IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i4p753-d141046.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information to Improve Public Perceptions of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA’s) Tobacco Regulatory Role

Author

Listed:
  • Amira Osman

    (Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Sarah D. Kowitt

    (Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Paschal Sheeran

    (Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Kristen L. Jarman

    (Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Leah M. Ranney

    (Department of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Adam O. Goldstein

    (Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
    Department of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

Abstract

While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has had regulatory authority over tobacco products since 2009, public awareness of this authority remains limited. This research examines several broad types of information about FDA tobacco regulatory mission that may improve the perceptions of FDA as a tobacco regulator. Using Amazon Mechanical Turk, 1766 adults, smokers and non-smokers, were randomly assigned to view a statement about FDA regulatory authority that varied three information types in a 2 × 2 × 2 between subjects experimental design: (1) FDA’s roles in regulating tobacco (yes/no); (2) The scientific basis of regulations (yes/no); and (3) A potential protective function of regulations (yes/no). Using factorial ANOVA, we estimated the main and interactive effects of all three types of information and of smoking status on the perceptions of FDA. Participants that were exposed to information on FDA roles reported higher FDA credibility and a greater perceived knowledge of FDA than those who did not. Exposure to information about the scientific basis of regulations led to more negative views of the tobacco industry. Participants who learned of the FDA’s commitment to protecting the public reported higher FDA credibility and more positive attitudes toward regulations than those who did not learn of this commitment. We observed no significant interaction effects. The findings suggest that providing information about the regulatory roles and protective characterization of the FDA’s tobacco regulatory mission positively influence public perceptions of FDA and tobacco regulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Amira Osman & Sarah D. Kowitt & Paschal Sheeran & Kristen L. Jarman & Leah M. Ranney & Adam O. Goldstein, 2018. "Information to Improve Public Perceptions of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA’s) Tobacco Regulatory Role," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:4:p:753-:d:141046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/4/753/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/4/753/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Farrelly, M.C. & Healton, C.G. & Davis, K.C. & Messeri, P. & Hersey, J.C. & Haviland, M.L., 2002. "Getting to the truth: Evaluating national tobacco countermarketing campaigns," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 92(6), pages 901-907.
    2. Landman, A. & Glantz, S.A., 2009. "Tobacco industry efforts to undermine policy-relevant research," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(1), pages 45-58.
    3. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    4. Flynn, Leisa Reinecke & Goldsmith, Ronald E., 1999. "A Short, Reliable Measure of Subjective Knowledge," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 57-66, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    2. Michele Cantarella & Chiara Strozzi, 2021. "Workers in the crowd: the labor market impact of the online platform economy [An evaluation of instrumental variable strategies for estimating the effects of catholic schooling]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(6), pages 1429-1458.
    3. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    4. Groza, Mark D. & Groza, Mya Pronschinske, 2018. "Salesperson regulatory knowledge and sales performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 37-46.
    5. Park, JungKun & Ahn, Jiseon & Thavisay, Toulany & Ren, Tianbao, 2019. "Examining the role of anxiety and social influence in multi-benefits of mobile payment service," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 140-149.
    6. Chunhao Wei & Han Chen & Yee Ming Lee, 2022. "COVID-19 preventive measures and restaurant customers’ intention to dine out: the role of brand trust and perceived risk," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 16(3), pages 581-600, September.
    7. Lim, Thien Sang & Mail, Rasid & Abd Karim, Mohd Rahimie & Ahmad Baharul Ulum, Zatul Karamah & Jaidi, Junainah & Noordin, Raman, 2018. "A serial mediation model of financial knowledge on the intention to invest: The central role of risk perception and attitude," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 74-79.
    8. Masha Shunko & Julie Niederhoff & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Humans Are Not Machines: The Behavioral Impact of Queueing Design on Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 453-473, January.
    9. de Lauwere, Carolien & Slegers, Monique & Meeusen, Marieke, 2022. "The influence of behavioural factors and external conditions on Dutch farmers’ decision making in the transition towards circular agriculture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    10. Abel Brodeur, Nikolai M. Cook, Anthony Heyes, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," LCERPA Working Papers am0133, Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis.
    11. Catherine Viot & Juliette Passebois-Ducros, 2010. "Wine brands or branded wines? The specificity of the French market in terms of the brand," Post-Print hal-01803728, HAL.
    12. Lude, Maximilian & Prügl, Reinhard, 2021. "Experimental studies in family business research," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 12(1).
    13. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    14. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    15. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    16. Carla S. Marques & Carlos P. Marques & João J. M. Ferreira & Fernando A. F. Ferreira, 2019. "Effects of traits, self-motivation and managerial skills on nursing intrapreneurship," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 733-748, September.
    17. Jun Zhang & Joon Soo Lim, 2021. "Mitigating negative spillover effects in a product-harm crisis: strategies for market leaders versus market challengers," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(1), pages 77-98, January.
    18. Haas, Nicholas & Hassan, Mazen & Mansour, Sarah & Morton, Rebecca B., 2021. "Polarizing information and support for reform," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 883-901.
    19. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. O. Ashton Morgan & John C. Whitehead, 2018. "Willingness to Pay for Soccer Player Development in the United States," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 19(2), pages 279-296, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:4:p:753-:d:141046. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.