Graphic Warning Labels Elicit Affective and Thoughtful Responses from Smokers: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Abigail T Evans, Ellen Peters, Andrew A Strasser, Lydia F Emery, Kaitlin M Sheerin, Daniel Romer, Abigail T Evans, Ellen Peters, Andrew A Strasser, Lydia F Emery, Kaitlin M Sheerin, Daniel Romer

Abstract

Objective: Observational research suggests that placing graphic images on cigarette warning labels can reduce smoking rates, but field studies lack experimental control. Our primary objective was to determine the psychological processes set in motion by naturalistic exposure to graphic vs. text-only warnings in a randomized clinical trial involving exposure to modified cigarette packs over a 4-week period. Theories of graphic-warning impact were tested by examining affect toward smoking, credibility of warning information, risk perceptions, quit intentions, warning label memory, and smoking risk knowledge.

Methods: Adults who smoked between 5 and 40 cigarettes daily (N = 293; mean age = 33.7), did not have a contra-indicated medical condition, and did not intend to quit were recruited from Philadelphia, PA and Columbus, OH. Smokers were randomly assigned to receive their own brand of cigarettes for four weeks in one of three warning conditions: text only, graphic images plus text, or graphic images with elaborated text.

Results: Data from 244 participants who completed the trial were analyzed in structural-equation models. The presence of graphic images (compared to text-only) caused more negative affect toward smoking, a process that indirectly influenced risk perceptions and quit intentions (e.g., image->negative affect->risk perception->quit intention). Negative affect from graphic images also enhanced warning credibility including through increased scrutiny of the warnings, a process that also indirectly affected risk perceptions and quit intentions (e.g., image->negative affect->risk scrutiny->warning credibility->risk perception->quit intention). Unexpectedly, elaborated text reduced warning credibility. Finally, graphic warnings increased warning-information recall and indirectly increased smoking-risk knowledge at the end of the trial and one month later.

Conclusions: In the first naturalistic clinical trial conducted, graphic warning labels are more effective than text-only warnings in encouraging smokers to consider quitting and in educating them about smoking's risks. Negative affective reactions to smoking, thinking about risks, and perceptions of credibility are mediators of their impact.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01782053.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Participant Retention Diagram.
Fig 1. Participant Retention Diagram.
Participant recruitment and retention over the course of the trial.
Fig 2. Placement of Experimental Warning Labels.
Fig 2. Placement of Experimental Warning Labels.
Basic text warnings (left) were placed on the side of cigarettes packages. Graphic warning labels (center) covered approximately 50% of the front of cigarette packages and paired images with basic text statements. Elaborated text warning labels (right) also featured graphic images, but included descriptive text which explained the warning in more detail.
Fig 3. Model Testing the Predictions of…
Fig 3. Model Testing the Predictions of Hypotheses 1 and 2.
W3 = Week 3; W6 = Week 6. Path coefficients for the measurement models for Risk Perceptions (Risk 1 = 1.00, Risk 2 = .88**, Risk 3 = 1.19**) and Quit Intentions (Contemplation Ladder = 1.00, 30-Day Quit Intentions = .45**, Quit Desire = .42**)

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014). Smoking & tobacco use: Fast facts. Retrieved December 12, 2014, 2014, from
    1. Canadian Cancer Society. Cigarette Package Health Warnings: International Status Report, Fourth Edition, September 2014.
    1. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Food and Drug Administration, No. 11–5332 (United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 2012).
    1. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Civil Case No. 11–1482 (RJL) (D.C.D.C., Nov. 7, 2011).
    1. Cameron LD, Pepper JK, Brewer NT. Responses of young adults to graphic warning labels for cigarette packages. Tob Control. 2015; e14–e22. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050645
    1. Kees J, Burton S, Andrews JC, Kozup J. Understanding how graphic pictorial warnings work on cigarette packaging. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 2010: 29, 2 265–276.
    1. Peters E, Romer D, Slovic P, Jamieson KH, Wharfield L, Mertz CK, et al. The impact and acceptability of Canadian-style cigarette warning labels among US smokers and nonsmokers. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2007;9(4):473–481.
    1. Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor DG. Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. J Socio Econ. 2002; 31(4): 329–342.
    1. Schwarz N, Clore GL. Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: informative and directive functions of affective states. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983; 45(3): 513.
    1. Slovic P. (Ed.). Smoking: Risk, perception, and policy. Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks, California; 2001.
    1. Peters E. The functions of affect in the construction of preferences. The construction of preference. 2006: 454–463.
    1. Peters E, Lipkus I, Diefenbach MA. The Functions of Affect in Health Communications and in the Construction of Health Preferences. Journal of Communication. 2006; 56(s1): S140–S162.
    1. Emery LF, Romer D, Sheerin KM, Jamieson KH, Peters E. Affective and cognitive mediators of the impact of cigarette warning labels. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2014; 16(3): 263–269. 10.1093/ntr/ntt124
    1. Haugtvedt CP, Petty RE. Personality and persuasion: Need for cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude changes. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992; 63(2): 308.
    1. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Schumann D. Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. J Consum Res. 1983: 135–146.
    1. Sivacek J, Crano WG. Vested interest as a moderator of attitude–behavior consistency. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1982; 43(2): 210.
    1. Kensinger EA. Remembering the details: Effects of emotion. Emot Rev. 2009; 1(2): 99–113.
    1. Laney C, Campbell CV, Heuer F, Reisberg D. Memory for thematically arousing events. Mem Cognit. 2004; 32(7): 1149–1159.
    1. Mather M, Sutherland MR. Arousal-biased competition in perception and memory. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011; 6(2): 114–133. 10.1177/1745691611400234
    1. Kennedy RD, Spafford MM, Parkinson CM, Fong GT. Knowledge about the relationship between smoking and blindness in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia: results from the International Tobacco Control Four-Country Project. Optometry. 2011; 82(5): 310–317.
    1. Kennedy RD, Spafford MM, Behm I, Hammond D, Fong GT, Borland R. Positive impact of Australian 'blindness' tobacco warning labels: findings from the ITC four country survey. Clin Exp Optom. 2012; 95(6): 590–598. 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2012.00789.x
    1. Slovic P. Rejoinder: the perils of Viscusi's analyses of smoking risk perceptions. J Behav Decis Mak. 2000; 13(2): 273–276.
    1. Noar SM, Hall MG, Francis DB, Ribisl KR, Pepper JK, Brewer NT. Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Tob Control. 2015.
    1. Frederick S, Loewenstein G. Hedonic adaptation Kahneman D., Diener E., & Schwarz N. (Eds.), Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press; 1999; 302–329.
    1. Wilson TD, Gilbert DT. Explaining away: A model of affective adaptation. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2008; 3(5): 370–386. 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00085.x
    1. FDA, Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements, 76 Fed. Reg. 36,628 (June 22, 2011).
    1. Andrews JC, Netemeyer RG, Kees J, Burton S. How Graphic Visual Health Warnings Affect Young Smokers' Thoughts of Quitting. J Mark Res. 2014; 51(2): 165–183.
    1. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–191.
    1. Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerström KO. The Fagerström test for nicotine dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict. 1991; 86(9): 1119–1127.
    1. Strasser AA, Tang KZ, Sanborn PM, Zhou JY, Kozlowski LT. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009; 17(6): 405 10.1037/a0017649
    1. Hammond D, Fong GT, McDonald PW, Brown KS, Cameron R. Graphic Canadian cigarette warning labels and adverse outcomes: evidence from Canadian smokers. Am J Public Health, 2004; 94(8): 1442–1445.
    1. Benthin A, Slovic P, Severson H. A psychometric study of adolescent risk perception. J Adolesc, 1993; 16(2): 153–168.
    1. Reimer RA, Gerrard M, Gibbons FX. Racial disparities in smoking knowledge among current smokers: data from the health information national trends surveys. Psychol Health, 2010; 25(8): 943–959. 10.1080/08870440902935913
    1. Biener L, Abrams DB. The Contemplation Ladder: validation of a measure of readiness to consider smoking cessation. Health Psychol. 1991; 10(5): 360
    1. Romer D, Peters E, Strasser AA, Langleben D. Desire versus efficacy in smokers’ paradoxical reactions to pictorial health warnings for cigarettes. PloS one, 2013; 8(1).
    1. Kensinger EA, Schacter DL. When the Red Sox shocked the Yankees: Comparing negative and positive memories. Psychon Bull Rev, 2006; 13(5): 757–763.
    1. Weinstein ND, Slovic P, Waters E, Gibson G. Public understanding of the illnesses caused by cigarette smoking. Nicotine Tob Res, 2004; 6(2): 349–355.
    1. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User's Guide (Seventh Edition). 2012. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
    1. Chou CP, Bentler PM, Satorra A. Scaled test statistics and robust standard errors for non‐normal data in covariance structure analysis: a Monte Carlo study. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psych., 1991; 44(2), 347–357.
    1. Satorra A, Bentler PM. A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 2001; 66(4), 507–514.
    1. Ullman JB. Structural equation modeling In: Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, editors. Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 2001. p. 653–771.
    1. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling, 1999; 6(1): 1–55.
    1. MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Williams J. Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behav Res. 2004; 39(1): 99–128.
    1. Shrout PE, Bolger N. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychol Methods, 2002; 7(4), 422–445.
    1. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods, 2008; 40(3), 879–891.
    1. StataCorp. 2011. Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
    1. Cantrell J, Vallone DM, Thrasher JF, Nagler RH, Feirman SP, Muenz LR, et al. Impact of tobacco-related health warning labels across socioeconomic, race and ethnic groups: results from a randomized web-based experiment. PLoS One, 2013; 8(1).
    1. Yong HH, Borland R, Thrasher JF, Thompson ME, Nagelhout GE, Fong GT, et al. Mediational pathways of the impact of cigarette warning labels on quit attempts. Health Psychol, 2014; 33(11), 1410–1420. 10.1037/hea0000056
    1. Bem DJ. Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychol Rev, 1967; 74(3): 183–200.
    1. Levie WH, Lentz R. Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educ Technol Res Dev. 1982; 30(4): 195–232.
    1. Wang AL, Lowen SB, Romer D., Giorno M, & Langleben DD. Emotional reaction facilitates the brain and behavioural impact of graphic cigarette warning labels in smokers. Tob Control. 2015; 24:225–232. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051993
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014. Printed with corrections, January 2014.
    1. Zhao X, Lynch J G, Chen Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. J Consum Res. 2010; 37(2): 197–206.
    1. Hall MG, Sheeran P, Noar SM, Ribisl KM, Bach LE, Brewer NT. Does reactance to graphic cigarette pack warnings weaken their impact? Paper presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, San Antonio, TX. 2015.
    1. Hammond D, Fong GT, Borland R, Cummings KM, McNeill A, Driezen P. Text and graphic warnings on cigarette packages: findings from the international tobacco control four country study. Am J Prev Med. 2007; 32(3): 202–209.
    1. Hammond D, Reid JL, Driezen P, Boudreau C. Pictorial health warnings on cigarette packs in the United States: an experimental evaluation of the proposed FDA warnings. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013; 15(1): 93–102. 10.1093/ntr/nts094
    1. Brewer NT, Hall MG, Lee JG, Peebles K, Noar SM, Ribisl KM (2015). Testing warning messages on smokers' cigarette packages: a standardised protocol. Tob Control. 2015.
    1. McQueen A, Kreuter M, Boyum S, Thompson V, Caburnay C, Waters E, et al. (2015). Reactions to FDA-proposed graphic warning labels affixed to US smokers' cigarette packs. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015; 17(7): 784–795. 10.1093/ntr/ntu339

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe