Smita C Banerjee1, Kathryn Greene2, Yuelin Li3, Jamie S Ostroff4. 1. Assistant Attending Behavioral Scientist, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 2. Professor, Department of Communication, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. 3. Associate Attending Biostatistician, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 4. Attending Psychologist, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examined the effects of comparative-framing [C-F; ads highlighting differences between the advertised product and conventional cigarettes and/or smokeless tobacco products] versus similarity-framing (S-F; ads highlighting congruence with conventional cigarettes and/or smokeless tobacco products) in e-cigarette and snus ads on young adult smokers' and non-smokers' ad- and product-related perceptions. METHODS: One thousand fifty one (1,051) young adults (18-24 years; 76% women; 50% smokers) from existing consumer panels were recruited in a within-subjects quasi-experiment. Each participant viewed 4 online advertisements, varied by tobacco product type (e-cigarette or snus) and ad framing (C-F or S-F). The dependent measures for this study were ad-related (ad perceptions, ad credibility) and product-related perceptions (absolute and comparative risk perceptions, product appeal, and product use intentions). RESULTS: Former and current smokers rated C-F ads as more persuasive than S-F ads, as evidenced by favorable ad perceptions and high product use intentions. Former and current smokers also rated e-cigarette ads with more favorable ad perceptions, low absolute and comparative risk perceptions, high product appeal, and high product use intentions as compared to snus ads. However, the effect sizes of the significant differences are less than.2, indicating small magnitude of difference between the study variables. CONCLUSIONS: Unless FDA regulates e-cig and snus advertising, there is a potential of decreasing risk perceptions and increasing use of e-cigs among young adults. Further research on implicit/explicit comparative claims in e-cigarettes and snus advertisements that encourage risk misperceptions is recommended.
OBJECTIVES: This study examined the effects of comparative-framing [C-F; ads highlighting differences between the advertised product and conventional cigarettes and/or smokeless tobacco products] versus similarity-framing (S-F; ads highlighting congruence with conventional cigarettes and/or smokeless tobacco products) in e-cigarette and snus ads on young adult smokers' and non-smokers' ad- and product-related perceptions. METHODS: One thousand fifty one (1,051) young adults (18-24 years; 76% women; 50% smokers) from existing consumer panels were recruited in a within-subjects quasi-experiment. Each participant viewed 4 online advertisements, varied by tobacco product type (e-cigarette or snus) and ad framing (C-F or S-F). The dependent measures for this study were ad-related (ad perceptions, ad credibility) and product-related perceptions (absolute and comparative risk perceptions, product appeal, and product use intentions). RESULTS: Former and current smokers rated C-F ads as more persuasive than S-F ads, as evidenced by favorable ad perceptions and high product use intentions. Former and current smokers also rated e-cigarette ads with more favorable ad perceptions, low absolute and comparative risk perceptions, high product appeal, and high product use intentions as compared to snus ads. However, the effect sizes of the significant differences are less than.2, indicating small magnitude of difference between the study variables. CONCLUSIONS: Unless FDA regulates e-cig and snus advertising, there is a potential of decreasing risk perceptions and increasing use of e-cigs among young adults. Further research on implicit/explicit comparative claims in e-cigarettes and snus advertisements that encourage risk misperceptions is recommended.
Entities:
Keywords:
ad framing; comparative advertising; e-cigarettes; persuasion; risk perceptions; snus
Authors: Jennifer C Duke; Jane A Allen; Matthew E Eggers; James Nonnemaker; Matthew C Farrelly Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-12-26 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Joseph G Lisko; Hang Tran; Stephen B Stanfill; Benjamin C Blount; Clifford H Watson Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 4.244
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: Jessica K Pepper; Paul L Reiter; Annie-Laurie McRee; Linda D Cameron; Melissa B Gilkey; Noel T Brewer Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2012-11-30 Impact factor: 5.012
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: Daniel Owusu; Rachel Lawley; Bo Yang; Katherine Henderson; Brittaney Bethea; Christopher LaRose; Sam Stallworth; Lucy Popova Journal: Tob Control Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Darren Mays; Andrea C Johnson; Allison Glasser; Melissa Mercincavage; Andrew A Strasser Journal: Tob Control Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 6.953