Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Severity and susceptibility: measuring the perceived effectiveness and believability of tobacco health warnings

Authors: Olivia M. Maynard, Harry Gove, Andrew L. Skinner, Marcus R. Munafò

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Pictorial tobacco health warning labels (HWLs) have been shown to be more effective than text-only HWLs in changing smoking attitudes and intentions. However, there is contradictory evidence regarding how the severity of the content of HWLs influences responses to them.

Methods

We examined the perceived believability and effectiveness of HWLs in an online study using a convenience sample of non-smokers (N = 437) and smokers (N = 436). HWLs were in one of three presentation formats: (text-only, a moderately severe image or highly severe image) and focussed on three disease outcomes (lung cancer, blindness or tooth and gum disease). Participants rated the effectiveness and believability of each HWL and also rated their perceived susceptibility to each disease.

Results

A 2 (smoking status) × 3 (presentation format) × 3 (disease outcome) ANOVA was run for both believability and effectiveness ratings. The most severe pictorial HWLs received the highest believability and effectiveness ratings and as expected, the text-only HWLs received the lowest. Lung cancer HWLs were rated most believable and effective, with the blindness HWLs receiving the lowest scores. A 2 (smoking status) × 3 (disease outcome) ANOVA was conducted on the ratings of perceived susceptibility to the three diseases. Smokers considered themselves to be more susceptible to all three diseases, and among smokers, perceived susceptibility to the diseases was positively correlated with effectiveness and believability ratings of the HWLs.

Conclusion

Our findings support previous evidence that pictorial HWLs are rated as more effective and believable than text-only warnings, and provide some support for the use of severe or ‘grotesque’ HWLs on tobacco products. Our data also suggest that HWLs should aim to increase perceived susceptibility to disease, as this was positively related to perceived message effectiveness and believability.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
3.
go back to reference Noar SM, et al. Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Tobacco Control. 2015;25(4):341–54.PubMedPubMedCentral Noar SM, et al. Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Tobacco Control. 2015;25(4):341–54.PubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Hammond D, et al. Perceived effectiveness of pictorial health warnings among Mexican youth and adults: a population-level intervention with potential to reduce tobacco-related inequities. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23:57–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hammond D, et al. Perceived effectiveness of pictorial health warnings among Mexican youth and adults: a population-level intervention with potential to reduce tobacco-related inequities. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23:57–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Kees J, et al. Understanding how graphic pictorial warnings work on cigarette packaging. J Public Policy Mark. 2010;29(2):265–76.CrossRef Kees J, et al. Understanding how graphic pictorial warnings work on cigarette packaging. J Public Policy Mark. 2010;29(2):265–76.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Mutti S, et al. Perceived effectiveness of text and pictorial health warnings for smokeless tobacco packages in Navi Mumbai, India, and Dhaka, Bangladesh: findings from an experimental study. Tobacco Control. 2015;25(4):437–43.CrossRefPubMed Mutti S, et al. Perceived effectiveness of text and pictorial health warnings for smokeless tobacco packages in Navi Mumbai, India, and Dhaka, Bangladesh: findings from an experimental study. Tobacco Control. 2015;25(4):437–43.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Evans AT, et al. Cigarette graphic warning labels are not created equal: They can increase or decrease smokers’ quit intentions relative to text-only warnings. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;19(10):1155–62. Evans AT, et al. Cigarette graphic warning labels are not created equal: They can increase or decrease smokers’ quit intentions relative to text-only warnings. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;19(10):1155–62.
8.
go back to reference Peters G-JY, 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(sup1):S8–S31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Peters G-JY, 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(sup1):S8–S31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Harris PR, et al. Self-affirmation reduces smokers' defensiveness to graphic on-pack cigarette warning labels. Health Psychol. 2007;26(4):437–46.CrossRefPubMed Harris PR, et al. Self-affirmation reduces smokers' defensiveness to graphic on-pack cigarette warning labels. Health Psychol. 2007;26(4):437–46.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Brown SL, Smith EZ. The inhibitory effect of a distressing anti-smoking message on risk perceptions in smokers. Psychol Health. 2007;22(3):255–68.CrossRef Brown SL, Smith EZ. The inhibitory effect of a distressing anti-smoking message on risk perceptions in smokers. Psychol Health. 2007;22(3):255–68.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Witte K. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process model. Commun Monogr. 1992;59(4):329–49.CrossRef Witte K. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process model. Commun Monogr. 1992;59(4):329–49.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Thrasher JF, et al. Can pictorial warning labels on cigarette packages address smoking-related health disparities? Field experiments in Mexico to assess pictorial warning label content. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23(1):69–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Thrasher JF, et al. Can pictorial warning labels on cigarette packages address smoking-related health disparities? Field experiments in Mexico to assess pictorial warning label content. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23(1):69–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Cameron LD, Williams B. Which images and features in graphic cigarette warnings predict their perceived effectiveness? Findings from an online survey of residents in the UK. Ann Behav Med. 2015;49(5):639–49.CrossRefPubMed Cameron LD, Williams B. Which images and features in graphic cigarette warnings predict their perceived effectiveness? Findings from an online survey of residents in the UK. Ann Behav Med. 2015;49(5):639–49.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Rimal RN, Real K. Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of change. Hum Commun Res. 2003;29(3):370–99. Rimal RN, Real K. Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of change. Hum Commun Res. 2003;29(3):370–99.
15.
go back to reference Fotuhi O, et al. Patterns of cognitive dissonance-reducing beliefs among smokers: a longitudinal analysis from the international tobacco control (ITC) four country survey. Tob Control. 2013;22(1):52–8.CrossRefPubMed Fotuhi O, et al. Patterns of cognitive dissonance-reducing beliefs among smokers: a longitudinal analysis from the international tobacco control (ITC) four country survey. Tob Control. 2013;22(1):52–8.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Park ER, et al. A qualitative study of lung cancer risk perceptions and smoking beliefs among national lung screening trial participants. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014;16(2):166–73.CrossRefPubMed Park ER, et al. A qualitative study of lung cancer risk perceptions and smoking beliefs among national lung screening trial participants. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014;16(2):166–73.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Nagelhout GE, et al. Pictorial cigarette warning labels: effects of severity and likelihood of risk messages. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18(5):1315–23.CrossRefPubMed Nagelhout GE, et al. Pictorial cigarette warning labels: effects of severity and likelihood of risk messages. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18(5):1315–23.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Huang L-L, et al. Predictive and external validity of a pre-market study to determine the most effective pictorial health warning label content for cigarette packages. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18(5):1376–81.CrossRefPubMed Huang L-L, et al. Predictive and external validity of a pre-market study to determine the most effective pictorial health warning label content for cigarette packages. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18(5):1376–81.CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
go back to reference Schuldt JP, Pearson AR. Nutrient-centrism and perceived risk of chronic disease. J Health Psychol. 2015;20(6):899–906.CrossRefPubMed Schuldt JP, Pearson AR. Nutrient-centrism and perceived risk of chronic disease. J Health Psychol. 2015;20(6):899–906.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Slovic, P., Cigarette smokers: rational actors or rational fools? 2001. Slovic, P., Cigarette smokers: rational actors or rational fools? 2001.
22.
go back to reference Peto R, et al. Smoking, smoking cessation, and lung cancer in the UK since 1950: combination of national statistics with two case-control studies. BMJ. 2000;321(7257):323–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Peto R, et al. Smoking, smoking cessation, and lung cancer in the UK since 1950: combination of national statistics with two case-control studies. BMJ. 2000;321(7257):323–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Bergström J. Tobacco smoking and chronic destructive periodontal disease. Odontology. 2004;92(1):1–8.CrossRefPubMed Bergström J. Tobacco smoking and chronic destructive periodontal disease. Odontology. 2004;92(1):1–8.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Haffajee AD, Socransky SS. Relationship of cigarette smoking to attachment level profiles. J Clin Periodontol. 2001;28(4):283–95.CrossRefPubMed Haffajee AD, Socransky SS. Relationship of cigarette smoking to attachment level profiles. J Clin Periodontol. 2001;28(4):283–95.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Hyman JJ, Reid BC. Epidemiologic risk factors for periodontal attachment loss among adults in the United States. J Clin Periodontol. 2003;30(3):230–7.CrossRefPubMed Hyman JJ, Reid BC. Epidemiologic risk factors for periodontal attachment loss among adults in the United States. J Clin Periodontol. 2003;30(3):230–7.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Kelly SP, et al. Smoking and cataract: review of causal association. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31(12):2395–404.CrossRefPubMed Kelly SP, et al. Smoking and cataract: review of causal association. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31(12):2395–404.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Thornton J, et al. Smoking and age-related macular degeneration: a review of association. Eye. 2005;19(9):935–44.CrossRefPubMed Thornton J, et al. Smoking and age-related macular degeneration: a review of association. Eye. 2005;19(9):935–44.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Office for National Statistics. Census Analysis, Local Area Analysis of Qualifications Across England and Wales Release; 2011. p. 2011. Office for National Statistics. Census Analysis, Local Area Analysis of Qualifications Across England and Wales Release; 2011. p. 2011.
Metadata
Title
Severity and susceptibility: measuring the perceived effectiveness and believability of tobacco health warnings
Authors
Olivia M. Maynard
Harry Gove
Andrew L. Skinner
Marcus R. Munafò
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5385-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Public Health 1/2018 Go to the issue