» Articles » PMID: 27135826

Influences of Self-Efficacy, Response Efficacy, and Reactance on Responses to Cigarette Health Warnings: A Longitudinal Study of Adult Smokers in Australia and Canada

Overview
Journal Health Commun
Specialty Health Services
Date 2016 May 3
PMID 27135826
Citations 48
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Guided by the extended parallel process model (EPPM) and reactance theory, this study examined the relationship between efficacy beliefs, reactance, and adult smokers' responses to pictorial health warning labels (HWL) on cigarette packaging, including whether efficacy beliefs or reactance modify the relationship between HWL responses and subsequent smoking cessation behavior. Four waves of data were analyzed from prospective cohorts of smokers in Australia and Canada (n = 7,120 observations) over a period of time after implementation of more prominent, pictorial HWLs. Three types of HWL responses were studied: psychological threat responses (i.e., thinking about risks from smoking), forgoing cigarettes due to HWLs, and avoiding HWLs. The results from Generalized Estimating Equation models indicated that stronger efficacy beliefs and lower trait reactance were significantly associated with greater psychological threat responses to HWLs. Similar results were found for models predicting forgoing behavior, although response efficacy was inversely associated with it. Only response efficacy was significantly associated with avoiding HWLs, showing a positive relationship. Higher self-efficacy and stronger responses to HWLs, no matter the type, were associated with attempting to quit in the follow-up period; reactance was unassociated. No statistically significant interactions were found. These results suggest that stronger efficacy beliefs and lower trait reactance are associated with some stronger responses to fear-arousing HWL responses; however, these HWL responses appear no less likely to lead to cessation attempts among smokers with different levels of self-efficacy to quit, of response efficacy beliefs, or of trait reactance against attempts to control their behavior.

Citing Articles

The effect of specific and rotating health warnings on smoking risk perception and quitting intentions: Evidence from China.

Du K, Wang G Tob Induc Dis. 2025; 23.

PMID: 39926362 PMC: 11804434. DOI: 10.18332/tid/200106.


Association Between Cigarette and Bidi Purchase Behavior (Loose vs Pack) and Health Warning Label Exposure: Findings From the Tobacco Control Policy India Survey and In-Depth Interviews With People Who Smoke.

Sakhuja M, Friedman D, Macauda M, Hebert J, Pednekar M, Gupta P JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2024; 10:e63193.

PMID: 39320944 PMC: 11464939. DOI: 10.2196/63193.


Self-reported attention and responses to cigarette package labels at the end of a two-week randomized trial of cigarette package labeling configurations.

Lambert V, Ferguson S, Niederdeppe J, Sun Y, Hackworth E, Kim M Tob Induc Dis. 2024; 22.

PMID: 38887598 PMC: 11181013. DOI: 10.18332/tid/189198.


Differential Responses to Cigarette Package Labeling Alternatives Among Adults Who Smoke: Results From a Randomized Trial.

Thrasher J, Hackworth E, Ferguson S, Xiong L, Kim M, Yang C Nicotine Tob Res. 2024; 26(12):1646-1655.

PMID: 38850013 PMC: 11582003. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntae139.


Boil water notices as health-risk communication: risk perceptions, efficacy, and compliance during winter storm Uri.

Day A, OShay S, Islam K, Seeger M, Sperone F, McElmurry S Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):850.

PMID: 38191773 PMC: 10774435. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-50286-y.


References
1.
Sperry J, Nicki R . Cognitive appraisal, self-efficacy, and cigarette smoking behavior. Addict Behav. 1991; 16(6):381-8. DOI: 10.1016/0306-4603(91)90046-k. View

2.
Huang J, Chaloupka F, Fong G . Cigarette graphic warning labels and smoking prevalence in Canada: a critical examination and reformulation of the FDA regulatory impact analysis. Tob Control. 2013; 23 Suppl 1:i7-12. PMC: 4254709. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051170. View

3.
Miller C, Hill D, Quester P, Hiller J . Impact on the Australian Quitline of new graphic cigarette pack warnings including the Quitline number. Tob Control. 2009; 18(3):235-7. PMC: 2679186. DOI: 10.1136/tc.2008.028290. View

4.
Romer D, Peters E, Strasser A, Langleben D . Desire versus efficacy in smokers' paradoxical reactions to pictorial health warnings for cigarettes. PLoS One. 2013; 8(1):e54937. PMC: 3558430. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054937. View

5.
Thrasher J, Perez-Hernandez R, Arillo-Santillan E, Barrientos-Gutierrez I . [Towards informed tobacco consumption in Mexico: effect of pictorial warning labels in smokers]. Salud Publica Mex. 2012; 54(3):242-53. PMC: 4600969. View