Skip to main content

Table 3 Post-hoc pairwise multiple comparisons of change in incorrect or uncertain risk beliefs using adjusted between and within subject contrasts

From: Effects of cigarette package colors and warning labels on marlboro smokers’ risk beliefs, product appraisals, and smoking behavior: a randomized trial

Risk Belief Outcome1

Subject Contrast

Warning Type

Baseline

Experimental Pack Color Condition

Usual

Congruent

Incongruent

Plain

Lower nicotine

Between

Text

Ref

Ref

Ref

Ref

  

Graphic

0.81 (0.38, 1.76)

0.36 (0.16, 0.77)**

0.42 (0.19, 0.92)*

0.57 (0.26, 1.26)

 

Within

Text

Ref

3.74 (1.83, 7.68)***

6.08 (2.89, 12.78)***

6.85 (3.23, 14.52)***

  

Graphic

Ref

1.65 (0.82, 3.29)

3.14 (1.55, 6.35)***

4.81 (2.33, 9.92)***

Lower tar

Between

Text

Ref

Ref

Ref

Ref

  

Graphic

1.49 (0.68, 3.25)

0.55 (0.25, 1.20)

0.43 (0.19, 0.96)*

0.52 (0.23, 1.18)

 

Within

Text

Ref

3.31 (1.61, 6.82)***

6.82 (3.20, 14.55)***

8.14 (3.77, 17.58)***

  

Graphic

Ref

1.22 (0.61, 2.45)

1.99 (0.99, 4.00)

2.87 (1.41, 5.86)***

Less addictive

Between

Text

Ref

Ref

Ref

Ref

  

Graphic

1.60 (0.67, 3.81)

0.58 (0.25, 1.31)

0.51 (0.23, 1.13)

0.62 (0.28, 1.36)

 

Within

Text

Ref

3.29 (1.44, 7.50)**

5.87 (2.58, 13.33)***

9.99 (4.30, 23.22)***

  

Graphic

Ref

1.18 (0.54, 2.59)

1.87 (0.87, 4.04)

3.86 (1.80, 8.26)***

Less cancerous

Between

Text

Ref

Ref

Ref

Ref

  

Graphic

0.48 (0.17, 1.36)

0.44 (0.16, 1.16)

0.28 (0.11, 0.74)*

0.43 (0.17, 1.09)

 

Within

Text

Ref

2.40 (1.05, 5.47)*

4.44 (1.94, 10.15)***

4.87 (2.13, 11.17)***

  

Graphic

Ref

2.17 (0.84, 5.60)

2.61 (1.02, 6.68)*

4.30 (1.68, 10.97)***

Fewer chemicals

Between

Text

Ref

Ref

Ref

Ref

  

Graphic

1.18 (0.49, 2.84)

0.70 (0.30, 1.65)

0.51 (0.22, 1.21)

0.61 (0.26, 1.45)

 

Within

Text

Ref

4.84 (2.24, 10.44)***

7.47 (3.40, 16.40)***

9.65 (4.32, 21.56)***

  

Graphic

Ref

2.87 (1.35, 6.08)**

3.25 (1.53, 6.89)***

4.99 (2.31, 10.78)***

Healthier

Between

Text

Ref

Ref

Ref

Ref

  

Graphic

1.30 (0.46, 3.72)

0.52 (0.19, 1.41)

0.43 (0.16, 1.13)

0.49 (0.19, 1.28)

 

Within

Text

Ref

3.77 (1.58, 9.04)***

6.45 (2.67, 15.54)***

9.76 (3.99, 23.86)***

  

Graphic

Ref

1.52 (0.62, 3.72)

2.12 (0.88, 5.13)

3.69 (1.54, 8.88)***

Safer

Between

Text

Ref

Ref

Ref

Ref

  

Graphic

0.94 (0.33, 2.66)

0.32 (0.12, 0.84)*

0.36 (0.14, 0.94)*

0.23 (0.09, 0.60)**

 

Within

Text

Ref

4.07 (1.67, 9.92)***

5.64 (2.31, 13.74)***

7.25 (2.96, 17.77)***

  

Graphic

Ref

1.37 (0.53, 3.51)

2.18 (0.88, 5.39)

1.79 (0.71, 4.51)

Help with quitting

Between

Text

Ref

Ref

Ref

Ref

  

Graphic

0.74 (0.24, 2.21)

0.82 (0.34, 1.95)

0.79 (0.34, 1.84)

0.98 (0.42, 2.28)

 

Within

Text

Ref

8.79 (3.35, 23.04)***

16.68 (6.29, 44.25)***

25.69 (9.52, 69.34)***

  

Graphic

Ref

9.73 (3.53, 26.83)***

17.82 (6.38, 49.73)***

34.16 (11.92, 97.90)***

  1. *Note. All models adjusted for pack color preference, experimental pack color randomization order, age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and nicotine dependence. 1From random intercept binomial conditional mixed-effects models using multivariate t adjusted post-hoc tests with separate models run to examine differences between warning groups and within-subject change from baseline. Data expressed as Odds Ratios (95% CIs) and represent the increased odds of incorrect or uncertain beliefs relative to correct beliefs averaged over time for the respective experimental period
  2. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001