Adolescents’ and adults’ perceptions of ‘Natural’, ‘Organic’ and ‘additive-free’ cigarettes, and the required disclaimers

Tobacco Control

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 517-520

  Justin Byron, M ^a   Baig, Sabeeh A ^a   Moracco, Kathryn E ^a   Brewer, Noel T ^a  

^a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ADVERTIZING; CONSUMER; CONTENT ANALYSIS; DNA TRANSCRIPTION; FEMALE; GENETIC TRANSCRIPTION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERCEPTION; SMOKE; SMOKING; ADVERTISING; ANALYSIS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TOBACCO; TOBACCO INDUSTRY; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ADVERTISING AS TOPIC; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; SMOKERS; SMOKING; TOBACCO INDUSTRY; TOBACCO PRODUCTS; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84954285323     PISSN: 09644563     EISSN: 14683318     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052560     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. National Cancer Institute. Risks associated with smoking cigarettes with low machine-measured yields of tar and nicotine. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 13. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, NIH Pub No. 02-5074, 2001.
2. Etter JF, Kozlowski LT, Perneger TV. What smokers believe about light and ultralight cigarettes. Prev Med 2003;36:92-8.
3. Gilpin EA, Emery S, White MM, et al. Does tobacco industry marketing of ‘light’ cigarettes give smokers a rationale for postponing quitting? Nicotine Tob Res 2002;4(Suppl 2):S147-55.
4. Shiffman S, Pillitteri JL, Burton SL, et al. Smokers’ beliefs about “Light” and “Ultra Light” cigarettes. Tob Control 2001;10(Suppl 1):i17-23.
5. Scollo M, Occleston J, Bayly M, et al. Tobacco product developments coinciding with the implementation of plain packaging in Australia. Tob Control 2015;24(e1): e116-22.
6. Borland R, Savvas S. The effects of variant descriptors on the potential effectiveness of plain packaging. Tob Control 2014;23:58-63.
7. Hoek J, Gendall P, Eckert C, et al. Effects of brand variants on smokers’ choice behaviours and risk perceptions. Tob Control 2016;25:160-5.
8. Greenland SJ. Cigarette brand variant portfolio strategy and the use of colour in a darkening market. Tob Control 2015;24(e1):e65-71.
9. 111th Congress of the United States of America. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Public Law 111 -31, 123 Statute 1776, June 22, 2009. Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ31/pdf/PLAW-111publ31.pdf (accessed 17 Nov 2015).
10. World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva: WHO Document Production Services, 2003.
11. Agaku IT, Omaduvie UT, Filippidis FT, et al. Cigarette design and marketing features are associated with increased smoking susceptibility and perception of reduced harm among smokers in 27 EU countries. Tob Control 2016;24: e233-40.
12. Czoli CD, Hammond D. Cigarette packaging: Youth perceptions of “natural” cigarettes, filter references, and contraband tobacco. J Adolesc Health 2014;54:33-9.
13. Arnett JJ. Winston’s “No Additives” campaign: “straight up”? “no bull”? Public Health Rep 1999;114:522-7.
14. Kelly KJ, Manning K. The effects of natural cigarette claims on adolescents’ brand-related beliefs, attitudes, and intentions. J Health Commun 2014;19:1064-75.
15. McDaniel PA, Malone RE. “I always thought they were all pure tobacco”: American smokers’ perceptions of “natural” cigarettes and tobacco industry advertising strategies. Tob Control 2007;16:e7.
16. Hughner R, McDonagh P, Prothero A, et al. Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. J Consum Behav 2007;6:94-110.
17. Hoek J, Roling N, Holdsworth D. Ethical claims and labelling: an analysis of consumers’ beliefs and choice behaviours. J Mark Manag 2013;29:772-92.
18. European Commission. Revision of the tobacco products directive, 2014 (2014/40/EU). 2014.
19. Craver R. Reynolds’ super-premium cigarette taking off. Winston-Salem Journal 22 February 2015.
20. Masiero M, Lucchiari C, Pravettoni G. Personal fable: optimistic bias in cigarette smokers. Int J High Risk Behav Addict 2015;4:e20939.
21. Derby B, Levy A. Effects of strength of science disclaimers on the communication impacts of health claims. US Food and Drug Administration, Division of Social Sciences. Working Paper. 2005(1).
22. Kesselheim AS, Connolly J, Rogers J, et al. Mandatory disclaimers on dietary supplements do not reliably communicate the intended issues. Health Aff (Millwood) 2015;34:438-46.
23. Green KC, Armstrong JS. Evidence on the effects of mandatory disclaimers in advertising. J Public Policy Mark 2012;31:293-304.
24. Pierce JP, Choi WS, Gilpin EA, et al. Validation of susceptibility as a predictor of which adolescents take up smoking in the United States. Health Psychol 1996;15:355-61.
25. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health topic data guide: smoking status. Secondary Health topic data guide: Smoking status. http://dhds.cdc.gov/guides/healthtopics/indicator?I=smokingstatus
26. Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. 2nd edn. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2009.
27. Jacoby J, Szybillo GJ. Why disclaimers fail. Trademark Rep 1994;84: 224-44.
28. Wyer RS, Srull TK. Memory and cognition in its social context. New York: Psychology Press, 1989.
29. Perloff RM. The dynamics of persuasion: communication and attitudes in the 21st century. 2nd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003.
30. Peters E, Lipkus I, Diefenbach MA. The functions of affect in health communications and in the construction of health preferences. J Commun 2006;56: S140-62.