Projects per year
Abstract
Aims: Across three eye-tracking studies, we examined how cigarette pack features affected visual attention and self-reported avoidance of and reactance to warnings.
Design: Study 1: smoking status × warning immediacy (short-term vs. long-term health consequences) × warning location (top vs. bottom of pack). Study 2: smoking status × warning framing (gain-framed vs. loss-framed) × warning format (text-only vs. pictorial). Study 3: smoking status × warning severity (highly severe vs. moderately severe consequences of smoking).
Setting: University of Bristol, UK, eye-tracking laboratory.
Participants Study 1: non-smokers (n=25), weekly smokers (n=25), and daily smokers (n=25). Study 2: non-smokers (n=37), smokers contemplating quitting (n=37) and smokers not contemplating quitting (n=43). Study 3: non-smokers (n=27), weekly smokers (n=26) and daily smokers (n=26).
Measurements: For all studies: visual attention, measured as the ratio of the number of fixations to the warning vs the branding, self-reported predicted avoidance of and reactance to warnings and for Study 3, effect of warning on quitting motivation.
Findings: Study 1: Greater self-reported avoidance (Mean Difference (MD)=1.14;95%CI=0.94,1.35,p<0.001,ηp2 =0.64) and visual attention (MD=0.89,95%CI=0.09,1.68,p=0.03,ηp2 =0.06) to long-term warnings, but not for reactance (MD=0.14,95%CI=-0.04,0.32,p=0.12,ηp2 =0.03). Increased visual attention to warnings on the upper versus lower half of the pack (MD=1.8;95%CI=0.33,3.26,p=0.02,ηp2 =0.08). Study 2: Higher self-reported avoidance of (MD=0.70;95%CI=0.59,0.80,p<0.001,ηp2 =0.61) and reactance to (MD=0.37;95%CI=0.27,0.47,p<0.001,ηp2 =0.34) loss-framed warnings but little evidence of a difference for visual attention (MD=0.52;95%CI=-0.54,1.58,p=0.30,ηp2 =0.01). Greater visual attention, avoidance and reactance to pictorial versus text-only warnings (all ps<0.001,ηp2 >0.25). Study 3: Greater self-reported avoidance of (MD=0.37;95%CI=0.25,0.48,p<0.001,ηp2 =0.33) and reactance to (MD=0.14;95%CI=0.05,0.23, p=0.003,ηp2 =0.11) highly severe warnings but findings were inconclusive as to whether there was a difference in visual attention (MD=-0.55;95%CI=-1.5,0.41,p=0.24,ηp2 =0.02).
Conclusions: Subjective and objective (eye-tracking) measures of avoidance of health warnings on cigarette packs produce different results, suggesting these measure different constructs. Visual avoidance of warnings indicates low-level disengagement with warnings, while self-reported predicted avoidance reflects higher-level engagement with warnings.
Design: Study 1: smoking status × warning immediacy (short-term vs. long-term health consequences) × warning location (top vs. bottom of pack). Study 2: smoking status × warning framing (gain-framed vs. loss-framed) × warning format (text-only vs. pictorial). Study 3: smoking status × warning severity (highly severe vs. moderately severe consequences of smoking).
Setting: University of Bristol, UK, eye-tracking laboratory.
Participants Study 1: non-smokers (n=25), weekly smokers (n=25), and daily smokers (n=25). Study 2: non-smokers (n=37), smokers contemplating quitting (n=37) and smokers not contemplating quitting (n=43). Study 3: non-smokers (n=27), weekly smokers (n=26) and daily smokers (n=26).
Measurements: For all studies: visual attention, measured as the ratio of the number of fixations to the warning vs the branding, self-reported predicted avoidance of and reactance to warnings and for Study 3, effect of warning on quitting motivation.
Findings: Study 1: Greater self-reported avoidance (Mean Difference (MD)=1.14;95%CI=0.94,1.35,p<0.001,ηp2 =0.64) and visual attention (MD=0.89,95%CI=0.09,1.68,p=0.03,ηp2 =0.06) to long-term warnings, but not for reactance (MD=0.14,95%CI=-0.04,0.32,p=0.12,ηp2 =0.03). Increased visual attention to warnings on the upper versus lower half of the pack (MD=1.8;95%CI=0.33,3.26,p=0.02,ηp2 =0.08). Study 2: Higher self-reported avoidance of (MD=0.70;95%CI=0.59,0.80,p<0.001,ηp2 =0.61) and reactance to (MD=0.37;95%CI=0.27,0.47,p<0.001,ηp2 =0.34) loss-framed warnings but little evidence of a difference for visual attention (MD=0.52;95%CI=-0.54,1.58,p=0.30,ηp2 =0.01). Greater visual attention, avoidance and reactance to pictorial versus text-only warnings (all ps<0.001,ηp2 >0.25). Study 3: Greater self-reported avoidance of (MD=0.37;95%CI=0.25,0.48,p<0.001,ηp2 =0.33) and reactance to (MD=0.14;95%CI=0.05,0.23, p=0.003,ηp2 =0.11) highly severe warnings but findings were inconclusive as to whether there was a difference in visual attention (MD=-0.55;95%CI=-1.5,0.41,p=0.24,ηp2 =0.02).
Conclusions: Subjective and objective (eye-tracking) measures of avoidance of health warnings on cigarette packs produce different results, suggesting these measure different constructs. Visual avoidance of warnings indicates low-level disengagement with warnings, while self-reported predicted avoidance reflects higher-level engagement with warnings.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Number of pages | 13 |
| Journal | Addiction |
| Early online date | 7 Jun 2020 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 7 Jun 2020 |
Research Groups and Themes
- Physical and Mental Health
- Tobacco and Alcohol
Keywords
- tobacco health warnings
- eye-tracking
- attention
- avoidance
- reactance
- message framing
Access to Document
- Full-text PDF (final published version)
This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Wiley at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.15148 . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
Handle.net
Full-text PDF (author accepted manuscript)
Accepted author manuscript, 953 KB
Embargoed Document
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Avoidance of tobacco health warnings? An eye-tracking approach'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Projects
- 1 Finished
-
Smoking kills, but you can quit: Threat and efficacy messaging to prevent tobacco smoking among adults and adolescents
Maynard, O. M. (Principal Investigator)
1/12/17 → 30/04/20
Project: Research