51°µÍø

Public authorities increasingly rely on product packaging and on-pack information as regulatory tools to communicate health risks, shape consumer behaviour, and support public health objectives. In the context of tobacco and nicotine regulation, packaging plays a central role in conveying warnings, restrictions, and product-related information, often under the assumption that consumers notice, process, and correctly interpret these signals.

This research project examines whether this assumption holds in practice. Focusing on young adults, the project investigates how different nicotine products are perceived in terms of relative harmfulness, and how these perceptions respond to packaging-based information and simple informational interventions. The core policy question is whether packaging alone functions as an effective communication instrument — or whether its impact is constrained by visual design, attention patterns, and competing informational cues.

Using an experimental design, the project combines behavioural outcomes (accuracy of relative-risk assessments) with attention-based evidence (eye-tracking) to better understand how regulatory information is encountered and interpreted in real-world settings. Rather than evaluating individual products, the project aims to generate evidence relevant to risk communication, packaging regulation, and the limits of information-based policy tools in tobacco and nicotine markets.

Regulation of tobacco and nicotine products increasingly relies on information-based instruments, with packaging serving as a key channel for communicating health risks and regulatory intent. This project is guided by the question of whether such instruments operate as intended when confronted with real-world attention constraints and visual competition on product packaging.

The research addresses three closely related policy-relevant questions:

Together, these questions speak directly to the effectiveness and limits of packaging regulation as a public policy instrument. Rather than evaluating specific regulatory regimes, the project provides empirical evidence on how consumers interact with regulated information environments and where gaps may emerge between regulatory intent and actual perception.

Experimental evidence on the limits of packaging-based risk communication

The first study examines whether product packaging alone functions as an effective communication tool for conveying the relative health risks of different nicotine products. The focus is on young adults who actively use nicotine products and are therefore regularly exposed to regulated packaging and health-related information.

The study employs a three-round experimental design involving 105 university students who reported using at least one nicotine product within the previous two weeks. In the first round, participants were asked to rank four product categories — conventional cigarettes, heated tobacco products, e-cigarettes, and nicotine pouches — according to their perceived harmfulness.

In the second round, participants were given the opportunity to physically examine all four products. They could take the products into their hands, inspect the packaging, read the warnings and informational elements, and then reassess and update their initial rankings. This stage was designed to approximate a realistic consumer setting in which packaging serves as the primary carrier of regulatory information.

The experiment indicates that exposure to packaging alone led to only limited changes in how participants assessed relative harmfulness. Despite direct interaction with the products and their packaging, initial misperceptions largely persisted, and overall improvements in ranking accuracy were modest.

In the final round, participants repeated the ranking task after being exposed to a short infographic presenting concise, comparative information on the relative risks of the four product categories. At this stage, the accuracy of product rankings improved substantially. While misperceptions did not disappear entirely, the contrast between the packaging-only condition and the informational intervention suggests that packaging-based communication may be insufficient on its own to support informed differentiation of risk.

From a public policy perspective, these findings highlight potential limits of relying on packaging as a standalone information instrument. If regulatory messages on packaging do not meaningfully alter relative risk perceptions even when products are physically examined, additional or complementary communication tools may be required to achieve policy objectives that depend on informed consumer understanding.

The full research paper based on this experiment has been accepted for publication (revisions completed).

Eye-tracking evidence on information hierarchy and regulatory visibility

The second study complements the experimental findings by examining how consumers visually interact with regulated packaging information. While Study 1 focuses on whether packaging changes risk perceptions, this study addresses a related policy-relevant question: which elements of packaging actually capture attention in practice.

Using an eye-tracking technology with 45 participants, individuals were exposed to packaging of four nicotine product categories — conventional cigarettes, heated tobacco products, e-cigarettes, and nicotine pouches. The analysis focuses on how visual attention is distributed across different areas of interest, including health warnings, branding elements, product descriptors, and compositional information.

The results indicate that visual attention is not evenly distributed across packaging elements. Branding and product-related visual features tend to attract a substantial share of attention, while health warnings and textual information receive more limited and uneven visual engagement. This pattern is most pronounced for non-combustible products, where warning elements appear less visually dominant within the overall package design.

From a public policy perspective, these findings help explain why packaging-based communication may have limited effects on consumer understanding. Even when health information is present and compliant with regulatory requirements, its visibility and salience compete with other design elements. As a result, regulatory intent embedded in packaging rules may not fully translate into effective communication at the point of consumer interaction.

Rather than evaluating specific warning formats, this study highlights a broader structural challenge: information-based regulation depends not only on what is mandated, but also on how information is visually prioritised and perceived. Eye-tracking evidence thus provides an important complement to behavioural outcomes by revealing constraints that are not directly observable through self-reported understanding or stated preferences.

The paper based on this study is currently under review.

Taken together, the two studies provide complementary insights into the effectiveness and limits of packaging-based regulation as a public policy instrument. While the experimental study shows that direct exposure to product packaging — even when products are physically examined — leads to only limited improvements in the accuracy of relative risk perceptions, the eye-tracking study helps explain why this may be the case.

The findings suggest that limited impact of packaging-based communication does not necessarily stem from a lack of awareness or comprehension. Supplementary responses indicate that participants generally reported understanding health warnings and being familiar with their intent. However, this awareness alone did not translate into a strong impulse to reassess relative risks or change behaviour. In contrast, exposure to concise and comparative risk information prompted a noticeable reconsideration of product rankings and a greater willingness to reflect on consumption choices.

Eye-tracking evidence sheds light on the underlying mechanism. Regulatory information on packaging competes with branding, design elements, and product descriptors for visual attention. Even when warnings are present and compliant with regulatory standards, their visual salience and prioritisation may be insufficient to support the communicative goals embedded in regulation. This gap between regulatory intent and actual attention provides a plausible explanation for why packaging alone appears to have limited influence on risk differentiation.

From a public policy perspective, these findings highlight an important distinction between information availability and information effectiveness. Packaging regulation ensures that information is present, but its ability to shape understanding depends on how it is perceived, prioritised, and integrated by consumers in real-world settings. Where regulatory strategies rely on informed choice, proportional regulation, or risk differentiation across products, complementary communication tools may play a critical role in closing this gap.

Rather than prescribing specific regulatory changes, this project contributes empirical evidence that can inform ongoing discussions about risk communication, packaging design, and the role of information-based instruments within tobacco and nicotine policy.

This research project has resulted in two scientific papers:

Full versions of the research papers will be made available once publication processes are completed.