Table 3.

Bivariate analyses characterising responses to ad stimuli across outcomes

Ad messaging, n (%)	Perceived relative harm a	Perceived exposure b	Perceived disease risk c	Likelihood to personally try d	Likelihood to suggest to smokers e
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Reduced risk and exposure messaging	***	***	*		*
Reduced exposure	2.66 (1.05)	2.81 (0.85)	4.19 (2.09)	2.76 (2.08)	2.85 (1.96)
Reduced risk	2.56 (1.00)	2.83 (0.86)	4.28 (2.09)	2.66 (2.07)	2.83 (2.02)
Control	2.75 (0.99)	2.95 (0.86)	4.42 (2.17)	2.64 (2.04)	2.66 (1.93)
FDA endorsement messaging
FDA endorsement 1	2.65 (1.02)	2.85 (0.86)	4.31 (2.08)	2.79 (2.10)	2.88 (2.00)
FDA endorsement 2	2.67 (1.00)	2.86 (0.88)	4.27 (2.12)	2.63 (2.03)	2.75 (1.93)
Control	2.64 (1.03)	2.88 (0.85)	4.31 (2.15)	2.64 (2.06)	2.72 (1.98)

^*P<0.05,

^**P<0.01,

^***P<.001 for ANOVA tests. See table 1 for reduced risk/exposure and FDA endorsement messages.

^a1=much less (compared with cigarettes) to 5=much more;

^b1=almost no harmful chemicals to 4=a lot of harmful chemicals;

^c1=not at all likely (to develop serious health problems) to 7=extremely likely;

^d“f one of your best friends was to offer you IQOS, would you try it?”; 1=not at all (likely to try if offered by friend) to 7=extremely;

^e1=not at all (likely to recommend to friend or family member who smokes cigarettes) to 7=extremely. Post hoc pairwise tests (Tukey’s HSD): risk versus exposure messaging: perceived relative harm: risk <exposure; exposure<control; risk<control. Perceived exposure: risk<control; exposure<control. Perceived disease risk: exposure <control. Likelihood to suggest to smokers: risk>control; exposure>control.

ANOVA, analysis of variance; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; HSD, honestly significant difference; M, mean.