RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The tobacco industry has a long history of circumventing regulations to present their products, inaccurately, as less harmful. Greenwashing (portraying a product as natural/eco-friendly) is increasingly used by tobacco companies and may mislead consumers to believe that certain cigarettes are less harmful than others. This study assesses the effect of some common greenwashing tactics on consumer product perceptions. METHODS: We conducted an online experiment with 1,504 participants ages 18-29, randomized to view a cigarette ad manipulated for presence/absence of a combination of 4 different greenwashing techniques: greenwashed ad text, greenwashed ad imagery, recycled paper ad background, and image of greenwashed cigarette pack. Participants rated perceived absolute harm, relative harm to other cigarettes, absolute addictiveness, relative addictiveness, and relative nicotine content. RESULTS: Participants who viewed ads containing greenwashed text were more likely to have inaccurate perceptions about absolute harm (AOR=1.72), relative harm (AOR=3.92), relative addictiveness (AOR=2.93) and nicotine content (AOR=2.08). Participants who viewed ads containing greenwashed imagery were more likely to have inaccurate perceptions of relative harm (AOR=1.55), absolute addictiveness (AOR=1.72), relative addictiveness (AOR=1.60) and nicotine content (AOR=1.48). Forty-two percent of those who saw an ad with all greenwashed features believed the product was less harmful than other cigarettes vs. 2% of those who saw an ad without greenwashed features. CONCLUSIONS: We found greenwashed text and imagery produced inaccurate risk perceptions. More active U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) enforcement against such greenwashing and new FDA rulemaking to prohibit unnecessary imagery in tobacco advertising and establish plain packaging requirements would help protect consumers and public health. IMPLICATIONS: These findings provide evidence that greenwashing tactics used by the tobacco industry increase inaccurate product risk perceptions. These tactics could be a way for the industry to make implicit modified risk claims, despite applicable U.S. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act prohibitions. Findings from this study support the need for prohibitions on these tactics, and the potential for such prohibitions to help protect public health.
RESUMEN
Research has yet to offer strong recommendations for effective tobacco prevention and cessation messaging that can reduce tobacco-related health disparities among Black and/or Latine LGBTQ+ youth and young adults. As a result of predatory marketing strategies and community stressors, among other factors, LGBTQ+ youth and young adults use tobacco products at higher rates than their non-LGBTQ+ peers. These disparities are uniquely complex among Black and/or Latine youth and young adults within the LGBTQ+ community, but there has been little research addressing the communication strategies that can promote tobacco prevention and cessation for these groups. Given the promise and history of successful health communication campaigns for tobacco control, this research is crucial. We thus conducted a scoping review to identify trends and gaps in the empirical research published from 2002-2022 that analyzed tobacco prevention and cessation communication strategies for Black and/or Latine LGBTQ+ youth and young adults (ages 12-30) living in the United States. Despite an initial search query of 3,182 articles after deleting duplicates, only five articles were eligible for inclusion, three of which evaluated the This Free Life campaign. Accordingly, we view our scoping review as an almost empty review. Although our results offer preliminary insight into messaging strategies used in these campaigns, our larger contribution is to expose the scarcity of tobacco-related communication research being conducted among Black and/or Latine LGBTQ+ communities. Given the marginalization these communities face, we issue a call to action for researchers and campaign designers and offer a series of suggestions for future research.
RESUMEN
Family discussions about climate change are a critical factor influencing children's climate change perceptions and behaviors. Yet, there is limited research on family communication about climate change in the US. Drawing from an online longitudinal sample, 214 parents reported on their 336 children. Descriptive statistics examined engagement in family climate change communication. Children's climate change concerns and parents' interest in engaging in conversations about climate change were assessed by the child's age. Logistic models examined how recent family climate change communication was associated with parents' perceived roles and barriers to engaging in conversations. Most parents (68%) were interested in talking to their children about climate change; of those expressing interest, only 46% reported recent communication. Parents reported that older children were more concerned about climate change than younger children (0-5 years: 21%; 6-11 years: 43%; 12-17 years: 56%), but no differences were identified in parents' interest in communicating with their children by the child's age. Recent family climate change communication was significantly associated with not knowing what to say and parents' perception that their role was to support their children in action. Study findings suggest a significant opportunity to involve families in climate change communication. Parents may benefit from training resources, especially those tailored to children's age, to help them communicate with their children about climate change. Strategies that engage parents and children in activism activities together are also needed.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In many countries with high levels of COVID-19 vaccine access, uptake remains a major issue. We examined prospective predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake in a United States longitudinal study. METHODS: An online longitudinal study on COVID-19 and well-being assessed vaccine hesitancy attitudes, social norms, and uptake among 444 respondents who had completed both survey waves in March and June 2021. RESULTS: The mean sample age was 41, with 55% female, 71% white, 13% Black, and 6% Latinx. In March 2021, 14% had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. By June 2021, 64% reported receiving at least one dose. In prospectively assessing predictors of vaccine uptake, we found strong correlations among five different vaccine hesitancy questions. In multivariable logistic regression models, family and friends discouraging vaccination (adjusted odds ratios [aOR] = .26, 95% CI = .07, .98), not knowing whom to believe about vaccine safety (aOR = .51, 95% CI = .27, .95), and concerns that shortcuts were taken with vaccine development (aOR = .43, 95% CI = .23, .81) were all independent predictors of lower vaccine uptake. Political conservatism, gender, education, and income were also independent predictors of reduced uptake. Vaccine hesitancy items were also modeled as a scale, and the scale was found to be strongly predictive of vaccine uptake. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the importance of social norm interventions and suggest general and specific vaccine hesitancy attitudes, especially trust, should be considered in developing vaccine uptake programs.