Testing the Effects of Certain versus Hypothetical Language in Health Risk Messages

How Do Behavioral Framing, Linguistic Certainty, and Target Specification Impact Responses to Vaping Prevention Messages?

While research on youth vaping prevention has begun to grow, little work has examined language choice in vaping prevention messages. This study examined adolescents' responses to vaping prevention statements that varied on three features: behavioral framing, linguistic certainty, and target specification. We conducted a 2 (behavioral framing) by 2 (linguistic certainty) by 2 (target specification) by 3 (risk type) plus control condition between-subjects experiment using a national probability sample. Adolescents (N = 1,603) were randomly assigned to one of 25 conditions in which they viewed a vaping prevention statement (or a control statement about vape litter) followed by measures of perceived message effectiveness (PME), perceived severity and susceptibility of vaping risks, message trustworthiness, message relevance, and intentions to seek more information about vaping risks. Results showed main effects of behavioral framing, such that a declarative frame ("Vaping can … ") led to higher PME, higher perceived severity, and greater information seeking intentions than a contingent frame ("If you vape, it can…"), while an interaction revealed that most declarative frame effects were driven by adolescents who were susceptible to vaping. There were also main effects of linguistic certainty, such that the word "can" ("Vaping can … ") led to higher PME, higher perceived susceptibility and severity, and greater information seeking intentions than the word "could" ("Vaping could … "). No main effect of target specification ("you" vs. "teens") was observed. Overall, findings suggest that vaping prevention messages that communicate greater certainty have greater behavior change potential.

Examining Perceptions of Uncertain Language in Potential E-Cigarette Warning Labels: Results from 16 Focus Groups with Adult Tobacco Users and Youth

E-cigarette use among youth presents a public health risk. Yet, cigarette smokers who substantially reduce their smoking or switch completely from traditional combustible cigarettes could benefit. As science about e-cigarettes is continually emerging, any potential warnings are likely to contain uncertain language. Hedged verbiage may impact decision making. To assess reactions, we conducted 16 online focus groups; 8 with youth (n = 32, grouped by gender and by vaping experience) and 8 with adult tobacco users (n = 37, grouped by smokers, dual users of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, and former smokers who switched to e-cigarettes). Each focus group viewed and discussed 8 potential warnings messages. We conducted an inductive thematic analysis of the reactions to warning messages that contain uncertain language. Respondents' reactions were often negative, but varied based on specific usages of uncertainty, existing beliefs about uncertainty in law and science, and smoking/vaping use patterns that supported the use of uncertainty related to e-cigarettes. Many youth (and some adults) believed that uncertain language enabled audiences to minimize the likelihood of harm or interpreted it as meaning there are both healthy and unhealthy e-cigarettes. This qualitative study provides evidence that the use of types of uncertain language, the frequency of that use, and/or the selection of particular words in warnings, might not achieve the intended public health aims of increasing understanding of risk, deterring youth uptake, and/or facilitating a substantial switch from cigarettes. The use of certain types of uncertain language appears to have significant potential to bring unintended consequences. Suggestions for research and policy are included.

Does removing menthol cigarettes in convenience stores reduce susceptibility to cigarette smoking? An experimental investigation in young people

BACKGROUND

Evidence for the effectiveness of menthol cigarette bans comes mostly from studies of adults that smoke. This experiment evaluated whether the absence of menthol products from a convenience store influenced young people's susceptibility to cigarette smoking after they shopped in the store.

METHODS

This experiment took place in the RAND StoreLab (RSL), a life-sized research convenience store. A three-group, between-subjects design was used. Study conditions differed in the mix of flavored tobacco products the RSL displayed: 1) All tobacco-, sweet-, and menthol-flavors displayed; 2) only tobacco- and menthol-flavors displayed; and 3) only tobacco-flavors displayed. Participants were randomly assigned to shop in the RSL under one of these conditions and after shopping, completed measures of their susceptibility to cigarette smoking, one measure for menthol cigarettes and one for unflavored cigarettes (scores on each susceptibility measure was dichotomized: 0 = not susceptible; 1 = susceptible).

RESULTS

Multivariable logistic regression assessed the main effects of condition on susceptibility to smoking menthol and unflavored cigarettes. There was no condition effect on susceptibility to smoking unflavored cigarettes. However, removing menthol-flavored products significantly increased participants' susceptibility to smoking menthol cigarettes compared to when all flavored products were available (OR = 3.66, 95% CI [1.33, 10.03]). This significant effect was only found among young people with some pre-existing risk of cigarette smoking (OR = 5.92, 95% CI [1.81, 19.39]).

CONCLUSION

Results suggest the need to consider that menthol bans could unintentionally increase the appeal of menthol cigarettes among youth already at risk of smoking.

"You Know Nothing about How Alcohol Might Lead to Cancer!" Effects of Threatening and Hedging Languages on Intentions to Reduce and Stop Drinking

Alcohol causes cancer, but many alcohol consumers are not aware of this risk. Research is needed to identify effective communication strategies to increase risk perceptions and decrease alcohol consumption. This study examined the effects of threatening and hedging languages in communicating the cancer risk associated with alcohol use. Results from a between-subjects experiment (N = 584) revealed a significant interaction effect: Threatening language combined with lexical hedges led to a higher perceived threat to drinker identity competence, which predicted higher intentions to reduce and stop drinking. Moreover, threatening language increased perceived threat to freedom, predicting greater reactance and lower behavioral intentions. Lastly, hedging increased perceived message tentativeness, predicting lower risk perceptions and behavioral intentions. Implications of our study were discussed.

Effects of modified risk tobacco product claims on consumer comprehension and risk perceptions of IQOS

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco industry studies on consumers' perceptions of modified risk claims (MRCs) often had important omissions (eg, no control group, not investigating whether consumers understand what 'switching completely' means). This study examined the effects of IQOS MRCs on risk perceptions and behavioural intentions.

METHOD

Based on tobacco companies' MRCs, we manipulated three MRC language features: explanation about 'switching completely' (absent vs present), number of diseases (single vs multiple) and language certainty (hypothetical vs certain). In an online experiment, we randomised 1523 US adult current smokers and 1391 young adult non-smokers to 1 of 9 conditions following a 2×2×2+1 control design. People reported their comprehension of 'switching completely', IQOS risk perceptions and behavioural intentions after message exposure.

RESULTS

More smokers exposed to MRCs that included an explanation about 'switching completely' (22.2%) (vs explanation absent (11.2%) and control (10.7%)) mentioned that 'switching completely' meant smoking 0 cigarettes. Compared with the control, several MRCs (eg, certain language) produced lower perceived risk of IQOS, including for diseases not mentioned in the MRCs. MRCs using certain and hypothetical language did not differ on any outcomes. MRCs highlighting reduced risk for a single disease and multiple diseases did not differ on any outcomes. MRCs did not influence behavioural intentions.

CONCLUSION

The Food and Drug Administration should ensure that consumers understand what 'switching completely' means in an MRC and recognize that some language features may mislead consumers into believing that a product reduces the risk of diseases not mentioned in an MRC.