ArticleAmerican journal of public health2014
When health policy and empirical evidence collide: the case of cigarette package warning labels and economic consumer surplus.
Article in American journal of public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variances in Smoking Expectancies Predict Moment-to-Moment Smoking Behaviors in Everyday Life.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2025Article
- Reassessing the importance of 'lost pleasure' associated with smoking cessation: implications for social welfare and policy.Tobacco control · 2018Article
- Tobacco Regulation and Cost-Benefit Analysis: How Should We Value Foregone Consumer Surplus?American journal of health economics · 2018Article
- Mixed methods research in tobacco control with youth and young adults: A methodological review of current strategies.PloS one · 2017Review
- Tolerant Paternalism: Pro-ethical Design as a Resolution of the Dilemma of Toleration.Science and engineering ethics · 2016Article
- Cost Effectiveness of a Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Excise Tax in the U.S.American journal of preventive medicine · 2015Review
- An evaluation of the FDA's analysis of the costs and benefits of the graphic warning label regulation.Tobacco control · 2015Article
- Assessing tobacco regulation: moving beyond economists.Tobacco control · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In its graphic warning label regulations on cigarette packages, the Food and Drug Administration severely discounts the benefits of reduced smoking because of the lost "pleasure" smokers experience when they stop smoking; this is quantified as lost "consumer surplus." Consumer surplus is grounded in rational choice theory. However, empirical evidence from psychological cognitive science and behavioral economics demonstrates that the assumptions of rational choice are inconsistent with complex multidimensional decisions, particularly smoking. Rational choice does not account for the roles of emotions, misperceptions, optimistic bias, regret, and cognitive inefficiency that are germane to smoking, particularly because most smokers begin smoking in their youth. Continued application of a consumer surplus discount will undermine sensible policies to reduce tobacco use and other policies to promote public health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.