Visual attention and memory retention of cannabis warning labels

An Eye-Tracking Experiment With Young Adults

Bibliographic Data

ID7146801
AuthorsJiaying Liu (0000-0001-8461-0954, University of California, Santa Barbara), Ranran Z Mi (0000-0003-2113-3876, Kean University), Moonsun Jeon (0009-0009-5990-7911, Michigan State University), Jessica L Fabbricatore (East Carolina University), Rebekah Wicke (0000-0003-4047-4748, Cornell University), Lauren Raquel Cojulun (University of Georgia), Sijia Yang (0000-0003-4209-9881, University of Wisconsin–Madison)
Year2025
Volume59
Issue1
Publication date2025-01-04
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAnnals of Behavioral Medicine (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0883-6612 • E-ISSN: 1532-4796
PublisherOxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1093/abm/kaaf094
PMID41338585
OpenAlexW4417036016
LanguageEN
References cited39

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use is rising among young adults, while their perceived risks are declining. Existing cannabis warning labels (CWLs), often dense, generic, and text-only, struggle to sustain attention or promote effective risk recognition. Drawing on construal-level theory, this study investigates whether the concreteness of textual and pictorial elements improves CWL effectiveness. PURPOSE: This study examines how specific (vs. generic) text related to health consequences and the addition of pictograms or vivid imagery influence sustained attention to CWLs and recognition of cannabis-related health risks. METHODS: In an eye-tracking experiment, 163 young adult participants were randomly assigned to view CWLs featuring: (1) generic text, (2) specific text, (3) specific text with pictogram, or (4) specific text with vivid imagery. Attention was measured via fixation duration, and recognition was assessed using a post-exposure memory test with signal detection scores. RESULTS: CWLs with specific text significantly outperformed generic text in sustaining attention and enhancing general risk recognition. Adding vivid imagery further enhanced attention but did not significantly improve recognition beyond specific text alone. CWLs with pictograms also led to greater attention than generic text, though less than vivid imagery, and similarly did not improve recognition. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis warnings should prioritize concrete, specific text to optimize both attention and recognition. For raising awareness, incorporating vivid imagery can be beneficial. However, for educational goals centered on enhancing recognition, pictorial elements may be unnecessary if the text is sufficiently concrete. These findings offer practical guidance for designing effective warnings to curb cannabis use among young adults.

Cannabis · Effects of cannabis · False Memory · Health psychology · Visual attention · Young adult · Data Visualization and Analytics · Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis · Safety Warnings and Signage

Tools

Open DOI