Effects of Varying Color, Imagery, and Text of Cigarette Package Warning Labels among Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Middle School Youth and Adult Smokers

Sahara Byrne, Amelia Greiner Safi, Deena Kemp, Christofer Skurka, Julie Davydova, Leah Scolere, Alan D. Mathios, Rosemary J. Avery, Michael C. Dorf, Joseph Steinhardt, Jeff Niederdeppe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The U.S. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) of 2009 paved the way for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to propose nine different graphic warning labels (GWLs) intended for prominent placement on the front and back of cigarette packs and on cigarette advertisements. Those GWLs were adjudicated as unconstitutional on the ground that they unnecessarily infringed tobacco companies’ free speech without sufficiently advancing the government’s public health interests. This study examines whether less extensive alternatives to the original full-color GWLs, including black-and-white GWLs and text-only options, have similar or divergent effects on visual attention, negative affect, and health risk beliefs. We used a mobile media research lab to conduct a randomized experiment with two populations residing in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities: biochemically confirmed adult smokers (N = 313) and middle school youth (N = 340). Results indicate that full-color GWLs capture attention for longer than black-and-white GWLs among both youth and adult smokers. Among adults, packages with GWLs (in either color or black-and-white) engendered more negative affect than those with text-only labels, while text-only produced greater negative affect than the packages with brand imagery only. Among youth, GWLs and text-only labels produced comparable levels of negative affect, albeit more so than brand imagery. We thus offer mixed findings related to the claim that a less extensive alternative could satisfy the government’s compelling public health interest to reduce cigarette smoking rates.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)306-316
Number of pages11
JournalHealth Communication
Volume34
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 23 2019

Fingerprint

Imagery (Psychotherapy)
Vulnerable Populations
Tobacco Products
Labels
Color
nicotine
Tobacco
Public Health
Smoking
smoking
public health
act
United States Food and Drug Administration
communication research
health risk
Public health
Health
Research
Population
hydroquinone

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Health(social science)
  • Communication

Cite this

Byrne, Sahara ; Greiner Safi, Amelia ; Kemp, Deena ; Skurka, Christofer ; Davydova, Julie ; Scolere, Leah ; Mathios, Alan D. ; Avery, Rosemary J. ; Dorf, Michael C. ; Steinhardt, Joseph ; Niederdeppe, Jeff. / Effects of Varying Color, Imagery, and Text of Cigarette Package Warning Labels among Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Middle School Youth and Adult Smokers. In: Health Communication. 2019 ; Vol. 34, No. 3. pp. 306-316.
@article{8f83b009cba1478aa5e6d6f8524ee4f1,
title = "Effects of Varying Color, Imagery, and Text of Cigarette Package Warning Labels among Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Middle School Youth and Adult Smokers",
abstract = "The U.S. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) of 2009 paved the way for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to propose nine different graphic warning labels (GWLs) intended for prominent placement on the front and back of cigarette packs and on cigarette advertisements. Those GWLs were adjudicated as unconstitutional on the ground that they unnecessarily infringed tobacco companies’ free speech without sufficiently advancing the government’s public health interests. This study examines whether less extensive alternatives to the original full-color GWLs, including black-and-white GWLs and text-only options, have similar or divergent effects on visual attention, negative affect, and health risk beliefs. We used a mobile media research lab to conduct a randomized experiment with two populations residing in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities: biochemically confirmed adult smokers (N = 313) and middle school youth (N = 340). Results indicate that full-color GWLs capture attention for longer than black-and-white GWLs among both youth and adult smokers. Among adults, packages with GWLs (in either color or black-and-white) engendered more negative affect than those with text-only labels, while text-only produced greater negative affect than the packages with brand imagery only. Among youth, GWLs and text-only labels produced comparable levels of negative affect, albeit more so than brand imagery. We thus offer mixed findings related to the claim that a less extensive alternative could satisfy the government’s compelling public health interest to reduce cigarette smoking rates.",
author = "Sahara Byrne and {Greiner Safi}, Amelia and Deena Kemp and Christofer Skurka and Julie Davydova and Leah Scolere and Mathios, {Alan D.} and Avery, {Rosemary J.} and Dorf, {Michael C.} and Joseph Steinhardt and Jeff Niederdeppe",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "23",
doi = "10.1080/10410236.2017.1407228",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "306--316",
journal = "Health Communication",
issn = "1041-0236",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "3",

}

Byrne, S, Greiner Safi, A, Kemp, D, Skurka, C, Davydova, J, Scolere, L, Mathios, AD, Avery, RJ, Dorf, MC, Steinhardt, J & Niederdeppe, J 2019, 'Effects of Varying Color, Imagery, and Text of Cigarette Package Warning Labels among Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Middle School Youth and Adult Smokers', Health Communication, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 306-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1407228

Effects of Varying Color, Imagery, and Text of Cigarette Package Warning Labels among Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Middle School Youth and Adult Smokers. / Byrne, Sahara; Greiner Safi, Amelia; Kemp, Deena; Skurka, Christofer; Davydova, Julie; Scolere, Leah; Mathios, Alan D.; Avery, Rosemary J.; Dorf, Michael C.; Steinhardt, Joseph; Niederdeppe, Jeff.

In: Health Communication, Vol. 34, No. 3, 23.02.2019, p. 306-316.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effects of Varying Color, Imagery, and Text of Cigarette Package Warning Labels among Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Middle School Youth and Adult Smokers

AU - Byrne, Sahara

AU - Greiner Safi, Amelia

AU - Kemp, Deena

AU - Skurka, Christofer

AU - Davydova, Julie

AU - Scolere, Leah

AU - Mathios, Alan D.

AU - Avery, Rosemary J.

AU - Dorf, Michael C.

AU - Steinhardt, Joseph

AU - Niederdeppe, Jeff

PY - 2019/2/23

Y1 - 2019/2/23

N2 - The U.S. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) of 2009 paved the way for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to propose nine different graphic warning labels (GWLs) intended for prominent placement on the front and back of cigarette packs and on cigarette advertisements. Those GWLs were adjudicated as unconstitutional on the ground that they unnecessarily infringed tobacco companies’ free speech without sufficiently advancing the government’s public health interests. This study examines whether less extensive alternatives to the original full-color GWLs, including black-and-white GWLs and text-only options, have similar or divergent effects on visual attention, negative affect, and health risk beliefs. We used a mobile media research lab to conduct a randomized experiment with two populations residing in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities: biochemically confirmed adult smokers (N = 313) and middle school youth (N = 340). Results indicate that full-color GWLs capture attention for longer than black-and-white GWLs among both youth and adult smokers. Among adults, packages with GWLs (in either color or black-and-white) engendered more negative affect than those with text-only labels, while text-only produced greater negative affect than the packages with brand imagery only. Among youth, GWLs and text-only labels produced comparable levels of negative affect, albeit more so than brand imagery. We thus offer mixed findings related to the claim that a less extensive alternative could satisfy the government’s compelling public health interest to reduce cigarette smoking rates.

AB - The U.S. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) of 2009 paved the way for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to propose nine different graphic warning labels (GWLs) intended for prominent placement on the front and back of cigarette packs and on cigarette advertisements. Those GWLs were adjudicated as unconstitutional on the ground that they unnecessarily infringed tobacco companies’ free speech without sufficiently advancing the government’s public health interests. This study examines whether less extensive alternatives to the original full-color GWLs, including black-and-white GWLs and text-only options, have similar or divergent effects on visual attention, negative affect, and health risk beliefs. We used a mobile media research lab to conduct a randomized experiment with two populations residing in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities: biochemically confirmed adult smokers (N = 313) and middle school youth (N = 340). Results indicate that full-color GWLs capture attention for longer than black-and-white GWLs among both youth and adult smokers. Among adults, packages with GWLs (in either color or black-and-white) engendered more negative affect than those with text-only labels, while text-only produced greater negative affect than the packages with brand imagery only. Among youth, GWLs and text-only labels produced comparable levels of negative affect, albeit more so than brand imagery. We thus offer mixed findings related to the claim that a less extensive alternative could satisfy the government’s compelling public health interest to reduce cigarette smoking rates.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85038018696&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85038018696&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10410236.2017.1407228

DO - 10.1080/10410236.2017.1407228

M3 - Article

C2 - 29236526

AN - SCOPUS:85038018696

VL - 34

SP - 306

EP - 316

JO - Health Communication

JF - Health Communication

SN - 1041-0236

IS - 3

ER -