What Motivates Smokers to Switch to ENDS? A Qualitative Study of Perceptions and Use.

Switching completely from cigarettes to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) may reduce health risks for addicted smokers. This paper provides information about perceptions and other factors that may influence smokers' ENDS use and substitution for cigarettes. We conducted 12 online focus groups (N = 61) among smokers who had never tried using ENDS (Never Users, N = 11), currently used both cigarettes and ENDS (Dual Users, N = 21), used but discontinued ENDS (Rejectors, N = 14), and switched completely to ENDS use (Switchers, N = 15). Thematic analysis was used to interpret the transcripts. Participants described initial interest in trying ENDS in hopes of quitting smoking and because of convenience (i.e., due to rules, regulations, or social norms). Risk perceptions and higher prices relative to cigarettes were reported as disadvantages of ENDS that discouraged initiation. Dual Users and Rejectors reported product problems (e.g., products breaking) and dissatisfaction (i.e., inability to satisfy cravings for cigarettes) as factors that lowered their substitutability for cigarettes or led to discontinuing ENDS use. Switchers indicated that satisfaction, lack of product problems, and perceived safety facilitated successfully switching from cigarette smoking to exclusive ENDS use. However, Switchers reported trying many products before they found ones that satisfied their needs. We recommend that policymakers consider the potential impact of tobacco control policies on smokers' motivation and ability to switch completely from cigarettes to ENDS.

Numeracy and memory for risk probabilities and risk outcomes depicted on cigarette warning labels.

OBJECTIVE: Greater numeracy is associated with higher likelihood to quit smoking. We examined whether numeracy supports learning of numeric health-risk information and, in turn, greater risk perceptions and quit intentions. METHOD: Adult smokers (N = 696) viewed text warnings with numeric risk information four times each in one of three warning-label types (text-only, low-emotion pictorial [i.e., with image], high-emotion pictorial). They completed posttest measures immediately or 6 weeks later. Emotional reactions to warnings were reported the second time participants viewed the warnings. Numeracy, memory for risk probabilities and risk outcomes, risk perceptions, and quit intentions were assessed postexposures. RESULTS: Memory for risk probabilities and risk outcomes depended on warning-label type and posttest timing. Consistent with memory-consolidation theory, memory for high- versus low-emotion labels was lower immediately, but declined less for high-than low-emotion labels. Label memory was similar between conditions at 6 weeks. Numeracy predicted overall superior memory (especially for risk probabilities) controlling for health literacy and education. It also indirectly predicted greater risk perceptions and quit intentions via memory. In exploratory analyses, however, the superior recall of risk probabilities of smoking among those higher in numeracy was associated with lower risk perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: Numeracy is associated with superior risk memory, which relates to greater risk perceptions and quit intentions. More numerate and educated smokers may be better able to quit due to their superior learning of smoking's risks. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Pictorial Warning Labels and Memory for Cigarette Health-risk Information Over Time.

BACKGROUND: Pictorial cigarette warning labels are thought to increase risk knowledge, but experimental research has not examined longer-term effects on memory for health risks named in text. PURPOSE: To investigate memory-consolidation predictions that high- versus low-emotion warnings would support better long-term memory for named cigarette health risks and to test a mediational model of warning-label effects through memory on risk perceptions and quit intentions. METHODS: A combined sample of U.S.-representative adult smokers, U.S.-representative teen smokers/vulnerable smokers, and Appalachian-representative adult smokers were randomly assigned to a warning-label condition (High-emotion pictorial, Low-emotion pictorial, Text-only) in which they were exposed four times to nine warning labels and reported emotional reactions and elaboration. Memory of warning-label risk information, smoking risk perceptions, and quit intentions were assessed immediately after exposures or 6 weeks later. RESULTS: Recall of warning-label text was low across the samples and supported memory-consolidation predictions. Specifically, immediate recall was highest for Low-emotion warnings that elicited the least emotion, but recall also declined the most over time in this condition, leaving its 6-week recall lowest; 6-week recall was similar for High-emotion and Text-only warnings. Greater recall was associated with higher risk perceptions and greater quit intentions and mediated part of warning-label effects on these important smoking outcomes. High-emotion warnings had additional non-memory-related effects on risk perceptions and quit intentions that were superior to text-only warnings. CONCLUSIONS: High- but not Low-emotion pictorial warning labels may support the Food and Drug Administration's primary goal to "effectively convey the negative health consequences of smoking." CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03375840.

Warning Size Affects What Adolescents Recall From Tobacco Advertisements.

OBJECTIVES: In the U.S., print advertisements for smokeless tobacco (SLT) feature a large black-and-white text warning covering 20% of the advertisement space. Cigarette and e-cigarette advertisements feature a small warning covering approximately 4% of advertisement space. We explored how warning size affects adolescent boys' spontaneous recollection of the warning, brand-relevant advertisement features, and product risks. METHODS: 1,220 adolescent males (ages 11-16) viewed SLT, cigarette, and e-cigarette advertisements. After each advertisement, boys were asked to recall what they remembered most. Coders identified recalls of the warning label, brand-relevant advertisement features, and risks associated with the product in responses. RESULTS: Participants were less likely to recall warnings in the cigarette vs. SLT (OR=0.30, p<0.001) and e-cigarette vs. SLT (OR=0.15, p<0.001) ads. Separate GEEs revealed that boys who recalled warnings were less likely to mention brand-relevant advertisement features (OR's<0.32, p's<0.001). Logistic regressions revealed that boys who recalled the warnings were more likely to mention risks associated with the products (OR's>3.50, p's<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Youth are more likely to recall large SLT warnings than small cigarette and e-cigarette warnings. Warning recall is associated with lower likelihood of recalling brand-relevant advertisement features and greater likelihood of mentioning product risks.

Effects of Pictorial Warning Labels for Cigarettes and Quit-Efficacy on Emotional Responses, Smoking Satisfaction, and Cigarette Consumption.

Background: Experimental research on pictorial warning labels for cigarettes has primarily examined immediate intentions to quit. Purpose: Here, we present the results of a clinical trial testing the impact on smoking during and after a 28-day period of naturalistic exposure to pictorial versus text-only warnings. Methods: Daily cigarette smokers (N = 244) at two sites in the USA were randomly assigned to receive their regular brand of cigarettes for 4 weeks with one of three warnings: (a) text-only, (b) pictures and text as proposed by FDA, or (c) the warnings proposed by FDA with additional text that elaborated on the risks of smoking. Analyses examined the effects of pictorial versus text-only warnings and self-efficacy for quitting on cigarette consumption during and 1 month after the trial as mediated by emotional and cognitive responses as well as satisfaction with smoking. Results: Stronger emotional responses to pictorial than text-only warnings predicted reduced satisfaction with smoking during the trial and lower cigarette consumption at follow-up among the majority of smokers who continued to smoke. Consistent with the efficacy-desire model, those with moderate efficacy reported the greatest reduction in consumption at follow-up. However, a small proportion of smokers (7%) who reported 7-day abstinence at follow-up did not exhibit a significant relation with self-efficacy. Conclusions: Pictorial warning labels proposed by FDA create unfavorable emotional reactions to smoking that predict reduced cigarette use compared to text alone, with even smokers low in self-efficacy exhibiting some reduction. Predictions that low self-efficacy smokers will respond unfavorably to warnings were not supported.

Cigarette graphic warning labels increase both risk perceptions and smoking myth endorsement.

OBJECTIVE: Cigarette graphic warning labels elicit negative emotion, which increases risk perceptions through multiple processes. We examined whether this emotion simultaneously affects motivated cognitions like smoking myth endorsement (e.g. 'exercise can undo the negative effects of smoking') and perceptions of cigarette danger versus other products. DESIGN: 736 adult and 469 teen smokers/vulnerable smokers viewed one of three warning label types (text-only, low emotion graphic or high emotion graphic) four times over two weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Emotional reactions to the warnings were reported during the first and fourth exposures. Participants reported how often they considered the warnings, smoking myth endorsement, risk perceptions and perceptions of cigarette danger relative to smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes. RESULTS: In structural equation models, emotional reactions influenced risk perceptions and smoking myth endorsement through two processes. Emotion acted as information about risk, directly increasing smoking risk perceptions and decreasing smoking myth endorsement. Emotion also acted as a spotlight, motivating consideration of the warning information. Warning consideration increased risk perceptions, but also increased smoking myth endorsement. Emotional reactions to warnings decreased perceptions of cigarette danger relative to other products. CONCLUSIONS: Emotional reactions to cigarette warnings increase smoking risk perceptions, but also smoking myth endorsement and misperceptions that cigarettes are less dangerous than potentially harm-reducing tobacco products.

Cigarette Graphic Warning Labels Are Not Created Equal: They Can Increase or Decrease Smokers' Quit Intentions Relative to Text-Only Warnings.

INTRODUCTION: Cigarette graphic-warning labels elicit negative emotion. Research suggests negative emotion drives greater risk perceptions and quit intentions through multiple processes. The present research compares text-only warning effectiveness to that of graphic warnings eliciting more or less negative emotion. METHODS: Nationally representative online panels of 736 adult smokers and 469 teen smokers/vulnerable smokers were randomly assigned to view one of three warning types (text-only, text with low-emotion images, or text with high-emotion images) four times over 2 weeks. Participants recorded their emotional reaction to the warnings (measured as arousal), smoking risk perceptions, and quit intentions. Primary analyses used structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Participants in the high-emotion condition reported greater emotional reaction than text-only participants (bAdult = 0.21; bTeen = 0.27, p's < .004); those in the low-emotion condition reported lower emotional reaction than text-only participants (bAdult = -0.18; bTeen = -0.22, p's < .018). Stronger emotional reaction was associated with increased risk perceptions in both samples (bAdult = 0.66; bTeen = 0.85, p's < .001) and greater quit intentions among adults (bAdult = 1.00, p < .001). Compared to text-only warnings, low-emotion warnings were associated with reduced risk perceptions and quit intentions whereas high-emotion warnings were associated with increased risk perceptions and quit intentions. CONCLUSION: Warning labels with images that elicit more negative emotional reaction are associated with increased risk perceptions and quit intentions in adults and teens relative to text-only warnings. However, graphic warnings containing images which evoke little emotional reaction can backfire and reduce risk perceptions and quit intentions versus text-only warnings. IMPLICATIONS: This research is the first to directly manipulate two emotion levels in sets of nine cigarette graphic warning images and compare them with text-only warnings. Among adult and teen smokers, high-emotion graphic warnings were associated with increased risk perceptions and quit intentions versus text-only warnings. Low-emotion graphic warnings backfired and tended to reduce risk perceptions and quit intentions versus text-only warnings. Policy makers should be aware that merely placing images on cigarette packaging is insufficient to increase smokers' risk perceptions and quit intentions. Low-emotion graphic warnings will not necessarily produce desired population-level benefits relative to text-only or high-emotion warnings.

Emotion in the Law and the Lab: The Case of Graphic Cigarette Warnings.

The decision in RJ Reynolds vs. FDA (2012) to invalidate FDA's proposed graphic health warnings was based in part on the reasoning that the proposed graphic warnings cued emotional responses and therefore could not be considered "factual." However, this reasoning demonstrated the courts' fundamental misunderstanding of current behavioral-science research. In contrast to the courts' artificial separation of emotions from fact, we synthesize and interpret relevant research in basic decision sciences and describe an evidence-based characterization of how emotions influence consumer decision making through multiple mechanisms. We then explore how behavioral research gets "lost in translation" in the legal process and recommend ways that behavioral scientists can work with attorneys to remedy this problem. In order for science-based tobacco regulation to survive legal challenges from the tobacco industry, courts must have access to and be able to understand and apply the relevant research. Accordingly, behavioral laboratory researchers must consider the courts as an additional audience when designing research and reporting results. Researchers wishing to influence policy should also work closely with public health lawyers to have the greatest impact on the legal system.

Graphic Warning Labels Elicit Affective and Thoughtful Responses from Smokers: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Observational research suggests that placing graphic images on cigarette warning labels can reduce smoking rates, but field studies lack experimental control. Our primary objective was to determine the psychological processes set in motion by naturalistic exposure to graphic vs. text-only warnings in a randomized clinical trial involving exposure to modified cigarette packs over a 4-week period. Theories of graphic-warning impact were tested by examining affect toward smoking, credibility of warning information, risk perceptions, quit intentions, warning label memory, and smoking risk knowledge. METHODS: Adults who smoked between 5 and 40 cigarettes daily (N = 293; mean age = 33.7), did not have a contra-indicated medical condition, and did not intend to quit were recruited from Philadelphia, PA and Columbus, OH. Smokers were randomly assigned to receive their own brand of cigarettes for four weeks in one of three warning conditions: text only, graphic images plus text, or graphic images with elaborated text. RESULTS: Data from 244 participants who completed the trial were analyzed in structural-equation models. The presence of graphic images (compared to text-only) caused more negative affect toward smoking, a process that indirectly influenced risk perceptions and quit intentions (e.g., image->negative affect->risk perception->quit intention). Negative affect from graphic images also enhanced warning credibility including through increased scrutiny of the warnings, a process that also indirectly affected risk perceptions and quit intentions (e.g., image->negative affect->risk scrutiny->warning credibility->risk perception->quit intention). Unexpectedly, elaborated text reduced warning credibility. Finally, graphic warnings increased warning-information recall and indirectly increased smoking-risk knowledge at the end of the trial and one month later. CONCLUSIONS: In the first naturalistic clinical trial conducted, graphic warning labels are more effective than text-only warnings in encouraging smokers to consider quitting and in educating them about smoking's risks. Negative affective reactions to smoking, thinking about risks, and perceptions of credibility are mediators of their impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01782053.

Stereotype validation: the effects of activating negative stereotypes after intellectual performance.

With regard to intellectual performance, a large body of research has shown that stigmatized group members may perform more poorly when negative, self-relevant stereotypes become activated prior to a task. However, no research to date has identified the potential ramifications of stereotype activation that happens after-rather than before-a person has finished performing. Six studies examined how postperformance stereotype salience may increase the certainty individuals have in evaluations of their own performance. In the current research, the accessibility of gender or racial stereotypes was manipulated after participants completed either a difficult math test (Studies 1-5) or a test of child-care knowledge (Study 6). Consistent with predictions, stereotype activation was found to increase the certainty that women (Studies 1, 2, 4, and 5), African Americans (Study 3), and men (Study 6) had toward negative evaluations of their own test performance. These effects emerged when performance-related perceptions were stereotype consistent rather than inconsistent (Studies 1-6) and were found to be most pronounced among those who were highly identified with the stereotyped group (Study 5). Furthermore, greater certainty-triggered by negative stereotypes-predicted lowered domain-relevant beliefs (Studies 1, 2, 3, and 6) and differential exposure to domain-relevant stimuli (Studies 4 and 5).

Source Credibility and Persuasion: The Role of Message Position in Self-Validation.

Highly credible communicators have been found to elicit greater confidence and attitudes that are based more on recipients' thoughts (i.e., self-validation) compared with non-credible sources. However, source credibility may produce different effects on thought confidence and persuasion depending on the position of an advocacy. When messages are proattitudinal, credible sources should initiate self-validation because recipients may be motivated to confirm (bolster) their existing views. Conversely, when appeals are counterattitudinal, recipients may be motivated to defend their opinions and disconfirm information. In these contexts, greater self-validation may emerge when a communicator lacks rather than possesses credibility. When a message was counterattitudinal and contained weak arguments, evidence of self-validation was found with low source credibility (Studies 1 and 2) and among participants high in defense motivation (Study 2). In response to strong, proattitudinal arguments, findings were consistent with high credibility producing self-validation when bolstering motivation was high (Study 3).

Source expertise and persuasion: the effects of perceived opposition or support on message scrutiny.

Compared to nonexperts, expert sources have been considered to elicit more processing of persuasive messages because of expectations that the information is likely to be valid or accurate. However, depending on the position of an advocacy, source expertise could activate other motives that may produce a very different relation from that found in past research. When messages are counterattitudinal (disagreeable), experts should motivate greater processing than nonexpert sources because of expectations that they will likely provide robust opposition to one's existing views. In contrast, when advocacies are proattitudinal (agreeable), nonexpert rather than expert sources should elicit more scrutiny because of perceptions that they will likely provide inadequate support to recipients' current views. Two studies offer evidence consistent with these predictions. Manipulations of source expertise created different expectations regarding the strength of opposition or support, and these perceptions accounted for effects of source expertise on the amount of message scrutiny.