Literature DB >> 15799598

Smokers' responses to advertisements for regular and light cigarettes and potential reduced-exposure tobacco products.

William L Hamilton1, Giulia diStefano Norton, Tammy K Ouellette, Wiliam M Rhodes, Ryan Kling, Gregory N Connolly.   

Abstract

This study examines smokers' responses to advertisements for potentially reduced exposure tobacco products (PREP), light cigarettes, and regular cigarettes. A convenience sample of 600 adult smokers reviewed one actual advertisement for each type of product. Smokers ranked the products on health risk, amount of tar, and carcinogenicity, and identified the messages they perceived the advertisements to convey. Smokers perceived PREP products as having lower health risks (mean = 5.4 on a scale of 1-10) and carcinogens (6.6) than light cigarettes (5.8 and 6.9, respectively, p < .001), and lights as having lower health risks and carcinogen levels than regular cigarettes (8.2 and 8.8, respectively, p <.001). The average PREP rating for level of tar (5.3) was not significantly less than the light mean of 5.4, but both were significantly less than the regular mean of 8.4 (p <.001). Although no advertisements explicitly said that the products were healthy or safe, advertisements for PREP products and light cigarettes were interpreted as conveying positive messages about health and safety. Most smokers believed that claims made in cigarette advertisements must be approved by a government agency. The results indicate that advertisements can and do leave consumers with perceptions of the health and safety of tobacco products that are contrary to the scientific evidence. Explicit and implicit advertising messages may be strengthened by the perceived government endorsement. This supports the Institute of Medicine's recommendation to regulate the promotion, advertising, and labeling of PREP tobacco products and light cigarettes. Effective regulation may need to focus on consumer perceptions resulting from advertisements rather than the explicit content of advertising text.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15799598     DOI: 10.1080/14622200412331320752

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res        ISSN: 1462-2203            Impact factor:   4.244


  29 in total

1.  Do smokers in Europe think all cigarettes are equally harmful?

Authors:  Abraham Brown; Ann McNeill; Ute Mons; Romain Guignard
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.367

2.  Impact of corrective health information on consumers' perceptions of "reduced exposure" tobacco products.

Authors:  Lois Biener; Karen Bogen; Gregory Connolly
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 7.552

3.  A pilot randomized study of smokeless tobacco use among smokers not interested in quitting: changes in smoking behavior and readiness to quit.

Authors:  Matthew J Carpenter; Kevin M Gray
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2010-01-06       Impact factor: 4.244

4.  Do we believe the tobacco industry lied to us? Association with smoking behavior in a military population.

Authors:  Robert C Klesges; Deborah A Sherrill-Mittleman; Margaret Debon; G Wayne Talcott; Robert J Vanecek
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2009-06-15

5.  What happened to smokers' beliefs about light cigarettes when "light/mild" brand descriptors were banned in the UK? Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey.

Authors:  R Borland; G T Fong; H-H Yong; K M Cummings; D Hammond; B King; M Siahpush; A McNeill; G Hastings; R J O'Connor; T Elton-Marshall; M P Zanna
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2008-04-21       Impact factor: 7.552

6.  Using eye-tracking to examine how embedding risk corrective statements improves cigarette risk beliefs: Implications for tobacco regulatory policy.

Authors:  Kirsten Lochbuehler; Kathy Z Tang; Valentina Souprountchouk; Dana Campetti; Joseph N Cappella; Lynn T Kozlowski; Andrew A Strasser
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2016-05-02       Impact factor: 4.492

Review 7.  Postmarketing surveillance for "modified-risk" tobacco products.

Authors:  Richard J O'Connor
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2011-01-20       Impact factor: 4.244

Review 8.  Surveillance methods for identifying, characterizing, and monitoring tobacco products: potential reduced exposure products as an example.

Authors:  Richard J O'Connor; K Michael Cummings; Vaughan W Rees; Gregory N Connolly; Kaila J Norton; David Sweanor; Mark Parascandola; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Peter G Shields
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 9.  Assessing consumer responses to potential reduced-exposure tobacco products: a review of tobacco industry and independent research methods.

Authors:  Vaughan W Rees; Jennifer M Kreslake; K Michael Cummings; Richard J O'Connor; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Mark Parascandola; Peter G Shields; Gregory N Connolly
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Surveillance indicators for potential reduced exposure products (PREPs): developing survey items to measure awareness.

Authors:  Karen Bogen; Lois Biener; Catherine A Garrett; Jane Allen; K Michael Cummings; Anne Hartman; Stephen Marcus; Ann McNeill; Richard J O'Connor; Mark Parascandola; Linda Pederson
Journal:  Harm Reduct J       Date:  2009-10-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.