Hua-Hie Yong1, Ron Borland1, James F Thrasher2, Mary E Thompson3, Gera E Nagelhout4, Geoffrey T Fong5, David Hammond6, K Michael Cummings7. 1. VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control, The Cancer Council Victoria. 2. Department of Health Promotion, Education and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina. 3. Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Waterloo. 4. Department of Health Promotion, Maastricht University. 5. Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo. 6. School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo. 7. Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test and develop, using structural equation modeling, a robust model of the mediational pathways through which health warning labels exert their influence on smokers' subsequent quitting behavior. METHOD: Data come from the International Tobacco Control Four-Country Survey, a longitudinal cohort study conducted in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Waves 5-6 data (n = 4,988) were used to calibrate the hypothesized model of warning label impact on subsequent quit attempts via a set of policy-specific and general psychosocial mediators. The finalized model was validated using Waves 6-7 data (n = 5065). RESULTS: As hypothesized, warning label salience was positively associated with thoughts about risks of smoking stimulated by the warnings (β = .58, p < .001), which in turn were positively related to increased worry about negative outcomes of smoking (β = .52, p < .001); increased worry in turn predicted stronger intention to quit (β = .39, p < .001), which was a strong predictor of subsequent quit attempts (β = .39, p < .001). This calibrated model was successfully replicated using Waves 6-7 data. CONCLUSION: Health warning labels seem to influence future quitting attempts primarily through their ability to stimulate thoughts about the risks of smoking, which in turn help to raise smoking-related health concerns, which lead to stronger intentions to quit, a known key predictor of future quit attempts for smokers. By making warning labels more salient and engaging, they should have a greater chance to change behavior. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: To test and develop, using structural equation modeling, a robust model of the mediational pathways through which health warning labels exert their influence on smokers' subsequent quitting behavior. METHOD: Data come from the International Tobacco Control Four-Country Survey, a longitudinal cohort study conducted in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Waves 5-6 data (n = 4,988) were used to calibrate the hypothesized model of warning label impact on subsequent quit attempts via a set of policy-specific and general psychosocial mediators. The finalized model was validated using Waves 6-7 data (n = 5065). RESULTS: As hypothesized, warning label salience was positively associated with thoughts about risks of smoking stimulated by the warnings (β = .58, p < .001), which in turn were positively related to increased worry about negative outcomes of smoking (β = .52, p < .001); increased worry in turn predicted stronger intention to quit (β = .39, p < .001), which was a strong predictor of subsequent quit attempts (β = .39, p < .001). This calibrated model was successfully replicated using Waves 6-7 data. CONCLUSION: Health warning labels seem to influence future quitting attempts primarily through their ability to stimulate thoughts about the risks of smoking, which in turn help to raise smoking-related health concerns, which lead to stronger intentions to quit, a known key predictor of future quit attempts for smokers. By making warning labels more salient and engaging, they should have a greater chance to change behavior. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved.
Authors: Lin Li; Ron Borland; Hua-Hie Yong; Sara C Hitchman; Melanie A Wakefield; Karin A Kasza; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Addiction Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 6.526
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: Ellen Peters; Daniel Romer; Paul Slovic; Kathleen Hall Jamieson; Leisha Wharfield; C K Mertz; Stephanie M Carpenter Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Yoo Jin Cho; James F Thrasher; Kamala Swayampakala; Isaac Lipkus; David Hammond; Kenneth Michael Cummings; Ron Borland; Hua-Hie Yong; James W Hardin Journal: Health Educ Behav Date: 2017-07-17
Authors: Noel T Brewer; Marissa G Hall; Seth M Noar; Humberto Parada; Al Stein-Seroussi; Laura E Bach; Sean Hanley; Kurt M Ribisl Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Lin Li; Ron Borland; Hua Yong; Kenneth M Cummings; James F Thrasher; Sara C Hitchman; Geoffrey T Fong; David Hammond; Maansi Bansal-Travers Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2014-12-08
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: Erin L Mead; Raul Cruz-Cano; Allison Groom; Joy L Hart; Kandi L Walker; Aida L Giachello; Rose Marie Robertson; Cheryl Oncken Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2018-10-13 Impact factor: 3.913
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