Desire versus Efficacy in Smokers' Paradoxical Reactions to Pictorial Health Warnings for Cigarettes

PLoS ONE

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Romer, Daniel ^a   Peters, Ellen ^b   Strasser, Andrew A ^a,c   Langleben, Daniel ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIFESTYLE MODIFICATION; MALE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PREDICTION; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SELF CONCEPT; SMOKING CESSATION PROGRAM; SMOKING HABIT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BEHAVIOR, ADDICTIVE; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; EMOTIONS; FEMALE; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; SMOKING; SMOKING CESSATION; TOBACCO PRODUCTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84873843077     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054937     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL, (2004) Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA 291(10): 1238-1245.
2. Mathers CD, Loncar D, (2006) Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS ONE 3(11): e442.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1989) Reducing the health consequences of smoking: 25 years of progress. A report of the Surgeon General. CDC 89-8411. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2012) Trends in current cigarette smoking among high school students and adults, United States, 1965-2011. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/index.htm. Accessed 2012 Dec 21.
5. U.S. Department of Heath and Human Services (2012) Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
6. Zhu S, Lee M, Shuang Y, Gamst A, Wolfson T, (2012) Interventions to increase smoking cessation at the population level: How much progress has been made in the last two decades? Tobacco Control 21: 110-118.
7. Lynch BS, Bonnie RJ, editors (1994) Growing up tobacco free, preventing nicotine addiction in children and youths. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
8. Robinson RJ, Killen JD, (1997) Do cigarette warning labels reduce smoking? Paradoxical effects among adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 151: 267-272.
9. Hammond D, (2011) Health warning messages on tobacco products: A review. Tobacco Control 20: 327-337.
10. Peters E, Romer D, Slovic P, Jamieson KH, Wharfield L, et al. (2007) The impact and acceptability of Canadian-style cigarette warning labels among U.S. smokers and nonsmokers. Nicotine Tob Res 9(4): 473-81.
11. Borland R, Wilson N, Fong GT, Hammond D, Cummings KM, et al. (2009) Impact of graphic and text warnings on cigarette packs: Findings from four countries over five years. Tobacco Control 18(5): 358-64.
12. Borland R, Yong HH, Wilson N, Fong GT, Hammond D, et al. (2009) How reactions to cigarette packet health warnings influence quitting: Findings from the ITC four-country survey. Addiction (4): 669-75.
13. U. S. Food and Drug Administration. Experimental study of graphic cigarette warning labels, final results report, December 2010- [required warnings for cigarette packages and advertisements; research report] re FDA-2010-N-0568-0006. 2011(6/27). Available: http://www.regulations.gov/#documentDetailD=FDA-2010-N-0568-0008. Accessed 2012 Dec 21.
14. Annenberg Public Policy Center. FDA study underestimates impact of graphic tobacco warning labels, Annenberg Public Policy Center research shows. 2011(6/27/11). Available: http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/NewsDetails.aspx?myId=410. Accessed 2012 Dec 21.
15. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (2010) Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1988) The health consequences of smoking: Nicotine addiction. A report of the surgeon general. CDC 88-8406. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
17. Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers RW (1997) Protection motivation theory. In: Gochman DS, editor. Handbook of Health Behavior Research I: Personal and social determinants. New York, NY: Plenum Press. 113-132.
18. Janz N, Becker M, (1984) The health belief model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly 11(1): 1-47.
19. Volkow ND, Fowler JS, (2000) Addiction, a disease of compulsion and drive: Involvement of the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex 10: 318-325.
20. Field M, Cox WM, (2008) Attentional bias in addictive behaviors: A review of its development, causes, and consequences. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 97: 1-20.
21. Berridge KC, Robinson TE, (2003) Parsing reward. Trends Neurosci 26: 507-513.
22. Everitt BJ, Robbins TW, (2005) Neural systems of reinforcement for drug addiction: From actions to habits of compulsion. Nat Neurosci 8(11): 1481-1489.
23. Belin D, Jonkman S, Dickinson A, Robbins TW, Everitt BJ, (2008) Parallel and interactive learning processes within the basal ganglia: Relevance for the understanding of addiction. Behavioural Brain Res 199: 89-102.
24. Lubman DI, Tucell M, Pantelis C, (2004) Addiction, a condition of compulsive behavior? Neuroimaging and neuropsychological evidence of inhibitory dysregulation. Addiction 99: 1491-1502.
25. Koob GF, Volkow ND, (2010) Neurocircuitry of addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology Reviews 35: 217-238.
26. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011) Quitting smoking among adults-United States, 2001-2010. MMWR 60(44): 1513-1519.
27. Cutler D, (2008) Are we finally winning the war on cancer? Journal of Economic Perspectives 22(4): 3-26.
28. Salzman CD, Fusi S, (2010) Emotion, cognition, and mental state representation in amygdala and prefrontal cortex. Annu Rev Neurosci 33: 173-202.
29. Norman GJ, Norris CJ, Gollan J, Ito TA, Hawkley LC, et al. (2011) Current emotion research in psychophysiology: The neurobiology of evaluative bivalence. Emotion Review 3(3): 349-359.
30. Bandura A, (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84: 191-215.
31. Nagengast B, Marsh HW, Scalas LF, Xu MK, Trautwein U, (2011) Who took the "X" out of expectancy-value theory? A psychological mystery, a substantive-methodological synergy, and a cross-national generalization. Psychological Science 22(8): 1058-1066.
32. Ericcson KA, Ward P, (2007) Capturing the naturally occurring superior performance of experts in the laboratory. Current Directions in Psychological Science 16(6): 346-350.
33. West R (2006) Theory of addiction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
34. Romer D, Jamieson P, Ahem RK (2001) The catch-22 of smoking and qutting. In: Slovic P, editor. Smoking: Risk, Perception, & Policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 216-228.
35. Research Now (2012) Research panels. Available: http://www.researchnow.com/en-US.aspx. Accessed 2012 Dec 21.
36. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011) Vital signs: Current cigarette smoking among adults aged >18 years-United States, 2005-2010. MMWR 60(35): 1207-1212.
37. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (1990) The health benefits of smoking cessation: A report of the Surgeon General. CDC 90-8416. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
38. Hyland A, Levy DT, Rezaishiraz H, Hughes JR, Bauer JE, et al. (2005) Reduction in amount smoked predicts future cessation. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 19(2): 221-225.
39. Janis IL, Feshbach S, (1953) Effects of fear-arousing communications. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 48(1): 78-92.
40. Witte K, Allen M, (2000) A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ Behav 27(5): 591-615.
41. Janis IL, Terwilliger RF, (1962) An experimental study of psychological resistance to fear-arousing communications. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 65: 403-410.
42. Kessels LTE, Ruiter RAC, Jansma BM, (2010) Increased attention but more efficient disengagement: Neuroscientific evidence for defensive processing of threatening health information. Health Psychology 29(4): 346-354.