Dissertation

On

A STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MULTIPLE SCREEN

BEHAVIOUR AND MARKETING AROUND IT

MBA Class of 2022

 DECLARATION

Title of dissertation: A study on the relationship between multiple screen behaviour and

marketing around it.

I declare

(a) That the work presented for assessment in this summer internship Report is my own,

that it has not previously been presented for another assessment and that my debts (for

words, data, arguments and ideas) have been appropriately acknowledged.

(b) That the work conforms to the guidelines for presentation and style set out in the

relevant documentation.

(c) The Plagiarism in the report is ……..%

Date: /04/2022
Table of Content

Chapter 1: Introduction...............................................................................................................................
Chapter 2: Review of Literature ................................................................................................................
Chapter 3: Objectives and Research Methodology...................................................................................
3.1. Objectives.............................................................................................................................................
3.2. Limitations...........................................................................................................................................
3.3. Research Methodology........................................................................................................................
3.4. Data Collection....................................................................................................................................
3.5. Sampling Frame...................................................................................................................................
3.6. Survey Instrument................................................................................................................................
Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Interpretation............................................................................................
Chapter 5: Suggestions.................................................................................................................................
Chapter 6: Conclusion..................................................................................................................................
Chapter 7: References..................................................................................................................................
Abstract

The eruption of devices and the multitude of screens in a consumer's life has been the most
significant shift in consumer behaviour in recent years. This has a notable effect on media
consumption as well as how marketers reach out to customers. Customers who use multiple
screen-based devices, like television, smartphone, tablets/iPads and laptop/personal
computers, at the same time are said to be multiscreening. The usage of multiple screens
or multiscreening, is presumed to have a negative impact on media consumption. As a
result, it is critical to concentrate on how to enhance the effectiveness of adverts when
multiscreening. This research aims to study the motivation behind multiple screen
behaviour and how media content affect this behaviour. The study adopted a descriptive
research methodology and data was collected through questionnaires circulated to people
aged above 18 years. The objective is to study the relationship between the content of first
screen and the content of advertisement with multiscreen behaviour, canonical correlation
analysis was done to analyse the relation. The results showed that a significant correlation
exists between the media content on the first screen and multiscreen behaviour.

Keywords: Multiscreen, second screen, content consumption, viewing behaviour,

canonical correlation analysis.
 Chapter 1

Introduction
With technological advancements, media has gotten more diverse throughout time. Users
may choose from a variety of devices as well as content to meet their specific demands.
The utilisation of various devices has resulted in a smarter and more enhanced user
experience. The mobility of devices and the power of the Internet have resulted in a strong
integration of multi-screen devices, and consumers are no longer limited to a single device.
They can select the suitable type and optimum combination of gadgets and contents to meet
their present requirements. Laptops, smartphones, tablets, and desktops, together with their
different software applications and operating systems, are more interconnected these days.
The majority of our screen time is used in multitasking on these devices. Nowadays, 90%
of our media usage takes place before of a screen. As consumers juggle their time among
cellphones, tablets, personal computers, and televisions, consumers are learning to use
various technologies together to accomplish their objectives. This multi-screen behaviour
has become the continuing the norm, and recognizing it is critical for organisations. With a
smartphone in hand, a tablet on the lap, and a smartwatch on the wrist, we're soon running
out of parts of the body that can support the variety of electronics on the market. As a
result, second-screening has become a marketing trend, allowing businesses to improve ad
experiences across a variety of channels, for example, ALT Balaji used a 360-degree
strategy with a combination of influencers and engagement strategies on social media to
keep the enthusiasm going around the characters and topics while driving dialogues about
the forthcoming season of 'Broken but Beautiful Season 3'. The goal for a broadcaster is to
make the audience feel interested in the content. The type of this interaction may vary
depending on the content, but the objective is for the audience to enjoy themselves and
believe that it was a worthwhile way to spend their time.

Terminology

The term multiscreen is derived from the English multi i.e., multiple and screen. In general,
multiple displays or terminals are utilised for one or more activities. The term "screen"
refers to a gadget with a fixed screen. A basic multiple screen application
requires devices with screen and Internet connectivity. Such technologies enhance the
individual's experience as well as mediate the numerous angles of the event live
programme. Second Screens services are interactive, and consumers may select their
specific interests. Typical services include video broadcasting, social media engagement,
statistics access, announcements, and so forth. Tablets, mobile phones, and personal
computers that are used in combination with TV or laptops with mobile phones or laptops
with tablets or iPads viewing are referred to as 2nd screens. While media multitasking is
not a new phenomenon example reading a newspaper while listening to the radio or talking
on the phone while watching TV, the fact that second screens may be related to the same
media experience in a personalised manner introduces a whole different paradigm for both
media companies and media researches. Media consumption has grown dramatically in
recent years as technology has become more freely available and portable. Screen users are
now in an environment where they may multitask while travelling, watching television, or
working on a computer at home or in the workplace.

In this research paper, the author will refer to multiple screening primarily as device
interaction, while identifying additional options for interaction as an opportunity for further
evolution of activities in the marketing communication utilising multiple screening in the
context of new trends and changes in user behaviour.

The phenomenon of frequent usage of other mobile devices while watching TV to gather
information unrelated to or linked with the programme being viewed has served as the
foundation for the creation of multiple screening. This allowed us to distinguish three types
of multiple screening: meshing, stacking, and shirting. Simultaneous multiple screening is
also known as meshing and stacking. Meshing is defined as the time spent watching TV
and using other gadgets at the same time, as well as participating in related activities.
Stacking refers to the time spent watching TV and using other gadgets at the same time
while doing something else. Shifting is the time spent using subsequent devices to find the
same material. Over the last decades, people have moved away from viewing entertainment
on traditional TV screens and toward consuming material on a variety of devices, including
smartphones, tablets, PC/laptops, and TV/Smart TVs. Because of the proliferation of
smartphones and large-screen portable devices, consumers are spending more time
watching material across several displays. This transition has affected customer behaviour
in terms of how they connect and engage with companies, and it has had a significant
influence on the online shopping process. Multi-screening can be done sequentially or
concurrently. Moving from one device to another at different times to complete a job is
referred to as sequential usage, whereas simultaneous usage indicates the use of more than
one device at the same time for either a connected or unrelated activity.

What does it mean for the media industry?

Multi-screen advertising campaign media expenditure is predicted to increase from 20% of

budgets currently to 50% in the upcoming years. Multi-screen campaigns are ones that run
on two or more displays at the same time, such as TV, PC, tablet, mobile phone, and
digitized place-based media. The introduction and growth of mobile technologies and
mobile services have irreversibly altered the media culture. Users of media may now "be
online" essentially from anywhere and have nearly limitless access to media material and
services from a plethora of suppliers. Newspaper firms, TV broadcasters, and digital
content providers are all attempting to redesign their goods and business models to meet the
changing requirements of the mobile consumer. This re-invention requires empirically
validated knowledge from every area of mobile device use. By better understanding
customers' multi-screen multitasking behaviour, media companies, advertising
agencies, and marketing experts, among others, may reap more advantages. Media
consumption has grown dramatically in recent years as technology has become more freely
available and portable. Screen users are now in an environment where they may multitask
while travelling, watching television, or working on a computer at home or in the
workplace. The intended edge comes from involvement: if an audience is so invested in a
Television program that they are actually looking up actors, taking synchronised quizzes,
and tweeting about it, it creates the possibility of bringing more attention to an
advertisement that is running on TV and possibly being supported in any way on the second
screen. This increases the commercial's value to the advertiser, who can then charge a
higher price for the advertisement. If the activities or tasks are interrelated, it is referred to
as complementary usage; if the activities are separate, it is referred to as 'multi-tasking.'
Multitasking might be a user responding to emails while watching a television show, for
example. The potential favourable impacts of simultaneous multiscreening, such as how the
second screen-based device might be utilised for advertising, are mostly unexplored.
Multiscreening, a subset of multitasking, compels users to split their resources, such as
attention, across numerous devices. As a result, multiscreening degrades efficiency, such as
the processing of material shown on either device. However, because multiscreening cannot
be avoided, we advise both practice and research to investigate strategies to capitalise on
the potential benefits of multiscreening. The multitasking culture is spreading, putting more
displays in front of people at all times. Many people watch TV with their smartphone or
tablet in hand, which generates a new sort of engagement for customers.

Marketers are attempting to get into this new culture by combining TV and mobile
commercials, but there is certainly a lag when it comes to cross-screen interaction. Viewing
the second screen pattern as an extra will not result in high customer engagement rates.
Even while consumers may be using their cellphones or tablets even as watching TV, they
still do not expect a TV commercial to compel them to connect through mobile, thus
marketers must educate consumers if this is to become a reality. Customers not anymore
want to be merely interconnected. They desire a media experience that allows them to
consume "anything they desire, anytime they desire," regardless of device or medium.
Companies such as Visa, and Dunkin Donuts and Coca-Cola have all jumped on board to
launch a second-screen promotion. Kia just released Game On, a second-screen software
that allows users to smash a serve by Australian tennis star Sam Groth during Kia's TV
commercials during the Australian Open. Clorox also used Viggle, a second-screen mobile
application, in a campaign that had a 53 percent interaction rate. Consumers were
encouraged to vote on their 12 favourite cringeworthy moments from The Bachelorette
during the promotion. This new generation of customers is sensitive to advertisements and
is not responsive to obtrusive pitches, especially for irrelevant things. This means that
advertising executives must reconsider their media strategy as well as their vision of the
consumer buying funnel. Though this complicates media strategy and analysis, it also
provides marketers with an unparalleled chance to target people with a holistic experience
that generates substantially more value than conventional methods.
 Chapter 2

Review of Literature

Robert Angell and Matthew Gorton (2016) published a paper titled “Don't Distract Me
When I'm Media Multitasking: Toward a Theory for Raising Advertising Recall and
Recognition” they propose that the scenario in which multitasking occurs has an impact on
consumer recall for advertisements supplied through first device like a television. They
emphasise the necessity of consistency between primary and secondary screen activities, as
well as the social responsibilities of secondary screen activities. According to the notion,
media multitasking causes poor memory and recognition in the majority of situations.
Advertising memory and recognition increase in settings where primary and secondary
screen activities are consistent, and secondary screen activities have a high degree of social
accountability connected to them.

Rachel F. Adler and Raquel Benbunan-Fich (2015) published a research paper titled
“The Effects of Task Difficulty and Multitasking on Performance.” The research setup
included a major problem-solving task as well as five supplementary tasks. The results
demonstrate that when the primary activity was regarded as challenging, respondents
forced to multitask performed considerably worse than not just participants who did not
multitask, but even participants who could multitask at their choice. Individuals forced to
multitask showed considerably superior performance than both those who did not multitask
and participants who multitasked at their choice when the primary activity was rated trivial.

Laura L. Bowman and Laura E. Levine (2010) published a research paper titled “Can
students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading”, they
expected that students who instantly messaged while reading a standard
academic paragraph, would take more time to read the passage and perform worse on a
comprehension exam. They observed that students took much longer to read the material
when they IMed while reading (not considering time spent IMing) than when they did not.
However, there was no difference in test performance across conditions. Students who lead
busy lifestyles may believe that multitasking allows them to do more, but their data indicate
that they will require more time to attain the same level of efficiency on an academic
activity.
S. Adam Brasel and James Gips (2011) published a paper titled “Media multitasking
behaviour: concurrent television and computer usage” The researchers conducted a
laboratory experiment and recorded both younger and older people using television
and computer at the same time, multitasking between television and Internet contents. The
results suggest that while people are multitasking with media, they are largely focused on
the computer. Although glances stay longer on the computer than on television, the total
spectrum of glances is heavily skewed toward very brief glances lasting only a few
seconds. The overall pattern of results emphasises the significance of studying new media
contexts, such as the modern shift toward media multitasking.

Andy Brown and Amaia Aizpurua (2019) published a paper titled “Contrasting delivery
modes for second screen TV content—Push or pull?”, they conducted controlled research
to investigate how the availability of two alternative content delivery methods pushed and
pulled, affects attention, cognitive and overall user preferences. They discovered that the
mechanism of delivery had an effect on the spatial distribution of attention to the tablet,
with a stable viewing pattern for pushed updates that drew attention under a few seconds
and a more diversified range of viewing patterns whenever updates are pulled. Cognitive
load was comparable in both settings, and there was no agreement on which mode was
preferable, although users had strong, segregated individual preferences. The benefits of
each distribution channel are offered as a series of suggestions for companion content
delivery.

Pedro Almeida and Jorge Abreu (2015) published a paper titled “Notification
Mechanisms In Second-Screen Scenarios - Towards a Balanced User Experience”,
these author presents research that aims to examine the impact of notifications in second
screen settings on users. As part of the research, the research team created a prototype that
displayed an application capable of delivering synchronised information connected to TV
content, informing the user via visual, aural, and haptic cues anytime new content was
shown on the tablet. The research consisted of observation sessions in experimental
settings, having 12 participants allowed to view a 15-minute video while using the
programme. The tests were carried out using a cognitive walk-through approach, and data
was gathered using personal observation plus questionnaires. According to the findings, in
order to establish a proper experience for users in second screen settings, notifications on
tablets should indeed be paired with being visually notified on TV.
Duncan P. Brumby and Helena Du Toit (2014) published a research paper titled
“Working with the television on: an investigation into media multitasking”, the authors did
lab research to evaluate the influence of this media multitasking behaviour on stress and
people's capacity to remain interested in the content of a television programme While
watching a television show, participants were instructed to complete a task. To reflect the
many ways in which people might media multitask, participants were instructed to do the
job activity either continuously (concurrent multitasking) or in bursts (sequential
multitasking). There was some indication that interleaving tasks sequentially enabled
participants to keep their interest in the television show. Overall, the findings of this
exploratory study indicate that if individuals wish to relax and become immersed in a
television show, they should avoid using a secondary device at the same time.

Claire M. Segijn and Anastasia Kononova (2018) published a paper titled, “Audience,
Media, and Cultural Factors as Predictors of Multiscreen Use: A Comparative Study of the
Netherlands and the United States” which studies on the extent of media multitasking vary,
with estimates ranging from 20% to 50% of our media time. The study attempts to explain
these disparities by analyzing survey data from the United States as well as the Netherlands
and analyzing user, media, and cultural characteristics as predictors of multiscreening, a
subset of media multitasking. The findings revealed that multiscreening was more common
in the United States than it is in the Netherlands. The most prominent predictor of
multiscreen usage is media variables. The audience and cultural elements changed
depending on the country and of the screen combination. This highlights the significance of
cross-country study and investigating determinants of a certain form of media multitasking.

Andrej Miklosik and Peter Starchon (2020) published a report titled, “Television
Advertising in the Multiscreen and Multitasking Age: Does it Work for Millennials?” In
this study, focus groups were done to examine the effect of information searches for future
purchases. Students were chosen as research subjects, and their reactions to being subjected
to television advertisements were analysed, as well as their information-seeking process,
which was documented. Advertisers must evaluate search visibility for generic and
campaign-related terms as a pillar of their communication strategies as a result of shifting
behaviour. Advertisers can make their TV advertisements successful for millennial
customers who utilise internet search and numerous devices in the process after TV
commercial viewing by focusing on the documented process of active information
exploration.
Pablo Cesar and Dick Bulterman (2018) published a paper titled “Usages of the
Secondary Screen in an Interactive Television Environment: Control, Enrich, Share, and
Transfer Television Content”, this paper analyses a variety of strategies and services that
revolve around the second screen concept. The secondary screen can be used by the viewer
to enhance or compose media contents, such as integrating personalised media overlays
such as commentary tracks that can be linked with their social circle. This research focuses
on the secondary screen's applications in an interactive digital television environment.
Based on the research they have concluded that handheld devices, in combination with
other consumer technology devices, will be utilised in the living room to watch and control
television programming. This article suggests four key applications: controlling, enriching,
sharing, and transferring television material.

Kamila Peszko (2015) published a paper titled “Multiscreening as a way of reaching a

consumer – idea and possibilities” The publisher of the paper concentrates on introducing
the concept of multiscreening, as well as the areas in which it may be applied in the field of
marketing communications. The author identifies obvious trends in multiscreening from the
perspective of consumer preferences and behaviour by reviewing secondary data performed
by international and national research organisations from 2012 to 2015. The author presents
possibilities provided by multiscreening marketing efforts, pointing to underused regions of
the Polish firm, using examples of Polish and international multiscreening campaigns.

Mari Ainasoja and Juhani Linna (2014) published a paper titled “A Case Study on
Understanding 2nd Screen Usage during a Live Broadcast” they used a variety of
qualitative collecting data techniques to perform a study with 12 individuals. They merged
four ideal categories analyzer, home game, active follower and commentator based on
thematic analysis, to represent the many connotations that 2nd screen usage has for the
viewers. Multitasking with multiple 2nd screen devices such as tablets, smartphones, and
laptop computers has quickly become a frequent user habit when watching television.
While this behaviour may be quantified in a variety of ways, little is understood about the
causes and motivations for it.

Miao Guo (2018) published a paper titled “Social Television Viewing with Second Screen
Platforms: Antecedents and Consequences” the purpose of this study is to look at the causal
link between the antecedents and consequents of social TV viewing, which combines the
television screen with the usage of mobile as a "second screen" media platform. The
findings show that social TV viewing is a complicated process influenced by viewers'
programme preferences, motivations, interpersonal interactions, and perceived media
qualities of alternative platforms. Social television viewing behaviour has a positive impact
on television show loyalty, time-shifting viewing and product buy intent.

Claire M. Segijin and Hilde A.M. Vooveld (2017) published a paper titled “How Related
Multiscreening Could Positively Affect Advertising Outcomes” The goal of the
report was to study task relevance, which is a significant driver of advertising impacts when
multiscreening. Authors found that people who interact in associated multiscreening have
strong brand memory and much more positive brand attitudes than the people who are
engaged in unrelated multiscreening via attention and subsequent programme involvement.
The current findings of this study add to existing knowledge of multiscreening as well as
advertising impacts by demonstrating that multiscreening does not necessarily have to be
harmful to advertising effects.

Snezhanka Kazakova and Verolein Cauberghe (2016) published a paper titled “The
Impact of Media Multitasking on the Cognitive and Attitudinal Responses to Television
Commercials: The Moderating Role of Type of Advertising Appeal” according to the
report, the influence of multitasking on viewers' perceptual and attitudinal reactions to
television ads, as well as the moderating effects of advertising appeals, were studied in
different research. According to the findings of Study 1, media multitasking has a
detrimental influence on cognitive reactions but a good effect on attitudinal reactions to
television advertising. According to the findings of Study 2, this influence on attitudinal
reactions is only apparent in ads that emphasise on a product's attractiveness. The findings
show that in multitasking situations, television ads that emphasise a product's desirability
have a cognitive and attitudinal edge over those that emphasise a product's practicality.

Hilde A.M. Voorveld (2011) published a paper titled “Media multitasking and the
effectiveness of combining online and radio advertising” The impacts of advertising on
media multitasking are investigated in this research. Because concurrently surfing the
internet and listening to the radio is a frequent media multitasking combination, the
research focuses on the efficacy of concurrent exposure to online and radio advertising. An
investigation with 111 people found that mixing web and radio advertisements resulted in
more favourable emotional and behavioural reactions than utilising only one media.
However, media multitasking appeared to have a detrimental impact on auditory
information memory and recognition, since mixing media did not result in greater cognitive
responses when compared to simply viewing web advertising.

Selin Atalay and H.Onur Bodur (2017) published a paper titled “When and How
Multitasking Impacts Consumer Shopping Decisions” this study explores how multitasking
influences consumer decision-making. Three studies look into the impact of multitasking
on shopping task performance. The influence of multitasking on consumers' purchasing
task performance, according to the authors. Results from two lab research and a field trial
in a retail setting reveal that shoppers with how-mindsets may multitask without sacrificing
shopping task performance, which is good news for customers. The findings show that
interventions to shift customers' mindsets toward implementation or stress-reduction
measures might help them avoid the harmful effects of multitasking on purchase decisions.

Yoori Hwang and Hyoung JeeKim (2014) published a paper titled “Why do media users
multitask? Motives for general, medium-specific, and content-specific types of
multitasking” the study explored the main reasons people multitask and how they relate to
overall, medium-specific and content-specific multitasking. In respect of medium-specific
forms of multitasking, habit motives predicted TV-based multitasking, information and
enjoyment motives predicted Internet-based multitasking, and information motives
predicted mobile-based multitasking. In respect of content-specific multitasking,
information motives predicted news-related multitasking, information and enjoyment
motives predicted entertainment-related multitasking, and information and social motives
predicted advertising-related multitasking.

Se-Hoon Jeong and Yoori Hwang (2012) This study looked at the impacts of multitasking
on persuasion, including comprehension and counterarguing persuasive messages presented
in three different ways, non-multitasking with full attention to the message, multitasking
with primary attention to the message and multitasking with secondary attention to the
message. Multitasking lowered real and perceived levels of understanding, as well as
counterarguing, according to the findings, which were in line with expectations. The
consequences of persuasion research are also highlighted.

Claire Segijn and Martin Eisend (2019) published a paper titled “A Meta-Analysis into
Multiscreening and Advertising Effectiveness: Direct Effects, Moderators, and Underlying
Mechanisms” The study explores the immediate effects of multiscreening on both objective
and subjective advertising outcomes, as well as the possible moderators of those effects and
the mechanisms underlying of multiscreening with reference to advertising outcomes, by
combining the findings of previous studies on multiscreening and advertising. The findings
show that multiscreening has a detrimental direct influence on cognitive outcomes. Factors
associated with research, advertising, and media, on the other hand, stifle the effect.
Furthermore, the findings reveal that multiscreening has no direct or total influence on
affective advertising outcomes, but this is dependent on a variety of media, advertising, and
research-related factors.

Shahid Kalim and Li Guoxin (2020) published a paper titled “Adoption of Multi-screen
Multitasking in Young Generation of China: A Perspective of Self-Regulation” the study
aims to understand the younger generation's multi-screen multitasking habit in China. Self-
regulation happens both consciously and instinctively, according to recent social
psychology studies. The assumption that both reflective or impulsive factors are engaged in
shaping human behaviour is promoted by this double system approach to self-regulation.
As a result of this perspective, the current study used a double system approach to self-
regulation as its theoretical foundation. Empirical data was obtained from college students
in China, with a number of 345 responses included in the study, which was carried out
using SmartPLS 3.0's structural equation modelling. The findings show that both cognitive
and automatic self-regulation characteristics are important in predicting multi-screen
multitasking behaviour.

John Rooksby and Mattias Rost (2014) published a paper titled “Practices of Parallel
Media: Using Mobile Devices When Watching Television”, they've looked into how
individuals use their cellphones and laptops when watching TV. Their findings demonstrate
that these aren't always employed to find content linked to what's being viewed. This is not
to imply that gadgets are used in independence from their surroundings; their use is
inextricably linked to viewing television and socialising with others. According to the
researchers designing for 'the networked household' is more than just an integration project,
and that it should consider the social fabric of everyday living.

Claire M. Segijn and Hilde A.M. Voorveld (2016) published a paper titled “The
Underlying Mechanisms of Multiscreening Effects”, the study looked at the underlying
processes of multiscreening's influence on evaluative outcomes (i.e., identification,
counterarguing, and pleasure) that is, message attitude, brand attitude and purchase
intention. The research with 182 participants revealed that the influence of multiscreening
on evaluative outcomes is mediated by both identification and counterarguing. By
identifying and counterarguing, multiscreening has a negative influence on evaluative
outcomes and a favourable effect on evaluative outcomes. Multiscreening by
counterarguing has a positive impact on evaluative outcome and by recognising it has a
negative impact.

Jari Kätsyri and Teemu Kinnunen (2016) published a paper titled “Negativity Bias in
Media Multitasking: The Effects of Negative Social Media Messages on Attention to
Television News Broadcasts”, they investigated whether negative social media posts would
attract more attention than identical positive messages in the research. Attentional
indicators included recognition recall, gaze monitoring, cardiac responses, and self-reports.
Negative tweets, as predicted, generated longer reading periods and attracted more attention
than good tweets. Negative tweets, on the other hand, did not reduce the viewership of
news programmes. The current findings show that in media multitasking, there is a
negativity bias for social media posts; nevertheless, this impact does not enhance the
overall negative consequences of media multitasking.

Claire M. Segijn and Theo Araujo (2020) published a paper titled “Related
Multiscreening as a Strategy to Retain Audiences and Increase Persuasion During a
Commercial Break”, the study's goal was to learn more about how interrelated
multiscreening influences audience recall and appeal. Following a live television broadcast,
a survey was given out. The findings revealed that the more related the multi-screen
activity was judged to be, the more powerful the message was. The subsequent
concentration on television content, programme engagement, and attention to the
advertisement break all mediated this impact. The model was tested on three distinct
multiscreen tasks: social media use, conversing and searching for information.
Furthermore, respondents were more likely to stay connected to the television following the
show when they were exposed to relevant multi-screening.
Chapter 3: Objectives and Research Methodology

Objectives

 To understand multiple screen behaviour and media consumption.

 To study ways companies can leverage multiple screen behaviour to increase their
customer/viewership.

 To understand how the content of the first screen leads to multiscreen behaviour.

 To understand how the advertising industry is affected by multiple screen

behaviour.

Limitations

 The population taken for the study refers to the consumers of the four devices that
are television, smartphones, laptop/PC and tablet/iPad only excluding other devices
like smartwatches, eye wearables, etc.
 The Accuracy of the data depends on the answers given by the respondents.
 For analysis, the population area is taken as PAN India and it is very difficult to
collect the data from a particular state in a short period.
 Chances of low reliability due to respondents’ lack of willingness to comply with
the form.
 A limited number of respondents.

Research Methodology

The processes or strategies used to identify, collect, analyse, and analyse information on a
problem are referred to as research methodology. The methodology part of a research
report helps the reader to carefully examine the study's overall validity and dependability.
Two major questions are addressed in the methods section: How was the information
gathered or generated? What method was used to examine it?

The study adopted a descriptive research design. The descriptive research methodology has
been used for this study because it decreases biasness and increases the dependability of the
obtained data. A descriptive study is one that is based on prior knowledge of the subject;
research has a very definite goal and to the point data requirements. The key purpose of
descriptive design is to describe the situation as it exists in present. Descriptive research is
an essential type of research since one of the objectives of the research is gathering relevant
information on the research problem the when, how, what, and where answers. Descriptive
research is a form of research that focuses on describing a population, circumstance, or
phenomena.

For the analysis, Canonical Correlation Analysis Approach was used. The purpose of
canonical correlation is to measure the strength of the association between two sets of data
in this situation. As a result, canonical correlation determines the optimal structure or
dimensionality of each variable set for maximising the link between independent and
dependent variable sets. Canonical correlation analysis examines the relationship between
several independent and dependent variables in composite sets. It accomplishes this by
creating a series of independent canonical functions that maximise the correlation between
canonical variates, also known as linear composites, which are collections of dependent and
independent variables. The variates are constructed to maximise their correlation, which is
a unique aspect of canonical correlation. Canonical correlation analysis determines the
components of one set of variables that are the most strongly linked linearly to the variables
of the other set. Canonical correlation analysis' fundamental logic is deriving a linear
arrangement of variables from both of the two sets of variables in order to maximise
correlation within the two sets.

IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) Statistics Version 25 (2017) was used
to perform statistical tests. This made it possible to interpret correlation of motivation
behind the usage of the second device.

Data Collection

The data collection process begins when the research design has been panned out. The
process of gathering, measuring, and evaluating relevant insights for research using
established verified methodologies is referred to as data collection. Depending on the
information needed, different approaches to data collecting are used in different fields of
research. The most important goal of data collecting is to gather voluminous
information and accurate data for analysis so that data-driven research decisions can be
made.

Two types of data collection methods:

Primary Data: Primary data is gathered using a variety of approaches in order to obtain
exact, accurate, realistic, and appropriate data. The information was gathered through a
survey questionnaire. Google Forms and Surveys were used to obtain the primary data.

Secondary Data: It is the data that has previously been gathered by other researchers. The
data must be analysed and the results must be interpreted. It is crucial for the success of
any report. It provides precise, relevant, and detailed information. The data was collected
from various research papers, journals, articles, magazines, etc.

Sampling Frame

Sampling is a method of selecting people or a portion of the population in order to make

statistical inferences and predict population characteristics. In market analysis, several
sampling strategies are commonly adopted so that researchers do not have to investigate the
whole population in order to obtain relevant information. “Sampling frame describes the
list of all population units from which the sample is to be selected” (Fowler, 2013). A
sample is a set of data that is collected or chosen from a statistical population according to a
set of rules. The nature of the research, expected outcomes, the relevance of the findings,
the number of variables to be dealt with, the nature of the analysis, and resource restrictions
must all be considered when selecting the sample size. For this research, sampling has been
used. It is also a time and cost-effective approach; therefore, it is the foundation of every
study design. For optimal deduction, sampling approaches can be employed in research
survey software. A sample design is a method or plan that is created before any data is
gathered in order to get a sample from a specific setting. Conducting a study with the full
population is impossible. The sample design was chosen ahead of time-based on the study's
goals. The process of determining the number of samples to include in a statistical sample
is known as sample size determination. Any empirical study in which the objective is to
make conclusions about a population from a sample must consider the sample size.

In this research, the sample size is 237 respondents of age over 18 years from pan India.

Survey Instrument

A questionnaire was used to obtain primary data for this study. The questionnaire was the
first choice for the data collection instrument because the researcher is not required to be
present while the surveys are completed, data may be obtained rapidly. When conducting
interviews with large groups of people is unfeasible, this method is favourable. The
questionnaires were adopted because they helped collect a huge volume of data in a broad
region in a short amount of time, allowing the study to be completed faster. The survey
included closed-ended questions. Closed-ended questions were used to standardise replies.
The questionnaire was the primary tool for data collection which was composed of 15
questions with few questions including various factors or scenarios where people consider
the usage of the second screen, the scenario can be no interest in advertisements, working
while watching TV. The questionnaire was adopted since it is affordable and quick to fill
out, as well as to easy to analyse due to its standard responses. When respondents can be
reached and are ready to cooperate, the questionnaire is the most often adopted approach.
This approach can reach a huge number of people. The questionnaire consisted 5-point
Likert scale response. For closed-ended questions, a five-point Likert scale was utilised,
with target respondents indicating the degree of usage of device ranging from rarely to
always for each aspect and statement. Closed ended questions were graded on a Likert scale
of 1-5, with never, rarely, sometimes, very often and always was applied for closed ended
questions to analysed the responses and make it easy for the respondents to fill. The aim
was to conduct a survey with 237 viewers, viewers defined as people who use second
device while simultaneously using first device.

Any question for which a researcher gives survey respondents with alternatives from which
to pick an answer is referred to as a closed-ended question. Closed-ended questions are
quite often framed as a statement that needs to be answered.

Likert Scale: 5 pointer Likert scale, respondents are required to answer to indicate the
frequency to which they think they use devices ranging from Extremely important or
Extremely Unimportant. For example, never, rarely, sometimes, very often and always.
 Chapter 4

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Research Statement 1: Content of the first screen does not affect multiple screen
behaviour.

For the Canonical correlation two sets of variables are chosen which compare independent
variables, there is a commercial break, streaming content is not of your liking and content
does not command your full attention, as set 1 and dependent variables, use of second
device, watch advertisements and distraction from first device, as set 2.

Independent variables (predictor variables) and dependent variables are two types of
variables (the response variable). The dependent variable is introduced after the
independent variable. SPSS has found multiple canonical correlations between these
canonical variables. The number of canonical correlations has been decided based on the
minimum number of variables in the dependent variable set and the independent variable
set. The least number of variables among the set has been taken as a number of canonical
correlations.

Canonical Correlations

Correlation Eigenvalue Wilks Statistic F Num D.F Denom D.F. Sig.

1 .656 .756 .458 23.204 9.000 552.609 .000

2 .385 .174 .805 13.088 4.000 456.000 .000

3 .235 .058 .945 13.380 1.000 229.000 .000

Table 4.1. Canonical Correlations

H0 for Wilks test is that the correlations in the current and following rows are zero.
In the canonical correlation table, table 4.1., there are three canonical correlations it can be
seen that the correlation is significant. The correlation ranges from -1 to +1. So, a value
near zero means low correlation and a value near one means high correlation.
From the canonical correlation coefficient column, it can be observed that:
First correlation coefficient= 0.656 has strong correlation.
Second correlation coefficient= 0.385 has weak correlation.
Third correlation coefficient= 0.235. has weak correlation.
It also can be seen that null hypothesis for Wilks test is that the correlations in the current
and following rows are zero. If significant value is less than 0.05, the hypothesis will be
rejected, that means the correlation is not zero but a correlation is more than zero.

Set 1 Canonical Loadings

Variable 1 2 3

There is a commercial break .788 .426 .444

Streaming content is not of your .796 -.107 -.596

liking

Content does not command your -.100 .925 -.367

full attention

Table 4.2. Set 1 Canonical Loadings of independent variables

Set 2 Canonical Loadings

Variable 1 2 3

Use of second device -.686 .642 -.344

Watch advertisements .265 .963 -.058

Distraction from first device -.473 .337 .814

Table 4.3. Set 2 Canonical Loadings of dependent variables

Proportion of Variance Explained

Canonical Variable Set 1 by Self Set 1 by Set 2 Set 2 by Self Set 2 by Set 1

1 .255 .110 .422 .181

2 .484 .072 .349 .052

3 .262 .014 .229 .013

Table 4.4. Proportion of variance explained

Eigen Value Variance %

1 .756 76.5
2 .174 17.6
3 .058 5.9
Total 0.988 100
Table 4.5. Eigenvalue and variance
 42.2% 25.5%

Use of second
Commercial Break
-0.686 device
0.788

0.796 0.656 0.265 Watch

Content preference Ind Dep
advertisements
76%

-0.473
-0.100

Content does not Distraction from

command your full first device
attention

Fig 4.1. First canonical correlation

Figure 4.1., shows the first canonical correlation which has 0.656 canonical correlation. It
has six variables, left is independent variables and the right is dependent variables.
Independent variables have three variables and dependent set has three variables so
dependent variable set has the least number of variables and the system will create three
canonical correlations between the independent and the dependent canonical variables.
From set 1, table 4.2., canonical loadings of dependent variables and from set 2, table 4.3.,
canonical loadings of independent variables were received.
Canonical loading of use of second device on dependent variable is -0.686, watch
advertisements are 0.265 and for distraction from first device is -0.473. The total variance
of these three variables is 25.5% which was received from Proportion of variance explained
table, table 4.4.
Canonical loading of a commercial break on an independent variable is 0.788, the content
of not liking is 0.796 and for content does not command your full attention is -0.100. The
total variance of these three variables is 42.2% which was received from Proportion of
variance explained table, table 4.4.
The 76% is variance explained between dependent and independent canonical variables
which were derived from the eigenvalue table, table 4.5.
Interpretation:
From figure 4.1., it can be seen that dependent variables:
Independent Variable 1: Commercial Break has a loading of 0.788
This means the content quality of commercial breaks should increase, which means the
commercials should be more targeted towards the customers, to decrease the use of second
devices (-0.686), increase the interest of people watching advertisements (0.265) and
decrease the distraction from the first device (-0.473). People will be jumping back and
forth during commercial breaks and scrolling through social media or surfing the web or
shopping simultaneously while avoiding commercial breaks.
Independent Variable 2: Content preference has loading of 0.796.
This means the media industry needs to analyse which device they want consumers to
screen their content on making the said device to be the preferred content they stream like
for social media TV the preferred device is smartphones. Making the viewer use second
device less, companies can advertise their product or brand on the most preferred device
and distraction can be decreased from the first device. Hot topics or green in gossip TV
shows that elicit discussion and response will attract a large audience who will interact with
the show and their social circles through messages or social media.
Independent Variable 3: Content does not demand your full attention has loading of -1.00
This means the quality of the content should increase on the first device, which means the
content should be gripping which makes people to decrease the usage of second device
making the content consumption high. Content can be the advertisement's content;
advertisement should be eye-catching. Hence, increase the interest of people in watching
advertisement and decrease the distraction from the first to the second device. People will
be jumping back and forth between commercial breaks and scrolling through social media
or surfing the web or shopping simultaneously watching light entertainment or passive
content because the television does not require as much user attention.

Canonical Correlations

Correlation Eigenvalue Wilks Statistic F Num D.F Denom D.F. Sig.

1 .616 .611 .453 18.239 12.000 450.000 .000

2 .520 .372 .729 16.795 5.000 226.000 .000

Research Statement 2: The content of the advertisement does not affect multiple
screen behaviour.

In the data set 2, for the Canonical correlation two sets of variables are chosen which
compare independent variables, product, humour, tagline/jingle, iconic characters, celebrity
and heart-warming message, as set 1 and dependent variables, use of second device and
watching advertisement as set 2.

Table 4.6. Canonical Correlations

H0 for Wilks test is that the correlations in the current and following rows are zero.

In the canonical correlation table, table no 4.6., there are two canonical correlations, it can be
seen that the correlation is significant.
From canonical correlation coefficient column, it can be observed that:
First correlation coefficient= 0.616 has strong correlation.
Second correlation coefficient= 0.520 has moderate correlation.
Set 1 Canonical Loadings

Variable 1 2

Product .812 .035

Humour .152 -.387

Tagline/Jingle .262 .268

Iconic character .204 .441

Celebrity .433 .178

Heart-warming message .525 -.681

Table 4.7. Set 1 Canonical Loadings of independent variables

Set 2 Canonical Loadings

Variable 1 2

Use of second device -.531 .848

Watch Ads .512 .859

Table 4.8. Set 2 Canonical Loadings of dependent variables

Proportion of Variance Explained

Canonical Variable Set 1 by Self Set 1 by Set 2 Set 2 by Self Set 2 by Set 1

1 .272 .103 .209 .079

2 .728 .197 .152 .041

Table 4.9. Proportion of variance explained

Eigen Value Variance %

1 .611 62.2
2 .372 37.8
 Total 0.983 100
Table 4.10. Eigenvalue and variance

20.9%
27.2%

0.812 Product
Use of second
device
Humour
0.152 -0.531

0.262 Tagline/Jingle 0.616

Dep
Ind
62.2%
0.204 Iconic Characters
0.512

0.433 Celebrity Watching

Advertisements

Heart-warming
0.525 Message

Fig 4.2. First canonical correlation

Figure 4.2., shows first canonical correlation which has 0.616 canonical correlation. It has
eight variables, left is independent variables and the right is dependent variables.
Independent variables have six variables and dependent set has two variables. So,
dependent variable set has the least number of variables and system will create two
canonical correlations between the independent and the dependent canonical variables.
From set 1, table 4.7., canonical loadings of dependent variables and from set 2, table 4.8.,
canonical loadings of independent variables were received.
Canonical loading of use of the second device on the dependent variable is -0.531 and
watch advertisements is 0.512. The total variance of these two variables is 27.2% which
was received from Proportion of variance explained table, table 4.9.
Canonical loading of product on independent variable is 0.812, humour is 0.152, a tagline
is 0.262, the iconic character is 0.204, celebrity is 0.433 and for a heart-warming message
is 0.525. The total variance of these six variables is 20.9% which was received from the
Proportion of variance explained table, table 4.9.
The 62.2% is variance explained between dependent and independent canonical variables
which were derived from the eigenvalue table, table 4.10.
Interpretation:
From figure 4.2. it can be seen that dependent variables:
Independent Variable 1: The product has a loading of 0.812.
This means that the product on which the advertisement is running on can make people
interested in watching the advertisement instead of using a second device and avoiding
watching the advertisement. Kind of product builds an intrigue in the mind of consumers,
product specifications, basically how the product has been launched into the market
through advertisements can lead to make or break of the product.

Independent Variable 2: Humour has a loading of 0.152.

This means humorous advertising is to increase memorability, secure audience attention,
overcomes sales resistance. The key is to find the right kind of humour to connect with
your target audience. When used correctly, humour can help you break through the
distractions and stand out. Hence, the addition of humour in advertisements can decrease
the use of second device and increase the viewership of that advertisement.
Independent Variable 3: Tagline or Jingle has loading of 0.262.
Which means that a tagline or jingle can help in distracting people from their second device
and watch the advertisement. Handful things can work in grabbing the attention of
customers like a snappy jingle. A good jingle will help the customers to recall the brand
and product no matter if they like the jingle or not but they will remember the brand and
product. When a listener sees an advertisement of the product in the future recall it
immediately, the jingle with the advertisement.
Independent Variable 4: Iconic characters has loading of 0.204.
Which means that iconic characters can help in diverting the focus on advertisement instead
of people muting them or using a second device during the advertisement which also means
people will like to watch that advertisement more. The influence of some iconic characters
is indisputable. They instantly add recognition to an advertisement, as they display as the
awareness of the brand and build up credibility about the product. They build recall and
recognition factors in the audience.
Independent Variable 5: Celebrity has a loading of 0.433.
This means roping celebrities in doing the advertisement of the brand and product can
decrease the use of second devices and increase advertisement watching. Celebrities,
whether they are endorsing or branding themselves, attract a lot of attention regardless of
what people are doing they will immediately look at what that celebrity is endorsing.
Celebrities in adverts can immediately catch the eye and increase the watching of
advertisement, and as a result, it's always been a good way to advertise.
Independent Variable 6: Heart-warming message has a loading of 0.525.
This means heartwarming messages sway people from their tasks and grab the attention of
people more easily resulting in people paying attention towards the advertisement instead
of scrolling through the second device which also increases the viewership of the
advertisements. Emotion is a powerful force. It is effective in many aspects because it can
sway an action and persuade people to watch the advertisement. As a result, it has proven
to be an effective advertising technique for motivating individuals to watch the
advertisement and make the campaign successful.
 Chapter 5
Suggestions
The multiscreen phenomenon has grown in popularity over the last few years, and the
media industry and marketers must keep their eye on the impact of the second screen on
media consumption and advertising. When a target market uses multiple screens at the
same time, advertisers can either strengthen the marketing from the first screen by serving
advertisements on the second screen or avoid the complete disconnect from the first device
by reaching the customers on their handsets. Advertising, particularly in-app advertising,
allows for more interactive creativity, enhancing the Television commercial experience by
providing an engaging aspect on handsets to further engage the viewers. Even if consumers
are on their smartphones and tablets while watching TV, they do not yet expect a TV
advertisement to require people to connect via mobile, so marketers must educate
customers if this could become a reality. It's a new trend, but keeping in mind that the vast
majority of users are on their smartphones or have them anyway their sides when watching
content. Marketers must understand how to build multi-touch, cross-media campaigns that
keep their brands ahead of the competition. Multimedia companies, with their extensive
viewers reach and access to viewers' data can assist marketers in navigating the changing
dynamics of a multi-screen world. Marketers must analyse multi-screen usage and
perception patterns to optimize media allocation. Marketers must recognize the online
medium's amplifying effect. Those who watch online advertisements tend to search the
content further, have an extensive discussion with friends and sometimes if the content
does not command attention the advertisement and the media consumption become
extremely low having no impact on the viewers at all. With multiple screen
behaviour having amplifying popularity, marketers and content creators need to provide an
interrelated and indulging experience to the viewer or customers across the screens. If an
advertisement or the streaming content provides an integrated experience, multiple screen
users are more certainly will consume the content better making the content recall and
recognition better. To generate a huge impact on multi-screen marketing campaigns and
advertisements, marketers must align multi-screen advertisements with their target market
in the same way that they do Television advertisements. Relevant and customised
communication that enhances the customer experience will boost the effectiveness of multi-
screen advertisements and the content they produce. Marketers should look beyond
demographics to target viewers based on particular interests and behavioural patterns.
Advertising coordination throughout all screens through the use of relevant content is not
yet at a high magnitude. However, there are incredible opportunities provided by totally
unconnected multiple screen activities that should not be overlooked. Advertisers and
content creators can use algorithmic views to accurately time their advertisements and
content on unrelated or related sites with TV commercials or the content that has been
streaming at that time. The media companies could programme wise trigger advertisement
or the usage of social media to create the buzz around that content that aired at the same
time as the commercial or the programme on television. A second use for media researchers
is also very intriguing as in the use of social media to create more content during the air of
the program for example during the air of Game of thrones the media creator used social
media to engage the audience during the commercial by asking and answering intriguing
questions regarding the episode, which helped in maintaining the interest of the audience
on the program. If a media industry wants to know how people are reacting to a specific
episode by launching a survey during commercials or at precisely the right time to get real-
time feedback, knowing that most of the viewers have a spare screen in front of them, the
screen can be a mobile, tablet or a laptop.
 Chapter 6
Conclusion
The multi-screen behaviour is spreading rapidly, putting more and more screens with
the viewers at all times. Many people watch TV with their smartphone or tablet in hand,
which creates a new type of interaction for consumers, while watching a programme the
consumer has the liberty to use several devices. Marketers and content creators are
attempting to leverage this new culture by combining TV and mobile content to give
consumers a unified experience, but still, there is a lag whenever it comes to cross-screen
interaction. To begin with, the smartphone or tablet, a second-screen element is frequently
an afterthought in a Television commercial. The media industry would gain from starting
with a cross-screen mindset. The use of smartphones while watching television is now
common, and broadcasting companies are increasingly providing program-related
'companion content.' From the findings of the research, it can be concluded that to increase
the content consumption and recall and recognition of the program or product, the second
device usage by the viewer be leveraged to gain benefit. For advertising agencies, the
advertisements should be grabbing attention. To create an ideal user experience, the media
industry must first understand how the delivery of companion content influences and is
regarded by the viewers. Otherwise, they risk confusing the viewers, causing frustration
and detachment. This also implies that the content should be tailored to the various screens
that the customers are using.

It also can be concluded from the study that advertisements having humorous motives or
having heart-warming messages have a very positive impact on viewers which leads them
to continue engaging in the device in which the advertisement is running instead of busing
themselves with the second device ignoring the content in front of them. Advertisements
having celebrities endorse the product also engages the viewers’ attention. Jingle or taglines
helps in brand recall and recognition, a catchy jingle can distract anybody while
multitasking, the said jingle or tagline gives the association to the brand. For example, “I’m
lovin’ it” anyone can tell it is McDonald’s and the same for “pehle istemal kare fir
vishwaas kare” is for Gharhi detergent and many more examples can be presented here.
The study also shows that the presence of an iconic character in the advertisement can also
distract an individual from their initial task. These iconic characters represent the brand and
product message which helps the consumer to associate the character with the product or
brand. For example, recently Fevikwik aired an advertisement where the woman was
wearing the repaired items which were earlier thrown away by the house, this
advertisement grabbed a lot of attention from the public making it humorous and iconic.

The research also studied about the influence of first device content on the multiscreen
behaviour. The further study concludes that the advertisements during commercial breaks
should be directly targeted toward the audience and the advertisements should be scheduled
according to the viewership for example if the commercial break is during a cricket match
the companies with that target audience can place their ads there which also interest the
viewers resulting them in watching the advertisement instead of using the second device.
The research also talks about content preference and content not requiring full attention,
according to viewers, many shows or programs do not require the attention of the audience
which leads to an increase in the usage of the second devices and an increase in the
distraction from the first device. Media consumption should be high to get the desired goal
from that content, if the content is a series then the ratings should be high which is only
possible if people pay attention to it or if the content is an advertisement, then also the
attention on the advertisement should be there else the desired goal of reach will be low
which results in a low product or brand awareness.

Multiple or second screens are considered to be a step towards evolution toward enhancing
activities in order to create a better experience for viewing or multitasking. Nowadays,
viewers with evolving technology mobile devices seek the best engagement, updated
viewership. Second screens can improve the customer's experience, reach new viewers,
and encourage users to share their personal experiences with the public making the content
popularity wide. Hence, the media industry should embrace this evolving behaviour.
 Chapter 7
References
Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really
multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers &
Education, 54(4), 927–931. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2009.09.024
Brasel, S. Adam, and James Gips (2011), “Media Multitasking Behavior: Concurrent
Television and Computer Usage,” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14
(9), 527–34.
Brown, Tom J., and Michael L. Rothschild (1993), “Reassessing the Impact of Television
Advertising Clutter,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (1), 138–46.
Adler, Rachel F., and Raquel Benbunan-Fich (2015), “The Effects of Task Difficulty and
Multitasking on Performance,” Interacting with Computers, 27 (4), 430–39
Brown, A., & Aizpurua, A. (2019). Contrasting delivery modes for second screen TV
content—Push or pull? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 129, 15–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.03.007
Almeida, P., Abreu, J., Silva, T., Duro, L., Aresta, M., Oliveira, R., 2015. Notification
Mechanisms In Second-Screen Scenarios - Towards a Balanced User Experience.
IEEEhttps://doi.org/10.4108/icst.intetain.2015.259548
T. Bader, A. Heck, and J. Beyerer. Lift-and-drop: crossing boundaries in a multi-display
environment by airlift. In Proc. of AVI 2010, pages 139--146, New York, NY, USA, 2010.
ACM.
J. E. Bardram. Activity-based computing for medical work in hospitals. ACM Transactions
on Computer-Human Interaction, 16(2):1--36, 2009.
J. E. Bardram, J. Bunde-Pedersen, A. Doryab, and S. Sørensen. Clinical surfaces -- activity-
based computing for distributed multi-display environments in hospitals. In Proc. of
INTERACT 2009, pages 704--717, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009. Springer-Verlag.
Voorveld HAM, van der Goot M. Age differences in media multitasking: A diary study. J
Broadcast Electron Media. 2013; 57(3): 392–408. doi:10.1080/08838151.2013.816709
HBO GO, 2011. Game of Thrones Interactive Experience. http://www.hbo.com/game-of-
thrones/about/video/hbo-gointeractive-experience.html
Duncan P. Brumby, Helena Du Toit, Harry J. Griffin, Ana Tajadura-Jiménez, and Anna L.
Cox. 2014. Working with the television on: an investigation into media multitasking.
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1807–1812.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2581210
Almeida, P., & Abreu, J. (2015). Notification Mechanisms In Second-Screen Scenarios -
Towards a Balanced User Experience. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Intelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment.
https://doi.org/10.4108/icst.intetain.2015.259548

Almeida, P., & Oliveira, R. (2015). Notification Mechanisms In Second-Screen Scenarios -

Towards a Balanced User Experience. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Intelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment.
https://doi.org/10.4108/icst.intetain.2015.259548

Brown, A., & Aizpurua, A. (2019). Contrasting delivery modes for second screen TV
content—Push or pull? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 129, 15–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.03.007

BW Online Bureau. (2022, November 8). How Multi Screen Consumption is Altering
Online Behaviour. BW Businessworld. https://www.businessworld.in/article/How-Multi-
Screen-Consumption-is-Altering-Online-Behaviour/08-11-2014-76151/

Ceci, L. (2021, July 12). Second screen usage - Statistics & Facts. Statista.
https://www.statista.com/topics/2531/second-screen-usage/#dossierContents__outerWrapp
er

Ciotti, G. (2020, September 14). Understanding Consumer Behavior to Convert More

Customers. Helpscout. https://www.helpscout.com/consumer-behavior/

Distinct multi-screen behaviors emerge, opening up new marketing opportunities: report |

Marketing Dive. (2017). Marketing Drive.
https://www.marketingdive.com/ex/mobilemarketer/cms/news/research/17860.html

Guo, H., Marston, S., & Chen, Y. (2015). Push or Pull? Design of Content Delivery
Systems. Decision Sciences, 46(5), 937–960. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12169

Half a billion connected televisions in 2015 | informitv. (2011, July 7). Informitv.
https://informitv.com/2011/07/07/half-a-billion-connected-televisions-in-2015/

Hoeck, L., & Spann, M. (2019). The effects of first and second screen marketing on TV
viewing activity. Journal of Media Economics, 32(3–4), 82–98.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08997764.2021.1890751

Marvin, G. (2021, May 14). Microsoft Study: Multi-Screen Behavior And What It Means
For Marketers. MarTech. https://martech.org/microsoft-study-multi-screen-behavior-and-
what-it-means-for-marketer/

Segijn, C. M., & Eisend, M. (2019). A Meta-Analysis into Multiscreening and Advertising
Effectiveness: Direct Effects, Moderators, and Underlying Mechanisms. Journal of
Advertising, 48(3), 313–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2019.1604009
Segijn, C. M., Voorveld, H. A., & Smit, E. G. (2016). The Underlying Mechanisms of
Multiscreening Effects. Journal of Advertising, 45(4), 391–402.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1172386
Elishar-Malka, V., & Ariel, Y. (2021). Migrating to Social Networks While Watching
Televised Sports: A Case Study of the Effect of Enjoyment on Second-Screen Usage
During the World Cup. International Journal of Sport Communication, 14(3), 448–460.
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2020-0325
Giglietto, F., & Selva, D. (2014). Second Screen and Participation: A Content Analysis on
a Full Season Dataset of Tweets. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 260–277.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12085
Gil De Zúñiga, H., Garcia-Perdomo, V., & McGregor, S. C. (2015). What Is Second
Screening? Exploring Motivations of Second Screen Use and Its Effect on Online Political
Participation. Journal of Communication, 65(5), 793–815.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12174
Marinelli, A., & Andò, R. (2014). Multiscreening and Social TV. Convergent Television(s),
3(6), 24. https://doi.org/10.18146/2213-0969.2014.jethc067
Nhedzi, A. (2019). The media of Consumption and the Consumption of time: How a
consumer in fast-paced economy use traditional and new media tools. Observatorio
(OBS*), 13(2). https://doi.org/10.15847/obsobs13220191345
Segijn, C. M., & Voorveld, H. A. (2017). How Related Multiscreening Could Positively
Affect Advertising Outcomes. Journal of Advertising, 46(4), 455–472.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1372233
Television Advertising in the Multiscreen and Multitasking Age: Does it Work for
Millennials? (2020). Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie), 60(1).
https://doi.org/10.13187/me.2020.1.154
Wang, Z., Irwin, M., Cooper, C., & Srivastava, J. (2014). Multidimensions of Media
Multitasking and Adaptive Media Selection. Human Communication Research, 41(1), 102–
127. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12042
Reynolds, C. (2014). The future of multiscreen sports broadcasting. Journal of Mass
Communication & Journalism, 04(07). https://doi.org/10.4172/2165-7912.s1.003
Voorveld, H. A. (2011). Media multitasking and the effectiveness of combining online and
radio advertising. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2200–2206.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.06.016
Brumby, D. P., & du Toit, H. (2014). Working with the television on. CHI ’14 Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2581210
Jeong, S. H., & Hwang, Y. (2012). Does Multitasking Increase or Decrease Persuasion?
Effects of Multitasking on Comprehension and Counterarguing. Journal of
Communication, 62(4), 571–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01659.x
Kätsyri, J., & Kinnunen, T. (2016). Negativity Bias in Media Multitasking: The Effects of
Negative Social Media Messages on Attention to Television News Broadcasts. PLOS ONE,
11(5), e0153712. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153712
Segijn, C. M., & Araujo, T. (2020). Related Multi screening as a Strategy to Retain
Audiences and Increase Persuasion During a Commercial Break. Journal of Broadcasting
& Electronic Media, 64(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1718962
Adler, Rachel F., and Raquel Benbunan-Fich (2015), “The Effects of Task Difficulty and
Multitasking on Performance,” Interacting with Computers, 27 (4), 430–39.
John R. Rossiter, Anika Schweda, and Duane Varan (2012), “How Coviewing Reduces the
Effectiveness of TV Advertising,” Journal of Marketing Communications, 18 (5), 363–78.