ArticleHealth education research2026
Effects of textual warnings and warning symbols on cannabis advertisements on product perceptions among US young adults.
Article in Health education research, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
States with legalized non-medical cannabis require different warnings on packages and advertisements; yet, studies examining effects of textual warnings and different warning symbols on young adults' perceptions are limited. In 2024, US young adults ages 18-34 (n = 3 579) completed an online survey-based experiment using a 2 × 4 factorial design (textual warning: no, yes; warning symbol: none, leaf, THC, leaf + THC), then reported on 5 perception outcomes: addictiveness, harm, cautiousness, appeal, and interest. Multivariable regressions assessed these conditions and their interactions in relation to outcomes, overall and by past-month cannabis use status. Among participants without past-month use, the THC symbol (versus none) was associated with higher perceived addictiveness (B = 0.32, SE = 0.12), harm (B = 0.23, SE = 0.12), and cautiousness (B = 0.31, SE = 0.13); the textual warning was associated with greater appeal (B = 0.18, SE = 0.09). No effects were found among participants reporting cannabis use. An interaction between textual warning × leaf symbol on perceived harm (B = 0.35, SE = 0.18) indicated that exposure to both the textual warning and leaf symbol decreased perceived harm; exposure to only one (i.e. not together) increased perceived harm. Regulatory bodies must understand effects of different warning requirements, consider requiring the THC symbol, assess potential confusion of the leaf symbol, and explore warnings targeting different subgroups.
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.