Tobacco control · 2021
Role of affective reactivity induced by cigarette packaging including graphic warning labels: the CASA Study.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Stone Matthew, Strong David, Dimofte Claudiu, Brighton Elizabeth, Oratowski Jesica, Yang Tingyi, Alkuzweny Manar, Asslani Atean, Velasco Katherine, Skipworth Michael, Crespo Noe C, Hurst Samantha, Leas Eric C, Pulvers Kim, Pierce John P
Аннотация
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.
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.