IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i3p546-556.html

Does Iconicity in Pictographs Matter? The Influence of Iconicity and Numeracy on Information Processing, Decision Making, and Liking in an Eye‐Tracking Study

Author

Listed:
  • Christina Kreuzmair
  • Michael Siegrist
  • Carmen Keller

Abstract

Researchers recommend the use of pictographs in medical risk communication to improve people's risk comprehension and decision making. However, it is not yet clear whether the iconicity used in pictographs to convey risk information influences individuals’ information processing and comprehension. In an eye‐tracking experiment with participants from the general population (N = 188), we examined whether specific types of pictograph icons influence the processing strategy viewers use to extract numerical information. In addition, we examined the effect of iconicity and numeracy on probability estimation, recall, and icon liking. This experiment used a 2 (iconicity: blocks vs. restroom icons) × 2 (scenario: medical vs. nonmedical) between‐subject design. Numeracy had a significant effect on information processing strategy, but we found no effect of iconicity or scenario. Results indicated that both icon types enabled high and low numerates to use their default way of processing and extracting the gist of the message from the pictorial risk communication format: high numerates counted icons, whereas low numerates used large‐area processing. There was no effect of iconicity in the probability estimation. However, people who saw restroom icons had a higher probability of correctly recalling the exact risk level. Iconicity had no effect on icon liking. Although the effects are small, our findings suggest that person‐like restroom icons in pictographs seem to have some advantages for risk communication. Specifically, in nonpersonalized prevention brochures, person‐like restroom icons may maintain reader motivation for processing the risk information.

Suggested Citation

  • Christina Kreuzmair & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2017. "Does Iconicity in Pictographs Matter? The Influence of Iconicity and Numeracy on Information Processing, Decision Making, and Liking in an Eye‐Tracking Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 546-556, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:3:p:546-556
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12623
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12623
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12623?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Holly O. Witteman & Mark Dickson & Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis & Valerie C. Kahn & Nicole L. Exe & Melissa Valerio & Lisa G. Holtzman & Laura D. Scherer & Angela Fagerlin, 2014. "Blocks, Ovals, or People? Icon Type Affects Risk Perceptions and Recall of Pictographs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(4), pages 443-453, May.
    2. Nina Horstmann & Andrea Ahlgrimm & Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "How Distinct are Intuition and Deliberation? An Eye-Tracking Analysis of Instruction-Induced Decision Modes," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2009_10, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    3. Daniel A. Hamstra & Skyler B. Johnson & Stephanie Daignault & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Jeremy M. G. Taylor & Knoll Larkin & Alexander Wood & Angela Fagerlin, 2015. "The Impact of Numeracy on Verbatim Knowledge of the Longitudinal Risk for Prostate Cancer Recurrence following Radiation Therapy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 27-36, January.
    4. Deb Feldman-Stewart & Michael D. Brundage & Vladimir Zotov, 2007. "Further Insight into the Perception of Quantitative Information: Judgments of Gist in Treatment Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(1), pages 34-43, January.
    5. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    6. Rocio Garcia-Retamero & Mirta Galesic & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2010. "Do Icon Arrays Help Reduce Denominator Neglect?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(6), pages 672-684, November.
    7. Rebecca Hess & Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2011. "Risk communication with pictographs: The role of numeracy and graph processing," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(3), pages 263-274, April.
    8. Carmen Keller & Christina Kreuzmair & Rebecca Leins-Hess & Michael Siegrist, 2014. "Numeric and graphic risk information processing of high and low numerates in the intuitive and deliberative decision modes: An eye-tracker study," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 420-432, September.
    9. Angela Fagerlin & Catharine Wang & Peter A. Ubel, 2005. "Reducing the Influence of Anecdotal Reasoning on People’s Health Care Decisions: Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Statistics?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(4), pages 398-405, July.
    10. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Galesic, Mirta, 2010. "Who proficts from visual aids: Overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1019-1025, April.
    11. Nina Horstmann & Andrea Ahlgrimm & Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "How distinct are intuition and deliberation? An eye-tracking analysis of instruction-induced decision modes," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(5), pages 335-354, August.
    12. Isaac M. Lipkus & Greg Samsa & Barbara K. Rimer, 2001. "General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 37-44, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ian G. J. Dawson, 2018. "Assessing the Effects of Information About Global Population Growth on Risk Perceptions and Support for Mitigation and Prevention Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2222-2241, October.
    2. Yasmina Okan & Eric R. Stone & Jonathan Parillo & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew M. Parker, 2020. "Probability Size Matters: The Effect of Foreground‐Only versus Foreground+Background Graphs on Risk Aversion Diminishes with Larger Probabilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 771-788, April.
    3. Yaniv Hanoch & Jonathan Rolison & Alexandra M. Freund, 2019. "Reaping the Benefits and Avoiding the Risks: Unrealistic Optimism in the Health Domain," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 792-804, April.
    4. Lyndal J. Trevena & Carissa Bonner & Yasmina Okan & Ellen Peters & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Elissa Ozanne & Danielle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 834-847, October.
    5. Caroline Vass & Dan Rigby & Kelly Tate & Andrew Stewart & Katherine Payne, 2018. "An Exploratory Application of Eye-Tracking Methods in a Discrete Choice Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 658-672, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christina Kreuzmair & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2016. "High Numerates Count Icons and Low Numerates Process Large Areas in Pictographs: Results of an Eye‐Tracking Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1599-1614, August.
    2. Carmen Keller & Christina Kreuzmair & Rebecca Leins-Hess & Michael Siegrist, 2014. "Numeric and graphic risk information processing of high and low numerates in the intuitive and deliberative decision modes: An eye-tracker study," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 420-432, September.
    3. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Hoffrage, Ulrich, 2013. "Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 27-33.
    4. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    5. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson & Michelle A. Luke, 2013. "Helping Individuals to Understand Synergistic Risks: An Assessment of Message Contents Depicting Mechanistic and Probabilistic Concepts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 851-865, May.
    6. Rebecca Blase & Julia Meis-Harris & Birgitta Weltermann & Simone Dohle, 2024. "Icon Arrays for Medical Risk Communication: Do Icon Type and Color Influence Cardiovascular Risk Perception and Recall?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(6), pages 661-673, August.
    7. Signe Waechter & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2017. "Decision-Making Strategies for the Choice of Energy-friendly Products," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 81-103, March.
    8. Stacie A. Bosley & Reece Thomas & George Matthew Maroney & Joseph Penders & Samantha Snyder & Sarah Greenman, 2025. "Profit-and-Loss Disclaimers and Disclosures: Testing a Regulatory Framework for Multi-level Marketing," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 133-164, June.
    9. Marie-Anne Durand & Renata W Yen & James O’Malley & Glyn Elwyn & Julien Mancini, 2020. "Graph literacy matters: Examining the association between graph literacy, health literacy, and numeracy in a Medicaid eligible population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    10. Lyndal J. Trevena & Carissa Bonner & Yasmina Okan & Ellen Peters & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Elissa Ozanne & Danielle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 834-847, October.
    11. Carmen Keller, 2011. "Using a Familiar Risk Comparison Within a Risk Ladder to Improve Risk Understanding by Low Numerates: A Study of Visual Attention," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1043-1054, July.
    12. Fuchsman, Dillon & McGee, Josh B. & Zamarro, Gema, 2023. "Teachers’ willingness to pay for retirement benefits: A national stated preferences experiment," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    13. Meißner, Martin & Oppewal, Harmen & Huber, Joel, 2020. "Surprising adaptivity to set size changes in multi-attribute repeated choice tasks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 163-175.
    14. Atanasov, Pavel & Witkowski, Jens & Ungar, Lyle & Mellers, Barbara & Tetlock, Philip, 2020. "Small steps to accuracy: Incremental belief updaters are better forecasters," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 19-35.
    15. Klein, Thomas Michael & Drobnik, Thomas & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, 2016. "Shedding light on the usability of ecosystem services–based decision support systems: An eye-tracking study linked to the cognitive probing approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 65-86.
    16. Yasmina Okan & Eric R. Stone & Jonathan Parillo & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew M. Parker, 2020. "Probability Size Matters: The Effect of Foreground‐Only versus Foreground+Background Graphs on Risk Aversion Diminishes with Larger Probabilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 771-788, April.
    17. Alicia L. Rihn & Chengyan Yue, 2016. "Visual Attention's Influence on Consumers’ Willingness‐to‐Pay for Processed Food Products," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), pages 314-328, July.
    18. Michele Garagnani, 2023. "The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 165-192, October.
    19. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., "undated". "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274040, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Zuschke, Nick, 2020. "The impact of task complexity and task motivation on in-store marketing effectiveness: An eye tracking analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 337-350.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:3:p:546-556. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.