RESEARCH PAPER
Qualitative assessment of a Context of Consumption Framework to inform regulation of cigarette pack design in the U.S.
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Health Education and Promotion, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, United States
2
School of Social Work, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, United States
3
Department of Interior Design and Merchandising, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, United States
Publish date: 2018-02-10
 
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2018;16(February):3
KEYWORDS:
TOPICS:
Smoking
 
ABSTRACT:
Introduction:
Researchers and regulators need to know how changes to cigarette packages can influence population health. We sought to advance research on the role of cigarette packaging by assessing a theory-informed framework from the fields of design and consumer research. The selected Context of Consumption Framework posits cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to visual design. To assess the Framework’s potential for guiding research on the visual design of cigarette packaging in the U.S., this study seeks to understand to what extent the Context of Consumption Framework converges with how adult smokers think and talk about cigarette pack designs.

Methods:
Data for this qualitative study came from six telephone-based focus groups conducted in March 2017. Two groups consisted of lesbian, gay, and bisexual participants; two groups of participants with less than four years college education; one group of LGB and straight identity; and one group the general population. All groups were selected for regional, gender, and racial/ethnic diversity. Participants (n=33) represented all nine U.S. Census divisions. We conducted a deductive qualitative analysis.

Results:
Cigarette package designs captured the participants’ attention, suggested the characteristics of the product, and reflected (or could be leveraged to convey) multiple dimensions of consumer identity. Particular to the affective responses to design, our participants shared that cigarette packaging conveyed how the pack could be used to particular ends, created an emotional response to the designs, complied with normative expectations of a cigarette, elicited interest when designs change, and prompted fascination when unique design characteristics are used.

Conclusions:
Use of the Context of Consumption Framework for cigarette product packaging design can inform regulatory research on tobacco product packaging. Researchers and regulators should consider multiple cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to cigarette pack design.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Joseph G. L. Lee   
Department of Health Education and Promotion, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Mail Stop 529, 1000 East 5th Street, Greenville, North Carolina 27858, United States
 
REFERENCES (50):
1. Carpenter D, Connolly GN, Lempert LK. Substantial Equivalence Standards in Tobacco Governance: Statutory Clarity and Regulatory Precedent for the FSPTCA. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2017;42(4):607-644. doi:10.1215/03616878-3774188
2. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 21 USC; vol. 21. 2009.
3. Lempert LK, Glantz S. Packaging colour research by tobacco companies: the pack as a product characteristic. Tob Control. 2017;26(3):307-315. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052656
4. Slade J. The pack as advertisement. Tob Control. 1997;6(3):169-170. doi:10.1136/tc.6.3.169
5. Pierce JP, Messer K, James LE, White MM, Kealey S, Vallone DM, et al. Camel No. 9 cigarette-marketing campaign targeted young teenage girls. Pediatrics. 2010;125(4):619-626. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0607
6. Wakefield M, Morley C, Horan JK, Cummings KM. The cigarette pack as image: new evidence from tobacco industry documents. Tob Control. 2002;11(Suppl 1):I73-80. doi:10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i73
7. Carpenter CM, Wayne GF, Connolly GN. Designing cigarettes for women: new findings from the tobacco industry documents. Addiction. 2005;100(6):837-851. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01072.x
8. Ehrlich SL, Woodlee JW. Philip Morris USA Inc. v. FDA. In: Wartman GJ, edn. Top Food and Drug Cases, 2016. Washington, DC: Food and Drug Law Institute; 2017:55-62.
9. Ashley DL, Backinger CL, van Bemmel DM, Neveleff DJ. Tobacco regulatory science: research to inform regulatory action at the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Tobacco Products. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014;16(8):1045-1049. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu038
10. Skaczkowski G, Durkin S, Kashima Y, Wakefield M. The effect of packaging, branding and labeling on the experience of unhealthy food and drink: A review. Appetite. 2016;99:219-234. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2016.01.022
11. Bansal-Travers M, Hammond D, Smith P, Cummings KM. The impact of cigarette pack design, descriptors, and warning labels on risk perception in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(6):674-682. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2011.01.021
12. Bansal-Travers M, O'Connor R, Fix BV, Cummings KM. What do cigarette pack colors communicate to smokers in the U.S.? Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(6):683-689. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2011.01.019
13. Noar SM, Francis DB, Bridges C, Sontag JM, Ribisl KM, Brewer NT. The impact of strengthening cigarette pack warnings: Systematic review of longitudinal observational studies. Soc Sci Med. 2016;164:118-129. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.06.011
14. McNeill A, Gravely S, Hitchman SC, Bauld L, Hammond D, Hartmann-Boyce J. Tobacco packaging design for reducing tobacco use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:Cd011244. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd011244.pub2
15. Balmford J, Borland R, Yong HH. Impact of the introduction of standardised packaging on smokers' brand awareness and identification in Australia. Drug and alcohol review. 2015;35(1):102-109. doi:10.1111/dar.12331
16. Moodie C, Angus K, Ford A. The importance of cigarette packaging in a 'dark' market: the 'Silk Cut' experience. Tob Control. 2014;23(3):274-278. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050681
17. Crilly N, Moultrie J, Clarkson PJ. Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies. 2004;25(6):547-577. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2004.03.001
18. DiFranza JR, Clark DM, Pollay RW. Cigarette package design: opportunities for disease prevention. Tobacco induced diseases. 2002;1(2):97-109. doi:10.1186/1617-9625-1-2-97
19. Kotnowski K, Hammond D. The impact of cigarette pack shape, size and opening: evidence from tobacco company documents. Addiction. 2013;108(9):1658-1668. doi:10.1111/add.12183
20. 1.2 Affect, behavior, and cognition. Principles of Social Psychology. http://open.lib.umn.edu/social.... Accessed October 26, 2017.
21. Hammond D, Doxey J, Daniel S, Bansal-Travers M. Impact of female-oriented cigarette packaging in the United States. Nicotine Tob Res. 2011;13(7):579-588. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntr045
22. Ford A, Moodie C, MacKintosh AM, Hastings G. Adolescent perceptions of cigarette appearance. Eur J Public Health. 2014;24(3):464-468. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckt161
23. Guillaumier A, Bonevski B, Paul C. Tobacco health warning messages on plain cigarette packs and in television campaigns: a qualitative study with Australian socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers. Health Educ Res. 2015;30(1):57-66. doi:10.1093/her/cyu037
24. Edvardsson I, Troein M, Ejlertsson G, Lendahls L. Snus user identity and addiction: a Swedish focus group study on adolescents. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):975. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-975
25. Scheffels J, Lund I. Cute as candy: a qualitative study of perceptions of snus branding and package design among youth in Norway. BMJ Open. 2017;7(4):e012837. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012837
26. Ford A, Mackintosh AM, Moodie C, Richardson S, Hastings G. Cigarette pack design and adolescent smoking susceptibility: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2013;3(9):e003282. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003282
27. Popova L, So J, Sangalang A, Neilands TB, Ling PM. Do Emotions Spark Interest in Alternative Tobacco Products? Health Educ Behav. 2017;44(4):598-612. doi:10.1177/1090198116683169
28. Lee JG, Averett PE, Blanchflower T, Landi N, Gregory KR. “Their Packaging Has Always Been Like a Power”: A Qualitative Study of U.S. Smokers’ Perceptions of Cigarette Pack Visual Design Features to Inform Product Regulation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2017;14(10):1234. doi:10.3390/ijerph14101234
29. Berman ML, Kim AE. Bridging the gap between science and law: the example of tobacco regulatory science. J Law Med Ethics. 2015;43(Suppl 1):95-98. doi:10.1111/jlme.12227
30. Ross LE, Stroud LA, Rose SW, Jorgensen CM. Using telephone focus groups methodology to examine the prostate cancer screening practices of African-American primary care physicians. J Natl Med Assoc. 2006;98(8):1296-1299.
31. Cooper CP, Jorgensen CM, Merritt TL. Report from the CDC. Telephone focus groups: an emerging method in public health research. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2003;12(10):945-951. doi:10.1089/154099903322643866
32. Jamal A, King BA, Neff LJ, Whitmill J, Babb SD, Graffunder CM. Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults - United States, 2005-2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(44):1205-1211. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6544a2
33. Bell K, Dennis S, Robinson J, Moore R. Does the hand that controls the cigarette packet rule the smoker? Findings from ethnographic interviews with smokers in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and the USA. Soc Sci Med. 2015;142:136-144. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.08.021
34. Gilgun J. Coding in deductive qualitative analysis. Current Issues in Qualitative Research: An Occasional Publication for Field Researchers from a Variety of Disciplines 2011;2(1):1-4.
35. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. vol. 75. Sage; 1985.
36. Scheffels J. A difference that makes a difference: young adult smokers' accounts of cigarette brands and package design. Tob Control. 2008;17(2):118-122. doi:10.1136/tc.2007.021592
37. Barnard M, Forsyth A. The social context of under-age smoking: A qualitative study of cigarette brand preference. Health Educ J. 1996;55(2):175-184. doi:10.1177/001789699605500205
38. Gittelsohn J, McCormick LK, Allen P, Grieser M, Crawford M, Davis S. Inter-ethnic differences in youth tobacco language and cigarette brand preferences. Ethn Health. 1999;4(4):285-303. doi:10.1080/13557859998065
39. Kong G, Cavallo DA, Bold KW, LaVallee H, Krishnan-Sarin S. Adolescent and Young Adult Perceptions on Cigar Packaging: A Qualitative Study. Tobacco Regulatory Science. 2017;3(3):333-346. doi:10.18001/trs.3.3.9
40. Ford A, Moodie C, Purves R, MacKintosh AM. Adolescent girls and young adult women's perceptions of superslims cigarette packaging: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(1):e010102. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010102
41. Ling PM, Glantz SA. Using tobacco-industry marketing research to design more effective tobacco-control campaigns. JAMA. 2002;287(22):2983-2989.
42. Dewhirst T, Sparks R. Intertextuality, tobacco sponsorship of sports, and adolescent male smoking culture: a selective review of tobacco industry documents. Journal of Sport and Social Issues. 2003;27(4):372-398. doi:10.1177/0193-723503258585
43. Dewhirst T. Into the black: Marlboro brand architecture, packaging and marketing communication of relative harm. Tob Control. 2017;0:1-3. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053547
44. Becker L, van Rompay TJ, Schifferstein HN, Galetzka M. Tough package, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste impressions and product evaluations. Food Quality and Preference. 2011;22(1):17-23. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.06.007
45. Van Rompay TJ, Pruyn AT. When visual product features speak the same language: Effects of shape‐typeface congruence on brand perception and price expectations. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2011;28(4):599-610. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00828.x
46. van Ooijen I, Fransen ML, Verlegh PW, Smit EG. Signalling product healthiness through symbolic package cues: Effects of package shape and goal congruence on consumer behaviour. Appetite. 2017;109:73-82. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.021
47. Velasco C, Salgado-Montejo A, Marmolejo-Ramos F, Spence C. Predictive packaging design: Tasting shapes, typefaces, names, and sounds. Food Quality and Preference. 2014;34:88-95. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.12.005
48. Solomon MR. Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being. 12th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2017.
49. Center for Tobacco Products. Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff. Section 905(j) Reports: Demonstrating Substantial Equivalence for Tobacco Products. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/.... Accessed October 26, 2017.
50. Lee K, Carpenter C, Challa C, Lee S, Connolly GN, Koh HK. The strategic targeting of females by transnational tobacco companies in South Korea following trade liberalization. Global Health. 2009;5(2). doi:10.1186/1744-8603-5-2
eISSN:1617-9625