"60 000 times faster than text" ... Really?
1:45 PMI just got an email from Alan Levine. He's sniffing around for the origin of the quote many folks have often used, myself included, that we process visual information 60 000 times faster than text.
Here's what Alan said:
I need your help. I have found an assertion repeated on thousands of web
sites, and repeated so often that it is cited as a fact, yet I have
tried and tried and have been unable to locate the actual source of this
claim:
Research at 3M Corporation concluded that we process visuals 60000 times faster than text.
In the interest of dogged pursuit, information literacy, and all that we value as scholarship (okay I am laying it on)- can you help me find the answer? Or spread to someone who can?
Here's what I found ...
I started with the search engine millionshort.com by eliminating the first million hits from Google I circumvented the lions share of SEO (Search Engine Optimized) sites and took a first stab at the deeper web.
The 6th & 7th link struck me as worth following, the 7th link included a citation “The Power of Color in Presentations:”. (http://www.sspweb.com/SSP/visual_lit/VisualLitOnline.pdf) I thought the inclusion of a colon here was odd, probably someone doing a quick "cut & paste". I followed the link to a middle school student's paper. In the bibliography she cites a presentation by Ian Jukes. (Not the one I've included in that link. Its a pdf; page 8.) I first heard the "60 000 times faster than text" claim from him several years back in St. Louis at a workshop for administrators.
One more comment about that student's paper, look at where it's hosted; www.sspweb.com. Looks like a software solutions company. Why would a Middle School kid's paper be there? I did a little digging (go look at their About page). I suspect it's likely her teacher's website.
The link to the Ian Jukes reference is dead, I tried several ways of getting at it but didn't work too hard as I really wanted another source although he might have included some bibliographical info in there somewhere I suppose.
Another search and I found the 3M web page for "The Power of Color in Presentations":
http://www.3rd-force.org/meetingnetwork/readingroom/meetingguide_power_color.html
There is no mention of the "60 000 times faster than text" research.
I did another regular Google Search for:
3m “The Power of Color in Presentations”
(quotes included; I removed the colon)
I found a link to a Google Books search:
In the book "They Snooze You Lose" by Lynell Burmark she cites the source as:
http://www.presentations.com/deliver/audience/1998/05/13_fl_psy_01.html
I looked up the link, which was dead, but the date (May 1998) struck me.
A custom Google Search for dates between 1 Jan 1900 and 31 Dec 1998 lead me to what I thought was the original presentation at 3M where I found this quote (below) in the transcript of a presentation given by Jenn Manalo, Sr. Product Specialist, 3M Corp. This talk was given at St. Louis College Valenzuela on 31 Aug 1998 (I used my browsers "find" command to search for the number 60 and five clicks of "next").
"Humans can process an outstanding amount of visual information. Actually, we can process at 60,000 times faster than text."
Looking up that specific quote using each of the different options at millionshort or a regular Google search returns one result; that very same web page.
Now, let's look up Jenn Manalo, Sr. Product Specialist, 3M Corp.
No fruitful results from pipl.com or linkedin.com or anywhere really. I found several Jenn Manalos in the Philippines. I suspect Jenn is Filipino because she uses two Tagalog words in her talk "matandang mayamang" (old rich) and the url from the archive of her talk has a Philippines root (.ph). Also, St. Louis College is in Valenzuela, Philippines. None of the LinkedIn profiles I found have a Jenn Manalo ever working at 3M.
Lastly I used the "site" command and Googled:
site:http://www.3m.com Jenn Manalo
Nothing.
So it seems Jenn said it; maybe even said it first. (Her talk is dated 31 Aug 1998 and the date embedded in the link from the citation in Lynell Burmark's book points to May 1998 ... there's more work to be done here.) She said "research shows …" a number of times in her archived talk but did not say so for the "60 000 times faster than text" fact; although it is in quotation marks as though she's quoting another source. (Then again, it might be the redactor quoting Jenn.) She may have worked for 3M in the late 1990's and she gave a talk on effective presentations at St. Louis College in Valenzuela, Philippines.
| Learning Pyramid (Photo credit: dkuropatwa) |
It's worth noting that Jenn alluded to someone else saying the "60 000 times" fact and, although she may have been employed by 3M, she didn't say the research was done by 3M.
All this reminds me of the Learning Pyramid hoax and another time I was "awarded" a Top 100? blog.
Good luck with the search Alan. I can't wait to learn what more you find. ;-)
UPDATE: Getting Closer
I realized I hadn't limited my original Google Search to the 1 Jan 1900 - 31 Dec 1998 time frame. So I went back and did that.
First hit was this pdf: Read 180 Aligned to No Child Left Behind hosted at scholastic.com (a subsidiary of the McGraw Hill publishing company). The research collected here is in support of their Read 180 literacy product. Direct from the pdf:
Media Researchers have found that humans process visual information 60,000 times faster than text, and visual aids can improve learning by up to 400 percent (Burmark, 2004).
I looked into Burmark … actually, I had already started that above. She's the author of You Snooze You Lose I mentioned previously. She apparently mentioned this same "fact" in her 2004 Book, Visual Literacy: Learn to See, See to Learn. In this pdf advertisement for the book she writes: "According to research from 3M Corporation, we process visuals 60,000 times faster than text."
We've already been down that road.
I'm not closer to the source of the research; I'm closer to saying it's an academic legend of the same sort as the Learning Pyramid hoax.
UPDATE: 14 July 2012
Still scratching away at this. I came across the "Pictorial Superiority Effect." These are the results of my digging around:
"Combining pictures with print or audio generally maximizes learning."
Still nothing about "60 000 times faster than text".



19 comments
1. Thanks for making me take out a slide I use.
ReplyDelete2. This is well done.
3. I hate you for making me take out that slide.
4. We need more work/posts like this.
@Alan, you know I was never in it for the money; you had me at "I need". ;-)And, FWIW, my knowledge of Tagalog was really just a Google Translate search. I recognized the Tagalog because I used to have many Filipino students in my classes.
ReplyDelete@Dean
1. You're welcome.
2. Thanks.
3. I feel the same way about it.
4. See #3 above.
Wow! This is exhaustive and I LOVE that it keeps coming back to 3M. Can't wait to see what happens with this investigation...
ReplyDeleteI want to be just like you when I grow up, Darren. You're truly awesome at stick-to-it-ness.
ReplyDeleteYep--it's a myth just like the learning pyramid and the promise of NCLB. Great work digging this far, Darren. Now I really, really have to know if Alan hears anything from the supposed source. I will lose sleep over this.
ReplyDeleteDarren,
ReplyDeleteI'm doing a media literacy workshop for teachers for Virginia's DOE on July 18 and love the timeliness of this! What a great example of critical thinking- and global collaboration/helpfulness. You are awesome, my man, but then you already knew I think you're brilliant! Thanks for always sharing your work and thinking!
Paula
I believe that many people are more Visual than Auditory, this article indeed showed how fast we process things. Possible or impossible it may seem, as of this moment, I am amenable on this work of Alan. Thanks to you Sir!
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I wonder how they come up with these statistics.
ReplyDelete@Diana I love that clip from David's TED Talk. If you can get the source that might help some. I'm fairly convinced the "60 000 times faster than text" bit is not likely to be supported. Lately I've been talking more about the Pictorial Superiority Effect. John Medina mentions this too in Brain Rules.
ReplyDeletethank you. you turned me on to millionshort and stopped me from proliferating this misconception in my own book.
ReplyDelete@Gene That's great news, on both counts!
ReplyDeleteAnything we can do to clear the air around this myth is a step in the right direction. ;-)
I would like to know more about the statistics on this one but great stuff.
ReplyDeleteInteresting!!!
ReplyDeleteI also found another citation to the quote here:
http://www.ipadartroom.com/what-the-arts-really-teach-our-kids/
cites Kranzler (1999) 3M Corporation.
Hope this helps!
Will check back to see how it unfolds :)
I wish I could help this work along but I just wanted to say that your research process is impressive and inspirational -- it has really motivated me to "step up" my skills in this area. Thanks so much for sharing!
ReplyDeleteYou are an investigative genius. I am very impressed. Can't wait to see what turns up because I have also seen this quoted as fact.
ReplyDeleteGood luck!
Brendon
Here is a PDF to a 3M presentation piece that references the stat....I think? Please check this out folks and see if it looks legit....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.3rd-force.org/meetingnetwork/files/meetingguide_pres.pdf
@Matthew The PDF you linked to makes the "60 000x" claim but cites no source. Looks like Alan gets to hang on to his $60.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for this. I did plan to quote this line in my book and couldn't find the evidence. Now taking it out. But - I might just do a case study about it... well done!
ReplyDeleteI notice that many people in these comments are using the word "text." Strictly speaking, "text" is visual information, and would be subject to the (obviously false) claim of '60,000x faster.' The best way to state this claim would be along the lines of "we process visual information X times faster than auditory information."
ReplyDeleteI spent some time researching this based on the difference in the speed of sound (speech) and the speed of light (visual info or "thought" moving at the speed of electricity). While the absolute speeds are quite different (hundreds of thousands times faster for light), the net effect on thought (processing) is expressed in nanoseconds or milliseconds. We process spoken language just about as fast as it is spoken, and I daresay that the difference in a classroom is negligible when a teacher has to speak to a group of children with a range of attention spans.
Another problem with the supposed superiority of the "visual" lies in the "picture is worth 1000 words" idea— people do not all process visual information the same, so it needs to be explained, contextualized and dwelt upon, just like spoken words do.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.