Reading on LCD vs e-Ink displays: effects on fatigue and visual strain

Purpose:  Most recently light and mobile reading devices with high display resolutions have become popular and they may open new possibilities for reading applications in education, business and the private sector. The ability to adapt font size may also open new reading opportunities for people with impaired or low vision. Based on their display technology two major groups of reading devices can be distinguished. One type, predominantly found in dedicated e-book readers, uses electronic paper also known as e-Ink. Other devices, mostly multifunction tablet-PCs, are equipped with backlit LCD displays. While it has long been accepted that reading on electronic displays is slow and associated with visual fatigue, this new generation is explicitly promoted for reading. Since research has shown that, compared to reading on electronic displays, reading on paper is faster and requires fewer fixations per line, one would expect differential effects when comparing reading behaviour on e-Ink and LCD. In the present study we therefore compared experimentally how these two display types are suited for reading over an extended period of time. Methods:  Participants read for several hours on either e-Ink or LCD, and different measures of reading behaviour and visual strain were regularly recorded. These dependent measures included subjective (visual) fatigue, a letter search task, reading speed, oculomotor behaviour and the pupillary light reflex. Results:  Results suggested that reading on the two display types is very similar in terms of both subjective and objective measures. Conclusions:  It is not the technology itself, but rather the image quality that seems crucial for reading. Compared to the visual display units used in the previous few decades, these more recent electronic displays allow for good and comfortable reading, even for extended periods of time.

The Think Manager-Think Male Stereotype - Malleable or Stable?

Purpose Stereotypes about leadership still represent a potent barrier to women’s advancement to leadership roles. Successful leaders are perceived to possess predominately agentic traits (e.g., assertive, dominant) that are more similar to those ascribed to men than women. This perceived incongruity of people’s beliefs about leaders and women underlies prejudice against women leaders (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Thus, an important question is whether such stereotypical beliefs about the traits of leaders, men, and women incorporate change or stability over time. Design/Methodology To examine this question, 235 Irish business students (113 men, 122 women) rated a target group’s characteristics (men, women, middle managers) as of a specific time (50 years ago, present, 50 years into the future) on gender‐stereotypical traits. Results Following Schein’s (1973) approach, intraclass correlation coefficients estimated the extent to which the stereotype of managers was similar to that of men or women. The results showed a large, significant correlation between the stereotypes about men and managers within each time condition and overall. In contrast, the women‐manager correlation was negative and nonsignificant overall. However, this negative correlation weakened from the past to the present and became positive and marginally significant for the future. Research/Practical Implications Altogether the results suggest that people perceive stereotypes about leaders to be more similar to men than to women. These perceptions may continue to function as impediments to women leaders’ advancement despite the trend over time toward femalemanager similarity. Originality/Value To our knowledge this is the first study to systematically test perceptions of change in the think manager‐think male stereotype overtime.