Effectiveness of Cigarette Warning Labels: Examining the Impact of Graphics, Message Framing, and Temporal Framing

Abstract

This study examines the effectiveness of cigarette warning labels, with a specific focus on the impact of graphics, message framing (gain vs. loss), and temporal framing (present-oriented vs. future-oriented) among nonsmokers in the United States. A controlled experiment (N = 253) revealed that graphic warning labels were perceived as more effective, stronger in argument strength, and were generally liked more compared to text-only labels. In addition, loss-framed labels, compared to their gain-framed counterparts, were rated higher in perceived effectiveness, argument strength, and liking. No significant difference was observed between the present- and future-oriented frames on any of the dependent variables. Implications of the findings for antismoking communication efforts are discussed.

Short and Sweet: The Persuasive Effects of Message Framing and Temporal Context in Antismoking Warning Labels

“…This follows from the sign effect (Thaler, 1981); that is, the subjective value of gains declines quite rapidly over time, whereas for losses this is much less the case, minimizing the advantage of gains over losses for long-term health outcomes. Other more recent studies (De Bruijn & Budding, 2016;De Bruijn, Spaans, Jansen, & van't Riet, 2016) have found interactions between message framing and temporal context that counter the findings by Gerend and Cullen (2008), and still others have been unable to find significant interactions between message framing and temporal context (Bernstein, Wood, & Erickson, 2016;Nan, Zhao, Yang, & Iles, 2014).…”

Temporal Consequences, Message Framing, and Consideration of Future Consequences: Persuasion Effects on Adult Fruit Intake Intention and Resolve

“…Similar effects were obtained for recycling intentions in adults (White, MacDonnell, & Dahl, 2011) and fruit intake intentions in undergraduate students (Hing Lo et al, 2012). In contrast, other research either has failed to detect an interaction between message frame and temporal context (Bernstein et al, 2016;Nan et al, 2015) or has found opposite results (Gerend & Cullen, 2008). For instance, in a study on alcohol consumption in undergraduate students, Gerend and Cullen (2008) found that short-term consequences were only persuasive when combined with gain-framed messages.…”

“…Nevertheless, outcomes in message framing typically compare positive with negative consequences rather than short-term consequences with long-term consequences. To our knowledge, only a handful of studies have investigated how temporal context influences intentions (Bernstein, Wood, & Erickson, 2016;Dimmock, Jackson, Clear, & Law, 2013;Gerend & Cullen, 2008;Nan, Zhao, Yang, & Iles, 2015;Orbell & Kyriakaki, 2008) and, to a lesser extent, how temporal context interacts with message frame to influence intentions (Bernstein et al, 2016;De Bruijn, Spaans, Jansen, & Van 't Riet, 2016;Gerend & Cullen, 2008;Nan et al, 2015;Orbell & Kyriakaki, 2008). Only one study has investigated how temporal context interacts with message frame to influence behavioral expectations (Hing Lo et al, 2012), and no study has focused on resolve outcomes.…”

“…That is, framing effects only occur in adolescents when losses are described in short-term outcomes (De Bruijn et al, 2016). For adults (as per the present study) lossframed (vs. gain-framed) messages can be combined with shortterm (vs. long-term) consequences to be persuasive (White et al, 2011), whereas evidence from young adult undergraduate students is mixed (Bernstein et al, 2016;Gerend & Cullen, 2008;Nan et al, 2015). More research in diverse age groups is therefore needed to better understand message framing and temporal context effects.…”

“…In three other CFC studies (Orbell & Hagger, 2006;Orbell & Kyriakaki, 2008;Orbell, Perugini, & Rakow, 2004), temporal context was combined with both positive and negative consequences of action (i.e., applying sunscreen prevents skin cancer later in life but also takes time, takes effort, and costs money now), so omitting the tenets of message framing theory (in which gains of actions are compared with losses of inaction). Other studies on message frame and temporal context have not incorporated CFC dispositions (Bernstein et al, 2016;De Bruijn et al, 2016;Gerend & Cullen, 2008;Hing Lo et al, 2012;Nan et al, 2015;White et al, 2011).…”