OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the most effective content of pictorial health warning labels (HWLs) and whether educational attainment moderates these effects. METHODS: Field experiments were conducted with 529 adult smokers and 530 young adults (258 nonsmokers; 271 smokers). Participants reported responses to different pictorial HWLs printed on cigarette packages. One experiment involved manipulating textual form (testimonial narrative vs. didactic) and the other involved manipulating image type (diseased organs vs. human suffering). RESULTS: Tests of mean ratings and rankings indicated that pictorial HWLs with didactic textual forms had equivalent or significantly higher credibility, relevance, and impact than pictorial HWLs with testimonial forms. Results from mixed-effects models confirmed these results. However, responses differed by participant educational attainment: didactic forms were consistently rated higher than testimonials among participants with higher education, whereas the difference between didactic and testimonial narrative forms was weaker or not statistically significant among participants with lower education. In the second experiment, with textual content held constant, greater credibility, relevance, and impact was found for graphic imagery of diseased organs than imagery of human suffering. CONCLUSIONS: Pictorial HWLs with didactic textual forms seem to work better than those with testimonial narratives. Future research should determine which pictorial HWL content has the greatest real-world impact among consumers from disadvantaged groups, including assessment of how HWL content should change to maintain its impact as tobacco control environments strengthen and consumer awareness of smoking-related risks increases.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the most effective content of pictorial health warning labels (HWLs) and whether educational attainment moderates these effects. METHODS: Field experiments were conducted with 529 adult smokers and 530 young adults (258 nonsmokers; 271 smokers). Participants reported responses to different pictorial HWLs printed on cigarette packages. One experiment involved manipulating textual form (testimonial narrative vs. didactic) and the other involved manipulating image type (diseased organs vs. human suffering). RESULTS: Tests of mean ratings and rankings indicated that pictorial HWLs with didactic textual forms had equivalent or significantly higher credibility, relevance, and impact than pictorial HWLs with testimonial forms. Results from mixed-effects models confirmed these results. However, responses differed by participant educational attainment: didactic forms were consistently rated higher than testimonials among participants with higher education, whereas the difference between didactic and testimonial narrative forms was weaker or not statistically significant among participants with lower education. In the second experiment, with textual content held constant, greater credibility, relevance, and impact was found for graphic imagery of diseased organs than imagery of human suffering. CONCLUSIONS: Pictorial HWLs with didactic textual forms seem to work better than those with testimonial narratives. Future research should determine which pictorial HWL content has the greatest real-world impact among consumers from disadvantaged groups, including assessment of how HWL content should change to maintain its impact as tobacco control environments strengthen and consumer awareness of smoking-related risks increases.
Authors: David Hammond; Geoffrey T Fong; Ron Borland; K Michael Cummings; Ann McNeill; Pete Driezen Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Matthew W Kreuter; Melanie C Green; Joseph N Cappella; Michael D Slater; Meg E Wise; Doug Storey; Eddie M Clark; Daniel J O'Keefe; Deborah O Erwin; Kathleen Holmes; Leslie J Hinyard; Thomas Houston; Sabra Woolley Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2007-06
Authors: James F Thrasher; Matthew C Rousu; Rafael Anaya-Ocampo; Luz Myriam Reynales-Shigematsu; Edna Arillo-Santillán; Mauricio Hernández-Avila Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2007-06-12 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Robin K Matsuyama; Maureen Wilson-Genderson; Laura Kuhn; Drew Moghanaki; Hetal Vachhani; Michael Paasche-Orlow Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2011-05-04
Authors: Anjali U Pandit; Joyce W Tang; Stacy Cooper Bailey; Terry C Davis; Mary V Bocchini; Stephen D Persell; Alex D Federman; Michael S Wolf Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2009-05-12
Authors: Belen Saenz-de-Miera; James F Thrasher; Frank J Chaloupka; Hugh R Waters; Mauricio Hernandez-Avila; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Tob Control Date: 2010-09-24 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Emily B Falk; Matthew Brook O'Donnell; Steven Tompson; Richard Gonzalez; Sonya Dal Cin; Victor Strecher; Kenneth Michael Cummings; Lawrence An Journal: Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci Date: 2015-09-23 Impact factor: 3.436
Authors: Lydia F Emery; Daniel Romer; Kaitlin M Sheerin; Kathleen Hall Jamieson; Ellen Peters Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Noel T Brewer; Marissa G Hall; Joseph G L Lee; Kathryn Peebles; Seth M Noar; Kurt M Ribisl Journal: Tob Control Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Seema Mutti-Packer; Jessica L Reid; James F Thrasher; Daniel Romer; Geoffrey T Fong; Prakash C Gupta; Mangesh S Pednekar; Nigar Nargis; David Hammond Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: David Hammond; James Thrasher; Jessica L Reid; Pete Driezen; Christian Boudreau; Edna Arillo Santillán Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: James F Thrasher; Matthew J Carpenter; Jeannette O Andrews; Kevin M Gray; Anthony J Alberg; Ashley Navarro; Daniela B Friedman; K Michael Cummings Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: James F Thrasher; Kamala Swayampakala; K Michael Cummings; David Hammond; Dien Anshari; Dean M Krugman; James W Hardin Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 4.018