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

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.

Development and implementation of a mobile device-based pediatric electronic decision support tool as part of a national practice standardization project

“…We also incorporated visual aids into the new tool’s interface that depicted the risk of bacterial infection pictographically (Figure 2A). Our choice of elements was based upon previous studies reporting that human figure pictographs are easily understood by most users, regardless of numeracy 25 , 26 …”

Reaping the Benefits and Avoiding the Risks: Unrealistic Optimism in the Health Domain

“…Another factor that might mitigate participants’ unrealistic optimism in the health domain is numeracy. A growing line of research has focused on the link between risk perception and numeracy, especially in the medical domain (Dieckmann, Slovic, & Peters, ; Gigerenzer, Gaissmaier, Kurz‐Milcke, Schwartz, & Woloshin, ; Kreuzmair, Siegrist, & Keller, ; Rolison, Morsanyi, & O'Connor, ). Numeracy is generally understood as the capacity to comprehend and process numerical information (Reyna, Nelson, Han, & Dieckmann, ), as well as the ability to judge risk magnitude, compare risks, and estimate risk–benefit tradeoffs.…”

Probability Size Matters: The Effect of Foreground‐Only versus Foreground+Background Graphs on Risk Aversion Diminishes with Larger Probabilities

“…In this condition, the foreground‐only display depicted the probability as a single circle representing one person affected with the disease, which participants may have found strange or confusing. To clarify that each icon represents one person and to conform with recent recommendations (Kreuzmair, Siegrist, & Keller, ; Zikmund‐Fisher et al., ), Experiment 2 replaced circles with stick figures.…”