Andrea C Johnson1, George Luta2, Kenneth P Tercyak2, Raymond S Niaura3, Darren Mays4. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, United States. 2. Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, United States. 3. College of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, NY, United States. 4. Center for Tobacco Research, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, United States; Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, United States. Electronic address: darren.mays@osumc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pictorial warning labels and standardized "plain" packaging are policy interventions to reduce smoking, in part, by making cigarette packs and smoking less appealing. To inform potential policy decisions, this study examined the relative effects of message text framing (gain vs. loss) and cigarette packaging (standardized vs. branded) on appeal in a sample of young adult cigarette smokers. METHODS: Cigarette smokers (N = 339) ages 18-30 completed two within-subjects experimental tasks. Tasks assessed the effects of message text framing (gain vs. loss) and packaging (standardized vs. branded) on cigarette packaging appeal. Task 1 was a 2 × 2 discrete choice experiment, where participants chose between each experimental pack and a standard branded cigarette pack without a pictorial warning label. Task 2 was a ranking task where participants ranked all packs on measures of appeal. RESULTS: In Task 1, there were no significant differences in measures of appeal between packs displaying gain- vs. loss-framed message text, but all packs with pictorial warning labels significantly decreased appeal relative to standard branded packs without pictorial warning labels. Standardized packs with pictorial warning labels significantly reduced appeal relative to branded packs with pictorial warning labels and standard branded packs without pictorial warning labels. Task 2 pack rankings showed similar effects of pictorial warning labels and standardized packaging on appeal. CONCLUSIONS: Pictorial warning labels with gain- and loss-framed text were equally powerful at reducing appeal of cigarette packs in young adult smokers relative to branded packs without pictorial warning labels, especially when combined with standardized packaging.
INTRODUCTION: Pictorial warning labels and standardized "plain" packaging are policy interventions to reduce smoking, in part, by making cigarette packs and smoking less appealing. To inform potential policy decisions, this study examined the relative effects of message text framing (gain vs. loss) and cigarette packaging (standardized vs. branded) on appeal in a sample of young adult cigarette smokers. METHODS: Cigarette smokers (N = 339) ages 18-30 completed two within-subjects experimental tasks. Tasks assessed the effects of message text framing (gain vs. loss) and packaging (standardized vs. branded) on cigarette packaging appeal. Task 1 was a 2 × 2 discrete choice experiment, where participants chose between each experimental pack and a standard branded cigarette pack without a pictorial warning label. Task 2 was a ranking task where participants ranked all packs on measures of appeal. RESULTS: In Task 1, there were no significant differences in measures of appeal between packs displaying gain- vs. loss-framed message text, but all packs with pictorial warning labels significantly decreased appeal relative to standard branded packs without pictorial warning labels. Standardized packs with pictorial warning labels significantly reduced appeal relative to branded packs with pictorial warning labels and standard branded packs without pictorial warning labels. Task 2 pack rankings showed similar effects of pictorial warning labels and standardized packaging on appeal. CONCLUSIONS: Pictorial warning labels with gain- and loss-framed text were equally powerful at reducing appeal of cigarette packs in young adult smokers relative to branded packs without pictorial warning labels, especially when combined with standardized packaging.
Authors: Kamala Swayampakala; James F Thrasher; Hua-Hie Yong; Gera E Nagelhout; Lin Li; Ron Borland; David Hammond; Richard J O'Connor; James W Hardin Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Hua-Hie Yong; Ron Borland; David Hammond; James F Thrasher; K Michael Cummings; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Tob Control Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Darren Mays; Raymond S Niaura; W Douglas Evans; David Hammond; George Luta; Kenneth P Tercyak Journal: Tob Control Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Ann McNeill; Shannon Gravely; Sara C Hitchman; Linda Bauld; David Hammond; Jamie Hartmann-Boyce Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-27
Authors: Matthew D Stone; Claudiu V Dimofte; David R Strong; Adriana Villasenor; Kim Pulvers; Karen Messer; John P Pierce Journal: Tob Control Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: James F Thrasher; Dien Anshari; Victoria Lambert-Jessup; Farahnaz Islam; Erin Mead; Lucy Popova; Ramzi Salloum; Crawford Moodie; Jordan Louviere; Eric N Lindblom Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2018-03
Authors: Seth M Noar; Marissa G Hall; Diane B Francis; Kurt M Ribisl; Jessica K Pepper; Noel T Brewer Journal: Tob Control Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Marie Borring Klitgaard; Nanna Schneekloth Jarlstrup; Lisbeth Lund; Anne-Line Brink; Astrid Knudsen; Anne Illemann Christensen; Lotus Sofie Bast Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 4.614