Melissa Mercincavage1, Jordan Burdge2, Kirsten Lochbuehler3, Valentina Souprountchouk2, Alexandra A McCullough2, Andrew A Strasser3. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science and Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Nicotine Addiction [CIRNA], University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, CIRNA, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science and CIRNA, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In this study, we sought to determine how smokers allocate their attention when viewing the 9 cigarette pictorial warning labels (PWLs) proposed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and identify PWL attributes associated with increased attention. METHODS: Using eye-tracking data from an exploratory within-subject study, we examined smokers' attention (latency, latency duration, and dwell time) to areas of interest (image vs textual warning) for each PWL among 95 daily, non-treatment-seeking smokers (62.1% male, 48.4% white, mean [SD] age = 32.98 [10.14], mean [SD] cigarettes/day = 15.51 [8.43]). We also compared attention measures by PWL message congruency, textual warning location, and participant rankings of effectiveness. RESULTS: Attention measures differed significantly among PWLs (p s < .001) and by features and self-reported effectiveness rankings (p s < .001 - .039). Congruent PWLs, those displaying text across the warning label, and those ranked most effective were associated with sustained attention to image, whereas incongruent PWLs, those displaying left text, and those ranked least effective, were associated with faster and sustained attention to text. CONCLUSIONS: Smokers allocated their attention differently across PWLs. Formats and participant effectiveness rankings of PWLs were associated with visual attention patterns, suggesting the importance of these features to the design of potential future PWLs.
OBJECTIVES: In this study, we sought to determine how smokers allocate their attention when viewing the 9 cigarette pictorial warning labels (PWLs) proposed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and identify PWL attributes associated with increased attention. METHODS: Using eye-tracking data from an exploratory within-subject study, we examined smokers' attention (latency, latency duration, and dwell time) to areas of interest (image vs textual warning) for each PWL among 95 daily, non-treatment-seeking smokers (62.1% male, 48.4% white, mean [SD] age = 32.98 [10.14], mean [SD] cigarettes/day = 15.51 [8.43]). We also compared attention measures by PWL message congruency, textual warning location, and participant rankings of effectiveness. RESULTS: Attention measures differed significantly among PWLs (p s < .001) and by features and self-reported effectiveness rankings (p s < .001 - .039). Congruent PWLs, those displaying text across the warning label, and those ranked most effective were associated with sustained attention to image, whereas incongruent PWLs, those displaying left text, and those ranked least effective, were associated with faster and sustained attention to text. CONCLUSIONS: Smokers allocated their attention differently across PWLs. Formats and participant effectiveness rankings of PWLs were associated with visual attention patterns, suggesting the importance of these features to the design of potential future PWLs.
Entities:
Keywords:
cigarette; congruency; eye-tracking; health warning; labeling; laboratory methods
Authors: Kirsten Lochbuehler; Kathy Z Tang; Valentina Souprountchouk; Dana Campetti; Joseph N Cappella; Lynn T Kozlowski; Andrew A Strasser Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Noel T Brewer; Marissa G Hall; Seth M Noar; Humberto Parada; Al Stein-Seroussi; Laura E Bach; Sean Hanley; Kurt M Ribisl Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Joel Monárrez-Espino; Bojing Liu; Felix Greiner; Sven Bremberg; Rosaria Galanti Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-08-14 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Andrew A Strasser; Heather Orom; Kathy Z Tang; Rachel L Dumont; Joseph N Cappella; Lynn T Kozlowski Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2011-04-09 Impact factor: 3.913
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
Authors: Seth M Noar; Marissa G Hall; Diane B Francis; Kurt M Ribisl; Jessica K Pepper; Noel T Brewer Journal: Tob Control Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 7.552