ArticleJournal of behavioral medicine2022
Is a cigarette brand with fewer chemicals safer? Public perceptions in two national US experiments.
Article in Journal of behavioral medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
By law, the US government must publicly display the quantities of harmful chemicals in cigarettes by brand, but doing so could mislead people to incorrectly think that some cigarettes are safer than others. We evaluated formats for presenting chemical quantities side-by-side to see if any were misleading. We recruited US convenience (n = 604) and probability (n = 1440) samples. We randomized participants to 1 of 5 formats: checklist, point estimates, ranges, a visual risk indicator, or no-quantity control. Participants were far more likely to incorrectly endorse one cigarette brand as riskier than the other in the checklist (65% made error), point estimate (67-70%), range (64-67%), or risk indicator (68-75%) conditions as compared to the no-quantity control (1%, all p < .001). Among smokers, erroneous risk perceptions mediated the impact of quantity format on interest in switching brands. People viewing chemical quantities for cigarette brands side-by-side misperceived differences in risk, suggesting limited public health value of this information.
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.