ArticleAddictive behaviors2022
Visual attention to blu's parody warnings and the FDA's warning on e-cigarette advertisements.
Article in Addictive behaviors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Examining Visual Attention to Tobacco Marketing Materials Among Young Adult Smokers: Protocol for a Remote Webcam-Based Eye-Tracking Experiment.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIn 2017, the e-cigarette brand, blu, released advertisements featuring large, boxed, positively-framed messages. These messages mimicked the format of FDA-mandated warnings that would appear on e-cigarette advertisements in the United States in 2018. We compared attention to blu's parody warnings and FDA-mandated warning appearing on blu advertisements.
methodsN = 73 young adults who had used tobacco participated in an eye-tracking study. Participants viewed three blu e-cigarette advertisements in random order: one with a parody warning and two with the FDA-mandated warning (one with a model's face and one without). Areas of interest (AOIs) were the parody or FDA-mandated warning. We compared dwell time on AOIs between the three advertisements.
resultsParticipants viewed parody warnings longer than each FDA-mandated warning on average (254 and 608 ms longer; p's < 0.02). Comparing the advertisements with FDA-mandated warnings revealed that participants spent less time looking at the warning in the advertisement with a model's face (354 fewer milliseconds; p = 0.001).
conclusionsParody warnings attracted more visual attention than FDA-mandated warnings, and the presence of a face in the advertisement drew attention away from the FDA-mandated warning. Results underscore the need for advertisement regulations that support increased attention to health warnings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.