Skip to main content
. 2013 Oct 16;8(10):e75919. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075919

Table 1. Direction of effect: Attractiveness, quality and smoker identity.

Direction of effect
Study Type of Comparison Attractiveness Quality Smoker Identity
Bansal-Travers 2011 [29] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded Favours branded
Bondy 1996 [30] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded
Centre for Health Promotion 1993 [31] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded Favours branded Favours branded
Donovan 1993 [32] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded Favours branded
Doxey 2011 [33] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded Favours branded Favours branded
Gallopel-Morvan 2010 [34] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded Favours branded Favours branded
Gallopel-Morvan 2012 [35] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded
Germain 2010 [36] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded Favours branded Favours branded
Goldberg 1995 [37] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded
Hammond 2009 [38] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded Favours branded
Hammond 2013 [39] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded Favours branded Favours branded
Hammond 2011 [40] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded Favours branded Favours branded
Hoek 2009 [41] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded
Hoek 2011 [42] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded
Moodie 2011 [43] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded Favours branded
Moodie 2012 [44] Different colours of standardised packs Standardised rated negatively Favours lighter-coloured standardised Standardised rated negatively
Rootman 1995 [45] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded Favours branded
Swanson 1997 [46] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded
Thrasher 2011 [47] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded
Wakefield 2008 [48] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded Favours branded Favours branded
White 2011 [49] Branded vs. standardised Favours branded Favours branded Favours branded

An empty cell indicates that the study did not address the outcome in question.