↓ Skip to main content

PowerPoint® Presentation Flaws and Failures: A Psychological Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
417 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
2 Google+ users
pinterest
1 Pinner

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
332 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
PowerPoint® Presentation Flaws and Failures: A Psychological Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00230
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen M. Kosslyn, Rogier A. Kievit, Alexandra G. Russell, Jennifer M. Shephard

Abstract

Electronic slideshow presentations are often faulted anecdotally, but little empirical work has documented their faults. In Study 1 we found that eight psychological principles are often violated in PowerPoint(®) slideshows, and are violated to similar extents across different fields - for example, academic research slideshows generally were no better or worse than business slideshows. In Study 2 we found that respondents reported having noticed, and having been annoyed by, specific problems in presentations arising from violations of particular psychological principles. Finally, in Study 3 we showed that observers are not highly accurate in recognizing when particular slides violated a specific psychological rule. Furthermore, even when they correctly identified the violation, they often could not explain the nature of the problem. In sum, the psychological foundations for effective slideshow presentation design are neither obvious nor necessarily intuitive, and presentation designers in all fields, from education to business to government, could benefit from explicit instruction in relevant aspects of psychology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 417 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 332 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 7 2%
United States 7 2%
Netherlands 5 2%
Germany 5 2%
United Kingdom 5 2%
Canada 4 1%
France 3 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 286 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 59 18%
Researcher 47 14%
Student > Master 34 10%
Student > Bachelor 30 9%
Other 23 7%
Other 92 28%
Unknown 47 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 78 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 45 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 9%
Social Sciences 27 8%
Computer Science 13 4%
Other 67 20%
Unknown 73 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 332. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 March 2024.
All research outputs
#101,933
of 25,805,386 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#203
of 34,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#383
of 252,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#3
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,805,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,800 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 252,070 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.