Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in:

10-06-2022 | Brief Report

Is a cigarette brand with fewer chemicals safer? Public perceptions in two national US experiments

Auteurs: M. Justin Byron, Allison J. Lazard, Noel T. Brewer

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Behavioral Medicine | Uitgave 5/2022

Abstract

By law, the US government must publicly display the quantities of harmful chemicals in cigarettes by brand, but doing so could mislead people to incorrectly think that some cigarettes are safer than others. We evaluated formats for presenting chemical quantities side-by-side to see if any were misleading. We recruited US convenience (n = 604) and probability (n = 1440) samples. We randomized participants to 1 of 5 formats: checklist, point estimates, ranges, a visual risk indicator, or no-quantity control. Participants were far more likely to incorrectly endorse one cigarette brand as riskier than the other in the checklist (65% made error), point estimate (67–70%), range (64–67%), or risk indicator (68–75%) conditions as compared to the no-quantity control (1%, all p < .001). Among smokers, erroneous risk perceptions mediated the impact of quantity format on interest in switching brands. People viewing chemical quantities for cigarette brands side-by-side misperceived differences in risk, suggesting limited public health value of this information.

vorige artikel A novel psychometric approach to assessing intersectional hiv stigma: the geometric intersectional stigma scales

volgende artikel Worry as a mechanism of the relationship between perceived new knowledge and discouragement to smoke elicited from graphic cigarette warnings

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Baig, S. A., Byron, M. J., Lazard, A. J., & Brewer, N. T. (2018). “Organic”, “natural”, and “additive-free” cigarettes: Comparing the effects of advertising claims and disclaimers on perceptions of harm. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nty036 CrossRef

Berman, M. L., Byron, M. J., Hemmerich, N., Lindblom, E. N., Lazard, A. J., Peters, E., & Brewer, N. T. (2017). Communicating tobacco product information to the public. Food and Drug Law Journal, 72, 386–405. PubMedPubMedCentral

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley. CrossRef

Byron, M. J., Lazard, A. J., Peters, E., Vu, H., Schmidt, A., & Brewer, N. T. (2018). Effective formats for communicating risks from cigarette smoke chemicals. Tobacco Regulatory Science, 4, 16–29. CrossRef

Czoli, C. D., & Hammond, D. (2014). Cigarette packaging: Youth perceptions of “natural” cigarettes, filter references, and contraband tobacco. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.07.016 CrossRef

Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Public Law 111-31, 123 Statute 1776 (June 22, 2009). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ31/pdf/PLAW-111publ31.pdf

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.

Hall, M. G., Ribisl, K. M., & Brewer, N. T. (2014). Smokers’ and nonsmokers’ beliefs about harmful tobacco constituents: Implications for FDA communication efforts. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 16, 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntt158 CrossRef

Hammond, D., & White, C. M. (2012). Improper disclosure: Tobacco packaging and emission labelling regulations. Public Health, 126, 613–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2012.03.012 CrossRefPubMed

Hsee, C. K., & Zhang, J. (2010). General evaluability theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 343–355. CrossRef

Kozlowski, L. T., Goldberg, M. E., Yost, B. A., White, E. L., Sweeney, C. T., & Pillitteri, J. L. (1998). Smokers’ misperceptions of light and ultra-light cigarettes may keep them smoking. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 15, 9–16. CrossRef

Lazard, A. J., Byron, M. J., Vu, H., Peters, E., Schmidt, A., & Brewer, N. T. (2019). Website designs for communicating about chemicals in cigarette smoke. Health Communication, 34, 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1407276 CrossRefPubMed

MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Morgan, J., Byron, M., Baig, S., Stepanov, I., & Brewer, N. (2017). How people think about the chemicals in cigarette smoke: A systematic review. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 40, 553–564. CrossRef

Peters, E., Dieckmann, N. F., Vastfjall, D., Mertz, C. K., Slovic, P., & Hibbard, J. H. (2009). Bringing meaning to numbers: The impact of evaluative categories on decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016978 CrossRefPubMed

Rodgman, A., & Perfetti, T. A. (2013). The chemical components of tobacco and tobacco smoke (2nd ed.). CRC Press.

Tessman, G. K. (2013, 15 August). Consumer knowledge and perceptions about harmful and potentially harmful constituents in tobacco and tobacco smoke: Findings from FDA focus groups Risk Communication Advisory Committee & Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee Joint Meeting, Silver Spring, MD.

U.S. Deptartment of Health and Human Services. (2014). The health consequences of smoking: 50 years of progress : A report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Smoking and Health.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2012). Harmful and potentially harmful constituents in tobacco products and tobacco smoke: Established list, 20034–20037.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2013). A food labeling guide: Guidance for industry. Office of Nutrition, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2014). Administrative supplements for tobacco regulatory research on the public display of harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHC) information (Admin Supp). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Tobacco Products. Retrieved October 26 from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-15-046.html

WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Conference of Parties. (2012). Partial guidelines for implementation of articles 9 and 10 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (Revised 24 June 2013). https://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/Guideliness_Articles_9_10_rev_240613.pdf

World Health Organization. (2003). WHO framework convention on tobacco control.

Zhang, Y., Chen, J. T., Wang, S., Andrews, J. C., & Levy, A. (2017). How do consumers use nutrition labels on food products in the United States? Topics in Clinical Nutrition, 32, 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1097/tin.0000000000000101 CrossRef

Titel: Is a cigarette brand with fewer chemicals safer? Public perceptions in two national US experiments
Auteurs: M. Justin Byron
Allison J. Lazard
Noel T. Brewer
Publicatiedatum: 10-06-2022
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Behavioral Medicine / Uitgave 5/2022
Print ISSN: 0160-7715
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-3521
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-022-00329-y

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2022

Division of Type 1 Diabetes Responsibility in Latinx and Non-Latinx White Mother-Adolescent Dyads

A spotlight on avoidance coping to manage fear of recurrence among breast cancer survivors in an eHealth intervention

Impacts of two behavior change interventions on determinants of medication adherence: process evaluation applying the health action process approach and habit theory alongside a randomized controlled trial

A novel psychometric approach to assessing intersectional hiv stigma: the geometric intersectional stigma scales

Partner effects on caregiver and care recipient depressed mood: heterogeneity across health condition and relationship type

Medical avoidance among marginalized groups: the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic