Comparing in person and internet methods to recruit low-SES populations for tobacco control policy research.

Tobacco use and the associated consequences are much more prevalent among low-SES populations in the U.S. However, tobacco-based research often does not include these harder-to-reach populations. This paper compares the effectiveness and drawbacks of three methods of recruiting low-SES adult smokers in the Northeast. From a 5-year, [funding blinded] grant about impacts of graphic warning labels on tobacco products, three separate means of recruiting low-SES adult smokers emerged: 1) in person in the field with a mobile lab vehicle, 2) in person in the field with tablet computers, and 3) online via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). We compared each of these methods in terms of the resulting participant demographics and the "pros" and "cons" of each approach including quality control, logistics, cost, and engagement. Field-based methods (with a mobile lab or in person with a tablet) yielded a greater proportion of disadvantaged participants who could be biochemically verified as current smokers-45% of the field-based sample had an annual income of <$10,000 compared to 16% of the MTurk sample; 40-45% of the field-based sample did not complete high school compared to 2.6% of the MTurk sample. MTurk-based recruitment was substantially less expensive to operate (1/14th the cost of field-based methods) was faster, and involved less logistical coordination, though was unable to provide immediate biochemical verification of current smoking status. Both MTurk and field-based methods provide access to low-SES participants-the difference is the proportion and the degree of disadvantage. For research and interventions where either inclusion considerations or external validity with low-SES populations is critical, especially the most disadvantaged, our research supports the use of field-based methods. It also highlights the importance of adequate funding and time to enable the recruitment and participation of these harder-to-reach populations.

Effects of Varying Color, Imagery, and Text of Cigarette Package Warning Labels among Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Middle School Youth and Adult Smokers.

The U.S. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) of 2009 paved the way for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to propose nine different graphic warning labels (GWLs) intended for prominent placement on the front and back of cigarette packs and on cigarette advertisements. Those GWLs were adjudicated as unconstitutional on the ground that they unnecessarily infringed tobacco companies' free speech without sufficiently advancing the government's public health interests. This study examines whether less extensive alternatives to the original full-color GWLs, including black-and-white GWLs and text-only options, have similar or divergent effects on visual attention, negative affect, and health risk beliefs. We used a mobile media research lab to conduct a randomized experiment with two populations residing in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities: biochemically confirmed adult smokers (N = 313) and middle school youth (N = 340). Results indicate that full-color GWLs capture attention for longer than black-and-white GWLs among both youth and adult smokers. Among adults, packages with GWLs (in either color or black-and-white) engendered more negative affect than those with text-only labels, while text-only produced greater negative affect than the packages with brand imagery only. Among youth, GWLs and text-only labels produced comparable levels of negative affect, albeit more so than brand imagery. We thus offer mixed findings related to the claim that a less extensive alternative could satisfy the government's compelling public health interest to reduce cigarette smoking rates.

Framing Effects in Narrative and Non-Narrative Risk Messages.

Narrative messages are increasingly popular in health and risk campaigns, yet gain/loss framing effects have never been tested with such messages. Three experiments examined framing in narrative messages. Experiment 1 found that only the character's decision, not framing, influenced judgments about characters in a narrative derived from a prospect theory context. Experiment 2 found that a framing effect that occurred when presented in a decision format did not occur when the same situation was presented as a narrative. Using a different story/decision context, Experiment 3 found no significant difference in preference for surgery over radiation therapy in a narrative presentation compared to a non-narrative presentation. The results suggest that health and risk campaigns cannot assume that framing effects will be the same in narrative messages and non-narrative messages. Potential reasons for these differences and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Factors influencing U.S. consumer support for genetic modification to prevent crop disease.

This study examines support for the genetic modification (GM) of crops in the context of preventing "late blight," a devastating potato and tomato disease that caused the Irish Potato Famine in the 1850s and results in substantial crop loss today. We surveyed U.S. adults who do the primary grocery shopping in their household (n = 859). Half of the respondents were randomly assigned to read a vignette describing late blight before responding to questions about GM, whereas the other half read a vignette about generic crop disease before responding to questions. We also examine how the perceived fairness of decision makers relates to GM support and the perceived legitimacy of GM decision making. We found that disease specificity mattered less to support and legitimacy than the perceived fairness of decision makers. The perceived risks of GM to human and environmental health negatively related to GM support and legitimacy, whereas the perceived benefits (e.g. reduced threats to crops and a more secure food supply) positively related to support and legitimacy. Objective knowledge about GM had a small, negative relationship with legitimacy whereas self-assessed familiarity with GM had a positive relationship. Overall, the results offer additional confirmation of past findings from more localized settings that perceived fairness of decision makers matters to support for GM and underscore the importance of considering how risk managers' behaviors and actions are perceived alongside individuals' perceptions about the risks and benefits.