Icons for health effects of cigarette smoke: a test of semiotic type

  • Allison J. Lazard
  • Annie Schmidt
  • Huyen Vu
  • M.  Justin Byron
  • Ellen Peters
  • Marcella H. Boynton
  • Noel T. Brewer
Article

DOI: 10.1007/s10865-017-9833-3

Cite this article as:
Lazard, A.J., Schmidt, A., Vu, H. et al. J Behav Med (2017). doi:10.1007/s10865-017-9833-3

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Icons Pictograph Warning Cigarette Health effects 

Funding information

Funder NameGrant NumberFunding Note
National Cancer Institute and FDA Center for Tobacco Products
  • 3P50CA180907-03S1

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allison J. Lazard
    • 1
  • Annie Schmidt
    • 2
  • Huyen Vu
    • 3
  • M.  Justin Byron
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ellen Peters
    • 4
  • Marcella H. Boynton
    • 2
    • 3
  • Noel T. Brewer
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Media and JournalismUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public HealthUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations