The inhibitory effect of a distressing anti-smoking message on risk perceptions in smokers

Brown, Stephen L.; Smith, Eva

doi:10.1080/14768320600843127

Cited by 55 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As young non-smokers are often a key target group for pictorial warning labels, the increased attention for high risk information in combination with high threat photos suggests the importance of adding pictorial warnings for impeding smoking uptake and promoting non-smoking norms in non-smoking populations [13,18]. The findings for smokers and non-smokers together further support the hypothesis that threatening health information attracts the least attention among those to whom the health threat is most personally relevant [22,40]. At the same time, studies are needed that examine the extent to which decreased attention for self-relevant high risk information transfers to positive effects of health messages with regard to the prevention of smoking uptake and the promotion of smoking cessation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Eye movement responses to health messages on cigarette packages

Kessels

Ruiter

2012

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWhile the majority of the health messages on cigarette packages contain threatening health information, previous studies indicate that risk information can trigger defensive reactions, especially when the information is self-relevant (i.e., smokers). Providing coping information, information that provides help for quitting smoking, might increase attention to health messages instead of triggering defensive reactions.MethodsEye-movement registration can detect attention preferences for different health education messages over a longer period of time during message exposure. In a randomized, experimental study with 23 smoking and 41 non-smoking student volunteers, eye-movements were recorded for sixteen self-created cigarette packages containing health texts that presented either high risk or coping information combined with a high threat or a low threat smoking-related photo.ResultsResults of the eye movement data showed that smokers tend to spend more time looking (i.e., more unique fixations and longer dwell time) at the coping information than at the high risk information irrespective of the content of the smoking-related photo. Non-smokers tend to spend more time looking at the high risk information than at the coping information when the information was presented in combination with a high threat smoking photo. When a low threat photo was presented, non-smokers paid more attention to the coping information than to the high risk information. Results for the smoking photos showed more attention allocation for low threat photos that were presented in combination with high risk information than for low threat photos in combination with coping information. No attention differences were found for the high threat photos.ConclusionsNon-smokers demonstrated an attention preference for high risk information as opposed to coping information, but only when text information was presented in combination with a high threat photo. For smokers, however, our findings suggest more attention allocation for coping information than for health risk information. This preference for coping information is not reflected in current health messages to motivate smokers to quit smoking. Coping information should be more frequently implemented in health message design to increase attention for these messages and thus contribute to effective persuasion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Eye movement responses to health messages on cigarette packages

Kessels

Ruiter

2012

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A short measure, adapted from a measure developed by Brown and Smith33 for a young adult sample, included two items: ‘How much does this image make you feel worried?’ and ‘How much does this image make you feel scared?’ Response scales ranged from not at all (1) to extremely (7). We averaged the two ratings (mean r=0.94 across the 36 labels) to generate scores.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responses of young adults to graphic warning labels for cigarette packages

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a series of 36 graphic warning labels for cigarette packages. We sought to evaluate the effects of the labels on fear-related emotions about health consequences of smoking and smoking motivations of young adults. Methods We conducted an experimental study in 2010–2011 with 325 smokers and non-smokers ages 18–30 years whom we recruited through community distribution lists in North Carolina and through a national survey company. Each participant viewed 27 labels (18 of the proposed labels with graphic images and text warnings and 9 with text-only warnings) in a random order, evaluating each label on understandability and its effects on fear-related reactions and discouragement from wanting to smoke. Results Respondents found most of the proposed labels easy to understand. Of the 36 labels, 64% induced greater fear-related reactions and 58% discouraged respondents from wanting to smoke more than the corresponding text-only labels did. Labels with the greatest effects had photographs (as compared with drawings or other art graphics) or depicted diseased body parts or suffering or dead people. In almost every comparison, smokers reported lower fear-related reactions and feeling less discouraged from wanting to smoke relative to non-smokers. Conclusions Most of the proposed labels enhanced fear-related reactions about health consequences of smoking and reduced motivations to smoke relative to text-only labels, although some had larger effects than others. All but one of the nine warning labels recently adopted by the FDA enhanced fear-related reactions and reduced smoking motivations.

show abstract

“…There is much research evidence suggesting that individuals often process personally relevant health-risk information defensively (Good & Abraham, 2007). For example, when exposed to a personally relevant and threatening health-risk message, individuals have been found to respond by denying personal susceptibility and risk (Brown & Smith, 2007;Stuteville, 1970), becoming more critical of the threatening message (Liberman & Chaiken, 1992), rating the message as less accurate (Croyle, Sun & Louise, 1993) and taking less time to read the message (Brown & Locker, 2009). Such defensive responses can potentially limit the efficacy of health promotion campaigns.…”

Section: Application Of Sat To Personally Relevant Health-risk Informmentioning

confidence: 99%

The moderating impact of self‐esteem on self‐affirmation effects

Düring

Jessop

2014

British J Health Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study explored whether self‐esteem would moderate the effectiveness of a self‐affirmation manipulation at increasing openness to personally relevant health‐risk information. Design The study employed a prospective experimental design. Method Participants (N = 328) completed either a self‐affirmation manipulation or a control task, prior to reading information detailing the health‐related consequences of taking insufficient exercise. They then completed a series of measures assessing their cognitions towards exercise and their derogation of the information. Exercise behaviour was assessed at 1‐week follow‐up. Results Self‐esteem moderated the impact of self‐affirmation on the majority of outcomes. For participants with low self‐esteem, the self‐affirmation manipulation resulted in more positive attitudes and intentions towards exercise, together with lower levels of derogation of the health‐risk information. By contrast, there was no effect of the self‐affirmation manipulation on outcomes for participants with high self‐esteem. Conclusion Findings suggest that self‐affirmation manipulations might be of particular benefit for those with low self‐esteem in terms of promoting openness towards health‐risk information. This is promising from a health promotion perspective, as individuals with low self‐esteem often represent those most in need of intervention. What is already known on this subject? Self‐affirmation has been shown to result in more open processing of personally relevant health‐risk information. Individuals low in self‐esteem tend to process such information more defensively than those high in self‐esteem. What does this study add? It explores whether self‐esteem moderates the impact of self‐affirmation on responses to health‐risk information. Findings suggest that individuals with low self‐esteem benefit most from the self‐affirmation manipulation. This has important applied implications, as individuals with low self‐esteem may be most in need of intervention.

show abstract

The inhibitory effect of a distressing anti-smoking message on risk perceptions in smokers

Cited by 55 publications

References 39 publications

Eye movement responses to health messages on cigarette packages

Eye movement responses to health messages on cigarette packages

Responses of young adults to graphic warning labels for cigarette packages

The moderating impact of self‐esteem on self‐affirmation effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About