Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Jun;40(6):674-82.
doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.01.021.

The impact of cigarette pack design, descriptors, and warning labels on risk perception in the U.S

Maansi Bansal-Travers  1 , David Hammond, Philip Smith, K Michael Cummings
Affiliations

The impact of cigarette pack design, descriptors, and warning labels on risk perception in the U.S

Maansi Bansal-Travers et al. Am J Prev Med. 2011 Jun.

Abstract

Background: In the U.S., limited evidence exists on the impact of colors and brand imagery used in cigarette pack design.

Purpose: This study examined the impact of pack design, product descriptors, and health warnings on risk perception and brand appeal.

Methods: A cross-sectional mall-intercept study was conducted with 197 adult smokers and 200 nonsmokers in Buffalo NY from June to July 2009 (data analysis from July 2009 to December 2010). Participants were shown 12 sets of packs randomly; each set varied by a particular design feature (color, descriptor) or warning label style (text versus graphic, size, attribution, message framing). Packs were rated on criteria including risk perceptions, quit motivation, and purchase interest.

Results: Participants selected larger, pictorial, and loss-framed warning labels as more likely to attract attention, encourage thoughts about health risks, motivate quitting, and be most effective. Participants were more likely to select packs with lighter color shading and descriptors such as light, silver, and smooth as delivering less tar, smoother taste, and lower health risk, compared to darker-shaded or full-flavor packs. Additionally, participants were more likely to select the branded compared to plain white pack when asked which delivered the most tar, smoothest taste, was more attractive, appealed to youth aged <18 years, and contained cigarettes of better quality.

Conclusions: The findings support larger, graphic health warnings that convey loss-framed messages as most effective in communicating health risks to U.S. adults. The results also indicate that color and product descriptors are associated with false beliefs about risks. Plain packaging may reduce many of the erroneous misperceptions of risk communicated through pack design features.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Sets of cigarette packs presented to participants illustrating warning label style, message framing, size, attribution, and design characteristics FDA, U.S. Food and Drug Administration
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Slade J. The pack as advertisement. Tob Control. 1997;6(3):169–70. - PMC - PubMed

    1. Export Report prepared for: JTI Macdonald. The role of packaging seen through industry documents. Province of Quebec, District of Montreal: Supreme Court; 2001. Report No.: Defense Exhibit D–116.

    1. Hammond D, Parkinson C. The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk. J Public Health (Oxf) 2009 September;31(3):345–53. - PubMed
    1. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Methods for Evaluating Tobacco Control Policies. Vol. 12. Lyon; France: 2008. IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention, Tobacco Control.

    1. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act., H.R.1256, H.R.1256--111th Congress, (2009).

Publication types