INTRODUCTION: Cigarette graphic-warning labels elicit negative emotion. Research suggests negative emotion drives greater risk perceptions and quit intentions through multiple processes. The present research compares text-only warning effectiveness to that of graphic warnings eliciting more or less negative emotion. METHODS: Nationally representative online panels of 736 adult smokers and 469 teen smokers/vulnerable smokers were randomly assigned to view one of three warning types (text-only, text with low-emotion images, or text with high-emotion images) four times over 2 weeks. Participants recorded their emotional reaction to the warnings (measured as arousal), smoking risk perceptions, and quit intentions. Primary analyses used structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Participants in the high-emotion condition reported greater emotional reaction than text-only participants (bAdult = 0.21; bTeen = 0.27, p's < .004); those in the low-emotion condition reported lower emotional reaction than text-only participants (bAdult = -0.18; bTeen = -0.22, p's < .018). Stronger emotional reaction was associated with increased risk perceptions in both samples (bAdult = 0.66; bTeen = 0.85, p's < .001) and greater quit intentions among adults (bAdult = 1.00, p < .001). Compared to text-only warnings, low-emotion warnings were associated with reduced risk perceptions and quit intentions whereas high-emotion warnings were associated with increased risk perceptions and quit intentions. CONCLUSION: Warning labels with images that elicit more negative emotional reaction are associated with increased risk perceptions and quit intentions in adults and teens relative to text-only warnings. However, graphic warnings containing images which evoke little emotional reaction can backfire and reduce risk perceptions and quit intentions versus text-only warnings. IMPLICATIONS: This research is the first to directly manipulate two emotion levels in sets of nine cigarette graphic warning images and compare them with text-only warnings. Among adult and teen smokers, high-emotion graphic warnings were associated with increased risk perceptions and quit intentions versus text-only warnings. Low-emotion graphic warnings backfired and tended to reduce risk perceptions and quit intentions versus text-only warnings. Policy makers should be aware that merely placing images on cigarette packaging is insufficient to increase smokers' risk perceptions and quit intentions. Low-emotion graphic warnings will not necessarily produce desired population-level benefits relative to text-only or high-emotion warnings.
INTRODUCTION: Cigarette graphic-warning labels elicit negative emotion. Research suggests negative emotion drives greater risk perceptions and quit intentions through multiple processes. The present research compares text-only warning effectiveness to that of graphic warnings eliciting more or less negative emotion. METHODS: Nationally representative online panels of 736 adult smokers and 469 teen smokers/vulnerable smokers were randomly assigned to view one of three warning types (text-only, text with low-emotion images, or text with high-emotion images) four times over 2 weeks. Participants recorded their emotional reaction to the warnings (measured as arousal), smoking risk perceptions, and quit intentions. Primary analyses used structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Participants in the high-emotion condition reported greater emotional reaction than text-only participants (bAdult = 0.21; bTeen = 0.27, p's < .004); those in the low-emotion condition reported lower emotional reaction than text-only participants (bAdult = -0.18; bTeen = -0.22, p's < .018). Stronger emotional reaction was associated with increased risk perceptions in both samples (bAdult = 0.66; bTeen = 0.85, p's < .001) and greater quit intentions among adults (bAdult = 1.00, p < .001). Compared to text-only warnings, low-emotion warnings were associated with reduced risk perceptions and quit intentions whereas high-emotion warnings were associated with increased risk perceptions and quit intentions. CONCLUSION: Warning labels with images that elicit more negative emotional reaction are associated with increased risk perceptions and quit intentions in adults and teens relative to text-only warnings. However, graphic warnings containing images which evoke little emotional reaction can backfire and reduce risk perceptions and quit intentions versus text-only warnings. IMPLICATIONS: This research is the first to directly manipulate two emotion levels in sets of nine cigarette graphic warning images and compare them with text-only warnings. Among adult and teen smokers, high-emotion graphic warnings were associated with increased risk perceptions and quit intentions versus text-only warnings. Low-emotion graphic warnings backfired and tended to reduce risk perceptions and quit intentions versus text-only warnings. Policy makers should be aware that merely placing images on cigarette packaging is insufficient to increase smokers' risk perceptions and quit intentions. Low-emotion graphic warnings will not necessarily produce desired population-level benefits relative to text-only or high-emotion warnings.
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: Lydia F Emery; Daniel Romer; Kaitlin M Sheerin; Kathleen Hall Jamieson; Ellen Peters Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Abigail T Evans; Ellen Peters; Andrew A Strasser; Lydia F Emery; Kaitlin M Sheerin; Daniel Romer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: William G Shadel; Steven C Martino; Claude M Setodji; Michael Dunbar; Deborah Scharf; Kasey G Creswell Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2019-06-01
Authors: Ellen Peters; Brittany Shoots-Reinhard; Abigail T Evans; Abigail Shoben; Elizabeth Klein; Mary Kate Tompkins; Daniel Romer; Martin Tusler Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2019-03-20
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: Yoo Jin Cho; James F Thrasher; Hua-Hie Yong; André Salem Szklo; Richard J O'Connor; Maansi Bansal-Travers; David Hammond; Geoffrey T Fong; James Hardin; Ron Borland Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Abigail T Evans; Ellen Peters; Abigail B Shoben; Louise R Meilleur; Elizabeth G Klein; Mary Kate Tompkins; Martin Tusler Journal: Psychol Health Date: 2017-04-07