From this study, these conclusions are warranted: 1. The majority of scales used in this study changed meaning according to the medium of presentation and/or the instrument of measurement. 2. Through comparison of factor analyses, scales can be selected which are relatively stable in their meaning across media being judged and measuring instruments. 3. The verbal media generally score higher than the pictorial media on scales measuring structure. The spoken media generally score higher than the written. 4. A picture generally scores higher in aesthetic evaluation than a verbal description of a picture. A spoken description scores higher than a written one. 5. Media relate to one another differently on different dimensions of judgment. In the two dimensions found here, the written was most like the pictorial in the structure factor; the spoken was most like the pictorial in the aesthetic evaluation factor. 6. Messages which evoke a given response when presented through a given medium will not necessarily evoke that response when presented through a different medium. 7. Latency scores for subsequent responses concerning a spoken presentation will be lower than for responses concerning a written presentation.