Graphic cigarette pack warnings do not produce more negative implicit evaluations of smoking compared to text-only warnings

PLoS One. 2018 Mar 15;13(3):e0194627. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194627. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

Graphic warnings (GWs) on cigarette packs are widely used internationally with the aim of reducing smoking behavior. In the current study, we investigated whether GWs influence implicit evaluations of smoking, a potential moderator of smoking behavior, as measured with an Implicit Association Test (IAT). Results showed that viewing a GW did not produce more negative implicit evaluations of smoking for daily smokers, occasional smokers, or non-smokers, compared to viewing a text-only warning. If anything, effects were in the direction of evaluations of smoking being more positive after certain participants (i.e., daily and occasional smokers) viewed a GW. We also did not find any beneficial effects of GWs on explicit evaluations of smoking. These results contrast with the observation that non-smokers and occasional smokers (but not daily smokers) believed that GWs would be more effective than the text-only warnings. We discuss implications and limitations of these findings and provide recommendations for improving the effectiveness of cigarette pack warnings on implicit evaluations.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Adult
  • Attitude to Health*
  • Computer Graphics
  • Female
  • Health Communication / methods
  • Humans
  • Intention*
  • Male
  • Medical Illustration*
  • Middle Aged
  • Persuasive Communication
  • Product Labeling / methods*
  • Rejection, Psychology
  • Smoking / epidemiology
  • Smoking / psychology*
  • Smoking Cessation / methods
  • Smoking Prevention / methods
  • Tobacco Products
  • Visual Perception / physiology
  • Writing*
  • Young Adult

Grants and funding

This work was supported by the Scientific Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO16/PDO/201) to [PVD] and Ghent University (Methusalem Grant BOF16/MET_V/002) and the Belgian Science Policy Office (IUAPVII/33) to [JDH]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.