Deadly Attraction – Attentional Bias toward Preferred Cigarette Brand in Smokers
Ewa Domaradzka , Maksymilian Bielecki
AbstractNumerous studies have shown that biases in visual attention might be evoked by affective and personally-relevant stimuli, for example addiction-related objects. Despite the fact that addiction is often linked to specific products and systematic purchase behaviors, no studies focused directly on the existence of bias evoked by brands. Smokers are characterized by high levels of brand loyalty and everyday contact with cigarette packaging. Using the incentive-salience mechanism as a theoretical framework, we hypothesized that this group might exhibit a bias toward the preferred cigarette brand. In our study, a group of smokers (N = 40) performed a dot probe task while their eye movements were recorded. In each trial a pair of pictures was presented – each of them showed a single cigarette pack. The visual properties of stimuli were carefully controlled, so branding information was the only factor affecting subjects’ reactions. For each participant, we compared gaze behavior related to the preferred vs. other brands. The analyses revealed no attentional bias in the early, orienting phase of the stimulus processing and strong differences in maintenance and disengagement. Participants spent more time looking at the preferred cigarettes and saccades starting at the preferred brand location had longer latencies. In sum, our data shows that attentional bias toward brands might be found in situations not involving choice or decision making. These results provide important insights into the mechanisms of formation and maintenance of attentional biases to stimuli of personal relevance and might serve as a first step toward developing new attitude measurement techniques.
|Journal series||Frontiers in Psychology, ISSN 1664-1078, (A 35 pkt)|
|Publication size in sheets||0.5|
|Keywords in English||moking, attentional bias, dot probe task, eye-tracking, brand preference|
|Publication indicators||: 2016 = 1.006; : 2017 = 2.089 (2) - 2017=2.749 (5)|
|Citation count*||5 (2020-08-08)|
* presented citation count is obtained through Internet information analysis and it is close to the number calculated by the Publish or Perish system.