2013
DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050736
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of variant descriptors on the potential effectiveness of plain packaging

Abstract: Descriptor labels on cigarette packs, can affect smokers' perceptions of the characteristics of the cigarettes contained within. Therefore, they are a potential means by which product differentiation can occur. In particular, having variants differing in perceived strength while not differing in deliveries of harmful ingredients is particularly problematic. Any packaging policy should take into account the possibility that variant descriptors can mislead smokers into making inappropriate product attributions.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
16
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
1
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, although the online exposure context, sample focus, stimuli tested, measures used, and parental and adolescent consents (to meet IRB requirements) are consistent with prior tobacco warning reseach,15 22 they could serve to limit the generalisability of findings. There certainly are other warning themes to study beyond mouth cancer, as well as for other countries, smoking frequencies/situations46 (eg, progression from experimenters to any 30-day use to daily smokers), plain pack variations,33 brand variant descriptors (eg, colour, flavour, filter),49 and other brands and tobacco products (eg, e-cigarettes, hookah, cigars, cigarillos, smokeless tobacco) 50. Also, mediation analysis may reveal interesting pathways to quitting from the plain packs and GHWs.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, although the online exposure context, sample focus, stimuli tested, measures used, and parental and adolescent consents (to meet IRB requirements) are consistent with prior tobacco warning reseach,15 22 they could serve to limit the generalisability of findings. There certainly are other warning themes to study beyond mouth cancer, as well as for other countries, smoking frequencies/situations46 (eg, progression from experimenters to any 30-day use to daily smokers), plain pack variations,33 brand variant descriptors (eg, colour, flavour, filter),49 and other brands and tobacco products (eg, e-cigarettes, hookah, cigars, cigarillos, smokeless tobacco) 50. Also, mediation analysis may reveal interesting pathways to quitting from the plain packs and GHWs.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, we did not use a simple random sample; however, following similar studies, the sample was randomly selected from the panel and was not chosen because of any attribute related to the research objectives 17. Second, we examined a specific age demographic; although there is no a priori reason to expect responses to differ across other age groups, replication studies are required to test this assumption.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent experimental work found that descriptors affected smokers’ perceptions of taste, tar and nicotine delivery and quality 17. However, this earlier study was undertaken before plain packaging's design had been confirmed and thus could not use the stimuli specified in the Australian legislation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Now, as countries move towards standardised packaging, tobacco companies appear to increasingly use descriptors to communicate a brand's attributes to the public5 6 and sell their products to target audiences 6–8. In 2009, the US banned companies from using ‘low’, ‘light’, ‘mild’ and ‘similar descriptors’, except on Food and Drug Administration-designated modified-risk tobacco products 9.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%