In an era flooded with information, effectively communicating health risks has become increasingly challenging. Radek Soběhart, Director of Research at the Anglo-American University in Prague, recently presented the findings of an experiment on how consumers perceive the harmfulness of various nicotine products—revealing key insights into how health warnings are processed.
The Challenge of Risk Perception
The core question of the study was whether consumers perceive different nicotine products as more or less harmful. “I’d stress the word ‘perception’—we’re measuring a form of subjectivity and its impact on the target group’s decision-making,” Soběhart emphasized. The researchers began with hypotheses grounded in broader societal concerns: misinformation, fake news, and conspiracy theories all shape public attitudes—even toward issues as specific as nicotine-product harm.
Distrust of Scientific Expertise
One starting point was the public’s respect for scientific authority. “I was surprised by a large Stanford University study showing that a majority of Americans believe they understand epidemiological issues better than doctors do,” Soběhart noted. “There’s a clear distrust: ‘I know better because my neighbor had COVID,’ or—worse—‘didn’t have it.’” This skepticism toward medical expertise, he argues, colors how people interpret health warnings.
A second hypothesis tackled the mistaken belief that more facts always lead to better decisions. “In public-policy circles, you often hear that people make poor choices because they lack sufficient information,” Soběhart said. “But the reality is the opposite: there is so much information that people resort to ‘rational ignorance’ rather than spend hours weighing pros and cons.”
Eye-Tracking Methodology
To probe these phenomena, the team conducted an experiment with sixty university students experienced in using nicotine products. “Eye tracking is a qualitative research method shown to be valid with samples as small as fifty participants,” Soběhart explained. The study unfolded in three phases:
Revised Assessment: Participants then re-rated the products, allowing researchers to measure any shifts in perception between phases one and three.
Initial Exposure and Rating: Participants saw the product packaging—mimicking tactile engagement—and rated each product’s perceived harmfulness on a scale, choosing among cigarettes, e-cigarettes, heated‐tobacco devices, and nicotine pouches.
Eye-Tracking on Health Warnings: Using eye-tracking glasses, researchers recorded gaze patterns and fixation times on warning labels.
Eye-Tracking Technology Reveals the Truth
Soběhart emphasized the importance of eye-tracking technology: “It is very common in the West, especially in marketing. Simply put—wherever you go, people have already spent hours wearing eye-tracking glasses.”
“The eyes are the part of your body that will always betray you,” he explained. “They are not muscles you can control. Unlike a lie detector, which a person can, after training, skew about sixty percent of the time, eye-tracking allows no such manipulation. Your eyes show exactly what you’re looking at, because fixation—how long you focus on a point—is what matters.”
Surprising Conclusions of the Research
The study’s results yielded several key findings. “The information base—that is, words and facts—does not influence consumer decision-making,” Soběhart concluded. “Adding more information or lengthening labels will not change anything.” According to Soběhart, brand identity has a much greater influence on decisions. “People make choices far more effectively and quickly based on brand. If they prefer a brand, they stick with it—and that is what drives them, not text, dozens of additional pieces of information, links to websites, or references to further studies.”
Recommendations for Public Policymakers
Based on the research, Soběhart formulated several recommendations for public policy:
- Keep regulations simple and understandable, at a cognitive level accessible to all, regardless of education or age.
- Use intuitive visual coding, like the French A–F nutrition label—which employs clear color distinctions rather than extensive text.
- Treat warnings like traffic signs: even if you don’t know the exact meaning of each sign, a red triangle or circle signals potential danger, prompting greater attention.
Visuals Triumph Over Words
Soběhart’s final recommendation concerned the power of visuals: “Don’t underestimate visuals—they are far more effective than individual words. Persuading someone with text alone is not fully effective.”
He stressed tailoring messages to the target audience: “When we worked with students, we found they won’t read anything longer than 500 characters. Their interpretive frame is short, rapidly changing YouTube clips. Ideally, you need a shock or a big piece of information right at the start, or after twenty seconds they switch off and say, ‘I have no idea what that was.’”
Soběhart considers this finding crucial for the future regulation of nicotine products and for health-risk communication in general. In an age of information overload and declining consumer attention spans, traditional approaches must be rethought in favor of more effective methods that respect the cognitive processes of target groups.