Consumer perceptions of cigarette pack design in France: a comparison of regular, limited edition and plain packaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the face of comprehensive bans on the marketing of tobacco products, packaging has become an increasingly important promotional tool for the tobacco industry. A ban on the use of branding on tobacco packaging, known as 'plain' packaging, has emerged as a promising regulatory strategy. The current study sought to examine perceptions of cigarette packaging among adults in France. METHODS: Adult smokers and non-smokers (N=836) were surveyed using computer-assisted personal interviewing to assess perceptions of pack design by comparing 'regular' branded packs and 'limited edition' packs (with novel designs or innovations) with 'plain' versions of these packs with all branding, including colour, removed. RESULTS: Plain packs (PP) were less likely than regular packs, and particularly limited edition packs, to be considered attractive, attention grabbing and likely to motivate youth purchase. PPs were also rated as the most effective in convincing non-smokers not to start and smokers to reduce consumption and quit. Logistic regression showed that smokers motivated to quit, in comparison to smokers not motivated to quit, were significantly more likely to consider the PPs as the packs most likely to motivate cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Novel cigarette packaging, in the form of limited edition packs, had the highest ratings of consumer appeal, ahead of regular branded packs and also PPs. Interestingly, PPs were perceived to be the packs most likely to promote cessation among those adults with quitting intentions. Plain packaging, therefore, may be a means of helping existing adult smokers motivated to quit to do so.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".