Banerjee Smita C, Greene Kathryn, Li Yuelin, Ostroff Jamie S
Assistant Attending Behavioral Scientist, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Professor, Department of Communication, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Tob Regul Sci. 2016 Jul;2(3):214-229. doi: 10.18001/TRS.2.3.2.
This study examined the effects of comparative-framing [C-F; ads highlighting differences between the advertised product and conventional cigarettes and/or smokeless tobacco products] versus similarity-framing (S-F; ads highlighting congruence with conventional cigarettes and/or smokeless tobacco products) in e-cigarette and snus ads on young adult smokers' and non-smokers' ad- and product-related perceptions.
One thousand fifty one (1,051) young adults (18-24 years; 76% women; 50% smokers) from existing consumer panels were recruited in a within-subjects quasi-experiment. Each participant viewed 4 online advertisements, varied by tobacco product type (e-cigarette or snus) and ad framing (C-F or S-F). The dependent measures for this study were ad-related (ad perceptions, ad credibility) and product-related perceptions (absolute and comparative risk perceptions, product appeal, and product use intentions).
Former and current smokers rated C-F ads as more persuasive than S-F ads, as evidenced by favorable ad perceptions and high product use intentions. Former and current smokers also rated e-cigarette ads with more favorable ad perceptions, low absolute and comparative risk perceptions, high product appeal, and high product use intentions as compared to snus ads. However, the effect sizes of the significant differences are less than.2, indicating small magnitude of difference between the study variables.
Unless FDA regulates e-cig and snus advertising, there is a potential of decreasing risk perceptions and increasing use of e-cigs among young adults. Further research on implicit/explicit comparative claims in e-cigarettes and snus advertisements that encourage risk misperceptions is recommended.
本研究考察了电子烟和口含烟广告中的对比框架（C-F；强调广告产品与传统香烟和/或无烟烟草产品之间差异的广告）与相似框架（S-F；强调与传统香烟和/或无烟烟草产品一致性的广告）对年轻成年吸烟者和非吸烟者与广告及产品相关认知的影响。
从现有的消费者小组中招募了1051名年轻成年人（18至24岁；76%为女性；50%为吸烟者）参与一项被试内准实验。每位参与者观看4则在线广告，这些广告因烟草产品类型（电子烟或口含烟）和广告框架（C-F或S-F）而有所不同。本研究的因变量包括与广告相关的（广告认知、广告可信度）以及与产品相关的认知（绝对和比较风险认知、产品吸引力和产品使用意图）。
从前吸烟者和当前吸烟者对C-F广告的评价比S-F广告更具说服力，这体现在积极的广告认知和较高的产品使用意图上。与口含烟广告相比，从前吸烟者和当前吸烟者对电子烟广告的评价也更积极，绝对和比较风险认知较低，产品吸引力较高，产品使用意图也较高。然而，显著差异的效应量小于0.2，表明研究变量之间的差异幅度较小。
除非美国食品药品监督管理局（FDA）对电子烟和口含烟广告进行监管，否则存在降低年轻成年人风险认知并增加电子烟使用的可能性。建议进一步研究电子烟和口含烟广告中鼓励风险误判的隐式/显式对比声明。
