OBJECTIVES: The tobacco industry has a history of making "natural" claims in advertisements. We report how viewing advertisements with such claims affected what adolescents found memorable. METHODS: Adolescent boys (N = 1220; 11-16 years old) were randomly assigned to view a Natural American Spirit (NAS) or other brand cigarette advertisement, and were asked what they remembered about the advertisement. Survey-weighted logistic regression models assessed whether memorability of advertisement components differed by NAS advertisement exposure. RESULTS: Adolescents viewing a NAS advertisement (vs another brand) had lower odds of finding memorable the advertisement's warning (OR = 0.58; 95% CI: [0.34, 0.98]) or brand (OR = 0.25; 95% CI: [0.11, 0.54]). They had higher odds of mentioning tobacco (OR = 2.33; 95% CI: [1.49, 3.63]) and packaging (OR = 2.57; 95% CI: [1.51, 4.37]). An estimated 6.7% of those viewing an NAS advertisement said the product was not addictive. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced-harm claims on cigarette advertisements may affect what adolescents find salient about the advertisement. As the FDA's agreement with Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company to remove these claims is not inclusive of all reduced-harm claims and does not apply to other companies, findings underscore the need for prohibiting all reduced-harm claims from cigarette advertisements.
OBJECTIVES: The tobacco industry has a history of making "natural" claims in advertisements. We report how viewing advertisements with such claims affected what adolescents found memorable. METHODS: Adolescent boys (N = 1220; 11-16 years old) were randomly assigned to view a Natural American Spirit (NAS) or other brand cigarette advertisement, and were asked what they remembered about the advertisement. Survey-weighted logistic regression models assessed whether memorability of advertisement components differed by NAS advertisement exposure. RESULTS: Adolescents viewing a NAS advertisement (vs another brand) had lower odds of finding memorable the advertisement's warning (OR = 0.58; 95% CI: [0.34, 0.98]) or brand (OR = 0.25; 95% CI: [0.11, 0.54]). They had higher odds of mentioning tobacco (OR = 2.33; 95% CI: [1.49, 3.63]) and packaging (OR = 2.57; 95% CI: [1.51, 4.37]). An estimated 6.7% of those viewing an NAS advertisement said the product was not addictive. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced-harm claims on cigarette advertisements may affect what adolescents find salient about the advertisement. As the FDA's agreement with Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company to remove these claims is not inclusive of all reduced-harm claims and does not apply to other companies, findings underscore the need for prohibiting all reduced-harm claims from cigarette advertisements.
Authors: Katherine L Friedman; Megan E Roberts; Brittney Keller-Hamilton; Katherine A Yates; Electra D Paskett; Micah L Berman; Michael D Slater; Bo Lu; Amy K Ferketich Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Eric Craig Leas; John P Pierce; Claudiu V Dimofte; Dennis R Trinidad; David R Strong Journal: Tob Control Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Jennifer L Pearson; Amanda Richardson; Shari P Feirman; Andrea C Villanti; Jennifer Cantrell; Amy Cohn; Michael Tacelosky; Thomas R Kirchner Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Anushree Sharma; Brian V Fix; Cristine Delnevo; K Michael Cummings; Richard J O'Connor Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-01-29 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Brittney Keller-Hamilton; Hayley Curran; Elise M Stevens; Michael D Slater; Bo Lu; Megan E Roberts; Amy K Ferketich Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-06 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Anna E Epperson; Samantha Wong; Eric F Lambin; Lisa Henriksen; Michael Baiocchi; June A Flora; Judith J Prochaska Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 5.012