. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Dec 1.

Published in final edited form as: Am J Prev Med. 2012 Dec;43(6):590–600. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.08.025

Table 3.

Health warning label ratings by condition and by pictorial label characteristics

Independent variables		Credibility				Relevance				Effectiveness
		Bivariate		Adjusted^a		Bivariate		Adjusted^a		Bivariate		Adjusted^a
		B	(SE)	B	(SE)	B	(SE)	B	(SE)	B	(SE)	B	(SE)
Condition	Control	ref		ref		ref		ref		ref		ref
Condition	Experiment	0.37	(0.17)^*	0.31	(0.17)	1.17	(0.20)^***	1.06	(0.19)^***	1.41	(0.20)^***	1.28	(0.18)^***

Pictorial label characteristics^b
Image type	Graphic	ref		ref		ref		ref		ref		ref
	Human suffering	−0.34	(0.07)^***	−0.20	(0.06)^**	−0.24	(0.07)^***	−0.27	(0.07)^***	−0.23	(0.06)^***	−0.26	(0.06)^***
	Symbolic	−1.78	(0.07)^***	−1.14	(0.08)^***	−1.41	(0.07)^***	−1.50	(0.08)^***	−1.48	(0.07)^***	−1.59	(0.07)^***

Health topic	2^ndhand smoke	ref		ref	0	ref		ref		ref		ref
	Cancer	0.17	(0.07)^*	0.00	(0.07)	0.22	(0.07)^***	0.29	(0.08)^***	0.22	(0.07)^***	0.31	(0.07)^***
	CVD	−0.18	(0.07)^*	−0.03	(0.06)	−0.24	(0.07)^***	−0.25	(0.07)^***	−0.21	(0.07)^***	−0.21	(0.06)^***

All adjusted models control for age, gender, race, income, education, health literacy, cigarettes per day, intention to quit, and quit attempt in the previous year. Adjusted models associated with pictorial health warning label characteristics also adjusted for label-characteristic variables shown in the table. Adjusted models for control versus experimental group included 979 participants, as two participants were dropped due to missing data.

Models assessing pictorial label characteristics were estimated with data from the experimental group only (n=774 for bivariate analyses and n=772 for adjusted analyses, as two observations were dropped due to missing data).

p<0.05;

^**

p<0.01;

^***

p<0.001