Cited by 128Smoking Behavior and CessationBehavioral Health and InterventionsGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology

Mediational pathways of the impact of cigarette warning labels on quit attempts

Open access
Yong, Hua-Hie, Borland, Ron, Thrasher, James F., Thompson, Mary E., Nagelhout, Gera E., Fong, Geoffrey T., Hammond, David, Cummings, K. Michael·2014·Health Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test and develop, using structural equation modeling, a robust model of the mediational pathways through which health warning labels exert their influence on smokers' subsequent quitting behavior. METHOD: Data come from the International Tobacco Control Four-Country Survey, a longitudinal cohort study conducted in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Waves 5-6 data (n = 4,988) were used to calibrate the hypothesized model of warning label impact on subsequent quit attempts via a set of policy-specific and general psychosocial mediators. The finalized model was validated using Waves 6-7 data (n = 5065). RESULTS: As hypothesized, warning label salience was positively associated with thoughts about risks of smoking stimulated by the warnings (β = .58, p < .001), which in turn were positively related to increased worry about negative outcomes of smoking (β = .52, p < .001); increased worry in turn predicted stronger intention to quit (β = .39, p < .001), which was a strong predictor of subsequent quit attempts (β = .39, p < .001). This calibrated model was successfully replicated using Waves 6-7 data. CONCLUSION: Health warning labels seem to influence future quitting attempts primarily through their ability to stimulate thoughts about the risks of smoking, which in turn help to raise smoking-related health concerns, which lead to stronger intentions to quit, a known key predictor of future quit attempts for smokers. By making warning labels more salient and engaging, they should have a greater chance to change behavior.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/hea0000056

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A recent longitudinal study found that increased attention to cigarette pack warnings led to greater cognitive elaboration, which ultimately predicted quit attempts via mediation through worry and quit intentions.

    “A recent longitudinal study found that increased attention to cigarette pack warnings led to greater cognitive elaboration, which ultimately predicted quit attempts (via mediation through worry and quit intentions).81”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yong, H.-H., Borland, R., Thrasher, J. F., Thompson, M. E., Nagelhout, G. E., Fong, G. T., Hammond, D., & Cummings, K. M.
Affiliations
  • Cancer Council Victoria (AU)
  • University of South Carolina (US)
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
Venue
Health Psychology
Published
2014-11
Volume
33
Issue
11
Pages
1410-1420
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
OpenAlex
W2162206994
Cited by
128
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 4
FWCI
10.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. National Cancer Institute (R01 CA 100362, P50 CA111236, P01 CA138389)
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Grant 045734)
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (57897, 79551)
  • National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (265903, 450110, APP1005922)
  • Cancer Research United Kingdom (C312/A3726)
  • Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative (014578)
  • Centre for Behavioural Research and Program Evaluation
  • National Cancer Institute of Canada/Canadian Cancer Society
  • UICC International Cancer Technology Transfer
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Keywords
cigarette warning labels, smoking cessation, quit attempts, risk perception, turnover intention, tobacco control, smokers
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Australia, Canada, Data Collection, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Product Labeling, Smoking, United States, Cohort Studies, Smoking Cessation, Intention, Young Adult, Tobacco Products

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review