Effect of e-cigarette advertisements and antismoking messages on explicit and implicit attitudes towards tobacco and e-cigarette smoking in 18-65-year-olds: a randomised controlled study protocol

Paula Booth, Ian P Albery, Daniel Frings, Paula Booth, Ian P Albery, Daniel Frings

Abstract

Introduction: Since the advent of e-cigarettes, e-cigarette advertising has escalated and companies are able to use marketing strategies that are not permissible for tobacco products. Research into the effect of e-cigarette advertising on attitudes towards tobacco and e-cigarettes is in its infancy. To date, no research has compared indirect (implicit) measures of attitude towards e-cigarettes with direct (explicit) measures. Furthermore, little consideration has been given to how viewing online advertisements may have an effect on attitudes towards e-cigarettes or how positive attitudes to e-cigarettes may undermine antismoking public health messages. The objectives of this study are to investigate (1) the relationship between explicit and implicit attitudes towards tobacco and e-cigarettes, (2) the effect of e-cigarette advertising on these attitudes and (3) the effect of these attitudes on the efficacy of antismoking health messages.

Methods and analysis: In experiment 1 an analysis of covariance will be conducted to determine whether viewing an e-cigarette advertisement, compared with a neutral image, has an effect on implicit or explicit attitudes towards tobacco and e-cigarettes, and if these attitudes differ between smokers, vapers and non-smokers aged 18 - 25 years. In experiment 2, moderation analysis will be conducted to assess whether attitudes towards e-cigarettes moderate the psychological efficacy of antismoking health messages in participants aged 18-65 years. In each experiment, attitudes will be measured preintervention and postintervention and 1 week later (n=150) in participants who are smokers (n=50), vapers (n=50) or non-smokers (n=50).

Ethics and dissemination: Approval for this study has been given by the London South Bank University's (LSBU) Research Ethics Committee. The findings of these studies will be submitted for publication and disseminated via conferences. The results will be integrated into course provision for practitioners training at LSBU.

Keywords: Advertisements; Anti-Smoking Messages; Attitudes; E-cigarettes; Tobacco.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: DF and IPA are both investigators on a randomised controlled trial funded by Allen Carr's Easyway. This trial is comparing the Allen Carr's Easway stop-smoking method with local NHS 1-1 stop smoking counselling service. The team is contractually free to publish the results regardless of the study outcome. They have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study design.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Screenshot of the information screen used in the Single Category Implicit Association Test with the personal attribute categories.

References

    1. ASH Action on Smoking and Health. Use of electronic cigarettes (vapourisers) among adults in great Britain. ASH Fact Sheet 2016;2016.
    1. Schraufnagel DE, Blasi F, Drummond MB, et al. . Electronic cigarettes. A position statement of the forum of international respiratory societies. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014;190:611–8. 10.1164/rccm.201407-1198PP
    1. Dawkins L, Turner J, Roberts A, et al. . 'Vaping' profiles and preferences: an online survey of electronic cigarette users. Addiction 2013;108:1115–25. 10.1111/add.12150
    1. Rom O, Pecorelli A, Valacchi G, et al. . Are E-cigarettes a safe and good alternative to cigarette smoking? Ann N Y Acad Sci 2015;1340:65–74. 10.1111/nyas.12609
    1. McNeill A, Brose LS, Calder R, et al. . E-cigarettes: an evidence Update. A Report Commissioned by Public Health England, 2015.
    1. Suppl 3:–.Zhu SH, Sun JY, Bonnevie E, et al. . Four hundred and sixty brands of e-cigarettes and counting: implications for product regulation. Tob Control 2014;23 Suppl 3 9:iii3–iii9. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051670
    1. Durbin RJ, Waxman HA, Harkin T, et al. . Gateway to addiction? A survey of popular electronic cigarette manufacturers and targeted marketing to youth. InUS Congr 2014;711.
    1. Pepper JK, Brewer NT. Electronic nicotine delivery system (electronic cigarette) awareness, use, reactions and beliefs: a systematic review. Tob Control 2014;23:375–84. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051122
    1. Trumbo CW, Harper R. Orientation of US Young adults toward E-cigarettes and their use in Public. Health Behav Policy Rev 2015;2:163–70. 10.14485/HBPR.2.2.8
    1. Choi K, Forster J. Characteristics associated with awareness, perceptions, and use of electronic nicotine delivery systems among young US midwestern adults. Am J Public Health 2013;103:556–61. 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300947
    1. Choi K, Fabian L, Mottey N, et al. . Young adults' favorable perceptions of snus, dissolvable tobacco products, and electronic cigarettes: findings from a focus group study. Am J Public Health 2012;102:2088–93. 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300525
    1. Sherman SJ, Chassin L, Presson C, et al. . The Intergenerational Transmission of Implicit and Explicit attitudes toward smoking. J Exp Soc Psychol 2009;45:313 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.012
    1. Sheeran P, Gollwitzer PM, Bargh JA. Nonconscious processes and health. Health Psychol 2013;32:460–73. 10.1037/a0029203
    1. Gawronski B, Bodenhausen GV. Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: an integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychol Bull 2006;132:692–731. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692
    1. Wiers RW, Houben KMP I, Roefs A, et al. . ‘Implicit cognition in health psychology: why common sense goes out of the window’ : Gawronsk B, PBK ­, Handbook of implicit social cognition. New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press, 2010:463–88.
    1. Rooke SE, Hine DW, Thorsteinsson EB. Implicit cognition and substance use: a meta-analysis. Addict Behav 2008;33 1328:1314 15p–1328. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.06.009
    1. Roefs A, Huijding J, Smulders FTY, et al. . Implicit measures of association in psychopathology research. Psychol Bull;137:149–93. 10.1037/a0021729
    1. Frings D, Albery IP. The Social Identity Model of Cessation Maintenance: formulation and initial evidence. Addict Behav 2015;44:35–42. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.10.023
    1. Perugini M. Predictive models of implicit and explicit attitudes. Br J Soc Psychol 2005;44:29–45. 10.1348/014466604X23491
    1. Reich RR, Goldman MS, Noll JA. Using the False memory paradigm to test two Key elements of Alcohol Expectancy Theory. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol;12:102–10. 10.1037/1064-1297.12.2.102
    1. Huijding J, de Jong PJ, Wiers RW, et al. . Implicit and explicit attitudes toward smoking in a smoking and a nonsmoking setting. Addict Behav 2005;30:949–61. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.09.014
    1. Huijding J, de Jong PJ. Automatic associations with the sensory aspects of smoking: positive in habitual smokers but negative in non-smokers. Addict Behav 2006;31:182–6. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.04.014
    1. De Houwer J, Custers R, De Clercq A. Do smokers have a negative implicit attitude toward smoking? Cogn Emot 2006;20:1274–84. 10.1080/02699930500484506
    1. Bardin B, Perrissol S, Py J, et al. . Personalized SC-IAT: a possible way of reducing the influence of societal views on assessments of implicit attitude toward smoking. Psychol Rep 2014;115:13–25. 10.2466/18.07.PR0.115c10z8
    1. Swanson JE, Swanson E, Greenwald AG. Using the Implicit Association test to investigate attitude-behaviour consistency for stigmatised behaviour. Cogn Emot 2001;15:207–30. 10.1080/02699930125706
    1. Robinson M, Meier B. Smoking and the Implicit Association test: when the contrast category determines the theoretical conclusions. Basic Appl … 2005.
    1. Nosek BA, Hawkins CB, Frazier RS. Implicit social cognition: from measures to mechanisms. Trends Cogn Sci 2011;15:152–9. 10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.005
    1. Karpinski A, Steinman RB. The Single Category Implicit Association Test as a measure of Implicit Social cognition. J Pers Soc Psychol;91:16–32. 10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.16
    1. Farrelly MC, Duke JC, Crankshaw EC, et al. . A Randomized Trial of the effect of E-cigarette TV advertisements on intentions to use E-cigarettes. Am J Prev Med 2015;49:686–93. 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.05.010
    1. Kim AE, Lee YO, Shafer P, et al. . Adult smokers' receptivity to a television advert for electronic nicotine delivery systems. Tob Control 2015;24:132–5. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051130
    1. Popova L, Ling PM. Nonsmokers’ responses to new warning labels on smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes: an experimental study. BMC Public Health 2014;14:997 10.1186/1471-2458-14-997
    1. Nagelhout GE, Heijndijk SM, Cummings KM, et al. . E-cigarette advertisements, and associations with the use of e-cigarettes and disapproval or quitting of smoking: findings from the International tobacco control (ITC) Netherlands Survey. Int J Drug Policy 2016;29 10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.12.015
    1. Smith DM, Bansal-Travers M, O'Connor RJ, et al. . Associations between perceptions of e-cigarette advertising and interest in product trial amongst US adult smokers and non-smokers: results from an internet-based pilot survey. Tob Induc Dis 2015;13:14 10.1186/s12971-015-0039-6
    1. Maloney EK, Cappella JN. Does Vaping in E-Cigarette Advertisements Affect tobacco smoking urge, intentions, and perceptions in Daily, Intermittent, and former smokers? Health Commun 2016;31:1–10. 10.1080/10410236.2014.993496
    1. De Andrade M, Hastings G, Angus K, et al. . The marketing of electronic cigarettes in the Uk. 2013. (accessed 26 Mar 2017).
    1. Durkin S, Brennan E, Wakefield M. Mass media campaigns to promote smoking cessation among adults: an integrative review. Tob Control 2012;21:127–38. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050345
    1. Choi K, Forster JL. Beliefs and experimentation with electronic cigarettes: a prospective analysis among young adults. Am J Prev Med 2014;46:175–8. 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.10.007
    1. Kang M, Park JH. Covariate Adaptive Randomization Program. 2007.
    1. Smith DM, Bansal-Travers M, O'Connor RJ, et al. . Associations between perceptions of e-cigarette advertising and interest in product trial amongst US adult smokers and non-smokers: results from an internet-based pilot survey. Tob Induc Dis 2015;13:14 10.1186/s12971-015-0039-6
    1. Zhou X, Nonnemaker J, Sherrill B, et al. . Attempts to quit smoking and relapse: factors associated with success or failure from the ATTEMPT cohort study. Addict Behav 2009;34:365–73. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.11.013
    1. Gilpin EA, White MM, Messer K, et al. . Receptivity to tobacco advertising and promotions among young adolescents as a predictor of established smoking in young adulthood. Am J Public Health 2007;97:1489–95. 10.2105/AJPH.2005.070359
    1. Munafò M, Mogg K, Roberts S, et al. . Selective processing of smoking-related cues in current smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers on the modified Stroop task. J Psychopharmacol 2003;17:310–6. 10.1177/02698811030173013
    1. Karpinski A, Steinman RB. The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition. J Pers Soc Psychol 2006;91:16–32. 10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.16
    1. Greenwald AG, Nosek BA, Banaji MR. Understanding and using the implicit association test: i. an improved scoring algorithm. J Pers Soc Psychol 2003;85:197–216. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197
    1. Frings D, Melichar L, Albery IP. Implicit and explicit drinker identities interactively predict in-the-moment alcohol placebo consumption. Addict Behav Rep 2016;3:86–91. 10.1016/j.abrep.2016.04.002
    1. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, et al. . SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 2013;346:e7586 10.1136/bmj.e7586
    1. Whitlock EP, Polen MR, Green CA, et al. . Behavioral counseling interventions in primary care to reduce risky/harmful alcohol use by adults: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:557 10.7326/0003-4819-140-7-200404060-00017
    1. Berger VW. Conservative handling of missing data. Contemp Clin Trials 2012;33:460 10.1016/j.cct.2012.02.008

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner