IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i19p10492-d650695.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tailored Cigarette Warning Messages: How Individualized Loss Aversion and Delay Discounting Rates Can Influence Perceived Message Effectiveness

Author

Listed:
  • Hollie L. Tripp

    (Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA)

  • Justin C. Strickland

    (Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA)

  • Melissa Mercincavage

    (Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA)

  • Janet Audrain-McGovern

    (Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA)

  • Eric C. Donny

    (Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA)

  • Andrew A. Strasser

    (Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA)

Abstract

Current text-only cigarette warning labels (long-term, loss-framed messages) may not motivate positive changes in smoking behavior. The current project was a cross-sectional study examining the effects of tailored cigarette warnings on perceived message effectiveness (PME) in adult smokers ( n = 512) conducted using Amazon Mechanical Turk (M-Turk) in January–February 2020. Participants were an average age of 40.7 (SD = 11.6), with the majority of the sample being female (62.2%) and White (88.9%). Participants reported smoking an average of 14.6 cigarettes/day (SD = 9.2) with an average FTND score of 4.6 (SD = 2.2). Participants were asked to complete a tobacco use history questionnaire, and mixed gambles and delay discounting tasks before random assignment to one of five message groups. The groups were based on a 2 (gain versus loss framing) ×2 (short-term versus long-term framing) between-subject design; a fifth group served as the control group. All experimental messages reported higher PME scores than the control ( p values < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.88–2.48). Participants with shallower delayed reward discounting and lower loss aversion rates reported higher total PME scores, p values < 0.05. Our findings also suggest that loss aversion rates vary widely among smokers and that individuals are more responsive to messages congruent with their behavioral economic profile. Specifically, smokers who viewed messages congruent with their loss aversion and delay discounting rates reported higher PME scores than those who viewed incongruent messages ( p = 0.04, Cohen’s d = 0.24). These preliminary findings suggest that anti-smoking campaigns may best impact smokers by tailoring messages based on individual loss aversion and delay discounting rates versus a one-size-fits-all approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Hollie L. Tripp & Justin C. Strickland & Melissa Mercincavage & Janet Audrain-McGovern & Eric C. Donny & Andrew A. Strasser, 2021. "Tailored Cigarette Warning Messages: How Individualized Loss Aversion and Delay Discounting Rates Can Influence Perceived Message Effectiveness," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-11, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:19:p:10492-:d:650695
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/19/10492/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/19/10492/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manel Baucells & Silvia Bellezza, 2017. "Temporal Profiles of Instant Utility During Anticipation, Event, and Recall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 729-748, March.
    2. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    3. Thaler, Richard, 1981. "Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 201-207.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gideon P. Naudé & Sean B. Dolan & Justin C. Strickland & Meredith S. Berry & David J. Cox & Matthew W. Johnson, 2021. "The Influence of Episodic Future Thinking and Graphic Warning Labels on Delay Discounting and Cigarette Demand," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-15, November.
    2. Mario Cesare Nurchis & Marcello Di Pumpo & Alessio Perilli & Giuseppe Greco & Gianfranco Damiani, 2023. "Nudging Interventions on Alcohol and Tobacco Consumption in Adults: A Scoping Review of the Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-10, January.

    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. Häckel, Björn & Pfosser, Stefan & Tränkler, Timm, 2017. "Explaining the energy efficiency gap - Expected Utility Theory versus Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 414-426.
    2. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    3. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    4. Hong, Yan-Zhen & Su, Yi-Ju & Chang, Hung-Hao, 2023. "Analyzing the relationship between income and life satisfaction of Forest farm households - a behavioral economics approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    5. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.
    6. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    7. Klein, Martin & Deissenroth, Marc, 2017. "When do households invest in solar photovoltaics? An application of prospect theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 270-278.
    8. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    9. Mariya Burdina & Scott Hiller, 2021. "When Falling Just Short is a Good Thing: The Effect of Past Performance on Improvement," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(7), pages 777-798, October.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:988-1014 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Edsel L. Beja, 2017. "The Asymmetric Effects of Macroeconomic Performance on Happiness: Evidence for the EU," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 52(3), pages 184-190, May.
    12. Jan-Emmanuel De Neve & George Ward & Femke De Keulenaer & Bert Van Landeghem & Georgios Kavetsos & Michael I. Norton, 2018. "The Asymmetric Experience of Positive and Negative Economic Growth: Global Evidence Using Subjective Well-Being Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 100(2), pages 362-375, May.
    13. Benistant, Julien & Suchon, Rémi, 2021. "It does (not) get better: Reference income violation and altruism," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    14. Cédric Gutierrez & Tomasz Obloj & Douglas H. Frank, 2021. "Better to have led and lost than never to have led at all? Lost leadership and effort provision in dynamic tournaments," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 774-801, April.
    15. Giacoletti, Marco & Parsons, Christopher A., 2022. "Peak-Bust rental spreads," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(1), pages 504-526.
    16. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:988-1014 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Zheng Fang & Yoko Niimi, 2015. "Do Losses Bite More than Gains? Evidence from a Panel Quantile Regression Analysis of Subjective Well-being in Japan," Economic Growth Centre Working Paper Series 1507, Nanyang Technological University, School of Social Sciences, Economic Growth Centre.
    18. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    19. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    20. Wenhui Zhou & Dongmei Wang & Weixiang Huang & Pengfei Guo, 2021. "To Pool or Not to Pool? The Effect of Loss Aversion on Queue Configurations," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(11), pages 4258-4272, November.
    21. George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin, 2003. "Projection Bias in Predicting Future Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(4), pages 1209-1248.
    22. Eric J. Allen & Patricia M. Dechow & Devin G. Pope & George Wu, 2017. "Reference-Dependent Preferences: Evidence from Marathon Runners," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(6), pages 1657-1672, June.

    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:18:y:2021:i:19:p:10492-:d:650695. 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.