Advertisement

Journal of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 352–359 | Cite as

Communicating about cigarette smoke constituents: an experimental comparison of two messaging strategies

  • Sabeeh A. Baig
  • M. Justin Byron
  • Marcella H. Boynton
  • Noel T. Brewer
  • Kurt M. RibislEmail author
Article

Abstract

Federal law now requires FDA to disseminate information on chemicals in cigarette smoke, but it is unclear how best to do so. In a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment, participants received a message about chemicals in cigarette smoke (e.g., “Cigarette smoke has benzene.”) along with an additional randomly assigned messaging strategy: a “found-in” (e.g., “This is found in gasoline.”), a health effect (e.g., “This causes heart disease.”), both, or neither. Participants were U.S. probability phone samples of 5000 adults and 1123 adolescents, and an online convenience sample of 4130 adults. Adding a health effect elicited greater discouragement from wanting to smoke cigarettes (all p < .05) as did adding a found-in (all p < .05). However, including both messaging strategies added little or nothing above including just one. These findings can help the FDA and other agencies develop effective and parsimonious messages about cigarette smoke constituents.

Keywords

Tobacco control Cigarette smoke constituents Health communication Common products Health effects 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Research reported in this publication was supported by grant number P50CA180907 from the National Cancer Institute and FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP). 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.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Sabeeh A. Baig, M. Justin Byron, Marcella H. Boynton, Noel T. Brewer, and Kurt M. Ribisl declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights and Informed consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

References

  1. Arrozola, R., Singh, T., Corey, C., Husten, C., Neff, L., Apelberg, B., et al. (2015). Tobacco use among middle and high school students—United States, 2011–2014. MMWR. Morbidity And Mortality Weekly Report, 64, 381–385.Google Scholar
  2. Borland, R., Wilson, N., Fong, G. T., Hammond, D., Cummings, K. M., Yong, H.-H., et al. (2009). Impact of graphic and text warnings on cigarette packs: Findings from four countries over five years. Tobacco Control, 18, 358–364. doi: 10.1136/tc.2008.028043 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Boynton, M. H., Agans, R. P., Bowling, J. M., Brewer, N. T., Sutfin, E. L., Goldstein, A. O., et al. (2016). Understanding how perceptions of tobacco constituents and the FDA relate to effective and credible tobacco risk messaging: A national phone survey of U.S. adults, 2014–2015. BMC Public Health,. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3151-5 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Cameron, L. D., Pepper, J. K., & Brewer, N. T. (2015). Responses of young adults to graphic warning labels for cigarette packages. Tobacco Control, 24, e14–e22. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050645 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Crawford, M., Balch, G., & Mermelstein, R. (2002). Responses to tobacco control policies among youth. Tobacco Control, 11, 14–19. doi: 10.1136/tc.11.1.14 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Cummings, K. M., Hyland, A., Giovino, G., Hastrup, J., Bauer, J., & Bansal, M. (2004). Are smokers adequately informed about the health risks of smoking and medicinal nicotine? Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 6, 333–340. doi: 10.1080/14622200412331320734 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, S., Malarcher, A., Thorne, S., Maurice, E., Trosclair, A., & Mowery, P. (2009). State-specific prevalence and trends in adult cigarette smoking—United States, 1998–2007. JAMA, 302, 250–252.Google Scholar
  8. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act., Pub. L. No. 111–31 (2009). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ31/pdf/PLAW-111publ31.pdf. Accessed 22 July 2016.
  9. FDA. (2012). Harmful and potentially harmful constituents in tobacco products and tobacco smoke; established list. 77 FR 20034.Google Scholar
  10. FDA. (2014). FDA launches its first national public education campaign to prevent, reduce youth tobacco use. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm384049.htm
  11. Hall, M. G., Ribisl, K. M., & Brewer, N. T. (2014). Smokers’ and nonsmokers’ beliefs about harmful tobacco constituents: implications for FDA communication efforts. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 16, 343–350. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntt158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hammond, D., Wakefield, M., Durkin, S., & Brennan, E. (2013). Tobacco packaging and mass media campaigns: Research needs for articles 11 and 12 of the WHO framework convention on tobacco control. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 15, 817–831. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nts202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hecht, S. S. (2012). Research opportunities related to establishing standards for tobacco products under the family smoking prevention and tobacco control act. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 14, 18–28. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntq216 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Huang, Y., & Shen, F. (2016). Effects of cultural tailoring on persuasion in cancer communication: A meta-analysis: Cultural tailoring in cancer communication. Journal of Communication, 66, 694–715. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ITC Project. (2014). ITC United States national report: Findings from the ITC US wave 1 to 8 surveys (2002–2011). Ontario: Waterloo.Google Scholar
  16. Jamal, A., Homa, D. M., O’Connor, E., Babb, S. D., Caraballo, R. S., Singh, T., et al. (2015). Current cigarette smoking among adults—United States, 2005–2014. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 64, 1233–1240. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6444a2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones, L. W., Sinclair, R. C., & Courneya, K. S. (2003). The Effects of source credibility and message framing on exercise intentions, behaviors, and attitudes: An integration of the elaboration likelihood model and prospect theory1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 179–196. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb02078.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee, J. G. L., Griffin, G. K., & Melvin, C. L. (2009). Tobacco use among sexual minorities in the USA, 1987 to May 2007: A systematic review. Tobacco Control, 18, 275–282. doi: 10.1136/tc.2008.028241 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lim, S. S., Vos, T., Flaxman, A. D., Danaei, G., Shibuya, K., Adair-Rohani, H., et al. (2012). A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet, 380, 2224–2260. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lipkus, I. M., Samsa, G., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making: An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 21, 37–44. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0102100105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moracco, K. E., Morgan, J. C., Mendel, J., Teal, R., Noar, S. M., Ribisl, K. M., et al. (2016). My first thought was croutons: Perceptions of cigarettes and cigarette smoke constituents among adult smokers and nonsmokers. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 18(7), 1566–1574. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntv281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Noar, S. M., Hall, M. G., Francis, D. B., Ribisl, K. M., Pepper, J. K., & Brewer, N. T. (2016). Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Tobacco Control, 25, 341–354. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051978 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Springer New York.doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1_1
  24. Rodgman, A., & Perfetti, T. A. (2013). The chemical components of tobacco and tobacco smoke (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.  10.1201/b13973-1. Accessed 31 August 2016.
  25. Siahpush, M. (2006). Socioeconomic and country variations in knowledge of health risks of tobacco smoking and toxic constituents of smoke: results from the 2002 International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tobacco Control, 15(suppl_3), iii65–iii70. doi: 10.1136/tc.2005.013276
  26. Spence, P. R., Lachlan, K. A., Spates, S. A., & Lin, X. (2013). Intercultural differences in responses to health messages on social media from spokespeople with varying levels of ethnic identity. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1255–1259. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Swayampakala, K., Thrasher, J. F., Hammond, D., Yong, H.-H., Bansal-Travers, M., Krugman, D., et al. (2015). Pictorial health warning label content and smokers’ understanding of smoking-related risks–a cross-country comparison. Health Education Research, 30(1), 35–45. doi: 10.1093/her/cyu022 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Thrasher, J. F., Murukutla, N., Pérez-Hernández, R., Alday, J., Arillo-Santillán, E., Cedillo, C., et al. (2013). Linking mass media campaigns to pictorial warning labels on cigarette packages: A cross-sectional study to evaluate effects among Mexican smokers. Tobacco Control, 22, e57–e65. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050282 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Toll, B., Salovey, P., O’Malley, S., Mazure, C., Latimer, A., & McKee, S. (2008). Message framing for smoking cessation: The interaction of risk perceptions and gender. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 10, 195–200. doi: 10.1080/14622200701767803 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Viswanath, K., & Ackerson, L. K. (2011). Race, ethnicity, language, social class, and health communication inequalities: A nationally-representative cross-sectional study. PLOS ONE, 6, e14550. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014550 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. WHO Working Group. (2014). Partial guidelines for implementation of the Articles 9 and 10 of the WHO framework convention on tobacco control (regulation of the content of tobacco products and regulation of tobacco product disclosures). Geneva: Switzerland.Google Scholar
  32. Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabeeh A. Baig
    • 1
  • M. Justin Byron
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marcella H. Boynton
    • 1
    • 2
  • Noel T. Brewer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kurt M. Ribisl
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public HealthUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations