Cited by 142Smoking Behavior and CessationBehavioral Health and InterventionsSafety Warnings and Signage

Graphic Warning Labels Elicit Affective and Thoughtful Responses from Smokers: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Evans, Abigail T., Peters, Ellen, Strasser, Andrew A., Emery, Lydia F., Sheerin, Kaitlin M., Romer, Daniel·2015·PLOS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Observational research suggests that placing graphic images on cigarette warning labels can reduce smoking rates, but field studies lack experimental control. Our primary objective was to determine the psychological processes set in motion by naturalistic exposure to graphic vs. text-only warnings in a randomized clinical trial involving exposure to modified cigarette packs over a 4-week period. Theories of graphic-warning impact were tested by examining affect toward smoking, credibility of warning information, risk perceptions, quit intentions, warning label memory, and smoking risk knowledge. METHODS: Adults who smoked between 5 and 40 cigarettes daily (N = 293; mean age = 33.7), did not have a contra-indicated medical condition, and did not intend to quit were recruited from Philadelphia, PA and Columbus, OH. Smokers were randomly assigned to receive their own brand of cigarettes for four weeks in one of three warning conditions: text only, graphic images plus text, or graphic images with elaborated text. RESULTS: Data from 244 participants who completed the trial were analyzed in structural-equation models. The presence of graphic images (compared to text-only) caused more negative affect toward smoking, a process that indirectly influenced risk perceptions and quit intentions (e.g., image->negative affect->risk perception->quit intention). Negative affect from graphic images also enhanced warning credibility including through increased scrutiny of the warnings, a process that also indirectly affected risk perceptions and quit intentions (e.g., image->negative affect->risk scrutiny->warning credibility->risk perception->quit intention). Unexpectedly, elaborated text reduced warning credibility. Finally, graphic warnings increased warning-information recall and indirectly increased smoking-risk knowledge at the end of the trial and one month later. CONCLUSIONS: In the first naturalistic clinical trial conducted, graphic warning labels are more effective than text-only warnings in encouraging smokers to consider quitting and in educating them about smoking's risks. Negative affective reactions to smoking, thinking about risks, and perceptions of credibility are mediators of their impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01782053.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0142879

Cites

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

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 58 · Cited by 142

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [2]Canadian Cancer Society. Cigarette Package Health Warnings: International Status Report, Fourth Edition, September 2014.
  2. [22]Slovic P. Rejoinder: the perils of Viscusi's analyses of smoking risk perceptions. J Behav Decis Mak. 2000; 13(2): 273– 276.
  3. [26]FDA, Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements, 76 Fed. Reg. 36,628 (June 22, 2011). 21696017
  4. [38]Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User's Guide (Seventh Edition). 2012 Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Authors
Evans, A. T., Peters, E., Strasser, A. A., Emery, L. F., Sheerin, K. M., & Romer, D.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Missouri (US)
Corresponding author
Evans, Abigail T.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-12-16
Volume
10
Issue
12
Pages
e0142879
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2220496995
Cited by
142
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 7
FWCI
13.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA157824, P50CA180908)
  • Center for Tobacco Products (P50CA180908)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Safety Warnings and Signage
Keywords
graphic warning labels, cigarette warning labels, smoking, risk perception, smoking cessation intentions, tobacco control
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Ohio, Perception, Product Labeling, Risk Factors, Smoking, Philadelphia, 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