The U.S. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) of 2009 paved the way for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to propose nine different graphic warning labels (GWLs) intended for prominent placement on the front and back of cigarette packs and on cigarette advertisements. Those GWLs were adjudicated as unconstitutional on the ground that they unnecessarily infringed tobacco companies' free speech without sufficiently advancing the government's public health interests. This study examines whether less extensive alternatives to the original full-color GWLs, including black-and-white GWLs and text-only options, have similar or divergent effects on visual attention, negative affect, and health risk beliefs. We used a mobile media research lab to conduct a randomized experiment with two populations residing in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities: biochemically confirmed adult smokers (N = 313) and middle school youth (N = 340). Results indicate that full-color GWLs capture attention for longer than black-and-white GWLs among both youth and adult smokers. Among adults, packages with GWLs (in either color or black-and-white) engendered more negative affect than those with text-only labels, while text-only produced greater negative affect than the packages with brand imagery only. Among youth, GWLs and text-only labels produced comparable levels of negative affect, albeit more so than brand imagery. We thus offer mixed findings related to the claim that a less extensive alternative could satisfy the government's compelling public health interest to reduce cigarette smoking rates.

No abstract

This research shows that 30% GWLs on cigarette packages increase negative affect relative to packages without front-of-package GWLs. Larger GWLs on cigarette packages (50% vs. 30%) increase visual attention to the warning and its pictorial content among low-SES smokers and at-risk youth but do not further increase negative affect. A 50% GWL increased adults' quit intention compared to no GWL at all, but we were underpowered to detect modest differences in quit intentions between a 50% and 30% GWL. Future work should thus continue to explore the boundary conditions under which relatively larger GWLs influence cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes.

Rationale The U.S. courts have blocked the implementation of graphic warning labels on cigarette packages (GWLs). This decision was based, in part, on the premise that GWLs are unnecessarily emotional and are meant to scare rather than inform consumers about smoking’s health effects. However, research in judgment and decision-making suggests these relationships are more complex. Objective In this paper, we drew on several theoretical frameworks that lead to competing hypotheses about the relationships between negative affect, health risk beliefs, and quit intentions (among adult smokers) or susceptibility to start smoking (among non-smoking youth). Method We tested these competing mediation models using data from two experiments with two populations each—adult smokers (N=313, 238) and primarily non-smoking middle-school youth (N=340, 237). Using mobile recruitment methods, we focused specifically on individuals from socioeconomically disadvantaged communities in rural and urban areas of the Northeastern U.S. Results The best fitting model across all four datasets was one in which label-induced negative affect (a) directly predicted intentions/susceptibility but also (b) indirectly predicted intentions/susceptibility via risk beliefs. Although mediation analyses did not demonstrate significant serial mediation effects of GWL exposure on intentions/susceptibility through negative affect then risk beliefs, there was some evidence that GWL exposure indirectly promoted adults’ quit intentions through negative affect. Additionally, negative affect consistently mediated the indirect effect of GWL exposure on strengthened risk beliefs among adults and youth. Conclusions These results speak to the importance of negative affect in directly motivating adult smokers’ quit intentions but also serving an informational function, directing adult smokers and non-smoking youth to accept the health risks of smoking.

No abstract