Matheny James D, Stevens Elise M, Chen Sixia, Christiansen Bruce A, Kowitt Sarah D, Osman Amira, Vidrine Damon J
Oklahoma Tobacco Research Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK.
Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK.
Tob Regul Sci. 2019 May;5(3):206-228. doi: 10.18001/trs.5.3.1.
A federal court ruled tobacco companies violated racketeering laws and ordered them to publish corrective statements. This study assesses effects of exposure to the statements and related court findings on attitudes toward tobacco-related policies and tobacco company influences on policymaking.
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of US adults (N = 2010) prior to publication of the statements. Participants were randomly assigned to the "unexposed" group (N = 1004), which answered attitude questions reading the statements and court findings, or the "exposed" group (N = 1006), which answered attitude questions reading the statements and court findings.
The exposed group was less likely to think lawmakers should trust tobacco companies as much as other companies (β = -.24, p < .001) or that lawmakers should trust tobacco company lobbyists to provide accurate information (β = -.17, p = .019), compared to the unexposed group. The exposed group also was more likely to support requiring graphic warning labels (β = .15, p = .014) and point-of-sale quitline signs (β = .13, p = .028).
Exposure to the statements and court findings may aid tobacco industry denormalization and tobacco-related policy initiatives.
一家联邦法院裁定烟草公司违反了敲诈勒索法，并责令它们发布纠正声明。本研究评估接触这些声明及相关法庭裁决对人们对烟草相关政策的态度以及烟草公司对政策制定的影响的作用。
在声明发布之前，我们对美国成年人（N = 2010）进行了一项横断面调查。参与者被随机分配到“未接触组”（N = 1004），该组在未阅读声明和法庭裁决的情况下回答态度问题，以及“接触组”（N = 1006），该组在阅读声明和法庭裁决后回答态度问题。
与未接触组相比，接触组不太可能认为立法者应该像信任其他公司一样信任烟草公司（β = -0.24，p < 0.001），或者认为立法者应该信任烟草公司的说客提供准确信息（β = -0.17，p = 0.019）。接触组也更有可能支持要求使用图形警示标签（β = 0.15，p = 0.014）和销售点戒烟热线标志（β = 0.13，p = 0.028）。
接触这些声明和法庭裁决可能有助于烟草行业去规范化以及与烟草相关的政策倡议。
