Department of Health Behavior, School of Public Health and Health Professions, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY, USA.
Am J Prev Med. 2011 Jun;40(6):690-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.01.020.
In 2006, a U.S. Federal Court ruled that the major domestic cigarette manufacturers were guilty of conspiring to deny, distort, and minimize the hazards of cigarette smoking to the public and ordered corrective statements to correct these deceptions.
This study evaluates the effectiveness of different versions of corrective statements that were proposed to the Court.
239 adult smokers (aged 18-65 years) were randomized to view one of five different versions of corrective statements on five topics (health risks, addiction, low-tar cigarettes, product manipulation, and secondhand smoke); change in knowledge and beliefs were measured before and after viewing the statements, as well as 1 week later. Three of the versions were text-based statements recommended by different parties in the case (Philip Morris, U.S. Department of Justice [DOJ], Interveners), whereas two others were developed at Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI) for this study and utilized pictorial images (emotive and neutral). Data collection and analysis were conducted in Buffalo NY from 2008 to 2009.
Regardless of which corrective statement was seen, exposure resulted in a consistent pattern of increased level of knowledge and corrected misperceptions about smoking, although the effects were not large and diminished back toward baseline levels within 1 week. The DOJ, Interveners, and emotive statements elicited a stronger affective response and were rated by respondents as more persuasive (p-value<0.05). The emotive statement was better recalled and drew the respondents' attention in the shortest amount of time.
Each of the proposed corrective statements tested helped correct false beliefs about smoking, but sustained impact will likely require repeated exposures to the message.
2006 年，美国联邦法院裁定，主要的国内卷烟制造商共谋否认、歪曲和最小化吸烟对公众的危害，并下令发布更正声明以纠正这些欺骗行为。
本研究评估了向法院提出的不同版本更正声明的有效性。
239 名成年吸烟者（年龄在 18-65 岁之间）被随机分配观看五个主题（健康风险、成瘾、低焦油香烟、产品操纵和二手烟）的五个不同版本的更正声明；在观看声明前后以及 1 周后测量知识和信念的变化。其中三个版本是该案中不同方（菲利普莫里斯、美国司法部[DOJ]、干预者）推荐的基于文本的声明，而另外两个是罗切斯特大学帕克癌症研究所（RPCI）为本研究开发的，使用了图像（情感和中性）。数据收集和分析于 2008 年至 2009 年在纽约州布法罗进行。
无论观看哪个更正声明，暴露都会导致知识水平的持续提高和对吸烟的误解得到纠正，尽管效果不大，并且在 1 周内回落到基线水平。DOJ、干预者和情感声明引起了更强的情感反应，并被受访者评为更有说服力（p 值<0.05）。情感声明的记忆效果更好，在最短的时间内引起了受访者的注意。
测试的每个拟议更正声明都有助于纠正关于吸烟的错误信念，但持续的影响可能需要反复接触信息。
