Literature DB >> 29126207

Effects of 30% and 50% Cigarette Pack Graphic Warning Labels on Visual Attention, Negative Affect, Quit Intentions, and Smoking Susceptibility among Disadvantaged Populations in the United States.

Chris Skurka1, Deena Kemp1, Julie Davydova1, James F Thrasher2, Sahara Byrne1, Amelia Greiner Safi3, Rosemary J Avery4, Michael C Dorf5, Alan D Mathios6, Leah Scolere7, Jeff Niederdeppe1.   

Abstract

Introduction: Though the WHO Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (FCTC) calls for the implementation of large graphic warning labels (GWLs) on cigarette boxes, the courts have blocked the implementation of 50% labels in the United States. We conducted an experiment to explore whether changing the size of GWLs is associated with changes in visual attention, negative affect, risk beliefs, and behavioral intentions. Method: We recruited adult smokers (N = 238) and middle-school youth (N = 237) throughout the state of New York in May 2016. We randomly assigned participants to one of three between-subject conditions (no GWL [control], 30% GWL, 50% GWL).
Results: Adult and youth participants looked at the GWLs longer when the GWL covered 50% versus 30% of the pack's front. Increasing GWL size from 30% to 50% did not influence negative affect or risk beliefs, though both GWL sizes increased negative affect relative to the no-GWL control group. Exposure to 50% GWLs increased adult smokers' intentions to quit compared to no-GWL, but smokers exposed to 30% GWLs did not differ from control. There were no differences between 50% GWLs, 30% GWLs, and control on youth smoking susceptibility. Conclusions: Findings provide some evidence of the benefits of a 50% versus 30% GWL covering the front of the pack for adult smokers and at-risk youth from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds-though not on all outcomes. Implications: This research shows that 30% GWLs on cigarette packages increase negative affect relative to packages without front-of-package GWLs. Larger GWLs on cigarette packages (50% vs. 30%) increase visual attention to the warning and its pictorial content among low-SES smokers and at-risk youth but do not further increase negative affect. A 50% GWL increased adults' quit intention compared to no GWL at all, but we were underpowered to detect modest differences in quit intentions between a 50% and 30% GWL. Future work should thus continue to explore the boundary conditions under which relatively larger GWLs influence cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29126207      PMCID: PMC6251633          DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntx244

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res        ISSN: 1462-2203            Impact factor:   4.244


  27 in total

1.  Determinants of tobacco use and renaming the FTND to the Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence.

Authors:  Karl Fagerström
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2011-10-24       Impact factor: 4.244

2.  Text and graphic warnings on cigarette packages: findings from the international tobacco control four country study.

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

3.  Do graphic health warning labels have an impact on adolescents' smoking-related beliefs and behaviours?

Authors:  Victoria White; Bernice Webster; Melanie Wakefield
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 6.526

4.  Cognitive susceptibility to smoking and initiation of smoking during childhood: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  C Jackson
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1998 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.018

5.  The Impact of Cigarette Packaging Design Among Young Females in Canada: Findings From a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Kathy Kotnowski; Geoffrey T Fong; Karine Gallopel-Morvan; Towhidul Islam; David Hammond
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2015-05-25       Impact factor: 4.244

Review 6.  A Systematic Review of Neighborhood Disparities in Point-of-Sale Tobacco Marketing.

Authors:  Joseph G L Lee; Lisa Henriksen; Shyanika W Rose; Sarah Moreland-Russell; Kurt M Ribisl
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Do larger pictorial health warnings diminish the need for plain packaging of cigarettes?

Authors:  Melanie Wakefield; Daniella Germain; Sarah Durkin; David Hammond; Marvin Goldberg; Ron Borland
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2012-02-28       Impact factor: 6.526

8.  [Towards informed tobacco consumption in Mexico: effect of pictorial warning labels in smokers].

Authors:  James F Thrasher; Rosaura Pérez-Hernández; Edna Arillo-Santillán; Inti Barrientos-Gutiérrez
Journal:  Salud Publica Mex       Date:  2012-06

9.  Effects of different types of antismoking ads on reducing disparities in smoking cessation among socioeconomic subgroups.

Authors:  Sarah J Durkin; Lois Biener; Melanie A Wakefield
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  Cigarette warning label policy alternatives and smoking-related health disparities.

Authors:  James F Thrasher; Matthew J Carpenter; Jeannette O Andrews; Kevin M Gray; Anthony J Alberg; Ashley Navarro; Daniela B Friedman; K Michael Cummings
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 5.043

View more
  13 in total

1.  Independent or synergistic? Effects of varying size and using pictorial images in tobacco health warning labels.

Authors:  Chris Skurka; Motasem Kalaji; Michael C Dorf; Deena Kemp; Amelia Greiner Safi; Sahara Byrne; Alan D Mathios; Rosemary J Avery; Jeff Niederdeppe
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 4.492

2.  Using graphic warning labels to counter effects of social cues and brand imagery in cigarette advertising.

Authors:  J Niederdeppe; D Kemp; E Jesch; L Scolere; A Greiner Safi; N Porticella; R J Avery; M C Dorf; A D Mathios; S Byrne
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2019-02-01

3.  Testing competing explanations for graphic warning label effects among adult smokers and non-smoking youth.

Authors:  Chris Skurka; Sahara Byrne; Julie Davydova; Deena Kemp; Amelia Greiner Safi; Rosemary J Avery; Michael C Dorf; Alan D Mathios; Jeff Niederdeppe
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  Responses to Graphic Warning Labels among Low-income Smokers.

Authors:  Toshali Katyal; Arturo Durazo; Marlena Hartman-Filson; Maya Vijayaraghavan
Journal:  Am J Health Behav       Date:  2020-09-01

5.  Effects of Large Cigarette Warning Labels on Smokers' Expected Longevity.

Authors:  Lucy Popova; Johannes Thrul; Stanton A Glantz
Journal:  Am J Health Behav       Date:  2018-03-01

6.  Comparing in person and internet methods to recruit low-SES populations for tobacco control policy research.

Authors:  Amelia Greiner Safi; Carolyn Reyes; Emma Jesch; Joseph Steinhardt; Jeff Niederdeppe; Christofer Skurka; Motasem Kalaji; Leah Scolere; Sahara Byrne
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2019-10-11       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  Adolescent Attention to Disgust Visuals in Cigarette Graphic Warning Labels.

Authors:  Deena Kemp; Jeff Niederdeppe; Sahara Byrne
Journal:  J Adolesc Health       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 5.012

8.  Ignoring theory and evidence: commentary on Kok et al. (2018).

Authors:  Jeff Niederdeppe; Deena Kemp
Journal:  Health Psychol Rev       Date:  2018-03-07

9.  Assessing cigarette packaging and labelling policy effects on early adolescents: results from a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Inti Barrientos-Gutierrez; Farahnaz Islam; Yoo Jin Cho; Ramzi George Salloum; Jordan Louviere; Edna Arillo-Santillán; Luz Myriam Reynales-Shigematsu; Joaquin Barnoya; Belen Saenz de Miera Juarez; James Hardin; James F Thrasher
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2020-07-14       Impact factor: 7.552

10.  Strategies to enhance the effects of pictorial warnings for cigarettes: results from a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  James F Thrasher; Farahnaz Islam; Edna Arillo-Santillán; Rosibel Rodriguez-Bolaños; Belen Saenz de Miera Juarez; James W Hardin; Inti Barrientos-Gutierrez
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 6.526

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.