Kessels and Ruiter BMC Public Health 2012, 12:352 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/352 Table 2 Self-report Measures for texts and photos by smoking status High Threat Photo Coping Smokers Non-Smokers Text Acceptance Novelty Relevance Threat Photo Threat 4.25 (1.32) 3.16 (1.69) 2.35 (1.14) 1.73 (0.97) 4.49 (1.29) 4.95 (1.00) 3.57 (1.28) 1.23 (0.70) 1.69 (0.84) 4.38 (1.47) High Risk Smokers 5.06 (0.83) 3.20 (1.50) 3.11 (1.33) 4.09 (1.25) 4.74 (1.27) Non-Smokers 4.97 (1.14) 3.41 (1.41) 1.21 (0.66) 3.87 (1.59) 4.58 (1.76) Low Threat Photo Coping Smokers Non-Smokers 4.32 (1.17) 3.28 (1.52) 2.45 (1.19) 1.82 (1.02) 1.72 (1.02) 4.94 (1.04) 3.68 (1.21) 1.20 (0.65) 1.53 (0.86) 1.51 (0.78) High Risk Smokers 5.24 (0.94) 3.04 (1.12) 2.76 (1.20) 4.02 (1.23) 1.87 (1.12) Page 6 of 9 Non-Smokers 5.24 (1.11) 3.35 (1.38) 1.37 (0.98) 3.99 (1.68) 1.58 (1.05) Note. Smokers (n = 23); Non-Smokers (n = 41) Means (SD) of self-report measures for message acceptance, novelty, relevance and threat for each health text (coping vs. high risk) in combination with a high threat photo or a low threat photo. Message evaluation, novelty and relevance was only measured for the AOIs text, perceived threat level was measured for the AOI Text and the AOI Photo. 0.85) more positively than coping information (M = 4.29; SD = 1.19, t(22) = −4.62, p < .001). For non-smokers, no significant difference was found between high risk infor- mation (M = 5.10; SD = 1.10) and coping information (M = 4.94; SD = 1.00, p = .21). Novelty. No significant main effects or interaction effects were found on the extent to which participants evaluated the presented texts as novel, Fs < 1.69, ns, η2p < .03. Personal Relevance. A significant 3-way interaction be- tween health text, photo, and smoking status was found on the perceived personal relevance of the health texts, F(1, 62) = 7.93, p < .01, η2p = .11. Separate analyses for each level of photo showed for health texts combined with a high threat photo a significant interaction be- tween health text and smoking status, F(1, 62) = 16.20, p < .001, η2p = .19. Smokers judged the high risk informa- tion (M = 3.11, SD = 1.33) as more personally relevant than the coping information (M = 2.35, SD = 1.14, t (22) = −3.09, p < .01). For non-smokers no difference was found between high risk information (M = 1.23, SD = .70) and coping information (M = 1.21, SD = .66, t (40) = .43, p = .67). For health texts combined with a low threat photo, significant main effects of health text, F(1, 62) = 7.18, p < .01, η2p = .10, and smoking status, F(1, 62) = 30.86, p < .001, η2p = .33, were found. High risk information (M = 1.87, SD = 1.25) was judged to be more personally relevant than coping information (M = 1.64, SD = 1.06). In addition, smokers (M = 2.60, SD = 1.10) judged the health information as more personally relevant than non-smokers (M = 1.28, SD = .0.79). Threat. A significant main effect of health text was found on perceived threat, F(1, 62) = 157.93, p < .001, η2p = .72. High risk information (M = 3.97; SD = 1.40) was judged to be more threatening than coping information (M = 1.67; SD = 0.87). The main effect of photo was also significant, F(1, 62) = 370.06, p < .001, η2p = .86. High threat photos (M = 4.53; SD = 1.40) were judged to be more threatening than low threat photos (M = 1.63; SD = 0.85). Discussion The present study examined whether smokers (but not non-smokers) react defensively to smoking-related risk information by spending less attention to high risk infor- mation than to coping information. Indeed, in smokers we found more fixations and longer dwell time in re- sponse to coping information as opposed to high risk in- formation, irrespective of the threat level (high vs. low) of the accompanying smoking-related photos. This find- ing supports the importance of adding instructions about how to effectively adopt healthy behaviour to in- crease attention for health communications [60,61]. For non-smokers, an attention preference was found for high risk information above coping information, but only when the health information was combined with a high-threat photo. As young non-smokers are often a key target group for pictorial warning labels, the increased attention for high risk information in combin- ation with high threat photos suggests the importance of adding pictorial warnings for impeding smoking uptake and promoting non-smoking norms in non-smoking populations [13,18]. The findings for smokers and non-