Dataset Information

Public support for pictorial warnings on cigarette packs: an experimental study of US smokers.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Understanding factors that influence public support for "nudging" policies, like pictorial cigarette pack warnings, may offer insight about how to increase such support. We sought to examine factors that influence smokers' support for requiring pictorial warnings on cigarette packs. METHODS:In 2014 and 2015, we randomly assigned 2149 adult US smokers to receive either pictorial warnings or text-only warnings on their cigarette packs for 4 weeks. The outcome examined in the current study was support for a policy requiring pictorial warnings on cigarette packs in the US. RESULTS:Support for pictorial warnings was high at baseline (mean: 3.2 out of 4). Exposure to pictorial warnings increased policy support at week 4 (? = .05, p = .03). This effect was explained by increases in perceived message effectiveness (p < .001) and reported conversations about policy support (p < .001). Message reactance (i.e., an oppositional reaction to the warning) partially diminished the impact of pictorial warnings on policy support (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS:Exposing people to a new policy through implementation could increase public support for that policy by increasing perceived effectiveness and by prompting conversations about the policy. Reactance may partially weaken the effect of policy exposure on public support.

SUBMITTER: Hall MG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5924634 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Public support for pictorial warnings on cigarette packs: an experimental study of US smokers.

Hall Marissa G MG Marteau Theresa M TM Sunstein Cass R CR Ribisl Kurt M KM Noar Seth M SM Orlan Elizabeth N EN Brewer Noel T NT

Journal of behavioral medicine 20180206 3

<h4>Background</h4>Understanding factors that influence public support for "nudging" policies, like pictorial cigarette pack warnings, may offer insight about how to increase such support. We sought to examine factors that influence smokers' support for requiring pictorial warnings on cigarette packs.<h4>Methods</h4>In 2014 and 2015, we randomly assigned 2149 adult US smokers to receive either pictorial warnings or text-only warnings on their cigarette packs for 4 weeks. The outcome examined in ...[more]

PMID: 29411272

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSocial interactions are a key mechanism through which health communication efforts, including pictorial cigarette pack warnings, may exert their effects. We sought to better understand social interactions elicited by pictorial cigarette pack warnings.MethodsA controlled trial randomly assigned US adult smokers (n = 2149) to have their cigarette packs labeled with pictorial or text-only warnings for 4 weeks. Smokers completed surveys during the baseline visit and each of the subsequent 4 weekly visits.ResultsSmokers with pictorial warnings on their packs had more conversations throughout the trial compared to those with text-only warnings (8.2 conversations vs 5.0, p<.01). The highest number of conversations occurred during the first week. Smokers with pictorial warnings were more likely than those with text-only warnings to discuss the health effects of smoking, whether the warnings would make them want to quit and whether the warnings would make others want to quit (all p < .05). Smokers were more likely to describe pictorial warnings as scary, gross, or depressing and gloomy during conversations than text-only warnings (all p < .05).ConclusionsPictorial warnings sparked more conversations about the warnings, the health effects of smoking, and quitting smoking than text-only warnings. These social interactions may extend the reach of pictorial warnings beyond the targeted smoker and may be one of the processes by which pictorial warnings have impact.ImplicationsHealth communication can influence behavior by changing social interactions. Our trial characterized social interactions about pictorial cigarette pack warnings with a large longitudinal sample in a real-world setting. Understanding these conversations can inform the United States and other countries as they improve existing warnings and help tobacco control policy makers and health communication theorists understand how social interactions triggered by warnings affect smoking.

Project description:Background:Pictorial warnings on cigarette packs are a cost-effective policy-level intervention for smoking cessation; however, little research has examined changes in the impact of warnings over time, especially shortly following the first exposure to pictorial warnings. We sought to characterize the trajectories of responses to pictorial cigarette pack warnings soon after first exposure. Methods:Participants were 2149 adult smokers in North Carolina and California, United States. In 2014-2015, we randomized smokers to have pictorial (intervention) or text-only (control) warnings on their cigarette packs for 4 weeks. Weekly surveys assessed psychosocial and behavioral outcomes. Results:After 1 week, smokers in the intervention arm reported higher levels of most outcomes, compared with the control arm. Over subsequent weeks, smokers in both trial arms had decreases in thinking about the harms of smoking (? = -0.046), positive (? = -0.036), and negative (? = -0.042) smoking reinforcement attitudes, and increases in quit intentions (? = 0.070) and cigarette forgoing (? = 0.137) (all p < .05). Only negative affective reactions decreased more in the intervention versus control condition (pinteraction < .01). Conclusions:The impact of pictorial cigarette pack warnings on emotions and cognitions may wane over time. In contrast, quit intentions and cigarette forgoing may continue to increase, at least during the initial period after introduction. Rotation of pictorial warnings may help prevent warning wear-out. Implications:Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality and warnings on cigarette packs are a cost-effective policy-level intervention. Prior studies reporting on cigarette pack warning "wear out" have been limited by being short-term single-session experimental studies. Ours are the first study to experimentally examine the trajectories of several outcomes after first exposure and report that the impact of pictorial cigarette pack warnings on emotions and cognitions may wane over time while quit intentions and cigarette forgoing may continue to increase. Trials Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02247908; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02247908.

Project description:IntroductionTobacco smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death. This is not inevitable as tobacco control tools have become more powerful and more effective. Among these, warnings on cigarette packs have proven to be somewhat effective. Our objective is to increase the efficacy of antismoking warnings by using innovative psychological approaches and to create an experimental setting for the evaluation of these new warnings based on behavioural indicators.Methods and analysisFirst, we created new warnings based on three categories of motivational leverage and on harm reduction. New warnings with innovative texts and pictures were designed for each category and inserted on plain packs. We will then use standard indicators to compare their effect to that of control packs: plain pack without warning, plain pack with conventional warning and branded pack with conventional warning. Second, the novelty of our approach will consist in designing an experimental protocol that uses monetary incentives to evaluate the effect of warnings. Subjects will be able to 'sacrifice' part of their participation defrayal to purchase a good whose subjective value is related to one's attitude towards smoking. These monetarily incentivised measures are designed to assess smokers' immediate/mid-term intention to quit and non-smokers' aversion to smoking. In both cases, the monetary amounts individuals accept to sacrifice may be a more reliable measure than declarative responses, which may be distorted by several hypothetical biases. In the end, we should be able to robustly measure the impact of our new warnings between intervention and control groups by using both traditional indicators and our new monetarily incentivised measure.Ethics and disseminationThe ethics committee of the Groupement des Hôpitaux de l'Institut Catholique de Lille approved the research protocol on 5 July 2019 (CIER 2019-22). Results will be presented at scientific meetings and published.

Project description:AimsTo measure how cigarette packaging (standardised packaging and branded packaging) and health warning size affect visual attention and pack preferences among Colombian smokers and non-smokers.DesignTo explore visual attention, we used an eye-tracking experiment where non-smokers, weekly smokers and daily smokers were shown cigarette packs varying in warning size (30%-pictorial on top of the text, 30%-pictorial and text side-by-side, 50%, 70%) and packaging (standardised packaging, branded packaging). We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to examine the impact of warning size, packaging and brand name on preferences to try, taste perceptions and perceptions of harm.SettingEye-tracking laboratory, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.ParticipantsParticipants (n = 175) were 18 to 40 years old.MeasurementsFor the eye-tracking experiment, our primary outcome measure was the number of fixations toward the health warning compared with the branding. For the DCE, outcome measures were preferences to try, taste perceptions and harm perceptions.FindingsWe observed greater visual attention to warning labels on standardised versus branded packages (F[3,167] = 22.87, P < 0.001) and when warnings were larger (F[9,161] = 147.17, P < 0.001); as warning size increased, the difference in visual attention to warnings between standardised and branded packaging decreased (F[9,161] = 4.44, P < 0.001). Non-smokers visually attended toward the warnings more than smokers, but as warning size increased these differences decreased (F[6,334] = 2.92, P = 0.009). For the DCE, conditional trials showed that increasing the warning size from 30% to 70% reduced preferences to try (odds ratio [OR] = 0.48, 95% CI = [0.42,0.54], P < 0.001), taste perceptions (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = [0.54,0.68], P < 0.001); and increased harm perceptions (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = [0.76,0.80], P < 0.001). Compared with branded packaging, standardised packaging reduced our DCE outcome measures with ORs ranging from OR = 0.25 (95% CI = [0.17,0.38], P < 0.001) to OR = 0.79 (95% CI = [0.67,0.93], P < 0.001) across two brands. These effects were more pronounced among non-smokers, males and younger participants. Unconditional trials showed similar results.ConclusionsStandardised cigarette packaging and larger health warnings appear to decrease positive pack perceptions and have the potential to reduce the demand for cigarette products in Colombia.

Dataset Information

Public support for pictorial warnings on cigarette packs: an experimental study of US smokers.

Publications

Public support for pictorial warnings on cigarette packs: an experimental study of US smokers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets