Literature DB >> 22372966

Do larger pictorial health warnings diminish the need for plain packaging of cigarettes?

Melanie Wakefield1, Daniella Germain, Sarah Durkin, David Hammond, Marvin Goldberg, Ron Borland.   

Abstract

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.
© 2012 The Authors, Addiction © 2012 Society for the Study of Addiction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22372966     DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03774.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Addiction        ISSN: 0965-2140            Impact factor:   6.526


  36 in total

1.  The case for stringent alcohol warning labels: lessons from the tobacco control experience.

Authors:  Mohammed Al-hamdani
Journal:  J Public Health Policy       Date:  2013-11-21       Impact factor: 2.222

2.  Independent or synergistic? Effects of varying size and using pictorial images in tobacco health warning labels.

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

3.  Time series analysis of the impact of tobacco control policies on smoking prevalence among Australian adults, 2001-2011.

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

4.  The difficulty of making healthy choices and "health in all policies".

Authors:  Pricivel Melendez Carrera
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2014-03-01       Impact factor: 9.408

5.  Effects of 30% and 50% Cigarette Pack Graphic Warning Labels on Visual Attention, Negative Affect, Quit Intentions, and Smoking Susceptibility among Disadvantaged Populations in the United States.

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

6.  Emotional graphic cigarette warning labels reduce the electrophysiological brain response to smoking cues.

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

7.  Larger and More Prominent Graphic Health Warnings on Plain-Packaged Tobacco Products and Avoidant Responses in Current Smokers: a Qualitative Study.

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

8.  Analysis of the Paternalistic Justification of an Agenda Setting Public Health Policy: The Case of Tobacco Plain Packaging.

Authors:  Thomas Boysen Anker
Journal:  Public Health Ethics       Date:  2016-05-30       Impact factor: 1.940

9.  Smokers' reactions to the new larger health warning labels on plain cigarette packs in Australia: findings from the ITC Australia project.

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

10.  Cigarette packaging and health warnings: the impact of plain packaging and message framing on young smokers.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.