The impact of front-of-package claims, fruit images, and health warnings on consumers' perceptions of sugar-sweetened fruit drinks: Three randomized experiments.

We aimed to examine the impact of claims, fruit images, and health warnings on consumers' perceptions of fruit-flavored drinks with added sugar (i.e., "fruit drinks"). We conducted three 2x2x2 randomized experiments with online convenience samples of U.S. adults (Study 1 n = 2139 in 2018, current e-cigarette users and smokers; Study 2 n = 670 in 2018, current e-cigarette users; Study 3 n = 1006 in 2019, general sample). Participants viewed a fruit drink that differed in the presence of a "100% Vitamin C" claim, a fruit image, or a health warning. On average across the three studies, consumers who saw a claim on a fruit drink believed that the drink was more healthful than those who did not see the claim (mean average differential effect (ADE) = 0.66, p < .001); they were also more interested in consuming the drink (mean ADE = 0.38, p = .001). The health warning decreased perceived product healthfulness (mean ADE = -0.65, p < .001) and consumption interest (mean ADE = -0.49, p < .001). The fruit image had no effect on perceived product healthfulness (mean ADE = 0.03, p = .81) or purchase intentions (mean ADE = -0.04, p = .77). In Study 1 and Study 2, there were no interactions between claims, images, or warnings (all p > .05). In Study 3, the "100% Vitamin C" nutrition claim only increased perceived product healthfulness when the drink did not also have a health warning (interaction p < .05). These findings suggest that 100% Vitamin C claims increase the appeal of fruit drinks, whereas health warnings decrease the appeal. Together, these studies support policies to restrict marketing and require health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverage packaging.

E-Cigarette Health Harm Awareness and Discouragement: Implications for Health Communication.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence for the health harms of e-cigarettes is growing, yet little is known about which harms may be most impactful in health messaging. Our study sought to identify which harms tobacco product users were aware of and which most discouraged them from wanting to vape. METHODS: Participants were a convenience sample of 1,872 U.S. adult e-cigarette-only users, cigarette-only smokers, and dual users recruited in August 2018. In an online survey, participants evaluated 40 e-cigarette harms from seven categories: chemical exposures, device explosions, addiction, cardiovascular harm, respiratory harm, e-liquid toxicity, and other harms. Outcomes were awareness of the harms ("check all that apply") and the extent to which the harms discouraged vaping (5-point scale; (1) "not at all" to (5) "very much"). RESULTS: Awareness of most e-cigarette harms was modest, being highest for harms in the device explosions category of harms (44%) and lowest for the e-liquid toxicity category (16%). The harms with the highest mean discouragement from wanting to vape were the respiratory harm (M = 3.82) and exposure to chemicals (M = 3.68) categories. Harms in the addiction category were the least discouraging (M = 2.83) compared with other harms (all p < .001). Findings were similar for e-cigarette-only users, cigarette-only smokers, and dual users. CONCLUSIONS: Addiction was the least motivating e-cigarette harm, a notable finding given that the current FDA e-cigarette health warning communicates only about nicotine addiction. The next generation of e-cigarette health warnings and communication campaigns should highlight other harms, especially respiratory harms and the chemical exposures that may lead to health consequences. IMPLICATIONS: E-cigarette health harms related to respiratory effects, chemical exposures, and other health areas most discouraged vaping among tobacco users. In contrast, health harms about addiction least discouraged use. Several countries have begun implementing e-cigarette health warnings, including the United States, and many others are considering adopting similar policies. To increase impact, future warnings and other health communication efforts should communicate about health harms beyond addiction, such as the effects of e-cigarette use on respiratory health. Such efforts should communicate that e-cigarette use is risky and may pose less overall risk to human health than smoking, according to current evidence.

Public Understanding of Cigarette Smoke Chemicals: Longitudinal Study of US Adults and Adolescents.

INTRODUCTION: The US Food and Drug Administration has increased communication efforts that aim to raise public awareness of the harmful constituents (ie, chemicals) in cigarette smoke. We sought to investigate whether the public's awareness of these chemicals has increased in light of such efforts. METHODS: Participants were national probability samples of 11 322 US adults and adolescents recruited in 2014-2015 (wave 1) and 2016-2017 (wave 2). Cross-sectional telephone surveys assessed awareness of 24 cigarette smoke chemicals at both timepoints. RESULTS: The proportion of US adults aware of cigarette smoke chemicals did not differ between waves 1 and 2 (25% and 26%, p = .19). In contrast, awareness of chemicals among adolescents fell from 28% to 22% (p < .001), mostly due to lower awareness of carbon monoxide, arsenic, benzene, and four other chemicals. Belief that most of the harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke come from burning the cigarette also fell from waves 1 to 2 (adults: 31% vs. 26%; adolescents: 47% vs. 41%, both ps < .05). Participants were more likely to be aware of cigarette smoke chemicals if they had been exposed to anti-smoking campaign advertisements (p < .05) or had previously sought chemical information (p < .05). Cigarette smoke chemical awareness did not differ between smokers and nonsmokers. CONCLUSION: Awareness of cigarette smoke chemicals remains low and unchanged among adults and decreased somewhat among adolescents. The association of chemical awareness with information exposure via campaigns and information seeking behavior is promising. More concerted communication efforts may be needed to increase public awareness of cigarette smoke chemicals, which could potentially discourage smoking. IMPLICATIONS: Awareness of the toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke may contribute to quitting. The US Food and Drug Administration is making efforts to increase public awareness of these chemicals. Two national surveys (2014-2017) found that chemical awareness was low among adults and adolescents. Although awareness did not change among adults, awareness among adolescents dropped over time. In addition, exposure to anti-smoking campaigns and chemical information seeking behavior were associated with higher awareness of chemicals in cigarette smoke. Campaigns and other efforts may be needed to increase awareness of cigarette smoke chemicals.

Similarities and Differences in Tobacco Control Research Findings From Convenience and Probability Samples.

BACKGROUND: Online convenience samples are a quick and low-cost way to study health behavior, but the comparability to findings from probability samples is not yet well understood. PURPOSE: We sought to compare convenience and probability samples' findings for experiments, correlates, and prevalence in the context of tobacco control research. METHODS: Participants were a probability sample of 5,014 U.S. adults recruited by phone from September 2014 through May 2015 (cost ~U.S.$620,000) and an online convenience sample of 4,137 U.S. adults recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) in December 2014 (cost ~U.S.$17,000). Participants completed a survey with experiments, measures of tobacco product use and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: MTurk convenience and probability samples showed the same pattern of statistical significance and direction in almost all experiments (21 of 24 analyses did not differ) and observational studies (19 of 25 associations did not differ). Demographic characteristics of the samples differed substantially (1 of 17 estimates did not differ), with the convenience sample being younger, having more years of education, and including more Whites and Asians. Tobacco product use also differed substantially (1 of 22 prevalence estimates did not differ), with the convenience sample reporting more cigarette and e-cigarette use (median error 19%). CONCLUSIONS: Using MTurk convenience samples can yield generalizable findings for experiments and observational studies. Prevalence estimates from MTurk convenience samples are likely to be over- or underestimates.

Cigarette pack messages about toxic chemicals: a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The USA can require tobacco companies to disclose information about harmful and potentially harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke, but the impact of these messages is uncertain. We sought to assess the effect of placing messages about toxic chemicals on smokers' cigarette packs. METHODS: Participants were 719 adult cigarette smokers from California, USA, recruited from September 2016 through March 2017. We randomly assigned smokers to receive either factual messages about chemicals in cigarette smoke and their health harms (intervention) or messages about not littering cigarette butts (control) on the side of their cigarette packs for 3 weeks. The primary trial outcome was intention to quit smoking. RESULTS: In intent-to-treat analyses, smokers whose packs had chemical messages did not have higher intentions to quit smoking at the end of the trial than those whose packs had control messages (P=0.56). Compared with control messages, chemical messages led to higher awareness of the chemicals (28% vs 15%, P<0.001) and health harms (60% vs 52%, P=0.02) featured in the messages. In addition, chemical messages led to greater negative affect, thinking about the chemicals in cigarettes and the harms of smoking, conversations about the messages and forgoing a cigarette (all P<0.05). DISCUSSION: Chemical messages on cigarette packs did not lead to higher intentions to quit among smokers in our trial. However, chemical messages informed smokers of chemicals in cigarettes and harms of smoking, which directly supports their implementation and would be critical to defending the messages against cigarette company legal challenges. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02785484.

Impact of e-cigarette health warnings on motivation to vape and smoke.

BACKGROUND: A prevailing hypothesis is that health warnings for electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) could drive people away from vaping and towards smoking cigarettes. We consider an alternative hypothesis that e-cigarette warnings discourage both vaping and smoking. METHODS: Participants were a national convenience sample of 2218 US adults who used e-cigarettes, cigarettes or both. In August 2018, we randomised participants to one of three warning types (control text about littering, text-only e-cigarette warning or pictorial e-cigarette warning). We further randomised participants viewing e-cigarette warnings to one of three topics (nicotine addiction, health hazards of use, or both health hazards and harms of use). The preregistered primary outcome was intentions to quit vaping among e-cigarette users. Secondary outcomes included interest in smoking and Tobacco Warnings Model constructs: attention, negative affect, anticipated social interactions and cognitive elaboration. RESULTS: Text warnings elicited higher intentions to quit vaping than control among e-cigarette users (d=0.44, p<0.001), and pictorial warnings elicited still higher intentions to quit vaping than text (d=0.12, p<0.05). Text warnings elicited lower interest in smoking compared with control among smokers (p<0.05); warnings had no other effects on interest in smoking among smokers or non-smokers. Text warnings about health hazards elicited higher intentions to quit vaping than nicotine addiction warnings. E-cigarette warnings also increased Tobacco Warnings Model constructs. DISCUSSION: E-cigarette health warnings may motivate users to quit vaping and discourage smoking. The most promising warnings include health hazards (other than nicotine addiction) and imagery. We found no support for the hypothesis that e-cigarette warnings could encourage smoking cigarettes.

Identifying principles for effective messages about chemicals in cigarette smoke.

US law requires the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to disclose information on harmful and potentially harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke (i.e., constituents) to the public. To inform this effort, we sought to identify principles for creating constituent messages that effectively discourage smoking. Participants were an online convenience sample of 1148 US smokers ages 18+. We developed a library of 76 messages about constituents only and constituents plus contextualizing information (i.e., toxic products that also contain the chemical, health effects, or both). We randomized smokers to receive 1 message from each of 7 message panels in a mixed between-/within-subjects experiment. Participants rated each message on perceived message effectiveness. Results indicated that smokers perceived messages about arsenic, formaldehyde, lead, uranium, and ammonia as more effective than messages about nitrosamines. Messages that contained information on toxic products, health effects, or both received higher effectiveness ratings than constituent-only messages. Among constituent-only messages, those that referenced multiple constituents received higher effectiveness ratings than those with fewer constituents. We conclude that chemical messages may have more impact if they pair known constituents with toxic product or health effect information. These message principles can be used to inform studies examining the impact of constituent messages on smoking beliefs and behavior.

Effective Message Elements for Disclosures About Chemicals in Cigarette Smoke.

Introduction: Cigarette smoke contains at least 93 chemicals or "constituents" that the Food and Drug Administration has identified as harmful and potentially harmful constituents to human health. Our study sought to identify which constituent disclosure message elements are most effective in discouraging people from smoking. Methods: Three hundred eighty eight current smokers aged 18 and older completed an online survey in February 2015. We randomized participants to respond to one of two sets of 13 toxic products that contain cigarette constituents and 25 health effects associated with cigarette constituents. Results: Products that elicited the most discouragement were those with lower chances of exposure (e.g., explosives), followed by products with possible exposure (e.g., rat poison), and products with a high likelihood of exposure (e.g., floor cleaner). Awareness of toxic products that constituents are found in (p < .001) and low exposure products (p < .001) were associated with higher discouragement. Health effects that people had heard are caused by cigarette smoke constituents elicited higher discouragement from smoking cigarettes (p < .001). Cancer was associated with higher discouragement relative to respiratory, cardiovascular, and reproductive health effects (all p < .001). Conclusions: Cigarette smoke constituent messages may be more effective at discouraging smoking if they include information about carcinogenic health effects (e.g., mouth cancer and lung tumors) and low exposure toxic products (e.g., explosives and radioactive material) as message elements. Implications: Our study identified health effects and toxic products, especially cancers and rarely encountered toxic products, that may discourage smoking when included in disclosure messages. By constructing messages that communicate the harms associated with tobacco use by contextualizing those harms in terms of specific constituents, tobacco education messaging efforts may be increasingly successful.

Public understanding of cigarette smoke constituents: three US surveys.

INTRODUCTION: The Tobacco Control Act requires public disclosure of information about toxic constituents in cigarette smoke. To inform these efforts, we studied public understanding of cigarette smoke constituents. METHODS: We conducted phone surveys with national probability samples of adolescents (n=1125) and adults (n=5014) and an internet survey with a convenience sample of adults (n=4137), all in the USA. We assessed understanding of cigarette smoke constituents in general and of 24 specific constituents. RESULTS: Respondents commonly and incorrectly believed that harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke mostly originate in additives introduced by cigarette manufacturers (43-72%). Almost all participants had heard that nicotine is in cigarette smoke, and many had also heard about carbon monoxide, ammonia, arsenic and formaldehyde. Less than one-quarter had heard of most other listed constituents being in cigarette smoke. Constituents most likely to discourage respondents from wanting to smoke were ammonia, arsenic, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, lead and uranium. Respondents more often reported being discouraged by constituents that they had heard are in cigarette smoke (all p<0.05). Constituents with names that started with a number or ended in 'ene' or 'ine' were less likely to discourage people from wanting to smoke (all p<0.05). DISCUSSION: Many people were unaware that burning the cigarette is the primary source of toxic constituents in cigarette smoke. Constituents that may most discourage cigarette smoking have familiar names, like arsenic and formaldehyde and do not start with a number or end in ene/ine. Our findings may help campaign designers develop constituent messages that discourage smoking.

Expanding the analysis of mechanisms of action in behavioral interventions: cognitive change versus cognitive activation.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the mechanisms of action underlying behavioral interventions, researchers typically examine whether the treatment changes cognitions and whether changes in cognition predict behavior (cognitive change). This current research explores an alternative mechanism whereby the intervention increases the impact of pre-existing cognitions on behavior (cognitive activation). We tested whether cognitive change or cognitive activation explains the impact of cigarette pack messages on smoking restraint. DESIGN: The research comprised a validation experiment (N = 135) and a 4-week RCT (N = 719) with smokers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At both baseline and follow-up of the RCT, smokers self-reported threat appraisals, coping appraisals, and smoking restraint. RESULTS: Intervention messages heightened the accessibility of threat appraisals compared to control messages (validation experiment). In the RCT, smoking restraint increased among intervention participants but not controls. Trial arm showed no corresponding change in threat or coping appraisals. However, trial arm interacted with baseline health cognitions such that synergies between threat appraisal components, and between threat appraisals and coping appraisals, predicted smoking restraint for intervention participants but not for controls. CONCLUSION: Our findings support a cognitive activation process whereby health messages on cigarette packs increase the impact of pre-existing threat appraisals on smoking restraint.

Why smokers avoid cigarette pack risk messages: Two randomized clinical trials in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Message avoidance (e.g., trying not to look at the message) may be motivated by reactance, a maladaptive rejection of the message. An alternative view is that avoidance indicates that a message is eliciting fear and other negative affect, thereby increasing the likelihood of behavioral change. We sought to identify which psychological mechanism-reactance or fear and other negative affect-explains message avoidance. We also examined whether avoidance was associated with more forgoing or butting out of cigarettes. METHOD: Trial 1 randomly assigned 2149 adult U.S. smokers to receive either pictorial warnings (intervention) or text-only warnings (control) on their cigarette packs for four weeks in 2014 and 2015. Trial 2 randomly assigned 719 adult U.S. smokers to receive either messages about toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke (intervention) or messages about not littering cigarette butts (control) for three weeks in 2016 and 2017. Negative affect included fear, anxiety, disgust, sadness, and guilt. Reactance included perceived threat to freedom, anger, and counterarguing. RESULTS: Intervention messages led to greater message avoidance in both trials (both p < .001). In Trial 1, intervention messages elicited greater negative affect, which in turn was associated with greater avoidance (mediated effect = 0.21, p < .001). In contrast, reactance explained only a small part of the effect in Trial 1 (mediated effect = 0.03, p < .001). Similarly, in Trial 2, intervention messages elicited greater negative affect, which was associated with more avoidance (mediated effect = 0.12, p < .001); reactance did not explain any of the effect. In both trials, avoidance was associated with more forgoing or butting out of cigarettes (ps < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Smokers may avoid cigarette pack risk messages because they evoke aversive types of emotion. These studies add to a growing body of evidence that, in the context of cigarette pack messages, avoidance is not a form of defensive processing but instead a sign of deeper processing.

Placing Health Warnings on E-Cigarettes: A Standardized Protocol.

Health warnings for e-cigarettes are a promising and novel tobacco control intervention for reducing e-cigarette use. We developed a new protocol for evaluating e-cigarette warnings by placing them on users' own devices to reflect real-world exposure. Study 1 participants were a national convenience sample of 606 U.S. adult e-cigarette users surveyed online in March 2017. Most Study 1 participants were willing to have their e-cigarette devices (87%) and refills (83%) labeled. Study 2 participants were a convenience sample of 22 adult e-cigarette users recruited in California, United States in April 2017. We applied the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's proposed e-cigarette warning to users' own devices and refills. Most Study 2 participants (81%) reported using e-cigarette devices with our warning labels at least 90% of the time during the study. Nearly all (95%) said they would participate in the study again, and 100% would recommend the study to a friend. Conversations about e-cigarette harms, conversations about quitting e-cigarettes, and intentions to quit using e-cigarettes increased during the study (all p < 0.05). These studies show that our naturalistic labeling protocol was feasible, acceptable to participants, and had high retention over three weeks. Using the protocol can yield important evidence on the impact of e-cigarette warnings to inform tobacco warning policies.

Increasing Effectiveness of Messages about Chemicals in Cigarette Smoke.

OBJECTIVES: Federal law requires informing the public on toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke. We sought the public's advice about communicating information about these chemicals. METHODS: Adolescents, young adults, and adults (N = 59), including smokers and non-smokers, participated in 9 focus groups that discussed inclusion of messages about toxic chemicals on cigarette packs, in media campaigns, and on a website. We transcribed, coded, and analyzed focus group audio-recordings. RESULTS: Participants had 3 suggestions for message content to increase the impact of messages about cigarette smoke chemicals. First, they wanted to see messages rotated more frequently to increase message novelty. Second, they recommended using stories and pictures to help connect people to the abstract idea of chemicals in smoke. Third, they cautioned against making messages that might seem overblown and could appeal to the rebellious nature of adolescents. Some participants mentioned that chemical information on a website might discourage people from smoking; others mentioned that people might use it to choose which brand to smoke. CONCLUSIONS: Legislation provides the impetus to design new chemical disclosure messages for cigarette packs and other media. Our findings can help increase the impact of these messages.

Brand switching and toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke: A national study.

INTRODUCTION: US law requires disclosure of quantities of toxic chemicals (constituents) in cigarette smoke by brand and sub-brand. This information may drive smokers to switch to cigarettes with lower chemical quantities, under the misperception that doing so can reduce health risk. We sought to understand past brand-switching behavior and whether learning about specific chemicals in cigarette smoke increases susceptibility to brand switching. METHODS: Participants were US adult smokers surveyed by phone (n = 1,151, probability sample) and online (n = 1,561, convenience sample). Surveys assessed whether smokers had ever switched cigarette brands or styles to reduce health risk and about likelihood of switching if the smoker learned their brand had more of a specific chemical than other cigarettes. Chemicals presented were nicotine, carbon monoxide, lead, formaldehyde, arsenic, and ammonia. RESULTS: Past brand switching to reduce health risk was common among smokers (43% in phone survey, 28% in online survey). Smokers who were female, over 25, and current "light" cigarette users were more likely to have switched brands to reduce health risks (all p < .05). Overall, 61-92% of smokers were susceptible to brand switching based on information about particular chemicals. In both samples, lead, formaldehyde, arsenic, and ammonia led to more susceptibility to switch than nicotine (all p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Many US smokers have switched brands or styles to reduce health risks. The majority said they might or would definitely switch brands if they learned their cigarettes had more of a toxic chemical than other brands. Brand switching is a probable unintended consequence of communications that show differences in smoke chemicals between brands.

Predicting young adulthood smoking among adolescent smokers and nonsmokers.

OBJECTIVE: To examine predictors of smoking in young adulthood among (1) adolescent nonsmokers and (2) adolescent smokers. METHODS: Data were analyzed from a longitudinal study of adolescents to young adulthood in 1988-1998. RESULTS: Predictors of smoking in young adulthood among adolescent nonsmokers included less education, being unmarried in adulthood, lower family social support, non-smoking parents, and increased alcohol use over time. Predictors of smoking in young adulthood among adolescent smokers included lower family social support, more adolescent friends who used drugs, and slower decreases in depressive symptoms over time. CONCLUSIONS: Distinct factors predict smoking initiation versus maintenance among young adults.