Kessels and Ruiter BMC Public Health 2012, 12:352 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/352 Page 5 of 9 Non-Smokers 0.69 (0.21) 141.08 (44.54) 17.29 (3.78) 5496.34 (1149.38) Table 1 Eye movements (fixations and dwell time) for AOIs by smoking status – text and photo AOI Text Fixations Dwell-Time AOI Photo Fixations Dwell-Time High Threat Photo Coping Smokers Non-Smokers 0.82 (0.22) 179.04 (42.87) 16.84 (4.91) 5074.52 (1151.73) 0.74 (0.27) 154.93 (54.62) 17.57 (4.35) 5365 (1304.78) High Risk Smokers 0.71 (0.23) 147.89 (60.20) 17.41 (4.94) 5242.72 (979.91) Non-Smokers 0.82 (0.27) 171.09 (59.46) 16.83 (4.06) 4989.24 (1153.33) Low Threat Photo Coping Smokers Non-Smokers 0.86 (0.31) 187.57 (75.74) 13 (4.15) 4442.04 (928.38) 0.86 (0.29) 181.08 (66.13) 14.72 (3.95) 4593.24 (1098.40) High Risk Smokers 0.70 (0.25) 150.40 (62.43) 16.95 (5.02) 5380.61 (873.79) Note. Smokers (n = 23); Non-Smokers (n = 41) Means (SD) of fixations and dwell Time (in milliseconds) for the AOIs text and photo for each health text (coping vs. high risk) in combination with a high threat photo or a low threat photo. the expected patterns of results. Smokers showed more fixations for coping information than for high risk infor- mation, t(22) = 2.37, p < .05. For non-smokers, more fixations were found for high risk information than for coping information, t(40) = −2.41, p < .05. In the low threat photo conditions a significant main effect of health text was found, F(1, 62) = 51.04, p < .001, η2p = .45. For smokers and non-smokers, coping informa- tion (M = 0.86; SD = 0.30) received more fixations than high risk information (M = 0.70; SD = 0.22). Dwell time. A significant 3-way interaction between health text, photo, and smoking status was also found on the average dwell time per syllable of the health texts, F(1, 62) = 7.63, p < .01, η2p = .11. Separate analyses for each level of photo showed for the high threat photo conditions a significant interaction effect between health text and smoking status, F(1, 62) = 11.92, p < .01, η2p = .16. Paired-samples t-tests for each level of smoking sta- tus showed the expected patterns of results with more dwell time for coping information than for high risk in- formation for smokers, t(22) = 2.68, p < .05, and more dwell time for high risk information than for coping in- formation for non-smokers, t(40) = −2.04, p < .05. For the low threat photo conditions again a significant main effect of health text was found, F(1, 62) = 44.27, p < .001, η2p = .42. Coping information (M = 183.41; SD = 69.21) received more dwell time than high risk informa- tion (M = 144.43; SD = 51.39) in both smokers and non- smokers. Area of interest – photo Fixations. The average number of fixations for the area of interest of the photo showed significant 2-way inter- actions between health text and photo, F(1, 62) = 22.46, p < .001, η2p = .27, and between health text and smoking status, F(1, 62) = 5.65, p < .05, η2p = .08. Separate analyses for each level of photo showed for the high threat pho- tos no significant effects involving the factors smoking status or health text, Fs < 1.89, ns, η2p < .03. For the low threat photos a significant effect of health text was found, F(1, 62) = 58.90, p < .001, η2p = .49. Low threat photos presented with high risk information (M = 17.17; SD = 4.23) received significantly more fixations than low threat photos presented with coping information (M = 14.10; SD = 4.07). Dwell time. On the dwell time for the photos only a significant 2-way interaction between health text and photo was found, F(1, 62) = 35.09, p < .001, η2p = .36. Sep- arate analyses for each level of photo showed for the high threat photos no significant effects involving the 2 factors smoking status or health text, Fs < 3.88, ns, ηp < .06. For the low threat photos a significant main effect of health text was found, F(1, 62) = 74.07, p < .001, η2p = .54. Low threat photos presented with high risk infor- mation (M = 5454.70; SD = 1052.87) received significantly more dwell time than low threat photos presented with coping information (M = 4538.91; SD = 1035.54). Self-report measures An overview of the mean scores on the measures of message acceptance, novelty, personal relevance and per- ceived threat of the health texts by smokers and non- smokers can be found in Table 2. Message acceptance. A significant interaction between health text and smoking status was found on message acceptance, F(1, 62) = 10.52, p < .01, η2p = .15. Separate analyses for each level of smoking status showed that smokers evaluated high risk information (M = 5.15; SD =