| Popis: |
Objectives No studies have examined the brand context in which modified risk claims appear on tobacco products. This study examines how marketing products with modified risk claims affects risk perceptions, appeal, and intentions among own-brand, other brand, and novel brand cigarettes. Methods This experiment employed a 3 (claim: risk modification [RM], exposure modification [EM], control) x 3 (brand: own, other, novel) between-subjects design. A convenience sample (N = 1,557, Mage = 40.28, SDage = 19.01, 71.3% female, 80.3% White) of current or former Marlboro, Camel, or Newport users was collected. Participants were assigned to view their own brand, another brand, or a novel brand, with or without a claim, and rated perceived risk after switching to this product, product appeal, and use intentions. Results Participants in the RM or EM conditions had lower risk perceptions (versus control). Claim did not affect appeal. Adult established cigarette users in the EM (but not RM) condition had higher intentions (versus control). Participants rated their own and another brand as more appealing than the novel brand. Interactions between brand and claim were not significant. Conclusions We found modified risk claims decreased risk perceptions but did not impact appeal. Whereas participants showed preference for their own brand in terms of appeal and intentions, brand did not moderate the impact of claims. |
