- Email: [email protected]
Gender Differences in Affective Response from Warning Pictorials on Cigarette Label
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect ScienceDirect
Procediaonline Computer 00 (2015) 000–000 Available at Science www.sciencedirect.com Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 435–440
8th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology, IAIT2016, 19-22 8th International ConferenceDecember on Advances in Macau, Information 2016, ChinaTechnology, IAIT2016, 19-22 December 2016, Macau, China
Gender Differences in Affective Response from Warning Gender Differences in Affective Response from Warning Pictorials on Cigarette Label Pictorials on Cigarette Label
Arisara Jiamsanguanwonga,a, *, Pat-Arin Chanduenaa, Wipawee Tharmmaphornphilasaa Arisara Jiamsanguanwong *, Pat-Arin Chanduen , Wipawee Tharmmaphornphilas a a
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
Abstract Abstract Consideration of designing an emotional warning pictorial on cigarette labels which will be used in public place, the effect from Consideration of designing an concerned. emotional warning on cigarette which will differences be used in public place, the effect from gender differences should be The aimpictorial of this study was to labels examine gender in emotional response gender should be concerned. The aim of this study was to examine gender in emotional from warningdifferences pictorials on cigarette labels. Sixty engineering students participated in this study.differences Half of them are males.response Neutral affect warning pictorials cigarette Sixtyprior engineering students participated thisasked study.toHalf thememotional are males.responses Neutral affect manipulation usingonIAPS was labels. conducted the experiments. Participants in were rateoftheir from manipulation IAPS was conducted prior the experiments. Participants to rateparticipants their emotional from sixty warning using pictorials (positive, neutral, negative). Results revealed that bothwere maleasked and female couldresponses perceive target sixty warning pictorials (positive, neutral, negative). Results that both male female participants perceive emotional affective warning pictorials, although there were revealed some differences. Maleand participants perceived could greater arousaltarget than emotional affective which warning pictorials,toalthough were some differences. Malewarning participants perceived arousal than female participants contradicts previousthere study. Implications for affective pictorial designgreater concerning gender female participants which contradicts to previous study. Implications for affective warning pictorial design concerning gender difference. difference. © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. © 2015 2017 The The Authors. Published Elsevier B.V. © Authors. Published by by B.V. committee of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Information Peer-review under responsibility of Elsevier the organizing Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Information Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology. Technology Technology. Keywords: Affective response; Emotional response; Warning pictorials; Gender differences Keywords: Affective response; Emotional response; Warning pictorials; Gender differences
Introduction Introduction About 5.8 trillion cigarettes were smoked worldwide in 2014, cigarette consumption was still on the rise1. About 5.8 trillion cigarettes worldwide 2014, cigarette consumption was still on 2the rise1. . While, Globally, nearly a third of menwere agessmoked 15 years or older,in around 820 million people, were smokers 2 3 . While, Globally, nearly third ofdaily mensmokers ages 15 years or were older, around 820 million were smokers . However, therepeople, was a significant smoking rate approximately 176a million worldwide women approximately 176 million daily smokers worldwide were women3. However, there was a significant smoking rate
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +66-2218-6429; fax: +66-2218-6413. * Corresponding Tel.: +66-2218-6429; fax: +66-2218-6413. E-mail address:author. [email protected] E-mail address: [email protected] 1877-0509 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review the organizing committee 1877-0509 ©under 2015responsibility The Authors. of Published by Elsevier B.V. of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology.
1877-0509 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology 10.1016/j.procs.2017.06.045
Arisara Jiamsanguanwong et al. / Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 435–440 Arisara Jiamsanguanwonga et al / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000
436
reduction in the United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil, and other countries that progressively implemented tight tobacco control laws4. One of them was the regulation of using warning pictorials on cigarette labels. The warning pictorials on cigarette labels were used as a communication tool to inform people to appreciate potential hazards5. While there was a study reported that people’s affective states has an influence on hazard perception from warning pictorials6. Their results indicated that people, only male subjects, who was in positive affective states perceived greater hazard level from standard industrial warning pictorials than those who was in neutral and negative affective states. In this study, affective includes feelings, emotions, and moods7. This finding has emphasized that emotion may play a crucial role in human information processing from warning pictorials. Besides from the fact that there are some differences between genders in the processes of sending and receiving of emotion8, which depend on factors as culture, context of situation, and socialized etc.9. Walter11 found that women showed their tears more often as five times over than men, or women could perceive greater negative affect than men12. Some researchers found that women had reported their experienced emotions of sadness and fear more frequently and intensely than men13. Thus, it was hypothesized that women could perceive greater negative affect from the negative warning pictorials than men. On the other hand, In general, man has a better control for their emotional expression than women10. Some studied revealed that men tend to report more intense feeling of angry14 and tend to be more aggressive than women15. While, some study found that men perceived positive affect from environment greater than women16. Thus, we hypothesized that men would perceive greater positive affect from the warning pictorials than women. Consideration of designing an emotional warning pictorial on cigarette labels which will be used in public place, the effect from gender differences should be concerned. If man and woman perceive emotion differently from warning pictorials, this may influence their hazard perception from warning pictorials regarding to the result from previous study of Jiamsanguanwong and Umemuro6. The issues of gender differences in emotional response from warning pictorials on cigarette label would be worth investigated. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the gender differences in affective response from warning pictorial on cigarette label. Implication of present study would support designers of warning pictorials on cigarette label concerning of gender differences in affective responses from their warning pictorials. 2.
Methods
2.1. Participants Sixty Thai undergraduate and graduate engineering students participated in this study. Half of them are males. Their age ranged from 20 to 28 years (M = 21.27, SD = 1.89) for male, and 20 to 30 years (M = 22.4, SD = 2.08) for female. 2.2. Stimulus material 2.2.1. Affective picture stimuli Twenty International Affective Picture System (IAPS) pictures were selected based on standard valence rating score as neutral affect stimulus17. Ten IAPS pictures rating for males were selected: valence scores ranged from 4.05 to 5.19 (M = 4.56, SD = 1.54) and arousal scores ranged from 4.10 to 5.00 (M = 4.56, SD = 2.02). Ten IAPS pictures rating for females were selected: valence scores ranged from 4.38 to 4.64 (M = 4.51, SD = 1.43) and arousal scores ranged from 2.59 to 5.44 (M = 3.85, SD = 2.02). The valence rating ranged from 1: unpleasantness, to 9: pleasant, and arousal rating ranged from 1: calm, to 9: excited. For ethical reasons, pictures of mutilated and erotic imagery were excluded. 2.2.2. Warning Pictorials Sixty warning pictorials were collected from free sources as Thai health18, and Tobacco Labelling Regulations19 based on the ideas generated from survey and brainstorming for the possible warning pictorials on cigarette label.
Arisara Jiamsanguanwong et al. / Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 435–440 Arisara Jiamsanguanwonga,et al/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000
437 3
Then, all pictorials were primary classified into affective warning pictorial groups; positive, neutral, and negative (20 pictorials each). 2.3. Apparatus The experiments were conducted at 6 x 4 m. private laboratory room. Microsoft PowerPoint and 65 inch 4K ultra HD television were used for presenting stimulus in this study. 2.4. Measurement The Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM)20 was used to assess valence and arousal affective states of participants by asking them to rate their affective states at that moment (see in figure1). Valence scale ranges from 1: unpleasant to 9: pleasant with 5 as neutral. Arousal scale ranges from 1: calm to 9: excited. 2.5. Procedure Participants were limited as a maximum of five persons per session with separate gender. Prior to begin, participants were explained an instruction and objective, and informed that they will be manipulated their emotions. Then, they were asked to read and sign a consent form. Firstly, participants were asked to complete SAM I to rate their emotional state after viewing all 10 neutral IAPS pictures which presented for 6 s each, with a 2-s interval between pictures for affect manipulation. Then, they were explained instructions with an example, a pictorial for practice. All sixty warning pictorials were randomly presented for 20 s, with 10-s interval between pictures. Participants were asked to immediately complete SAM II to rate their emotional valence and arousal responses to each warning pictorials. 3. Results 3.1. Affect manipulation For SAM I, results revealed that participants achieved target neutral affective states. Male participants rated their valence score from 3 to 6 (M = 4.53, SD = 0.97) and arousal score ranged from 1 to 7 (M = 3.47, SD = 1.63). Females participants rated their valence score from 3 to 6 (M = 4.80, SD = 0.81) and arousal score ranged from 1 to 6 (M = 2.73, SD = 1.39). For affect manipulation, the results of univariate analysis of variance of gender on valence and arousal scores showed that there were no significant differences between genders on both valence (F (1, 1.07) = 1.34, p < .05) and arousal score (F (1, 8.07) = 3.516, p < .05). 3.2. Emotional response The descriptive statistics of emotional response of genders and warning pictorial groups on valence and arousal scores were shown in table 1. Wilk’s Lambda Multivariance Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) examined the differences of emotional response in genders and affective warning pictorial groups on valence and arousal score (SAM II). There were significant differences in main effects of gender F (2, 3593) = 88.196, p < .001) and affective warning pictorial groups (F (4, 7188) = 1646.832, p < .001). Also, the interaction between gender and affective warning pictorial groups showed significant results (F (4, 7186) = 3.966, p < .05).
Arisara Jiamsanguanwong et al. / Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 435–440 Arisara Jiamsanguanwonga et al / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000
438
Fig. 1. The Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM): valence (top panel), and arousal (bottom panel)
*
*
*
*
*
* *
(a)
**
**
**
*
*
*
* *
*<.05, **<.001
*<.05, **<.001
(b)
Fig. 2. Emotional response between gender and affective warning pictorial groups (a) Valence score (b) Arousal score
Table 1. Descriptive statistic (Max, Min, Mean, and Standard deviation) of gender and warning pictorial groups on valence and arousal scores. Emotional response testing Gender
Male (30)
Female (30)
Warning Pictorial Groups
Max
Min
x̄ (SD)
Max
Min
x̄ (SD)
Positive
6.87
6.71
6.79 (1.06)
3.97
3.69
3.83 (1.78)
Neutral
4.56
4.38
4.47 (1.14)
4.08
3.79
3.94 (1.80)
Negative
2.74
2.56
2.65 (1.11)
5.86
5.56
5.71 (1.85)
Positive
6.79
6.61
6.70 (1.13)
3.29
3.01
3.15 (1.77)
Neutral
4.62
4.45
4.53 (1.03)
3.04
2.78
2.91 (1.67)
Negative
2.53
2.34
2.44 (1.21)
5.25
4.90
5.07 (2.18)
Valence score
Arousal score
Arisara Jiamsanguanwong et al. / Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 435–440 Arisara Jiamsanguanwonga,et al/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000
439 5
Two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were conducted with gender and affective warning pictorial groups on valence score and arousal score. The main effect of gender were significant differences on both valence score (F (1, 3594) = 4.83, p < .05) and arousal score (F (1, 3594) = 160.80, p <.001). Male participants perceived greater valence scores (M = 4.64, SD = 2.02) than female participants (M = 4.56, SD = 2.07) from affective warning pictorials. Also male participants reported greater arousal scores (M = 4.49, SD = 2.00) than female participants (M = 3.71, SD = 2.12) from affective warning pictorials. The main effect of affective warning pictorial groups were also significant effects on both valence score (F (2, 3594) = 4261.49, p < .001) and arousal score (F (2, 3594) = 438.37, p < .001). Post hoc analysis of affective warning pictorial showed that positive warning pictorials group (M = 6.74, SD = 1.09) had higher valence scores than neutral (M = 4.50, SD = 1.09, p < .001) and negative warning pictorials group (M = 2.54, SD = 1.16, p < .001). Also, neutral warning pictorials group had higher valence scores than negative (p < .001). While, negative warning pictorials groups (M = 5.39, SD = 2.04) had higher arousal scores than positive (M = 3.49, SD = 1.81, p < .001) and neutral warning pictorials group (M = 3.42, SD = 1.81, p < .001). But there was no significant differences between positive and neutral warning pictorial groups in arousal scores (p > .05). The interaction between gender and affective warning pictorial groups were significance on both valence score (F (2, 3594) = 6.043, p < .05) and arousal score (F (2, 3594) = 13.862, p < .05). For valence scores (Figure 2a), post hoc analyses of interaction reported that both genders rated valence score of positive warning pictorials group significantly higher than the valence score of neutral and negative warning pictorial groups. Also, they rated valence scores of neutral warning pictorial group significantly higher than negative warning pictorial group. Although, contrast results showed no significant results. This was not supported our hypotheses. For arousal score (Figure 2b), both genders rated significantly higher arousal scores of negative warning pictorial group than positive and neutral warning pictorial groups. Male participants rated significantly higher arousal score of neutral warning pictorial group than positive warning pictorial group, while female participants rated significantly higher arousal score of positive warning pictorial group than neutral warning pictorial group. Moreover, the analysis of contrast revealed that male participants rated arousal scores significantly higher than female participants for all affective warning pictorial groups (positive: t = 6.594, p <.001; Neutral: t = 10.281, p <.001; Negative: t = 5.471, p <.001). 4. Discussion This study investigated the issue of gender differences in affective response from warning pictorials in order to confirm the target affective states among gender after viewing the warning pictorials. The results of affective response between genders toward warning pictorials showed that both male and female participants could perceive target emotional warning pictorials (positive, neutral, & negative) with no gender differences in valence scores. The warning pictorials that received the highest valence rating scores from female participants was the picture of happy grandfather and his grandchild (M = 7.37, SD = 0.96). Also the highest valence rating scores from male participants was the picture of grandfather playing together with his grandchild (M = 7.30, SD = 0.95). This could reflect some clue for the effective positive warning pictorials. People might perceive strong positive emotion from the pictorial of family, regardless of gender. The warning pictorials that received the lowest valence rating scores, the most negative rating, from male participants was the picture of mouth cancer (M = 1.77, SD = 0.82). While, the picture of lung cancer was rated the lowest valence score from female participants (M = 1.40, SD = 0.72). All of negative warning pictorials used in this study were the actual warning pictorials used on cigarette envelop in Thailand. While the results revealed some differences between genders in arousal rating scores supported the study of Kret & Gelder8 that the emotional response between males and female are differences. Also, Robinson et al.21 found that arousal dimension of affect could lead people to negative affective state. Thus, the result of male participants perceived more arouse than female participants could be explained by Allen & Haccoun14 that males tend to report more intense feeling of angry. Similarly, Biaggio15 also suggested that men tend to be more aggressive than women. While the results of this study showed some contradictions to prior study of Wrase et al.12 that women perceived greater negative affect than men and also that men perceive greater positive affect than women16.
440
Arisara Jiamsanguanwong et al. / Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 435–440 Arisara Jiamsanguanwonga et al / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000
The results from this study could be an evidence support for research field of gender difference and also other research fields of universal affective design, especially the image design that concern the gender differences. Moreover, the universal characteristic of target affective pictures would be worth investigated in future study. 5. Conclusions This study aimed to examine the gender differences in emotional response from warning pictorials on cigarette label. Sixty affective warning pictorials (positive, neutral, and negative) were used in this study. Results showed that males and females successfully perceived target emotional warning pictorials. The results also revealed that male participants perceived more arouse from the warning pictorials than female participants for all affective warning pictorial group, while there were no gender differences in valence dimension of affective responses from warning pictorials. The limitations of this study was the characteristic of participants as only Thai engineering students participated in this study. Future study should test with various generations, occupations, and also cultures. Also, future study should test the effect from emotional warning pictorial in term of warning effectiveness before real implementation on cigarette label. Acknowledgment This work was supported by Grants for Development of New Faculty Staff, Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund, Chulalongkorn Univeristy, Bangkok, Thailand. References Warner, K. E. (2015). The national and international regulatory environment in tobacco control. Public Health Res Pract; 25:1-5. Eriksen, M., Mackay, J., & Ross, H. (2012a). The tobacco atlas. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 34-35. Eriksen, M., Mackay, J., & Ross, H. (2012b). The tobacco atlas. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 32-33. Eriksen, M., Mackay, J., & Ross, H. (2012c). The tobacco atlas. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 30-31. Braun, C. C., Mine, P. B., & Silver, N. C. (1995). The influence of color on warning label perceptions. INT J IND ERGONOM; 15: 179-187. Jiamsanguanwong, A., & Umemuro, H. (2014). Influence of affective states on comprehension and hazard perception of warning pictorials. APPL ECON; 45: 1362-1366. 7. Umemuro, H. (2009). Affective technology, affective management, towards affective society. ICHCI. Springer Berlin Heidelberg: 683-692. 8. Kret, M. E., & De Gelder, B. (2012). A review on sex differences in processing emotional signals. Neuropsychologia; 50:1211-1221. 9. Brody, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (2008). Gender and emotion in context. Handbook of emotions; 3: 395-408. 10. Buck, R., Miller, R. E., & Caul, W. F. (1974). Sex, personality, and physiological variables in the communication of affect via facial expression. J Pers Soc Psychol; 30: 587 – 596. 11. Walter, C. (2006). Why do we cry?. SciAm; 17:44-51. 12. Wrase, J., Klein, S., Gruesser, S. M., Hermann, D., Flor, H., Mann, K., & Heinz, A. (2003). Gender differences in the processing of standardized emotional visual stimuli in humans: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. NEUROSCI LETT; 348: 41-45. 13. Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Sabatinelli, D., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation II: sex differences in picture processing. Emotion; 1: 300 – 319. 14. Allen, J. G., & Haccoun, D. M. (1976). Sex differences in emotionality: A multidimensional approach. Hum. Relat; 29: 711-722. 15. Biaggio, M. K. (1980). Assessment of anger arousal. J. Pers. Asses.; 44: 289-298. 16. Codispoti, M., Surcinelli, P., & Baldaro, B. (2008). Watching emotional movies: Affective reactions and gender differences. Int J Psychophysiol.; 69: 90-95. 17. Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1997). International affective picture system (IAPS): Technical manual and affective ratings. NIMH Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention; 39-58. 18. Vartesatokkit, P.(Ed). (2009). Warning Pictorial on cigarette (2nd ed.). Bangkok: Rukpim limited partnership. 19. Tobacco Labelling Resource Centre. (2013). Thailand. Retrieved September 20, 2015, from http://www.tobaccolabels.ca/countries/thailand. 20. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry; 25: 49-59. 21. Robinson, M. D., Storbeck, J., Meier, B. P., & Kirkeby, B. S. (2004). Watch out! That could be dangerous: Valence-arousal interactions in evaluative processing. Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 30: 1472-1484. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
ScienceDirect ScienceDirect
Procediaonline Computer 00 (2015) 000–000 Available at Science www.sciencedirect.com Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 435–440
8th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology, IAIT2016, 19-22 8th International ConferenceDecember on Advances in Macau, Information 2016, ChinaTechnology, IAIT2016, 19-22 December 2016, Macau, China
Gender Differences in Affective Response from Warning Gender Differences in Affective Response from Warning Pictorials on Cigarette Label Pictorials on Cigarette Label
Arisara Jiamsanguanwonga,a, *, Pat-Arin Chanduenaa, Wipawee Tharmmaphornphilasaa Arisara Jiamsanguanwong *, Pat-Arin Chanduen , Wipawee Tharmmaphornphilas a a
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
Abstract Abstract Consideration of designing an emotional warning pictorial on cigarette labels which will be used in public place, the effect from Consideration of designing an concerned. emotional warning on cigarette which will differences be used in public place, the effect from gender differences should be The aimpictorial of this study was to labels examine gender in emotional response gender should be concerned. The aim of this study was to examine gender in emotional from warningdifferences pictorials on cigarette labels. Sixty engineering students participated in this study.differences Half of them are males.response Neutral affect warning pictorials cigarette Sixtyprior engineering students participated thisasked study.toHalf thememotional are males.responses Neutral affect manipulation usingonIAPS was labels. conducted the experiments. Participants in were rateoftheir from manipulation IAPS was conducted prior the experiments. Participants to rateparticipants their emotional from sixty warning using pictorials (positive, neutral, negative). Results revealed that bothwere maleasked and female couldresponses perceive target sixty warning pictorials (positive, neutral, negative). Results that both male female participants perceive emotional affective warning pictorials, although there were revealed some differences. Maleand participants perceived could greater arousaltarget than emotional affective which warning pictorials,toalthough were some differences. Malewarning participants perceived arousal than female participants contradicts previousthere study. Implications for affective pictorial designgreater concerning gender female participants which contradicts to previous study. Implications for affective warning pictorial design concerning gender difference. difference. © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. © 2015 2017 The The Authors. Published Elsevier B.V. © Authors. Published by by B.V. committee of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Information Peer-review under responsibility of Elsevier the organizing Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Information Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology. Technology Technology. Keywords: Affective response; Emotional response; Warning pictorials; Gender differences Keywords: Affective response; Emotional response; Warning pictorials; Gender differences
Introduction Introduction About 5.8 trillion cigarettes were smoked worldwide in 2014, cigarette consumption was still on the rise1. About 5.8 trillion cigarettes worldwide 2014, cigarette consumption was still on 2the rise1. . While, Globally, nearly a third of menwere agessmoked 15 years or older,in around 820 million people, were smokers 2 3 . While, Globally, nearly third ofdaily mensmokers ages 15 years or were older, around 820 million were smokers . However, therepeople, was a significant smoking rate approximately 176a million worldwide women approximately 176 million daily smokers worldwide were women3. However, there was a significant smoking rate
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +66-2218-6429; fax: +66-2218-6413. * Corresponding Tel.: +66-2218-6429; fax: +66-2218-6413. E-mail address:author. [email protected] E-mail address: [email protected] 1877-0509 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review the organizing committee 1877-0509 ©under 2015responsibility The Authors. of Published by Elsevier B.V. of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology.
1877-0509 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology 10.1016/j.procs.2017.06.045
Arisara Jiamsanguanwong et al. / Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 435–440 Arisara Jiamsanguanwonga et al / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000
436
reduction in the United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil, and other countries that progressively implemented tight tobacco control laws4. One of them was the regulation of using warning pictorials on cigarette labels. The warning pictorials on cigarette labels were used as a communication tool to inform people to appreciate potential hazards5. While there was a study reported that people’s affective states has an influence on hazard perception from warning pictorials6. Their results indicated that people, only male subjects, who was in positive affective states perceived greater hazard level from standard industrial warning pictorials than those who was in neutral and negative affective states. In this study, affective includes feelings, emotions, and moods7. This finding has emphasized that emotion may play a crucial role in human information processing from warning pictorials. Besides from the fact that there are some differences between genders in the processes of sending and receiving of emotion8, which depend on factors as culture, context of situation, and socialized etc.9. Walter11 found that women showed their tears more often as five times over than men, or women could perceive greater negative affect than men12. Some researchers found that women had reported their experienced emotions of sadness and fear more frequently and intensely than men13. Thus, it was hypothesized that women could perceive greater negative affect from the negative warning pictorials than men. On the other hand, In general, man has a better control for their emotional expression than women10. Some studied revealed that men tend to report more intense feeling of angry14 and tend to be more aggressive than women15. While, some study found that men perceived positive affect from environment greater than women16. Thus, we hypothesized that men would perceive greater positive affect from the warning pictorials than women. Consideration of designing an emotional warning pictorial on cigarette labels which will be used in public place, the effect from gender differences should be concerned. If man and woman perceive emotion differently from warning pictorials, this may influence their hazard perception from warning pictorials regarding to the result from previous study of Jiamsanguanwong and Umemuro6. The issues of gender differences in emotional response from warning pictorials on cigarette label would be worth investigated. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the gender differences in affective response from warning pictorial on cigarette label. Implication of present study would support designers of warning pictorials on cigarette label concerning of gender differences in affective responses from their warning pictorials. 2.
Methods
2.1. Participants Sixty Thai undergraduate and graduate engineering students participated in this study. Half of them are males. Their age ranged from 20 to 28 years (M = 21.27, SD = 1.89) for male, and 20 to 30 years (M = 22.4, SD = 2.08) for female. 2.2. Stimulus material 2.2.1. Affective picture stimuli Twenty International Affective Picture System (IAPS) pictures were selected based on standard valence rating score as neutral affect stimulus17. Ten IAPS pictures rating for males were selected: valence scores ranged from 4.05 to 5.19 (M = 4.56, SD = 1.54) and arousal scores ranged from 4.10 to 5.00 (M = 4.56, SD = 2.02). Ten IAPS pictures rating for females were selected: valence scores ranged from 4.38 to 4.64 (M = 4.51, SD = 1.43) and arousal scores ranged from 2.59 to 5.44 (M = 3.85, SD = 2.02). The valence rating ranged from 1: unpleasantness, to 9: pleasant, and arousal rating ranged from 1: calm, to 9: excited. For ethical reasons, pictures of mutilated and erotic imagery were excluded. 2.2.2. Warning Pictorials Sixty warning pictorials were collected from free sources as Thai health18, and Tobacco Labelling Regulations19 based on the ideas generated from survey and brainstorming for the possible warning pictorials on cigarette label.
Arisara Jiamsanguanwong et al. / Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 435–440 Arisara Jiamsanguanwonga,et al/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000
437 3
Then, all pictorials were primary classified into affective warning pictorial groups; positive, neutral, and negative (20 pictorials each). 2.3. Apparatus The experiments were conducted at 6 x 4 m. private laboratory room. Microsoft PowerPoint and 65 inch 4K ultra HD television were used for presenting stimulus in this study. 2.4. Measurement The Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM)20 was used to assess valence and arousal affective states of participants by asking them to rate their affective states at that moment (see in figure1). Valence scale ranges from 1: unpleasant to 9: pleasant with 5 as neutral. Arousal scale ranges from 1: calm to 9: excited. 2.5. Procedure Participants were limited as a maximum of five persons per session with separate gender. Prior to begin, participants were explained an instruction and objective, and informed that they will be manipulated their emotions. Then, they were asked to read and sign a consent form. Firstly, participants were asked to complete SAM I to rate their emotional state after viewing all 10 neutral IAPS pictures which presented for 6 s each, with a 2-s interval between pictures for affect manipulation. Then, they were explained instructions with an example, a pictorial for practice. All sixty warning pictorials were randomly presented for 20 s, with 10-s interval between pictures. Participants were asked to immediately complete SAM II to rate their emotional valence and arousal responses to each warning pictorials. 3. Results 3.1. Affect manipulation For SAM I, results revealed that participants achieved target neutral affective states. Male participants rated their valence score from 3 to 6 (M = 4.53, SD = 0.97) and arousal score ranged from 1 to 7 (M = 3.47, SD = 1.63). Females participants rated their valence score from 3 to 6 (M = 4.80, SD = 0.81) and arousal score ranged from 1 to 6 (M = 2.73, SD = 1.39). For affect manipulation, the results of univariate analysis of variance of gender on valence and arousal scores showed that there were no significant differences between genders on both valence (F (1, 1.07) = 1.34, p < .05) and arousal score (F (1, 8.07) = 3.516, p < .05). 3.2. Emotional response The descriptive statistics of emotional response of genders and warning pictorial groups on valence and arousal scores were shown in table 1. Wilk’s Lambda Multivariance Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) examined the differences of emotional response in genders and affective warning pictorial groups on valence and arousal score (SAM II). There were significant differences in main effects of gender F (2, 3593) = 88.196, p < .001) and affective warning pictorial groups (F (4, 7188) = 1646.832, p < .001). Also, the interaction between gender and affective warning pictorial groups showed significant results (F (4, 7186) = 3.966, p < .05).
Arisara Jiamsanguanwong et al. / Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 435–440 Arisara Jiamsanguanwonga et al / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000
438
Fig. 1. The Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM): valence (top panel), and arousal (bottom panel)
*
*
*
*
*
* *
(a)
**
**
**
*
*
*
* *
*<.05, **<.001
*<.05, **<.001
(b)
Fig. 2. Emotional response between gender and affective warning pictorial groups (a) Valence score (b) Arousal score
Table 1. Descriptive statistic (Max, Min, Mean, and Standard deviation) of gender and warning pictorial groups on valence and arousal scores. Emotional response testing Gender
Male (30)
Female (30)
Warning Pictorial Groups
Max
Min
x̄ (SD)
Max
Min
x̄ (SD)
Positive
6.87
6.71
6.79 (1.06)
3.97
3.69
3.83 (1.78)
Neutral
4.56
4.38
4.47 (1.14)
4.08
3.79
3.94 (1.80)
Negative
2.74
2.56
2.65 (1.11)
5.86
5.56
5.71 (1.85)
Positive
6.79
6.61
6.70 (1.13)
3.29
3.01
3.15 (1.77)
Neutral
4.62
4.45
4.53 (1.03)
3.04
2.78
2.91 (1.67)
Negative
2.53
2.34
2.44 (1.21)
5.25
4.90
5.07 (2.18)
Valence score
Arousal score
Arisara Jiamsanguanwong et al. / Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 435–440 Arisara Jiamsanguanwonga,et al/ Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000
439 5
Two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were conducted with gender and affective warning pictorial groups on valence score and arousal score. The main effect of gender were significant differences on both valence score (F (1, 3594) = 4.83, p < .05) and arousal score (F (1, 3594) = 160.80, p <.001). Male participants perceived greater valence scores (M = 4.64, SD = 2.02) than female participants (M = 4.56, SD = 2.07) from affective warning pictorials. Also male participants reported greater arousal scores (M = 4.49, SD = 2.00) than female participants (M = 3.71, SD = 2.12) from affective warning pictorials. The main effect of affective warning pictorial groups were also significant effects on both valence score (F (2, 3594) = 4261.49, p < .001) and arousal score (F (2, 3594) = 438.37, p < .001). Post hoc analysis of affective warning pictorial showed that positive warning pictorials group (M = 6.74, SD = 1.09) had higher valence scores than neutral (M = 4.50, SD = 1.09, p < .001) and negative warning pictorials group (M = 2.54, SD = 1.16, p < .001). Also, neutral warning pictorials group had higher valence scores than negative (p < .001). While, negative warning pictorials groups (M = 5.39, SD = 2.04) had higher arousal scores than positive (M = 3.49, SD = 1.81, p < .001) and neutral warning pictorials group (M = 3.42, SD = 1.81, p < .001). But there was no significant differences between positive and neutral warning pictorial groups in arousal scores (p > .05). The interaction between gender and affective warning pictorial groups were significance on both valence score (F (2, 3594) = 6.043, p < .05) and arousal score (F (2, 3594) = 13.862, p < .05). For valence scores (Figure 2a), post hoc analyses of interaction reported that both genders rated valence score of positive warning pictorials group significantly higher than the valence score of neutral and negative warning pictorial groups. Also, they rated valence scores of neutral warning pictorial group significantly higher than negative warning pictorial group. Although, contrast results showed no significant results. This was not supported our hypotheses. For arousal score (Figure 2b), both genders rated significantly higher arousal scores of negative warning pictorial group than positive and neutral warning pictorial groups. Male participants rated significantly higher arousal score of neutral warning pictorial group than positive warning pictorial group, while female participants rated significantly higher arousal score of positive warning pictorial group than neutral warning pictorial group. Moreover, the analysis of contrast revealed that male participants rated arousal scores significantly higher than female participants for all affective warning pictorial groups (positive: t = 6.594, p <.001; Neutral: t = 10.281, p <.001; Negative: t = 5.471, p <.001). 4. Discussion This study investigated the issue of gender differences in affective response from warning pictorials in order to confirm the target affective states among gender after viewing the warning pictorials. The results of affective response between genders toward warning pictorials showed that both male and female participants could perceive target emotional warning pictorials (positive, neutral, & negative) with no gender differences in valence scores. The warning pictorials that received the highest valence rating scores from female participants was the picture of happy grandfather and his grandchild (M = 7.37, SD = 0.96). Also the highest valence rating scores from male participants was the picture of grandfather playing together with his grandchild (M = 7.30, SD = 0.95). This could reflect some clue for the effective positive warning pictorials. People might perceive strong positive emotion from the pictorial of family, regardless of gender. The warning pictorials that received the lowest valence rating scores, the most negative rating, from male participants was the picture of mouth cancer (M = 1.77, SD = 0.82). While, the picture of lung cancer was rated the lowest valence score from female participants (M = 1.40, SD = 0.72). All of negative warning pictorials used in this study were the actual warning pictorials used on cigarette envelop in Thailand. While the results revealed some differences between genders in arousal rating scores supported the study of Kret & Gelder8 that the emotional response between males and female are differences. Also, Robinson et al.21 found that arousal dimension of affect could lead people to negative affective state. Thus, the result of male participants perceived more arouse than female participants could be explained by Allen & Haccoun14 that males tend to report more intense feeling of angry. Similarly, Biaggio15 also suggested that men tend to be more aggressive than women. While the results of this study showed some contradictions to prior study of Wrase et al.12 that women perceived greater negative affect than men and also that men perceive greater positive affect than women16.
440
Arisara Jiamsanguanwong et al. / Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 435–440 Arisara Jiamsanguanwonga et al / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000
The results from this study could be an evidence support for research field of gender difference and also other research fields of universal affective design, especially the image design that concern the gender differences. Moreover, the universal characteristic of target affective pictures would be worth investigated in future study. 5. Conclusions This study aimed to examine the gender differences in emotional response from warning pictorials on cigarette label. Sixty affective warning pictorials (positive, neutral, and negative) were used in this study. Results showed that males and females successfully perceived target emotional warning pictorials. The results also revealed that male participants perceived more arouse from the warning pictorials than female participants for all affective warning pictorial group, while there were no gender differences in valence dimension of affective responses from warning pictorials. The limitations of this study was the characteristic of participants as only Thai engineering students participated in this study. Future study should test with various generations, occupations, and also cultures. Also, future study should test the effect from emotional warning pictorial in term of warning effectiveness before real implementation on cigarette label. Acknowledgment This work was supported by Grants for Development of New Faculty Staff, Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund, Chulalongkorn Univeristy, Bangkok, Thailand. References Warner, K. E. (2015). The national and international regulatory environment in tobacco control. Public Health Res Pract; 25:1-5. Eriksen, M., Mackay, J., & Ross, H. (2012a). The tobacco atlas. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 34-35. Eriksen, M., Mackay, J., & Ross, H. (2012b). The tobacco atlas. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 32-33. Eriksen, M., Mackay, J., & Ross, H. (2012c). The tobacco atlas. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 30-31. Braun, C. C., Mine, P. B., & Silver, N. C. (1995). The influence of color on warning label perceptions. INT J IND ERGONOM; 15: 179-187. Jiamsanguanwong, A., & Umemuro, H. (2014). Influence of affective states on comprehension and hazard perception of warning pictorials. APPL ECON; 45: 1362-1366. 7. Umemuro, H. (2009). Affective technology, affective management, towards affective society. ICHCI. Springer Berlin Heidelberg: 683-692. 8. Kret, M. E., & De Gelder, B. (2012). A review on sex differences in processing emotional signals. Neuropsychologia; 50:1211-1221. 9. Brody, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (2008). Gender and emotion in context. Handbook of emotions; 3: 395-408. 10. Buck, R., Miller, R. E., & Caul, W. F. (1974). Sex, personality, and physiological variables in the communication of affect via facial expression. J Pers Soc Psychol; 30: 587 – 596. 11. Walter, C. (2006). Why do we cry?. SciAm; 17:44-51. 12. Wrase, J., Klein, S., Gruesser, S. M., Hermann, D., Flor, H., Mann, K., & Heinz, A. (2003). Gender differences in the processing of standardized emotional visual stimuli in humans: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. NEUROSCI LETT; 348: 41-45. 13. Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Sabatinelli, D., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation II: sex differences in picture processing. Emotion; 1: 300 – 319. 14. Allen, J. G., & Haccoun, D. M. (1976). Sex differences in emotionality: A multidimensional approach. Hum. Relat; 29: 711-722. 15. Biaggio, M. K. (1980). Assessment of anger arousal. J. Pers. Asses.; 44: 289-298. 16. Codispoti, M., Surcinelli, P., & Baldaro, B. (2008). Watching emotional movies: Affective reactions and gender differences. Int J Psychophysiol.; 69: 90-95. 17. Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1997). International affective picture system (IAPS): Technical manual and affective ratings. NIMH Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention; 39-58. 18. Vartesatokkit, P.(Ed). (2009). Warning Pictorial on cigarette (2nd ed.). Bangkok: Rukpim limited partnership. 19. Tobacco Labelling Resource Centre. (2013). Thailand. Retrieved September 20, 2015, from http://www.tobaccolabels.ca/countries/thailand. 20. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry; 25: 49-59. 21. Robinson, M. D., Storbeck, J., Meier, B. P., & Kirkeby, B. S. (2004). Watch out! That could be dangerous: Valence-arousal interactions in evaluative processing. Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 30: 1472-1484. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.