Grace Kong1, Dana A Cavallo2, Deepa R Camenga3, Meghan E Morean4, Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin2. 1. Yale University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, New Haven, CT 06519, United States. Electronic address: Grace.Kong@yale.edu. 2. Yale University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, New Haven, CT 06519, United States. 3. Yale University School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, New Haven, CT 06520, United States. 4. Yale University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, New Haven, CT 06519, United States; Oberlin College, Department of Psychology, Oberlin, OH 44074, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) prevention messages are needed to combat the rising popularity/uptake of e-cigarettes among youth. We examined preferences for e-cigarette prevention messages that either emphasized gains (e.g., You save money by not using e-cigarettes) or losses (e.g., You spend money by using e-cigarettes) among adolescents and young adults. METHODS: Using surveys in two middle schools, four high schools, and one college in CT (N=5405), we assessed students' preferences for gain- or loss-framed e-cigarette prevention messages related to four themes: financial cost, health risks, addiction potential, and social labeling as a smoker. We also assessed whether preferences for each message framing theme differed by sex, school level, cigarette-use status, and e-cigarette use-status. We also examined whether preference for message framing differed by cigarette and e-cigarette susceptibility status among never e-cigarette users. RESULTS: Overall, loss-framing was preferred for message themes related to health risks, addiction potential, and social labeling as a smoker, whereas gain-framing was preferred for message themes related to financial cost. Logistic regression analyses showed that 1) females preferred loss-framed messages for all themes relative to males, 2) lifetime e-cigarette users preferred loss-framed health risks and social labeling messages relative to never users, and 3) high school students preferred gain-framed social labeling messages relative to college students. The preference for message framing did not differ by cigarette or e-cigarette susceptibility. CONCLUSIONS: Preference for message framing differed by themes and individual characteristics. This formative research could inform the construction of persuasive e-cigarette prevention messages.
BACKGROUND: Effective electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) prevention messages are needed to combat the rising popularity/uptake of e-cigarettes among youth. We examined preferences for e-cigarette prevention messages that either emphasized gains (e.g., You save money by not using e-cigarettes) or losses (e.g., You spend money by using e-cigarettes) among adolescents and young adults. METHODS: Using surveys in two middle schools, four high schools, and one college in CT (N=5405), we assessed students' preferences for gain- or loss-framed e-cigarette prevention messages related to four themes: financial cost, health risks, addiction potential, and social labeling as a smoker. We also assessed whether preferences for each message framing theme differed by sex, school level, cigarette-use status, and e-cigarette use-status. We also examined whether preference for message framing differed by cigarette and e-cigarette susceptibility status among never e-cigarette users. RESULTS: Overall, loss-framing was preferred for message themes related to health risks, addiction potential, and social labeling as a smoker, whereas gain-framing was preferred for message themes related to financial cost. Logistic regression analyses showed that 1) females preferred loss-framed messages for all themes relative to males, 2) lifetime e-cigarette users preferred loss-framed health risks and social labeling messages relative to never users, and 3) high school students preferred gain-framed social labeling messages relative to college students. The preference for message framing did not differ by cigarette or e-cigarette susceptibility. CONCLUSIONS: Preference for message framing differed by themes and individual characteristics. This formative research could inform the construction of persuasive e-cigarette prevention messages.
Authors: Amy E Latimer; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Dana A Cavallo; Amy Duhig; Peter Salovey; Stephanie A O'Malley Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2011-06-15 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Amy E Latimer; Tara A Rench; Susan E Rivers; Nicole A Katulak; Stephanie A Materese; Lisa Cadmus; Althea Hicks; Julie Keany Hodorowski; Peter Salovey Journal: Br J Health Psychol Date: 2007-10-08
Authors: Bridget K Ambrose; Brian L Rostron; Sarah E Johnson; David B Portnoy; Benjamin J Apelberg; Annette R Kaufman; Conrad J Choiniere Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Erin L Sutfin; Thomas P McCoy; Holly E R Morrell; Bettina B Hoeppner; Mark Wolfson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Benjamin A Toll; Peter Salovey; Stephanie S O'Malley; Carolyn M Mazure; Amy Latimer; Sherry A McKee Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: René A Arrazola; Linda J Neff; Sara M Kennedy; Enver Holder-Hayes; Christopher D Jones Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Cheryl L Perry; MeLisa R Creamer; Benjamin W Chaffee; Jennifer B Unger; Erin L Sutfin; Grace Kong; Ce Shang; Stephanie L Clendennen; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Mary Ann Pentz Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Lauren Collins; Allison M Glasser; Haneen Abudayyeh; Jennifer L Pearson; Andrea C Villanti Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Alexander V Prokhorov; Georges Elias Khalil; Karen Sue Calabro; Ashish Arya; Sophia Russell; Katarzyna W Czerniak; Gabrielle C Botello; Minxing Chen; Ying Yuan; Adriana Perez; Damon J Vidrine; Cheryl L Perry Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 4.773