Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2015, 876–881 doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu253 Brief report Advance Access publication December 6, 2014
Brief report
Australian Smokers’ and Nonsmokers’ Exposure to Antismoking Warnings in Day-to-Day Life: A Pilot Study Downloaded from http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Pittsburgh on November 14, 2015
Natalie Schüz PhD, Stuart G. Ferguson PhD School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia Corresponding Author: Natalie Schüz, PhD, School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 34, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia. Telephone: 613-6226-4606; Fax: 613-6226-4816; E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract Introduction: Smokers and nonsmokers can encounter a variety of antismoking messages in their everyday life. Antismoking warnings often involve fear appeals to which particularly smokers may react in a defensive manner by avoiding or derogating the messages, or downplaying their personal risk. However, previous studies testing the effects of antismoking warnings have either been retrospective or lab-based, thus introducing potential recall biases and yielding limited ecological validity. We used ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to give an overview on the number, type, and locations where individuals encounter such messages and to examine their immediate reactions. Methods: In an EMA study, 33 smokers and 37 never-smokers logged every encounter with antismoking warnings during 2.5 weeks (1,237 participant days of monitoring). After randomly selected encounters, several markers of defensiveness were assessed. Results: On average, nonsmokers reported noticing significantly fewer warnings than smokers (M = 0.49/day vs. M = 2.14/day). Both groups saw the majority of warnings on cigarette packages. Smokers reported a significantly higher level of message derogation and a significantly lower level of message acceptance than nonsmokers. There were no differences in feelings of vulnerability between smokers and nonsmokers upon encountering the warnings. Conclusions: The overall number of encounters with antismoking warnings in people’s everyday life is relatively low, particularly among smokers. Smokers are likely to avoid messages and respond defensively, thus limiting their potential effectiveness.
Introduction Antismoking warnings are designed to promote cessation and to discourage uptake. However, in order to impact on smoking rates such messages need to be seen regularly and be interpreted in the way intended. Television ads and cigarette packages are the two main vehicles informing individuals about the risk of smoking.1 In order to maximize the effectiveness of messages, individuals should encounter them regularly (preferably ≥4/month).2–4 However, little is known about the number of encounters people actually have
with antismoking messages. Retrospective studies have assessed the extent—but not the actual number—to which individuals notice the warnings. A study on adolescents showed that among those who had seen cigarette packages in the last 30 days, only 62.6% of smokers and 42.1% of nonsmokers regularly noticed the warnings.5 Likewise, between 30%–80% of smokers in different countries (~50% in Australia) indicated they noticed warnings often/very often over the past month.6,7 In October 2012, Australia introduced plain cigarette packages (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011L02766).8 A key objective
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected].
876
Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 7
Method Participants Thirty-seven nonsmokers and 36 smokers were recruited for the study. To be eligible, participants had to be ≥18 years old. Smokers
had to smoke ≥10 cigarettes per day (CPD) and not be interested in quitting in the next 3 months; nonsmokers had to have smoked
Brief report
Australian Smokers’ and Nonsmokers’ Exposure to Antismoking Warnings in Day-to-Day Life: A Pilot Study Downloaded from http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Pittsburgh on November 14, 2015
Natalie Schüz PhD, Stuart G. Ferguson PhD School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia Corresponding Author: Natalie Schüz, PhD, School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 34, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia. Telephone: 613-6226-4606; Fax: 613-6226-4816; E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract Introduction: Smokers and nonsmokers can encounter a variety of antismoking messages in their everyday life. Antismoking warnings often involve fear appeals to which particularly smokers may react in a defensive manner by avoiding or derogating the messages, or downplaying their personal risk. However, previous studies testing the effects of antismoking warnings have either been retrospective or lab-based, thus introducing potential recall biases and yielding limited ecological validity. We used ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to give an overview on the number, type, and locations where individuals encounter such messages and to examine their immediate reactions. Methods: In an EMA study, 33 smokers and 37 never-smokers logged every encounter with antismoking warnings during 2.5 weeks (1,237 participant days of monitoring). After randomly selected encounters, several markers of defensiveness were assessed. Results: On average, nonsmokers reported noticing significantly fewer warnings than smokers (M = 0.49/day vs. M = 2.14/day). Both groups saw the majority of warnings on cigarette packages. Smokers reported a significantly higher level of message derogation and a significantly lower level of message acceptance than nonsmokers. There were no differences in feelings of vulnerability between smokers and nonsmokers upon encountering the warnings. Conclusions: The overall number of encounters with antismoking warnings in people’s everyday life is relatively low, particularly among smokers. Smokers are likely to avoid messages and respond defensively, thus limiting their potential effectiveness.
Introduction Antismoking warnings are designed to promote cessation and to discourage uptake. However, in order to impact on smoking rates such messages need to be seen regularly and be interpreted in the way intended. Television ads and cigarette packages are the two main vehicles informing individuals about the risk of smoking.1 In order to maximize the effectiveness of messages, individuals should encounter them regularly (preferably ≥4/month).2–4 However, little is known about the number of encounters people actually have
with antismoking messages. Retrospective studies have assessed the extent—but not the actual number—to which individuals notice the warnings. A study on adolescents showed that among those who had seen cigarette packages in the last 30 days, only 62.6% of smokers and 42.1% of nonsmokers regularly noticed the warnings.5 Likewise, between 30%–80% of smokers in different countries (~50% in Australia) indicated they noticed warnings often/very often over the past month.6,7 In October 2012, Australia introduced plain cigarette packages (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011L02766).8 A key objective
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected].
876
Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 7
Method Participants Thirty-seven nonsmokers and 36 smokers were recruited for the study. To be eligible, participants had to be ≥18 years old. Smokers
had to smoke ≥10 cigarettes per day (CPD) and not be interested in quitting in the next 3 months; nonsmokers had to have smoked
