The Effects of Varying Electronic Cigarette Warning Label Design Features On Attention, Recall, and Product Perceptions Among Young Adults.
ABSTRACT: This study was a 3 (Brand: Blu, MarkTen, Vuse) by 3 (Warning Size: 20%, 30%, or 50% of advertisement surface) by 2 (Warning Background: White, Red) experimental investigation of the effects of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) warning label design features. Young adults aged 18-30 years (n = 544) were recruited online, completed demographic and tobacco use history measures, and randomized to view e-cigarette advertisements with warning labels that varied by the experimental conditions. Participants completed a task assessing self-reported visual attention to advertisements with a-priori regions of interest defined around warning labels. Warning message recall and perceived addictiveness of e-cigarettes were assessed post-exposure. Approximately half of participants reported attending to warning labels and reported attention was greater for warnings on red versus white backgrounds. Recall of the warning message content was also greater among those reporting attention to the warning label. Overall, those who viewed warnings on red backgrounds reported lower perceived addictiveness than those who viewed warnings on white backgrounds, and e-cigarette users reported lower perceived addictiveness than non-users. Among e-cigarette users, viewing warnings on white backgrounds produced perceptions more similar to non-users. Greater recall was significantly correlated with greater perceived addictiveness. This study provides some of the first evidence that e-cigarette warning label design features including size and coloring affect self-reported attention and content recall.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:It is unclear whether warnings on electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) advertisements required by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will apply to social media. Given the key role of social media in marketing e-cigarettes, we seek to inform FDA decision making by exploring how warnings on various tweet content influence perceived healthiness, nicotine harm, likelihood to try e-cigarettes, and warning recall. METHODS:In this 2 × 4 between-subjects experiment participants viewed a tweet from a fictitious e-cigarette brand. Four tweet content versions (e-cigarette product, e-cigarette use, e-cigarette in social context, unrelated content) were crossed with two warning versions (absent, present). Adult e-cigarette users (N = 994) were recruited via social media ads to complete a survey and randomized to view one of eight tweets. Multivariable regressions explored effects of tweet content and warning on perceived healthiness, perceived harm, and likelihood to try e-cigarettes, and tweet content on warning recall. Covariates were tobacco and social media use and demographics. RESULTS:Tweets with warnings elicited more negative health perceptions of the e-cigarette brand than tweets without warnings (p < .05). Tweets featuring e-cigarette products (p < .05) or use (p < .001) elicited higher warning recall than tweets featuring unrelated content. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first study to examine warning effects on perceptions of e-cigarette social media marketing. Warnings led to more negative e-cigarette health perceptions, but no effect on perceived nicotine harm or likelihood to try e-cigarettes. There were differences in warning recall by tweet content. Research should explore how varying warning content (text, size, placement) on tweets from e-cigarette brands influences health risk perceptions. IMPLICATIONS:FDA's 2016 ruling requires warnings on advertisements for nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, but does not specify whether this applies to social media. This study is the first to examine how e-cigarette warnings in tweets influence perceived healthiness and harm of e-cigarettes, which is important because e-cigarette brands are voluntarily including warnings on Twitter and Instagram. Warnings influenced perceived healthiness of the e-cigarette brand, but not perceived nicotine harm or likelihood to try e-cigarettes. We also saw higher recall of warning statements for tweets featuring e-cigarettes. Findings suggest that expanding warning requirements to e-cigarette social media marketing warrants further exploration and FDA consideration.
Project description:<h4>Introduction</h4>We examined the effect of visual optimizations on warning text recall.<h4>Methods</h4>We used Amazon's Mechanical Turk to recruit 1854 young adult (18-34 years) electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) users or susceptible nonusers. We conducted a between-subjects 3 × 2 × 2 experiment to examine the influence of color (black text on white background [BW] vs. black on yellow [BY] vs. yellow on black [YB]), shape (rectangle vs. novel), and signal word (presence vs. absence of the word "warning"). We randomized participants to view one of 12 warnings on a fictional e-cigarette advertisement. We coded open-ended recall responses into three categories: (1) recalled nothing, (2) recalled something, (3) recalled the concept. We examined main effects on warning text recall using multinomial regression. We examined differences in attention, perceived message effectiveness, and appeal.<h4>Results</h4>Those exposed to BW or BY warnings were more likely than those exposed to YB to recall something (AOR = 1.6, AOR = 1.5, respectively) or the concept (OR = 1.4, BW). Those exposed to novel shape (44.7% novel vs. 37.9% rectangle; p = .003) or color (44.5% BY vs. 41.9% YB vs. 37.5% BW; p = .04) warnings were more likely to report attention to the warning. In aided recall, those exposed to the signal word were more likely than those not exposed to select the correct response (64.0% vs. 31.3%; p < .0001). We did not find differences for message effectiveness or appeal.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Visual optimizations such as color may influence warning text recall and should be considered for new warnings. Research should continue exploring variations for advertisement warnings to maximize attention to warning text.<h4>Implications</h4>This study examines the impact of visual optimizations on recall of the US Food and Drug Administration-mandated e-cigarette advertisement warning text. We found that color might influence warning text recall, but we did not find effects for shape or signal word. It is possible the newly mandated e-cigarette advertisement warnings, which are required to occupy at least 20% of the advertisement, are currently novel enough to attract attention. Future research should examine optimizations following implementation of the new advertisement warnings.
Project description:This on-line experiment examined whether the addition of ingredient- or industry-themed warning statements in television advertisements for e-cigarettes would affect young adults' craving for and risk perceptions of e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes, as well as intent to purchase e-cigarettes.Advertisements for two leading e-cigarette brands were edited to contain a warning statement about product ingredients or about the tobacco industry. Participants were assigned randomly to one of eight treatments or one of two brand-specific control conditions without any warning statement.Young adults (n=900, aged 18-34?years) in a web panel were recruited from three groups: recent e-cigarette users, current smokers who used combustible cigarettes exclusively and non-users of either product.Craving and risk perceptions (addictiveness, harmful to health in general, harmful to others) were measured separately for e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes. The Juster scale measured intention to purchase e-cigarettes.Exposure to both types of warnings was associated with lower craving for e-cigarettes among e-cigarette users and smokers who experienced any craving (P<0.01) and lower intention to purchase among all participants (P<0.001). Only exposure to ingredient-themed warnings was associated with lower craving for combustible cigarettes (P<0.05). Participants who saw industry-themed warnings reported greater perceptions of general harm (P<0.001), but also rated e-cigarettes as less addictive than the control conditions (P<0.05).The addition of ingredient- or industry-themed warning statements to e-cigarette television advertising similarly reduces craving and purchase intent for e-cigarettes, but has inconsistent effects on perceived risks.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Pictorial cigarette warning labels are thought to increase risk knowledge, but experimental research has not examined longer-term effects on memory for health risks named in text. PURPOSE:To investigate memory-consolidation predictions that high- versus low-emotion warnings would support better long-term memory for named cigarette health risks and to test a mediational model of warning-label effects through memory on risk perceptions and quit intentions. METHODS:A combined sample of U.S.-representative adult smokers, U.S.-representative teen smokers/vulnerable smokers, and Appalachian-representative adult smokers were randomly assigned to a warning-label condition (High-emotion pictorial, Low-emotion pictorial, Text-only) in which they were exposed four times to nine warning labels and reported emotional reactions and elaboration. Memory of warning-label risk information, smoking risk perceptions, and quit intentions were assessed immediately after exposures or 6 weeks later. RESULTS:Recall of warning-label text was low across the samples and supported memory-consolidation predictions. Specifically, immediate recall was highest for Low-emotion warnings that elicited the least emotion, but recall also declined the most over time in this condition, leaving its 6-week recall lowest; 6-week recall was similar for High-emotion and Text-only warnings. Greater recall was associated with higher risk perceptions and greater quit intentions and mediated part of warning-label effects on these important smoking outcomes. High-emotion warnings had additional non-memory-related effects on risk perceptions and quit intentions that were superior to text-only warnings. CONCLUSIONS:High- but not Low-emotion pictorial warning labels may support the Food and Drug Administration's primary goal to "effectively convey the negative health consequences of smoking." CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER:NCT03375840.
Project description:<h4>Introduction</h4>The US Food and Drug Administration can require changes in warning statements for modified risk tobacco products. We report an independent analysis of a consumer perception survey sponsored by Swedish Match as part of a Modified Risk Tobacco Product application to change warning labels for Swedish snus products.<h4>Methods</h4>The survey exposed each of 4324 daily exclusive cigarette smokers, 1033 daily smokeless tobacco users, 1205 daily other tobacco users, 726 former users, and 5915 triers/never users to one of four current warnings and two proposed relative-risk labels (No tobacco product is safe, but this product presents lower risks to health than cigarettes, or No tobacco product is safe, but this product presents substantially lower risks to health than cigarettes) for snus. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses examined four outcomes: believability, harmfulness, motivation to use, and intention to buy snus.<h4>Results</h4>Compared with the current not-safe-alternative warning, adult tobacco users who viewed the proposed labels perceived them as less believable, perceived snus as less harmful and were more likely to use and buy snus. The proposed labels had no impact on former smokers' likelihood to use and buy snus; triers/never users viewing the substantially lower risk label were more likely to buy snus.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Tobacco users viewing the proposed labels perceived snus as less harmful than cigarettes and may be more likely to use and buy snus. If labeling changes lead to increased snus use and cigarette reduction or abstinence, public health may benefit. If the opposite occurs, public health could suffer.
Project description:<h4>Introduction</h4>This study examined the impact of warning labels conveying the potential harms and addictiveness of Swedish snus and the potential-reduced harms of Swedish snus among young adult nonsmokers and smokers.<h4>Methods</h4>A convenience sample of young adults aged 18-30 residing in the United States (n = 517, 56% male, 33% smokers) participated in an online experiment. Participants completed baseline measures and were randomized to 1 of 5 experimental conditions where they viewed a Swedish snus ad with warning labels that varied by condition: (1) Control-no warning; (2) Addiction-warning conveying the addictiveness of snus; (3) Harm-warning communicating the potential harms of snus; (4) Harm Reduction-warning conveying the potential-reduced harms of snus compared with cigarettes; (5) Harm Reduction Switch-warning communicating the potential-reduced harms of snus when switching completely from cigarettes to snus. Outcomes measured included perceived harms and addictiveness of snus, thoughts about not using snus, and intentions to use snus.<h4>Results</h4>Participants in the Harm Reduction and Harm Reduction Switch conditions perceived snus to be less harmful than cigarettes compared with the Control, Addiction, and Harm conditions. Nonsmokers in the Harm Reduction condition reported fewer thoughts about not using snus than nonsmokers in the Harm condition.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Warnings conveying the potential-reduced harms of Swedish snus compared with cigarettes generate perceptions that snus is less harmful than cigarettes and produce fewer thoughts about not using snus among nonsmokers. Such perceptions have been associated with snus use in prior studies.
Project description:The current study sought to examine the impact of strengthening cigarette pack warnings on attention, message processing, and perceived effectiveness, through a systematic review of longitudinal observational studies. The review included 22 studies (N = 81,824 participants). Strengthened warnings increased attention to warnings, recall of warnings, and thinking about the health risks of smoking. Strengthened warnings also increased several perceived effectiveness outcomes, including perceptions that warnings reduce smoking and motivate quitting. Strengthened cigarette pack warnings achieve their goal of attracting attention and enhancing motivation to act. Strengthening warning policies should be a priority for tobacco control globally.
Project description:Background:The Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) responses have not been evaluated from verbal reactions to cigarette warning labels. We identified the EPPM responses in reactions to cigarette warning labels and evaluated their predictors and relationship with warning perceptions. Methods:U.S. adult current smokers, transitioning smokers (quit in the past two years or currently quitting) and never smokers (n=1,838) saw nine of 81 cigarette warning labels. Participants freely wrote their thoughts after viewing the first label and reported perceived informativeness, negative emotions, and denial for this label. Responses were coded for the presence of the EPPM response categories. Multivariable logistic regression models described adaptive and maladaptive respondent characteristics, and linear regression models assessed the relationship between the response categories and label perceptions. Results:Participants' responses contained adaptive (65.4%), maladaptive (16.5%), no response (14.7%), and mixed responses (both adaptive and maladaptive; 3.4%). Current smokers had decreased odds of adaptive response compared to never and transitioning smokers. Compared to text warnings, pictorial warnings were associated with increased odds of adaptive and decreased odds of maladaptive responses. Adaptive response was associated with increased odds of intentions to quit smoking. Adaptive respondents reported the highest levels of informativeness and negative emotions among the four response categories. Conclusions:The finding demonstrating predominantly adaptive (and few maladaptive) responses to warning labels supports the continued use of fear appeals in warning label design. The greater adaptive and lower maladaptive responses to pictorial warnings could serve as additional evidence for FDA to implement pictorial warning labels.
Project description:Health warnings for e-cigarettes are a promising and novel tobacco control intervention for reducing e-cigarette use. We developed a new protocol for evaluating e-cigarette warnings by placing them on users' own devices to reflect real-world exposure. Study 1 participants were a national convenience sample of 606 U.S. adult e-cigarette users surveyed online in March 2017. Most Study 1 participants were willing to have their e-cigarette devices (87%) and refills (83%) labeled. Study 2 participants were a convenience sample of 22 adult e-cigarette users recruited in California, United States in April 2017. We applied the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's proposed e-cigarette warning to users' own devices and refills. Most Study 2 participants (81%) reported using e-cigarette devices with our warning labels at least 90% of the time during the study. Nearly all (95%) said they would participate in the study again, and 100% would recommend the study to a friend. Conversations about e-cigarette harms, conversations about quitting e-cigarettes, and intentions to quit using e-cigarettes increased during the study (all p < 0.05). These studies show that our naturalistic labeling protocol was feasible, acceptable to participants, and had high retention over three weeks. Using the protocol can yield important evidence on the impact of e-cigarette warnings to inform tobacco warning policies.
Project description:Exposure to cigarette advertising can increase the likelihood of youth smoking initiation and may encourage people who already smoke to continue. Requiring prominent, graphic warning labels could reduce these effects. We test whether graphic versus text-only warning labels in cigarette advertisements influence cognitive and emotional factors associated with youth susceptibility to smoking and adult intentions to quit. We conducted two randomized, between-subjects experiments with middle-school youth (n = 474) and adult smokers (n = 451). Both studies employed a two (graphic or text-only warnings) by two (advertisements with social cues or brand imagery) factorial design with a fifth, offset control group (social cue advertisements with the current US Surgeon General's Warning). Graphic warnings outperformed text-only warnings in reducing visual attention to the advertisement, generating visual attention to the warning and arousing more negative affect. Graphic warnings also reduced the appeal of cigarette brands among youth relative to social cue advertisements with the Surgeon General's warnings. None of the warnings (graphic or textual) influenced health risk beliefs. Graphic warning labels on cigarette advertisements appear to have effects similar to those observed on cigarette packs in previous work, with an added benefit of reducing cigarette brand appeal among youth.