Objective To identify whether three types of cigarette pack designs, including three versions of graphic warning label (GWL) plain packs, one GWL absent and branding absent pack (blank) and the smoker’s own GWL absent and branding present pack (US), elicit different valence, type and levels of affect.
Design US daily smokers (n=324) were asked to handle each of the five pack types and ‘think aloud’ their reactions. To avoid a muted familiarity response, exposure to their own US pack followed exposure to at least one GWL plain pack. Reactions were scored on a reactivity scale (−3 to +3) and the text was coded for speech polarity (−1 to +1) and emotive word frequency.
Results Reactivity scores had excellent inter-rater reliability (agreement ≥86%; intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.89) and were correlated with speech polarity (r=0.21–0.37, p<0.001). When considering their US pack, approximately two-thirds of smokers had a low (31.5%) to medium (34.6%) positive response (reactivity=1.29; polarity=0.14) with expressed feelings of joy and trust. Blank packaging prompted a largely (65.4%) neutral response (reactivity=0.03; polarity=0.00). The gangrenous foot GWL provoked mostly medium (46.9%) to high (48.1%) negative responses (reactivity=−2.44; polarity=−0.20), followed by neonatal baby (reactivity=−1.85; polarity=−0.10) and throat cancer (reactivity=−1.76; polarity=−0.08) warnings. GWLs varied in their elicitation of disgust, anger, fear and sadness.
Conclusion Initial reactions to GWL packs, a blank pack, and smokers’ current US pack reflected negative, neutral, and positive affect, respectively. Different versions of the GWL pack elicited different levels and types of immediate negative affect.
- packaging and labelling
- public policy
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. Deidentified data and a measures codebook will be made available on request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors DS and JPP were co-principal investigators responsible for the study and data collection. KP was co-investigator responsible for data collection. MS, SH, DS and JPP helped to conceptualise the study. MS conducted the analyses, prepared the tables and figures, and wrote the majority of the manuscript with the help of JPP and DS. All coauthors aided in interpreting the analysis and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. DS and MS had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All authors approved the manuscript.
Funding This project was supported in part by National Cancer Institute Grant: R01-DA033296 and the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program Grant: 28DT-0005.
Disclaimer The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NCI or TRDRP.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.