Kathryn Peebles1, Marissa G Hall2, Jessica K Pepper3, M Justin Byron2, Seth M Noar4, Noel T Brewer5. 1. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 2. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 3. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 4. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; School of Media and Journalism, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 5. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Electronic address: ntb@unc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pictorial cigarette pack warnings are a promising policy solution to increase smoking cessation among adults. However, little is known regarding adolescents' responses to pictorial warnings, particularly in real-world settings. METHODS:Participants were 112 adolescent children, ages 13-17, whose parents received eithertext-only warnings on the side of their cigarette packs or pictorial warnings on the top half of the front and back of their cigarette packs for 4 weeks as part of a trial. We measured adolescents' recall and recognition of these warnings, negative emotional reactions to the warnings, perceived effectiveness of the warnings, social interactions about the warnings, and smoking risk beliefs. RESULTS: Adolescents accurately recalled pictorial warnings more often than text-only warnings (82% vs. 19%, p < .001). Recognition of warnings was also higher for pictorial than text-only warnings (82% vs. 34%, p < .001). Pictorial warnings drew greater attention (p < .001), elicited greater negative emotional reactions (p < .05), and sparked more social interactions (p < .01) than text-only warnings. CONCLUSIONS: Pictorial warnings on cigarette packs may have important effects on adolescent children of smokers. Future research should further investigate the impact of such messages on adolescents' susceptibility to smoking initiation and interest in quitting smoking, particularly as the United States and other countries work to implement pictorial warning regulations.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Pictorial cigarette pack warnings are a promising policy solution to increase smoking cessation among adults. However, little is known regarding adolescents' responses to pictorial warnings, particularly in real-world settings. METHODS:Participants were 112 adolescent children, ages 13-17, whose parents received either text-only warnings on the side of their cigarette packs or pictorial warnings on the top half of the front and back of their cigarette packs for 4 weeks as part of a trial. We measured adolescents' recall and recognition of these warnings, negative emotional reactions to the warnings, perceived effectiveness of the warnings, social interactions about the warnings, and smoking risk beliefs. RESULTS: Adolescents accurately recalled pictorial warnings more often than text-only warnings (82% vs. 19%, p < .001). Recognition of warnings was also higher for pictorial than text-only warnings (82% vs. 34%, p < .001). Pictorial warnings drew greater attention (p < .001), elicited greater negative emotional reactions (p < .05), and sparked more social interactions (p < .01) than text-only warnings. CONCLUSIONS: Pictorial warnings on cigarette packs may have important effects on adolescent children of smokers. Future research should further investigate the impact of such messages on adolescents' susceptibility to smoking initiation and interest in quitting smoking, particularly as the United States and other countries work to implement pictorial warning regulations.
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: Seth M Noar; Diane B Francis; Christy Bridges; Jennah M Sontag; Kurt M Ribisl; Noel T Brewer Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Krista W Ranby; Megan A Lewis; Benjamin A Toll; Michael J Rohrbaugh; Isaac M Lipkus Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 5.825
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: David Hammond; Jessica L Reid; Pete Driezen; James F Thrasher; Prakash C Gupta; Nigar Nargis; Qiang Li; Jiang Yuan; Christian Boudreau; Geoffrey T Fong; K Michael Cummings; Ron Borland Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: James F Thrasher; Noel T Brewer; Jeff Niederdeppe; Ellen Peters; Andrew A Strasser; Rachel Grana; Annette R Kaufman Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Marissa G Hall; Paschal Sheeran; Seth M Noar; Marcella H Boynton; Kurt M Ribisl; Humberto Parada; Trent O Johnson; Noel T Brewer Journal: Tob Control Date: 2017-12-16 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Kaitlyn E Brodar; M Justin Byron; Kathryn Peebles; Marissa G Hall; Jessica K Pepper; Noel T Brewer Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-09-15 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: May S Chen; Marissa G Hall; Humberto Parada; Kathryn Peebles; Kaitlyn E Brodar; Noel T Brewer Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-10-20 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Jessica L Reid; Seema Mutti-Packer; Prakash C Gupta; Qiang Li; Jiang Yuan; Nigar Nargis; A K M Ghulam Hussain; David Hammond Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 3.390