James D Matheny1, Elise M Stevens1, Sixia Chen2, Bruce A Christiansen3, Sarah D Kowitt4, Amira Osman5, Damon J Vidrine6. 1. Oklahoma Tobacco Research Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK. 3. Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI. 4. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 5. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 6. University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, College of Medicine, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Oklahoma City, OK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A federal court ruled tobacco companies violated racketeering laws and ordered them to publish corrective statements. This study assesses effects of exposure to the statements and related court findings on attitudes toward tobacco-related policies and tobacco company influences on policymaking. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of US adults (N = 2010) prior to publication of the statements. Participants were randomly assigned to the "unexposed" group (N = 1004), which answered attitude questions before reading the statements and court findings, or the "exposed" group (N = 1006), which answered attitude questions after reading the statements and court findings. RESULTS: The exposed group was less likely to think lawmakers should trust tobacco companies as much as other companies (β = -.24, p < .001) or that lawmakers should trust tobacco company lobbyists to provide accurate information (β = -.17, p = .019), compared to the unexposed group. The exposed group also was more likely to support requiring graphic warning labels (β = .15, p = .014) and point-of-sale quitline signs (β = .13, p = .028). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to the statements and court findings may aid tobacco industry denormalization and tobacco-related policy initiatives.
OBJECTIVES: A federal court ruled tobacco companies violated racketeering laws and ordered them to publish corrective statements. This study assesses effects of exposure to the statements and related court findings on attitudes toward tobacco-related policies and tobacco company influences on policymaking. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of US adults (N = 2010) prior to publication of the statements. Participants were randomly assigned to the "unexposed" group (N = 1004), which answered attitude questions before reading the statements and court findings, or the "exposed" group (N = 1006), which answered attitude questions after reading the statements and court findings. RESULTS: The exposed group was less likely to think lawmakers should trust tobacco companies as much as other companies (β = -.24, p < .001) or that lawmakers should trust tobacco company lobbyists to provide accurate information (β = -.17, p = .019), compared to the unexposed group. The exposed group also was more likely to support requiring graphic warning labels (β = .15, p = .014) and point-of-sale quitline signs (β = .13, p = .028). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to the statements and court findings may aid tobacco industry denormalization and tobacco-related policy initiatives.
Entities:
Keywords:
corrective statements; media; policy; racketeering; tobacco industry
Authors: Kenji Shibuya; Christina Ciecierski; Emmanuel Guindon; Douglas W Bettcher; David B Evans; Christopher J L Murray Journal: BMJ Date: 2003-07-19
Authors: Philip Smith; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Richard O'Connor; Anthony Brown; Chris Banthin; Sara Guardino-Colket; K Michael Cummings Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Ahmed Jamal; Brian A King; Linda J Neff; Jennifer Whitmill; Stephen D Babb; Corinne M Graffunder Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Anna B Gilmore; Gary Fooks; Jeffrey Drope; Stella Aguinaga Bialous; Rachel Rose Jackson Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-03-14 Impact factor: 79.321