Tobacco industry marketing and consumer harm perceptions

References

• United States Food and Drug Administration. Family smoking prevention and tobacco control act. U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2009 p. Pub. L. No. 111-31. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/ucm262084.htm
   Google Scholar
• Pierce JP, Sargent JD, White MM, et al. Receptivity to tobacco advertising and susceptibility to tobacco products. Pediatrics. 2017;139(6):e20163353. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-3353
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammond D, Parkinson C. The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk. J Public Health. 2009;31:345–353. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdp066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollay RW, Dewhirst T. The dark side of marketing seemingly ‘light’ cigarettes: Successful Images and failed fact. Tob Control. 2002;11:i18–i31. doi: 10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozlowski LT, O’Connor RJ. Cigarette filter ventilation is a defective design because of misleading taste, bigger puffs, and blocked vents. Tob Control. 2002;11:i40–i50. doi: 10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozlowski LT, Goldberg ME, Yost BA, et al. Smokers’ misperceptions of light and ultra-light cigarettes may keep them smoking. Am J Prev Med. 1998;15:9–16. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00004-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Connor RJ, Lewis MJ, Adkison SE, et al. Perceptions of “natural” and “additive-free” cigarettes and intentions to purchase. Heal Educ Behav. 2017;44:222–226. doi: 10.1177/1090198116653935
   Google Scholar
• Salloum RG, Louviere JJ, Getz KR, et al. Evaluation of strategies to communicate harmful and potentially harmful constituent (HPHC) information through cigarette package inserts: a discrete choice experiment. Tob Control. 2017 [cited 2017 July 13]. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053579
   Google Scholar
• Backinger C. Research findings on so-called low-tar or “light” cigarettes. Bethesa: National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Yong H-H, Borland R, Cummings KM, et al. US smokers’ beliefs, experiences and perceptions of different cigarette variants before and after the FSPTCA ban on misleading descriptors such as “light,” “mild,” or “low.”. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18:2115–2123. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntw107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansal-Travers M, Hammond D, Smith P, et al. The impact of cigarette pack design, descriptors, and warning labels on risk perception in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40:674–682. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.01.021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDaniel PA, Malone RE. “I always thought they were all pure tobacco”: American smokers’ perceptions of natural cigarettes and tobacco industry advertising strategies. Tob Control. 2007;16:e7. doi: 10.1136/tc.2006.019638
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moran MB, Pierce JP, Weiger C, et al. Use of imagery and text that could convey reduced harm in American Spirit advertisements. Tob Control. 2017;26:e68–e70. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053251
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epperson AE, Henriksen L, Prochaska JJ. Natural American Spirit brand marketing casts health halo around smoking. Am J Public Health. 2017;107:668–670. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303719
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson JL, Johnson A, Villanti A, et al. Misperceptions of harm among natural American spirit smokers: results from wave 1 of the population assessment of tobacco and health (PATH) study (2013–2014). Tob Control. 2017;26:e61–e67. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053265
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson JL, Richardson A, Feirman SP, et al. American spirit pack descriptors and perceptions of harm: a crowdsourced comparison of modified packs. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18:1749–1756. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntw097
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. FDA takes action against three tobacco manufacturers for making “additive-free” and/or “natural” claims on cigarette labeling. Silver Spring: Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; 2015. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm459840.htm
   Google Scholar
• Kelly KJ, Manning K. The effects of natural cigarette claims on adolescents’ brand-related beliefs, attitudes, and intentions. J Health Commun. 2014;19:1064–1075. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2013.872720
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman LC. Tobacco industry use of corporate social responsibility tactics as a sword and a shield on secondhand smoke issues. J Law Med Ethics. 2009;37:819–827. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00453.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirschhorn N. Corporate social responsibility and the tobacco industry: hope or hype? Tob Control. 2004;13:447–453. doi: 10.1136/tc.2003.006676
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez M, Ling PM, Glantz SA. Planting trees without leaving home: tobacco company direct-to-consumer CSR efforts. Tob Control. 2012;21:363–365. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050219
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epperson AE, Prochaska JJ, Henriksen L. The flip side of Natural American Spirit: Corporate social responsibility advertising. Tob Control. 2017 [cited 25 February 2017]. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053576
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Schumann D. Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. J Consum Res. 1983;10:135–146. doi: 10.1086/208954
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken S, Fee Iii JW, John K. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980;39:752–766. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popova L, Owusu D, Jenson D, et al. Factual text and emotional pictures: Overcoming a false dichotomy of cigarette warning labels. Tob Control. 2017 [cited 20 April 2017]. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053563
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nabi RL. The case for emphasizing discrete emotions in communication research. Commun Monogr. 2010;77:153–159. doi: 10.1080/03637751003790444
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slovic P, Västfjäll D. Affect, moral intuition, and risk. Psychol Inq. 2010;21:387–398. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2010.521119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner JS, Keltner D. Beyond valence: toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cogn Emot. 2000;14:473–493. doi: 10.1080/026999300402763
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner JS, Keltner D. Fear, anger, and risk. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;81:146–159. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillard JP, Plotnick CA, Godbold LA, et al. The multiple affective outcomes of AIDS PSAs. Communic Res. 1996;23:44–72. doi: 10.1177/009365096023001002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabi R. Anger, fear, uncertainty, and attitudes: a test of the cognitive-functional model. Commun Monogr. 2002;69:204–216. doi: 10.1080/03637750216541
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang A. The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. J Commun. 2000;50:46–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saussure Fd, Baskin W, Meisel P, et al. Course in general linguistics. New York: Columbia University Press; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Barthes R. Elements of semiology. 1st American ed. New York: Hill and Wang; 1968.
   Google Scholar
• Storey J. An introduction to cultural theory & popular culture. 2nd ed. Athens: The University of Georgia Press; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Kim A, Nonnemaker J, Guillory J, et al. Antismoking ads at the point of sale: the influence of ad type and context on ad reactions. J Health Commun. 2017;22:477–487. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2017.1311970
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao X, Alexander TN, Hoffman L, et al. Youth receptivity to FDA’s the real cost tobacco prevention campaign: evidence from message pretesting. J Health Commun. 2016;21:1153–1160. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2016.1233307
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maloney EK, Cappella JN. Does vaping in e-cigarette advertisements affect tobacco smoking urge, intentions, and perceptions in daily, intermittent, and former smokers? Health Commun. 2016;31:129–138. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2014.993496
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders-Jackson A, Tan ASL, Bigman CA, et al. To regulate or not to regulate? Views on electronic cigarette regulations and beliefs about the reasons for and against regulation. Niaura R, editor. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0161124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SJ, Brennan E, Gibson LA, et al. Predictive validity of an empirical approach for selecting promising message topics: a randomized-controlled study. J Commun. 2016;66:433–453. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12227
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noar SM, Francis DB, Bridges C, et al. Effects of strengthening cigarette pack warnings on attention and message processing: a systematic review. J Mass Commun Q. 2017;94:416–442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. National Cancer Institute and World Health Organization. The economics of tobacco and tobacco control. National Cancer Institute Tobacco Control Monograph 21. NIH Publication No. 16-CA-8029A. Bethesda, MD; 2016. Available from: https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/21/docs/m21_8.pdf
   Google Scholar