↓ Skip to main content

Desire versus Efficacy in Smokers’ Paradoxical Reactions to Pictorial Health Warnings for Cigarettes

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Desire versus Efficacy in Smokers’ Paradoxical Reactions to Pictorial Health Warnings for Cigarettes
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0054937
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Romer, Ellen Peters, Andrew A. Strasser, Daniel Langleben

Abstract

Pictorial health warnings on cigarette packs create aversive emotional reactions to smoking and induce thoughts about quitting; however, contrary to models of health behavior change, they do not appear to alter intentions to quit smoking. We propose and test a novel model of intention to quit an addictive habit such as smoking (the efficacy-desire model) that can explain this paradoxical effect. At the core of the model is the prediction that self-efficacy and desire to quit an addictive habit are inversely related. We tested the model in an online experiment that randomly exposed smokers (N = 3297) to a cigarette pack with one of three increasing levels of warning intensity. The results supported the model's prediction that despite the effects of warnings on aversion to smoking, intention to quit smoking is an inverted U-shape function of the smoker's self-efficacy for quitting. In addition, smokers with greater (lesser) quit efficacy relative to smoking efficacy increase (decrease) intentions to quit. The findings show that previous failures to observe effects of pictorial warning labels on quit intentions can be explained by the contradictory individual differences that warnings produce. Thus, the model explains the paradoxical finding that quit intentions do not change at the population level, even though smokers recognize the implications of warnings. The model suggests that pictorial warnings are effective for smokers with stronger quit-efficacy beliefs and provides guidance for how cigarette warnings and tobacco control strategies can be designed to help smokers quit.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Portugal 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Indonesia 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 86 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Lecturer 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 17 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 18%
Social Sciences 10 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 21 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2013.
All research outputs
#20,209,145
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#173,173
of 194,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,976
of 282,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,171
of 5,012 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,913 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,012 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.