Literature DB >> 34511408

Role of affective reactivity induced by cigarette packaging including graphic warning labels: the CASA Study.

Matthew Stone1,2, David Strong3,4, Claudiu Dimofte5, Elizabeth Brighton3, Jesica Oratowski3, Tingyi Yang3, Manar Alkuzweny3, Atean Asslani3, Katherine Velasco3, Michael Skipworth3, Noe C Crespo2, Samantha Hurst3,4, Eric C Leas3,4, Kim Pulvers6, John P Pierce3,4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify whether three types of cigarette pack designs, including three versions of graphic warning label (GWL) plain packs, one GWL absent and branding absent pack (blank) and the smoker's own GWL absent and branding present pack (US), elicit different valence, type and levels of affect.
DESIGN: US daily smokers (n=324) were asked to handle each of the five pack types and 'think aloud' their reactions. To avoid a muted familiarity response, exposure to their own US pack followed exposure to at least one GWL plain pack. Reactions were scored on a reactivity scale (-3 to +3) and the text was coded for speech polarity (-1 to +1) and emotive word frequency.
RESULTS: Reactivity scores had excellent inter-rater reliability (agreement ≥86%; intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.89) and were correlated with speech polarity (r=0.21-0.37, p<0.001). When considering their US pack, approximately two-thirds of smokers had a low (31.5%) to medium (34.6%) positive response (reactivity=1.29; polarity=0.14) with expressed feelings of joy and trust. Blank packaging prompted a largely (65.4%) neutral response (reactivity=0.03; polarity=0.00). The gangrenous foot GWL provoked mostly medium (46.9%) to high (48.1%) negative responses (reactivity=-2.44; polarity=-0.20), followed by neonatal baby (reactivity=-1.85; polarity=-0.10) and throat cancer (reactivity=-1.76; polarity=-0.08) warnings. GWLs varied in their elicitation of disgust, anger, fear and sadness.
CONCLUSION: Initial reactions to GWL packs, a blank pack, and smokers' current US pack reflected negative, neutral, and positive affect, respectively. Different versions of the GWL pack elicited different levels and types of immediate negative affect. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  packaging and labelling; prevention; public policy

Year:  2021        PMID: 34511408      PMCID: PMC8917242          DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056650

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


  41 in total

1.  Australia's National Tobacco Campaign.

Authors:  D Hill; T Carroll
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 7.552

2.  Imagery and smoking urges: the manipulation of affective content.

Authors:  S T Tiffany; D J Drobes
Journal:  Addict Behav       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 3.913

3.  Impact of graphic and text warnings on cigarette packs: findings from four countries over five years.

Authors:  R Borland; N Wilson; G T Fong; D Hammond; K M Cummings; H-H Yong; W Hosking; G Hastings; J Thrasher; A McNeill
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2009-06-28       Impact factor: 7.552

4.  Reactance to Health Warnings Scale: Development and Validation.

Authors:  Marissa G Hall; Paschal Sheeran; Seth M Noar; Kurt M Ribisl; Laura E Bach; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2016-10

5.  Emotion in the Law and the Lab: The Case of Graphic Cigarette Warnings.

Authors:  Ellen Peters; Abigail T Evans; Natalie Hemmerich; Micah Berman
Journal:  Tob Regul Sci       Date:  2016-10-01

Review 6.  Systematic Review of Measures Used in Pictorial Cigarette Pack Warning Experiments.

Authors:  Diane B Francis; Marissa G Hall; Seth M Noar; Kurt M Ribisl; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 4.244

7.  "You're made to feel like a dirty filthy smoker when you're not, cigar smoking is another thing all together." Responses of Australian cigar and cigarillo smokers to plain packaging.

Authors:  Caroline L Miller; Kerry A Ettridge; Melanie A Wakefield
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 7.552

8.  Real-world exposure to graphic warning labels on cigarette packages in US smokers: The CASA randomized trial protocol.

Authors:  John P Pierce; David R Strong; Matthew D Stone; Adriana Villaseñor; Claudiu V Dimofte; Eric C Leas; Jesica Oratowski; Elizabeth Brighton; Samantha Hurst; Kimberley Pulvers; Sheila Kealey; Ruifeng Chen; Karen Messer
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2020-09-20       Impact factor: 2.226

9.  Potential Effectiveness of Pictorial Warning Labels That Feature the Images and Personal Details of Real People.

Authors:  Emily Brennan; Erin K Maloney; Yotam Ophir; Joseph N Cappella
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 4.244

10.  Which type of tobacco product warning imagery is more effective and sustainable over time? A longitudinal assessment of smokers in Canada, Australia and Mexico.

Authors:  Dien Anshari; Hua-Hie Yong; Ron Borland; David Hammond; Kamala Swayampakala; Jim Thrasher
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-07-13       Impact factor: 2.692

View more
  1 in total

1.  Effect of Graphic Warning Labels on Cigarette Pack-Hiding Behavior Among Smokers: The CASA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  John P Pierce; Sheila Kealey; Eric C Leas; Kim Pulvers; Matthew D Stone; Jesica Oratowski; Elizabeth Brighton; Adriana Villaseñor; David R Strong
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-06-01
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.