TY  - JOUR
T1  - Warnings in tobacco advertisements: Marlboro man vs surgeon general-reply
AU  - Fischer PM, Richards JW, Berman EJ, Krugman DM
Y1  - 1989/05/12
N1  - 10.1001/jama.1989.03420180057015
JO  - JAMA
SP  - 2633
EP  - 2634
VL  - 261
IS  - 18
N2  - In Reply.— 
    Dr Alwitt fails to understand or has ignored the central issue in our research. The essential "context" for the warning must be the tobacco advertisement itself. Only 8% of the viewing time was devoted to the warning, while 92% was devoted to the advertisement. Comparisons with advertisements for products that carry no warnings are irrelevant.As we acknowledged in the article, the sample size is small. However, our study remains one of the largest ever reported in the literature using eye tracking techniques. Furthermore, it is the only published study to examine the effectiveness of the Surgeon General's warning for adolescents.Dr Alwitt is incorrect in her statement that the subjects should have been able to read the warning in three visual fixations. The reference1 that she cites, in fact, states that only eight letters are "seen" in the average fixation. The warnings on cigarette advertisements average
SN  - 0098-7484
M3  - doi: 10.1001/jama.1989.03420180057015
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1989.03420180057015
ER  -