Olivia M Maynard1, Angela Attwood2, Laura O'Brien3, Sabrina Brooks3, Craig Hedge3, Ute Leonards3, Marcus R Munafò2. 1. MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, United Kingdom; UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, United Kingdom; School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, United Kingdom. Electronic address: olivia.maynard@bristol.ac.uk. 2. MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, United Kingdom; UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, United Kingdom; School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, United Kingdom. 3. School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research with adults and adolescents indicates that plain cigarette packs increase visual attention to health warnings among non-smokers and non-regular smokers, but not among regular smokers. This may be because regular smokers: (1) are familiar with the health warnings, (2) preferentially attend to branding, or (3) actively avoid health warnings. We sought to distinguish between these explanations using eye-tracking technology. METHOD: A convenience sample of 30 adult dependent smokers participated in an eye-tracking study. Participants viewed branded, plain and blank packs of cigarettes with familiar and unfamiliar health warnings. The number of fixations to health warnings and branding on the different pack types were recorded. RESULTS: Analysis of variance indicated that regular smokers were biased towards fixating the branding rather than the health warning on all three pack types. This bias was smaller, but still evident, for blank packs, where smokers preferentially attended the blank region over the health warnings. Time-course analysis showed that for branded and plain packs, attention was preferentially directed to the branding location for the entire 10s of the stimulus presentation, while for blank packs this occurred for the last 8s of the stimulus presentation. Familiarity with health warnings had no effect on eye gaze location. CONCLUSION: Smokers actively avoid cigarette pack health warnings, and this remains the case even in the absence of salient branding information. Smokers may have learned to divert their attention away from cigarette pack health warnings. These findings have implications for cigarette packaging and health warning policy.
BACKGROUND: Previous research with adults and adolescents indicates that plain cigarette packs increase visual attention to health warnings among non-smokers and non-regular smokers, but not among regular smokers. This may be because regular smokers: (1) are familiar with the health warnings, (2) preferentially attend to branding, or (3) actively avoid health warnings. We sought to distinguish between these explanations using eye-tracking technology. METHOD: A convenience sample of 30 adult dependent smokers participated in an eye-tracking study. Participants viewed branded, plain and blank packs of cigarettes with familiar and unfamiliar health warnings. The number of fixations to health warnings and branding on the different pack types were recorded. RESULTS: Analysis of variance indicated that regular smokers were biased towards fixating the branding rather than the health warning on all three pack types. This bias was smaller, but still evident, for blank packs, where smokers preferentially attended the blank region over the health warnings. Time-course analysis showed that for branded and plain packs, attention was preferentially directed to the branding location for the entire 10s of the stimulus presentation, while for blank packs this occurred for the last 8s of the stimulus presentation. Familiarity with health warnings had no effect on eye gaze location. CONCLUSION: Smokers actively avoid cigarette pack health warnings, and this remains the case even in the absence of salient branding information. Smokers may have learned to divert their attention away from cigarette pack health warnings. These findings have implications for cigarette packaging and health warning policy.
Authors: David Hammond; Geoffrey T Fong; Ron Borland; K Michael Cummings; Ann McNeill; Pete Driezen Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Ahmed I Fathelrahman; Maizurah Omar; Rahmat Awang; Ron Borland; Geoffrey T Fong; David Hammond; Zarihah Zain Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2009-02-26 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Ron Borland; Hua-Hie Yong; Nick Wilson; Geoffrey T Fong; David Hammond; K Michael Cummings; Warwick Hosking; Ann McNeill Journal: Addiction Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Kirsten Lochbuehler; E Paul Wileyto; Melissa Mercincavage; Valentina Souprountchouk; Jordan Z Burdge; Kathy Z Tang; Joseph N Cappella; Andrew A Strasser Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Richard J O'Connor; Vaughan W Rees; Cheryl Rivard; Dorothy K Hatsukami; K Michael Cummings Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: James F Thrasher; Noel T Brewer; Jeff Niederdeppe; Ellen Peters; Andrew A Strasser; Rachel Grana; Annette R Kaufman Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Yoo Jin Cho; James F Thrasher; Hua-Hie Yong; André Salem Szklo; Richard J O'Connor; Maansi Bansal-Travers; David Hammond; Geoffrey T Fong; James Hardin; Ron Borland Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Hua-Hie Yong; Ron Borland; David Hammond; James F Thrasher; K Michael Cummings; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Tob Control Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Kirsten Lochbuehler; Melissa Mercincavage; Kathy Z Tang; C Dana Tomlin; Joseph N Cappella; Andrew A Strasser Journal: Tob Control Date: 2017-05-16 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Elizabeth G Klein; Abigail B Shoben; Sarah Krygowski; Amy Ferketich; Micah Berman; Ellen Peters; Unnava Rao; Mary Ellen Wewers Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2015-07-01