Bo Yang1, Jiaying Liu2, Lucy Popova1. 1. 1 Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. 2 University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emotions are important in smoking-related communications, but the role of discrete positive and negative emotions in comparative risk messages about combusted and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is unclear. METHOD: In an online experiment, 1,202 U.S. adult current smokers or recent quitters were randomized to view one of six messages about comparative risk of e-cigarettes and cigarettes. Participants reported their feelings of hope, happiness, fear, guilt, disgust, and anger and risk perceptions and behavioral intentions about e-cigarettes and cigarettes. RESULTS: Hope was associated with higher perceived absolute cigarette risk, lower perceived absolute and comparative e-cigarette risk, and stronger intentions to quit smoking, seek quit help, use nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), switch to e-cigarettes, and use e-cigarettes exclusively versus dual use. Happiness was related to stronger intentions to seek quit help, use NRT, and switch to e-cigarettes but higher perceived comparative risk of e-cigarettes. Fear was associated with stronger intentions to quit smoking, seek quit help, use NRT, and switch to e-cigarettes. Guilt was related to higher perceived absolute cigarette risk, lower perceived comparative e-cigarette risk, and stronger intentions to use NRT. Disgust was associated with higher absolute and comparative e-cigarette risk and stronger intentions to quit smoking, seek quit help, and use e-cigarettes exclusively versus dual use. Anger was related to lower perceived absolute cigarette risk, higher perceived comparative e-cigarette risk, and weaker intentions to quit smoking. CONCLUSION: Comparative risk messages about e-cigarettes that arouse hope, fear, and guilt and avoid anger might be particularly likely to have positive impact on smokers.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Emotions are important in smoking-related communications, but the role of discrete positive and negative emotions in comparative risk messages about combusted and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is unclear. METHOD: In an online experiment, 1,202 U.S. adult current smokers or recent quitters were randomized to view one of six messages about comparative risk of e-cigarettes and cigarettes. Participants reported their feelings of hope, happiness, fear, guilt, disgust, and anger and risk perceptions and behavioral intentions about e-cigarettes and cigarettes. RESULTS: Hope was associated with higher perceived absolute cigarette risk, lower perceived absolute and comparative e-cigarette risk, and stronger intentions to quit smoking, seek quit help, use nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), switch to e-cigarettes, and use e-cigarettes exclusively versus dual use. Happiness was related to stronger intentions to seek quit help, use NRT, and switch to e-cigarettes but higher perceived comparative risk of e-cigarettes. Fear was associated with stronger intentions to quit smoking, seek quit help, use NRT, and switch to e-cigarettes. Guilt was related to higher perceived absolute cigarette risk, lower perceived comparative e-cigarette risk, and stronger intentions to use NRT. Disgust was associated with higher absolute and comparative e-cigarette risk and stronger intentions to quit smoking, seek quit help, and use e-cigarettes exclusively versus dual use. Anger was related to lower perceived absolute cigarette risk, higher perceived comparative e-cigarette risk, and weaker intentions to quit smoking. CONCLUSION: Comparative risk messages about e-cigarettes that arouse hope, fear, and guilt and avoid anger might be particularly likely to have positive impact on smokers.
Authors: Olivia A Wackowski; David Hammond; Richard J O'Connor; Andrew A Strasser; Cristine D Delnevo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lucy Popova; Daniel Owusu; Scott R Weaver; Catherine B Kemp; C K Mertz; Terry F Pechacek; Paul Slovic Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Victoria S Shelus; Simone C Frank; Allison J Lazard; Isabella C A Higgins; Marlyn Pulido; Ana Paula C Richter; Sara M Vandegrift; Rhyan N Vereen; Kurt M Ribisl; Marissa G Hall Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-12 Impact factor: 3.390