Effect of Graphic Cigarette Warnings on Smoking Intentions in Young Adults

Abstract

IntroductionGraphic warnings (GWs) on cigarette packs are widely used internationally and perhaps will be in the US but their impact is not well understood. This study tested support for competing hypotheses in different subgroups of young adults defined by their history of cigarette smoking and individual difference variables (e.g., psychological reactance). One hypothesis predicted adaptive responding (GWs would lower smoking-related intentions) and another predicted defensive responding (GWs would raise smoking-related intentions).MethodsParticipants were an online sample of 1,169 Americans ages 18–24, who were randomly assigned either to view nine GWs designed by the FDA or to a no-label control. Both the intention to smoke in the future and the intention to quit smoking (among smokers) were assessed before and after message exposure.ResultsGWs lowered intention to smoke in the future among those with a moderate lifetime smoking history (between 1 and 100 cigarettes), and they increased intention to quit smoking among those with a heavy lifetime smoking history (more than 100 cigarettes). Both effects were limited to individuals who had smoked in some but not all of the prior 30 days (i.e., occasional smokers). No evidence of defensive “boomerang effects” on intention was observed in any subgroup.ConclusionGraphic warnings can reduce interest in smoking among occasional smokers, a finding that supports the adaptive-change hypothesis. GWs that target occasional smokers might be more effective at reducing cigarette smoking in young adults.

Characteristics of warning labels for drug containers and their effects on perceived hazardousness

“…Another limitation is that the context in which participants evaluated the warning stimuli, i.e., after viewing them on paper, does not correspond with the repeated exposure to drug containers that occurs in real life. However, the paper presentation of stimuli in our study yielded similar results to the screen presentation of stimuli used by Blanton et al (2014) and Schneider et al (2012). Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that explicit judgments of the perceived effectiveness of warning do not necessarily predict responses to warning labels on drug containers.…”

“…Several previous studies have shown that warnings significantly reduce smoking rates (Blanton et al, 2014;Hammond et al, 2013;Malouff et al, 2012;Schroeder, 2012;Wu, 2012). For example, Hammond et al (2013) conducted web-based surveys with 783 adult smokers and 510 youth in the United States to evaluate the perceived efficacy of the 36 proposed Food and Drug Administration warnings for cigarette packages.…”

“…Moreover, warnings were perceived as more effective if they were in full color (vs. black and white), featured real people (vs. comic book style), and contained graphic images (vs. nongraphic). More recently, Blanton et al (2014) conducted an experiment to assess whether graphic warnings influenced participant's smoking-related intentions. Participants were randomly assigned either to a condition in which they viewed graphic warnings or to a no-label placebo condition.…”

Pengaruh Karakteristik Dan Persepsi Individu Tentang Peringatan Bahaya Merokok Pada Bungkus Rokok Terhadap Perubahan Sikap Perokok Aktif Di Lingkungan Xxvii Kelurahan Pekan Labuhan Kecamatan Medan Labuhan

“…Penelitian Blanton (2014) yang meneliti partisipan secara online sebanyak 1.169 warga Amerika berumur 18-24 tahun mendapatkan hasil bahwa peringatan grafis pada bungkus rokok dapat mengurangi minat merokok di kalangan perokok, sebuah temuan yang mendukung hipotesis perubahan adaptif. Peringatan grafis yang menargetkan perokok sesekali mungkin lebih efektif dalam mengubah sikap dan mengurangi merokok pada orang dewasa muda.…”

Government Efforts to Aid Consumer Well-Being

“…Additional research has shown that GHWs can lower intentions to smoke among young adult, occasional smokers (Blanton, Snyder, Strauts, & Larson, 2014), significantly reduce craving and electrophysiological brain responses to smoking cues (Wang et al, 2013), and influence affective and cognitive responses for adult smokers (Emery et al, 2013), as \Veil as for young adult smokers and susceptible youth (Nonnemaker et al, 2010). Yet, given that 88 percent of current smokers begin during adolescence, an important population for the study of the GHWs is adolescent smokers (Kessler et al, 1997;Surgeon General Report, 2012).…”