The Impact of E-Cigarette Warnings, Warning Themes and Inclusion of Relative Harm Statements on Young Adults’ E-Cigarette Perceptions and Use Intentions

Olivia A. Wackowski, Jennah M. Sontag, David Hammond, Richard J. O’Connor, Pamela A. Ohman-Strickland, Andrew A. Strasser, Andrea C. Villanti and Cristine D. Delnevo
Additional contact information
Olivia A. Wackowski: Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers School of Public Health, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
Jennah M. Sontag: Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers School of Public Health, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
David Hammond: School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
Richard J. O’Connor: Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA
Pamela A. Ohman-Strickland: Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA
Andrew A. Strasser: Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
Andrea C. Villanti: Department of Psychiatry, Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA
Cristine D. Delnevo: Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers School of Public Health, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA

IJERPH, 2019, vol. 16, issue 2, 1-14

Abstract: Although e-cigarettes in the United States are required to carry one nicotine addiction warning, little is known about the impact of other potential e-cigarette warning themes, nor about pairing warnings with messages that communicate e-cigarettes’ reduced-harm potential relative to cigarettes. We randomly assigned 876 young adults (ages 18–29) to view e-cigarette ads in a 3 × 2 plus control online experiment that varied by warning theme (i.e., nicotine addiction; nicotine’s impact on adolescent brain development; presence of harmful chemicals) and warning type—i.e., the presence (“relative harm warning”) or absence (“standard warning”) of a relative harm (RH) statement in the warning label (“e-cigarettes may cause harm to health but are less harmful than cigarettes”). Warning believability, informativeness, understandability and support were high across conditions and there were no significant differences by warning theme on e-cigarette harm perceptions or use intentions nor on nicotine (mis)perceptions. Perceived warning effectiveness for discouraging youth initiation was higher for the “brain” and “chemicals” warnings compared to the addiction warning. Warnings with the included RH statement were perceived as less believable and credible and were less frequently correctly recalled. Research should continue to investigate the impact of different e-cigarette warning themes and formats with priority audiences.

Keywords: e-cigarettes; tobacco warnings; risk communication; health communication; risk perceptions (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/2/184/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/2/184/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:2:p:184-:d:196507

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().