↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the Emotional Impact of Warning Images on Young Adult Smokers and Susceptible Non-Smokers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Health Communication, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Evaluating the Emotional Impact of Warning Images on Young Adult Smokers and Susceptible Non-Smokers
Published in
Journal of Health Communication, February 2018
DOI 10.1080/10810730.2018.1440332
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

On-pack tobacco warnings typically feature long-term health risks, which many young adults rationalize or reject. We examined the emotions generated by more proximal warnings to see if we could identify common features among the most effective warnings. Respondents in a sample of 474 smokers and 476 susceptible non-smokers used a modified Geneva Emotion Wheel (GEW) to assess cigarette packs displaying 12 test warnings and one current warning. The strongest emotions aroused in smokers were disgust, disappointment, and regret. Three warnings showing the effect of smoking on babies and animals had significantly higher emotional potency scores than a current health warning. Among susceptible non-smokers, warnings showing harm to animals, child labor, and a dying smoker had the highest emotional potency. Stronger negative emotions were elicited from both smokers and susceptible non-smokers by warnings that featured more proximal outcomes than are typically shown in on-pack tobacco warnings. On-pack warnings that resonate with young people, the group most at risk of smoking and most likely to benefit from quitting, could promote cessation and deter initiation more effectively than warnings depicting long-term health outcomes. The GEW could be used to screen potential warning images to identify those most likely to be worth evaluating.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 3%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 27 47%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 21%
Psychology 5 9%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 31 53%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,570,385
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Health Communication
#136
of 1,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,036
of 331,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Health Communication
#4
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,318 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,052 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.