated oral presentations, r = -.32, p = .001, and r = -.21, p = .01, respectively.

Audience participants’ success in distinguishing better from worse presentations of each format (i.e., their rank-ordering of short expert-created examples) did not correlate with their evaluations of the experimental presentations, nor did it correlate with the audiences’ self-reported experience with each format.

Audience free response.

Although we cannot assume that participants understood the reasons behind their rank-orderings (cf. [ 86 ]), their explanations may nonetheless offer some insight into how they perceived different presentation formats. In explaining their rank-ordering of the presentation formats in terms of their general effectiveness, 8% of participants who preferred Prezi mentioned that it was new or different or that PowerPoint presentations were old or outdated . More commonly, they described Prezi as more engaging or interactive (49%), organized (18%), visually interesting , visually compelling , visually pleasing , sleek , or vivid (15%), or creative (13%). Of participants who preferred PowerPoint, 38% described it as more concise , clear , easy to follow , familiar , professional , or organized than the other presentation formats. An equal percentage explained their choice in terms of negative judgments of Prezi, including comments that Prezi was disorienting , busy , crowded , amateurish , or overwhelming . Participants who rank-ordered oral presentations as most effective remarked that they felt more engaged or connected with the presenter, could better give their undivided attention to the presentation (29%), valued the eye contact or face-to-face interaction with the presenter (14%), or found presentation software distracting (14%).

Presenter outcomes and correlates of success.

A series of one-way ANOVAs revealed that presentation format did not affect the presenters’ judgments about the business scenario (e.g., “What do you think [Company X] should do?”), self-reported comprehension of the business scenario (“How much do you think you understand the situation with [Company X] and i-Mart?”), or ratings of their own motivation (e.g., “This activity was fun to do”), self-efficacy (e.g., “I think I am pretty good at this activity”), effort (e.g., “I tried very hard on this activity), and effectiveness as presenters (“How convincing do you think your presentation will be to [Company X]’s board members?”); participants using different presentation formats also did not differ in their performance on the multiple-choice test about the business scenario, all p s >.05.

The presenter groups did differ in how inclined they were to recommend their presentation format to others (“How likely are you to recommend the presentation tool or presentation format you used to others to make professional presentations?”), F (2,144) = 4.2, p = .02, with presenters who used Prezi or PowerPoint being more likely to recommend their format than those who made oral presentations, LSD p = .03 and p = .007, respectively.

Presenter variables—including demographic characteristics and experience with their assigned format—generally did not predict their presentation success, either in terms of audience ratings or rankings. The one exception was that Prezi presenters who were better able to identify effective Prezi presentations were rated and ranked as giving more effective and engaging presentations, .008 < p s < .04.

Participants who were randomly assigned to present using Prezi were judged as giving more effective, organized, engaging, and persuasive presentations than those who were randomly assigned to present orally or with PowerPoint. This was true despite the fact that both audience and presenter participants were initially predisposed against Prezi. What might explain these findings?

One explanation is a novelty effect: Perhaps the audience preferred Prezi simply because it is relatively new to them. It appears that this was not the case, however: Only 8% of participants claimed that they preferred Prezi because it was new or different, and there was no significant relationship between the audiences’ experience with Prezi and their ratings or rank-orderings.

Another explanation for these results is that the presenters or audience members were somehow biased towards the Prezi presentations. Again, however, this appears not to be the case. The presenters were least experienced in Prezi, judged themselves least effective presenting with Prezi, and found Prezi presentations hardest to create. We recruited only a small minority (8%) of presenters based on their prior association with Prezi, and used the most conservative exclusion criteria feasible: only individuals without any experience with Prezi or PowerPoint were excluded from participating. All presenters were randomly assigned to their presentation format and were blind to the experimental manipulation. In recruiting audience participants, we did not mention Prezi or PowerPoint, and selected participants only based on their access to Skype and a sufficiently large computer screen. In addition, we minimized contact between the investigator and research participants, and presentations were never identified based on their format; at the end of the experiment, in fact, some participants did not even realize that they had seen a Prezi presentation (as evidenced by their free responses). Data were collected through standardized, online surveys, the investigator was not in the room with the presenter during his or her presentation, and the investigator interacted with the audience only briefly to set up their Skype session. Finally, an analysis of ratings from only the first presentations yielded the same results as the full analysis, making implausible an interpretation based on audience demand characteristics.

Thus, the most likely explanation is that individuals do, in fact, perceive Prezi presentations more favorably than PowerPoint or oral presentation. Experiment 1 has several limitations, however. First, because each audience participant in Experiment 1 was exposed to multiple presentations, we were unable to evaluate presentations on their ultimate goal: to convince the audience (role-playing Company X board members) to accept i-Mart’s business offer. In other words, Experiment 1 demonstrated that Prezi presentations are more effective than other formats in terms of audience perceptions but not decision-making outcomes. Second, we asked the audience about their pre-existing beliefs and prior experiences with PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentations at the beginning of the Experiment 1; although it is difficult to imagine how this questioning could have produced the obtained results—particularly given the nature of their pre-existing beliefs and prior experiments—it is a remote possibility. Third, just like the results from any single experiment, the findings of Experiment 1 should be treated cautiously until replicated. We designed a second experiment to address these limitations and extend the findings from the first experiment.

Experiment 2

In Experiment 2 we showed online participants a single presentation from Experiment 1, and varied randomly which type of presentation (Prezi, PowerPoint, or oral) they viewed. We also randomly assigned some participants to view a presentation on material that was not related to the case material; this control condition served as a baseline that allowed us to estimate the impact of each presentation format. To minimize demand characteristics, we asked participants about their experiences with different presentation formats at the conclusion of the experiment (instead of the beginning), and did not expose participants to multiple presentation formats. Finally, to investigate better the nature of participants’ perceptions about presentation effectiveness, we distinguished between perceptions about the presentation, the presenter, and the audiovisual component of the presentation.

We recruited native-English speaking participants via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk using the following language: “In this study, you will read a business case, watch presentations, assume a role, and make a decision.” They were compensated $4 for approximately one hour of their time. Excluding pilot participants who offered us initial feedback on the survey and protocol, 1398 individuals consented to and began the experiment. Of these, 16 participants were excluded because of evidence that they didn’t complete the task properly (e.g., answering a long series of questions identically, incorrectly answering a “trap” question), and 305 were excluded because they dropped out before completing all of the outcome measures, leaving 1069 participants in the final dataset: 272 in the Prezi group, 261 in the PowerPoint group, 275 in the oral presentation group, and 261 in the control group. The number of excluded participants did not covary with group assignment or demographic variables. Table 6 presents demographic information on the included participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t006

The main stimuli for this experiment consisted of recorded presentations from Experiment 1. For Prezi and PowerPoint presentations, these were split-screen videos showing the presenter on one side of the screen and the visuals on the other side. For the oral presentations, these were simply audiovisual recordings of the presenter.

Of the 146 presenter participants from Experiment 1, 33 either did not consent to being video-recorded or were not recorded due to technical difficulties. We therefore had a pool of 113 presentation videos to use for Experiment 2: 41 from the Prezi condition (out of a possible 50), 40 from the PowerPoint condition (out of possible 49), and 32 from the oral presentation condition (out of a possible 47). The proportion of presentations that were video-recorded did not vary with their format, exact p = .61.

Some of the recorded presentations from Experiment 1 were unusable because of intractable quality issues (e.g., inaudible speech, incomplete video, partially occluded presenter), leaving a total of 89 usable videos (34 Prezi, 28 PowerPoint, 27 oral). The proportion of videos removed because of quality issues did not vary with presentation format, exact p = .57.

We randomly selected 25 videos in each format, resulting in a total pool of 75 videos. Because of a URL typo that was not detected until after testing, one PowerPoint video was not presented and participants assigned that video were not able to complete the experiment. Video length varied by format, F (2, 71) = 4.2, p = .02, with PowerPoint and Prezi presentations lasted longer than oral presentations ( M = 5.9, 6.0, and 4.6 minutes, respectively).

We were concerned that we could have, perhaps unconsciously, selected better stimuli in the Prezi condition, which would have biased the results. To ensure that our judgments of major audiovisual problems and subsequent exclusion of some videos were not biased, we recruited a separate group of participants to rate the audiovisual quality of the 113 presentation videos. Using the following language, we recruited 455 individuals from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to serve as judges:

In this study you will judge the technical quality of three short videos. To participate you must have a high-speed Internet connection. We will compensate you $2 for 15–20 minutes of your time.

These participants were totally blind to the experimental hypotheses and manipulation. They completed the audiovisual rating task completely online via the Qualtrics survey platform, and were given the following instructions:

We need your help in determining the audiovisual quality of some Skype presentations we recorded. We want to know which presentations we can use for additional research, and which need to be eliminated due to major technical problems with the recordings. The sorts of technical problems that might exist in some of the videos are: incomplete recordings (the recording starts late or stops early), cropped recordings (the camera isn’t positioned properly), choppy or blurry video, and absent or inaudible audio.

You will watch a single presentation video. Please ignore any aspect of the recording other than its audiovisual quality. In particular, do not base your judgments on the presentation itself, including the presenter’s argument, appearance, or the nature of the accompanying slides. The only thing we care about is whether the audio and video were recorded properly.

Finally, please keep in mind that because these videos were recorded through Skype, even the best recordings are not very high quality.

These judge participants then watched a presentation video (selected at random), rated the quality of its audio and video (on a five-level scale from “very bad” to “very good”), and indicated whether or not there were “any major technical problems with the presentations audio or video”; those who reported major technical problems were asked to identify them.

To address any possibility of experimenter bias—which seemed unlikely, given that we designed the procedure from the outset to guard against such effects—we conducted a series of Presentation Format (Prezi, PowerPoint, oral) x Quality Judgment (inclusion, exclusion) ANOVAs to test 1) whether audiovisual quality was for any reason confounded with presentation format (i.e., the main effect of Presentation Format), 2) whether the excluded videos were indeed lower quality than the included videos (i.e., the main effect of Quality Judgment), and 3) whether our exclusion of videos was biased based on their format (i.e., the interaction between Presentation Format and Audiovisual Quality). We conducted the ANOVAs on the three measures of audiovisual quality collected from the independent judges: ratings of audio quality, ratings of video quality, and judgments of major audiovisual problems.

The results were straightforward: For all three dependent variables, there were no main effects of Presentation Format, p s > .13, but we did find a significant main effect of Quality Judgment (with included videos being judged better quality than excluded videos), all p s < .002, and did not find any interaction effects, all p s > .31. In other words, presentation format was not confounded with audiovisual quality, our judgments of quality corresponded to those of blind judges, and our exclusion of videos was unrelated to presentation format.

Participants completed the experiment entirely online through Qualtrics. After providing informed consent, and answering preliminary demographic and background questions (e.g., about their familiarity with business concepts and practices) they were told the following:

In this part of the study, you are going to play the role of a corporate executive for [Company X], an innovative clothing company. Another company, i-Mart, wants to sell [Company X’s] t-shirts in its many retail stores. You must decide whether or not to accept i-Mart's offer.

To help you make your decision, we will first provide you with some background on [Company X] and the i-Mart offer. You will see a series of short videos and text that describe relevant aspects of [Company X’s] origins, business model, practices, culture, and community. Please review this background material carefully.

Participants were then shown a series of brief video and textual descriptions of the fictionalized corporate scenario, including information on Company X’s business model, business processes, community, and culture. This material was an abridged version of what Experiment 1 presenter participants studied, but an expanded version of what Experiment 1 audience participants studied.

After viewing the multimedia case material, the participants were asked to identify what product Company X sells (a “trap” question to exclude non-serious participants) and to rate the background material on how engaging it was, how much they enjoyed it, how much they paid attention to it, and how difficult it was to understand.

Participants randomly assigned to the Prezi, PowerPoint, and Oral Presentation conditions were then told the following:

Now that you know a little bit about the company, you will watch a video presentation from another research participant. Just as you are playing the role of a [Company X] executive, the other participant is playing the role of i-Mart's Chief Marketing Office (CMO). In this presentation, he or she will try to convince you and your fellow [Company X] executives to accept i-Mart's offer.

Because this presentation is from another research participant playing the role of an i-Mart executive--and not an actual i-Mart executive--please disregard the presenter's appearance (clothing, age, etc). And because we did not professionally videorecord the presentation, please also try to disregard the relatively poor quality of the video compared to the videos you just viewed.

The purpose of this research is to understand what makes presentations effective. So please listen carefully and do your best to imagine that this is "real".

Identically to Experiment 1, participants rated the presentation on how organized, engaging, realistic, persuasive, and effective it was on a five-level scale from “not at all” to “extremely.” Using the same scale, these participants also rated the presenter on how organized, engaging, persuasive, effective, confident, enthusiastic, knowledgeable, professional, nervous, and boring he or she was.

Participants in the Prezi and PowerPoint groups were asked three additional questions. First, they were asked to rate the visual component of the presentation (i.e., the Prezi or the PowerPoint slides) on how organized, engaging, persuasive, effective, dynamic, visually compelling, distracting, informative, distinctive, and boring it was. Second, they were asked to rate whether the presentation had “not enough”, “too much” or an “about right” amount of text, graphs, images, and animations. And finally, there were asked to comment on the visual component of the presentations, including ways in which it could be improved.

All participants then summarized the presentation in their own words, with a minimum acceptable length of 50 characters. Participants were asked to rate how well they understood the “situation with [Company X] and I-Mart,” and to decide whether [Company X] should accept or reject i-Mart’s offer (on a 6-level scale, with the modifiers “definitely,” “probably,” and “possibly”).

In addition, we asked participants a series of recall and comprehension questions about the case. An example recall question is “According to the background materials and the presentation, approximately how many members does [Company X] have?”, with four possible answers ranging from 500,000 to 1.5 million. An example comprehension question is “According to the background materials, what is the biggest challenge [Company X] is facing?”, with possible answers ranging from “marketing” to “logistics.” These comprehension questions were based on the instructor’s guide to the business case material, and included open-ended questions (“Why do you think [Company X] should accept or reject i-Mart's offer?”). At this point we also asked another trap question (“What is 84 plus 27?”).

Finally, and after answering all questions about the business case and presentation, participants answered background questions about their experience with, knowledge of, and general preference for different presentation formats. They also rank-ordered the mini examples of Prezi, PowerPoint, and oral presentations in terms of their effectiveness. These background questions and tasks were the same as those used in Experiment 1.

Participants in the control condition completed the same protocol, with a few exceptions: First, instead of being shown presentations from Experiment 1, they viewed one of three instructional videos (matched for length with the Experiment 1 presentations). Before they viewed these videos they were told “Before you decide what to do about i-Mart's offer to [Company X], we would like you to watch an unrelated presentation and briefly answer some questions about it.” Second, they did not rate how realistic the presentation was, nor did they rate the visual component on how organized, engaging, persuasive, effective, dynamic, visually compelling, distracting, informative, distinctive, and boring it was. And finally, they did not complete the final set of background questions on the different presentation formats or rank-order the example presentations.

At the outset, participants rated oral and PowerPoint presentations as equally effective in general, and Prezi presentations as less effective than the other two formats. Just as we found in Experiment 1, participants rated themselves as more experienced and effective in making and oral and PowerPoint presentations compared to Prezi presentations. They also rated oral and PowerPoint presentations as more enjoyable and effective for them than viewing Prezi presentations. When asked how difficult it was to make the different types of presentations, they rated Prezi as more difficult than oral and PowerPoint presentations, and oral presentations as more difficult than PowerPoint ones. In terms of the number of presentations watched in the last year and in their lifetime—as well as the number of years of experience—they reported more experience watching oral compared to PowerPoint presentations, and more experience watching PowerPoint than watching Prezi presentations. The same pattern was true for their reported experience in making presentations, with one exception: They reported making more PowerPoint than oral presentations in their lifetime. Table 7 presents full descriptive and inference statistics for all self-reported measures of prior experience with and preexisting beliefs about Prezi, PowerPoint, and oral presentations. The experimental groups did not differ significantly on any of these variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t007

Most participants (78%) were either “not at all familiar” or “slightly familiar” with Company X, and the modal participant reported being “somewhat experienced” with “concepts and practices from the business world, such as strategy, innovation, product development, sales, and marketing.” The groups did not differ significantly on these variables, nor did they differ on demographic variables such as age, gender, or education.

For overall judgments of the presentations, participants rated Prezi as more organized, effective, engaging, and persuasive than PowerPoint and oral presentations, and rated PowerPoint no differently than oral presentations. They also rated Prezi presenters as more organized, knowledgeable, effective, and professional than PowerPoint presenters and oral presenters; Prezi presenters were not rated differently from other presentations on how nervous, boring, enthusiastic, confident, persuasive, or engaging they were, and PowerPoint presenters were rated no differently than oral presenters on all dimensions. In judging the visual components of the Prezi and PowerPoint presentations, the audience rated Prezi presentations as more dynamic, visually compelling, and distinctive than PowerPoint slides, and marginally more effective and persuasive.

Examining the magnitude of mean differences, some effects are clearly larger than others. Most notably, Prezi presentations are rated as most organized and visually dynamic, and Prezi presenters are rated as most organized. Fig 4 and Table 8 present the descriptive and inferential statistics, respectively, for these audience ratings.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t008

Note: rating dimensions are ordered by the magnitude of the difference between Prezi and the other presentation formats; for dimensions with no significant differences between presentation formats, only the overall mean is displayed.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.g004

The modal participant rated the background case material on Company X as “very engaging” and “completely enjoyable,” reported “mostly” understanding the situation with i-Mart and Company X, and rated the presentations as “very realistic.” Seventy percent of participants expected to do “somewhat well” or “very well” when quizzed about the case. There were no significant group differences on any of these variables.

Audience decision-making.

Did the presentations actually influence participants’ core judgment of the business scenario and, if so, was one presentation format more effective than others?

Participants who received a Prezi presentation accepted i-Mart’s offer 53.7% of the time, participants who received a PowerPoint presentation accepted the offer 49.8% of the time, participants exposed to an oral presentation accepted it 45.5% of the time, and participants exposed to the control presentation accepted it 37.5% of the time (see Fig 5 ). In an omnibus test, these differences were significant, exact p = .002. Specific comparisons revealed that Prezi presentations were significantly more influential than control presentations, exact p = 0003, marginally more influential than oral presentations, exact p = .06, and no more influential than PowerPoint presentations, exact p = .39; PowerPoint presentations were significantly more influential than control presentations, exact p = .006, but not oral presentations, exact p = .34; oral presentations were marginally more influential than control presentations, exact p = .07. In order to investigate the impact of presentation software on decision-making, we contrasted the Prezi and PowerPoint groups with the oral presentation groups. We found a marginally significant effect, exact p = .06.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.g005

On the whole, therefore, the participants’ decision-making results were concordant descriptively (if not always inferentially) with the rating results.

If participants’ perceptions of the presentations and decisions about the case were both influenced by presentation format, then we would expect them to be associated with each other. And this is indeed what we found. Excluding participants in the control group (who did not make judgments about comparable presentations), those who rejected the i-Mart offer rated presentations as worse than those who accepted the i-Mart offer. This was true for 23 of the 24 rating dimensions (“visually boring” was the exception), with the largest effects for ratings of effectiveness and persuasiveness. Those who rejected the offer rated the overall presentation, visual aids, and presenter as less effective than those who accepted the offer, with effect sizes (Cohen’s d ) of .93, .83, and .78, respectively. These effects were consistent across formats, all interaction p s > .05.

We conducted an analogous set of analyses that preserved the original 6-level scale of the decision variable (“possibly accept,” “probably accept,” “definitely accept,” “possibly reject,” “probably reject,” “definitely reject”). These analyses produced qualitatively identical results, both in terms of decision-making as a function of group assignment and the correlation between decision-making and presentation ratings.

Memory and comprehension.

Participants’ performance on the four rote memory questions did not vary across conditions, nor did their correct identification (according to the case designers) of reasons to accept or reject the offer, with one exception: Compared to those in the treatment groups, control participants were more likely to identify Company X’s ability to meet production demand as a reason to reject the i-Mart, omnibus exact p = .00004.

Correlates of presentation outcomes.

There were no notable correlations between demographic variables and participants’ ratings or decisions. In particular, participants’ experience with or preexisting beliefs about each presentation format did not correlate with their ratings of the experimental presentations, mirroring the results from Experiment 1 (but with much greater statistical power). Presentation length or recording quality (as assessed by the independent judges) did not correlate with presentation outcomes.

Participants’ success in distinguishing better from worse presentations of each format—that is, their rank-ordering of short expert-created examples—correlated slightly with their evaluations of the presentations. Most notably, the better participants did on the rank-ordering PowerPoint task, the worse they rated PowerPoint (but not Prezi) presentations on visual dimensions; the same was true for the Prezi task and presentations. For example, participants’ performance in the PowerPoint task correlated negatively with their judgments of how “visually dynamic” PowerPoint presentations were, r = -.22, p = .0005, and participants’ performance on the Prezi task correlated negatively with their judgments of how “visually dynamic” Prezi presentations were, r = -.16, p = .009. Thus, individuals with more expertise in PowerPoint and Prezi were more critical of PowerPoint and Prezi presentations, respectively.

Audiovisual attributes of Prezi and PowerPoint presentations.

To understand the media attributes and psychological mechanisms that underlie the observed effects of format, we examined how participants’ judgments about amount of text, graphs, animations, and images in the presentations correlated with their judgments of the presentations, the visual component of the presentations, and the presenters themselves. To examine these relationships, we conducted one-way ANOVAs with the various ratings as the dependent variables, and participants’ judgments (“not enough,” “about right,” “too much”) about the amount of text, graphs, animations, and images in the PowerPoint and Prezi presentations as the independent variable. For nearly all (80 of 96) of these ANOVAs, the results were highly significant, p s < .001. In judging the amount of text, participants typically rated “too much” or “not enough” text as worse than an “about right” amount; in judging graphs, images, and animations, participants typically rated “too much” and “just right” both as equally better than “not enough.” Averaging across all rating dimensions, the text and graph effects were over twice as large as the animation and image effects; averaging across all attributes, the effects for visual ratings was over twice as large as the effects for presenter and overall ratings. Participants’ judgments about the media attributes of presentations did, therefore, relate to their overall assessments of the presenters and presentations.

Summing across PowerPoint and Prezi presentations, the modal participant indicated that there was the “about right” amount of text, graphs, animations, and images. Only 21% of participants thought there was not enough or too much text; for the other dimensions, this percentage ranged from 42–51%. More participants indicated that there was not enough text, graphs, and animations in PowerPoint presentations than Prezi presentations, with animation as the most distinguishing attribute. Table 9 presents the descriptive and inferential statistics for these variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t009

As shown in Table 10 , participants’ judgments about the audiovisual attributes of the Prezi and PowerPoint presentations were associated with the decision about the business scenario. Individuals who reported that there was not enough text, graph, animation, or images tended to reject the offer for i-Mart, whereas those who reported that there was the “about right” amount of those attributes tended to accept the offer. This effect was particularly pronounced for judgments of graphs and text. Participants who reported too much text also tended to reject the offer.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t010

In sum, participants’ perceptions of presenters and the presentations correlated with their evaluations of the amount of text, graphs, images, and animations that were included in the presentations. Presenters and presentations were rated worse if they had too much or not enough text, and not enough graphs, images, and animations; in terms of audience decision-making, presentations were less effective if they contained too much or not enough text, or not enough graphs, animations, and images. PowerPoint presentations were judged to have too little of all attributes, particularly animation.

Replicating results from Experiment 1, participants rated presentations made with Prezi as more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective than both PowerPoint and oral presentations. This remained true despite participants’ preexisting bias against Prezi and the different context of Experiment 2: the audience did not view multiple presentations of different formats and presentations were prerecorded instead of live. Extending the Experiment 1 results, participants also judged Prezi presentations as better in various ways (e.g., more visually compelling, more dynamic) than PowerPoint presentations; participants even rated Prezi presenters more highly (e.g., more knowledgeable, more professional) than PowerPoint presenters.

In making decisions as corporate executives, participants were persuaded by the presentations. Compared to the baseline decisions of the control group, those in the treatment group shifted their decisions by 16.2%, 12.3%, and 8.0% depending on whether they viewed Prezi, PowerPoint, or oral presentations, respectively. The non- or marginal significance of some between-format comparisons (e.g., PowerPoint versus Prezi) is difficult to interpret. We hesitate to dismiss these differences as statistical noise given their general alignment with rating results, as well as the correlation between business decisions and presentation ratings (which do vary significantly with format). For the more objective outcome of decision-making, we can, at the very least, provisionally conclude that Prezi presentations are more effective than oral presentations, and that software-aided presentations are more effective than oral presentations.

We did not find any evidence that the presentations affected participants’ memory or understanding of the case, nor did we find evidence that certain presentation formats impacted learning more than others. Given the goals of the presentations and design of the experiment, however, we hesitate to draw any conclusions from these null results.

General discussion

The most important finding across the two experiments is easy to summarize: Participants evaluated Prezi presentations as more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective than both PowerPoint and oral presentations. This finding was true for both live and prerecorded presentations, when participants rated or ranked presentations, and when participants judged multiple presentations of different formats or only one presentation in isolation. Results from Experiment 2 demonstrate that these presentations influenced participants’ core judgments about a business decision, and suggest that Prezi may benefit both behavioral and experiential outcomes. We have no evidence, however, that Prezi (or PowerPoint or oral presentations) facilitate learning in either presenters or their audience.

Several uninteresting explanations exist for the observed Prezi effects, none of which posit any specific efficacy of Prezi or ZUIs in general: namely, novelty, bias, and experimenter effects. We consider each in turn.

Novelty heavily influences both attention and memory [ 87 , 88 ], and the benefits of new media have sometimes dissipated over time—just as one would expect with novelty effects [ 3 ]. However, we found no evidence that novelty explains the observed benefits of Prezi: Participants who were less familiar with Prezi did not evaluate Prezi presentations more favorably, and only a small fraction of participants who favored Prezi explained their preference in terms of novelty. We therefore are skeptical that mere novelty can explain the observed effects.

We also considered the possibility that participants had a pre-existing bias for Prezi. This seems unlikely because presenter participants were selected based only on minimal experience with both PowerPoint and Prezi and were assigned randomly to the experimental groups; audience participants from both experiments were selected based merely on high-speed internet access, and the words “Prezi” and “PowerPoint” were not used in any audience recruitment material. In fact, both sets of participants entered the research with biases against Prezi, not for Prezi: They reported more experience with PowerPoint and oral presentations than Prezi, and perceived PowerPoint and oral presentations as more (not less) efficacious than Prezi. Thus, we reject the idea that the results simply reflect pre-existing media biases.

For many reasons, we also find it unlikely that experimenter effects—including demand characteristics (i.e., when participants conform to the experimenters’ expectations)—can explain the observed effects. First, at the outset we did not have strong hypotheses about the benefits of one format over the others. Second, the results are subtle in ways that neither we nor a demand characteristics hypothesis would predict: the effects on subjective experience diverged somewhat from the effects on decision-making, and there were no memory or comprehension effects. Third, the between-participants design of Experiment 2 (and between-participants analysis of Experiment 1 ) limited participants’ exposure to a single presentation format, thereby minimizing their ability to discern the experimental manipulation or research hypotheses. Fourth, we ensured that the presentations were equally high-quality; we did not unconsciously select Prezi presentations that happened to be higher quality than presentations in the other formats. Fifth, the random assignment of presenters to format limits the possible confounding of presenter variables with presentation formats or qualities; and no confounding with format was observed in presenters’ preexisting beliefs, prior experience, or demographics. And finally, in Experiment 2 we only explicitly mentioned or asked participants questions about Prezi, PowerPoint, and oral presentations at the conclusion of the experiment, after collecting all key outcome data.

We therefore conclude that the observed effects are not confounds or biases, but instead reflect a true and specific benefit of Prezi over PowerPoint or, more generally, ZUIs over slideware. If, however, these experimental effects merely reveal that Prezi is more user-friendly than PowerPoint—or that PowerPoint’s default templates encourage shallow processing by “[fetishizing] the outline at the expense of the content” [ 89 ] (pB26)—then we have learned little about the practice or psychology of communication. But if these effects instead reflect intrinsic properties of ZUIs or slideware, then they reveal more interesting and general insights about effective communication.

It is difficult to understand Prezi’s benefits in terms of user-friendliness because the odds were so clearly stacked in PowerPoint’s favor. Presenters were much more experienced in using PowerPoint than Prezi and rated PowerPoint as easier to use than Prezi. Especially given the task constraints—participants only had 45 minutes to prepare for a 5-minute presentation on a relatively new, unfamiliar topic—Prezi’s user interface would have to be improbably superior to PowerPoint’s interface to overcome these handicaps. Moreover, participants’ prior experience with PowerPoint or Prezi did not correlate with their success as presenters, as one would expect under an ease-of-use explanation. Finally, audience participants did not simply favor the Prezi presentations in an even, omnibus sense—they evaluated Prezi as better in particular ways that align with the purported advantages of ZUIs over slideware. This pattern of finding makes most sense if the mechanism were at the level of media, not software.

Participants’ evaluations of Prezi were particularly telling in three ways. First, in participants’ own words (from Experiment 1 ), they frequently described Prezi as engaging , interactive , visually compelling , visually pleasing , or vivid , and PowerPoint as concise , clear , easy to follow , familiar , professional , or organized . Second, in participants’ ratings (from Experiment 2 ), the visuals from Prezi presentations were evaluated as significantly more dynamic, visually compelling, and distinctive than those from PowerPoint presentations. And third, in judging the audiovisual attributes of presentations, participants’ identified animations as both the attribute most lacking in presentations and the attribute that most distinguished Prezi from PowerPoint; furthermore, the more a presentation was judged as lacking animation, the worse it was rated. Taken together, this evidence suggests that Prezi presentations were not just better overall, but were better at engaging visually with their audience through the use of animation. Because ZUIs are defined by their panning and zooming animations—and animation is an ancillary (and frequently misused) feature of slideware—the most parsimonious explanation for the present results is in terms of ZUIs and slideware in general, not Prezi and PowerPoint in particular. The medium is not the message, but it may be the mechanism.

The animated nature of ZUIs makes more sense as possible mechanism for the observed effects when one considers relevant literature on animation. Past research has shown that animation can induce physiological and subjective arousal (e.g., [ 90 , 91 ]) and facilitate attention, learning, and task performance (e.g., [ 92 – 94 ]; but see also [ 95 , 96 ]). Most pertinently, people appear to prefer animated media over static media. Participants rate animated online advertisements as more enjoyable, persuasive, effective, and exciting than static online advertisements [ 97 , 98 ], animated websites as more likeable, engaging, and favorable than static websites [ 99 ], and animated architectural displays as clearer than static displays [ 100 ]. In an experiment of online academic lectures, participants preferred whiteboard-style animations over a slideware-style version matched for both visual and audio content [ 101 ]. Moreover, ZUI’s use of animation aligns with recommended principles for using animation effectively in presentations, which include the creation of a large virtual canvas and the use of zooming to view detail [ 102 ]. Slideware, on the other hand, encourages the use of superfluous animation in slide transitions and object entrances/exits, despite evidence that adding such “seductive details” to multimedia presentations can be counterproductive [ 72 ].

Therefore, we not only conclude that audiences prefer Prezi over PowerPoint presentations, but also conclude that their preference is rooted in an intrinsic attribute of ZUIs: panning and zooming animations. Compared to slideware’s sequential, linear transitions (and oral presentations’ total lack of visual aids), zooming and panning over a virtual canvas is a more engaging and enjoyable experience for an audience.

From this perspective, the reason that participants rated Prezi presentations as more persuasive, effective, and organized than other presentations—and Prezi presenters as more knowledgeable, professional, effective, and organized than other presenters—was because they confuse media with messages and messengers. Dual-process models of persuasion contend that opinion change occurs through not just slow deliberations grounded in logic and reason but also through fast shortcuts rooted in associations and cues [ 103 – 106 ]. If better presenters with better arguments tend to give better presentations, then an audience’s experience while viewing a presentation may shade their judgments about its presenter or argument. This is the same basic logic of research that demonstrates PowerPoint’s persuasion advantage over oral presentations [ 53 , 54 ]. Just as audiences appear more persuaded by slideware than by oral presentations, they also appear more persuaded by ZUI than by slideware presentations. But unlike past research, we do not argue that audience members use technological sophistication as a cue for argument quality [ 53 ] or presenter preparedness [ 54 ]; instead, we suggest that they use their subjective viewing experience as a heuristic for judging both presentations and presenters. Because ZUI presentations are more engaging than slideshows, ZUI presentations and presenters are judged more positively than slideshows.

Concluding remarks

Media research, including research into presentation software, is plagued methodologically by a lack of experimental control, the unjustifiable assumption that media effects are constant across individuals and content, and a failure to account for the biases of all involved: the presenters, the audiences, and the researchers. In the research reported here we strived to overcome these challenges by randomly assigning presenters and audience members to competing presentation formats, blinding them to the experimental manipulations, and sampling a sufficient array of presentations within each format.

Our conclusions about the advantages of ZUIs (such as Prezi) over slideware (such as PowerPoint) and oral presentations are, of course, tentative. Further research will need to replicate the findings across different presentation contexts, clarify whether the subjective benefits of ZUIs over slideware result in decision-making or behavioral advantages, and better investigate the precise media attributes responsible for these advantages. Like others [ 107 ], we caution against technological determinism: Presentation medium is but one of many factors that determine presentation success, and presentations that rely on any given medium can succeed or fail. Because slideware can be used to zoom and pan over a virtual canvas just as ZUIs can be used to create slideshows, the benefits of ZUIs over slideware are ultimately based on affordances: How much do certain formats encourage or enable psychologically advantageous media attributes, such as zooming and panning animations?

In many ways, it is surprising that we found any effects of presentation medium. The presentations differed in many ways aside from their format, ways that surely influenced their effectiveness: Each presentation was made by a different person (sampled from a diverse pool of participants), presenters chose what content to include in their presentation, and presenters decided how to convey that content within their assigned format. Under real-world circumstances in which presentations of different formats are actually contrasted with each other, we expect this background “noise” to be greatly reduced and impact of format correspondingly greater.

Supporting information

S1 file. experiment 1 audience pre-survey..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.s001

S2 File. Experiment 1 audience post-survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.s002

S3 File. Experiment 1 presenter pre-survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.s003

S4 File. Experiment 1 presenter post-survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.s004

S5 File. Experiment 2 audience post-survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.s005

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Erin-Driver Linn, Brooke Pulitzer, and Sarah Shaughnessy of the Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching for their institutional guidance and support, Nina Cohodes, Gabe Mansur, and the staff of the Harvard Decision Sciences Laboratory for their assistance with participant testing, Michael Friedman for his feedback on pilot versions of the study protocol, and Tom Ryder for his support in adapting the multimedia case for research purposes.

Author Contributions

• Conceptualization: SMK ST STM.
• Data curation: ST STM.
• Formal analysis: ST STM.
• Funding acquisition: SMK ST STM.
• Investigation: ST.
• Methodology: SMK ST STM.
• Project administration: ST STM.
• Resources: ST STM.
• Software: ST STM.
• Supervision: SMK ST STM.
• Validation: SMK ST STM.
• Visualization: STM.
• Writing – original draft: STM.
• Writing – review & editing: SMK ST STM.
• 1. McCluhan M. The medium is the message. In: Understanding of media: The extensions of man. 1964. p. 1–18.
• 2. Salomon G. Interaction of media, cognition, and learning. Lawrance Erlbaum Associates Inc.; 1994.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 5. Stokes DE. Pasteur’s Quadrant. Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 1997.
• 7. Parker I. Absolute PowerPoint: Can a software package edit our thoughts? [Internet]. The New Yorker. 2001 [cited 2016 Sep 3]. Available from: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/05/28/absolute-powerpoint
• 10. Tufte ER. The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 2013.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 42. Frey BA, Birnbaum DJ. Learners’ perceptions on the value of PowerPoint in lectures. 2002 [cited 2016 Sep 5]; Available from: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED467192
• 53. Guadagno RE, Sundie JM, Hardison TA, Cialdini RB. The persuasive power of PowerPoint ® presentations. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Persuasive Technology: Persuasive Technology and Design: Enhancing Sustainability and Health [Internet]. ACM; 2011 [cited 2015 Dec 26]. p. 2. Available from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2467805
• 55. Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan; 2011. 511 p.
• 56. Gunelius S. Stand Out From Competitors With Prezi Presentations [Internet]. Forbes. 2011 [cited 2016 Sep 5]. Available from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2011/03/23/stand-out-from-competitors-with-prezi-presentations/
• 58. Rockinson-Szapkiw AJ, Knight A, Tucker JM. Prezi: Trading linear presentations for conceptual learning experiences in counselor education. In 2011 [cited 2016 Sep 3]. Available from: https://works.bepress.com/amanda_rockinson_szapkiw/18/
• 61. Adams S. How Prezi’s Peter Arvai plans to beat PowerPoint. Forbes [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2016 Sep 5]; Available from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestreptalks/2016/06/07/how-prezis-peter-arvai-plans-to-beat-powerpoint/
• 62. McCloud S. Reinventing comics. New York, NY, USA: Paradox Pres; 2000.
• 67. Wilson ML, others. A longitudinal study of exploratory and keyword search. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries [Internet]. ACM; 2008 [cited 2016 Aug 16]. p. 52–56. Available from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1378899
• 69. Luria AR. The mind of a mnemonist: A little book about a vast memory. Harvard University Press; 1968.
• 72. Mayer RE. Multimedia learning. In: Brian H. Ross , editor. Psychology of Learning and Motivation [Internet]. Academic Press; 2002 [cited 2013 Dec 19]. p. 85–139. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079742102800056
• 75. Brock S, Brodahl C. A Tale of two cultures: Cross cultural comparison in learning the Prezi presentation software tool in the US and Norway. In: Proceedings of the Informing Science and Information Technology Education Conference [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 Dec 26]. p. 95–119. Available from: http://www.editlib.org/p/114622/
• 78. Ballentine BD. High concept and design documentation: Using Prezi for undergraduate game design. In: 2012 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference. 2012. p. 1–5.
• 82. Bean JW. Presentation software supporting visual design: Displaying spatial relationships with a zooming user interface. Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), 2012 IEEE International 2012 Oct 8 (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
• 85. Harvard Business Publishing—Cases [Internet]. [cited 2016 Sep 10]. Available from: https://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cbmp/pages/content/cases
• 94. Shanmugasundaram M, Irani P. The effect of animated transitions in zooming interfaces. In: Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces [Internet]. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2008 [cited 2016 Sep 5]. p. 396–399. (AVI ‘08). Available from: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1385569.1385642
• 101. Turkay S, Moulton ST. The educational impact of whiteboard animations: An experiment using popular social science lessons. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of Learning International Networks Consortium (LINC). Cambridge, MA, USA; 2016. p. 283–91.
• 103. Chaiken S, Liberman A, Eagly AH. Heuristic and systematic information processing within and. Unintended thought. In: Unintended Thought. New York, NY, USA: The Guilford Press; 1989. p. 212–52.
• 104. Gilovich T, Griffin DW, Kahneman D. Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgement. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
• 105. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1986.
• 106. Petty RE, Wegener DT. The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In: Chaiken S, Trope Y, editors. Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 1999. p. 37–72.

Global site navigation

• Celebrities
• Celebrity biographies
• Messages - Wishes - Quotes
• TV-shows and movies
• Fashion and style
• Capital Market
• Family and Relationships

Local editions

• Legit Nigeria News
• Legit Hausa News
• Legit Spanish News
• Legit French News

Types of teaching methods, their advantages and disadvantages

One of the most important things an educator should determine is the teaching approach to apply in class. This is because the educators' techniques have a great impact on learners. Educators can also combine multiple teaching methods for students to grasp the information better. This article covers the benefits and drawbacks of different types of teaching methods to help educators make the best decisions.

Combining teaching methods makes lessons unique and intriguing. Moreover, your students can output excellent exam performance if your teaching style is enjoyable. A facilitator can pass information to pupils in numerous ways. If they don't understand a concept, try other teaching methods to make it easier for them to understand and remember it.

Types of teaching methods and strategies to implement in class

Once a teacher understands the needs of their students, then they can choose the most effective teaching methods to use. Below are a few different teaching methods and their advantages and disadvantages:

Energy firm advocates diversity in data centers to drive sustainability

1. Teacher-centered teaching methods

In this teaching methodology‌, the teachers serve as an authority for their students. On the other hand, students tend to receive their knowledge passively by listening to lectures and the teacher's directions.

Types of teacher-centered teaching methods

Teacher-centered teaching aims to help students pass tests and assessments. For the teacher-centered approach, these methods of instruction are used.

a. Lecture-based or direct instruction

This teaching strategy involves making lesson plans for learners and sharing knowledge through lectures, presentations, and demonstrations .

How to implement lecture-based teaching

This teaching method does not factor in student preferences or opportunities for other types of learning. Here is how to apply lecture-based teaching:

• Find out what your students know about the topic by asking questions.
• Introduce a new topic with a story or a review of a related topic you covered before.
• Use examples from your students' experiences or things they can relate to.
• Use visual cues, such as icons, images, and videos, in presentations to keep your students interested in the content.
• Allow time for questions during and after the lecture to allow students to easily engage with the concept and remember it.
• Please encourage students to stay attentive during lectures and handwrite notes. It can also help them recall information better.
• Ensure your conclusion or summary has the key points.
• Keep lessons brief to maintain student attention and engagement.

Biden gets tech titans to pledge guardrails on AI risks

b. Flipped classrooms

This approach involves students watching or listening to pre-recorded lessons (videos/audio) at home and completing assignments.

How to implement flipped teaching

• Break lessons into segments of about 7-10 minutes to allow students to digest every part of the lesson.
• Use visuals, animations, and images for students to see and connect with their lesson.
• Create questions for students to answer during or after the lesson. You can also create a task for them to do.
• Please encourage students to watch lectures or instructional videos at home to let them work at their own pace.
• Test their knowledge with questions and self-assessment.

c. Kinesthetic learning

This approach is widely known as tactile learning. Students learn by watching simulations, presentations, or moving around in a hands-on environment.

How to implement kinesthetic teaching

The kinesthetic teaching methodology‌ becomes teacher-centered when they can choose how to learn from their environment. Here is how you can apply this learning method:

"You can apply with NECO Or WAEC": Flight attendant lists requirements for the lucrative aviation job

• Allow students to stand or move while learning.
• Give them frequent short breaks.
• Teach them using real-life objects like costumes and arts & crafts .
• Use animation in your teaching, e.g., singing and dancing.
• Use science experiments when teaching.

Advantages of teacher-centered teaching methods

Teacher-centered methods of instruction have the following benefits:

• The classroom remains orderly because the teacher has better control over the students and classroom activities.
• Teachers worry less about students missing an important topic because they direct all classroom activities.
• A teacher can develop cooperation among the students by giving them group assignments.
• Students focus better on the subject when they get short lectures or breaks within lessons.
• It is inexpensive because lectures are done in a central place (classrooms).
• Teaching can be done remotely by letting students watch or listen to pre-recorded lessons (videos/audio) at home.

Disadvantages of teacher-centered teaching methods

Teacher-centered methods of instruction have the following weaknesses:

"Pay them more": Heartwarming moment young pupils were hugging their teacher goes viral on Instagram

• Students may entirely depend on teachers.
• Lecture-based teaching makes students work alone to work alone. Hence they may not learn how to collaborate and communicate with each other.
• Teacher-centered instruction may not allow students to express themselves, ask questions, and control their learning pace.

2. Student-centered teaching methods

In these teaching methods, teachers and learners become a part of the process more or less equal.

The teacher's primary role is coaching and facilitating student learning, as well as making sure that students understand the material. Additionally, they are supposed to evaluate students by assessing them formally and informally.

Types of student-centered teaching methods

In a learner-centered approach, the teacher acts as a guide. The learners get their grades by evaluating their student portfolios and participating in the class. A teacher can use the following methods of instruction:

a. Differentiated instruction

This teaching methodology‌ involves understanding every student's learning needs and tailoring the teaching method to meet those needs.

100+ inspirational education quotes for kids and teenagers

How to implement differentiated teaching

Here is how you can apply tailored instructions to all students depending on their learning needs:

• Provide textbooks for visual and word learners and let them present the stories they read using graphic methods.
• Allow auditory learners to listen to audiobooks and give an oral report.
• Help kinesthetic learners do an online interactive assignment and build a diorama illustrating the story.
• Break some students into reading groups to discuss the assignment.
• Allow students to read individually and create quiet spaces for them.
• Have a series of tiered projects for each of your lessons.

b. Inquiry-based learning

In this approach, a teacher serves as a supporter and guide that merely helps the students while they actively participate in their project and ask questions that interest them. Eventually, they demonstrate their research results to the authority figure .

How to implement inquiry-based learning

Below are different ways of applying inquiry-based learning in a classroom:

75+ inspirational quotes for men to set them on the right path

• Initiate the inquiry process by asking students questions.
• Promote classroom discussions by putting students in small groups.
• Intervene to clear misconceptions and help students understand the content.
• Allow students to share their findings with classmates and the teacher.
• Use student experiences to create new content knowledge.
• Assess students' knowledge through tests or projects to know what they have learned from the activity.

c. Expeditionary learning

The primary focus of this teaching methodology‌ is for students to learn outside the classroom through expeditions, trips, and educational visits.

How to implement expeditionary learning

Gone are the ringing bells, rows of desks, and fill-in-the-blank worksheets. Rather than making students sit in a classroom to learn one subject at a time, here are ways to apply expeditionary teaching:

• Give students field assignments in groups, e.g., let them interview local business owners or customers.
• Let students explore a topic in depth by working on community service projects.
• Allow students to do scientific research in natural areas.
• Ask them to write what they learn from field assignments, research, and projects in their journals.
• Give learners some quiet reflection space or time. It will help them gather their thoughts on what they have learned.

50 best hobbies for men of all ages to add some meaning to life

d. Personalized learning

In this teaching method, students follow a lesson plan tailored to their interests and abilities. This way, one learns at their own pace and gets enough time to understand the concepts.

How to implement individual learning

A personalized learning approach customizes the learning process to meet each student's strengths, needs, skills, and interests. Here is how you can apply individual learning in a classroom:

• Pose an open-ended question and ask each student to come up with their best answer.
• Please put them in groups or pairs and request them to agree on a response.
• Have time or build a space for individual reflection. It helps each student develop better ideas without relying on classmates.
• Help students build accountability by teaching each other.
• Improvise games to make the classroom lively, e.g., Request each student to write their response to a question without showing the other. Let the desk-mates exchange their papers and discuss their answers.

Cheapest university in Nigeria: 10 affordable schools to consider

e. Game-based learning

This approach uses card games, board games, and video games . This way, they have fun while learning concepts and how to solve problems.

How to implement game-based learning

Game-based learning allows teachers to use fun activities related to real-world concepts. As a result, this can lead to more immersive and collaborative learning for students. Below are some ways one can apply game-based learning in a classroom:

• Capture the learner's attention right from the start. Storytelling is a great way to hold your students' attention.
• Let the players/learners explore the game, and give them choices to make and goals to fulfill.
• Provide players/learners with relevant and practical knowledge within the game.
• Use badges, points, collectibles, or rewards to motivate learners to play the game more and for longer.
• Introduce risks using high-stakes scenarios or questions. For instance, players should risk losing all or winning big (points, badges, collectibles, or rewards) based on simple decisions.
• Make the game challenging but also allow players to take a few attempts.

Old-school activities for church services the congregation will enjoy

Advantages of learner-centered teaching methods

Student-based teaching methods have the following benefits:

• It engages students in education even more and makes them more disciplined in classrooms.
• Students learn essential communicative and collaborative skills through group work.
• Students are more interested in learning activities when they can interact with one another and participate actively.
• Students learn to control their learning, ask questions, and complete tasks independently.
• Creating a culture of reflection, critique, and revision pushes students to better performances.

Disadvantages of student-centered teaching methods

Learner-centered teaching methods have the following shortcomings:

• Differentiated teaching requires a lot of research because you must know the learning needs of each student.
• Some schools lack practical and professional development resources for most student-based learning methods.
• Classrooms may often be noisy or chaotic because students should be allowed talk more often.
• Teachers may be overwhelmed when trying to manage all students' activities at once, and it can be difficult if students are in different stages of the same project.
• Since the teacher may not instruct all students simultaneously, some may miss essential facts.
• Since some students prefer to work alone, group work can become problematic.

WAEC recruitment in 2023: portal, how to apply, vacancies, closing date

3. High-tech learning method

This teaching methodology‌ utilizes different technology. Many educators use the internet, computers, and tablets in the classroom. Others may use the internet to assign homework.

Advantages of the high-tech learning method

Teachers are embracing new technological tools because of their benefits. Below are the advantages of using a high-tech learning method:

• Learning can happen anywhere and anytime when students and teachers use the internet, computers, and tablets.
• Students and teachers can access a wide range of online learning resources.
• Online classes improve collaboration skills among the students and between the teacher and learners. For instance, they can make presentations on video calls.
• High-tech learning promotes competency in education as the world embraces digital learning methods.
• It promotes active or hands-on learning because tech learning tools are fun. They also allow students to create their learning materials.
• It promotes blended learning (traditional plus high-tech learning). Teachers are present to guide students as they interact with tech learning tools.

Legit.ng Award-winning Journalist, Rahaman Abiola shares 5 tips for creating quality news

Disadvantages of the high-tech learning method

From apps and e-textbooks to organizational platforms and “gamification,” there’s no shortage of classroom tech tools. However, all these have some shortcomings. Below are the main disadvantages of using a high-tech learning method:

• Technology (computers and the internet) can be a distraction for both teachers and students.
• It reduces direct social interaction since students can research online individually.
• The students and teachers require training to use tech learning tools and materials.
• Technical errors like slow internet can disrupt lessons.
• It can promote faster but less memorable learning.
• It is expensive for most parents and schools in developing countries .
• It can encourage cheating in exams if students do assessments and research online.

4. Low-tech learning method

Low-tech learning is the traditional face-to-face teaching technique that encourages teachers and students to interact frequently in person.

Advantages of the low-tech learning method

In most cases, low-tech learning requires minimal or no interaction with the internet and computers. Below are some advantages of low-tech learning:

What can you do with an adult education course if you study it?

• It improves a student's writing and spelling skills.
• Face-to-face learning keeps students and teachers focused on what is important.
• It encourages students to dig deeper into the topic outside the school or classroom.
• It improves the relationship between teachers and their students and the relationship among the learners.
• It is cheap for most schools and parents in developing countries .

Disadvantages of the low-tech learning method

• Students may not develop strong digital literacy skills like those using modern tech learning tools.
• Unlike those using modern tech learning tools, students using low-tech learning techniques might have limited access to educational resources.

What is the definition of a teaching method?

The term "teaching method" refers to the general principles and strategies teachers use to instruct a classroom. The combination of different methods of teaching in education is something every teacher should practice.

What are the best teaching methods?

All teacher and student-centered learning approaches have their pros and cons. Therefore, none is superior to the other. The best thing to do is to combine various teaching methods to help your students understand the concepts deeper. Some efficient methods of teaching in education are:

Why is texting messages on a phone better than writing a letter?

• Lecture-based learning.
• Differentiated instruction.
• Kinesthetic learning.
• Technology-based learning.
• Individual learning.
• Group learning.
• Inquiry-based learning.
• Game-based learning.
• Expeditionary learning
• Flipped classrooms.

What is blended learning?

A blended teaching methodology‌ combines traditional face-to-face learning techniques with online and mobile technologies . It allows educators to link online and in-class activities. However, students with different needs and digital literacies may not access technology-based learning without enough support and training.

What is a universal design for learning?

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is an approach that believes in giving all students equal opportunities to succeed. It accommodates the needs and abilities of all learners and eliminates unnecessary challenges in the learning process. For instance, classrooms that follow UDL allow students to work on different projects within the same topic.

What are the new methods of teaching?

Blended and high-tech learning techniques are the latest methods of teaching in education. Teachers and students use virtual reality technology and AI in a classroom setup. They usually implement VAK teaching (Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic) and gamification (game design elements).

How can people with hearing problems benefit from the use of text messages?

What are the general methods of teaching?

The lecture method is the oldest teaching method of teaching. In addition, most schools worldwide are also embracing group and project-based teaching methods.

What determines the methods of teaching in education?

There are various methods of teaching in education. The following factors can influence the technique a teacher chooses:

• The educator's teaching objectives.
• The mastery of content and teacher's experience.
• The nature of the subject matter.
• Learning tools and materials the teacher and learners can access.
• The learning environment the teacher and learners are in.
• The age of the learners and other demographics of your classroom.

As a teacher, the most crucial thing to decide is the types of teaching methods you will use in your classroom. To do this, you first have to understand your students' needs and find out which methods will be most suitable.

Legit.ng explained how to write an application letter when applying for a teaching job. Your letter should efficiently present your skills to potential employers. If you want to teach in a primary school, this is for you.

What is there to know about writing an appealing letter and presenting yourself in the best way? Check the article out to learn more about it.

Source: Legit.ng

The pros and cons of online learning

What to look for in an online course.

By: MIT xPRO

If you’re at a point in your life where you’re considering continuing your education, you may wonder if online learning is the right path for you.

Taking an online course requires a notable investment of time, effort, and money, so it’s important to feel confident about your decision before moving forward. While online learning works incredibly well for some people, it’s not for everyone.

We recently sat down with MIT xPRO Senior Instructional Designer and Program Manager Luke Hobson to explore the pros and cons of online learning and what to look for in an online course. If you’re waiting for a sign about whether or not to enroll in that course you’ve been eying, you just might find it here.

Pros of Online Learning

First, let’s take a look at the true value of online learning by examining some of the benefits:

1. Flexibility

Online learning’s most significant advantage is its flexibility. It’s the reason millions of adults have chosen to continue their education and pursue certificates and degrees.

Asynchronous courses allow learners to complete work at their own pace, empowering them to find the optimal time to consume the content and submit assignments.

Some people are more attentive, focused, and creative in the mornings compared to the evenings and vice versa. Whatever works best for the learners should be the priority of the learning experience.

2. Community

When Luke asks people about their main reason for enrolling in a course, a common answer is networking and community.

Learners crave finding like-minded individuals who are going through the same experiences and have the same questions. They want to find a place where they belong. Being in the company of others who understand what they’re going through can help online learners who are looking for support and motivation during challenging times and times that are worth celebrating.

Some learners have created study groups and book clubs that have carried on far beyond the end of the course-it’s amazing what can grow from a single post on a discussion board!

3. Latest information

“Speed is a massive benefit of online learning,” and according to Luke, it often doesn’t get the attention it deserves.

“When we say speed, we don’t mean being quick with learning. We mean actual speed to market. There are so many new ideas evolving within technical spaces that it’s impossible to keep courses the way they were originally designed for a long period of time.”

Luke notes that a program on Additive Manufacturing , Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality , or Nanotechnology must be checked and updated frequently. More formal learning modalities have difficulty changing content at this rapid pace. But within the online space, it’s expected that the course content will change as quickly as the world itself does.

Cons of Online Learning

Now that we’ve looked at some of the biggest pros of online learning, let’s examine a few of the drawbacks:

1. Learning environment

While many learners thrive in an asynchronous learning environment, others struggle. Some learners prefer live lessons and an instructor they can connect with multiple times a week. They need these interactions to feel supported and to persist.

Most learners within the online space identify themselves as self-directed learners, meaning they can learn on their own with the right environment, guidance, materials, and assignments. Learners should know themselves first and understand their preferences when it comes to what kind of environment will help them thrive.

2. Repetition

One drawback of online courses is that the structure can be repetitive: do a reading, respond to two discussion posts, submit an essay, repeat. After a while, some learners may feel disengaged from the learning experience.

There are online courses that break the mold and offer multiple kinds of learning activities, assessments, and content to make the learning experience come alive, but it may take some research to find them-more on what to look for in an online course later in this article! Luke and his colleagues at MIT xPRO are mindful of designing courses that genuinely engage learners from beginning to end.

3. Underestimation

Luke has noticed that some learners underestimate how much work is required in an online course. They may mistakenly believe that online learning is somehow “easier” compared to in-person learning.

For those learners who miscalculate how long they will need to spend online or how challenging the assignments can be, changing that mindset is a difficult process. It’s essential to set aside the right amount of time per week to contribute to the content, activities, and assignments. Creating personal deadlines and building a study routine are two best practices that successful online learners follow to hold themselves accountable.

Experience the Value of Online Learning: What to Look For in an Online Course

You’ve probably gathered by now that not all online courses are created equal. On one end of the spectrum, there are methods of online learning that leave learners stunned by what a great experience they had. On the other end of the spectrum, some online learning courses are so disappointing that learners regret their decision to enroll.

If you want to experience the value of online learning, it’s essential to pick the right course. Here’s a quick list of what to look for:

• Feedback and connection to peers within the course platform. Interacting regularly with other learners makes a big difference. Luke and the MIT xPRO team use peer-reviewed feedback to give learners the opportunity to engage with each other’s work.
• Proof of hard work. In the online learning space, proof of hard work often comes in the form of Continuing Education Units (CEUs) or specific certifications. MIT xPRO course participants who successfully complete one or more courses are eligible to receive CEUs , which many employers, licensing agencies, and professional associations accept as evidence of a participant’s serious commitment to their professional development.

Online learning isn’t for everyone, but with the right approach, it can be a valuable experience for many people. Now that you know what to look for in an online course, see what Luke and the MIT xPRO instructional design team have to offer by checking out the latest MIT xPRO courses and programs .

Originally published at http://curve.mit.edu on August 8th, 2022.

The pros and cons of online learning was originally published in MIT Open Learning on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Open Learning newsletter

Times To Educate YourSelf

• [email protected]

Demonstration Method Of Teaching | Advantages, and Disadvantages

Table of Contents

Introduction

The Demonstration Method of teaching is a trendy and effective way of teaching. It is a form of teaching where the teacher shows the students how to do something, and then the students do it themselves. This can be done with physical objects, or with pictures and diagrams.

The Demonstration Method is often used in classrooms, as it is a very good way of teaching new concepts to students. It is also used in training situations, as it effectively shows people how to do something.

The Demonstration Method of teaching should be seriously considered whether you are a teacher or someone in charge of training others. It is a powerful method of instruction that will facilitate speedy and efficient learning in your students or learners.

There are many other ways to demonstrate, including using video, photos, or actual things.

The Word ‘Demonstration’ is derived from the word ‘demonstrate’, which means, “Show how to do”.

Talking About Abstract ideas is not easy to grasp. While concrete things get fixed up in minds of Students. Thus, from “Concrete to Abstract” is followed in this technique.

“The Demonstration Method of teaching is a pedagogical approach that involves showing students how to do something, and then having them practice it themselves. This approach is most commonly used in disciplines such as the sciences and trades”.

Importance of Demonstration Method of Teaching

An important tool in the teaching toolbox is the demonstration method of teaching. Because it enables the teacher to physically demonstrate to the students what they must do, it is a particularly effective method of teaching. This is an especially important method to use when teaching complex topics or tasks. Students can see exactly what they need to do and how to do it. This method is often used in conjunction with the lecture method of teaching.

It’s crucial to keep the following things in mind while adopting demonstration as a teaching method:

• The demonstration’s objective
• who will see the demonstration
• The resources needed for the demonstration

Demonstration Successive Steps

In three successive steps, the demonstration is given:

Introduction:

The lesson’s goals are laid out in this step, during which the teacher may also be referred to as a demonstrator. The activity that is to be developed is demonstrated to the class by him.

Development:

The demonstrated activity is tried to be mimicked by the students. The instructor makes an effort to answer any questions by providing further demonstrations and examples.

Integration:-

The teacher combines all the activities at this stage, which is followed by rehearsal, revision, and evaluation.

Principle of Demonstration Method of Teaching

The following principles form the foundation of this strategy:

• The “learn by doing” principle is used.
• Imitating others can help you learn new skills.
• In imitation, perception is helpful.

Application of Demonstration Method of Teaching

• Generally speaking, this method is used at technical or training institutions. It is used in teacher-education programs to help student teachers enhance their skills.
• A teacher uses it when teaching students in science, biology, nature study, and arts & crafts at the school level.

Guidelines for Effective Demonstration Method of Teaching

The following qualities of the teacher are necessary for this method to be successful:

• Good Planning.
• Intentional.
• Systematic.
• Functional Structure.
• Deliberate.
• Purposeful.
• Applicable.
• Challenging for students.
• Mastery over what he demonstrates.
• Clear and concise.
• Participation of students.
• Connected to everyday circumstances.

Advantages of Demonstration Method of Teaching

The demonstration method of instruction has various benefits, including:

Introduce fresh ideas:

It is a fantastic approach to offering fresh ideas. For the children to see, touch, and experience firsthand, the teacher can present a real-world example. The student’s understanding of the idea may improve as a result.

Providing Tasks:

Students might start working on a task using the demonstration method of teaching.

Group Exercise:

The pupils might feel more at ease with the task before working on it individually by beginning with a group activity.

Experiencing It Firsthand:

This approach is advantageous because it enables pupils to learn by doing and by repetition. Additionally, it permits more individualized instruction because the teacher can assess each student’s comprehension and offer assistance as necessary.

Effective Method:

It is a very efficient approach to teaching difficult subjects. Students are more likely to comprehend and remember the subject when they can clearly see what they must do.

Student Involvement:

Another effective strategy for piquing students’ attention in a subject is the demonstration approach. Students are more likely to want to try something themselves if they saw the teacher doing it.

Easy Assessment:

The demonstration approach is an excellent technique to gauge how well pupils comprehend a subject. The teacher realizes that extra teaching is required if the students are unable to complete the activity correctly.

Disadvantages of Demonstration Method of Teaching

Time-Taking Method:

One is that it could take a lot of time. Both the teacher and the pupils must set aside time to prepare the demonstration and the task, respectively.

Repetition in instruction:

The demonstration approach to teaching might become monotonous. If the same thing is presented to the kids repeatedly, they could grow bored.

Overwhelmed:-

In addition, if they are unable to understand the concept being demonstrated, some pupils may feel overwhelmed or frustrated.

Expensive Approach:

The demonstration approach may also be costly. This might add up quickly if the teacher needs to employ specialized tools or materials for the demonstration.

Rarely Dangerous Method:

The demonstration approach may be harmful. There is a chance that anything could go wrong if the teacher is demonstrating something hazardous, like using chemicals.

Despite the many benefits of the demonstration method of teaching, there are also some potential drawbacks. One of the biggest dangers of the demonstration method is that it can be used to simply show off a particular skill or concept without providing any real explanation or understanding. If students are not given the opportunity to ask questions or to practice the skill themselves, they may not really learn anything from the demonstration.

Recommended Tutorial

• Textbook Method of Teaching
• StoryTelling Method of Teaching| Advantages and Disadvantages
• Discussion Method of Teaching With Types of Discussion Method 

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

REVIEW article

On the advantages and disadvantages of choice: future research directions in choice overload and its moderators.

• 1 Department of Political Science and International Relations (DEMS), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
• 2 Atkinson Graduate School of Management, Willamette University, Salem, OR, United States
• 3 Department of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

Researchers investigating the psychological effects of choice have provided extensive empirical evidence that having choice comes with many advantages, including better performance, more motivation, and greater life satisfaction and disadvantages, such as avoidance of decisions and regret. When the decision task difficulty exceeds the natural cognitive resources of human mind, the possibility to choose becomes more a source of unhappiness and dissatisfaction than an opportunity for a greater well-being, a phenomenon referred to as choice overload. More recently, internal and external moderators that impact when choice overload occurs have been identified. This paper reviews seminal research on the advantages and disadvantages of choice and provides a systematic qualitative review of the research examining moderators of choice overload, laying out multiple critical paths forward for needed research in this area. We organize this literature review using two categories of moderators: the choice environment or context of the decision as well as the decision-maker characteristics.

Introduction

The current marketing orientation adopted by many organizations is to offer a wide range of options that differ in only minor ways. For example, in a common western grocery store contains 285 types of cookies, 120 different pasta sauces, 175 salad-dressing, and 275 types of cereal ( Botti and Iyengar, 2006 ). However, research in psychology and consumer behavior has demonstrated that when the number of alternatives to choose from becomes excessive (or superior to the decision-makers’ cognitive resources), choice is mostly a disadvantage to both the seller and the buyer. This phenomenon has been called choice overload and it refers to a variety of negative consequences stemming from having too many choices, including increased choice deferral, switching likelihood, or decision regret, as well as decreased choice satisfaction and confidence (e.g., Chernev et al., 2015 ). Choice overload has been replicated in numerous fields and laboratory settings, with different items (e.g., jellybeans, pens, coffee, chocolates, etc.), actions (reading, completing projects, and writing essays), and populations (e.g., Chernev, 2003 ; Iyengar et al., 2004 ; Schwartz, 2004 ; Shah and Wolford, 2007 ; Mogilner et al., 2008 ; Fasolo et al., 2009 ; Misuraca and Teuscher, 2013 ; Misuraca and Faraci, 2021 ; Misuraca et al., 2022 ; see also Misuraca, 2013 ). Over time, we have gained insight into numerous moderators of the choice overload phenomena, including aspects of the context or choice environment as well as the individual characteristics of the decision-maker (for a detailed review see Misuraca et al., 2020 ).

The goal of this review is to summarize important research findings that drive our current understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of choice, focusing on the growing body of research investigating moderators of choice overload. Following a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of choice, we review the existing empirical literature examining moderators of choice overload. We organize this literature review using two categories of moderators: the choice environment or context of the decision as well as the decision-maker characteristics. Finally, based on this systematic review of research, we propose a variety of future research directions for choice overload investigators, ranging from exploring underlying mechanisms of choice overload moderators to broadening the area of investigation to include a robust variety of decision-making scenarios.

Theoretical background

The advantages of choice.

Decades of research in psychology have demonstrated the many advantages of choice. Indeed, increased choice options are associated with increase intrinsic motivation ( Deci, 1975 ; Deci et al., 1981 ; Deci and Ryan, 1985 ), improved task performance ( Rotter, 1966 ), enhanced life satisfaction ( Langer and Rodin, 1976 ), and improved well-being ( Taylor and Brown, 1988 ). Increased choice options also have the potential to satisfy heterogeneous preferences and produce greater utility ( Lancaster, 1990 ). Likewise, economic research has demonstrated that larger assortments provide a higher chance to find an option that perfectly matches the individual preferences ( Baumol and Ide, 1956 ). In other words, with larger assortments it is easier to find what a decision-maker wants.

The impact of increased choice options extends into learning, internal motivation, and performance. Zuckerman et al. (1978) asked college students to solve puzzles. Half of the participants could choose the puzzle they would solve from six options. For the other half of participants, instead, the puzzle was imposed by the researchers. It was found that the group free to choose the puzzle was more motivated, more engaged and exhibited better performance than the group that could not choose the puzzle to solve. In similar research, Schraw et al. (1998) asked college students to read a book. Participants were assigned to either a choice condition or a non-choice condition. In the first one, they were free to choose the book to read, whereas in the second condition the books to read were externally imposed, according to a yoked procedure. Results demonstrated the group that was free to make decisions was more motivated to read, more engaged, and more satisfied compared to the group that was not allowed to choose the book to read ( Schraw et al., 1998 ).

These effects remain consistent with children and when choice options are constrained to incidental aspects of the learning context. In the study by Cordova and Lepper (1996) , elementary school children played a computer game designed to teach arithmetic and problem-solving skills. One group could make decisions about incidental aspects of the learning context, including which spaceship was used and its name, whereas another group could not make any choice (all the choices about the game’s features were externally imposed by the experimenters). The results demonstrated that the first group was more motivated to play the game, more engaged in the task, learned more of the arithmetical concepts involved in the game, and preferred to solve more difficult tasks compared to the second group.

Extending benefits of choice into health consequences, Langer and Rodin (1976) examined the impact that choice made in nursing home patients. In this context, it was observed that giving patients the possibility to make decisions about apparently irrelevant aspects of their life (e.g., at what time to watch a movie; how to dispose the furniture in their bedrooms, etc.), increased psychological and physiological well-being. The lack of choice resulted, instead, in a state of learned helplessness, as well as deterioration of physiological and psychological functions.

The above studies lead to the conclusion that choice has important advantages over no choice and, to some extent, limited choice options. It seems that providing more choice options is an improvement – it will be more motivating, more satisfying, and yield greater well-being. In line with this conclusion, the current orientation in marketing is to offer a huge variety of products that differ only in small details (e.g., Botti and Iyengar, 2006 ). However, research in psychology and consumer behavior demonstrated that when the number of alternatives to choose from exceeds the decision-makers’ cognitive resources, choice can become a disadvantage.

The disadvantages of choice

A famous field study conducted by Iyengar and Lepper (2000) in a Californian supermarket demonstrated that too much choice decreases customers’ motivation to buy as well as their post-choice satisfaction. Tasting booths were set up in two different areas of the supermarket, one of which displayed 6 different jars of jam while the other displayed 24 options, with customers free to taste any of the different flavors of jam. As expected, the larger assortment attracted more passers-by compared to the smaller assortment; Indeed, 60% of passers-by stopped at the table displaying 24 different options, whereas only 40% of the passers-by stopped at the table displaying the small variety of 6 jams. This finding was expected given that more choice options are appealing. However, out of the 60% of passers-by who stopped at the table with more choices, only 3% of them decided to buy jam. Conversely, 30% of the consumers who stopped at the table with only 6 jars of jam decided to purchase at least one jar. Additionally, these customers expressed a higher level of satisfaction with their choices, compared to those who purchased a jar of jam from the larger assortment. In other words, it seems that too much choice is at the beginning more appealing (attracts more customers), but it decreases the motivation to choose and the post-choice satisfaction.

This classic and seminal example of choice overload was quickly followed by many replications that expanded the findings from simple purchasing decisions into other realms of life. For example, Iyengar and Lepper (2000) , asked college students to write an essay. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the following two experimental conditions: limited-choice condition, in which they could choose from a list of six topics for the essay, and extensive-choice condition, in which they could choose from a list of 30 different topics for the essay. Results showed that a higher percentage of college students (74%) turned in the essay in the first condition compared to the second condition (60%). Moreover, the essays written by the students in the limited-choice conditions were evaluated as being higher quality compared to the essays written by the students in the extensive choice condition. In a separate study, college students were asked to choose one chocolate from two randomly assigned choice conditions with either 6 or 30 different chocolates. Those participants in the limited choice condition reporting being more satisfied with their choice and more willing to purchase chocolates at the end of the experiment, compared to participants who chose from the larger assortment ( Iyengar and Lepper, 2000 ).

In the field of financial decision-making, Iyengar et al. (2004) analyzed 800,000 employees’ decisions about their participation in 401(k) plans that offered from a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 59 different fund options. The researchers observed that as the fund options increased, the participation rate decreased. Specifically, plans offering less than 10 options had the highest participation rate, whereas plans offering 59 options had the lowest participation rate.

The negative consequences of having too much choice driven by cognitive limitations. Simon (1957) noted that decision-makers have a bounded rationality. In other words, the human mind cannot process an unlimited amount of information. Individuals’ working memory has a span of about 7 (plus or minus two) items ( Miller, 1956 ), which means that of all the options to choose from, individuals can mentally process only about 7 alternatives at a time. Because of these cognitive limitations, when the number of choices becomes too high, the comparison of all the available items becomes cognitively unmanageable and, consequently, decision-makers feel overwhelmed, confused, less motivated to choose and less satisfied (e.g., Iyengar and Lepper, 2000 ). However, a more recent meta-analytic work [ Chernev et al., 2015 : see also Misuraca et al. (2020) ] has shown that choice overload occurs only under certain conditions. Many moderators that mitigate the phenomenon have been identified by researchers in psychology and consumer behavior (e.g., Mogilner et al., 2008 ; Misuraca et al., 2016a ). In the next sections, we describe our review methodology and provide a detailed discussion of the main external and internal moderators of choice overload.

Literature search and inclusion criteria

Our investigation consisted of a literature review of peer-reviewed empirical research examining moderators of choice overload. We took several steps to locate and identify eligible studies. First, we sought to establish a list of moderators examined in the choice overload literature. For this, we referenced reviews conducted by Chernev et al. (2015) , McShane and Böckenholt (2017) , as well as Misuraca et al. (2020) and reviewed the references sections of the identified articles to locate additional studies. Using the list of moderators generated from this examination, we conducted a literature search using PsycInfo (Psychological Abstracts), EBSCO and Google Scholar. This search included such specific terms such as choice set complexity, visual preference heuristic, and choice preference uncertainty, as well as broad searches for ‘choice overload’ and ‘moderator’.

We used several inclusion criteria to select relevant articles. First, the article had to note that it was examining the choice overload phenomena. Studies examining other theories and/or related variables were excluded. Second, to ensure that we were including high-quality research methods that have been evaluated by scholars, only peer-reviewed journal articles were included. Third, the article had to include primary empirical data (qualitative or quantitative). Thus, studies that were conceptual in nature were excluded. This process yielded 49 articles for the subsequent review.

Moderators of choice overload

Choice environment and context.

Regarding external moderators of choice overload, several aspects about the choice environment become increasingly relevant. Specifically, these include the perceptual attributes of the information, complexity of the set of options, decision task difficulty, as well as the presence of brand names.

Perceptual characteristics

As Miller (1956) noted, humans have “channel capacity” for information processing and these differ for divergent stimuli: for taste, we have a capacity to accommodate four; for tones, the capacity increased to six; and for visual stimuli, we have the capacity for 10–15 items. Accordingly, perceptual attributes of choice options are an important moderator of choice overload, with visual presentation being one of the most important perceptual attributes ( Townsend and Kahn, 2014 ). The visual preference heuristic refers to the tendency to prefer a visual rather than verbal representation of choice options, regardless of assortment size ( Townsend and Kahn, 2014 ). However, despite this preference, visual presentations of large assortments lead to suboptimal decisions compared to verbal presentations, as visual presentations activate a less systematic decision-making approach ( Townsend and Kahn, 2014 ). Visual presentation of large choice sets is also associated with increased perceptions of complexity and likelihood of decisions deferral. Visual representations are particularly effective with small assortments, as they increase consumers’ perception of variety, improve the likelihood of making a choice, and reduce the time spent examining options ( Townsend and Kahn, 2014 ).

Choice set complexity

Choice set complexity refers to a wide range of aspects of a decision task that affect the value of the available choice options without influencing the structural characteristics of the decision problem ( Payne et al., 1993 ). Thus, choice set complexity does not influence aspects such as the number of options, number of attributes of each option, or format in which the information is presented. Rather, choice set complexity concerns factors such as the attractiveness of options, the presence of a dominant option, and the complementarity or alignability of the options.

Choice set complexity increases when the options include higher-quality, more attractive options ( Chernev and Hamilton, 2009 ). Indeed, when the variability in the relative attractiveness of the choice alternatives increases, the certainty about the choice and the satisfaction with the task increase ( Malhotra, 1982 ). Accordingly, when the number of attractive options increases, more choice options led to a decline in consumer satisfaction and likelihood of a decision being made, but satisfaction increases and decision deferral decreased when the number of unattractive options increases ( Dhar, 1997 ). This occurs when increased choice options make the weakness and strengths of attractive and unattractive options more salient ( Chan, 2015 ).

Similarly, the presence of a dominant option simplifies large choice sets and increased the preference for the chosen option; however, the opposite effect happens in small choice sets ( Chernev, 2003 ). Choice sets containing an ideal option have been associated with increased brain activity in the areas involved in reward and value processing as well as in the integration of costs and benefits (striatum and the anterior cingulate cortex; Reutskaja et al., 2018 ) which could explain why larger choice sets are not always associated with choice overload. As Misuraca et al. (2020 , p. 639) noted, “ the benefits of having an ideal item in the set might compensate for the costs of overwhelming set size in the bounded rational mind of humans . ”

Finally, choice set complexity is impacted by the alignability and complementarity of the attributes that differentiate the options ( Chernev et al., 2015 ). When unique attributes of options exist within a choice set, complexity and choice overload increase as the unique attributes make comparison more difficult and trade-offs more salient. Indeed, feature alignability and complementarity (meaning that the options have additive utility and need to be co-present to fully satisfy the decision-maker’s need) 1 have been associated with decision deferral ( Chernev, 2005 ; Gourville and Soman, 2005 ) and changes in satisfaction ( Griffin and Broniarczyk, 2010 ).

Decision task difficulty

Decision task difficulty refers to the structural characteristics of a decision problem; unlike choice set complexity, decision task difficulty does not influence the value of the choice options ( Payne et al., 1993 ). Decision task difficulty is influenced by the number of attributes used to describe available options, decision accountability, time constraints, and presentation format.

The number of attributes used to describe the available options within an assortment influences decision task difficulty and choice overload ( Hoch et al., 1999 ; Chernev, 2003 ; Greifeneder et al., 2010 ), such that choice overload increases with the number of dimensions upon which the options differ. With each additional dimension, decision-makers have another piece of information that must be attended to and evaluated. Along with increasing the cognitive complexity of the choice, additional dimensions likely increase the odds that each option is inferior to other options on one dimension or another (e.g., Chernev et al., 2015 ).

When individuals have decision accountability or are required to justify their choice of an assortment to others, they tend to prefer larger assortments; However, when individuals must justify their particular choice from an assortment to others, they tend to prefer smaller choice sets ( Ratner and Kahn, 2002 ; Chernev, 2006 ; Scheibehenne et al., 2009 ). Indeed, decision accountability is associated with decision deferral when choice sets are larger compared to smaller ( Gourville and Soman, 2005 ). Thus, decision accountability influences decision task difficulty differently depending on whether an individual is selecting an assortment or choosing an option from an assortment.

Time pressure or constraint is an important contextual factor for decision task difficulty, choice overload, and decision regret ( Payne et al., 1993 ). Time pressure affects the strategies that are used to make decisions as well as the quality of the decisions made. When confronted with time pressure, decision-makers tend to speed up information processing, which could be accomplished by limiting the amount of information that they process and use ( Payne et al., 1993 ; Pieters and Warlop, 1999 ; Reutskaja et al., 2011 ). Decision deferral becomes a more likely outcome, as is choosing at random and regretting the decision later ( Inbar et al., 2011 ).

The physical arrangement and presentation of options and information affect information perception, processing, and decision-making. This moderates the effect of choice overload because these aspects facilitate or inhibit decision-makers’ ability to process a greater information load (e.g., Chernev et al., 2015 ; Anderson and Misuraca, 2017 ). The location of options and structure of presented information allow the retrieval of information about the options, thus allowing choosers to distinguish and evaluate various options (e.g., Chandon et al., 2009 ). Specifically, organizing information into “chunks” facilitates information processing ( Miller, 1956 ) as well as the perception of greater variety in large choice sets ( Kahn and Wansink, 2004 ). Interestingly, these “chunks” do not have to be informative; Mogilner et al. (2008) found that choice overload was mitigated to the same extent when large choice sets were grouped into generic categories (i.e., A, B, etc.) as when the categories were meaningful descriptions of characteristics.

Beyond organization, the presentation order can facilitate or inhibit decision-makers cognitive processing ability. Levav et al. (2010) found that choice overload decreased and choice satisfaction increased when smaller choice sets were followed by larger choice sets, compared to the opposite order of presentation. When sets are highly varied, Huffman and Kahn (1998) found that decision-makers were more satisfied and willing to make a choice when information was presented about attributes (i.e., price and characteristics) rather than available alternatives (i.e., images of options). Finally, presenting information simultaneously, rather than sequentially, increases decision satisfaction ( Mogilner et al., 2013 ), likely due to decision-makers choosing among an available set rather than comparing each option to an imaged ideal option.

Brand names

The presence of brand names is an important moderator of choice overload. As recently demonstrated by researchers in psychology and consumer behavior, choice overload occurs only when options are not associated with brands, choice overload occurs when the same choice options are presented without any brand names ( Misuraca et al., 2019 , 2021a ). When choosing between 6 or 24 different mobile phones, choice overload did not occur in the condition in which phones were associated with a well-known brand (i.e., Apple, Samsung, Nokia, etc.), although it did occur when the same cell phones were displayed without information about their brand. These findings have been replicated with a population of adolescents ( Misuraca et al., 2021a ).

Decision-maker characteristics

Beyond the choice environment and context, individual differences in decision-maker characteristics are significant moderators of choice overload. Several critical characteristics include the decision goal as well as an individual’s preference uncertainty, affective state, decision style, and demographic variables such as age, gender, and cultural background (e.g., Misuraca et al., 2021a ).

Decision goal

A decision goal refers to the extent to which a decision-maker aims to minimize the cognitive resources spent making a decision ( Chernev, 2003 ). Decision goals have been associated with choice overload, with choice overload increasing along with choice set options, likely due to decision-makers unwillingness to make tradeoffs between various options. As a moderator of choice overload, there are several factors which impact the effect of decision goals, including decision intent (choosing or browsing) and decision focus (choosing an assortment or an option) ( Misuraca et al., 2020 ).

Decision intent varies between choosing, with the goal of making a decision among the available options, and browsing, with the goal of learning more about the options. Cognitive overload is more likely to occur than when decision makers’ goal is choosing compared to browsing. For choosing goals, decision-makers need to make trade-offs among the pros and cons of the options, something that demands more cognitive resources. Accordingly, decision-makers whose goal is browsing, rather than choosing, are less likely to experience cognitive overload when facing large assortments ( Chernev and Hamilton, 2009 ). Furthermore, when decision-makers have a goal of choosing, brain research reveals inverted-U-shaped function, with neither too much nor too little choice providing optimal cognitive net benefits ( Reutskaja et al., 2018 ).

Decision focus can target selecting an assortment or selecting an option from an assortment. When selecting an assortment, cognitive overload is less likely to occur, likely due to the lack of individual option evaluation and trade-offs ( Chernev et al., 2015 ). Thus, when choosing an assortment, decision-makers tend to prefer larger assortments that provide more variety. Conversely, decision-makers focused on choosing an option from an assortment report increased decision difficulty and tend to prefer smaller assortments ( Chernev, 2006 ). Decision overload is further moderated by the order of decision focus. Scheibehenne et al. (2010) found that when decision-makers first decide on an assortment, they are more likely to choose an option from that assortment, rather than an option from an assortment they did not first select.

Preference uncertainty

The degree to which decision-makers have preferences varies regarding comprehension and prioritization of the costs and benefits of the choice options. This is referred to as preference uncertainty ( Chernev, 2003 ). Preference uncertainty is influenced by decision-maker expertise and an articulated ideal option, which indicates well-defined preferences. When decision-makers have limited expertise, larger choice sets are associated with weaker preferences as well as increased choice deferral and choice overload compared to smaller choice sets. Conversely, high expertise decision-makers experience weaker preferences and increased choice deferral in the context of smaller choice sets compared to larger ( Mogilner et al., 2008 ; Morrin et al., 2012 ). Likewise, an articulated ideal option, which implies that the decision-maker has already engaged in trade-offs, is associated with reduced decision complexity. The effect is more pronounced in larger choice sets compared to smaller choice sets ( Chernev, 2003 ).

Positive affect

Positive affect tends to moderate the impact of choice overload on decision satisfaction. Indeed, Spassova and Isen (2013) found that decision-makers reporting positive affect did not report experiencing dissatisfaction when choosing from larger choice sets while those with neutral affect reported being more satisfied when choosing from smaller choice sets. This affect may be associated with the affect heuristic, or a cognitive shortcut that enables efficient decisions based on the immediate emotional response to a stimulus ( Slovic et al., 2007 ).

Decision-making tendencies

Satisfaction with extensive choice options may depend on whether one is a maximizer or a satisficer. Maximizing refers to the tendency to search for the best option. Maximizers approach decision tasks with the goal to find the absolute best ( Carmeci et al., 2009 ; Misuraca et al., 2015 , 2016b , 2021b ; Misuraca and Fasolo, 2018 ). To do that, they tend to process all the information available and try to compare all the possible options. Conversely, satisficers are decision-makers whose goal is to select an option that is good enough, rather than the best choice. To find such an option, satisficers evaluate a smaller range of options, and choose as soon as they find one alternative that surpasses their threshold of acceptability ( Schwartz, 2004 ). Given the different approach of maximizers and satisficers when choosing, it is easy to see why choice overload represents more of a problem for maximizers than for satisficers. If the number of choices exceeds the individuals’ cognitive resources, maximizers more than satisficers would feel overwhelmed, frustrated, and dissatisfied, because an evaluation of all the available options to select the best one is cognitively impossible.

Maximizers attracted considerable attention from researchers because of the paradoxical finding that even though they make objectively better decisions than satisficers, they report greater regret and dissatisfaction. Specifically, Iyengar et al. (2006) , analyzed the job search outcomes of college students during their final college year and found that maximizer students selected jobs with 20% higher salaries compared to satisficers, but they felt less satisfied and happy, as well as more stressed, frustrated, anxious, and regretful than students who were satisficers. The reasons for these negative feelings of maximizers lies in their tendency to believe that a better option is among those that they could not evaluate, given their time and cognitive limitations.

Choosing for others versus oneself

When decision-makers must make a choice for someone else, choice overload does not occur ( Polman, 2012 ). When making choices for others (about wines, ice-cream flavors, school courses, etc.), decision makers reported greater satisfaction when choosing from larger assortments rather than smaller assortments. However, when choosing for themselves, they reported higher satisfaction after choosing from smaller rather than larger assortments.

Demographics

Demographic variables such as gender, age, and cultural background moderate reactions concerning choice overload. Regarding gender, men and women may often employ different information-processing strategies, with women being more likely to attend to and use details than men (e.g., Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran, 1991 ). Gender differences also arise in desire for variety and satisfaction depending on choice type. While women were more satisfied with their choice of gift boxes regardless of assortment size, women become more selective than men when speed-dating with larger groups of speed daters compared to smaller groups ( Fisman et al., 2006 ).

Age moderates the choice overload experience such that, when choosing from an extensive array of options, adolescents and adults suffer similar negative consequences (i.e., greater difficulty and dissatisfaction), while children and seniors suffer fewer negative consequences (i.e., less difficulty and dissatisfaction than adolescents and adults) ( Misuraca et al., 2016a ). This could be associated with decision-making tendencies. Indeed, adults and adolescents tend to adopt maximizing approaches ( Furby and Beyth-Marom, 1992 ). This maximizing tendency aligns with their greater perceived difficulty and post-choice dissatisfaction when facing a high number of options ( Iyengar et al., 2006 ). Seniors tend to adopt a satisficing approach when making decisions ( Tanius et al., 2009 ), as well as become overconfident in their judgments ( Stankov and Crawford, 1996 ) and focused on positive information ( Mather and Carstensen, 2005 ). Taken together, these could explain why the negative consequences of too many choice options were milder among seniors. Finally, children tend to approach decisions in an intuitive manner and quickly develop strong preferences ( Schlottmann and Wilkening, 2011 ). This mitigates the negative consequences of choice overload for this age group.

Finally, decision-makers from different cultures have different preferences for variety (e.g., Iyengar, 2010 ). Eastern Europeans report greater satisfaction with larger choice sets than Western Europeans ( Reutskaja et al., 2022 ). Likewise, cultural differences in perception may impact how choice options affect decision-makers from Western and non-Western cultures (e.g., Miyamoto et al., 2006 ).

Future research directions

As researchers continue to investigate the choice overload phenomenon, future investigations can provide a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms that influence when and how individuals experience the negative impacts of choice overload as well as illuminate how this phenomenon can affect people in diverse contexts (such as hiring decisions, sports, social media platforms, streaming services, etc.).

For instance, the visual preference heuristic indicates, and subsequent research supports, the human tendency to prefer visual rather than verbal representations of choice options ( Townsend and Kahn, 2014 ). However, in Huffman and Kahn’s (1998) research, decision-makers preferred written information, such as characteristics of the sofa, rather than visual representations of alternatives. Future researchers can investigate the circumstances that underlie when individuals prefer detailed written or verbal information as opposed to visual images.

Furthermore, future researchers can examine the extent to which the mechanisms underlying the impact of chunking align with those underlying the effect of brand names. Research has supported that chunking information reduces choice overload, regardless of the sophistication of the categories ( Kahn and Wansink, 2004 ; Mogilner et al., 2008 ). The presence of a brand name has a seemingly similar effect ( Misuraca et al., 2019 , 2021a ). The extent to which the cognitive processes underlying these two areas of research the similar, as well as the ways in which they might differ, can provide valuable insights for researchers and practitioners.

More research is needed that considers the role of the specific culture and cultural values of the decision-maker on choice overload. Indeed, the traditional studies on the choice overload phenomenon mentioned above predominantly focused on western cultures, which are known for being individualistic cultures. Future research should explore whether choice overload replicates in collectivistic cultures, which value the importance of making personal decisions differently than individualist cultures. Additional cultural values, such as long-term or short-term time orientation, may also impact decision-makers and the extent to which they experience choice overload ( Hofstede and Minkov, 2010 ).

While future research that expands our understanding of the currently known and identified moderators of choice overload can critically inform our understanding of when and how this phenomenon occurs, there are many new and exciting directions into which researchers can expand.

For example, traditional research on choice overload focused on choice scenarios where decision-makers had to choose only one option out of either a small or a large assortment of options. This is clearly an important scenario, yet it represents only one of many scenarios that choice overload may impact. Future research could investigate when and how this phenomenon occurs in a wide variety of scenarios that are common in the real-world but currently neglected in classical studies on choice overload. These could include situations in which the individual can choose more than one option (e.g., more than one type of ice cream or cereal) (see Fasolo et al., 2024 ).

Historically, a significant amount of research on choice overload has focused on purchasing decisions. Some evidence also indicates that the phenomenon occurs in a variety of situations (e.g., online dating, career choices, retirement planning, travel and tourism, and education), potentially hindering decision-making processes and outcomes. Future research should further investigate how choice overload impacts individuals in a variety of untested situations. For instance, how might choice overload impact the hiring manager with a robust pool of qualified applicants? How would the occurrence of choice overload in a hiring situation impact the quality of the decision, making an optimal hire? Likewise, does choice overload play a role in procrastination? When confronted with an overwhelming number of task options, does choice overload play a role in decision deferral? It could be that similar cognitive processes underlie deferring a choice on a purchase and deferring a choice on a to-do list. Research is needed to understand how choice overload (and its moderators) may differ across these scenarios.

Finally, as society continues to adapt and develop, future research will be needed to evaluate the impact these technological and sociological changes have on individual decision-makers. The technology that we interact with has become substantially more sophisticated and omnipresent, particularly in the form of artificial intelligence (AI). As AI is adopted into our work, shopping, and online experiences, future researchers should investigate if AI and interactive decision-aids (e.g., Anderson and Misuraca, 2017 ) can be effectively leveraged to reduce the negative consequences of having too many alternatives without impairing the sense of freedom of decision-makers.

As with technological advancements, future research could examine how new sociological roles contribute to or minimize choice overload. For example, a social media influencer could reduce the complexity of the decision when there is a large number of choice options. If social media influencers have an impact, is that impact consistent across age groups and culturally diverse individuals? Deepening our understanding of how historical and sociological events have impacted decision-makers, along with how cultural differences in our perceptions of the world as noted above, could provide a rich and needed area of future research.

Discussion and conclusion

Research in psychology demonstrated the advantages of being able to make choices from a variety of alternatives, particularly when compared to no choice at all. Having the possibility to choose, indeed, enhances individuals’ feeling of self-determination, motivation, performance, well-being, and satisfaction with life (e.g., Zuckerman et al., 1978 ; Cordova and Lepper, 1996 ). As the world continues to globalize through sophisticated supply chains and seemingly infinite online shopping options, our societies have become characterized by a proliferation of choice options. Today, not only stores, but universities, hospitals, financial advisors, sport centers, and many other businesses offer a huge number of options from which to choose. The variety offered is often so large that decision-makers can become overwhelmed when trying to compare and evaluate all the potential options and experience choice overload ( Iyengar and Lepper, 2000 ). Rather than lose the benefits associated with choice options, researchers and practitioners should understand and leverage the existence of the many moderators that affect the occurrence of choice overload. The findings presented in this review indicate that choice overload is influenced by several factors, including perceptual attributes, choice set complexity, decision task difficulty, and brand association. Understanding these moderators can aid in designing choice environments that optimize decision-making processes and alleviate choice overload. For instance, organizing options effectively and leveraging brand association can enhance decision satisfaction and reduce choice overload. Additionally, considering individual differences such as decision goals, preference uncertainty, affective state, decision-making tendencies, and demographics can tailor decision-making environments to better suit the needs and preferences of individuals, ultimately improving decision outcomes. Future research is needed to fully understand the role of many variables that might be responsible for the negative consequences of choice overload and to better understand under which conditions the phenomenon occurs.

Author contributions

RM: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. AN: Writing – review & editing. SM: Writing – review & editing. GD: Methodology, Writing – review & editing. CS: Writing – review & editing, Supervision.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. ^ For example, gloves and socks have complementary features, in that they provide warmth to different parts of the body.

Anderson, B. F., and Misuraca, R. (2017). Perceptual commensuration in decision tables. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 70, 544–553. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1139603

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Baumol, W., and Ide, E. A. (1956). Variety in retailing. Manag. Sci. 3, 93–101. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.3.1.93

Botti, S., and Iyengar, S. S. (2006). The dark side of choice: when choice impairs social welfare. J. Public Policy Mark. 25, 24–38. doi: 10.1509/jppm.25.1.24

Carmeci, F., Misuraca, R., and Cardaci, M. (2009). A study of temporal estimation from the perspective of the mental clock model. J. Gen. Psychol. 136, 117–128. doi: 10.3200/GENP.136.2.117-128

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chan, E. Y. (2015). Attractiveness of options moderates the effect of choice overload. Int. J. Res. Mark. 32, 425–427. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.04.001

Chandon, P., Hutchinson, J. W., Bradlow, E. T., and Young, S. H. (2009). Does in-store marketing work? Effects of the number and position of shelf facings on brand attention and evaluation at the point of purchase. J. Mark. 73, 1–17. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.73.6.1

Chernev, A. (2003). When more is less and less is more: the role of ideal point availability and assortment in consumer choice. J. Consum. Res. 30, 170–183. doi: 10.1086/376808

Chernev, A. (2005). Feature complementarity and assortment in choice. J. Consum. Res. 31, 748–759. doi: 10.1086/426608

Chernev, A. (2006). Decision focus and consumer choice among assortments. J. Consum. Res. 33, 50–59. doi: 10.1086/504135

Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U., and Goodman, J. (2015). Choice overload: a conceptual review and meta-analysis. J. Consum. Psychol. 25, 333–358. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2014.08.002

Chernev, A., and Hamilton, R. (2009). Assortment size and option attractiveness in consumer choice among retailers. J. Mark. Res. 46, 410–420. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.46.3.410

Cordova, D. I., and Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. J. Educ. Psychol. 88, 715–730. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.715

Deci, E. (1975). Intrinsic motivation . New York, NY, London: Plenum Press.

Google Scholar

Deci, E. L., Nezlek, J., and Sheinman, L. (1981). Characteristics of the rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1–10. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.40.1.1

Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior . Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

Dhar, R. (1997). Context and task effects on choice deferral. Mark. Lett. 8, 119–130. doi: 10.1023/A:1007997613607

Fasolo, B., Carmeci, F. A., and Misuraca, R. (2009). The effect of choice complexity on perception of time spent choosing: when choice takes longer but feels shorter. Psychol. Mark. 26, 213–228. doi: 10.1002/mar.20270

Fasolo, B., Misuraca, R., and Reutskaja, E. (2024). Choose as much as you wish: freedom cues in the marketplace help consumers feel more satisfied with what they choose and improve customer experience. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 30, 156–168. doi: 10.1037/xap0000481

Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., and Simonson, I. (2006). Gender differences in mate selection: evidence from a speed dating experiment. Q. J. Econ. 121, 673–697. doi: 10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.673

Furby, L., and Beyth-Marom, R. (1992). Risk taking in adolescence: a decision-making perspective. Dev. Rev. 12, 1–44. doi: 10.1016/0273-2297(92)90002-J

Gourville, J. T., and Soman, D. (2005). Overchoice and assortment type: when and why variety backfires. Mark. Sci. 24, 382–395. doi: 10.1287/mksc.1040.0109

Greifeneder, R., Scheibehenne, B., and Kleber, N. (2010). Less may be more when choosing is difficult: choice complexity and too much choice. Acta Psychol. 133, 45–50. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.08.005

Griffin, J. G., and Broniarczyk, S. M. (2010). The slippery slope: the impact of feature alignability on search and satisfaction. J. Mark. Res. 47, 323–334. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.47.2.323

Hoch, S. J., Bradlow, E. T., and Wansink, B. (1999). The variety of an assortment. Mark. Sci. 18, 527–546. doi: 10.1287/mksc.18.4.527

Hofstede, G., and Minkov, M. (2010). Long-versus short-term orientation: new perspectives. Asia Pac. Bus. Rev. 16, 493–504. doi: 10.1080/13602381003637609

Huffman, C., and Kahn, B. E. (1998). Variety for sale: mass customization or mass confusion? J. Retail. 74, 491–513. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4359(99)80105-5

Inbar, Y., Botti, S., and Hanko, K. (2011). Decision speed and choice regret: when haste feels like waste. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47, 533–540. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.01.011

Iyengar, S. S. (2010). The art of choosing . London: Little Brown.

Iyengar, S. S., Huberman, G., and Jiang, W. (2004). “How much choice is too much? Contributions to 401 (k) retirement plans” in Pension design and structure New Lessons from Behavioral Finance . Oxford University Press, 83–95.

Iyengar, S. S., and Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79, 995–1006. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995

Iyengar, S. S., Wells, R. E., and Schwartz, B. (2006). Doing better but feeling worse looking for the ‘best’ job undermines satisfaction. Psychol. Sci. 17, 143–150. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01677.x

Kahn, B. E., and Wansink, B. (2004). The influence of assortment structure on perceived variety and consumption quantities. J. Consum. Res. 30, 519–533. doi: 10.1086/380286

Lancaster, K. (1990). The economics of product variety: a survey. Mark. Sci. 9, 189–206. doi: 10.1287/mksc.9.3.189

Langer, E. J., and Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for aged: a field experiment in an institutional setting. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 34, 191–198. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.34.2.191

Levav, J., Heitmann, M., Herrmann, A., and Iyengar, S. S. (2010). Order in product customization decisions: evidence from field experiments. J. Polit. Econ. 118, 274–299. doi: 10.1086/652463

Malhotra, N. K. (1982). Information load and consumer decision making. J. Consum. Res. 8, 419–430. doi: 10.1086/208882

Mather, M., and Carstensen, L. L. (2005). Aging and motivated cognition: the positivity effect in attention and memory. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 496–502. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.005

McShane, B. B., and Böckenholt, U. (2017). Multilevel multivariate Meta-analysis with application to choice overload. Psychometrika 83, 255–271. doi: 10.1007/s11336-017-9571-z

Meyers-Levy, J., and Maheswaran, D. (1991). Exploring differences in males' and females' processing strategies. J. Consum. Res. 18, 63–70. doi: 10.1086/209241

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magic number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 63, 81–97. doi: 10.1037/h0043158

Misuraca, R. (2013). Do too many choices have negative consequences? An empirical review. Troppa scelta ha veramente conseguenze negative? Una rassegna di studi empirici. G. Ital. Psicol. 35, 129–154,

Misuraca, R., Ceresia, F., Nixon, A. E., and Scaffidi Abbate, C. (2021a). When is more really more? The effect of brands on choice overload in adolescents. J. Consum. Mark. 38, 168–177. doi: 10.1108/JCM-08-2020-4021

Misuraca, R., Ceresia, F., Teuscher, U., and Faraci, P. (2019). The role of the brand on choice overload. Mind Soc. 18, 57–76. doi: 10.1007/s11299-019-00210-7

Misuraca, R., and Faraci, P. (2021). Choice overload: A study on children, adolescents, adults and seniors/L’effetto del sovraccarico di scelta: un’indagine su bambini, adolescent, adulti e anziani. Ricerche Psicol. 43, 835–847,

Misuraca, R., Faraci, P., Gangemi, A., Carmeci, F. A., and Miceli, S. (2015). The decision-making tendency inventory: a new measure to assess maximizing, satisficing, and minimizing. Personal. Individ. Differ. 85, 111–116. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.043

Misuraca, R., Faraci, P., Ruthruff, E., and Ceresia, F. (2021b). Are maximizers more normative decision-makers? An experimental investigation of maximizers' susceptibility to cognitive biases. Personal. Individ. Differ. 183:111123. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111123

Misuraca, R., Faraci, P., and Scaffidi-Abbate, C. (2022). Maximizers’ susceptibility to the effect of frequency vs. percentage format in risk representation. Behav. Sci. 12:496. doi: 10.3390/bs12120496

Misuraca, R., and Fasolo, B. (2018). Maximizing versus satisficing in the digital age: disjoint scales and the case for “construct consensus”. Personal. Individ. Differ. 121, 152–160. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.031

Misuraca, R., Reutskaja, E., Fasolo, B., and Iyengar, S. S. (2020). “How much choice is ‘good enough’? Moderators of information and choice overload” in Routledge handbook of bounded rationality . ed. R. Viale (Abingdon, UK: Routledge).

Misuraca, R., and Teuscher, U. (2013). Time flies when you maximize – maximizers and satisficers perceive time differently when making decisions. Acta Psychol. 143, 176–180. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.03.004

Misuraca, R., Teuscher, U., and Carmeci, F. A. (2016b). Who are maximizers? Future oriented and highly numerate individuals. Int. J. Psychol. 51, 307–311. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12169

Misuraca, R., Teuscher, U., and Faraci, P. (2016a). Is more choice always worse? Age differences in the overchoice effect. J. Cogn. Psychol. 28, 242–255. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2015.1118107

Miyamoto, Y., Nisbett, R. E., and Masuda, T. (2006). Culture and the physical environment: holistic versus analytic perceptual affordances. Psychol. Sci. 17, 113–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01673.x

Mogilner, C., Rudnick, T., and Iyengar, S. S. (2008). The mere categorization effect: how the presence of categories increases choosers’ perceptions of assortment variety and outcome satisfaction. J. Consum. Res. 35, 202–215. doi: 10.1086/588698

Mogilner, C., Shiv, B., and Iyengar, S. S. (2013). Eternal quest for the best: sequential (vs. simultaneous) option presentation undermines choice commitment. J. Consum. Res. 39, 1300–1312. doi: 10.1086/668534

Morrin, M., Broniarczyk, S. M., and Inman, J. J. (2012). Plan format and participation in 401 (k) plans: the moderating role of investor knowledge. J. Public Policy Mark. 31, 254–268. doi: 10.1509/jppm.10.122

Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., and Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pieters, R., and Warlop, L. (1999). Visual attention during brand choice: the impact of time pressure and task motivation. Int. J. Res. Mark. 16, 1–16. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8116(98)00022-6

Polman, E. (2012). Effects of self-other decision making on regulatory focus and choice overload. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102, 980–993. doi: 10.1037/a0026966

Ratner, R. K., and Kahn, B. E. (2002). The impact of private versus public consumption on variety-seeking behavior. J. Consum. Res. 29, 246–257. doi: 10.1086/341574

Reutskaja, E., Cheek, N. N., Iyengar, S., and Schwartz, B. (2022). Choice deprivation, choice overload, and satisfaction with choices across six nations. J. Int. Mark. 30, 18–34. doi: 10.1177/1069031X211073821

Reutskaja, E., Lindner, A., Nagel, R., Andersen, R. A., and Camerer, C. F. (2018). Choice overload reduces neural signatures of choice set value in dorsal striatum and anterior cingulate cortex. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 925–935. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0440-2

Reutskaja, E., Nagel, R., Camerer, C. F., and Rangel, A. (2011). Search dynamics in consumer choice under time pressure: an eye-tracking study. Am. Econ. Rev. 101, 900–926. doi: 10.1257/aer.101.2.900

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol. Monogr. Gen. Appl. 80, 1–28. doi: 10.1037/h0092976

Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., and Todd, P. M. (2009). What moderates the too-much-choice effect? Psychol. Mark. 26, 229–253. doi: 10.1002/mar.20271

Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., and Todd, P. M. (2010). Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. J. Consum. Res. 37, 409–425.

Schlottmann, A., and Wilkening, F. (2011). Judgment and decision making in young children . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., and Reisetter, M. F. (1998). The role of choice in reader engagement. J. Educ. Psychol. 90, 705–714. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.90.4.705

Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: why more is less . New York, NY: Ecco.

Shah, A. M., and Wolford, G. (2007). Buying behavior as a function of parametric variation of number of choices. Psychol. Sci. 18, 369–370. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01906.x

Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: social and rational . Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., and MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 177, 1333–1352. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006

Spassova, G., and Isen, A. M. (2013). Positive affect moderates the impact of assortment size on choice satisfaction. J. Retail. 89, 397–408. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2013.05.003

Stankov, L., and Crawford, J. D. (1996). Confidence judgments in studies of individual differences. Personal. Individ. Differ. 21, 971–986. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00130-4

Tanius, B. E., Wood, S., Hanoch, Y., and Rice, T. (2009). Aging and choice: applications to Medicare part D. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 4, 92–101. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500000735

Taylor, S. E., and Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychol. Bull. 103, 193–210. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193

Townsend, C., and Kahn, B. E. (2014). The “visual preference heuristic”: the influence of visual versus verbal depiction on assortment processing, perceived variety, and choice overload. J. Consum. Res. 40, 993–1015. doi: 10.1086/673521

Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Latin, D., Smith, R., and Deci, E. L. (1978). On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically motivated behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 4, 443–446. doi: 10.1177/014616727800400317

Keywords: choice-overload, decision-making, choice set complexity, decision task difficulty, decision goal, decision-making tendency

Citation: Misuraca R, Nixon AE, Miceli S, Di Stefano G and Scaffidi Abbate C (2024) On the advantages and disadvantages of choice: future research directions in choice overload and its moderators. Front. Psychol . 15:1290359. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1290359

Received: 07 September 2023; Accepted: 24 April 2024; Published: 09 May 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Misuraca, Nixon, Miceli, Di Stefano and Scaffidi Abbate. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Raffaella Misuraca, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.