James Madison’s widely circulated quote from the beginning of a letter to W. T. Barry on August 4, 1822, asserts, “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both.” Although it directly refers to education more generally at the time, Madison’s assertion is a helpful reminder of how important the acquisition of politically relevant information is to free societies.

In News and Democratic Citizens in the Mobile Era, Johanna Dunaway and Kathleen Searles place the issue of access to political information squarely at the center of their inquiry and clearly show that access to information is not enough. Specifically, they investigate political news consumption on mobile phone technology. Their primary purpose is “to analyze how the features of platforms and devices affect individuals’ ability and willingness to pay attention to information, or what we refer to as cognitive access” (p. 65). Underlying their approach is the assumption that the way information is presented on mobile phones affects our ability to understand that information—in part because it increases cognitive demands. This creates a curious situation in which the devices with the most reach and usefulness for sharing politically relevant information are the same ones that make it more difficult to actually comprehend, or learn, that information.

Through this focus on technological change and cognition, Dunaway and Searles offer important steps forward in media effects research by noting that political learning, not just persuasion, should be central to that body of scholarship. They provide improved theories on how technology structures information and affects processing of that information post-exposure. In support of that effort, they present a physical and cognitive access (PCA) framework that suggests mobile technology can increase physical access to information while simultaneously making the cognitive acquisition of that information more difficult. Furthermore, they develop a model to help explain the effect of technology on post-exposure processing (PEP).

Another distinctive aspect of their research involves their methodology. Many of their traditional experimental designs deploy psychophysiological methods for measuring attentiveness and arousal to media messages. They use eye-tracking technology to measure the length of time spent reading news content. Similarly, pupil dilation is used to measure arousal to news information. Galvanic skin conductivity readings and heart rate variability measure arousal to news stories presented within the experiments.

The heart of the research effort lies in its central chapters, in which they propose and test five hypotheses. First, mobile internet technology expands access to information (chap. 3). Second, mobile devices reduce attention to information (chaps. 5 and 8). Third, mobile devices increase cognitive effort (chap. 7). Fourth, mobile screens reduce attention and arousal (chap. 6). And fifth, mobile devices reduce recall (chap. 7).

The data in chapter 3, which is drawn from the Pew Research Center and industry-based data sources, reveal a central claim made by the authors, which is that the breadth of the news audience for mobile internet technology is widespread but the depth of engagement varies by device. As the authors note, “Taken together, these patterns of use indicate a breadth (audience reach) versus depth (time spent on site) trade-off: breadth is better on mobile devices, and for smart phones in particular, but attention is more substantial on computers” (p. 45).

Experimental designs are later deployed to reveal some of the most compelling features of the book. Chapter 5 addresses the degree to which mobile devices reduce attention to information. Recalling that we are cognitive misers, the authors argue that information processing will be harder on smaller devices, and therefore more costly, because of the excessive scrolling and altered structuring of information. Using eye-tracking technology, the data suggest that users on tablet and mobile devices spend less time and attention on content and that attention appears constrained on such devices. More complex experiments are reported in chapter 6 that test the degree to which the findings on text content may be generalizable to video. The fourth hypothesis is tested here, using different-sized viewing windows for seven news stories. Using skin conductivity and heart rate variability measures, the authors find that “small screens tend to decrease arousal over the course of the experiment, particularly for more interesting/negative news content” (p. 81). They note that perhaps more worrisome is the fact that “interest in news diminishes on smaller screens over the course of the exposure to the story” (p. 81; emphasis added).

Perhaps one of the most practical and important findings of this research is presented in chapter 7, which reports results from measures of information recall. One of the major concerns of Dunaway and Searles’s research is the degree to which ubiquitous mobile phone technology contributes to a more informed citizenry. Results from their study do not generate significant optimism. Recall that one of their general claims is that unique features of mobile devices (e.g., small screen size) make it more difficult to consume information. These features tax cognitive resources and negatively affect learning. Chapter 7 reveals results for hypotheses 3 and 5, which expect that cognitive effort will increase with mobile phones and that recall rates, conversely, will decrease. The results indicate two things. First, tablet and smartphone users exhibit higher degrees of cognitive effort than computer users. Second, there are meaningful differences in recall that generally favor computer users over tablet and smartphone users.

The skill and innovation required to execute these studies are notable. However, there is some concern regarding issues of external validity. Dunaway and Searles are aware of this concern and provide web traffic data to bolster their results. These data here do have their limits but nevertheless help assuage more serious concerns. Other weaknesses, of which the authors are similarly aware, are the limited number of respondents in their experimental designs and the overreliance on college-age participants whose skill with mobile devices may be more advanced than that of older users. Although some may see these weaknesses as meaningful, I am doubtful they are severe limitations and tend to agree with the authors’ responses to these concerns.

Dunaway and Searles’s research in News and Democratic Citizens in the Mobile Era has significant normative and practical value. In terms of political learning these studies show that, overall, people who consume news information on a tablet or smartphone pay less attention to it, and the increased amount of cognitive effort required to access information on mobile devices leads to lower levels of recall. These conclusions result in a worrisome conundrum: the devices capable of reaching the most people seem to support learning the least.

Calling to mind Madison’s original statement on the importance of information access, Dunaway and Searles’s work raises new questions about the challenges of mobile technology for supporting an informed citizenry. Moreover, their use of new frameworks and innovative methods offer important and constructive steps toward advancing media effects research.