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
. 2020 Jul;46(2-3):250-272.
doi: 10.1093/hcr/hqz016. Epub 2020 Feb 3.

Pictorial Cigarette Pack Warnings Increase Some Risk Appraisals But Not Risk Beliefs: A Meta-Analysis

Seth M Noar  1   2 , Jacob A Rohde  1 , Joshua O Barker  1 , Marissa G Hall  2   3 , Noel T Brewer  2   3
Affiliations

Pictorial Cigarette Pack Warnings Increase Some Risk Appraisals But Not Risk Beliefs: A Meta-Analysis

Seth M Noar et al. Hum Commun Res. 2020 Jul.

Abstract

Pictorial warnings on cigarette packs motivate smokers to quit, and yet the warnings' theoretical mechanisms are not clearly understood. To clarify the role that risk appraisals play in pictorial warnings' impacts, we conducted a meta-analysis of the experimental literature. We meta-analyzed 57 studies, conducted in 13 countries, with a cumulative N of 42,854. Pictorial warnings elicited greater cognitive elaboration (e.g., thinking about the risks of smoking; d = 1.27; p < .001) than text-only warnings. Pictorial warnings also elicited more fear and other negative affect (d = .60; p < .001). In contrast, pictorial warnings had no impact on perceived likelihood of harm (d = .03; p = .064), perceived severity (d = .16; p = .244), or experiential risk (d = .06; p = .449). Thus, while pictorial warnings increase affective and some cognitive risk appraisals, they do not increase beliefs about disease risk. We discuss the role of negative affect in warning effectiveness and the implications for image selection and warning implementation.

Keywords: Affect; Elaboration; Pictorial; Risk Perception; Smoking; Text; Warning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram showing the study screening process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cognitive elaboration: Forest plot of effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Negative affect (overall): Forest plot of effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Perceived likelihood of harm: Forest plot of effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Brennan E., Maloney E. K., Ophir Y., & Cappella J. N. (2017). Potential effectiveness of pictorial warning labels that feature the images and personal details of real people. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 19(10), 1138–1148. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntw319. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brewer N. T., Hall M. G., Noar S. M., Parada H., Stein-Seroussi A., Bach L. E., & Ribisl K. M. (2016). Effect of pictorial cigarette pack warnings on changes in smoking behavior: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, 176(7), 905–912. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2621. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brewer N. T., Parada H. Jr., Hall M. G., Boynton M. H., Noar S. M., & Ribisl K. M. (2018). Understanding why pictorial cigarette pack warnings increase quit attempts. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 53(3), 232–243. doi: 10.1093/abm/kay032. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cameron L. D., Pepper J. K., & Brewer N. T. (2015). Responses of young adults to graphic warning labels for cigarette packages. Tobacco Control, 24(e1), e14–e22. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050645. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Canadian Cancer Society (2016). Cigarette package health warnings: International status report Retrieved fromhttp://www.tobaccolabels.ca/healthwarningsinfo/statusreport/

LinkOut - more resources