Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Pictorial Warning Labels for Cigarettes and Quit-Efficacy on Emotional Responses, Smoking Satisfaction, and Cigarette Consumption

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Background

Experimental research on pictorial warning labels for cigarettes has primarily examined immediate intentions to quit.

Purpose

Here, we present the results of a clinical trial testing the impact on smoking during and after a 28-day period of naturalistic exposure to pictorial versus text-only warnings.

Methods

Daily cigarette smokers (N = 244) at two sites in the USA were randomly assigned to receive their regular brand of cigarettes for 4 weeks with one of three warnings: (a) text-only, (b) pictures and text as proposed by FDA, or (c) the warnings proposed by FDA with additional text that elaborated on the risks of smoking. Analyses examined the effects of pictorial versus text-only warnings and self-efficacy for quitting on cigarette consumption during and 1 month after the trial as mediated by emotional and cognitive responses as well as satisfaction with smoking.

Results

Stronger emotional responses to pictorial than text-only warnings predicted reduced satisfaction with smoking during the trial and lower cigarette consumption at follow-up among the majority of smokers who continued to smoke. Consistent with the efficacy-desire model, those with moderate efficacy reported the greatest reduction in consumption at follow-up. However, a small proportion of smokers (7%) who reported 7-day abstinence at follow-up did not exhibit a significant relation with self-efficacy.

Conclusions

Pictorial warning labels proposed by FDA create unfavorable emotional reactions to smoking that predict reduced cigarette use compared to text alone, with even smokers low in self-efficacy exhibiting some reduction. Predictions that low self-efficacy smokers will respond unfavorably to warnings were not supported.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. R. J. Reynolds Co. v. Food and Drug Administration. D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 696 F.3d 1205, 2012.

  2. Hammond D, Fong GT, Borland R, Cummings KM, McNeill A, Driezen P. Text and graphic warnings on cigarette packages: Findings from the international tobacco control four country study. Am J Prev Med. 2007; 32:202–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Magnan RE, Cameron LD. Do young adults perceive that cigarette graphic warnings provide knowledge about the harms of smoking? Ann Behav Med. 2015; 49(4):594-604.

  4. Azagba S, Sharaf MF. The effect of graphic cigarette warning labels on smoking behavior: Evidence from the Canadian experience. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013; 15(3):708–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Noar SM, Hall MG, Francis DB, Ribisl KM, Pepper JK, Brewer NT. Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Tob Control. 2016; 25:341-354.

  6. Brewer NT, Hall MG, Noar SM, Parada H, Stein-Seroussi A, Bach LE, et al. Effect of pictorial cigarette pack warnings on changes in smoking behavior: A randomized clinical trial. Arch Intern Med. 2016; 176(7):905–12.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Evans AT, Peters E, Strasser AA, Emery LF, Sheerin KM, Romer D. Graphic warning labels elicit affective and thoughtful responses from smokers: Results of a randomized clinical trial. Plos One. 2015; 10(12):1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schüz N, Ferguson SA. An exploratory examination of the mechanisms through which prequit patch use aids smoking cessation. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2014; 231(13):2603–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Peters GY, Ruiter RAC, Kok G. Threatening communication: A critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory. Health Psychol Rev. 2013; 7(Sup 1):S8–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Witte K, Allen M. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ Behav. 2000; 27(5):591–615.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kessels LTE, Ruiter RAC, Jansma BM. Increased attention but not more efficient disengagement: Neuroscientific evidence for defensive processsing of health information. Health Psychol. 2010; 29(4):346–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ruiter RAC, Kok G. Saying is not (always) doing: Cigarette warning labels are useless. Eur J Public Health. 2005; 15(3):329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Romer D, Peters E, Strasser AA, Langleben DD. Desire versus efficacy in smokers’ paradoxical reactions to pictorial health warnings for cigarettes. Plos One. 2013; 8(1):e54937.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Koob G, Le Moal M. Drug addiction, dysregulation of reward ad allostasis. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001; 24:97–129.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dolcos F, LaBar KS, Cabeza R. Remembering one year later: Role of the amydala and the medial temporal lobe memory system in retrieving emotional memories. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2005; 102(7):2626–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang AL, Lowen SB, Romer D, Giorno M, Langleben DD. Emotional reaction facilitates the brain and behavioural impact of graphic cigarette warning labels in smokers. Tob Control. 2015; 24:225–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Strasser AA, Tang KZ, Sanborn PM, Zhou JY, Koslowski LT. Behavioral filter vent blocking on the first cigarette of the day predicts which smokers of light cigarettes will increase smoke exposure from blocked vents. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2013; 17(6):405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schüz N, Cianchi J, Shiffman S, Ferguson SG. Novel technologies to study smoking behavior: Current developments in ecological momentary assessment. Curr Addict Rep. 2015; 2:8–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. FDA. Required warnings for cigarette packages and advertisements. US Government, Fed. Reg. 36,628; 2011.

  20. Heatherton TF, Koslowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerstrom KO. The Fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence: A revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict. 1991; 86(9):1119–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Peters E, Romer D, Slovic P, Jamieson KH, Wharfield L, Mertz CK, et al. The impact and acceptability of Canadian-style cigarette warning labels among U.S. smokers and nonsmokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2007; 9:473–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Emery LF, Romer D, Sheerin KM, Jamieson KH, Peters E. Affective and cognitive mediators of the impact of cigarette warning labels. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014; 16(3):263–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station: StataCorp LP; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Muthen LK, Muthen BO. Mplus User’s Guide (Seventh Edition). Los Angeles: Muthen & Muthen; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  25. MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Williams J. Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivar Behav Res. 2004; 39(1):99–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Enders CK. Applied Missing Data Analysis. New York: Guilford Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Peters E, Lipkus I, Diefenbach MA. The functions of affect in health communications and in the construction of health preferences. J Commun. 2006; 56(s1):S140–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Klemperer EM, Hughes JR. Does the magnitude of reduction in cigarettes per day predict smoking cessation? A qualitative review. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016; 18(1):88-92.

  29. Popova L. The extended parallel process model: Illuminating the gaps in research. Health Educ Behav. 2012; 39(4):455–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tannenbaum MB, Hepler J, Zimmerman RS, Saul L, Jacobs S, Wilson K, et al. Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychol Bull. 2016; 141(6):1178–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jamal A, Homa DM, O’Connor E, et al. Current cigarette smoking among adults—United States, 2005–2014. MMWR. 2015; 64(44):1233–1240.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gwaltney CJ, Metrik J, Kahler CW, Shiffman S. Self-efficacy and smoking cessation: A meta-analysis. Psychol Addict Behav. 2009; 23(1):56–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hammond D, Reid JL, Driezen P, Boudreau C. Pictorial health warnings on cigarette packs in the United States: An experimental evaluation of the proposed FDA warnings. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013; 15(1):93–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Levy DT, Mays D, Yuan Z, Hammond D, Thrasher JF. Public health benefits from pictorial health warnings on US cigarette packs: A SimSmoke simulation. Tob Control. 2017; doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053087.

  35. Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2008; 4:3.1–3.32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Michael Hennessy, Peter Yang, Lydia Emery, and Kaitlin Sheerin for their assistance with the conduct and analysis of the study. The research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (R01CA157824) and the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration (P50CA180908). However, the content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or the Food and Drug Administration.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Daniel Romer PhD

  2. School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia

    Stuart G. Ferguson PhD

  3. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Andrew A. Strasser PhD

  4. Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Abigail T. Evans PhD, Mary Kate Tompkins MA, Joseph Macisco BA, Michael Fardal MA, Martin Tusler MS & Ellen Peters PhD

Authors
  1. Daniel Romer PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stuart G. Ferguson PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew A. Strasser PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abigail T. Evans PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mary Kate Tompkins MA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joseph Macisco BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael Fardal MA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Martin Tusler MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ellen Peters PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Romer PhD.

Ethics declarations

Authors’ Statement of Conflict of Interest and Adherence to Ethical Standards

Authors Romer, Ferguson, Strasser, Evans, Tompkins, Macisco, Fardal, Tusler, and Peters declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures, including the informed consent process, were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 267 kb)

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Romer, D., Ferguson, S.G., Strasser, A.A. et al. Effects of Pictorial Warning Labels for Cigarettes and Quit-Efficacy on Emotional Responses, Smoking Satisfaction, and Cigarette Consumption. ann. behav. med. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-017-9916-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-017-9916-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation