Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
We sought to identify icons to effectively communicate health harms of chemicals in cigarette smoke. Participants were a convenience sample of 701 U.S. adults. A within-subjects online experiment explored the effects of icon semiotic type: symbolic (arbitrary, most abstract), indexical, and iconic (representative, most concrete). Outcomes were perceived representation, affect toward smoking, elaboration, perceived severity, and perceived effectiveness. For not-easy-to-visualize harms of cancer and addiction, symbolic icons received the highest ratings (all p < .001). For easy-to-visualize symptoms of heart attack/stroke, indexical icons received the highest ratings (all p < .001). For easy-to-visualize harm of reproductive organ damage, the iconic image did best (all p < .001). Icon type often had a larger impact among participants with higher health literacy. Symbolic icons may be most effective for health effects not easily visualized. Iconic or indexical icons may be more effective for health effects attributable to specific body parts or symptoms.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Andrews, J. C., Netemeyer, R. G., Kees, J., & Burton, S. (2014). How graphic visual health earnings affect young smokers’ thoughts of quitting. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 165–183. CrossRef
Baig, S. A., Noar, S. M., Ribisl, K. M., & Brewer, N. T. (2017). UNC perceived effectiveness scale: Psychometric properties among a large sample of adult smokers and non-smokers (Working paper)
Boynton, M. H., Agans, R. P., Bowling, J. M., Brewer, N. T., Sutfin, E. L., Goldstein, A. O., et al. (2016). Understanding how perceptions of tobacco constituents and the FDA relate to effective and credible tobacco risk messaging: A national phone survey of U.S. adults, 2014–2015. BMC Public Health, 16, 1–13. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3151-5 CrossRef
Brewer, N. T., Hall, M. G., Noar, S. M., Parada, H., Stein-Seroussi, A., Bach, L. E., et al. (2016). Effect of pictorial cigarette pack warnings on changes in smoking behavior: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, 176, 905–912. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2621 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156–2160. CrossRef
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Fact sheets: Smoking and tobacco use. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Behavioral risk factor surveillance system questionnaire. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/questionnaires/pdf-ques/2013brfss_english.pdf
111th Congress of the United States of America. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Public Law 111–31, 123 Statute 1776. June 22, 2009.
Evans, A. T., Peters, E., Strasser, A. A., Emery, L. F., Sheerin, K. M., & Romer, D. (2015). Graphic warning labels elicit affective and thoughtful responses from smokers: Results of a randomized clinical trial. PLoS ONE, 10, e0142879. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142879 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Fathelrahman, A. I., Omar, M., Awang, R., Cummings, K. M., Borland, R., & Samin, A. S. B. M. (2010). Impact of the new Malaysian cigarette pack warnings on smokers’ awareness of health risks and interest in quitting smoking. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7, 4089–4099. doi: 10.3390/ijerph7114089 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Green, M. J., & Myers, K. R. (2010). Graphic medicine: Use of comics in medical education and patient care. British Medical Journal, 340, 574–577. CrossRef
Hoffmann, D., & Hoffmann, I. (2001). The changing cigarette: Chemical studies and bioassays. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph, 13, 159–192.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
McCloud, S. (1993). Understanding comics: The invisible art. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers Inc.
Messaris, P. (1997). Visual persuasion: The role of images in advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moracco, K. E., Morgan, J. C., Mendel, J., Teal, R., Noar, S. M., Ribisl, K. M., et al. (2016). “My first thought was croutons”: Perceptions of cigarettes and cigarette smoke constituents among adult smokers and nonsmokers. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 18, 1566–1574. CrossRef
Moriarty, S. (2002). The symbiotics of semiotics and visual communication. Journal of Visual Literacy, 22, 19–28. CrossRef
Peirce, C. S. (1991). Peirce on signs: Writing on semiotic. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Rodgman, A., & Perfetti, T. A. (2013). The chemical components of tobacco and tobacco smoke. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. CrossRef
Stevens, J. P. (2007). Intermediate statistics: A modern approach (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
United States Department of Health Human Services. (2014). The health consequences of smoking— 50 years of progress: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/exec-summary.pdf
United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). Nicotine addiction and your health. Retrieved from http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov/health-effects/nicotine-health/
United States Food and Drug Administration. (2012). Harmful and potentially harmful constituents in tobacco products and tobacco smoke: Established list. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm297786.htm
Wayne, G. F., & Carpenter, C. M. (2009). Tobacco industry manipulation of nicotine dosing Nicotine. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 192, 457–485.
- Icons for health effects of cigarette smoke: a test of semiotic type
Allison J. Lazard
M. Justin Byron
Marcella H. Boynton
Noel T. Brewer
- Springer US