Packaging Technology and Science, Volume 25, Issue 7, November 1, 2012, pages 385-396.
At the time of publication, author Javier de la Fuente was not yet affiliated with Cal Poly.
The definitive version is available at https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.979.
The study consisted of three objectives: (a) to test the relative prominence and conspicuousness of a warning required by US law to be conspicuous; (b) to explore whether or not the conspicuousness of the said warning can be enhanced graphically; and (c) to develop preliminary data for power analysis that would guide decisions related to sample size in future studies.
Seventeen subjects viewed four over-the-counter drug packages (each with a different style of warning) along with five other products while wearing an eye tracking device. Four styles of warning were used on the over-the-counter drug packages: no outline and no fill, outline and no fill, no outline and fill, and outline and fill. The surface area and the placement of the warnings were held constant across all four designs and were consistent with those on commercially available products. Collected data were broken into five zones: warning, brand name, strength, product benefit and net weight.
Despite the fact that US law requires it to be conspicuous, the tested warning was significantly less noticeable than the brand name (objective one) for all dependent variables analyzed (α = 0.05). No significant difference was indicated for the varied warning designs (objective two). This could be because not much can be done to enhance prominence when constrained to the limited space that is typically used for such warnings or because of the limited sample size. Power calculations suggest that a sample size of nearly 200 subjects would be required to detect a 2.5 s mean difference at 80% confidence (objective three).