IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i19p3554-d269740.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudinal Spillover from Misleading Natural Cigarette Marketing: An Experiment Examining Current and Former Smokers’ Support for Tobacco Industry Regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Stefanie K. Gratale

    (Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA)

  • Angeline Sangalang

    (Department of Communication, University of Dayton, 300 College Park Ave., Dayton, OH 45469, USA)

  • Erin K. Maloney

    (Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA)

  • Joseph N. Cappella

    (Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA)

Abstract

This research examined the influence of natural cigarette advertising on tobacco control policy support, and the potential for misbeliefs arising from exposure to cigarette marketing to affect such support. Ample research indicates that natural cigarettes such as Natural American Spirit (NAS) are widely and erroneously perceived as safer than their traditional counterparts because of their marketed “natural” composition. Yet regulatory action regarding natural cigarette marketing has been limited in scope, and little research has examined whether misleading product advertising affects support for related policy, an important component of the policy process. Here, we administered a large-scale randomized experiment (n = 1128), assigning current and former smokers in the United States to an NAS advertising condition or a control group and assessing their support for tobacco industry regulation. Results show that exposure to NAS advertising reduces support for policies to ban potentially misleading terminology from cigarette advertising, and these effects are stronger for daily smokers. Further, misinformed beliefs about the healthy composition of NAS partially mediate effects on policy support. Yet interestingly, exposure to NAS marketing does not reduce support for policies to establish standards for when certain terms are permissible in cigarette advertising. The results of this analysis indicate potential spillover effects from exposure to NAS advertising in the realm of support for regulatory action pertaining to tobacco industry marketing.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefanie K. Gratale & Angeline Sangalang & Erin K. Maloney & Joseph N. Cappella, 2019. "Attitudinal Spillover from Misleading Natural Cigarette Marketing: An Experiment Examining Current and Former Smokers’ Support for Tobacco Industry Regulation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-13, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:19:p:3554-:d:269740
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/19/3554/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/19/3554/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," NBER Working Papers 23089, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    3. Epperson, A.E. & Henriksen, L. & Prochaska, J.J., 2017. "Natural American spirit brand marketing casts health halo around smoking," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 107(5), pages 668-670.
    4. Prior, Markus & Sood, Gaurav & Khanna, Kabir, 2015. "You Cannot be Serious: The Impact of Accuracy Incentives on Partisan Bias in Reports of Economic Perceptions," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 10(4), pages 489-518, December.
    5. Harris, J.L. & Graff, S.K., 2012. "Protecting young people from junk food advertising: Implications of psychological research for first amendment law," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 102(2), pages 214-222.
    6. Kevin Arceneaux & Martin Johnson & René Lindstädt & Ryan J. Vander Wielen, 2016. "The Influence of News Media on Political Elites: Investigating Strategic Responsiveness in Congress," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(1), pages 5-29, January.
    7. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 211-236, Spring.
    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. Tetsuro Kobayashi & Fumiaki Taka & Takahisa Suzuki, 2021. "Can “Googling” correct misbelief? Cognitive and affective consequences of online search," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, September.
    2. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    3. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    4. Dickinson, David L., 2020. "Deliberation Enhances the Confirmation Bias: An Examination of Politics and Religion," IZA Discussion Papers 13241, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Mohamed Mostagir & James Siderius, 2022. "Learning in a Post-Truth World," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2860-2868, April.
    6. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/1dhd1b1s319fbai85khk40fudc is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Alessandro Nai, 2020. "The Trump Paradox: How Cues from a Disliked Source Foster Resistance to Persuasion," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 122-132.
    8. Michele Coscia & Luca Rossi, 2022. "How minimizing conflicts could lead to polarization on social media: An agent-based model investigation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, January.
    9. David L. Dickinson, 2020. "Deliberation Enhances the Confirmation Bias in Politics," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-25, November.
    10. Edson C. Tandoc Jr. & Ryan J. Thomas & Lauren Bishop, 2021. "What Is (Fake) News? Analyzing News Values (and More) in Fake Stories," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 110-119.
    11. Fabio Padovano & Pauline Mille, 2022. "Education, fake news and the PBC," Economics Working Paper from Condorcet Center for political Economy at CREM-CNRS 2022-01-ccr, Condorcet Center for political Economy.
    12. Fabio Padovano & Pauline Mille, 2023. "Education, fake news and the Political Budget Cycle," Economics Working Paper from Condorcet Center for political Economy at CREM-CNRS 2023-01-ccr, Condorcet Center for political Economy.
    13. Buser, Thomas, 2024. "Adversarial Economic Preferences Predict Right-Wing Voting," IZA Discussion Papers 16711, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Bruno Carvalho & Claudia Custodio & Benny Geys & Diogo Mendes & Susana Peralta, 2020. "Information, Perceptions, and Electoral Behaviour of Young Voters: A Randomised Controlled Experiment," Working Papers ECARES 2020-14, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    15. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/1dhd1b1s319fbai85khk40fudc is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Julia Cage & Nicolas Hervé & Marie-Luce Viaud, 2017. "The Production of Information in an Online World: Is Copy Right?," Working Papers hal-03393171, HAL.
    17. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina, 2020. "Facebook Causes Protests," HiCN Working Papers 323, Households in Conflict Network.
    18. Dean Neu & Gregory D. Saxton & Abu S. Rahaman, 2022. "Social Accountability, Ethics, and the Occupy Wall Street Protests," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 17-31, September.
    19. Henrik Skaug Sætra, 2021. "AI in Context and the Sustainable Development Goals: Factoring in the Unsustainability of the Sociotechnical System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    20. Fathey Mohammed & Nabil Hasan Al-Kumaim & Ahmed Ibrahim Alzahrani & Yousef Fazea, 2023. "The Impact of Social Media Shared Health Content on Protective Behavior against COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-16, January.
    21. Michele Cantarella & Nicolo' Fraccaroli & Roberto Volpe, 2019. "Does fake news affect voting behaviour?," Department of Economics 0146, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    22. Joël Cariolle & Yasmine Elkhateeb & Mathilde Maurel, 2022. "(Mis-)information technology: Internet use and perception of democracy in Africa," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 22010, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.

    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:16:y:2019:i:19:p:3554-:d:269740. 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.