The effect of cigarillo packaging elements on young adult perceptions of product flavor, taste, smell, and appeal.

INTRODUCTION: Product packaging has long been used by the tobacco industry to target consumers and manipulate product perceptions. This study examines the extent to which cigarillo packaging influences perceptions of product flavor, taste, smell, and appeal. METHODS: A web-based experiment was conducted among young adults. Participants viewed three randomly selected cigarillo packs, varying on pack flavor descriptor, color, type, branding, and warning-totaling 180 pack images. Mixed-effects models were used to estimate the effect of pack elements on product perceptions. RESULTS: A total of 2,664 current, ever, and never little cigar and cigarillo users participated. Cigarillo packs with a flavor descriptor were perceived as having a more favorable taste (ß = 0.21, p < .001) and smell (ß = 0.14, p < .001) compared to packs with no flavor descriptor. Compared to packs with no color, pink and purple packs were more likely to be perceived as containing a flavor (ß = 0.11, p < .001), and were rated more favorably on taste (ß = 0.17, p < .001), smell (ß = 0.15, p < .001), and appeal (ß = 0.16, p < .001). While warnings on packs decreased favorable perceptions of product taste (pictorial: ß = -0.07, p = .03) and smell (text-only: ß = -0.08, p = .01; pictorial: ß = -0.09, p = .007), warnings did not moderate the effects of flavor descriptor or color. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study provides the first quantitative evidence that cigarillo packaging alters consumers' cognitive responses, and warnings on packs do not suffice to overcome the effects of product packaging. The findings support efforts at federal, state, and local levels to prohibit flavor descriptors and their associated product flavoring in non-cigarette products such as cigarillos, along with new data that supports restrictions on flavor cues and colors.

Effects of study design and allocation on self-reported alcohol consumption: randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: What participants think about the nature of a study might affect their behaviour and bias findings. We tested two hypotheses: (1) participants told they were in an intervention trial would report lower alcohol consumption at follow-up than those told they were in a cohort study; (2) participants told they were in the intervention group in a trial would have lower alcohol consumption at follow-up than those told they were in the control group. METHODS: Students from four universities (N = 72,903) were invited to participate in a 'research project on student drinking'. Of 10,415 respondents, 6,788 were moderate to heavy drinkers and were randomized. Group A ('cohort') were informed their drinking would be assessed at baseline and again in one month. Group B ('control') were told the study was an intervention trial and they were in the control group. Group C ('intervention') were told the study was an intervention trial and they were to receive the intervention. All were assessed and directed to read identical online alcohol education material. Whether and how long they accessed the material were recorded. One month later, alcohol intake was reassessed. RESULTS: In relation to hypothesis 1, there were no differences between the groups on the prespecified outcome measures. In relation to hypothesis 2, there were no differences though all point estimates were in the hypothesized direction (that is, 'intervention' < 'control'). The 'cohort' and 'control' groups accessed the material to a similar extent (59% versus 57%) while the 'intervention' group were more likely to access it (78%) and to read it for longer (median 35 s (25th and 75th percentiles: 6, 97) versus medians of 7 s (0, 28) and 8 s (4, 42) for the 'cohort' and 'control' groups, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although the context given to the research participants significantly influenced access to the online information and reading time, this did not translate into any effect on drinking behaviour, for either hypothesis. This might be because of failure in the experimental paradigm or the possibility of weaker effects using the online approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000846022.