IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i11p6094-d569455.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Will E-Cigarette Modified Risk Messages with a Nicotine Warning Polarize Smokers’ Beliefs about the Efficacy of Switching Completely to E-Cigarettes in Reducing Smoking-Related Risks?

Author

Listed:
  • Bo Yang

    (Department of Communication, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA)

  • Juliana L. Barbati

    (Department of Communication, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA)

  • Yunjin Choi

    (Department of Communication, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA)

Abstract

In the U.S., e-cigarette companies can apply for permission to use reduced or modified risk messages (MRMs) in their marketing materials. Because e-cigarette marketing materials should have a nicotine addictiveness warning, MRMs and a nicotine warning could appear together—resulting in a conflicting message. When reading a conflicting message, individuals assimilate evidence supporting their pre-existing beliefs and eventually develop stronger beliefs, diverging more from those with different pre-existing beliefs (i.e., polarization). This study examined if exposure to e-cigarette MRMs with a nicotine warning polarizes smokers’ initially opposing beliefs about the efficacy of switching completely to e-cigarettes in reducing smoking-related risks, and if this polarization depends on individuals’ need for closure. An online experiment randomized 761 U.S. adult smokers to either three MRMs with a nicotine warning or three control messages. People reported their perceived efficacy of switching completely to e-cigarettes at pre- and posttest and need for closure at pretest. Linear regression showed no polarization effects. Nonetheless, need for closure and pretest efficacy beliefs influenced message response: MRMs with a nicotine warning only enhanced efficacy beliefs of smokers with low pretest efficacy beliefs and low need for closure. Evaluation of e-cigarette mixed communication should consider individuals’ motivational and cognitive differences.

Suggested Citation

  • Bo Yang & Juliana L. Barbati & Yunjin Choi, 2021. "Will E-Cigarette Modified Risk Messages with a Nicotine Warning Polarize Smokers’ Beliefs about the Efficacy of Switching Completely to E-Cigarettes in Reducing Smoking-Related Risks?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-15, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:6094-:d:569455
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/6094/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/6094/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Olivia A. Wackowski & Mariam Rashid & Kathryn L. Greene & M. Jane Lewis & Richard J. O’Connor, 2020. "Smokers’ and Young Adult Non-Smokers’ Perceptions and Perceived Impact of Snus and E-Cigarette Modified Risk Messages," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-17, September.
    2. Adam Corner & Lorraine Whitmarsh & Dimitrios Xenias, 2012. "Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(3), pages 463-478, October.
    3. Mafael, Alexander & Gottschalk, Sabrina A. & Kreis, Henning, 2016. "Examining Biased Assimilation of Brand-related Online Reviews," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 91-106.
    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. Debra Javeline & Tracy Kijewski-Correa & Angela Chesler, 2019. "Does it matter if you “believe” in climate change? Not for coastal home vulnerability," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 511-532, August.
    2. Elvira Ismagilova & Emma L. Slade & Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi, 2020. "The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth Communications on Intention to Buy: A Meta-Analysis," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 1203-1226, October.
    3. Douglas Guilbeault & Damon Centola, 2020. "Networked collective intelligence improves dissemination of scientific information regarding smoking risks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-14, February.
    4. Christine Wamsler & Jamie Bristow, 2022. "At the intersection of mind and climate change: integrating inner dimensions of climate change into policymaking and practice," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 1-22, July.
    5. András Szeberényi & Tomasz Rokicki & Árpád Papp-Váry, 2022. "Examining the Relationship between Renewable Energy and Environmental Awareness," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-25, September.
    6. Lorraine Whitmarsh & Dimitrios Xenias & Christopher R. Jones, 2019. "Framing effects on public support for carbon capture and storage," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Agnieszka Zablocki & Bodo Schlegelmilch & Michael J. Houston, 2019. "How valence, volume and variance of online reviews influence brand attitudes," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 9(1), pages 61-77, June.
    8. Ganga Shreedhar & Susana Mourato, 2020. "Linking Human Destruction of Nature to COVID-19 Increases Support for Wildlife Conservation Policies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 963-999, August.
    9. Ana Babić Rosario & Kristine Valck & Francesca Sotgiu, 2020. "Conceptualizing the electronic word-of-mouth process: What we know and need to know about eWOM creation, exposure, and evaluation," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 422-448, May.
    10. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2016. "Public Awareness of the Scientific Consensus on Climate," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(4), pages 21582440166, November.
    11. Tobias Greitemeyer, 2014. "I Am Right, You Are Wrong: How Biased Assimilation Increases the Perceived Gap between Believers and Skeptics of Violent Video Game Effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-7, April.
    12. Lucia Savadori & Giuseppe Espa & Maria Michela Dickson, 2020. "The polarizing impact of numeracy, economic literacy, and science literacy on attitudes toward immigration," Papers 2011.02362, arXiv.org.
    13. Bruce Tranter & Zlatko Skrbis, 2014. "Political and Social Divisions over Climate Change among Young Queenslanders," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(7), pages 1638-1651, July.
    14. Teresa DeAtley & Andrea C. Johnson & Matthew D. Stone & Janet Audrain-McGovern & Melissa Mercincavage & Andrew A. Strasser, 2023. "Effects of Modified Tobacco Risk Products with Claims and Nicotine Features on Perceptions among Racial and Ethnic Groups," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(15), pages 1-14, July.
    15. Charles A. Ogunbode & Rouven Doran & Gisela Böhm, 2020. "Exposure to the IPCC special report on 1.5 °C global warming is linked to perceived threat and increased concern about climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 361-375, February.
    16. Pawel Robert Smolinski & Joseph Januszewicz & Barbara Pawlowska & Jacek Winiarski, 2023. "Nuclear Energy Acceptance in Poland: From Societal Attitudes to Effective Policy Strategies -- Network Modeling Approach," Papers 2309.14869, arXiv.org.
    17. Xenias, Dimitrios & Whitmarsh, Lorraine, 2013. "Dimensions and determinants of expert and public attitudes to sustainable transport policies and technologies," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 75-85.
    18. Mary Guillard & Ghozlane Fleury-Bahi & Oscar Navarro, 2021. "Encouraging Individuals to Adapt to Climate Change: Relations between Coping Strategies and Psychological Distance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.
    19. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2018. "Self-assessed understanding of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 349-362, November.
    20. Jessica R. Murfree, 2023. "Exploring Major League Baseball Fans’ Climate Change Risk Perceptions and Adaptation Willingness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-17, May.

    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:18:y:2021:i:11:p:6094-:d:569455. 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.