Table 4.

Quit intentions as a mediator of the association between pictorial warning attribute exposure and intentions to use alternative tobacco products (n=1,390).

Mediation pathways
	a path βa		b path βb		Mediated effect βa*βb (95% CI)	Direct effect Βc’	Total effect Βc
Perceived effectiveness →	.12**	Quit intentions →	.15**		Intentions to use e-cigs	.02* (.00–.03)	−.04	−.02
Intentions to avoid →	.11*			.02* ( .00–.03)		.08	.10*
Perceived effectiveness →	.12**	Quit intentions →	.26**	Intentions to use hookah	.03* ( .01–.05)	−.05	−.02
Intentions to avoid →	.11*				.03* (.01–.05)	.09*	.12*
Perceived effectiveness →	.12**	Quit intentions →	.46**	Intentions to use smokeless	.05** (.02–.08)	−.05	.00
Intentions to avoid →	.11*				.05* (.02–.08)	.08	.13*
Perceived effectiveness →	.12**	Quit intentions →	.44**	Intentions to use snus	.05** (.02–.08)	−.07	−.01
Intentions to avoid →	.11*				.05* (.02–.07)	.11*	.16**
Perceived effectiveness →	.12**	Quit intentions →	.40**	Intentions to use dissolvable	.05** (.02–.07)	−.05	.00
Intentions to avoid →	.11*				.04* (.02–.07)	.08*	.13*

Note. Table reports standardized path coefficients (β’s) for a multiple IV model. The ‘a-path’ represents the path from campaign exposure to the warning’s attribute to quit intentions. The ‘b-path’ represents the path between the quit intentions and intentions to use the alternative tobacco product. The model controls for participant’s individual campaign exposure to defensive processing, and individual scores on the contemplation ladder and Fagerstrom scales.

^*p<.05

^**p<.001.