Larger and More Prominent Graphic Health Warnings on Plain-Packaged Tobacco Products and Avoidant Responses in Current Smokers: a Qualitative Study
- 625 Downloads
The introduction of tobacco plain packaging legislation in Australia meant that all tobacco products were to be sold in plain dark-brown packaging with 75 % front-of-pack graphic health warnings and standardised font type and size for brand name and product variant. The change in the size and prominence of the warnings has been proposed as a reason for behaviour change in smokers in terms of increased intentions to quit and quit attempts.
The current research examined attitudes and beliefs of cigarette smokers toward the increased size and prominence of the warnings and effects on their behaviour.
Participants (N = 160) completed open-ended responses to questions on beliefs, attitudes and responses to plain packaging. Responses were subjected to inductive thematic content analysis for key themes.
Four themes emerged from the analysis: emotional response to packaging, scepticism of health warnings, warnings and cessation behaviour, and avoidant coping behaviours. Participants reported increased negative emotional responses to the packaging and made specific reference to the graphic health warnings. Some participants attempted to discredit the messages. Others reported increased intentions to quit or quitting attempts. There were pervasive reports of avoidant responses including covering or hiding the warnings.
Consistent with theories of illness perceptions and coping, current findings indicate that the larger, prominent graphic health warnings on plain-packaged tobacco products had pervasive effects on threat perceptions and subsequent behavioural responses. While some of the reported responses were adaptive (e.g. attempts to quit), others were maladaptive (e.g. avoiding the warnings).
KeywordsTobacco plain packaging Smoking cessation Graphic health warnings Affective responses Coping responses
All procedures followed were 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. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
Sarah J. Hardcastle, Derwin C. K. Chan, Kim M. Caudwell, Sarwat Sultan, Jo Cranwell, Nikos L. D. Chatzisarantis and Martin S. Hagger declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Moodie C, Stead M, Bauld L, McNeill A, Angus K, Hinds K, et al. Tobacco plain packaging: a systematic review. London: Public Health Research Consortium; 2012.Google Scholar
- 10.Leventhal H, Meyer D, Nerenz D. The common sense model of illness danger. In: Rachman S, editor. Medical Psychology. New York: Pergamon Press; 1980. p. 7–30.Google Scholar
- 17.Neuendorf K. The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001.Google Scholar
- 21.Sparkes AC, Smith B. Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise and health. London: Routledge; 2014.Google Scholar
- 22.Krane V, Anderson MB, Strean WB. Issues of qualitative research methods and presentation. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1997;19:213–8.Google Scholar