Effects of health-oriented descriptors on combustible cigarette and electronic cigarette packaging: an experiment among adult smokers in the United States

Sanders‐Jackson, Ashley; Tan, Andy S.L.; Yie, Kyeungyeun

doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053795

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…References such as ‘natural’ and ‘organic’ are among the most common health‐oriented descriptors for consumable tobacco products, and have been shown to increase the appeal of food and tobacco products [19,51–53]. In the present study, products labelled as organic/natural were perceived as ‘less harmful’…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…For example, lighter colours communicate cues that elicit perceptions of reduced harm and strength, superior quality and better brand recognition [14][15][16][17][18]. Health-oriented descriptors have been shown to increase intentions to purchase, increase generally favourable perceptions and reduce perceived harm associated with the product's use [19]. Products presented in slim and thin designs increase attractiveness (particularly among women), communicate milder content and are perceived as less harmful [20][21][22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The efficacy of health warnings and package branding on perceptions of cannabis products among youth and young adults

Leos‐Toro

Fong

Hammond

2021

Drug and Alcohol Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Little empirical evidence exists about the efficacy of labelling and marketing restrictions in a regulated cannabis market. This study examined perceptions of cannabis product packaging designs, health warning labels (HWL) and perceptions of packs displaying brand imagery and leading descriptors on measures of appeal, and perceived consumer attributes. Methods An online experimental survey of Canadian cannabis users and non‐users (n = 870) aged 16–30 years containing eight between‐group experiments was conducted in October 2017. Primary outcomes were appeal and perceived consumer attributes of cannabis product packaging, including the likelihood of being younger, female, fashionable, health conscious and likely to go out and party. Results When cannabis product branding was present, respondents were more likely (P = 0.027) to report greater appeal than when branding was absent. When an HWL was present, respondents were less likely (P = 0.010) to report greater appeal than when absent. The presence of a celebrity sponsor (P < 0.001), music references (P < 0.001) or party references (P < 0.001) increased the likelihood that respondents perceived the product as targeted at someone younger, and a party lifestyle. Differences by cannabis use status were observed across experiments; those who had used were more likely to find branding elements appealing. Discussion and Conclusions The findings demonstrate that brand imagery on cannabis packaging can promote lifestyle associations and increase the appeal of cannabis products among young people. Plain/standardised packs displaying HWLs were perceived as less appealing than packs with branding or without HWLs. Lifestyle associations can be communicated through brand imagery on cannabis packaging.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The efficacy of health warnings and package branding on perceptions of cannabis products among youth and young adults

Leos‐Toro

Fong

Hammond

2021

Drug and Alcohol Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such an explanation is, of course, speculative. Another possible explanation is that the explicit messages contained what participants perceived as stronger arguments about vaping, and that such arguments suppressed smoking urge (Sanders-Jackson, Schleicher, Fortmann, & Henriksen, 2015;Sanders-Jackson, Tan, & Yie, 2018). This is also plausible given that stronger arguments are more likely to have impact in the context of anti-smoking messages (Lee, Cappella, Lerman, & Strasser, 2011;Lee et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of E-cigarette Advertising Message Form and Cues on Cessation Intention: An Exploratory Study

Noar

Southwell

et al. 2019

Journal of Health Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A common message in e-cigarette advertising is that e-cigarettes can be used anywhere. Ecigarette advertisements often express this message implicitly (e.g., "Whenever, wherever") alongside images of e-cigarettes that physically resemble combustible cigarettes. These implicit messages and "cigalike" images may cross-cue combustible cigarette smoking cognitions and behavior. This exploratory study was a 2 (message form: implicit or explicit e-cigarette use anywhere message) by 2 (presence or absence of e-cigarette cue) experiment with U.S. adult smokers (n = 2,201). Participants were randomized to view e-cigarette advertisements that varied by study condition. Three combustible cigarette outcomes were investigated: smoking cessation intention, smoking urges, and immediate smoking behavior. Mediation analysis was also performed to investigate mechanisms of the message form effect through descriptive and normative beliefs about smoking. Compared to its explicit counterpart, the implicit e-cigarette use anywhere message evoked greater smoking urges. Participants exposed to the implicit message also perceived cigarette smoking to be more prevalent and, in turn, reported greater cessation intention. There was no evidence of e-cigarette cue or message form × cue interaction effects. Implicit e-cigarette use anywhere messages may create a predisposition towards smoking compared to their explicitly written counterparts, but whether this effect undermines cessation deserves further attention.

show abstract

“…A number of experimental studies have established that "organic" or "additive-free" descriptors decrease tobacco harm perceptions. [1][2][3][4][5] Two nationally representative studies have shown that Natural American Spirit (NAS) smokers specifically misunderstand the relative harm of their brand, which uses the "organic" descriptor on some products and, until late 2017, used the "additive-free" descriptor on its cigarette sub-brands. 6,7 However, the overall prevalence of belief that "organic" and "additive-free" tobacco products are less harmful than regular tobacco products has not been reported in the United States.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Widespread Belief That Organic and Additive-Free Tobacco Products are Less Harmful Than Regular Tobacco Products: Results From the 2017 US Health Information National Trends Survey

Pearson

Moran

Delnevo

et al. 2019

Nicotine &Amp; Tobacco Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Significance US smokers of Natural American Spirit, a brand marketed as “organic” and “additive-free,” are more likely than other cigarette smokers to believe that their brand might be less harmful than other brands. This article (1) describes the prevalence of belief that “organic” and “additive-free” tobacco is less harmful than regular tobacco products in the US population and (2) describes the sociodemographic characteristics of adults who believe tobacco products with these descriptors are less harmful. Methods Data were drawn from the 2017 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS), a nationally representative survey of US adults. Logistic regression models were used to examine correlates of the belief that “organic” or “additive-free” tobacco products are less harmful than regular tobacco products. Results Overall, 26.7% of US adults and 45.3% of adult smokers believe that “organic” tobacco products are less harmful than regular tobacco products. Similarly, 35.2% of US adults and 47.1% of smokers believe that “additive-free” tobacco products are less harmful. When examining gender, age, education, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and smoking status, only age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] ~0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.97, 0.99 for both outcomes) and smoking status (current vs. never smokers, aOR ~1.78, 95% CI 1.03, 3.07 for both outcomes) were correlates of believing that “organic” or “additive-free” tobacco is less harmful than regular tobacco products. Conclusions Belief that “organic” and “additive-free” tobacco products are less harmful than other products is widespread. Younger adults and current smokers are most likely to be misinformed by “organic” or “additive-free” tobacco product descriptors. Implications Belief that “organic” and “additive-free” tobacco products are less harmful than other products is widespread among US adults and most prevalent among smokers. Removal of terms that incorrectly imply reduced harm may correct current and future consumers’ misperceptions about the brand.

show abstract

Effects of health-oriented descriptors on combustible cigarette and electronic cigarette packaging: an experiment among adult smokers in the United States

Abstract: The effect of health-oriented language was significant for combustible cigarettesand e-cigarette packages. Policies to restrict health-oriented language on cigarette and e-cigarette packaging are recommended.

Cited by 18 publications

References 23 publications

The efficacy of health warnings and package branding on perceptions of cannabis products among youth and young adults

The efficacy of health warnings and package branding on perceptions of cannabis products among youth and young adults

Effects of E-cigarette Advertising Message Form and Cues on Cessation Intention: An Exploratory Study

Widespread Belief That Organic and Additive-Free Tobacco Products are Less Harmful Than Regular Tobacco Products: Results From the 2017 US Health Information National Trends Survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About