IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v119y2025ics2214804325001168.html

‘You can quit!’: Exploring the efficacy of new cigarette pack warnings through an experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Ben Lakhdar, Christian
  • Deplancke, Antoine
  • Le Lec, Fabrice
  • Massin, Sophie
  • Piermatteo, Anthony
  • Vaillant, Nicolas G.

Abstract

In response to the health impacts of smoking, cigarette packs with health warnings have proven effective. However, it remains undetermined whether enhancements or modifications could amplify their impact, in helping smokers to quit and/or deterring initiation. We aimed at providing new evidence on this issue by using different motivational leverages identified in the psychology and economic literature. We developed new warnings based on commitment, cognitive dissonance, empowerment and Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems use. To determine which types of warnings are the most effective, we conducted an online experiment where participants (n = 860, including 335 smokers) were exposed to a specific type of warning, using conventional regulatory warnings as a control. Traditional indicators (measures of emotions, reactions, beliefs, perceived efficacy and intentions) and an innovative behavioural indicator (incentive-compatible willingness-to-pay) were used to assess the efficacy of the warnings. The conventional regulatory warnings performed at least as well as the alternative ones in almost all the relevant dimensions. In this respect, alternative warnings are disappointing, although some have a positive effect compared to no warning and may be used as a basis for complementary or targeted warnings or prevention measures in other contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Ben Lakhdar, Christian & Deplancke, Antoine & Le Lec, Fabrice & Massin, Sophie & Piermatteo, Anthony & Vaillant, Nicolas G., 2025. "‘You can quit!’: Exploring the efficacy of new cigarette pack warnings through an experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:119:y:2025:i:c:s2214804325001168
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2025.102452
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804325001168
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2025.102452?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jérôme Hergueux & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2015. "Social preferences in the online laboratory: a randomized experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 251-283, June.
    2. Karine Gallopel†Morvan & Janet Hoek & Sophie Rieunier, 2018. "Do Plain Packaging and Pictorial Warnings Affect Smokers' and Non†Smokers' Behavioral Intentions?," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 5-34, March.
    3. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-00984211 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. James F. Thrasher & Farahnaz Islam & Rachel E. Davis & Lucy Popova & Victoria Lambert & Yoo Jin Cho & Ramzi G. Salloum & Jordan Louviere & David Hammond, 2018. "Testing Cessation Messages for Cigarette Package Inserts: Findings from a Best/Worst Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, February.
    5. Kuehnle, Daniel, 2019. "How effective are pictorial warnings on tobacco products? New evidence on smoking behaviour using Australian panel data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    6. Rodríguez-Lesmes, Paul & Góngora-Salazar, Pamela & Mentzakis, Emmanouil & Buckley, Neil & Gallego, Juan Miguel & Guindon, G. Emmanuel & Martínez, Juan Pablo & Paraje, Guillermo, 2024. "Would plain packaging and health warning labels reduce smoking in the presence of informal markets? A choice experiment in Colombia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 354(C).
    7. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    8. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    9. Steffen Anderson & Glenn Harrison & Morten Lau & Rutstrom Elisabet, 2007. "Valuation using multiple price list formats," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(6), pages 675-682.
    10. Waheed, Hassam, 2023. "Nudging smokers away from lighting up: A meta-analysis of framing effect in current smokers," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    11. Erik Snowberg & Leeat Yariv, 2021. "Testing the Waters: Behavior across Participant Pools," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(2), pages 687-719, February.
    12. Noar, Seth M. & Francis, Diane B. & Bridges, Christy & Sontag, Jennah M. & Ribisl, Kurt M. & Brewer, Noel T., 2016. "The impact of strengthening cigarette pack warnings: Systematic review of longitudinal observational studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 118-129.
    13. Christian Ben Lakhdar & Antoine Deplancke & Fabrice Le Lec & Sophie Massin & Anthony Piermatteo & Nicolas Vaillant, 2020. "Protocol for creating new warnings on cigarette packs and evaluating their efficacy in a randomised experimental setting," Post-Print hal-02947325, HAL.
    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. Hiroki Ozono & Daisuke Nakama, 2022. "Effects of experimental situation on group cooperation and individual performance: Comparing laboratory and online experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Irene Maria Buso & Daniela Di Cagno & Sofia De Caprariis & Lorenzo Ferrari & Vittorio Larocca & Francesca Marazzi & Luca Panaccione & Lorenzo Spadoni, 2020. "The Show Must Go On: How to Elicit Lablike Data on the Effects of COVID-19 Lockdown on Fairness and Cooperation," Working Papers CESARE 2/2020, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    3. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Marc A. Ragin & Justin R. Sydnor, 2022. "Insurance demand experiments: Comparing crowdworking to the lab," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1077-1107, December.
    4. Guo, Yiting & Shachat, Jason & Walker, Matthew J. & Wei, Lijia, 2023. "On the generalizability of using mobile devices to conduct economic experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    5. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Kairies-Schwarz, Nadja & Kokot, Johanna & Wiesen, Daniel, 2024. "A new look at physicians’ responses to financial incentives: Quality of care, practice characteristics, and motivations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Hyndman, Kyle & Walker, Matthew J., 2022. "Fairness and risk in ultimatum bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 90-105.
    7. Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman & Daniele Nosenzo, 2025. "Why people follow rules," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 9(7), pages 1342-1354, July.
    8. Mingshi Chen & Tracy Xiao Liu & You Shan & Shu Wang & Songfa Zhong & Yanju Zhou, 2025. "How General Are Measures of Choice Consistency? Evidence from Experimental and Scanner Data," Papers 2505.05275, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2025.
    9. Hindsley, Paul & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2020. "Consumer Demand for Ethical Products and the Role of Cultural Worldviews: The Case of Direct-Trade Coffee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    10. Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Müller, Daniel, 2020. "Social preferences and political attitudes: An online experiment on a large heterogeneous sample," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    11. Marius Protte, 2025. "Explaining Apparently Inaccurate Self-assessments of Relative Performance: A Replication and Adaptation of 'Overconfident: Do you put your money on it?' by Hoelzl and Rustichini (2005)," Papers 2507.15568, arXiv.org.
    12. Bernard, Kévin & Bonein, Aurélie & Bougherara, Douadia, 2020. "Consumer inequality aversion and risk preferences in community supported agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    13. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    14. Gächter, Simon & Lee, Kyeongtae & Sefton, Martin & Weber, Till O., 2024. "The role of payoff parameters for cooperation in the one-shot Prisoner's Dilemma," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    15. Bajoori, Elnaz & Peeters, Ronald & Wolk, Leonard, 2024. "Security auctions with cash- and equity-bids: An experimental study," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    16. Ennio Bilancini & Leonardo Boncinelli & Lorenzo Spadoni, 2020. "Motivating Risky Choices Increases Risk Taking," Working Papers CESARE 1/2020, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    17. Cecchini Manara, Virginia & Ciscato, Eleonora & Guarnieri, Pietro & Spadoni, Lorenzo, 2025. "Back to the future: An experiment on ecological restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    18. Osberghaus, Daniel & Reif, Christiane, 2021. "How do different compensation schemes and loss experience affect insurance decisions? Experimental evidence from two independent and heterogeneous samples," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    19. Bhatt, Vipul & Smith, Angela M., 2025. "Overconfidence and performance: Evidence from a simple real-effort task," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    20. Kawamura, Tetsuya & Mori, Tomoharu & Motonishi, Taizo & Ogawa, Kazuhito, 2021. "Is Financial Literacy Dangerous? Financial Literacy, Behavioral Factors, and Financial Choices of Households," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:soceco:v:119:y:2025:i:c:s2214804325001168. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.