Lauren M Dutra1, James Nonnemaker1, Jamie Guillory1, Brian Bradfield1, Nathaniel Taylor1, Annice Kim1. 1. Lauren M. Dutra, Research Scientist, RTI International, Center for Health Policy Science and Tobacco Research, Berkeley, CA. James Nonnemaker, Senior Economist, RTI International, Center for Health Policy Science and Tobacco Research, Research Triangle Park, NC. Jamie Guillory, Research Scientist, RTI International, Center for Health Policy Science and Tobacco Research, Research Triangle Park, NC. Brian Bradfield, Data Analyst, RTI International, Center for Health Policy Science and Tobacco Research, Research Triangle Park, NC. Nathaniel Taylor, Economist, RTI International, Center for Health Policy Science and Tobacco Research, Research Triangle Park, NC. Annice Kim, Senior Research Scientist, RTI International, Center for Health Policy Science and Tobacco Research, Berkeley, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We used eye-tracking to examine smokers' visual attention in one of 4 antismoking ad contexts (alone, next to cigarette ad, tobacco display, or cooler). Participants viewed 4 ad types (graphic, intended emotive, and benefits of quitting-graphic ads, and benefits of quitting-informational ads), each with 3 areas of interest (AOI) (anti-ad image, anti-ad text, and other text). METHODS: Current smokers (N = 153) viewed ads for 10 seconds each. Multivariable random effect linear regressions with post-test comparisons (with sidak-adjusted p-values) were used to test for differences in fixations and dwell time by ad context and type while adjusting for covariates. Visual attention was adjusted by percentage of anti-ad area taken up by each AOI. RESULTS: Adjusting for covariates, there were no differences by ad context (p > .05). Fixations and dwell time were greatest for the image of the benefits of quitting-graphic ad, the text of the graphic ad, and the other text of the intended emotive ad (all ps < .005). Conclusions: Visual attention to antismoking ads did not vary by ad context but varied significantly by ad type.
OBJECTIVES: We used eye-tracking to examine smokers' visual attention in one of 4 antismoking ad contexts (alone, next to cigarette ad, tobacco display, or cooler). Participants viewed 4 ad types (graphic, intended emotive, and benefits of quitting-graphic ads, and benefits of quitting-informational ads), each with 3 areas of interest (AOI) (anti-ad image, anti-ad text, and other text). METHODS: Current smokers (N = 153) viewed ads for 10 seconds each. Multivariable random effect linear regressions with post-test comparisons (with sidak-adjusted p-values) were used to test for differences in fixations and dwell time by ad context and type while adjusting for covariates. Visual attention was adjusted by percentage of anti-ad area taken up by each AOI. RESULTS: Adjusting for covariates, there were no differences by ad context (p > .05). Fixations and dwell time were greatest for the image of the benefits of quitting-graphic ad, the text of the graphic ad, and the other text of the intended emotive ad (all ps < .005). Conclusions: Visual attention to antismoking ads did not vary by ad context but varied significantly by ad type.
Entities:
Keywords:
advertisement; antismoking; eye-tracking; point of sale
Authors: Ron Borland; Hua-Hie Yong; James Balmford; Jae Cooper; K Michael Cummings; Richard J O'Connor; Ann McNeill; Mark P Zanna; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jeff Niederdeppe; Matthew C Farrelly; James Nonnemaker; Kevin C Davis; Lauren Wagner Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2011-01-27 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Lauren McCarl Dutra; James Nonnemaker; Brian Bradfield; Nathaniel Taylor; Jamie Guillory; Ashley Feld; Annice Kim Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Alexandra Budenz; Richard P Moser; Raimee Eck; Tanya Agurs-Collins; Timothy S McNeel; William M P Klein; David Berrigan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 4.614