Literature DB >> 34330882

Responses to pictorial versus text-only cigarillo warnings among a nationally representative sample of US young adults.

Jennifer Cornacchione Ross1, Allison J Lazard2,3, Jessica L King4, Seth M Noar2,3, Beth A Reboussin5, Desmond Jenson6, Erin L Sutfin5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration requires six text-only warnings for cigar products, including cigarillos. Research has demonstrated the superiority of pictorial over text-only cigarette warnings, yet the relative effectiveness of pictorial warnings for cigarillos has not been examined. We examined the impact of pictorial cigarillo warnings compared with text-only warnings.
METHODS: Data were collected from a nationally representative sample of US young adult (18-29) cigarillo users and susceptible non-users. Participants were randomised to one of three experimental conditions: text-only or one of two pictorial conditions (combined for analyses). For each warning, we assessed negative emotional reactions, cognitive elaboration (ie, thinking about cigarillo risks) and perceived message effectiveness (PME).
RESULTS: Participants (N=661) were 46.5% female, 64.7% white and 21.9% Hispanic; 34.1% reported past 30-day cigarillo use; 41.4% were lifetime users (excluding past 30-day use); and 24.4% were susceptible non-users. Pictorial warnings elicited more negative emotional reactions and higher PME than text-only warnings (p values<0.01), with interactions showing the largest effects for past 30-day users (emotional reactions: d=0.99, PME: d=0.63). For cognitive elaboration, there was no main effect of warning type, but an interaction revealed effects for past 30-day users (p<0.05, d=0.46).
CONCLUSIONS: Pictorial cigarillo warnings elicited greater negative emotional reactions and PME compared with text-only warnings. These effects and the effects on cognitive elaboration were strongest for past 30-day users. Our findings extend research on cigarette warnings to cigarillos, demonstrating that pictorial warnings are superior to text-only warnings for cigarillos in eliciting beneficial responses. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  non-cigarette tobacco products; packaging and labelling; public policy

Year:  2021        PMID: 34330882      PMCID: PMC8985738          DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056288

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Tob Control        ISSN: 0964-4563            Impact factor:   7.552


  50 in total

1.  Analysis of legal and scientific issues in court challenges to graphic tobacco warnings.

Authors:  John D Kraemer; Sabeeh A Baig
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 5.043

2.  Understanding Why Pictorial Cigarette Pack Warnings Increase Quit Attempts.

Authors:  Noel T Brewer; Humberto Parada; Marissa G Hall; Marcella H Boynton; Seth M Noar; Kurt M Ribisl
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2019-03-01

3.  The Most Natural Tobacco Used: A Qualitative Investigation of Young Adult Smokers' Risk Perceptions of Flavored Little Cigars and Cigarillos.

Authors:  Kymberle L Sterling; Craig S Fryer; Pebbles Fagan
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 4.244

4.  Pictorial health warning label content and smokers' understanding of smoking-related risks-a cross-country comparison.

Authors:  Kamala Swayampakala; James F Thrasher; David Hammond; Hua-Hie Yong; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Dean Krugman; Abraham Brown; Ron Borland; James Hardin
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2014-05-21

5.  Visual gut punch: persuasion, emotion, and the constitutional meaning of graphic disclosure.

Authors:  Ellen P Goodman
Journal:  Cornell Law Rev       Date:  2014

6.  Pictorial Cigarette Pack Warnings Increase Some Risk Appraisals But Not Risk Beliefs: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Seth M Noar; Jacob A Rohde; Joshua O Barker; Marissa G Hall; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  Hum Commun Res       Date:  2020-02-03

7.  Does Perceived Message Effectiveness Predict the Actual Effectiveness of Tobacco Education Messages? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Seth M Noar; Joshua Barker; Trevor Bell; Marco Yzer
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2018-11-28

8.  Deeming Tobacco Products To Be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; Restrictions on the Sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning Statements for Tobacco Products. Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2016-05-10

9.  Impact of the new Malaysian cigarette pack warnings on smokers' awareness of health risks and interest in quitting smoking.

Authors:  Ahmed I Fathelrahman; Maizurah Omar; Rahmat Awang; K Michael Cummings; Ron Borland; Ahmad Shalihin Bin Mohd Samin
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2010-11-22       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  Negative affect, message reactance and perceived risk: how do pictorial cigarette pack warnings change quit intentions?

Authors:  Marissa G Hall; Paschal Sheeran; Seth M Noar; Marcella H Boynton; Kurt M Ribisl; Humberto Parada; Trent O Johnson; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2017-12-16       Impact factor: 7.552

View more
  3 in total

1.  Young adults' cigarillo risk perceptions, attention to warning labels and perceptions of proposed pictorial warnings: a focus group study.

Authors:  Stefanie K Gratale; Michelle Jeong; Anupreet Sidhu; Zeinab Safi; Andrew A Strasser; Cristine D Delnevo; Olivia A Wackowski
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 3.006

2.  Does warning language impact perceptions? Results from an exploratory experiment comparing English, Spanish, and Dual language E-Cigarette warnings among Spanish speakers in the US.

Authors:  Jacob Razzouk; Anna Bilić; Olivia A Wackowski; Jennifer Cornacchione Ross; Jessica L King Jensen
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2021-12-01

3.  Cigar Warning Noticing and Demographic and Usage Correlates: Analysis from the United States Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, Wave 5.

Authors:  Stefanie K Gratale; Arjun Teotia; Julia Chen-Sankey; Ollie Ganz; Cristine D Delnevo; Andrew A Strasser; Olivia A Wackowski
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 3.390

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.