Delayed effects of cigarette graphic warning labels on smoking behavior ======================================================================= * Zhenhao Shi * An-Li Wang * Janet Audrain-McGovern * Kevin G. Lynch * James Loughead * Daniel D. Langleben ## ABSTRACT Graphic warning labels (GWLs) on cigarette packs are widely employed to communicate smoking-related health risks. Most GWLs elicit high emotional arousal. Our recent study showed lower efficacy of high-arousal GWLs than low-arousal ones during 4 weeks of naturalistic exposure. Here, we conducted a secondary analysis to investigate the delayed effects of GWLs on smoking severity after the end of the 4- week exposure. In 112 adult smokers (56 high-arousal, 56 low-arousal), there was a significant reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day (CPD) from immediately post-exposure to 4 weeks post-exposure. The high-arousal and low-arousal groups did not differ in CPD reduction. Our study suggests lasting impact of GWLs on smoking behavior. The finding may be particularly relevant to the high-arousal GWLs, whose efficacy is not as pronounced during direct and continuous exposure. ## INTRODUCTION Graphic cigarette warning labels (GWLs) are employed in over 100 countries to communicate smoking-related health hazards. The US legislation has also mandated GWLs, but so far the FDA has been unable to overcome courts’ skepticism about GWLs’ effectiveness 1,2. Most GWLs feature aversive graphics that elicit strong emotional reaction (ER) 3. The level of aversiveness has been a key obstacle to GWL adoption in the US 1. Our prior studies show that high-ER GWLs are better remembered 4 but less effective than low-ER GWLs in reducing smoking under naturalistic conditions 5. High-ER GWLs may trigger maladaptive processes, such as distress 6, avoidance 7, and reactance 8, that attenuate their efficacy. We hypothesized that discontinuing GWLs after chronic exposure may allow smokers to recover from such immediate counterproductive processes while still benefiting from the retained memory of the warnings. Here, we performed a secondary analysis 5 to investigate smoking behavior change four weeks after the completion of a month-long exposure to GWLs in a cohort of US smokers. ## METHODS 168 adult smokers were exposed to high-ER (n=84) or low-ER (n=84) GWLs for four weeks and received weekly supply of cigarettes during weeks 0–4 5. Cigarette packages dispensed in week 0 had the current Surgeon General’s text-only warning, and those in weeks 1–4 carried experimental GWLs developed by the FDA 9. The number of cigarettes smoked per day (CPD) was measured before (week 0), during (weeks 1–3), immediately after (week 4), and four weeks after (week 8) the end of GWL exposure. A generalized estimating equation model examined the effects of group (high-ER vs. low-ER), time (week 4 vs. 8), and group×time interaction on CPD while controlling for week 0. The study protocol was approved by the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. See Shi, et al. 5 and the **Supplementary Information** for additional details on the methods. ## RESULTS CPD at week 4 and 8 was assessed in 123 and 112 participants, respectively. Participant characteristics are summarized in **Table S1**. The group×time interaction was not significant (χ2(1)=0.11, p=0.74). There were significant main effects of group (high-ER vs. low-ER, log10-transformed mean±standard error=1.00±0.02 vs. 0.95±0.02, χ2(1)=5.12, p=0.023) and time (week 4 vs. 8, 1.02±0.01 vs. 0.93±0.02, χ2(1)=10.52, p=0.001) (see **Figure 1**). Alternative approaches to handling missing data yielded similar results (see the **Supplementary Information**). ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/09/2024.01.06.24300835/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/09/2024.01.06.24300835/F1) Figure 1. Significant reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day from week 4 to week 8. **Abbreviation:** ER, emotion reaction. ## DISCUSSION We found decreased smoking severity at the 8-week timepoint, i.e., four weeks after the end of a month-long GWL exposure. This effect may reflect successful assimilation of warning information through learning and memory during GWL exposure, leading to tangible behavior change in the long run 10. The lack of group×time interaction indicates comparable smoking reduction after high-ER and low-ER GWL exposure. However, the finding may be particularly relevant to high-ER GWLs, which are less effective than low-ER ones during direct and continuous exposure 5. While the mechanisms underlying such disparity require further investigation 6-8, our finding suggests that intermittent rather than continuous exposure of smokers to high-ER GWLs may improve their efficacy. ## Supporting information Supplementary Information [[supplements/300835_file03.pdf]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability Data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request. ## FUNDING This study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Center for Tobacco Products of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under award number R01DA036028 (PI: DDL); NIH/NIDA under award number K01DA051709 (PI: ZS); and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the NIH under award number R00HD084746 (PI: ALW). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or the FDA. ## DECLARATION OF INTERESTS The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work. ## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS **Zhenhao Shi:** formal analysis (equal), investigation (equal), methodology (equal), software (lead), validation (lead), original draft preparation (lead), review & editing (equal). **An-Li Wang:** conceptualization (supportive), data curation (supportive), funding acquisition (supportive), project administration (supportive), supervision (supportive), review & editing (equal). **Janet Audrain-McGovern:** investigation (supportive), original draft preparation (supportive), review & editing (equal). **Kevin G. Lynch:** formal analysis (equal), investigation (supportive), methodology (equal), software (supportive), validation (supportive), original draft preparation (supportive), review & editing (equal). **James Loughead:** investigation (supportive), resources (supportive), review & editing (equal). **Daniel D. Langleben:** conceptualization (lead), data curation (lead), funding acquisition (lead), investigation (equal), project administration (lead), resources (lead), supervision (lead), original draft preparation (supportive), review & editing (equal). * Received January 6, 2024. * Revision received January 6, 2024. * Accepted January 9, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## REFERENCES 1. 1.R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, et al.: U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, 2012:1205. 2. 2.R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, et al.: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, 2020. 3. 3.Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund. Global issues: warning labels (available: [http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/what-we-do/global/warning-labels](http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/what-we-do/global/warning-labels) [accessed July 1, 2023]) 2021. 4. 4.Wang A-L, Shi Z, Fairchild VP, et al. Emotional salience of the image component facilitates recall of the text of cigarette warning labels. European Journal of Public Health 2019;29(1):153–58. 5. 5.Shi Z, Wang A-L, Fairchild VP, et al. Effects of emotional arousal on the neural impact and behavioral efficacy of cigarette graphic warning labels. Addiction 2023;118(5):914–24. 6. 6.Brown SL, Smith EZ. The inhibitory effect of a distressing anti-smoking message on risk perceptions in smokers. Psychology & Health 2007;22(3):255–68. 7. 7.Maynard OM, Attwood A, O’Brien L, et al. Avoidance of cigarette pack health warnings among regular cigarette smokers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2014;136:170–74. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.01.001&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24485554&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F09%2F2024.01.06.24300835.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000332816800025&link_type=ISI) 8. 8.Erceg-Hurn DM, Steed LG. Does exposure to cigarette health warnings elicit psychological reactance in smokers? Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2011;41(1):219–37. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00710.x&link_type=DOI) 9. 9.Nonnemaker J, Farrelly M, Kamyab K, et al. Experimental study of graphic cigarette warning labels (Contract No. HHSF-223-2009-10135G, RTI Project No. 0212305.007.003). RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, 2010. 10. 10.Shoots-Reinhard B, Erford B, Romer D, et al. Numeracy and memory for risk probabilities and risk outcomes depicted on cigarette warning labels. Health Psychology 2020;39(8):721–30.