INFOGRAPHICS - 1

Infographics as a Business Communication Tool:

An Empirical Investigation of User Preference, Comprehension, & Efficiency

Amy M. Young, Ph.D. & Mary D. Hinesly, MBA, DBA

Ross School of Business, University of Michigan

*Corresponding author: R3480 Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, 701 Tappan Lane, Ann

Arbor, MI 48109-1234 Tel: 734.764.2062. email: baldwin@umich.edu

Authors’ Note: We wish to thank Pricilla Rogers for her thoughtful comments to an earlier draft of this

manuscript and Ana Austin for her assistance with manuscript preparation.

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559
 INFOGRAPHICS - 2

Abstract

Infographics are being touted as an up and coming business communication tool that can express

ideas quickly and efficiently while being visually appealing and engaging. The purpose of this study was

to test whether information conveyed through infographics provided superior outcomes compared to a

text format in terms of user preferences, comprehension, and reader efficiency. An international sample

of 895 respondents from three generational groups were administered an online survey that incorporated

an experimental design. Using a between-subjects design, respondents were randomly assigned to read an

article as an infographic or its text equivalent. ANOVA tests indicated that infographics may enhance

communication with some age groups. Millennials were more likely to say they would read the article

and recommend it to others if they received the infographic version than if they received the text version.

However, Baby Boomers attained better comprehension when they received the text version compared to

the inforgraphic version. Findings indicate that infographics and traditional text approaches are needed to

reach a multi-generational workforce, although infographics will likely grow in popularity in the next

decade as more Millennials enter the workforce and Baby Boomers continue to exit it.

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559
 INFOGRAPHICS - 3

Informational graphics, or infographics, are forms of communication that combine text and

visualizations to inform readers. The most elementary form of infographics, which have been in

existence for centuries, take the form of maps, graphs, or illustrations. Starting in the 1970s, they could

often be found in newspapers such as the Sunday New York Times and USA Today. However, advances

in digital and social media technology in the 21st century have brought about a new type of infographic

that propagates the internet. The latest generation of infographics emphasize enhanced visual design,

layout, and visual imagery that are now feasible with Adobe Flash, HTML 5, and CSS3 (Rouget, 2011).

While illustration or graphical display of data is often still included, today’s infographics focus on

attracting and engaging readers in addition to making information easier to understand. As part of this

broader societal trend, businesses have turned to infographics to enhance their external and internal

communication. Marketing and brand awareness are the most popular business applications of

infographics; however, they are now being used as tools in strategy sessions, employee communication,

and annual reports to stakeholders (Khazan, 2012; Smiciklas, 2012).

Given the limited research on infographics as a business communication tool despite their

increasing popularity, the purpose of this investigation was to conduct an initial empirical study on the

use of infographics as a communication tool. As so little has been written on the topic, we first provide a

background on infographics, their use in the business setting, and their location within the historical

context of visual communication. While the rise of infographics represent a larger trend towards visual

communication over written text, the use of icons and images to communicate have a longstanding history

and predate languages based on phonetic alphabets. We then report on our findings regarding user

preference, comprehension, and efficiency of infographics.

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559
 INFOGRAPHICS - 4

Infographics – What Are They and Why the Hype?

Infographics now proliferate on the internet and are being increasingly used in newsprint (e.g.,

Wall Street Journal, Time magazine, USA Today). Today infographics provide an easy way to create and

distribute visual forms of communication in the age of digital communication (Scott, 2013; West, 2012).

On the flip side, the ease of information exchange has created “information overload”; we now struggle

with sifting through large amounts of information to distinguish the meaningful from the clutter. As

noted by boyd & Crawford, “data is increasingly digital air: the oxygen we breathe and carbon dioxide

that we exhale. It can be the source of both sustenance and pollution” (2011, p.2). Proponents of

infographics argue that these newer visual forms of communication address the problem of information

overload by presenting the most pertinent information in a manner that is easy to comprehend (Sutter,

2012).

As concise writing with “high skim value” is the hallmark of good business writing (Munter,

2011), it is logical that infographics would be welcomed tools in the business setting. While they are

being used often used for marketing and branding (Li, 2013), companies are beginning to use them for

internal communication. They have been used to facilitate strategy decision making because of their

purported ability to readily display data patterns and relationships (Lankow et al., 2012). Likewise,

infographics have been used to enhance employee training through inclusion in training manuals and

placement in high traffic areas (Smiciklas, 2012). Other companies use them to reach stakeholders

through annual reports (Khazan, 2012), while one tech company uses infographics to record dialogue

during business meetings and brainstorming sessions (S. Miller, personal communication, November 18,

2012). According to Sara Folkerts, Sprint’s Social Media Manager, “employees are overwhelmed with

information just as consumers are. If you want to make sure employees are reading the information you

are distributing, you have to make sure it is presented in a way that is engaging” (personal

communication, September 10, 2013). Moreover, business communication courses are beginning to

discuss the use of infographics in the business setting (Bovee & Thill, 2013; Toth, 2013).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 5

Resurgence of Visual Communication in the 21st Century

Visual communication, or communication through images, is one of the earliest means of

information exchange among humans, with its existence in the form of images found on beads, etchings,

and cave paintings dating back roughly 40,000 years (Curtis, 2006; White, 1997). Icons, or signs that

have a physical resemblance to what they represent, were the primary means of written communication up

until 10,000 years ago. The first symbolic system of communication, in which signs have no direct

resemblance to what they represent, emerged in Mesopotamia with the need for a token that could be used

for exchange of goods and collection of taxes (Schmandt-Besserat, 1980). The transition to phonetic

alphabets that allowed for written words to reflect the sound of spoken language was a gradual one that

began 4,000 years ago, but took thousands of years before it was widely used (Darnell et al., 2005;

Lemaire, 2008).

What prompted the change from an intuitive, iconic form of communication to a symbolic one?

As symbolic communication is cognitively taxing and requires previous knowledge of a language, there

needed to be a strong enough trigger to prompt a change. Diringer and Regenburger (1968) have argued

that the impetus for symbolic writing systems was the increasingly abstract and complex ideas that

emerged with the advancement of civilization, and the difficulty of conveying these ideas with an iconic

system. A symbolic writing system, which no longer required resemblance between symbols and what

they represented, made it easier to communicate abstract ideas. Moreover, a symbolic system provided a

competitive societal advantage by allowing for the communication of abstract concepts across generations

(Brandon & Hornstein, 1986). Symbolic writing systems became more widespread with the continued

growth of civilizations, and up until recently, have unquestionably been considered an intellectually

superior form of communication to iconic forms of communication (Horn, 1998).

The digital age has made visual communication more prominent in our broader society and the

workplace specifically (Brumberger, 2007a; Soffer & Eshet-Alkalai, 2008). Initially, text was required

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 6

for users to “communicate” with their computers; indeed, those old enough to remember the computers of

the 1980s likely recall the command-line interface needed to operate them. The Macintosh, one of the

first Apple computers, was a significant breakthrough as it allowed users to communicate with computers

using icons rather than text commands. Macintosh may not have been the first computer that included a

graphical user interface (GUI), but it was the first commercially successful one that dramatically changed

digital communication. Its widespread popularity among the general population had much to do with the

ease of use that its GUI offered. The general population did not want to have to learn a new language to

use a computer for work or home, a trend which continues to this day. Instead, most computer users

prefer the graphical interface provided by icons because they can intuitively deduce how to communicate

with their computer1. Recognizing the popular appeal of iconic communication, Apple has continued to

successfully commercialize additional innovations based on this approach of a highly visual and intuitive

user interface.

Digital technology also facilitated the creation and distribution of visual graphics. Public interest

in creating visual display grew during the late 1980s and early 1990s with the growth of personal

computers and the introduction of laser printers, as these devices allowed users greater control in

incorporating images into documents (Kostelnick, 1994). The widespread use of the internet in the late

1990s and early 2000s brought further growth in visual communication as images could be created and

shared with relative ease (Kirk & Kiekel, 2010). Digital technology also indirectly spurred visual

communication because it offered new communication channels that were convenient and easy to use but

had low media richness. Emoticons became popular as they allowed the user to convey emotional

nuances that were lost in these new channels (Rogers & Allbritton, 1995).

1
Computer programmers are an exception as they prefer using symbolic languages (e.g., C++, Java, Python) for the
same reason symbolic languages were developed in the first place: they are better able to convey complex ideas.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 7

Visual Literacy & Generational Differences

While it is clear that visual communication in general and infographics in particular are becoming

more popular, the question as to whether it is a better means of communication than text-based

communication remains unclear. As noted earlier, proponents of infographics claim that they provide a

superior form of communication because they concisely convey information in a visually appealing way.

These claims suggest that infographics would be easier to comprehend, would require less time to digest,

and would be preferred when compared to written text. While there is no known research that supports

these claims about infographics, there are two relevant bodies of literature that shed light on this question:

the study of cognitive processing of information and the study of visual literacy.

Research on cognitive processing suggests that information presented visually is easier to

understand and more quickly grasped because it involves a different processing route than information

presented textually. William’s (2013) Omniphasic Model of Visual Cognition posits that there are two

cognitive systems associated with communication: a rational system used for textual communication and

an intuitive system used for visual communication2. Understanding text requires processing the symbols

into words, phrases, and sentence structure and then forming a mental model of the narrative (Graesser et

al., 1997). As such, processing text requires active, rational thought that consumes both time and

cognitive energy (Williams & Newton, 2007; Williams, 2013). In contrast, information conveyed

visually (e.g., drawings, icons, graphs) is based on structural features that have a direct correspondence to

the object in question. Because of the similarity in structural features, visual representations provide

mental models rather than require the reader to construct ones. In other words, the linguistic processing is

bypassed with visual communication, leaving the reader with the sense of “intuitively knowing” without a

clear, rational explanation of how the information was obtained (Barry, 1997; Williams & Newton, 2007).

2
William’s dual processing theory of communication (Williams, 2013) has much in common with other dual
processing models that pertain to attitude formation (e.g., Elaboration Likelihood Model; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986),
memory (e.g., Automatic vs Controlled Processing, Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977), and reasoning (Heuristic-Analytic
Theory; Evans & Over, 1996).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 8

Thus, William’s Omniphasic Model of Visual Cognition and other dual processing models suggest that

visual communication, in contrast to textual communication, should be easier to comprehend and should

require less time to digest3.

On the other hand, the study of visual communication, and more specifically visual literacy,

suggests that visual communication may require more than just a reliance on intuition that comes

naturally. The term “visual literacy,” first coined by Debes (1969), has been used to describe the ability to

create and understand visual forms of expression As the concept of visual literacy is used in various

different disciplines (e.g., education, information design, rhetoric), there is some variation in its

definition. Common across most disciplines, though, is the notion of creating and understanding visual

expression (Avgerinou & Ericson, 1997). Central to the notion of visual literacy is that it involves a set of

learned skills that are developed through use or training. Previous research indicates that digital literacy

is associated with the repeated use of mediums requiring visual skills, suggesting that visual skills can be

developed (Eshet-Alkalai & Chajut, 2010). Other scholars have stressed that use is not enough. Instead,

users must be trained to be visually literate, particularly in terms of teaching users how to “think visually”

(Baker, 2006; Brumberger, 2007a; Lauer & Sanchez, 2011). Educational institutions are now recognizing

the importance of teaching visual literacy across a wide range of disciplines (Kirk & Kiekel, 2010;

Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005). Business and technical communication programs are beginning to

emphasize the skills of visual thinking, visual rhetoric, and visual communication (Brumberger, 2007b;

Portewig, 2004). However, many scholars and educators have argued that educational programs are not

adapting quickly enough to reflect the needs of the workplace and students in the digital age (Billings et

al., 2001; Hartman et al., 2005; Gurak & Duin, 2004; Ghaith, 2010).

3
Deacon (2003) has taken this idea of a dual processing approach of communication one step further in his analysis
of the evolution of the brain and language. He argues that the ability to use symbolic writing systems co-evolved
with the evolutionary development of neurological structures. These neurological structures were required for the
level of abstract thought required to process symbolic communication systems.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 9

The issue of whether visual literacy is a predetermined or a learned skill is also being discussed in

the study of generational differences in digital literacy (which includes visual literacy). Growing up in

the digital age, Millennials (born after 1980) have been described as “Digital Natives” (Prensky, 2001) or

the “Net Generation” (Tapscott, 2009) because of their purported natural inclination and ability to use

digital technology (i.e., their digital literacy). Tapscott, Prensky and others have argued that the presence

of digital technology during their early formative years means that this generation is neurologically

different from previous generations. Just as people from different cultures think differently (Nisbett,

2004), Millennials are thought to process information in a manner that reflects their immersion in the

digital world during their formative years (for reviews of the digital native argument, see Berk, 2009;

Smith & Caruso, 2010).

However, much of the information on Millennials is based on generalizations rather than

empirical research; Helsper and Enyon (2010) have argued that data-driven findings present a more

complicated picture about Millennials’ digital literacy. One consistent finding is that Millennials are

more apt to use digital technology. For example, research conducted by Pew Research in 2012 indicated

that 83% of Millennial internet users were on social networking sites, compared to 77% of Generation X

users (born 1964-1979), 52% of Baby Boomer users (born 1943 to 1963), and 32% of Silent Generation

Users (born between 1925 and1942; Duggan & Brenner, 2013). Likewise, similar generational

distinctions in this study were reported for use of Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, and Tumblr. The picture

is more complicated when examining digital technology and skill level. First, research suggests that

Millennials and their older counterparts are just as proficient in the use of digital technology when

controlling for years of use (Helsper & Enyon, 2011; Richardson, 2013). In other words, older

generations may be less apt to use digital technology; however, those who do use it are just as savvy as

Millennials. These findings suggest that the formative years may be more likely to shape preferences

than cognitive abilities. Second, research suggests that Millennials may not be as digitally savvy as they

appear. Lei (2009) found that Millennials were well versed with basic technologies and social-

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 10

communication technologies, but the scope of their knowledge was often limited beyond these areas.

Likewise, Gibbs et al. (2011) found that Millennials had a high level of confidence in their computer

abilities, but often lacked knowledge of computing needs within the workplace.

Current Study & Hypotheses

The purpose of the current study was to empirically examine some of the claims made about

infographics. This initial study focused on the communicative impact among three generational cohorts

to provide preliminary information on how infographics might be received by different generational

groups of employees and customers. An international sample of adult respondents were administered an

online survey that incorporated a between-subjects experimental design. Respondents were randomly

assigned to read an article as an infographic or its text equivalent, allowing us to determine whether the

communication channel (infographic vs. text) was associated with the receivers’ comprehension,

efficiency (amount of time spent digesting information), and preference.

Proponents of infographics have drawn on literature from the field of cognitive science to argue

that infographics provides a superior communication tool to text because visuals are easier to comprehend

(Lankow et al., 2012; Smiciklas, 2012). According to this line of thinking, infographics provide a means

of conveying information quickly and efficiently because they are designed to coincide with humans’

innate method of processing information. Thus, the following two predictions were made:

H1: Respondents who received the infographic will have more correct answers to questions about

the content of the article than those that received text.

H2: Respondents who received the infographic will take less time to read the article (i.e.,

efficiency) than those who received text.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 11

We did not anticipate generational differences in comprehension and speed based on empirical

investigations suggesting that generational groups do not differ in digital skills (Helsper & Enyon, 2011;

Richardson, 2013). However, given the ongoing discussion in the field about Digital Natives (Prensky,

2001; Tapscott, 2009), we included and report on models examining generational differences in the

number of correct answers and the time required to read the article.

Previous research on generational differences in visual literacy suggests that readers’ generational

background may impact preferences for visual communication mediums and infographics. Based on

previous research indicating that Millennials are more apt to use digital technology than their older

counterparts (Duggan & Brenner, 2013), we anticipate that they will have a stronger preference for

infographics than their older counterparts. Based on this body of literature, the following prediction was

made about users’ channel preference:

H3: Generational groups will vary in their preference for the infographic over the text form.

Millennials who received the infographic version of the article will have higher preference scores

than Millennials who received the text form. In contrast, Generation X and Baby Boomers who

received the infographic version will have similar preference scores to their counterparts who

received the text form.

Method

Overview

A web-based survey was created using Qualtrics, and included demographic questions, an article

to read, and questions regarding the article. Respondents were randomly assigned to receive either an

infographic or a text form of the article. An international sample of male and female respondents was

recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk is an internet marketplace for work

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 12

requests that can be completed online. Typically it is used for simple workplace tasks that could almost be

done by a computer, but require a person (e.g., determining if a website contains sexually explicit

content). Survey researchers have adapted MTurk for use in online data collection as it provides a

relatively easy, quick, and inexpensive way to collect data. The study was reviewed and approved by the

Institutional Review Board at the researchers’ affiliated university prior to the initiation of any research

activities.

Instruments

Respondents were randomly assigned one of six articles. Three of the articles were in the form of

an inforgraphic on the topics of small businesses, holiday shopping, and the history and use of earphones.

Text versions of the three infographics were created to provide a comparison for each of the infographics,

resulting in the six communication pieces.

Comprehension: After reading the article, respondents were asked five multiple choice questions about

the material covered in the article. A summary score was created by calculating the number of correct

answers obtained, resulting in scores ranging from 0 to 5.

Efficiency: The number of seconds the respondent spent viewing the screen page containing the article

was recorded and used as a measure of reader efficiency.

User Preference: Four questions about user preference were included in the survey. Enjoyment was

measured with the item: “To what extent did you find the article enjoyable to read?” Interest was

measured with the item: “To what extent did you find the article interesting?” Read was measured with

the item: “How likely is it that you would read this article if you came across it in the newspaper or

online?” Recommend was measured with the item: “How likely is it that you would recommend this

article to a friend?” Five point Likert scales were used for all of the user preference variables.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 13

Generational Group: Respondents’ date of birth was used to create a generational group variable.

Respondents born between 1945 and 1962 were classified as Baby Boomers, respondents born between

1963 and 1982 were classified as Generation X, and respondents born between 1983 and 1994 were

classified as Millennials.

Nationality: The following single item question was used to measure nationality: “In what country do

you reside?” As an overwhelming majority of respondents were either from the US or India (see

“Respondents” below for details); this item was recoded to a binomial variable with respondents

categorized as citizens of either the US or India.

Education: The following single item was used to measure educational level: “What is the highest level

of education you have completed?” Response options included: 1) less than high school, 2) high

school/GED, 3) some college, 4) 2-year college degree or equivalent, 5) 4-year college degree or

equivalent, 6) Masters Degree or equivalent, 7) Doctoral degree or equivalent, 8) Professional degree

(e.g., JD, MD) or equivalent. A three-category variable was created for the analyses: less than 4-year

college degree, 4-year college degree or equivalent, graduate or professional degree or equivalent.

Respondents

The respondents in this study were 1,074 adults who completed the survey. The majority of

respondents resided in the United States (39.3%, n=417) or India (55.1%, n=584), with the remaining

(5.6%, n=73) cases dispersed across a wide array of other countries with no more than a few cases for any

one country. Thus, respondents who resided outside of the US and India were not considered a large

enough group to analyze and were dropped from the final sample, resulting in a sample of 1,001 cases

that was used in the analyses.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 14

The final sample ranged from 18 to 67 years of age (M=32.7, SD=10.7). In terms of generational

group, 73 (7%) cases were classified as Baby Boomers (born between 1945 and 1963), 336 (32%) were

classified as Generation X (born between 1964 and 1982) and 654 (62%) were classified as Millennials,

(born between 1983 and 1994). Approximately 38% (n=403) were female and 62% (n=671) were male.

Among the US citizens, 43.9% were white, non-Hispanic, 18.9% were Hispanic, 17.9% were Asian, 6.5%

were African American, and 1% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. The majority of the

sample was employed for wages (39.4%) or self-employed (29.3%). The remaining respondents were

students (12.3%), out of work but looking (9.1%), homemakers (7.9%), or retired (2%).

Analysis Strategy

Initial descriptive analyses were conducted to identify any outliers and verify the normality of the

variables’ distributions. Next, ANOVA models were conducted to determine whether any of the

demographic items (other than age) were related to variables regarding the article (preference,

comprehension, efficiency) and would need to be included in the analyses as control variables. Finally, a

series of ANOVA tests were conducted to evaluate the hypotheses of the study, with one model for each

of the article variables. Main effects of article form and generational group were included as “predictor”

variables; interaction effects of article form by generational group were also included. All main effect

variables were included in the models when examining interaction effects.

Results

Preliminary Tests

The article variables regarding preference, recall, and speed of reading (infographic vs. text) were

regressed on gender, education, nationality and employment status to identify variables that would need to

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 15

be included in the models as control variables. Nationality and education were significantly associated

with many of the outcome variables and thus were included as control variables in the analyses.

Residents of India had higher preference scores (regardless of article type) than residents of the US.

Respondents with less than four years of college had lower scores than other respondents on the

preference variables, comprehension, and time spent reading.

Hypothesis Testing

H1: Respondents who received the infographic will have more correct answers to questions about the

content of the article than those that received text. Support for hypothesis 1 would be obtained if the

article type variable was significant as either a main or interaction effect in the model predicting test

scores. This hypothesis was not supported. The article type variable was significant at a trend level (F =

2.84, p <.10), with respondents who received the text version of the article having higher test scores than

those receiving the infographic version (M = 2.95 vs. 2.71). However, the interaction variable was

significant (F = 2.90, p < .05) in this model and examination of the means indicated that the effect was

driven by the Baby Boomers in the sample (See Tables 1 & 2). Specifically, test scores were significantly

higher on the text version than the infographic version for Baby Boomers (M = 3.43 vs. 2.60), but there

were no differences in test scores for Generation X nor Millennials. Thus, while there were no

differences in the test scores for the majority of respondents, Baby Boomers who received the text

actually had higher test scores than Baby Boomers who received the infographic version of the article.

----------------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 1 & 2 HERE

----------------------------------------

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 16

H2: Respondents who received the infographic will take less time to read the article (i.e.,

efficiency) than those who received text. Support for hypothesis 2 would be obtained if the article type

variable was significant as either a main or interaction effect in the model predicting speed. This

hypothesis was not supported as there was no significant difference based on article type or the interaction

of article type by generational group. Two of the other main effect variables – generational group and

education – did have significant F tests. These findings indicated Millennials took less time reading the

article, regardless of type, than the other two groups (M = 59.1 vs. 75.2 and 58.3). In terms of education,

those with less than a college degree took the least amount of time to read the article (M = 58.3), followed

by those who had a graduate degree (M = 62.2) and those with a 4-year college degree (M = 74.2).

H3: Generational groups will vary in their preference for the infographic over the text form.

Millennials who received the infographic version of the article will have higher preference scores than

Millennials who received the text form. In contrast, Generation X and Baby Boomers who received the

infographic version will have similar preference scores to their counterparts who received the text form.

Support for hypothesis 3 would be obtained if there was a significant interaction term of article type by

generational group when this variable was regressed on one of the four preference variables (enjoy,

interest, read, recommend). This hypothesis was supported for three out of the four preference variables.

The interaction term was significant when entered into the model predicting the likelihood of reading the

article if found in a newspaper or online (F = 3.00, p <.05), with Millennials who received the infographic

reporting higher scores than Millennials who received the text version (M = 3.61 vs. 3.29). Likewise, the

interaction term was significant when entered into the model predicting the likelihood of recommending

the article, with Millennials who received the infographic reporting higher scores than Millennials who

received the text version (M = 3.59 vs. 3.10). The interaction term was significant at the trend level when

entered into the model predicting whether the respondent found the article interesting (F = 2.80, p<.10),

with Millennials who received the infographic reporting higher levels of interest than those who received

the text form (M = 3.49 vs. 3.16). There were no differences in terms of the read, recommend, and

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 17

interest variables for the Generation X and Baby Boomers. For both of these older generational groups,

the read, recommend, and interest scores on the infographic and text version were comparable to the

Millennials’ scores on the infographic version. Thus, these findings indicate that Millennials are less

likely to read, recommend, and find interest in the text version of the article than the other generational

groups.

While we did not hypothesize about Millennials’ skill level with the infographics, we did

examine generational differences, given the current discussion in the field about Millenials’ supposed

innate ability to use digital media. The interaction effects of generational group by article type were not

significant when regressed on comprehension and speed; thus evidence for Millennials having an innate

ability to understand information presented visually was not obtained.

Discussion

Infographics are becoming an increasingly popular option for businesses to communicate

internally and externally. Proponents of infographics argue that they provide a superior means of

business communication because they can convey ideas clearly and quickly, and are more visually

appealing than text. The purpose of this study was to investigate empirically whether infographics

actually provide a superior communication device in terms of user preference, comprehension, and

efficiency. We did not find support for the notion that infographics provide a better means of

communicating information in terms of comprehension and speed. Yet we did find evidence suggesting

that infographics are more likely to be preferred among Millennials than written text, and thus may

provide a superior form of communication for this age group simply because are better able to reach

them.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 18

While we did not obtain evidence that readers of infographics had better comprehension than

readers of written text, we did find differences in comprehension levels. Specifically, Baby Boomers had

lower comprehension scores when they received the infographic than when they received the text form; in

contrast, there were no differences in comprehension for the other generational groups. It is important to

note, though, that all three generational groups receiving the infographic version had relatively similar

scores on comprehension. Instead, Baby Boomers who received the text version far surpassed all other

groups on the comprehension test. Thus, it is best to interpret this finding to mean that Baby Boomers are

particularly adept at comprehending information expressed through text, rather than that they are lacking

in the ability to comprehend infographics. This finding may be due to the fact that Baby Boomers are

more likely to read books than other generational groups (Connaway et al., 2008) and have had more

exposure and practice with written text.

In terms of preferences, we also found important generational distinctions. Supporting our

hypothesis, results from this study suggest that Millennials have a stronger preference for infographics

than text. Millennials who received the infographic were more likely than Millennials who received the

text to report that the article was interesting, that they would read it if they came across it in their daily

lives, and that they would recommend it to a friend. For both Generation X and Baby Boomers, there

were no differences in preference scores for those receiving the infographic in contrast to those receiving

text. Furthermore, all three generational groups had similar scores for the infographic version, and

Millennials reported lower preference scores than the other generational groups when they received the

text form. Accordingly, it is more accurate to conclude that Millennials are less interested, less likely to

read, and less likely to recommend an article if they received a text version than other generational

groups.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 19

Implications for Practice

Findings from this study suggest that infographics can be a useful communication tool for

particular generational groups, but careful consideration is advised in terms of the claims of their superior

communicative abilities. First, our findings indicate that infographics would not be an ideal channel

choice for Baby Boomers. While their preference and efficiency scores did not vary depending on the

type of article received, Baby Boomers were particularly adept at comprehending the article when they

received the written form. Second, our findings indicate that infographics would be a preferable

communication choice to reach Millennials. Millennials in the study demonstrated a disinterest when

presented material in a text form. Thus, reaching this population may require a more visually engaging

medium than text can offer. While the comprehension and efficiency scores for Millennials were

comparable when they received the infographic and text versions, communicating through an infographic

medium may be required to attract their attention. Furthermore, Millennials will be more likely to

recommend communication messages when they are conveyed through an infographic than through text.

Companies that have a generationally diverse workforce and/or target market will likely need to consider

using both visual and textual forms of communication to best reach their audience. However, as

generational groups age, and as Millennials represent a larger portion of the adult population, there is

likely to be a growing demand for infographics as a form of communication. In just 15 years, almost all

Baby Boomers will have left the workforce while Millennials will represent the largest generational

group. Thus, infographics are likely to becoming increasingly popular as the demographics of the

workplace change with time.

Findings from our study suggest that infographics may be particularly useful in attracting and

engaging the audience, which is a growing concern for businesses in the “information overload” of the

digital era (Cheng et al., 2010). One unanticipated side effect of relatively inexpensive e-commerce has

been its proliferation and resultant information overload among potential consumers (Eppler & Mengis,

2004). Likewise, Karr-Wisniewski & Lu (2010) and others have found that information overload among

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 20

employees is associated with a decrease in their productivity (aka “Productivity Paradox”). Thus, the use

of infographics for internal and external communication may increase the likelihood of reaching the target

audience. However, this study did not obtain support that infographics would be better able to effectively

convey information once an audience’s attention is obtained. Additional research is necessary to identify

whether there are specific features of infographics that are necessary for increased comprehension. For

example, infographics that provide a more succinct method of displaying complex numerical or

conceptual information may improve comprehension rates when contrasted to a text equivalent.

However, the increasingly popular form of infographics in the digital era that emphasize enhanced visual

design, layout, and visual imagery may not increase comprehension over a text equivalent, even though

they are able to “grab the attention” of the audience.

Moreover, it may be that additional training in visual literacy is necessary to fully realize the

claims that infographics can express ideas quickly and efficiently. Eshet-Alkalai (2004) among others has

identified visual literacy as an important skill for surviving in the digital era. According to Eshet-Alkalai,

visual literacy includes the abilities to 1) intuitively read and understand visual instructions and 2) to

develop and communicate a visual concept. Moreover, the importance of visual literacy has been

recognized in the pedagogy of business communication as programs in this area of study have been

criticized for of their lack of training in visual thinking, visual rhetoric (ability to understand the audience,

purpose and arrangement), and visual communication (Brumberger, 2007a; Portewig, 2004; Selber,

1994).

Implications for Theory

Findings from this study did not support the notion that the visual presentation of material

improves comprehension and speed when contrasted to textual communication. However, additional

research is needed before drawing conclusions, as there are a number of possible reasons for non-

significant results. In addition to the possibility of measurement error, the lack of positive findings may

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 21

be due to the type of information presented in the infographics selected for this study. As noted earlier,

visual communication appears to be particularly well suited for conveying simple ideas or for

communicating with individuals not familiar with the language. Textual communication, on the other

hand, may be a better communication device when the information conveyed is complex. Visual

communication of an abstract concept may demand just as much rational cognitive processing as textual

communication. In such a scenario, the benefit of visual communication, that is speed and ease of

comprehension (i.e., “intuitively knowing”), would be lost. Additional research examining whether the

level of information complexity (simple/abstract) and type of communication (textual/visual) may find

that infographics are superior when the information is straightforward. Thus, the important question may

not be whether visual communication is better than textual, but under which conditions is one better than

the other.

This study also did not find evidence supporting the notion that Millennials are Digital Natives.

While Millennials had a stronger preference for the infographic than the text form, they did not

demonstrate a higher rate of comprehension and speed than the other generational groups. Again, there

are many reasons for non-significant results and additional research is needed before dismissing the idea

of a Digital Native. For example, Millennials may have better comprehension and speed when visual

communication is presented in video form rather than stills. Additional research that examines different

types of visual communication is warranted.

In keeping with previous empirical studies, we found that Millennials have a stronger preference

for infographics than other generational groups. These findings support the notion that there are

generational differences in preferences for digital communication, as the visual display of information is

particularly conducive for digital technology. Thus, it may be that youth is a critical period when lifelong

preferences for communication mediums are developed. While there are likely individual differences

within generational cohorts, as a whole, it appears that early experiences shape preferences, which in turn,

influences the frequency of use of a particular medium. Longitudinal research that includes multiple

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 22

generational groups would be particularly useful in identifying the complex relationships among early

experiences, preferences, use, and skill levels.

Study Limitations & Conclusions

There were several limitations of the study that should be noted. First, this study was based on

three infographics that may not have adequately represented the full spectrum. However, given the

paucity of research on this communication channel, the current study provides a starting point for future

research that includes a larger number and wider range of infographics. Second, this study was based on a

single convenience sample of internet users from the United States and India; findings may not be

representative of groups outside of this sampling frame. Third, this study did not take into account the

respondents’ familiarity with digital technology, visual communication and infographics, which would

have allowed for testing whether previous experience was associated with higher rates of comprehension,

speed, and preference.

Despite these limitations, the current study provides valuable contributions to the field. Findings

from the current study did not support the notion that infographics are better able to convey information

quickly, but the study has provided key insights into infographics and visual communication in general.

Given our findings regarding generational differences, our research suggests that in the coming years

infographics will become a more common form of communication in our broader society and within the

business setting.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 23

References

Avgerinou, M. & Ericson, J. (1997). A review of the concepts of visual literacy. British Journal of

Educational Technology, 28, 280-291.

Baker, W. (2006). Visual communication: Integrating visual instruction into business communication

courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 69, 403-407.

Barry, A. M. (1997). Visual intelligence: Perception, image, and manipulation in visual communication.

Albany: SUNY Press.

Berk, R. A. (2009). Teaching strategies for the net generation. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching &

Learning Journal, 3(2), 1-23.

Billings, D. M., Connors, H. R., & Skiba, D. J. (2001). Benchmarking best practices in Web-based

nursing courses. Advances in Nursing Science, 23(3), 41-52.

Bovee, C. & Thill, J.V. (2013). Real-Time Supplemental Material for Business Communication Today.

Retrieved October 1, 2013. http://bchn.businesscommunicationnetwork.com/2013/09/23/why-

infographics-are-popular/

boyd, d. & Crawford, K. (2011). Six provocations for big data. Paper presented at the Oxford Internet

Institute Decade in Internet Time Symposium, September 22.

Brandon, R.N. & Hornstein, N. (1986). Fron icons to symbols: Some speculations on the origins of

language. Biology and Philosophy, 1, 169-189.

Brumberger, E. R. (2007a). Making the strange familiar: A pedagogical exploration of visual thinking.

Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21, 376-401.

Brumberger, E. R. (2007b). Visual communication in the workplace: A survey of practice. Technical

Communication Quarterly, 16, 369-395.

Cheng, J., Sun, A., & Zeng, D. (2010). Information overload and viral marketing: countermeasures and strategies.

In Advances in Social Computing (pp. 108-117). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 24

Connaway, L. S., Radford, M. L., Dickey, T. J., De Angelis Williams, J., & Confer, P. (2008). Sense-

making and synchronicity: Information-seeking behaviors of Millennials and Baby

Boomers. Libri, 58(2), 123-135.

Cruz, S.D. (2013). Infographics now the preferred marketing tool for business. Troy Media.

Downloaded October 2, 2013 from http://www.troymedia.com/2013/09/02/infographics-

preferred-marketing-tool-business/

Curtis, G. (2006). The Cave Painters: Probing the Mysteries of the World’s First Artists. New York,

Knopf.

Darnell, J. C., Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W., Lundberg, M. J., McCarter, P. K., Zuckerman, B., & Manassa, C.

(2005). Two Early Alphabetic Inscriptions from the Wadi el-Ḥôl: New Evidence for the Origin of

the Alphabet from the Western Desert of Egypt. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental

Research, 59, 63-124.

Deacon, T. (2003). The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain. New York: W.W. Norton.

Debes, J. L. (1969). The Loom of Visual Literacy--An Overview. Audiovisual Instr. 14(8), 25-27

Diringer, D., & Regenburger, R. (1968). Alphabet: A key to the history of mankind. Berlin: Funk &

Wagnalls.

Duggan, M., & Brenner, J. (2013). The demographics of social media users—2012. Pew Internet and

American Life Project, February 14, 2013.

http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2013/PIP_SocialMediaUsers.pdf.

Eppler, M. J., & Mengis, J. (2004). The concept of information overload: A review of literature from

organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. The information

society, 20(5), 325-344.

Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era.
Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 1, 93-106

Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Chajut, E. (2010). You can teach old dogs new tricks: The factors that affect changes

over time in digital literacy. Journal of Information Technology Education, 9, 173-181.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 25

Evans, J. S. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.

Ghaith, G. (2010). An exploratory study of the achievement of the twenty-first century skills in higher

education. Education+ Training, 52(6/7), 489-498.

Gibbs, S., Steel, G., & Kuiper, A. (2011). Expectations of Competency: The Mismatch between

Employers’ and Graduates’ Views of End-User Computing Skills Requirements in the

Workplace. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 371-382.

Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of

Psychology, 48(1), 163-189.

Gurak, L. J., & Duin, A. H. (2004). The impact of the internet and digital technologies on teaching and

research in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 13(2), 187-198.

Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital Na (t) ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members of the “Net

Generation”. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92-113.

Hart, G. (2013). Effective Infographics: Telling Stories in the Technical Communication Context.

Downloaded October 1, 2013 from http://techwhirl.com/effective-infographics-telling-stories-in-

the-technical-communication-context/

Hartman, J., Moskal, P., & Dziuban, C. (2005). Preparing the academy of today for the learner of

tomorrow. Educating the Net Generation, 6-1.

Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educational Research

Journal, 36(3).

Horn, R. E. (1998). Visual language. Bainbridge Island, WA: MacroVU, Incorporated.

Richardson, J.T.E (2013). Approaches to studying across the adult life span: Evidence from distance

education. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 74-80.

Khazan, O. (2012, April 8th). How can businesses use infographics? The Washington Post. Retrieved

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-small-business/post/how-can-businesses-use-

infographics/2012/04/06/gIQAjbbh4S_blog.html

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 26

Kirk, E. E., & Kiekel, J. M. (2010). Visual rhetoric: Constructing and analyzing readability of text and

image. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 4(2), 361-376.

Kostelnick, C. (1994). From pen to print: The new visual landscape of professional

communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8(1), 91-117.

Lankow, J., Ritchie, J., & Crooks, R. (2012). Infographics: The power of visual storytelling. Wiley.

Lauer, C., & Sanchez, C. A. (2011). Visuospatial thinking in the professional writing classroom. Journal

of Business and Technical Communication, 25(2), 184-218.

Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is needed. Journal of

Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87-97.

Lemaire, A. (2008). The Spread of Alphabetic Scripts (c. 1700—500 BCE). Diogenes, 55(2), 45-58.

Li, A. (2013). Rise of infographics: Marketing in the Social-Media Age. Mashable. Downloaded

October 2, 2013 from http://mashable.com/2013/01/26/infographics-marketing/.

Morris, M., and V. Venkatesh. (2000). Age Differences in Technology Adoption Decisions: Implications

for a Changing Work Force. Personnel Psychology, 53

Munter, M. M. (2011). Guide To Managerial Communication (Prentice Hall" Guide To" Series In

Business Communication) Aut.

Nisbett, R. (2004). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently... and why.

Simon and Schuster.

Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating the Net Generation. Boulder, CO: Educause

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to

Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Portewig, T. C. (2004). Making sense of the visual in technical communication: A visual literacy

approach to pedagogy. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 34(1), 31-42.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon,9(5), 1-6.

Rouget, P. (2011). Why you should build your infographics in HTML5 and CSS3. Retrieved October 14,

2013 from http://paulrouget.com/e/infographicsInHTML5/.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 27

Schmandt-Besserat, D. 1980). The envelopes that bear the first writing, Technology and Culture, 21,

357-385.

Rogers, E.M. & Allbritton, M.M. (1995). Interaction Communication Technologies in Business

Organizations. The Journal of Business Communication, 32(2), 177-195.

Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing. I.

Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1–66.

Scott, W. (2013). Social signals are so last week- Use infographics to drive real leads. Search Engine

Land. Downloaded May 25, 2013 from http://searchengineland.com/social-signals-are-so-last-

week-use-infographics-to-drive-real-leads-159457

Selber, S. A. (1994). Beyond skill building: Challenges facing technical communication teachers in the

computer age. Technical Communication Quarterly, 3(4), 365-390.

Smiciklas, M. (2012). The Power of Infographics: Using Pictures to Communicate and Connect with

Your Audiences. Que Publishing.

Smith, S. & Caruso, J. (2010). The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology,

2010. Boulder, CO: Educause.

Soffer, O., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2009). Back to the future: An historical perspective on the pendulum-like

changes in literacy. Minds and Machines,19(1), 47-59.

Sutter, B. (2012). Why you should be using infographics in your small business. Buzz Small Business

Magazine. Retrieved May 20, 2013, from http://www.waspbarcode.com/buzz/infographics-

small-business/

Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital (p. 190). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Toth, C. (2013). Revisiting a genre: Teaching infographics in business and professional communication

courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 76, 446-457.

West, A. (2012). How to get started with infographics. PCWorld. Downloaded May 20, 2013, from

http://www.pcworld.com/article/253057/how_to_get_started_with_infographics.html

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 28

White, R. (1997). Substantial acts: From materials to meaning in Upper Paleolithic representation, in

Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image and Symbol, edited by M.W. Conkey. San Francisco: Academy

of Sciences, 93-121.

Williams, R. (2013). Cognitive Theory. In Smith, K. L., Moriarty, S., Kenney, K., & Barbatsis, G.

(Eds.).Handbook of visual communication: Theory, methods, and media. Routledge.

Williams, R., & Newton, J. H. (2007). Visual communication: Integrating media, art, and science. Taylor

& Francis.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

Table 1: Univariate Analysis of Variance F Statistics for Article Type (Infographic vs. Text), Generational Group, Nationality, Education, and

Two Way Interaction Effects for Article Type by Generational Group, Nationality, and Education.

Comprehension Enjoyment Interest Read Recommend Speed (seconds)

Article Type 2.8+ 0.1 0.3 3.4* 2.1 1.4

Generation Group 1.2 1.8 3.9* 2.5+ 7.2** 3.8*

Nationality 25.5*** 36.4*** 31.9*** 39.8*** 117.8*** 0.6

Education 7.1** 5.2+ 1.5 4.5* 5.0** 6.5**

Article Type x
2.9+ 1.7 2.2 3.0+ 4.7** 0.0
Generation Group

Article Type x
0.7 2.8+ 2.6 3.1+ 3.0+ 0.3
Nationality

Article Type x
2.1 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.9
Education

Note: + p<.10, * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 30

Table 2: Mean and Standard Errors for Outcome Variables as a Function of Article Type (Infographic vs. Text), Generational Group, Nationality,

Education, and Two Way Interaction Effects for Article Type by Generational Group, Nationality, and Education

Speed
Comprehension Enjoyment Interest Read Recommend
(seconds)

M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE

Main Effects:

Article Type

Infographic 2.7 0.1 3.3 0.1 3.5 0.1 3.7 0.1 3.6 0.1 68.9 0.4

Text 3.0 0.1 3.3 0.1 3.4 0.1 3.5 0.1 3.5 0.1 61.6 4.8

Generation Group

Baby Boomers 3.0 0.2 3.4 0.1 3.5 0.1 3.7 0.1 3.7 0.1 64.2 8.0

Generation X 2.8 0.1 3.4 0.1 3.5 0.1 3.7 0.1 3.6 0.1 72.5 3.8

Millennials 2.7 0.1 3.2 0.0 3.3 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.3 0.0 59.1 2.9

Nationality

US 3.1 0.1 3.1 0.1 3.2 0.1 3.4 0.1 3.1 0.1 67.1 4.0

India 2.6 0.1 3.5 0.1 3.7 0.1 3.9 0.1 4.0 0.1 63.4 3.8

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 31

Education

Less than college degree 2.6 0.1 3.1 0.1 3.4 0.1 3.5 0.1 3.4 0.1 58.3 4.3

4 year college degree 3.0 0.1 3.4 0.1 3.5 0.1 3.7 0.1 3.6 0.1 75.2 3.9

Some graduate work or degree 3.0 0.1 3.4 0.1 3.5 0.1 3.7 0.1 3.7 0.1 62.2 5.1

Interaction Effects:

Article Type x Generation Group

Infographic

Baby Boomers 2.6 0.3 3.2 0.2 3.4 0.2 3.7 0.2 3.7 0.2 67.9 10.4

Generation X 2.8 0.1 3.4 0.1 3.6 0.1 3.7 0.1 3.6 0.1 76.9 4.8

Millennials 2.8 0.1 3.3 0.1 3.5 0.1 3.7 0.1 3.6 0.1 62.0 3.7

Text

Baby Boomers 3.4 0.3 3.5 0.2 3.6 0.2 3.7 0.2 3.7 0.2 60.4 12.1

Generation X 2.7 0.1 3.3 0.1 3.5 0.1 3.6 0.1 3.6 0.1 68.1 5.9

Millennials 2.7 0.1 3.1 0.1 3.2 0.1 3.3 0.1 3.1 0.1 56.3 4.5

Article Type x Nationality

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559

 INFOGRAPHICS - 32

Infographic

US 3.0 0.1 3.2 0.1 3.3 0.1 3.6 0.1 3.3 0.1 69.4 4.9

India 2.4 0.1 3.5 0.1 3.6 0.1 3.9 0.1 4.0 0.1 68.4 5.0

Text

US 3.2 0.1 3.0 0.1 3.1 0.1 3.2 0.1 3.0 0.1 64.7 6.3

India 2.7 0.1 3.6 0.1 3.7 0.1 3.8 0.1 4.0 0.1 58.5 5.6

Article Type x Education

Infographic

Less than college degree 2.5 0.1 3.2 0.1 3.4 0.1 3.5 0.1 3.5 0.1 57.8 5.5

4 year college degree 3.0 0.1 3.3 0.1 3.5 0.1 3.8 0.1 3.6 0.1 79.8 5.0

Some graduate work or degree 2.7 0.2 3.5 0.1 3.6 0.1 3.9 0.1 3.8 0.1 69.1 6.4

Text

Less than college degree 2.7 0.1 3.1 0.1 3.4 0.1 3.3 0.1 3.3 0.1 58.9 6.6

4 year college degree 3.0 0.1 3.4 0.1 3.4 0.1 3.6 0.1 3.6 0.1 70.6 5.9

Some graduate work or degree 3.2 0.2 3.4 0.1 3.5 0.1 3.6 0.1 3.6 0.1 55.4 8.0

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2548559