Visual attention to blu's parody warnings and the FDA's warning on e-cigarette advertisements.

OBJECTIVES: In 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. METHODS: N = 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. RESULTS: Participants 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). CONCLUSIONS: Parody 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.

Waterpipe Warning Placement and Risk Perceptions: An Eye Tracking Study.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to select a health warning message location on a waterpipe (WP) that both attracted visual attention and conveyed the risks associated with WP smoking. Methods: During June through November 2019, we conducted a within-subjects randomized experiment (N = 74) using eye tracking equipment to examine visual attention to 3 placements of a health warning on the WP (stem, water bowl, hose). We asked young adult ever WP users 3 questions about WP harm perceptions. We used generalized linear mixed models to examine the amount of fixation time spent on the placement locations; we used repeated measures ANOVA to model changes in harm perceptions. Results: There were statistically significant differences across all 3 placement locations; regardless of place, all HWLs attracted a comparable amount of visual attention. Absolute WP harm perceptions significantly increased following the experiment and remained significantly higher at the one-week follow-up, compared to baseline. Conclusions: Warnings on WPs attracted visual attention and increased harm perceptions, and those harm perceptions remained high one week after the experiment. Findings indicate the value of including a warning on the WP device, and underscore the necessity and effectiveness of those health warnings to combat WP harm misperceptions.

Waterpipe Tobacco Warnings Need to Inform Users of Harm.

OBJECTIVES: Health warning messages could be an effective means of communicating the health risks associated with waterpipe (WP) smoking. The objective of this study was to select a message that conveyed the risks associated with WP smoking. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used to explore the effectiveness of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) mandated message, and others, among young adults using focus groups and surveys. Two focus group studies and one convenience survey were conducted to examine the FDA's mandated message and 11 other WP warning messages. The final study, conducted with a random sample of first-year university students, examined the effectiveness and reactance of the chosen message using previously validated items (scored on a 1-5 scale). RESULTS: The FDA's mandated message did not resonate well with focus group participants. In the random sample of students, the top message (WARNING: Hookah smoke contains poisons that cause lung and oral cancers) had high effectiveness (M = 4.49) and a low reactance (M = 2.12). CONCLUSIONS: Our studies suggest that other messages are more effective for communicating the risks associated with WP smoking than the FDA's message for WP tobacco.