AIMS: To assess the effects on brand appeal of plain packaging and size of pictorial health warnings (PHWs). DESIGN: Three (30%, 70% and 100% size front-of-pack PHWs) by two (branded versus plain) between-subjects online experiment. SETTING: Australia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1203 adult smokers. MEASUREMENTS: Rating of cigarette brands, smoking attitudes and intentions, purchase intent. FINDINGS: Compared to branded packs, plain packs reduced smokers' ratings of 'positive pack characteristics' (P < 0.001), 'positive smoker characteristics' (P < 0.001) and 'positive taste characteristics' (P = 0.039). Plain packs were rated as being smoked by people who were more 'boring' than those who smoked branded packs (P = 0.001). By contrast, increasing size of PHW above 30% only reduced ratings of 'positive pack characteristics' (P = 0.001), but also decreased ratings of smokers as being 'boring' (P = 0.027). Plainness and size of PHW interacted in predicting ratings of 'positive pack characteristics' (P = 0.008), so that when packs were plain, increasing the size of PHW above 30% did not further reduce ratings. Presentation of only plain packs increased the likelihood that smokers would not choose to purchase any pack (20.3%) compared to presentation of only branded packs (15.3%) (odds ratio = 1.4; P = 0.026), while size of PHWs had no influence upon purchase choice. CONCLUSIONS: Plain packaging probably plays a superior role in undermining brand appeal and purchase intent to increasing health warning size. Policymakers should not rely solely upon large health warnings, which are designed primarily to inform consumers about smoking harms, to also reduce brand appeal: both strategies are likely to be required.
AIMS: To assess the effects on brand appeal of plain packaging and size of pictorial health warnings (PHWs). DESIGN: Three (30%, 70% and 100% size front-of-pack PHWs) by two (branded versus plain) between-subjects online experiment. SETTING: Australia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1203 adult smokers. MEASUREMENTS: Rating of cigarette brands, smoking attitudes and intentions, purchase intent. FINDINGS: Compared to branded packs, plain packs reduced smokers' ratings of 'positive pack characteristics' (P < 0.001), 'positive smoker characteristics' (P < 0.001) and 'positive taste characteristics' (P = 0.039). Plain packs were rated as being smoked by people who were more 'boring' than those who smoked branded packs (P = 0.001). By contrast, increasing size of PHW above 30% only reduced ratings of 'positive pack characteristics' (P = 0.001), but also decreased ratings of smokers as being 'boring' (P = 0.027). Plainness and size of PHW interacted in predicting ratings of 'positive pack characteristics' (P = 0.008), so that when packs were plain, increasing the size of PHW above 30% did not further reduce ratings. Presentation of only plain packs increased the likelihood that smokers would not choose to purchase any pack (20.3%) compared to presentation of only branded packs (15.3%) (odds ratio = 1.4; P = 0.026), while size of PHWs had no influence upon purchase choice. CONCLUSIONS: Plain packaging probably plays a superior role in undermining brand appeal and purchase intent to increasing health warning size. Policymakers should not rely solely upon large health warnings, which are designed primarily to inform consumers about smoking harms, to also reduce brand appeal: both strategies are likely to be required.
Authors: Chris Skurka; Motasem Kalaji; Michael C Dorf; Deena Kemp; Amelia Greiner Safi; Sahara Byrne; Alan D Mathios; Rosemary J Avery; Jeff Niederdeppe Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Melanie A Wakefield; Kerri Coomber; Sarah J Durkin; Michelle Scollo; Megan Bayly; Matthew J Spittal; Julie A Simpson; David Hill Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Chris Skurka; Deena Kemp; Julie Davydova; James F Thrasher; Sahara Byrne; Amelia Greiner Safi; Rosemary J Avery; Michael C Dorf; Alan D Mathios; Leah Scolere; Jeff Niederdeppe Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: An-Li Wang; Dan Romer; Igor Elman; Bruce I Turetsky; Ruben C Gur; Daniel D Langleben Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2013-12-15 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Sarah J Hardcastle; Derwin C K Chan; Kim M Caudwell; Sarwat Sultan; Jo Cranwell; Nikos L D Chatzisarantis; Martin S Hagger Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2016-02
Authors: Hua-Hie Yong; Ron Borland; David Hammond; James F Thrasher; K Michael Cummings; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Tob Control Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Darren Mays; Raymond S Niaura; W Douglas Evans; David Hammond; George Luta; Kenneth P Tercyak Journal: Tob Control Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 7.552