Is a cigarette brand with fewer chemicals safer? Public perceptions in two national US experiments

By law, the US government must publicly display the quantities of harmful chemicals in cigarettes by brand, but doing so could mislead people to incorrectly think that some cigarettes are safer than others. We evaluated formats for presenting chemical quantities side-by-side to see if any were misleading. We recruited US convenience (n = 604) and probability (n = 1440) samples. We randomized participants to 1 of 5 formats: checklist, point estimates, ranges, a visual risk indicator, or no-quantity control. Participants were far more likely to incorrectly endorse one cigarette brand as riskier than the other in the checklist (65% made error), point estimate (67–70%), range (64–67%), or risk indicator (68–75%) conditions as compared to the no-quantity control (1%, all p <.001). Among smokers, erroneous risk perceptions mediated the impact of quantity format on interest in switching brands. People viewing chemical quantities for cigarette brands side-by-side misperceived differences in risk, suggesting limited public health value of this information

Communicating about chemicals in cigarette smoke: Impact on knowledge and misunderstanding

Background The USA must publicly share information about harmful and potentially harmful constituents (chemicals) in tobacco products. We sought to understand whether webpages with chemical information are "understandable and not misleading to a lay person."Methods Participants were a national probability sample of US adults and adolescents (n=1441, 18% smokers). In an online experiment, we randomly assigned participants to view one of the developed webpages (chemical names only, names with quantity ranges, names with visual risk indicators) or no webpage in phase one (between subjects). Participants completed a survey assessing knowledge, misunderstanding, perceived likelihood, perceived severity of health effects from smoking and quit intentions (smokers only). In phase two (within subjects), participants viewed all three webpage formats and reported webpage perceptions (clarity, usability, usefulness) and perceived impact (affect, elaboration, perceived effectiveness). Results In phase one, viewing any webpage led to more knowledge of chemicals (48%-54% vs 28% no webpage, ps<0.001) and health harms (77% vs 67% no webpage, ps<0.001). When exposed to any webpage, 5%-23% endorsed misunderstandings that some cigarettes are safer than others. Webpage format did not affect knowledge or reduce misunderstandings. Viewing any webpage led to higher perceived likelihood of experiencing health effects from smoking (p<0.001) and, among smokers, greater intentions to quit smoking (p=0.04). In phase two, where participants viewed all formats, a visual risk indicator led to the highest perceived impact. Conclusions Knowledge of chemicals and health effects can increase after viewing a website. Yet, websites may not correct the misunderstanding that some cigarettes are safer

“Organic,” “natural,” and “additive-free” cigarettes: Comparing the effects of advertising claims and disclaimers on perceptions of harm

Introduction: The US Tobacco Control Act restricts advertising or labeling that suggests one tobacco product is less harmful than another. We sought to examine how “organic,” “natural,” and “additive-free” advertising claims and corresponding disclaimers affect perceptions of cigarettes’ harm. Methods: Participants were a national probability sample of adults in the United States (n = 1114, including 344 smokers). We conducted a 5 (claim) × 2 (disclaimer) between-subjects factorial experiment. Participants viewed a Natural American Spirit cigarettes ad claiming they were “organic,” “natural,” “additive-free,” “light,” or “regular;” and with or without a corresponding disclaimer. The outcome was perceived harm of the advertised cigarettes. Among smokers, we also assessed interest in switching within their current brand to cigarettes with this characteristic (eg, “additive-free”). Results: Claims in the ad had a large effect on perceived harm (Cohen’s d = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.47 to 1.29). Claims of cigarettes being “organic,” “natural,” or “additive-free” reduced perceived harm from the advertised cigarettes, as compared with “regular” and “light” claims. Disclaimers had a small effect, increasing perceived harm (d = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.41). The problematic claims also increased smokers’ interest in switching. Disclaimers had no effect on smokers’ interest in switching. Conclusions: “Organic,” “natural,” and “additive-free” claims May mislead people into thinking that the advertised cigarettes are less harmful than other cigarettes. Disclaimers did not offset misperceptions of harm created by false claims. The US Food and Drug Administration should restrict the use of these misleading claims in tobacco advertising. Implications: “Organic,” “natural,” and “additive-free” cigarette advertising claims decrease perceptions of harm among the public and increase interest in switching to such cigarettes among smokers. Disclaimers do not counteract the reduced perceptions of harm or increased interest in switching to these cigarettes. The US Food and Drug Administration should restrict the use of “organic,” “natural,” and “additive-free” claims in tobacco marketing

Adolescents’ aided recall of targeted and non-targeted tobacco communication campaigns in the united states

We examined whether advertisements from two national tobacco control campaigns targeting adolescents (i.e., The Real Cost, Fresh Empire) and one campaign targeting adults (i.e., Tips from Former Smokers) were reaching adolescents. Data came from a national sample of adolescents aged 13 to 17 years (n = 975) surveyed by phone from August 2016 to May 2017. We assessed recall and attitudes toward five specific advertisements and three campaign slogans and examined differences by sub-groups. Almost all (95%) adolescents recalled seeing at least one campaign advertisement. Aided recall of The Real Cost and Tips from Former Smokers slogans was high (65.5% and 71.6%, respectively), while aided recall of Fresh Empire slogan was lower (15.3%) (χ2 p-value: p < 0.001); however, Black adolescents had higher odds of recalling the Fresh Empire ad (aOR: 2.28, 95% CI: 1.39, 3.73) and slogan (aOR: 2.64, 95% CI: 1.06, 6.54) compared to White adolescents. Increased exposure to the advertisements (i.e., recalling more advertisements) was significantly associated with higher odds of reporting negative feelings toward tobacco products in 4/5 models (aORs from 1.34 to 1.61). Large-scale national campaigns can have wide reach among both targeted and non-targeted audiences with added benefits for cumulative cross-campaign exposure to advertisements

Message perceptions and effects perceptions as proxies for behavioral impact in the context of anti-smoking messages

Researchers commonly use message perceptions (persuasive potential) or effects perceptions (perceived behavioral impact) in formative research to select tobacco risk messages. We sought to identify whether message perceptions or effects perceptions are more useful as proxies for the behavioral impact of tobacco risk messages. In a three-week trial, 703 U.S. adult smokers (ages ≥ 21) were randomly assigned to receive brief messages on their cigarette packs about toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke (chemical messages) or control messages about properly disposing of cigarette litter. The final follow-up survey assessed message perceptions, effects perceptions, quit intentions, and six behavioral outcomes. We conducted multiple mediation analysis in a structural equation modeling framework to test the indirect effects of messages by way of message perceptions and effects perceptions. Message perceptions did not independently mediate the impact of chemical messages on any of the outcomes (7 p-values ≥ 0.01). In contrast, effects perceptions mediated the impact of chemical messages on avoiding the messages, seeking chemical information, intentions to quit smoking, butting out a cigarette, forgoing a cigarette, and making a quit attempt (6 p-values ≤ 0.001). No mediation was present for social interactions about the message (p-value = 0.72). The effect sizes for these mediated effects were small to medium. Thus, effects perceptions, but not message perceptions, were a proxy for risk messages’ impact on quit intentions and six quitting and related behaviors. These findings point to the diagnostic value of effects perceptions in formative research on tobacco risk messages

Incremental criterion validity of message perceptions and effects perceptions in the context of anti-smoking messages

To select promising health messages, formative research has often relied on perceived message effectiveness (PME) scales assessing either of two related constructs, message perceptions (persuasive potential) and effects perceptions (potential for behavioral impact). We sought to examine their incremental criterion validity within a comparative framework. Participants were 703 U.S. adult smokers (ages ≥ 21) who received anti-smoking or comparable control (littering) messages on their cigarette packs for 3 weeks. Structural equation models examined both PME constructs as simultaneous correlates of outcomes from the UNC Tobacco Warnings Model. Message perceptions demonstrated incremental criterion validity with attention, an early behavioral antecedent (β = 0.82, p &lt;.001). Effects perceptions demonstrated incremental criterion validity with later behavioral antecedents (range β = 0.74–0.87, all p &lt;.01) and quitting behaviors (β = 0.36–0.66, all p &lt;.001). Formative research on anti-smoking messages may benefit from focusing on effects perceptions to characterize potential for behavior change

Impact and mechanisms of cigarillo flavor descriptors on susceptibility to use among young adult nonusers of tobacco

Evidence suggests that flavoring may impact reactions to tobacco products. In the present research, we tested the impact and mechanisms of cigarillo flavor descriptors on susceptibility to use in order to determine whether exposure to cigarillos with characterizing flavors increases susceptibility in young adult nonusers of tobacco and, if so, why susceptibility increases. Nonsmoking, 18–26 years old U.S. residents were recruited for an online randomized controlled trial with two conditions: cigarillos with characterizing flavors (experimental condition) versus cigarillos with tobacco flavors (control condition). Experimental condition participants (n = 49) were presented with five cigarillo pack images with characterizing flavors (e.g., “Sweet”), whereas control condition participants (n = 53) were presented with five standard, tobacco-flavored images (e.g., “Air-Cured”). Each presented cigarillo image included a description of the pack flavor. Approach bias to the cigarillos was measured using the Implicit Association Test, and participants reported their perceptions of taste, smell, social acceptability, enjoyment, and harm in relation to each cigarillo pack. Finally, participants indicated their susceptibility to using cigarillos. Susceptibility to cigarillo use was significantly greater for participants exposed to the cigarillo packs with characterizing flavors. Taste perceptions both mediated and moderated the relationship between cigarillo flavor descriptors and susceptibility to use. Characterizing flavors increased susceptibility to cigarillo use via two routes: (1) by enhancing perceptions of taste and (2) by increasing the strength of association between perceptions of taste and susceptibility. These findings have implications for public health and policy decisions regarding banning or limiting characterizing flavors in cigarillos

Believability of cigarette warnings about addiction: National experiments of adolescents and adults

Introduction: We conducted two experiments to examine the believability of three addictionfocused cigarette warnings and the influence of message source on believability among adolescents and adults in the United States. Methods: Experimental data were collected using national phone surveys of adolescents (age 13-17; n = 1125; response rate, 66%) and adults (age 18+; n = 5014; response rate, 42%). We assessed the believability of three cigarette warnings about addiction attributed to four message sources (Food and Drug Administration [FDA], Surgeon General, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], no source). Results: The majority of adolescents and adults reported the three cigarette warnings were very believable (49%-81% for adolescents; 47%-76% for adults). We found four to five times higher odds of adolescents believing a warning that cigarettes are addictive (warning 1) or that nicotine was an addictive chemical (warning 2) compared to a warning that differentiated the addictive risks of menthol versus traditional cigarettes (warning 3), warning 1 adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 4.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.10, 6.63; warning 2 aOR: 3.87, 95% CI: 2.70, 5.50. Similarly, we found three to five times higher odds of adults (including current smokers) believing the same warnings, warning 1 aOR: 3.74, 95% CI: 2.82, 4.95; warning 2 aOR: 3.24, 95% CI: 2.45, 4.28. Message source had no overall impact on the believability of warnings for either population. Conclusions: Our findings support the implementation of FDA's required warnings that cigarettes are addictive and that nicotine is an addictive chemical. These believable warnings may deter adolescents from initiating smoking and encourage adults to quit smoking. Implications: This article describes, for the first time, the believability of different cigarette warnings about addiction. We now know that the majority of adolescents and adults believe cigarette warnings that highlight cigarettes as addictive and that nicotine is an addictive chemical in tobacco. However, a warning that highlighted the relative risk of addiction for menthol cigarettes compared to traditional cigarettes was not as believable among either population. Our findings support the implementation of FDA's required warnings that cigarettes are addictive and that nicotine is an addictive chemical that may deter adolescents from initiating smoking and encourage adults to quit smoking

Terms tobacco users employ to describe e-cigarette aerosol

Background: The scientific term for the substance people inhale and exhale from a vaping device is 'aerosol', but whether the public uses this term is unclear. To inform tobacco control communication efforts, we sought to understand what tobacco users call e-cigarette aerosols. Methods: Participants were a national convenience sample of 1628 US adults who used e-cigarettes, cigarettes or both (dual users). In an online survey, conducted in spring 2021, participants described what 'people inhale and exhale when they vape', using an open-ended and then a closed-ended response scale. Participants then evaluated warning statements, randomly assigned to contain the term 'aerosol' or 'vapor"(eg, 'E-cigarette aerosol/vapor contains nicotine, which can lead to seizures'). Results: In open-ended responses, tobacco users most commonly provided the terms 'vapor' (31%) and 'smoke' (23%) but rarely 'aerosol' (&lt;1%). In closed-ended responses, the most commonly endorsed terms were again 'vapor' (57%) and 'smoke' (22%) but again infrequently 'aerosol' (2%). In closed-ended responses, use of the term 'vapor' was more common than other terms among people who were older; white; gay, lesbian or bisexual; college educated; or vape users only (all p&lt;0.05). In the experiment, warnings using the terms 'aerosol' and 'vapor' were equally effective (all p&gt;0.05). Conclusions: The public rarely uses the term 'aerosol' to describe e-cigarette output, potentially complicating educational efforts that use the term. Future studies should explore public knowledge and understanding of the terms 'aerosol' and the more popular 'vapor' to better inform vaping risk communication

The impact of pictorial health warnings on purchases of sugary drinks for children: A randomized controlled trial

Background Pictorial warnings on tobacco products are promising for motivating behavior change, but few studies have examined pictorial warnings for sugary drinks, especially in naturalistic environments. This study aimed to examine the impact of pictorial warnings on parents' purchases of sugary drinks for their children in a naturalistic store laboratory. Methods and findings Parents of children ages 2 to 12 (n = 325, 25% identifying as Black, 20% Hispanic) completed a shopping task in a naturalistic store laboratory in North Carolina. Participants were randomly assigned to a pictorial warnings arm (sugary drinks displayed pictorial health warnings about type 2 diabetes and heart damage) or a control arm (sugary drinks displayed a barcode label). Parents selected 1 beverage and 1 snack for their child, as well as 1 household good; one of these items was selected for them to purchase and take home. The primary outcome was whether parents purchased a sugary drink for their child. Secondary outcomes included reactions to the trial labels, attitudes toward sugary drinks, and intentions to serve their child sugary drinks. Pictorial warnings led to a 17-percentage point reduction in purchases of sugary drinks (95% CI for reduction: 7% to 27%), with 45% of parents in the control arm buying a sugary drink for their child compared to 28% in the pictorial warning arm (p = 0.002). The impact of pictorial warnings on purchases did not differ by any of the 13 participant characteristics examined (e.g., race/ethnicity, income, education, and age of child). Pictorial warnings also led to lower calories (kcal), purchased from sugary drinks (82 kcal in the control arm versus 52 kcal in the pictorial warnings arm, p = 0.003). Moreover, pictorial warnings led to lower intentions to serve sugary drinks to their child, feeling more in control of healthy eating decisions, greater thinking about the harms of sugary drinks, stronger negative emotional reactions, greater anticipated social interactions, lower perceived healthfulness of sugary drinks for their child, and greater injunctive norms to limit sugary drinks for their child (all p 0.05). Conclusions Pictorial warnings reduced parents' purchases of sugary drinks for their children in this naturalistic trial. Warnings on sugary drinks are a promising policy approach to reduce sugary drink purchasing in the US