The Impact of Cigarette Pack Design, Descriptors, and Warning Labels on Risk Perception in the U.S.


      In the U.S., limited evidence exists on the impact of colors and brand imagery used in cigarette pack design.


      This study examined the impact of pack design, product descriptors, and health warnings on risk perception and brand appeal.


      A cross-sectional mall-intercept study was conducted with 197 adult smokers and 200 nonsmokers in Buffalo NY from June to July 2009 (data analysis from July 2009 to December 2010). Participants were shown 12 sets of packs randomly; each set varied by a particular design feature (color, descriptor) or warning label style (text versus graphic, size, attribution, message framing). Packs were rated on criteria including risk perceptions, quit motivation, and purchase interest.


      Participants selected larger, pictorial, and loss-framed warning labels as more likely to attract attention, encourage thoughts about health risks, motivate quitting, and be most effective. Participants were more likely to select packs with lighter color shading and descriptors such as light, silver, and smooth as delivering less tar, smoother taste, and lower health risk, compared to darker-shaded or full-flavor packs. Additionally, participants were more likely to select the branded compared to plain white pack when asked which delivered the most tar, smoothest taste, was more attractive, appealed to youth aged <18 years, and contained cigarettes of better quality.


      The findings support larger, graphic health warnings that convey loss-framed messages as most effective in communicating health risks to U.S. adults. The results also indicate that color and product descriptors are associated with false beliefs about risks. Plain packaging may reduce many of the erroneous misperceptions of risk communicated through pack design features.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Slade J.
        The pack as advertisement.
        Tob Control. 1997; 6: 169-170
      1. Export Report prepared for: JTI Macdonald.
        Supreme Court, Province of Quebec, District of Montreal2001 (Report No.: Defense Exhibit D–116)
        • Hammond D.
        • Parkinson C.
        The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk.
        J Public Health (Oxf). 2009; 31: 345-353
        • International Agency for Research on Cancer
        IARC handbooks of cancer prevention, tobacco control, vol. 12: methods for evaluating tobacco control policies.
        IARC, Lyon, France2008
      2. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, H.R. 1256, 111th Cong (2009).

      3. U.S.Dist.Ct. D. See U.S. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., No. 99-CV-02496GK (Final Opinion).

        • Hammond D.
        • Dockrell M.
        • Arnott D.
        • Lee A.
        • McNeill A.
        Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adults and youth.
        Eur J Public Health. 2009; 19: 631-637
        • Cummings K.M.
        • Hyland A.
        • Giovino G.A.
        • Hastrup J.
        • Bauer J.
        • Bansal M.A.
        Are smokers adequately informed about the health risks of smoking and medicinal nicotine?.
        Nicotine Tob Res. 2004; 6: S333-S340
        • Cummings K.M.
        • Hyland A.
        • Bansal M.A.
        • Giovino G.A.
        What do Marlboro Light smokers know about low tar cigarettes?.
        Nicotine Tob Res. 2004; 6: S323-S332
        • Kozlowski L.T.
        • Goldberg M.E.
        • Yost B.A.
        • White E.L.
        • Sweeney C.T.
        • Pillitteri J.L.
        Smokers' misperceptions of light and ultra-light cigarettes may keep them smoking.
        Am J Prev Med. 1998; 15: 9-16
        • Kozlowski L.T.
        • Pillitteri J.L.
        Beliefs about “Light” and “Ultra Light” cigarettes and efforts to change those beliefs: an overview of early efforts and published research.
        Tob Control. 2001; 10: i12-i16
      4. National Cancer Institute. Risks associated with smoking cigarettes with low machine-measured yields of tar and nicotine. In: DHHS, NIH, National Cancer Institute, ed. Smoking and tobacco control monograph, 13. Bethesda MD, 2001.

        • Fong G.T.
        • Hammond D.
        • Hitchman S.C.
        The impact of pictures on the effectiveness of tobacco warnings.
        Bull WHO. 2009; 87: 640-643
        • WHO
        WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
        WHO Document Production Services, Geneva, Switzerland2005
        • Borland R.
        • Fong G.T.
        • Yong H.H.
        • et al.
        What happened to smokers' beliefs about light cigarettes when “light/mild” brand descriptors were banned in the UK?.
        Tob Control. 2008; 17: 256-262
        • Hammond D.
        • Fong G.T.
        • Borland R.
        • Cummings K.M.
        • McNeill A.
        • Driezen P.
        Text and graphic warnings on cigarette packages: findings from the international tobacco control four country study.
        Am J Prev Med. 2007; 32: 202-209
        • Kees J.
        • Burton S.
        • Andrews J.C.
        • Kozup J.
        Understanding how graphic pictorial warnings work on cigarette packaging.
        J Public Policy Marketing. 2010; 29: 115-126
        • Nonnemaker J.
        • Farrelly M.
        • Kamyab K.
        • Busey A.
        • Mann N.
        Experimental study of graphic cigarette warning labels: final results report.
        RTI International, Rockville MD2010 (Report No.: RTI Project No. 0212305.007.003)
        • Borland R.
        • Wilson N.
        • Fong G.T.
        • et al.
        Impact of graphic and text warnings on cigarette packs: findings from four countries over five years.
        Tob Control. 2009; 18: 358-364
        • Hammond D.
        • Fong G.T.
        • McDonald P.W.
        • Cameron R.
        • Brown K.S.
        Impact of the graphic Canadian warning labels on adult smoking behaviour.
        Tob Control. 2003; 12: 391-395
        • Goodall C.
        • Appiah O.
        Adolescents' perceptions of Canadian cigarette package warning labels: investigating the effects of message framing.
        Health Commun. 2008; 23: 117-127
        • Thrasher J.F.
        • Rousu M.C.
        • naya-Ocampo R.
        • Reynales-Shigematsu L.M.
        • rillo-Santillan E.
        • Hernandez-Avila M.
        Estimating the impact of different cigarette package warning label policies: the auction method.
        Addict Behav. 2007; 32: 2916-2925
        • Wakefield M.
        • Letcher T.
        My pack is cuter than your pack.
        Tob Control. 2002; 11: 154-156
        • Wakefield M.
        • Morley C.
        • Horan J.K.
        • Cummings K.M.
        The cigarette pack as image: new evidence from tobacco industry documents.
        Tob Control. 2002; 11: I73-I80
        • Wakefield M.A.
        • Germain D.
        • Durkin S.J.
        How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers' perceptions about brand image?.
        Tob Control. 2008; 17: 416-421

      Linked Article

      • Searching for an Indicator of the Influence of the Tobacco Lobby on Politicians
        American Journal of Preventive MedicineVol. 41Issue 4
        • Preview
          Bansal-Travers et al.1 examined the impact of cigarette pack design and pictorial health warnings used by governments to communicate directly to consumers. In its comprehensive policy, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which came into force in 2005, specifically called for the implementation of health warnings on tobacco packaging covering at least 30% (ideally 50% or more) of the display areas that may include pictures or pictograms.2
        • Full-Text
        • PDF