Christian Ben Lakhdar , Antoine Deplancke , Fabrice Le Lec , Sophie Massin , Anthony Piermatteo , Nicolas G. Vaillant
{"title":"‘You can quit!’: Exploring the efficacy of new cigarette pack warnings through an experiment","authors":"Christian Ben Lakhdar , Antoine Deplancke , Fabrice Le Lec , Sophie Massin , Anthony Piermatteo , Nicolas G. Vaillant","doi":"10.1016/j.socec.2025.102452","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>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 (<em>n</em> = 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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51637,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","volume":"119 ","pages":"Article 102452"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804325001168","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) welcomes submissions that deal with various economic topics but also involve issues that are related to other social sciences, especially psychology, or use experimental methods of inquiry. Thus, contributions in behavioral economics, experimental economics, economic psychology, and judgment and decision making are especially welcome. The journal is open to different research methodologies, as long as they are relevant to the topic and employed rigorously. Possible methodologies include, for example, experiments, surveys, empirical work, theoretical models, meta-analyses, case studies, and simulation-based analyses. Literature reviews that integrate findings from many studies are also welcome, but they should synthesize the literature in a useful manner and provide substantial contribution beyond what the reader could get by simply reading the abstracts of the cited papers. In empirical work, it is important that the results are not only statistically significant but also economically significant. A high contribution-to-length ratio is expected from published articles and therefore papers should not be unnecessarily long, and short articles are welcome. Articles should be written in a manner that is intelligible to our generalist readership. Book reviews are generally solicited but occasionally unsolicited reviews will also be published. Contact the Book Review Editor for related inquiries.