Skip to main content

Room 101: are gender-specific cigarette packets the way forward?

Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) volume 188, pages 1081–1083 (2019)Cite this article

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Orwell G (1948) 1984. Secker & Warburg, London

    Google Scholar 

  2. Droulers O, Gallopel-Morvan K, Lacoste-Badie S, Lajante M (2017) The influence of threatening visual warnings on tobacco packaging: measuring the impact of threat level, image size, and type of pack through psychophysiological and self-report methods. PLOS. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184415

  3. Moore J, Thorson E, Leshner G (2011) Terror management theory and anti-tobacco advertising: an experimental examination of influence of death explicit anti-tobacco messages on young adults. J Health Mass Commun 3(1–4):5–29

    Google Scholar 

  4. European Commission (2018) Health Warnings. https://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/law/pictorial_en. Accessed 10.10.18

  5. O’Doherty D, Houghton F, McInerney D, Houghton S, Duncan B (2018) Ethnic and racial blindness in EU anti-smoking campaigns, slogans and images. Ir J Med Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1906-y

  6. O’Doherty D, Houghton F, McInerney D, Duncan B, Houghton S (2018) EU anti-smoking graphic warnings on cigarette packets: semiotics & the issue of gender under-representation. Ir J Med Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1938-3

  7. Jacobson B (1981) The Ladykillers: why smoking is a feminist issue. Pluto Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  8. Holleb AI (1985) Lung cancer: a feminist issue. CA Cancer J Clin 35(2):125–126

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gritz ER (1993) Lung cancer: now, more than ever, a feminist issue. CA Cancer J Clin 43(4):197–199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Woll PJ (1998) Smoking and risk of myocardial infarction - smoking is a feminist issue. BMJ 317(7164):1018

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Levis DM, Stone-Wiggins B, O’Hegarty M et al (2014) Women’s perspectives on smoking and pregnancy and graphic warning labels. Am J Health Behav 38(5):755–764

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Tan ASL, Bigman CA, Nagler RH, Minsky S, Viswanath K (2017) Comparing perceived effectiveness of FDA-proposed cigarette packaging graphic health warnings between sexual and gender minorities and heterosexual adults. Cancer Causes Control 28(10):1143–1155

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Fulkerson JA, French SA (2003) Cigarette smoking for weight loss or control among adolescents: gender and racial/ ethnic differences. J Adolesc Health 32(4):306–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Vlassoff C, Garcia Moreno C (2002) Placing gender at the centre of health programming: challenges and limitations. Soc Sci Med 54:1713–1723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Whitehead M (1985) The concepts and principles of equity and health. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dennis S (2016) Smokefree - a social, moral and political atmosphere. Bloomsbury Academic, London

    Google Scholar 

  17. Drope J, Schluger N, Cahn Z, Drope J, Hamill S et al (2018) The tobacco atlas. American Cancer Society and Vital Strategies, Atlanta

    Google Scholar 

  18. GBD 2015 Tobacco Collaborators et al (2017) Smoking prevalence and attributable disease burden in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 389(10082):1885–1906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Öberga M, Woodward A, Jaakkolac MS, Perugad A, Prüss-Ustüne A (2010) Global estimate of the burden of disease from second-hand smoke. World Health Organisation, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lim SS 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. Lancet 380:2224–2260

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. World Health Organization (2013) WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2013: enforcing bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. World Health Organisation, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  22. IPSOS MRBI (2017) Healthy Ireland survey 2017- summary of findings. Government Publications Office, Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  23. Chapman S, Freeman B (2011) From brand to bland--the demise of cigarette packaging. BMJ 343:d4376. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Soldow G (2006) Homoeroticism in advertising: something for everyone with androgyny. In: Reichert T, Lambiase J (eds) Sex in consumer culture: the erotic content of media and marketing. Routledge, New York, pp 319–336

    Google Scholar 

  25. Paoletti J (2015) Sex and unisex: fashion, feminism, and the sexual revolution. Indiana University Press, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jackson C, Warin J (2010) The importance of gender as an aspect of identity at key transition points in compulsory education. Br Educ Res J 26(3):375–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hart B (1996) The construction of the gendered self. J Fam Ther 18:43–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hayashi H, Tan A, Kawachi I, Minsky S, Viswanath K (2018) Does segmentation really work? Effectiveness of matched graphic health warnings on cigarette packaging by race, gender and chronic disease conditions on cognitive outcomes among vulnerable populations. J Health Commun 23(6):523–533

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. European Commission (2012) Tobacco Packaging Health Warning Labels Aggregate Report. In: Eurobarometer Qualitative Study. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  30. Parr V, Ell P, Gagg K (2011) Market testing of potential health warnings and information messages for tobacco product packaging: phase 2 front and back of pack graphic health warnings- qualitative formative research report. GfK Blue Moon, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sambrook Research International (2009) A review of the science base to support the development of health warnings for tobacco packages. Sambrook Research International, Newport, Shropshire, England

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ayres I, Ayres-Brown AR (2015) Unhappy meals: sex discrimination in toy choice at McDonald’s. Wm & Mary J Women & L 21(2):237–273

  33. Pettigrew S, Roberts M (2006) Mothers’ attitudes towards toys as fast food premiums. Young Consum 7(4):60–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gutzke DW (2016) Women drinking out in Britain since the early twentieth century. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Tandleman (2008) Anyone remember the “Lady’s” Glass? Tandleman’s Beer Blog. http://tandlemanbeerblog.blogspot.ie/2008/07/anyone-remember-ladys-glass.html?m=1. Accessed 10 Oct 2018

  36. Taylor T (2015) A special glass for the ladies. https://www.timothytaylor.co.uk/a-special-glass-for-the-ladies/. Accessed 10 Oct 2018

  37. Borland R, Wilson N, Fong GT, Hammond D, Cummings KM, Yong HH, Hosking W, Hastings G, Thrasher J, McNeill A (2009) Impact of graphic and text warnings on cigarette packs: findings from four countries over five years. Tob Control 18:358–364

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hammond D (2011) Health warning messages on tobacco products: a review. Tob Control 20:327–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Noar SM, Hall MG, Francis DB, Ribisl KM, Pepper JK, Brewer NT (2016) Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Tob Control 25(3):341–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied Social Sciences, Limerick Institute of Technology, Moylish, Limerick, Ireland

    Frank Houghton, Lisa O’Rourke Scott & Diane O’Doherty

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    Sharon Houghton

  3. Department of Business & Marketing, Limerick Institute of Technology, Limerick, Ireland

    Derek McInerney

  4. Hauora Tairawhiti, Gisborne, New Zealand

    Bruce Duncan

Authors
  1. Frank Houghton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa O’Rourke Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sharon Houghton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Diane O’Doherty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Derek McInerney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bruce Duncan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank Houghton.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Houghton, F., O’Rourke Scott, L., Houghton, S. et al. Room 101: are gender-specific cigarette packets the way forward?. Ir J Med Sci 188, 1081–1083 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-019-01971-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-019-01971-3