Smoker reactions to a “radio message” that Light cigarettes are as dangerous as Regular cigarettes

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine in a systematic, controlled fashion the reactions of smokers to scientifically correct information about the risks of smoking Light cigarettes (about 6-15 mg tar by the FTC method). Random-digit dialing, computer-assisted telephone interviews were used to locate daily smokers of Light cigarettes. In an experimental design, smokers were randomly assigned to listen (n = 293) or not (n = 275) to a persuasive simulated radio message on the risks of Light cigarettes; 108 of those who did not listen to the message in the first part of the interview were played the message in the second part, to evaluate some repeated-measures effects. Those who heard the message were more likely to report that one Light cigarette could give a smoker the same amount of tar as one Regular cigarette and that Light cigarettes were more dangerous: 55% said the message made them think more about quitting and 46% said the message increased the amount they wanted to quit; 42% said that after hearing the message they thought Light cigarettes were more dangerous. Using the Theory of Planned Behavior, structural equation modeling analysis indicated that the message acted to increase intention to quit smoking by increasing the desire to quit smoking. Seventy-three per cent of the smokers agreed that it was important to play such messages widely on the radio; 77% agreed that there should be a warning on packs that vent blocking increases tar; 61% agreed that the location of filter vents should be marked. The majority of smokers of Light cigarettes seem to value being informed that Light cigarettes are as dangerous for them as Regular cigarettes, and this information increases their intentions to quit smoking.

Does tobacco industry marketing of 'light' cigarettes give smokers a rationale for postponing quitting?

“…Again, consumers are being misled. This marketing strategy must be aggressively counteracted through extensive public education (Kozlowski et al, 1999) or, as in Europe, through regulation. Improved yield-determination methods that more accurately reflect the exposure for the typical smoker are also essential for effective regulation of tobacco industry cigarette labeling practices (Bates et al, 1999;Henningfield et al, 1994;FTC, 1999;Kozlowski & O'Connor, 2000;Wilkenfeld et al, 2000).…”

Adolescents’ Beliefs About the Risks Involved in Smoking “Light” Cigarettes

“…Health care practitioners' efforts to dispel adolescents' inaccurate beliefs about light cigarettes may be informed by the success of light cigarette counteradvertising, which has been shown to be effective in changing knowledge [30][31][32][33] and intentions to quit smoking 31,33 among adults. Interestingly, a limited number of studies suggest that messages that focus on dispelling myths about the sensation of light cigarettes ("feel milder," "feel smoother," or "less harsh") may be more effective than those providing factual information about tar and nicotine delivery, blocked vents, or health outcomes related to smoking light cigarettes among adults.…”

Relighting cigarettes: How common is it?

“…It can be argued that those who smoke deserve to know that some ways of smoking are more harmful than others. Also, some evidence indicates that smokers may be more likely to reduce or quit smoking once they are made aware of how smoking can be made more or less harmful (but never safe; Cunningham, Faulkner, Selby, & Cordingley, 2006;Kozlowski et al, 1999).…”

“…For example, the harm of a cigarette may be increased through depth of inhalation (Haustein, 2003) or by covering the microperforations around the filters of light cigarettes (Kozlowski et al, 1998(Kozlowski et al, , 1999. From a public health perspective, it may be important to consider how people smoke as well as whether they smoke.…”