Specific comparisons revealed that prezi presentations were significantly more influential than control presentations, exact p = 0003, marginally more influential than oral presentations, exact p = . In your presentation, you will need to argue that accepting i-mart’s offer is in [company x]’s strategic interests, and address any concerns they may have about how accepting the offer might affect their corporate a participant in this study, your primary job today is to prepare and then deliver this presentation.
The only thing we care about is whether the audio and video were recorded y, please keep in mind that because these videos were recorded through skype, even the best recordings are not very high judge participants then watched a presentation video (selected at random), rated the quality of its audio and video (on a five-level scale from “very bad” to “very good”), and indicated whether or not there were “any major technical problems with the presentations audio or video”; those who reported major technical problems were asked to identify address any possibility of experimenter bias—which seemed unlikely, given that we designed the procedure from the outset to guard against such effects—we conducted a series of presentation format (prezi, powerpoint, oral) x quality judgment (inclusion, exclusion) anovas to test 1) whether audiovisual quality was for any reason confounded with presentation format (i. Guadagno, sundie, hardison, and cialdini  argue that we heuristically use a presentation’s format to evaluate its content, particularly when we lack the expertise to evaluate the content on its merits.
For the oral presentations, these were simply audiovisual recordings of the the 146 presenter participants from experiment 1, 33 either did not consent to being video-recorded or were not recorded due to technical difficulties. When we say powerpoint presentations, we mean presentations that were made using microsoft powerpoint, not other software such as apple's keynote.
We recruited only a small minority (8%) of presenters based on their prior association with prezi, and used the most conservative exclusion criteria feasible: only individuals without any experience with prezi or powerpoint were excluded from participating. For prezi and powerpoint presentations, these were split-screen videos showing the presenter on one side of the screen and the visuals on the other side.
Bean  offers a particularly compelling analysis of powerpoint and prezi’s histories, user interfaces, and visual metaphors, and argues that prezi is the optimal tool for presenting certain types of information (e. In addition, at the end of each session audience participants rank-ordered each type of presentation on the same dimensions used for the ratings.
We therefore had a pool of 113 presentation videos to use for experiment 2: 41 from the prezi condition (out of a possible 50), 40 from the powerpoint condition (out of possible 49), and 32 from the oral presentation condition (out of a possible 47). By requiring one to organize the whole presentation on a single canvas instead of a slide deck, therefore, prezi may prompt presenters (and their audiences) to connect component ideas with each other, contextualize them in a larger narrative, and remember, understand, and appreciate this larger narrative.
Table 7 presents full descriptive and inference statistics for all self-reported measures of prior experience with and preexisting beliefs about prezi, powerpoint, and oral presentations. In fact, both sets of participants entered the research with biases against prezi, not for prezi: they reported more experience with powerpoint and oral presentations than prezi, and perceived powerpoint and oral presentations as more (not less) efficacious than prezi.
By encouraging users to visualize and process information spatially, zuis such as prezi may confer an advantage over traditional tools such as powerpoint that do not encourage such visuospatial integration. The main effect of presentation format), 2) whether the excluded videos were indeed lower quality than the included videos (i.
To be certain that the differing number of presentations per session did not somehow bias the results even after adopting these measures, we also conducted an analysis on the subset of sessions that had exactly three , the number of audience participants per session ranged from one to six. In each set we manipulated a key dimension of prezi effectiveness, according to its designers: the use of zooming, the connection of ideas, and the use of visual ter participants were tested in person at the harvard decision science lab, and randomly assigned to one of the three groups: prezi, powerpoint, or oral presentation.
All else being equal, are powerpoint presentations better than purely oral presentations or those that use alternative software tools? Does a high tech (computerized, animated, powerpoint) presentation increase retention of material compared to a low tech (black on clear overheads) presentation?
We not only conclude that audiences prefer prezi over powerpoint presentations, but also conclude that their preference is rooted in an intrinsic attribute of zuis: panning and zooming animations. Take a look at the prezi below to see the results, or continue reading to learn tation skills are the key to success in the modern many business professionals, public speaking, whether in the form of a sales pitch or an executive update, is an essential skill.
To these numbers, powerpoint was rated no better than verbal presentations with no visuals at tations are often responsible for closing deals, sparking partnerships, and helping sustain connections with clients. In other words, presentation format was not confounded with audiovisual quality, our judgments of quality corresponded to those of blind judges, and our exclusion of videos was unrelated to presentation ipants completed the experiment entirely online through qualtrics.
Because zuis are defined by their panning and zooming animations—and animation is an ancillary (and frequently misused) feature of slideware—the most parsimonious explanation for the present results is in terms of zuis and slideware in general, not prezi and powerpoint in particular. Participants’ judgments about the media attributes of presentations did, therefore, relate to their overall assessments of the presenters and g across powerpoint and prezi presentations, the modal participant indicated that there was the “about right” amount of text, graphs, animations, and images.
Because presentations are designed commonly both to inform and convince audiences, we examine outcome measures of learning as well as persuasion. In terms of the number of presentations watched in the last year and in their lifetime—as well as the number of years of experience—they reported more experience watching oral compared to powerpoint presentations, and more experience watching powerpoint than watching prezi presentations.
According to their study, prezi presentations are more effective than powerpoint ed to better understand the roles of “message” and “medium” in communication, the double-blind study split participants into two different groups. This seems unlikely because presenter participants were selected based only on minimal experience with both powerpoint and prezi and were assigned randomly to the experimental groups; audience participants from both experiments were selected based merely on high-speed internet access, and the words “prezi” and “powerpoint” were not used in any audience recruitment material.