RESEARCH PAPER
Differences in visual fixation duration according to the position of graphic health warning labels: An eye-tracking approach
Ji-eun Hwang 1,  
Yu-seon Yang 2,  
Yu-mi Oh 2,  
Joung-eun Lee 2,  
Sung-il Cho 1, 4  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Public Health Science, Graduate School of Public Health
2
Korea Health Promotion Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea
3
Gyeonggi Infectious Disease Control Center, Seongnam, Republic of Korea
4
Institute of Health and Environment, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Publish date: 2018-09-04
 
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2018;16(September):39
KEYWORDS:
TOPICS:
ABSTRACT:
Introduction:
The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) recommends that graphic health warning labels (GHWLs) be positioned at the top of the principal area of cigarette packs, rather than at the bottom, to increase visibility. However, during the legislative process of introducing GHWLs in South Korea, the position of GHWLs has become a contested issue. The protobacco industry group argued that the warnings should be placed at the bottom of cigarette packs because evidence for the effectiveness of the upper position was insufficient. Therefore, this study investigated whether the position of the GHWL affects eye movement.

Methods:
Participants (30 daily smokers and 24 non-smokers) were shown six cigarette packs in random order with different position combinations (top, middle, bottom) and image concepts (skin aging, toxic constituents). Participants’ eye movements were recorded using eye-tracking equipment to measure visual fixation duration in milliseconds (ms).

Results:
Participants visually fixated longer on the health warning area than on the tobacco branding area (p<0.05). Mean fixation duration on the health warning area was significantly longer at the top or middle positions compared to the bottom, by 28% (mean difference=340 ms, p=0.006) and by 30% (mean difference=368 ms, p=0.002), respectively. By contrast, mean fixation duration on the branding area was longer with the warning at the bottom compared to top or middle positions by 25% and 33%, with mean differences of 157 ms (p=0.100) and 212 ms (p=0.026), respectively. No significant difference in fixation time was observed between the top and middle positions (p>0.05).

Conclusions:
The duration of visual fixation on GHWLs was longer when they were displayed at the top and middle, rather than at the bottom. Therefore, GHWLs should be positioned from the top to the middle of the tobacco package.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Sung-il Cho   
Department of Public Health Science, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
 
REFERENCES (48):
1. Hammond D, Fong GT, McDonald PW, Brown KS, Cameron R. Showing leads to doing: graphic cigarette warning labels are an effective public health policy. Eur J Public Health. 2006;16(2):223-224. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckl037
2. Noar SM, Francis DB, Bridges C, Sontag JM, Brewer NT, Ribisl KM. Effects of strengthening cigarette pack warnings on attention and message processing: A systematic review. J Mass Commun Q. 2016;94(2):416-442. doi:10.1177/1077699016674188
3. Noar SM, Hall MG, Francis DB, Ribisl KM, Pepper JK, Brewer NT. Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Tob Control. 2016;25(3):341-354. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051978
4. Hammond D. Health warning messages on tobacco products: a review. Tob Control. 2011;20(5):327-337. doi:10.1136/tc.2010.037630
5. World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitst.... Published, 2005. Accessed July 27, 2017.
6. World Health Organization. Guidelines for implementation of Article 11 of the WHO framework convention on tobacco control. http://www.who.int/fctc/treaty.... Published, 2008. Accessed July 27, 2017.
7. Canadian Cancer Society. Cigarette package health warnings: International status report. http://www.tobaccolabels.ca/he.... Published, 2016. Accessed December 12, 2017.
8. Kang EJ. Assessing health impacts of pictorial health warning labels on cigarette packs in Korea using DYNAMO-HIA. J Prev Med Public Health. 2017;50(4):251-261. doi:10.3961/jpmph.17.032
9. Yonhap News Agency. Graphic images of smoking damage to be placed on upper part of cigarette packets. http://english.yonhapnews.co.k.... Published May 13, 2016. Accessed May 10, 2018.
10. Cho HJ. Graphic health warning on tobacco products, regulatory reform committe and health advocacy. Health and Society. 2016(5):62-69.
11. Argo JJ, Main KJ. Meta-analyses of the effectiveness of warning labels. J Public Policy Mark. 2004;23(2):193-208. doi:10.1509/jppm.23.2.193.51400
12. Orquin JL, Mueller Loose S. Attention and choice: a review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychol. 2013;144(1):190-206. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.06.003
13. Lidwell W, Holden K, Butler J. Universal principles of design, revised and updated: 125 ways to enhance usability, influence perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through design. Rockport Pub; 2010.
14. Zhang L, Lin W. Selective visual attention: computational models and applications. John Wiley & Sons; 2013. doi:10.1002/9780470828144
15. Graham DJ, Jeffery RW. Location, location, location: eye-tracking evidence that consumers preferentially view prominently positioned nutrition information. J Am Diet Assoc. 2011;111(11):1704-1711. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2011.08.005
16. Rebollar R, Lidón I, Martín J, Puebla M. The identification of viewing patterns of chocolate snack packages using eye-tracking techniques. Food Qual Prefer. 2015;39:251-258. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.08.002
17. Dossou G, Gallopel-Morvan K, Diouf J-F. The effectiveness of current French health warnings displayed on alcohol advertisements and alcoholic beverages. Eur J Public Health. 2017;27(4):699-704. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckw263
18. Mahood G. Warnings that tell the truth: breaking new ground in Canada. Tob Control. 1999;8:356-361. doi:10.1136/tc.8.4.356
19. Fong GT, Hammond D, Hitchman SC. The impact of pictures on the effectiveness of tobacco warnings. B World Health Organ. 2009;87(8):640-643. doi:10.2471/blt.09.069575
20. Meernik C, Jarman K, Wright ST, Klein EG, Goldstein AO, Ranney L. Eye tracking outcomes in tobacco control regulation and communication: A systematic review. Tob Regul Sci. 2016;2(4):377-403. doi:10.18001/TRS.2.4.9.
21. Druckman JN, Green DP, Kuklinski JH, Lupia A. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambrige University Press; 2011.
22. Jones B, Kenward MG. Design and analysis of cross-over trials. CRC press; 2014.
23. Yoo HJ, Lee SK, Kim HJ, Hwang JE, Yang YS. Development of pictorial health warnings on cigarette packages in South Korea. Sogang University. Korea Health Promotion Institute; 2014.
24. Yousefi MV, Karan E, Mohammadpour A, Asadi S. Implementing eye tracking technology in the construction process. 51st ASC Annual International Conference; 2015.
25. Plemmons L, Resurreccion A. A warm‐up sample improves reliability of responses in descriptive analysis. J Sens Stud. 1998;13(4):359-376. doi:10.1111/j.1745-459X.1998.tb00095.x.
26. Zhang B. Influences of Contexts on Consumers' Visual Attention towards Food Images: Eye-tracking Studies. University of Arkansas; 2014.
27. Field M, Duka T. Cue reactivity in smokers: the effects of perceived cigarette availability and gender. Pharmacol Biochem Be. 2004;78(3):647-652. doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2004.03.026
28. Munafo MR, Roberts N, Bauld L, Leonards U. Plain packaging increases visual attention to health warnings on cigarette packs in non-smokers and weekly smokers but not daily smokers. Addiction. 2011;106(8):1505-1510. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03430.x
29. Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerstrom KO. The Fagerström test for nicotine dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. Addiction. 1991;86(9):1119-1127. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01879.x
30. Yarbus AL. Eye movements and vision. Springer US; 1967.
31. Schutz AC, Braun DI, Gegenfurtner KR. Eye movements and perception: a selective review. J Vis. 2011;11(5). doi:10.1167/11.5.9
32. Gibson JJ. The ecological approach to visual perception: classic edition. Psychology Press; 2014.
33. Wedel M, Pieters R. A review of eye-tracking research in marketing. In: Review of marketing research. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2008.
34. Strasser AA, Tang KZ, Romer D, Jepson C, Cappella JN. Graphic warning labels in cigarette advertisements: recall and viewing patterns. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(1):41-47. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.02.026
35. Klein EG, Shoben AB, Krygowski S, et al. Does size impact attention and recall of graphic health warnings? Tob Regul Sci. 2015;1(2):175-185. doi:10.18001/TRS.1.2.7
36. Lochbuehler K, Mercincavage M, Tang KZ, Dana Tomlin C, Cappella JN, Strasser AA. Effect of message congruency on attention and recall in pictorial health warning labels. Tob Control. 2018;27(3):266-271. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053615
37. Maynard OM, Munafo MR, Leonards U. Visual attention to health warnings on plain tobacco packaging in adolescent smokers and non-smokers. Addiction. 2013;108(2):413-419. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.04028.x
38. Shankleman M, Sykes C, Mandeville KL, Di Costa S, Yarrow K. Standardised (plain) cigarette packaging increases attention to both text-based and graphical health warnings: experimental evidence. Public Health. 2015;129(1):37-42. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2014.10.019
39. Zhao X, Nan X, Yang B, Alexandra Iles I. Cigarette warning labels: graphics, framing, and identity. Health Educ. 2014;114(2):101-117. doi:10.1108/he-06-2013-0024
40. Bansal-Travers M, Hammond D, Smith P, Cummings KM. The impact of cigarette pack design, descriptors, and warning labels on risk perception in the US. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(6):674-682. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2011.01.021
41. Kessels LT, Ruiter RA. Eye movement responses to health messages on cigarette packages. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(352). doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-352
42. Sussenbach P, Niemeier S, Glock S. Effects of and attention to graphic warning labels on cigarette packages. Psychol Health. 2013;28(10):1192-1206. doi:10.1080/08870446.2013.799161
43. Henriksen L. Comprehensive tobacco marketing restrictions: promotion, packaging, price and place. Tob Control. 2012;21(2):147-153. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050416
44. Wakefield M, Morley C, Horan JK, Cummings KM. The cigarette pack as image: new evidence from tobacco industry documents. Tob Control. 2002;11:i73-i80. doi:10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i73
45. National Tobacco Control Center, Korea Health Promotion Institute. Tobacco advertisement status, problems and future tasks of tobacco retailers in the education environment absolute protection zone. https://nosmk.khealth.or.kr/ns.... Published December, 2016. Accessed October 16, 2017.
46. World Health Organization. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2017: Monitoring tobacco use and pervention policies. http://www.who.int/tobacco/glo.... Published July 19, 2017. Accessed November 22, 2017.
47. Hoek J, Gendall P, Eckert C, Louviere J. Dissuasive cigarette sticks: the next step in standardised ('plain') packaging? Tob Control. 2016;25(6):699-705. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052533
48. Ooms K, Dupont L, Lapon L, Popelka S. Accuracy and precision of fixation locations recorded with the low-cost Eye Tribe tracker in different experimental setups. J Eye Movement Res. 2015;8(1). doi:0.16910/jemr.8.1.5
eISSN:1617-9625