Comparing the effects of organic, natural, and no additives labels on tobacco packaging between Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual (LGB) and heterosexual smokers. (April 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lee, Stella Juhyun; Sanders-Jackson, Ashley; Fallin-Bennett, Amanda; Tan, Andy S.L.
• Is Part Of: Addictive behaviors. Volume 91(2019)
• Page Start: 175
• Page End: 179
• Publication Date: 2019-04
• Subjects: E-cigarettes -- LGB -- Tobacco product package labels; Substance abuse -- Periodicals; Alcoholism -- Periodicals; Drug addiction -- Periodicals; Nicotine addiction -- Periodicals; Smoking -- Periodicals; Gambling -- Psychological aspects -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 362.29
• DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.08.002
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0306-4603

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Previous research found that exposure to health-oriented language (e.g., natural, organic) on tobacco product packages is associated with reduced perceptions of harm and intention to purchase the product. However, how lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) individuals, who use tobacco products at a higher rate than heterosexual peers, respond to health-oriented labels has not yet been examined. This analysis examines whether responses to health-oriented labels differ between LGB persons and heterosexual individuals. Methods: Secondary analysis was completed from an experimental study that exposed US adult smokers to a non-US cigarette (Study 1) or e-cigarette (Study 2) package that displayed either health-oriented language ('100% organic, ' 'all natural' or 'no additives'), traditional marketing language ('fine quality, ' 'premium blend' or '100% original') or no language. Results: No significant differences were found between LGB smokers and heterosexual smokers in responses to cigarette packages with health-oriented labels (Study 1). However, LGB smokers had less favorable attitudes toward the e-cigarette product after viewing health-oriented labels (versus no language control label) while heterosexual smokers' attitudes did not differ across health-oriented and control labels (Study 2). In addition, LGB smokers had lower intention to purchase and vape e-cigarettes, and less favorable attitudes in response to health-oriented labels than heterosexual smokers. Conclusions: Findings suggest that LGB smokers process pro-tobacco messages differently than heterosexual smokers, and that product type (i.e., cigarette vs. e-cigarette) may be a factor to consider. Further research is needed to uncover underlying mechanisms. Highlights: Effects of health-oriented cigarette labels did not differ bysexual orientation. Effects of health-oriented e-cigarette labels did differ by sexual orientation. LGB smokers had less favorable attitudes towards health-oriented e-cigarette labels.