IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i4p753-d141046.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information to Improve Public Perceptions of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA’s) Tobacco Regulatory Role

Author

Listed:
  • Amira Osman

    (Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Sarah D. Kowitt

    (Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Paschal Sheeran

    (Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Kristen L. Jarman

    (Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Leah M. Ranney

    (Department of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Adam O. Goldstein

    (Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
    Department of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

Abstract

While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has had regulatory authority over tobacco products since 2009, public awareness of this authority remains limited. This research examines several broad types of information about FDA tobacco regulatory mission that may improve the perceptions of FDA as a tobacco regulator. Using Amazon Mechanical Turk, 1766 adults, smokers and non-smokers, were randomly assigned to view a statement about FDA regulatory authority that varied three information types in a 2 × 2 × 2 between subjects experimental design: (1) FDA’s roles in regulating tobacco (yes/no); (2) The scientific basis of regulations (yes/no); and (3) A potential protective function of regulations (yes/no). Using factorial ANOVA, we estimated the main and interactive effects of all three types of information and of smoking status on the perceptions of FDA. Participants that were exposed to information on FDA roles reported higher FDA credibility and a greater perceived knowledge of FDA than those who did not. Exposure to information about the scientific basis of regulations led to more negative views of the tobacco industry. Participants who learned of the FDA’s commitment to protecting the public reported higher FDA credibility and more positive attitudes toward regulations than those who did not learn of this commitment. We observed no significant interaction effects. The findings suggest that providing information about the regulatory roles and protective characterization of the FDA’s tobacco regulatory mission positively influence public perceptions of FDA and tobacco regulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Amira Osman & Sarah D. Kowitt & Paschal Sheeran & Kristen L. Jarman & Leah M. Ranney & Adam O. Goldstein, 2018. "Information to Improve Public Perceptions of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA’s) Tobacco Regulatory Role," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:4:p:753-:d:141046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/4/753/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/4/753/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Farrelly, M.C. & Healton, C.G. & Davis, K.C. & Messeri, P. & Hersey, J.C. & Haviland, M.L., 2002. "Getting to the truth: Evaluating national tobacco countermarketing campaigns," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 92(6), pages 901-907.
    2. Landman, A. & Glantz, S.A., 2009. "Tobacco industry efforts to undermine policy-relevant research," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(1), pages 45-58.
    3. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    4. Flynn, Leisa Reinecke & Goldsmith, Ronald E., 1999. "A Short, Reliable Measure of Subjective Knowledge," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 57-66, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    2. Groza, Mark D. & Groza, Mya Pronschinske, 2018. "Salesperson regulatory knowledge and sales performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 37-46.
    3. Catherine Viot & Juliette Passebois-Ducros, 2010. "Wine brands or branded wines? The specificity of the French market in terms of the brand," Post-Print hal-01803728, HAL.
    4. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    5. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    6. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    7. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    9. Eva M. Murgado-Armenteros & María Gutierrez-Salcedo & Francisco José Torres-Ruiz, 2020. "The Concern about Biodiversity as a Criterion for the Classification of the Sustainable Consumer: A Cross-Cultural Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-14, April.
    10. Kyungsik Han, 2018. "How do you perceive this author? Understanding and modeling authors’ communication quality in social media," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, February.
    11. Azzam, Tarek & Harman, Elena, 2016. "Crowdsourcing for quantifying transcripts: An exploratory study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 63-73.
    12. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    13. Huet-Vaughn, Emiliano & Robbett, Andrea & Spitzer, Matthew, 2019. "A taste for taxes: Minimizing distortions using political preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    14. Holgersen, Henning & Jia, Zhiyang & Svenkerud, Simen, 2021. "Who and how many can work from home? Evidence from task descriptions," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 55, pages 1-4.
    15. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    16. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    17. Min Chung Han, 2021. "Thumbs down on “likes”? The impact of Facebook reactions on online consumers’ nonprofit engagement behavior," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(2), pages 255-272, June.
    18. Di Dong & Rong Ran & Bingsheng Liu & Jinfeng Zhang & Chengcheng Song & Jing Wang, 2024. "Recentralization and the long‐lasting effect of campaign‐style enforcement: From the perspective of authority allocation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(1), pages 239-275, January.
    19. Narae Kim & Jeong-Nam Kim, 2024. "A COVID-19 Paradox of Communication, Ignorance, and Vaccination Intention," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(3), pages 21582440241, September.
    20. Dongshu Liu & Li Shao, 2024. "Nationalist propaganda and support for war in an authoritarian context: Evidence from China," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(6), pages 985-1001, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:4:p:753-:d:141046. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.