CWS-009

Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A.

and Abal Hermanos S.A.

Claimants, v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay

Respondent. ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7

REPORT ON THE RELEVANCE, VALIDITY, AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE CITED BY THE URUGUAYAN GOVERNMENT IN

SUPPORT OF THE SINGLE PRESENTATION REGULATION AND THE

80% GRAPHIC HEALTH WARNING REGULATION ALEXANDER CHERNEV Ph.D.

February 28, 2014

2

A. SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND OPINION

1. My name is Alexander Chernev and I reside in Evanston, Illinois, U.S.A. I am a

Professor of Marketing at the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, U.S.A.

My academic background and profile are described below in Section B and my curriculum vitae

is attached as Appendix 1.

2. I have been retained by counsel to Philip Morris International Management, S.A., and its

affiliates Philip Morris Brand Sàrl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland) and

Abal Hermanos S.A. (Uruguay) (collectively “Philip Morris”) to provide an expert opinion on

the evidence cited by the Oriental Republic of Uruguay in support of the single presentation

regulation of Ordinance 514 (the “single presentation regulation”) and the 80% health warning

regulation of Presidential Decree 287/009 (the “80/80 regulation”). Specifically, I have been

requested to provide my opinion with respect to the following issue:

Does the research cited in Uruguay’s Memorial on Jurisdiction justify a conclusion that

the single presentation regulation and the 80/80 regulation will contribute to decreasing

tobacco consumption in Uruguay by discouraging nonsmokers from taking up smoking

and/or encouraging smokers to give up smoking.

3. My conclusions in this report are based on my research, analysis, and review of the

following resources:

• Sixty-nine sources cited in the Uruguay’s Memorial on Jurisdiction (Reichler et al.

2011) and made available to me by counsel, comprising legal, economic, medical,

public policy, regulatory, media, and internal company documents as well as

research articles summarizing prior findings and/or presenting original empirical

evidence.

3

• Nineteen research papers referenced in the above sources. A list of these papers

is attached as Appendix 3.

• Journal articles, books, and academic literature on consumer psychology and

decision-making, research methodology, and marketing strategy.

4. With respect to the single presentation regulation, I have concluded that the empirical

evidence reviewed in this report does not provide relevant, valid, and sufficient evidence that

prohibiting cigarette manufacturers from marketing more than one variant under a single brand

family will reduce tobacco consumption in Uruguay. As discussed at more length in the Detailed

Analysis section below, the government does not cite any studies that show that eliminating

variants will reduce tobacco consumption. Specifically, studies referenced in the Memorial do

not address issues relevant to the single presentation regulation. Indeed, even though a handful of

studies report data potentially relating the color of cigarette packs to consumers’ beliefs about the

relative harmfulness of cigarettes, none of these studies examine whether consumers in Uruguay

continued to associate particular colors with particular descriptors even after these descriptors

were removed from cigarette packs. This is important, because a key goal of the single

presentation regulation was to address consumers’ lingering associations between certain colors

and product descriptors, rather than to restrict the use of a specific color.

5. With respect to the 80/80 regulation, I have concluded that the empirical evidence

reviewed in this report does not provide relevant, valid, and sufficient evidence that increasing

the size of health warning labels from 50% to 80% of the principal surfaces of tobacco packages

will reduce tobacco consumption in Uruguay. As discussed at length in the Detailed Analysis

section below, the government does not cite any studies that show that increasing the size of

graphic health warnings from 50% to 80% of the front and back surfaces of cigarette packages

will change actual tobacco consumption.

4

6. It is, therefore, my conclusion that the research cited by Uruguay, considered individually

and as a whole, does not justify the conclusion that the single presentation regulation and the

80/80 regulation will contribute to reducing tobacco consumption by discouraging nonsmokers

from taking up smoking and/or by encouraging existing smokers to give up smoking.

B. ACADEMIC BACKGROUND AND PROFILE

7. My academic title is Professor of Marketing (with tenure) at the Kellogg School of

Management, Northwestern University, U.S.A., one of the world's leading business schools,

which for the past several decades has been consistently ranked as the best marketing program

worldwide (U.S. News & World Report 2013). I received my Ph.D. in Business Administration

with emphasis in marketing from Duke University in 1997. I also hold a second Ph.D. in

Psychology from Sofia University, which I received in 1990.

8. I have published numerous articles in top peer-reviewed research journals in the domain

of marketing and psychology, including Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing

Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Social Cognition,

and Journal of Consumer Psychology. A survey published in the Journal of Marketing ranked

me among the top ten most prolific scholars in the leading marketing journals during 1982–2006.

My research has been featured in a number of business and academic publications, including

Scientific American, New York Times, Washington Post, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, Business

Week, US News & World Report, Chicago Tribune, and Los Angeles Times. I have given more

than 100 presentations at research seminars, professional workshops, and academic conferences.

9. I currently serve as an area editor for the Journal of Marketing, and I am a member of the

editorial board of six leading marketing journals: Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of

Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Psychology, International Journal of Research in

5

Marketing, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, and Marketing Letters. As a member of

the editorial board, I have twice received the Outstanding Reviewer award from the Journal of

Consumer Research. In addition to serving on editorial boards, I have refereed for more than 20

journals and professional organizations. I have organized and chaired numerous conferences,

symposia, and special sessions for the Association for Consumer Research, the American

Marketing Association, and the Society for Consumer Psychology.

10. I have more than 15 years of experience teaching various graduate, post-graduate, and

executive programs. I have taught marketing management and marketing strategy in MBA and

executive education programs at the Kellogg School of Management, at INSEAD

(France/Singapore), and at IMD (Switzerland). I have also taught a Ph.D. seminar in

experimental design and consumer decision behavior at the Kellogg School of Management.

11. My opinion is based on the currently available information. I reserve the right to

supplement, amend, or revise my opinions and conclusions should additional information

become available to me over the course of these proceedings.

C. DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND MATERIAL REVIEWED

12. To evaluate the potential impact of the single presentation regulation and the 80/80

regulation on tobacco consumption in Uruguay, I first examined the available evidence based on

(1) whether it presents empirical data, that is, data originating in or based on observation or

experimentation, and (2) whether it reports sufficient level of detail to validate the claims made

in the paper. Accordingly, I excluded papers that did not report empirical data as well as papers

6

summarizing specific findings without offering a description of the underlying methodology in

sufficient detail (e.g., review papers).

13. I examined the empirical evidence on the basis of three criteria: relevance, validity, and

sufficiency.

• Relevance refers to whether a paper reports empirical evidence relevant to

assessing whether the regulations will contribute to reducing tobacco

consumption in Uruguay, by discouraging nonsmokers from taking up smoking

and/or encouraging smokers to give up smoking.

• Validity refers to whether the reported empirical evidence provides a

methodologically sound basis for assessing whether that the regulations will

contribute to reducing tobacco consumption in Uruguay.

• Sufficiency refers to whether the empirical evidence reported by the papers,

considered individually and as a whole, provides a sufficient basis for concluding

that the regulations will contribute to reducing tobacco consumption in Uruguay.

14. Using the above criteria, I evaluated the 69 sources cited in Uruguay’s Memorial (labeled

R1 through R69). Forty-five of these sources do not present original empirical evidence and

were excluded from further analysis. Specifically, those paper included seven legal documents,1

eight reports presenting factual data about cigarette packaging formats in different countries,2

and 30 miscellaneous economic, medical, public policy, regulatory, media, and internal company

documents that do not present empirical evidence related to the potential of the regulations to

reduce tobacco consumption in Uruguay.3 Accordingly, the focus of this report is on the

1 R3-R5, R47, R52, R59, and R60. 2 R42, R50, R53, R64, R65, and R67–R69 3 R1, R2, R6, R7, R9, R11, R15, R19, R20, R24, R26–R28, R31, R35–R38, R41, R44, R45, R46, R48, R49, R51, R54–R56, R58, and R66

7

remaining 24 sources, of which 11 are cited in support of the single presentation regulation and

16 are cited in support of the 80/80 regulation.4

15. I also examined a number of sources that were not directly cited in the Memorial but

were referenced by some of the 69 papers cited in the Memorial. In this way, I identified 19

additional papers: three papers potentially relevant to evaluating the evidence for the single

presentation regulation, and 17 papers potentially relevant to evaluating the evidence for the

80/80 regulation.5

16. The reminder of this report examines the relevance, validity, and sufficiency of the 24

empirical papers directly cited in the Memorial and the 19 additional papers referenced in the

sources cited in the Memorial.

2. THE SINGLE PRESENTATION REGULATION

(a) Uruguay’s Rationale for Single Presentation Regulation

17. The single presentation regulation prohibits the sale of more than one variant per

cigarette brand. According to Uruguay, the justification for this prohibition is “to protect public

health by prohibiting marketing practices that induce the false belief that certain versions of the

same brand of cigarettes are less harmful to human health than others” (Respondent’s Memorial

on Jurisdiction; para. 24).

18. Uruguay argues that consumers believe that cigarettes sold in gold, silver, and blue

packages are less harmful to human health than other cigarettes. Furthermore, Uruguay argues

that consumers hold these beliefs because they associate these colors with specific descriptors,

such as “light,” “ultralight,” and “mild,” that were banned in 2005 in Presidential Decree

171/005. According to Uruguay, consumers believed that cigarettes sold in packages labeled 4 Three of the sources (R14, R32, and R62) were cited in support of both the single presentation and 80/80 regulations. 5 One of the sources (A7) is potentially relevant to evaluating both the single presentation and 80/80 regulations.

8

with such descriptors were less harmful to human health than other cigarettes, and this belief

encouraged smokers “to switch to a supposedly less harmful product rather than quit smoking

altogether” and induced nonsmokers “to take up the habit, on the belief that they were engaging

in less harmful behavior” (para. 24).

19. More important, Uruguay argues that “the product descriptor (e.g., ‘light’) became

strongly identified in consumer consciousness with a particular color (e.g., ‘gold’)” (para. 24),

such that consumers in Uruguay “continue to associate gold and silver colored cigarette sub-

brands with the false health benefits of the former ‘light’ brands, which they have been misled

into believing are safer” (para. 28). Thus, Uruguay maintains, there remains a “widespread

belief that gold-packaged cigarettes are ‘light’ cigarettes, and those sold in silver packages are

‘ultra light,’ and that either of these is safer to smoke than cigarettes of the same brand packaged

in red or other darker colors” (para. 27).

20. Based on this line of reasoning, Uruguay concluded that “limiting each brand of

cigarettes to a single presentation—rather than a proliferation of different-colored sub-brands

associated in consumer consciousness with false health benefits—would offer greater protection

to public health, by reducing the risk that consumers will be misled into continuing or beginning

to smoke based on the false belief that one version of the same brand of cigarettes is less harmful

than another” (para. 28).

(b) Analysis of Uruguay’s Evidence in Support of the Single Presentation Regulation

21. To justify the effectiveness of the single presentation regulation, Uruguayan government

cites 11 papers.6 In addition, the sources cited in the Uruguayan Memorial reference another

three potentially relevant papers.7 Ten of these 14 papers do not report original empirical

6 R12-R14, R16, R18, R32, R39, R40, R43, R61, and R62. Three of these sources—R14, R32, and R61—are also cited in support of the 80/80 regulation. 7 A1, A7, and A12

9

evidence and, instead, merely review prior research.8 Furthermore, two of the papers presenting

original empirical evidence do not involve colors that were associated with banned product

descriptors and/or do not examine the relationship between the color of the brand/packaging and

the belief that some cigarettes can be less harmful than others.9 Only two of the cited papers—

Hammond, et al. (2009; R40) and Mutti et al. (2011; R62)—report empirical evidence that could

be construed as potentially relevant to evaluating the impact of the single presentation regulation

on tobacco consumption in Uruguay. I discuss the relevance, validity, and sufficiency of these

two studies in more detail below.

1. Relevance

22. None of the empirical studies purports to attribute the false belief that some cigarettes are

less harmful than others to the mere existence of variants. Instead, the studies focus on the

relationship between pack design elements (such as colors and descriptors) and individuals’

impressions about the relative harmfulness of different cigarettes. However, this is not the

rationale underlying the single presentation regulation, which bans variants but does not restrict

the use of colors or descriptors.

23. A key concern with both papers is that the experimental designs employed are not

appropriate for testing the impact of the single presentation regulation. Specifically, the first

paper (Hammond et al. 2009; R40) aims to examine the relationships between brand color and

consumer perceptions of tar content, health risk, smooth taste, brand attractiveness, and quit/trial

likelihood. It reports that “compared with Marlboro packs with a red logo, Marlboro packs with

a gold logo were rated as lower health risk by 53% and easier to quit by 31% of adult smokers.”

However, this paper does not present evidence that consumers associate gold-colored Marlboro

with certain health benefits because they think it is identical to Marlboro Lights and, accordingly, 8 R12-R14, R16, R32, R43, R61, A1, A7, and A12. 9 R18 and R39.

10

rely on latent beliefs about the meaning of a descriptor (‘light’) that is no longer present. In fact,

the authors attribute the observed effect of color on consumer perceptions of risk to the fact that

different colors are inherently associated with different levels of health risk, whereby darker

colors are more likely to be associated with health risk compared to lighter colors. This is a

different rationale than the one underlying the single presentation regulation, which does not

restrict the use of any particular color, and is rather focused on minimizing the possibility of

carry-over memory effects, whereby consumers continue to link certain colors with the false

beliefs associated with certain product descriptors (e.g., mild), even after these descriptors are no

longer present.

24. The second paper (Mutti et al. 2011; R62) is based on a telephone survey conducted

among adult smokers in Canada, Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It

reports that self-reported smokers of ‘gold’, ‘silver’, ‘blue’ and ‘purple’ brands were more likely

to believe that their own brand might be less harmful than smokers of ‘red’ and ‘black’ brands.

A key concern with this study is that it does not present direct evidence that the reported

difference in respondents’ beliefs about the potential harm of their usual cigarette brand is caused

by a difference in the package colors. In fact, the effect of color on consumer beliefs that certain

brands are less harmful than others is not explicitly tested in this paper. Respondents were asked

“which of the following, if any, helps to indicate whether a cigarette brand could be less harmful

compared to others: (i) the taste/harshness of the smoke, (ii) words such as ‘light’ or ‘mild’ or

(iii) words such as ‘smooth’ or ‘ultra’?” but were not asked whether the brand/package color can

serve as an indicator of potential health risk. Accordingly, this study does not provide evidence

for a causal relationship between the reported difference in respondents’ beliefs about the

potential harm of their usual cigarette brand and the difference in package colors.

11

2. Validity

25. A common threat to the validity of the data reported in all three papers is likelihood of a

demand effect, which reflects respondents’ tendency to guess the purpose of the experiment and

answer accordingly (Malhotra 2007; Cialdini 2008; Webb et al. 1999). The demand effect can

be a significant determinant of participants’ responses that can overshadow the effect of the

factors that the experiment aims to investigate. Research has shown that the demand effect is

particularly likely to occur when participants are made aware of the goals of the study (Hyman

1992) and/or in the presence of established social norms implying the socially-desirable answer

(the demand effect in the latter case is often referred to as social desirability bias; Fisher 1993).

“The experimental situation is one which takes place within the context of an explicit agreement

of the subject to participate in a special form of social interaction known as ‘taking part in an

experiment,” writes Orne. “Within the context of our culture the roles of subject and

experimenter are well understood and carry with them well-defined mutual role expectations.

[…] We might well expect then that as far as the subject is able, he will behave in an

experimental context in a manner designed to play the role of a ‘good subject’ or, in other words,

to validate the experimental hypothesis” (1962; p. 777).

26. The demand effect is a fundamental threat to the validity of the data furnished by

Hammond et al. (2009; R40) and Mutti et al. (2011; R62) because of the respondents’ awareness

of the goals of the study, the study’s affiliation with a tobacco-control agenda, and the existence

of prominent social norms reflecting a strong sentiment against smoking (Gutman 2011;

Hammond et al. 2006). The potential for demand effects is an important concern that casts doubt

on the validity of the findings reported in these papers. I discuss the sufficiency issues in these

papers in more detail below.

12

3. Sufficiency

27. These three studies also fail to provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the single

presentation regulation will reduce smoking. The sufficiency of the empirical data is a function

of three factors: (a) behavioral impact, that is, whether these data establish that the single

presentation regulation will decrease tobacco consumption (as opposed to influencing only

perceptions, memory, beliefs and intentions, and/or influencing brand switching rather than the

total consumption across all brands); (b) consistency, that is, whether the data are in agreement

with (as opposed to showing no effect or contradicting) the proposition that the single

presentation regulation will reduce tobacco consumption, and (c) effectiveness, that is, whether

restricting brands to a single variant is an effective means for reducing tobacco consumption

relative to the alternative approaches, such as the introduction of graphic warnings. I address

these three factors in more detail below.

28. Behavioral impact. A key concern with the two empirical papers (Hammond et al. 2009;

R40 and Mutti et al. 2011; R62) is that they focus on people’s perceptions, memory, beliefs, and

intentions rather than on their actual behavior. This raises the question of whether any of the

reported results will translate to changes in respondents’ actual behavior. Indeed, there is a

substantial body of research documenting that perceptions, memory, beliefs, and intentions are

poorly correlated with individuals’ actual behavior (Sheeran 2002; Norman, Sheeran, and Orbell

2003; Sheeran and Abraham 2003). This research further shows that the inconsistency between

individuals’ perceptions, memory, beliefs, and intentions on one hand, and their actual behavior

on the other, is likely to be more pronounced in the case of self-gratifying behaviors, such as

food and alcohol consumption (Zhou et al. 2009; Swanson, Swanson, and Greenwald 2001;

Ronis, Yates, and Kirscht 1989). The absence of a strong correlation between behavioral

intentions and actual behavior has been also documented with respect to smoking, whereby

13

researchers have argued that intentions are not particularly good indicators of their future

smoking behavior (Mazanov and Byrne 2007). In this context, studying perceptions, memory,

beliefs, and intentions, while informative, is by itself insufficient to predict a change in

individuals’ actual smoking behavior.

29. Consistency. The argument that the single presentation regulation will contribute to

reducing tobacco consumption in Uruguay is further undermined by the fact that one of the two

studies reports data that do not support this thesis. Specifically, Mutti et al. (2011; R62) reports

“no significant differences between color descriptors and the belief that ‘some brands could be

less harmful’” (p. 1173)—a finding that is inconsistent with the thesis that consumers associate

colors with particular health benefits, which, in turn, is the key motivation for introducing the

single presentation regulation.

30. Effectiveness. In addition to not being able to document an association between the color

of the cigarette pack and specific health benefits stemming from its prior association with a

particular product descriptor, none of the studies discuss whether restricting brands to a single

variant is an effective means for reducing tobacco consumption, compared to the alternative

approaches that do not involve eliminating brand variants. Moreover, none of the studies

examines the marginal impact of restricting brand variants on tobacco consumption in context of

the already implemented tobacco control measures. For example, it is possible that the

introduction of graphic warnings is in itself sufficient to eliminate any potential associations

between the specific colors and the belief that some brands are safer than others.

14

3. THE 80/80 REGULATION

(a) Uruguay’s Rationale for 80/80 Regulation

31. The 80/80 regulation increased the size of the mandated graphic health warnings on

cigarette packages from 50% to 80% of the front and back surfaces. The rationale for this

regulation is the claim that 80% warnings are more effective than 50% warnings in decreasing

tobacco consumption in Uruguay. This rationale is based on the assumption that “bigger is

better” (Respondent’s Memorial on Jurisdiction; para. 32), whereby increasing the size of health

warnings should always lead to a significant decrease in tobacco consumption.

(b) Analysis of Uruguay’s Evidence in Support of the 80/80 Regulation

32. In its Memorial on Jurisdiction, Uruguay cites 16 sources in support of the 80/80

regulation.10 These papers, in turn, reference another 17 related to health warnings,11 for a total

of 33 papers. Ten of these 33 papers, however, do not report original empirical evidence and,

instead, merely review prior research.12 Accordingly, these papers do not provide empirical

support for the thesis that the 80/80 regulation will decrease tobacco consumption in Uruguay.

33. In this section, I evaluate the data reported in the remaining 23 papers with respect to

their ability to document that the 80/80 regulation will reduce tobacco consumption in Uruguay.

Specifically, I outline the key issues pertaining to the relevance (i.e., whether a paper reports

empirical evidence relevant to assessing whether the 80/80 regulation will contribute to reducing

tobacco consumption in Uruguay), validity (i.e., whether the reported empirical evidence is

methodologically sound), and sufficiency (i.e., whether the empirical evidence provides the

10 R8, R10, R14, R17, R21-23, R25, R29, R30, R32-34, R57, R61, and R63. Three of these sources—R14, R32, and R61—are also cited in support of the single presentation regulation. 11 A2-A11 and A13-A19. See Appendix 2 for a complete list of these additional papers designated with an A. 12 R10, R14, R29, R32, R34, R57, R61, R63, A7, and A19

15

necessary basis to conclude that the 80/80 regulation will lead to a decrease in tobacco

consumption in Uruguay) of the data reported in these papers.

1. Relevance

34. All but seven of the 23 papers presenting original empirical evidence are not relevant to

evaluating the 80/80 regulation because the experimental design employed in these papers does

not allow evaluating the potential effects of increasing the size of health warning labels from

50% to 80%. Specifically, some of these papers do not examine the effect of increasing the size

of the warning labels;13 others confound the effects of increasing the size of health warning

labels with other factors, such as the addition of pictures to health warnings;14 and some

investigate the effects of an increase in size of the health warning labels within a range that is

substantively different from the 50% to 80% increase mandated by the 80/80 regulation.15

Accordingly, these papers do not lend empirical support to the thesis that the 80/80 regulation

will decrease tobacco consumption in Uruguay.

35. The remaining seven papers (A2, A8, A14, A15, A16, A17, and A18) present original

empirical evidence that is potentially relevant to evaluating the claim that 80% warnings are

more effective than 50% warnings to reduce tobacco consumption. Below, I summarize the key

issues pertaining to the validity and sufficiency of the data reported in these papers.

2. Validity

36. A common threat to the validity of the data reported in all seven papers is likelihood of a

demand effect, which reflects respondents’ tendency to guess the purpose of the experiment and

answer accordingly (see para. 25 above). The existence of a demand effect in these studies is

particularly likely because of respondents’ awareness of the goals of the study, the study’s

affiliation with a tobacco-control agenda, and the existence of prominent social norms reflecting 13 R21, R23, A9-A11, and A13. 14 R17, R22, R30, R33, and A4. 15 R8, R17, R22, R25, R30, R33, and A3-A6. For example, the first paper, Liefeld (1999; R8), examines the impact of increasing the size of a warning from 35% to 50%.

16

a strong sentiment against smoking. In fact, on several occasions the authors explicitly

acknowledge the possibility that the reported findings might have been influenced by a demand

effect. In this context, the potential for demand effects is an important concern that cast the

results of the studies into doubt.

3. Sufficiency

37. The sufficiency of the empirical data is determined by three key factors: (a) behavioral

impact, that is, whether these data establish that the 80/80 regulation will reduce tobacco

consumption (as opposed to influencing only perceptions, memory, beliefs and intentions, and/or

influencing brand switching rather than the total consumption across all brands), (b) consistency,

that is, whether the data are in agreement with (as opposed to showing no effect or contradicting)

the proposition that the 80/80 regulation will reduce tobacco consumption, and (c) effectiveness,

that is, whether increasing the size of the health warning labels is an effective means for reducing

smoking, compared to the alternative approaches, such as the introduction of graphic warnings. I

address these three factors in turn below.

38. Behavioral impact. A key concern with the data reported in all seven studies is that they

fail to establish that the 80% warning will actually reduce smoking, either by causing smokers to

quit or by discouraging nonsmokers from initiating. Indeed, the outcome measures used in these

studies either focus on non-behavioral factors such as perceptions, memory, beliefs (A14-A17),

and intentions (A2, A14-A18), or examine relative brand preferences that represent brand

switching rather than the tobacco consumption across all brands (A2, A18). The fact that none

of these papers measures the impact of increasing the size of health warning labels on actual

smoking behavior is an important limitation that dramatically reduces the ability of these studies

to support the 80/80 regulation.

17

39. Consistency. A second key aspect of the sufficiency of the empirical data is the degree to

which these data agree with (as opposed to showing no effect or contradicting) the proposition

that increasing the size of the warning to 80% will reduce smoking. Despite the fact that most of

the papers aim to show the benefits of regulating cigarette packaging, the data reported in these

papers are mixed, with some of the findings suggesting that increasing the size of the health

warning labels above 50% might be associated with an increase in tobacco consumption.

40. For example, the data from Les Études de Marché Créatec (2008a, 2008b; A14, A15)—

studies frequently referenced in support of larger health warnings—show that increasing the size

of health warning labels from 50% to 75% did not have a meaningful impact on most of the key

outcome measures. The authors of these two studies conclude that “considering all effectiveness

indicators, [graphic health warnings] with increased size option B (75%) were unlikely to remain

more effective over a number of years than with the current scenario A (50%)”—a pattern

observed across all (adult and youth) respondents (p. 5).

41. The findings of Les Études de Marché Créatec (2008a, 2008b; A14, A15) are echoed in

the data reported by Germain, et al. (2010; A8), who report no significant differences between

plain packs with 30% and 80% health warnings on three of the four measures, including smoker

characteristics, cigarette characteristics, and health message recall. The only measure on which

the pack design had a significant effect was the attractiveness of the pack design itself, which is

not surprising given that the pack was specifically designed to be unattractive. Likewise,

research by Liefeld (1999; R8) suggests that graphic health warnings that occupy 50% of the

face of the cigarette pack are likely to be sufficient to encourage smokers to stop smoking and

non-smokers not to start smoking (p. 27).

42. In addition to the data suggesting that increasing the size of the warning labels might

have no impact on tobacco consumption, the data in the studies referenced by Uruguayan

18

government do not rule out the possibility that increasing the size of warning labels might be

associated with an increase in tobacco consumption. Thus, Shanahan and Elliot (2009; R33) find

that the awareness of health warnings on the front and the side of the pack has significantly

decreased in 2008 compared to 2000, despite the increase in the size of the health warnings and

the use of graphic warning messages (pp. 4-5). The data from this survey further show that, after

the introduction of the new regulations, smokers reported consuming greater quantities of higher-

nicotine cigarettes, with fewer smokers changing their smoking patterns.

43. Effectiveness. A third key aspect of the sufficiency of the empirical data is the relative

effectiveness of increasing the size of health warning labels compared to the alternative measures,

such as introducing graphic warnings. Documenting the impact of increasing the size of health

warning labels over and above that of the alternative measures is particularly important because

some of these measures—such as graphic warnings—had already been implemented in Uruguay

prior to the 80/80 regulation.

44. The data reported by a number of the studies listed in Appendixes 2 and 3 suggest that

increasing the size of the health warnings may, in fact, be a relatively ineffective means for

decreasing tobacco consumption. Thus, the study by Liefeld (1999; R8) reports that the size of

the warning label had a relatively weak effect on encouraging people to stop/not start smoking,

with a relative importance of only 12%, compared to 51% for the message content and 29% for

the presence of a picture (p. ii). This study further reports that, “Pictures with warning messages

were, on average, 60 times more encouraging to stop/not start smoking than messages without

pictures,” (p. ii), which implies that adding pictures to health warning labels might be

sufficient—even without increasing their size—to reduce tobacco consumption.

45. In the same vein, the studies conducted by the Environics Research Group (2008a,

2008b; A16, A17)—sources frequently referenced in the Memorial in support of the thesis that

19

increasing the size of health warning labels will decrease tobacco consumption—show that

respondents did not consider increasing the size of health warning messages to be among the

most effective strategies for convincing smokers to quit. When asked to name alternative

options for reducing smoking prevalence, only 11% of the adult respondents and 19% of the

youth respondents identified increasing the size of the warning label as an effective means for

reducing smoking prevalence. Similarly, when asked to rank order the effectiveness of four

potential ways to improve health warnings, respondents indicated that they believed increasing

the size of the warning labels to be the least effective way to improve health-warning labels,

compared to all of the alternative options, including using new or different pictures, using new or

different messages in the text, and making the words in the text more closely reflect the pictures.

These data suggest that increasing the size of the warning labels is a relatively ineffective way to

improve health warning labels and that increasing the size of the warning labels might not have a

marginal impact over and above the introduction of graphic health warnings.

D. CONCLUSION

46. This report addresses the question of whether the research cited by Uruguayan

government sources, considered individually and as a whole, provides a relevant, valid, and

sufficient empirical basis to conclude that the single presentation regulation and the 80/80

regulation will contribute to decreasing tobacco consumption by discouraging nonsmokers from

taking up smoking and/or encouraging smokers to give up smoking.

47. Based on the empirical evidence cited in Uruguayan government sources (listed in

Appendix 2) and an additional 19 papers referenced in these sources (listed in Appendix 3), my

conclusions are as follows:

20

• With respect to the single presentation regulation, the empirical evidence

reviewed in this report does not provide relevant, valid, and sufficient evidence

that prohibiting cigarette manufacturers from marketing more than one variant

under a single brand name will decrease tobacco consumption in Uruguay.

• With respect to the 80/80 regulation, the empirical evidence reviewed in this

report does not provide relevant, valid, and sufficient evidence that increasing the

size of health warning labels from 50% to 80% of the front and back of cigarette

packages will decrease tobacco consumption in Uruguay.

48. It is, therefore, my conclusion that the research cited in Uruguayan government sources,

considered individually and as a whole, does not provide a relevant, valid, and sufficient

empirical basis to conclude that the single presentation regulation and the 80/80 regulation will

contribute to decreasing tobacco consumption by discouraging nonsmokers from taking up

smoking and/or encouraging smokers to give up smoking.

Appendix 1: Curriculum Vitae

Appendix 2: List of the Research Papers Cited in the Uruguayan Memorial on Jurisdiction,

September 24, 2011.

Appendix 3: List of Additional Papers Referenced in the Papers Listed in Appendix 2

a. List of Sources Referenced in this Report

Cialdini, Robert B. (2008), Influence: Science and Practice (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

(C-229).

Créatec, Les Études de Marché (2008a), "Quantitative Study of Canadian Adult Smokers: Effects

of Modified Packaging through Increasing the Size of Warnings on Cigarette Packages."

Montréal, Canada. (C-224).

_______ (2008b), "Quantitative Study of Canadian Youth Smokers and Vulnerable Nonsmokers:

Effects of Modified Packaging through Increasing the Size of Warnings on Cigarette

Packages." Montréal, Canada. (C-225).

Fisher, Robert J. (1993), "Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning,"

Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (September), 303-15. (C-233).

Germain, Daniella, Melanie A. Wakefield, and Sarah J. Durkin (2010), "Adolescents'

Perceptions of Cigarette Brand Image: Does Plain Packaging Make a Difference?,"

Journal of Adolescent Health, 46 (April), 385-92. (C-235).

Group, Environics Research (2008a), "Consumer Research on the Size of Health Warning

Messages–Quantitative Study of Canadian Adult Smokers." Toronto, Canada: Canadian

Cancer Society. (C-230).

_______ (2008b), "Consumer Research on the Size of Health Warning Messages–Quantitative

Study of Canadian Youth." Toronto, Canada: Canadian Cancer Society. (C-231).

Gutman, Majorie (2011), "Social Norms and Attitudes About Smoking," in RWJF Retrospective

Series. Princeton, NJ: Center for Public Program Evaluation, Robert Wood Johnson

Foundation. (C-238).

Hammond, David, Martin Dockrell, Deborah Arnott, Alex Lee, and Ann McNeill (2009),

"Cigarette Pack Design and Perceptions of Risk among U.K. Adults and Youth,"

European Journal of Public Health, 19 (6), 631-37. (C-239).

Hammond, David, Geoffrey T. Fong, Mark P. Zanna, James F. Thrasher, and Ron Borland

(2006), "Tobacco Denormalization and Industry Beliefs among Smokers from Four

Countries," American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31 (3), 225-32. (C-240).

Hyman, John (1992), "The Causal Theory of Perception," The Philosophical Quarterly, 42 (168),

277-96. (C-242).

Liefeld, John P. (1999), "The Relative Importance of the Size, Content & Pictures on Cigarette

Package Warning Messages." Canada: Office of Tobacco Control. (R-8).

Malhotra, Naresh K. (2007), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation (5th ed.). Upper

Saddle River NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. (C-243).

Mazanov, Jason and Don G. Byrne (2007), "'Do You Intend to Smoke?': A Test of the Assumed

Psychological Equivalence in Adolescent Smoker and Nonsmoker Intention to Change

Smoking Behaviour," Australian Journal of Psychology, 59 (May), 34-42. (C-244).

Mutti, Seema, David Hammond, Ron Borland, Michael K. Cummings, Richard J. O'Connor, and

Geoffrey T. Fong (2011), "Beyond Light and Mild: Cigarette Brand Descriptors and

Perceptions of Risk in the International Tobacco Control (Itc) Four Country Survey,"

Addiction, 106 (6), 1166-75. (R-62).

Norman, Paul, Paschal Sheeran, and Sheina Orbell (2003), "Does State Versus Action

Orientation Moderate the Intention-Behavior Relationship?," Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 33 (March), 536-54. (C-246).

Orne, Martin T. (1962), "On the Social Psychology of the Psychological Experiment: With

Particular Reference to Demand Characteristics and Their Implications," American

Psychologist, 17 (November), 776-83. (C-247).

Reichler, Paul S., Ronald E.M. Goodman, Lawrence H. Martin, and Clara E. Brillembourg

(2011), "Uruguay’s Memorial on Jurisdiction," in Arbitration Under the Rules of the

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes: Philip Morris Brands Sàrl,

Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A., Claimants V. Oriental Republic Of

Uruguay, Respondent. Washington, DC: Foley Hoag LLP.

Report, U.S. News & World (2013), Best Business Schools.

Ronis, David L., J. Frank Yates, and John P. Kirscht (1989), "Attitudes, Decisions, and Habits as

Determinants of Repeated Behavior," in The Third Ohio State University Volume on

Attitudes and Persuasion, Anthony R. Pratkanis and Steven J. Breckler and Anthony G.

Greenwald, Eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, 213-39. (C-248).

Shanahan, Patrick and David Elliot (2009), "Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Graphic

Health Warnings on Tobacco Product Packaging 2008," Australian Government

Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra. (R-33).

Sheeran, Paschal (2002), "Intention-Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical Review,"

European Review of Social Psychology, 12 (1), 1-36. (C-250).

Sheeran, Paschal and Charles Abraham (2003), "Mediator of Moderators: Temporal Stability of

Intention and the Intention-Behavior Relation," Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,

29 (February), 205-11. (C-251).

Swanson, Jane, E. Swanson, and Anthony Greenwald (2001), "Using the Implicit Association

Test to Investigate Attitude-Behaviour Consistency for Stigmatised Behaviour,"

Cognition & Emotion, 15 (2), 207-30. (C-252).

Webb, Eugene J., Donald T. Campbell, Richard D. Schwartz, and Lee Sechrest (1999),

Unobtrusive Measures. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. (C-254).

Zhou, X., J. Nonnemaker, B. Sherrill, A. W. Gilsenan, F. Coste, and R. West (2009), "Attempts

to Quit Smoking and Relapse: Factors Associated with Success or Failure from the

Attempt Cohort Study," Addictive Behaviors, 34 (4), 365-73. (C-256).

Appendix 1: Curriculum Vitae

ALEXANDER CHERNEV

Curriculum Vitae Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University

2001 Sheridan Rd., Evanston, IL 60208 Phone: (847) 467-4095, Fax: (847) 491-2498

e-mail: ach@northwestern.edu

Academic Positions

Professor Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 2012 – present

Associate Professor Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 2001 – 2012

Assistant Professor Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 1998 – 2001

Visiting Assistant Professor: Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 1997 – 1998

Education Ph.D. Marketing, Duke University, 1997 Ph.D. Psychology, Sofia University, 1990 B.A. Psychology, Sofia University, 1986

Honors & Awards

Top Professor, Kellogg Executive MBA Program. Elected by graduating EMBA students (EMP88 & EMP89), 2013

The High-Impact Article for 2011, Journal of Consumer Psychology Faculty Impact Award. Given by students to faculty demonstrating

“true excellence in interactions with students,” 2009 Outstanding Reviewer, Journal of Consumer Research, 2008 Early Career Contribution Award, Society for Consumer Psychology/

American Psychological Association, 2005. Given annually to the most productive researcher in the field of consumer behavior who has been a faculty member for less than ten years.

Fellow, Young Scholars Program, Marketing Science Institute, 2005 Outstanding Reviewer, Journal of Consumer Research, 2003 Chair’s Core Course Teaching Award, Kellogg School of Management,

2002 – 2003 McManus Research Chair, Kellogg School of Management, 1998 –

1999, 2001 – 2002 Kraft Research Chair, Kellogg School of Management, 2000 – 2001

Alexander Chernev 2/2014

2

Fellow, American Marketing Association Doctoral Consortium, 1996 Honorable Mention, Alden G. Clayton Doctoral Dissertation Proposal

Competition, 1995

RESEARCH

Focus Decision Behavior & Choice

Research Articles (Peer Reviewed)

1. Hamilton, Ryan and Alexander Chernev (2013), “Low Prices are Just the Beginning: Price Image in Retail Management,” Journal of Marketing. Lead article.

2. Brough, Aaron and Alexander Chernev (2012), “When Opposites Detract: Categorical Reasoning and Subtractive Valuations of Product Combinations,” Journal of Consumer Research. Featured in Harvard Business Review.

3. Chernev, Alexander (2012), “Product Assortment and Consumer Choice: An Interdisciplinary Review,” Foundations and Trends in Marketing.

4. Chernev, Alexander, Ryan Hamilton, and David Gal (2011), “Competing for Consumer Identity: Limits to Self-Expression and the Perils of Lifestyle Branding,” Journal of Marketing (May). Featured as a Marketing Science Institute report, in Advertising Age and Forbes.

5. Chernev, Alexander (2011), “The Dieter’s Paradox,” Journal of Consumer Psychology (April). Featured in Scientific American, Time Magazine, Chicago Tribute, Los Angeles Times, Prevention, Self, ABC, CBS, and others. Selected as the high-impact article for 2011 by the Journal of Consumer Psychology.

6. Chernev, Alexander (2011), “Semantic Anchoring in Sequential Evaluations of Vices and Virtues,” Journal of Consumer Research (February). Featured in Scientific American and New York Times.

7. Chernev, Alexander, Ulf Bockenholt and Joseph Goodman (2010), “Choice Overload: Is There Anything to It?,” Journal of Consumer Research (October)

8. Chernev, Alexander and David Gal (2010), “Categorization Effects in Value Judgments: Averaging Bias in Evaluating Combinations of Vices and Virtues,” Journal of Marketing Research (August), Featured in New York Times

9. Hamilton, Ryan and Alexander Chernev (2010), “The Impact of Product Line Extensions and Consumer Goals on the Formation

Alexander Chernev 2/2014

3

of Price Image,” Journal of Marketing Research. Featured as a Marketing Science Institute report

10. Chernev, Alexander and Ryan Hamilton (2009), “Assortment Size and Option Attractiveness in Consumer Choice among Retailers,” Journal of Marketing Research. Featured in Kellogg Insight

11. Chernev, Alexander (2009) “Choosing versus Rejecting: The Impact of Goal-Task Compatibility on Decision Confidence,” Social Cognition 27 (2)

12. Chernev, Alexander (2008), “The Role of Purchase Quantity in Assortment Choice: The Quantity-Matching Heuristic,” Journal of Marketing Research (April)

13. Hamilton, Ryan, Jiewen Hong, and Alexander Chernev (2007), “Perceptual Focus Effects in Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (August)

14. Chernev, Alexander (2007), “Jack of All Trades or Master of One? Product Differentiation and Compensatory Reasoning in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (March). Featured in New York Times, Forbes, Chicago Tribune, and Kellogg Insight.

15. Chernev, Alexander (2006), “Articulation Compatibility in Eliciting Price Bids,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (December)

16. Chernev, Alexander (2006), “Differentiation and Parity in Assortment Pricing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (September). Featured in U.S. News & World Report and Kellogg Insight

17. Chernev, Alexander (2006), “Decision Focus and Consumer Choice among Assortments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (June)

18. Chernev, Alexander (2005), “Context Effects without a Context: Attribute Balance as a Reason for Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (September)

19. Chernev, Alexander (2005), “Feature Complementarity and Assortment in Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (March)

20. Chernev, Alexander (2004), “Goal Orientation and Consumer Preference for the Status Quo,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (December)

21. Chernev, Alexander (2004), “Extremeness Aversion and Attribute-Balance Effects in Choice,” Journal of Consumer

Alexander Chernev 2/2014

4

Research, 31 (September)

22. Chernev, Alexander (2004), “Goal-Attribute Compatibility in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (1&2)

23. Chernev, Alexander (2003), “When More is Less and Less is More: The Role of Ideal Point Availability and Assortment in Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (September)

24. Chernev, Alexander (2003), “Product Assortment and Individual Decision Processes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (June). Featured in Monitor on Psychology

25. Chernev, Alexander (2003), “Reverse Pricing and Online Price Elicitation Strategies in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Psychology 13 (1&2)

26. Chernev, Alexander and Gregory Carpenter (2001), “The Role of Market Efficiency Intuitions in Consumer Choice: A Case of Compensatory Inferences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (August)

27. Chernev, Alexander (2001), “The Impact of Common Features on Consumer Preferences: A Case of Confirmatory Reasoning,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March)

28. Chernev, Alexander (1997), “The Effect of Common Features on Brand Choice: Moderating Role of Attribute Importance,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (March)

Research Articles, Books & Book

Chapters

29. Chernev, Alexander (2011), “When More Is Less and Less Is More: The Psychology of Managing Product Assortments,” Marketing Intelligence Review (May)

30. Hamilton, Ryan and Alexander Chernev (2010), “Managing Product Assortments: Insights from Consumer Psychology,” in Kellogg on Marketing, 2nd ed. (Editors Alice Tybout and Bobby Calder). New York, NY: Wiley.

31. Chernev, Alexander and Pierre Chandon (2010), "Calorie Estimation Biases in Consumer Choice," in Leveraging Consumer Psychology for Effective Health Communications (Editors: Rajeev Batra, Punam Keller, Victor Strecher), M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, NY

32. Chernev, Alexander and Ryan Hamilton (2008), “Compensatory Reasoning in Choice,” The Social Psychology of Consumer Behavior, Frontiers of Social Psychology (Editors: Arie Kruglanski & Joseph Forgas). New York, NY: Psychology Press

Alexander Chernev 2/2014

5

33. Chernev, Alexander, Michal Herzenstein, and Shailendra Jain (2009), Advances in Consumer Psychology, v. 1, Potsdam, NY: Society for Consumer Psychology.

Working Papers 34. Chernev, Alexander, Ulf Bockenholt, and Joseph Goodman (2012), “When Product Assortment Leads to Choice Overload: A Conceptual Review and Meta-Analysis”

35. Bonezzi, Andrea and Alexander Chernev (2012), “When Small Steps Become Big Leaps: Goal-Consistency Judgments and the Illusion of Goal Progress”

36. Bonezzi, Andrea, Alexander Chernev, and Aaron Brough (2012), “When Two is Better than One: Polarization and Compromise in Unrestricted Choice”

37. Alexander Chernev and Sean Blair (2012), “Doing Well by Doing Good: The Benevolent Halo of Social Goodwill.“ Featured as a Marketing Science Institute report.

38. Ma, Jingjing, Ryan Hamilton, and Alexander Chernev (2012), “The Unexpressed Self: The Impact of Restricting Freedom of Speech on Brand Preferences”

Conference Articles

(Refereed)

39. Hamilton, Ryan and Alexander Chernev (2009), “The Moderating Role of Browsing and Buying Goals in Consumers’ Formation of Retailer Price Images,” Advances in Consumer Psychology, v. 1

40. Brough, Aaron and Alexander Chernev (2009), “Satisficing and Maximizing Strategies in Consumer Choice,” Advances in Consumer Psychology, v. 1

41. Chernev, Alexander (2009), “Self-Expression and Brand Identity in Consumer Choice,” Advances in Consumer Research, v. 36

42. Chernev, Alexander (2009), “To Indulge or Not to Indulge? Self-Regulation and Overconsumption,” Advances in Consumer Research, v. 36

43. Brough, Aaron, Mathew Isaac, and Alexander Chernev (2008), “The “Sticky Choice” Bias in Sequential Decision-Making,” Advances in Consumer Research, v. 35

44. Chernev, Alexander and Ryan Hamilton (2007), “Variety, Expectations and Choice,” Advances in Consumer Research, v. 34

45. Chernev, Alexander and Ran Kivetz (2005), “Goals and Mindframes in Consumer Choice,” Advances in Consumer Research, v. 32

46. Chernev, Alexander and Leigh McAlister (2005), “Assortment and

Alexander Chernev 2/2014

6

Variety-Seeking in Consumer Choice,” Advances in Consumer Research, v. 32

47. Chernev, Alexander (2004), “Context Effects in Choice,” Advances in Consumer Research, v. 31

48. Chernev, Alexander and Christian Wheeler (2003), “The Role of Reference Points in Evaluating Price Information,” Advances in Consumer Research, v. 30

49. Chernev, Alexander (2002) “Generating Options in Consumer Choice,” Advances in Consumer Research, v. 29

50. Brown, Christina and Alexander Chernev (1997), “Decision Biases in Evaluating Ambiguous Information,” Advances in Consumer Research, v. 24

51. Chernev, Alexander and Ziv Carmon (1996), “New Perspectives on Brand Differentiation,” Advances in Consumer Research, v. 23

Research Presentations

1. “Lifestyle Branding: The New Frontier in Competitive Differentiation,” Brands in Balance Conference: Marketing Science Institute, Charleston, SC, 2014

2. “Self-Expression and Compensatory Reasoning in Consumer Choice,” Distinguished Visitors Program—Corona Chair lecture series, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota, Colombia, 2013

3. “Categorical Reasoning in Consumer Choice,” Marketing Camp, Rice University, Huston, TX 2013.

4. “Categorical Reasoning in Consumer Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, 2013.

5. “Categorical Reasoning in Consumer Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2013.

6. “Categorical Reasoning in Consumer Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, Hebrew University, Israel, 2012.

7. “When Two is Better than One: Polarization and Compromise in Unrestricted Choice,” Annual Conference of the Society for Consumer Research, Vancouver, Canada, 2012

8. “The Unexpressed Self: The Impact of Restricting Freedom of Speech on Brand Preferences,” Annual Conference of the Society for Consumer Research, Vancouver, Canada, 2012

9. “Lifestyle Branding and the Competition for a Consumer’s

Alexander Chernev 2/2014

7

Identity,” Marketing Seminar Series, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, 2012

10. “Categorical Reasoning in Consumer Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, University of Miami, FL, 2012.

11. “Lifestyle Branding and the Competition for a Consumer’s Identity,” Dean's Distinguished Lecture Series, George Washington University, Washington, DC, 2011.

12. “Lifestyle Branding and Limits to Self-Expression,” Consumer Strategies for Sustained Growth Conference, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, 2011.

13. “Lifestyle Branding and Limits to Self-Expression,” Marketing Seminar Series, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 2011.

14. “Categorical Reasoning in Consumer Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, Melbourne Business School, Melbourne, Australia, 2011.

15. “Competing for Consumer Identity,” Marketing Seminar Series, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 2011.

16. “Competing for Consumer Identity,” Marketing Brownbag Seminar, Bond University, Queensland, Australia, 2011

17. “Lifestyle Branding and Limits to Self-Expression,” University Seminar Series, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, 2011.

18. “Categorical Reasoning in Consumer Choice,” Brownbag Seminar, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 2011.

19. “Categorical Reasoning in Consumer Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 2011.

20. “Categorical Reasoning in Consumer Choice,” Research Seminar, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 2011.

21. “Doing Well by Doing Good: The Benevolent Halo of Social Goodwill,” Annual Conference of the Society for Consumer Psychology, Atlanta, GA, 2011

22. “Lifestyle Branding and the Competition for a Consumer’s Identity,” Research Seminar, Sofia University, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2011.

23. “Managing Lifestyle Brands,” The Customer Insights Conference, Yale School of Management, New Haven, CT, 2010

Alexander Chernev 2/2014

8

24. “Identity Saturation and Brand Preferences in Consumer Choice,” Academy of Marketing 6th International Conference on Brand, Identity and Corporate Reputation, ESADE Business School, Barcelona, Spain, 2010

25. “The Finite Self, Identity Saturation, and Brand Preferences,” Research Seminar, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 2010

26. “Decision Biases in Value Judgments,” Marketing Seminar Series, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 2010

27. “Calorie Estimation Biases in Consumer Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, Bond University, Queensland, Australia, 2010

28. “Customization and Decision Biases in Consumer Choice,” Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Pittsburgh, PA, 2009

29. “Decision Biases in Value Judgments,” Advertising and Consumer Psychology Conference, Ann Arbor, MI, 2009

30. “The Role of Consumer Goals in the Formation of Price Image,” Annual Conference of the Society for Consumer Psychology, San Diego, CA, 2009

31. “Find and Keep or Keep Looking and Weep: Satisficing and Maximizing Strategies in Consumer Choice,” Annual Conference of the Society for Consumer Psychology, San Diego, CA, 2009

32. “Qualitative Reasoning and Value Construction in Consumer Decision Making,” University of California San Diego /Marketing Science Institute conference Mind the Gap: New Approaches to Understanding Consumer Decision-Making, San Diego, CA, 2009

33. “Categorization and Value Construction in Consumer Decision Making,” London Business School, London, UK, 2008

34. “Qualitative Reasoning and Construction of Value in Sequential Judgments,” HEC, Paris, France, 2008

35. “Boundaries of Self-Expression: Identity Overload and Brand Saturation Consumer Choice,” Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, San Francisco, CA, 2008

36. “When Virtues and Vices Collide: Stereotyping and Calorie Estimation in Consumer Choice,” Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, San Francisco, CA, 2008

37. “Qualitative Reasoning and Construction of Value in Sequential Judgments,” Kellogg Marketing Camp, Evanston, IL, 2008

Alexander Chernev 2/2014

9

38. “Boundaries of Self-Expression: Identity Overload and Brand Saturation Consumer Choice,” INSEAD Marketing Camp, Fontainebleau, 2008

39. “Brand Saturation Effects in Consumer Choice,” Research Seminar, University of Miami, Miami, FL, 2008

40. “Brand Saturation Effects in Consumer Choice,” Marketing Seminar, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 2008

41. “The ‘Sticky Choice’ Bias in Sequential Decision-Making,” Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Nashville, TN, 2007

42. “Price Image Formation and Point-of-Purchase Consumer Decision Making,” Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Nashville, TN, 2007

43. “Jack of All Trades or Master of One,” Tilburg Marketing Camp, Tilburg, The Netherlands, 2006

44. “Jack of All Trades or Master of One,” Marketing Seminar Series, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, 2006

45. “Too Much of a Good Thing? Option Attractiveness and Assortment Choice,” Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Orlando, FL, 2006

46. “Too Much of a Good Thing? Option Attractiveness and Assortment Choice,” Annual Conference of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Toronto, Canada, 2005

47. “Perceptual Focus Effects in Choice,” Annual Conference of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Toronto, Canada, 2005

48. “Visual Reasoning in Consumer Choice,” Annual Conference of the Society for Consumer Psychology, St. Pete Beach, FL, 2005

49. “Compensatory Reasoning in Consumer Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 2005

50. “Feature Complementarity and Compensatory Reasoning in Consumer Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 2005

51. “Decision Focus and Consumer Choice Among Assortments,” Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA, 2005

52. “Decision Focus and Consumer Choice Among Assortments,” MSI Young Scholars Program, Park City, UT, 2005

Alexander Chernev 2/2014

10

53. “Differentiation and Parity in Assortment Pricing,” Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Portland, OR, 2005

54. “Decision Focus and Consumer Choice Among Assortments,” Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Portland, OR, 2004

55. “The Price of Choice: The Benefits of Price Parity in Product Differentiation,” Biennial Behavioral Decision Research in Management Conference, Durham, NC, 2004

56. “Feature Complementarity and Assortment in Choice,” Annual Conference of the Society for Consumer Psychology, San Francisco, CA, 2004

57. “Product Assortment and Individual Decision Processes,” Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Toronto, Canada, 2003

58. “Feature Complementarity, Assortment, and Choice,” Research Seminar Series, UCSD, San Diego, CA, 2003

59. “Extremeness Aversion and Attribute-Balance Effects in Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 2003

60. “Context Effects without a Context: Scale Equivalence and Attribute Balance as Reasons for Choice,” Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Toronto, Canada, 2003

61. “Feature Complementarity, Assortment, and Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 2003

62. “Price Elicitation Strategies in Consumer Choice,” Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Atlanta, GA, 2002

63. “Reverse Pricing and Price Elicitation Strategies in Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 2002

64. “Generating Options in Consumer Choice,” Special Session, Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Austin, TX, 2001

65. “Preference Articulation in Consumer Choice,” Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Austin, TX, 2001

66. “When More is Less and Less is More: Product Assortment and

Alexander Chernev 2/2014

11

Consumer Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, 2001

67. “The Impact of Ideal Point Availability and Product Assortment on Consumer Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, Dartmouth University, Dartmouth, NH, 2001

68. “Product Assortment and Individual Decision Processes,” Marketing Seminar Series, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 2001

69. “Market Efficiency Inferences in Consumer Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 2000

70. “The Role of Marketplace Efficiency Intuitions in Consumer Choice: A Case of Compensatory Inferences,” Annual Conference of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Los Angeles, CA, 1999

71. “The Role of Common Features in Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, London Business School, London, UK, 1997

72. “The Role of Common Features in Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France, 1997

73. “The Impact of Shared Product Features on Consumer Brand Preferences,” Marketing Science Conference, Berkeley, CA, 1997

74. “The Role of Common Features in Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 1996

75. “The Role of Common Features in Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 1996

76. “The Role of Common Features in Choice,” Marketing Seminar Series, University of Washington, St. Louis, MO,1996

77. “The Impact of Unfamiliar Product Features on Brand Choice,” Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Tucson, AZ, 1996

78. “Differentiation through Similarity: The Effect of Attribute Similarity on Brand Choice,” Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Minneapolis, MN, 1995

79. “Searching for Dominance: The Effects of Similarity and Attractiveness on Choice,” Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Minneapolis, MN, 1995

80. “Consumer Pricing Preferences: The Role of Individual Factors,” Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New York, NY, 1995

81. “Consumer Response to Similar Price Discounts: Implications for

Alexander Chernev 2/2014

12

Brand Choice,” MSI Conference on Behavioral Perspectives on Pricing, Boston, MA, 1995

82. “Evaluation of Non-Common Attributes in Consumer Decision Process: Asymmetrical Overweighing of Unique Features in Choice,” Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Boston, MA, 1994

Research Grants

1. “Doing Well by Doing Good: The Benevolent Halo of Social Goodwill,” MSI Research Grant, 2011 (principal investigator)

2. “Managing Choice Overload,” Filene Research Institute Grant (principal investigator), 2011.

3. “Raise Price or Downsize? Unit Bias and The Asymmetric Nature of consumer response to changes in Price versus Quantity,” MSI Research Grant, 2009 (principal investigator)

4. “When Brand Fortunes Collide: Brand Saturation Effects in Consumer Choice,” MSI Research Grant, 2008 (principal investigator)

5. “Managing Price Image through Vertical Product Line Extensions,” MSI Research Grant, 2007

TEACHING

Courses

1. Marketing Management (MBA core course) 2. Consumer Decision Theory (PhD) 3. Marketing Strategy (Executive MBA) 4. Product Management (Executive MBA) 5. Marketing Research (Executive MBA) 6. Strategic Marketing Management (MS)

Non-degree

Programs

1. Executive Development Program, Kellogg School of Management

2. Business Management Program, Kellogg School of Management

3. Custom company programs

Managerial Books & Chapters

(Selected)

1. Chernev, Alexander (2012), Strategic Marketing Management, 7th edition

2. Chernev, Alexander (2011), The Marketing Plan Handbook, 3rd edition

3. Hamilton, Ryan and Alexander Chernev (2010), "Managing

Alexander Chernev 2/2014

13

Product Assortments: Insights from Consumer Psychology" in Kellogg on Marketing, 2nd edition

4. Chernev, Alexander (2004), "Strategic Customer Management" in Next Generation Business Handbook

Cases (Selected)

1. Chernev, Alexander and Eyal Maoz (2008), DuraMax: The Product Improvement Nobody Wanted

2. Chernev, Alexander (2007), Gillette Fusion: Building a $1Billion Brand

3. Chernev, Alexander (2007), Universal Press Pricing Dilemma

4. Chernev, Alexander (2007), DryClean Express: Managing Dissatisfied Customers

5. Chernev, Alexander (2007), Calyx Flowers: Managing Profitable Growth

6. Chernev, Alexander (2007), Datril: Pioneering the Acetaminophen Market

7. Chernev, Alexander (2001), Iridium Satellite Phone: When the Pioneer Fails

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

Area Editor Journal of Marketing (Area Editor: 2011 – present)

Journal of Marketing (Guest editor)

Marketing Science (Guest area editor) Editorial Board Journal of Consumer Research (2002 – present)

Journal of Marketing Research (2007 – present)

Journal of Marketing (2007 – present)

Journal of Consumer Psychology (2001 – present)

International Journal of Research in Marketing (2006 – present)

Journal of Marketing Behavior (2013 – present)

Marketing Letters (2008 – present)

Journal of the Academy or Marketing Science (2010 – present) Reviewer Marketing Science

Management Science

Journal of Retailing

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

Alexander Chernev 2/2014

14

Journal of Public Policy and Marketing

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Journal of Economic Psychology

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Journal of Social Psychology

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Cognition and Emotion

The International Review of Retail, Distribution, and Consumer Research

Psychological Science

Journal of Interactive Marketing

Swiss Journal of Psychology

Association for Consumer Research

Society for Consumer Psychology

Society for Judgment and Decision Making

Marketing Science Institute

European Marketing Association

National Science Foundation

Israel Science Foundation Research

Initiatives Co-Chair, 9th Triennial Choice Symposium workshop, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 2013

Faculty, American Marketing Association Doctoral Consortium, Seattle, WA, 2012

Program Committee, Society for Consumer Psychology Conference, Florence, Italy, 2012

Faculty, Society for Consumer Psychology Doctoral Consortium, Las Vegas, NV, 2012

Steering Committee, Consumer Strategies for Sustained Growth Conference, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, 2011, 2012

Program Committee, Society for Consumer Psychology Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA, 2011

Faculty, American Marketing Association Doctoral Consortium, Fort Worth, TX, 2010

Alexander Chernev 2/2014

15

Program Committee, Society for Consumer Psychology Annual Conference, St. Pete Beach, FL, 2010

Co-Chair, Society for Consumer Psychology Annual Conference, San Diego, CA, 2009

Co-Chair, Society for Consumer Psychology Doctoral Consortium, San Diego, CA, 2009

Co-Editor, Advances in Consumer Psychology (inaugural issue)

Faculty, Society for Consumer Psychology Doctoral Consortium, San Diego, CA, 2009

Program Committee, Association for Consumer Research Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, 2008

Faculty, Association for Consumer Research Doctoral Consortium, San Francisco, CA, 2008

Co-Chair, Marketing Science Institute – Journal of Consumer Psychology Research Competition on Product Assortment and Variety-Seeking Behavior 2003 – 2004

Chair, Association for Consumer Research Annual Conference special sessions 1996, 1997, 2001 – 2006, 2008

Chair, Society for Consumer Psychology Annual Conference special sessions 2004, 2005

Roundtable, Association for Consumer Research Annual Conference 2004

Doctoral Committees

Ryan Hamilton (Chair), Northwestern University (Emory University)

Aaron Brough (Chair), Northwestern University (Pepperdine University)

Mathew Isaac (Member), Northwestern University (Seattle University)

Andrea Bonezzi (Member), Northwestern University (NYU)

Kristoff Geskens (Member), Gent University

Sean Blair (Chair), Northwestern University

Jingjing Ma (Member), Northwestern University University

Service Faculty recruiting committee (chair) 2013

Northwestern University graduate faculty (member) 2000 – present

Faculty orientation (presenter) 2005, 2009, 2011

Kellogg Marketing Conference (speaker) 2012

Faculty Insight speaker series (presenter) 2008, 2010, 2012

Kellogg marketing case competition (judge) 2003 – 2011

Alexander Chernev 2/2014

16

Marketing Ph.D. Program (coordinator) 2005 – 2008

Kellogg Doctoral Committee (member) 2005 – 2008

Kellogg Research Computing Committee (member) 2001 – 2009

Faculty Recruiting Committee (coordinator-behavioral area) 2003

Haring Consortium (faculty representative) 2003

Kellogg Personnel Committee (observer) 2001 – 2002 Marketing department seminar series (coordinator) 2000 – 2001

Professional Affiliations

American Marketing Association | Association for Consumer Research

Society for Judgment and Decision Making | Society for Consumer Research

Appendix 2: List of the Research Papers Cited in

Respondent’s Memorial on Jurisdiction, September 24, 2011

R8 Liefeld, John P. (1999), The Relative Importance of the Size, Content & Pictures on Cigarette

Package Warning Messages. Canada: Office of Tobacco Control

R10 ASH (2000), Research Findings on Health Warnings on Tobacco Products. London: Action on

Smoking and Health (ASH)

R12 Wakefield, Melanie, C. Morley, J. K. Horan, and K. M. Cummings (2002), "The Cigarette Pack

as Image: New Evidence from Tobacco Industry Documents," Tobacco Control, 11 (March), i73-

i80

R13 SACTob (2002), Conclusions on Health Claims Derived from Iso/Ftc Method to Measures

Cigarette Yield. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Scientific Advisory Committee on Tobacco Product

Regulation

R14 Cavalcante, Tania Maria (2003), Labeling and Packaging in Brazil. Geneva, Switzerland: World

Health Organization

R16 Pollay, R. W. and T. Dewhirst (2003), "A Premiere Example of the Illusion of Harm Reduction

Cigarettes in the 1990s," Tobacco Control, 12 (September), 322-32

R17 Fong, G. T., P. W. McDonald, R. Cameron, and K. S. Brown (2003), "Impact of the Graphic

Canadian Warning Labels on Adult Smoking Behaviour," Tobacco Control, 12 (4), 391–95

R18 Borland, Ron, Yong Hua-Hie, Bill King, K. Michael Cummings, Geoffrey Fong, Tara Elton-

Marshall, David Hammond, and Ann McNeill (2004), "Use of and Beliefs About Light Cigarettes

in Four Countries: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey,"

Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 6, 1-11

R21 O'Hegarty, Michelle, Linda L. Pederson, David E. Nelson, Paul Mowery, Julia M. Gable, and

Pascale Wortley (2006), "Reactions of Young Adult Smokers to Warning Labels on Cigarette

Packages," American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30 (6), 467–73

R22 Hammond, D., G. T. Fong, A. McNeill, R. Borland, and K. M. Cummings (2006),

"Effectiveness of Cigarette Warning Labels in Informing Smokers About the Risks of Smoking:

Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey," Tobacco Control,

15, iii19–iii25

R23 McNeill, A., D. Hammond, and G. T. Fong (2006), "Socioeconomic and Country Variations in

Knowledge of Health Risks of Tobacco Smoking and Toxic Constituents of Smoke: Results from

the 2002 International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey," Tobacco Control, 15, iii65-

iii70

R25 Hammond, David, Geoffrey T. Fong, Ron Borland, K. Michael Cummings, Ann McNeill, and

Pete Driezen (2007), "Text and Graphic Warnings on Cigarette Packages," American Journal of

Preventive Medicine, 32 (3), 202-09

R29 Hammond, David (2008), Health Warnings on Tobacco Packages: Summary of Evidence and

Legal Challenges. Waterloo, Canada: University of Waterloo

R30 White, Victoria, Bernice Webster, and Melanie Wakefield (2008), "Do Graphic Health Warning

Labels Have an Impact on Adolescents' Smoking-Related Beliefs and Behaviours?," Addiction,

103 (9), 1562-71

R32 Hammond, David (2009), Tobacco Labelling and Packaging Toolkit: A Guide to FCTC Article 11.

Waterloo, Canada: University of Waterloo

R33 Shanahan, Patrick and David Elliot (2009), Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Graphic Health

Warnings on Tobacco Product Packaging 2008. Canberra: Australian Government Department of

Health and Ageing

R34 PAHO (2009), Showing Truth, Saving Lives: The Case for Pictorial Health Warnings.

Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)

R39 Hammond, David and Carla Parkinson (2009), "The Impact of Cigarette Package Design on

Perceptions of Risk," Journal of Public Health, 31 (3), 345-53

R40 Hammond, David, Martin Dockrell, Deborah Arnott, Alex Lee, and Ann McNeill (2009),

"Cigarette Pack Design and Perceptions of Risk among U.K. Adults and Youth," European

Journal of Public Health, 19 (6)

R43 Thrasher, James F., David Hammond, and Edna Arillo-Santillán (2010), "The Alchemy of

Marlboro: Transforming 'Light' into 'Gold' in Mexico," Tobacco Control, 19 (4), 342-42

R57 CTFK (2011), Warning Labels: Countering Industry Arguments. Campaign for Tobacco-Free

Kids (CTFK)

R61 QuitVictoria (2011), Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products: A Review of the Evidence. Victoria:

Cancer Council Victoria

R62 Mutti, Seema, David Hammond, Ron Borland, Michael Cummings, Richard O'Connor, and

Geoffrey Fong (2011), "Beyond Light and Mild: Cigarette Brand Descriptors and Perceptions of

Risk in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey," Addiction, 106 (6), 1166-

75

R63 FDA (2011), Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements. Food and Drug

Administration (FDA), Vol. 21 CFR Part 1141

b. Appendix 3: List of Additional Papers Referenced in the Papers Listed in Appendix 2

A1 Greenland, Steven J. (2013), "Cigarette Brand Variant Portfolio Strategy and the Use of Colour in

a Darkening Market," Tobacco Control: An International Journal, doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-

2013-051055. (C-237).

A2 Hoek, Janet, Christiane Wong, Philip Gendall, Jordan Louviere, and Karen Cong (2011), "Effects

of Dissuasive Packaging on Young Adult Smokers," Tobacco Control, 20 (May), 183-88. (C-241).

A3 Borland, Ron, N. Wilson, G. Fong, D. Hammond, K. Cummings, H. Yong, W. Hosking, G.

Hastings, J. Thrasher, and A. McNeill (2009), "Impact of Graphic and Text Warnings on

Cigarette Packs: Findings from Four Countries over Five Years," Tobacco Control, 18 (5), 358-64.

(C-228).

A4 Gospodinov, Nikolay and Ian Irvine (2004), "Global Health Warnings on Tobacco Packaging:

Evidence from the Canadian Experiment," Topics in Economic Analysis & Policy, 4 (1), 1-21. (C-

189).

A5 Willemsen, Marc (2005), "The New EU Cigarette Health Warnings Benefit Smokers Who Want to

Quit the Habit: Results from the Dutch Continuous Survey of Smoking Habits," European Journal

of Public Health, 15 (4), 389-92. (C-255).

A6 Borland, Ron (1997), "Tobacco Health Warnings and Smoking-Related Cognitions and

Behaviors," Addiction, 92 (11), 1427-36. (C-227).

A7 Freeman, Becky, Simon Chapman, and Matthew Rimmer (2008), "The Case for the Plain

Packaging of Tobacco Products," Addiction, 103, 580-90. (C-234).

A8 Germain, Daniella, Melanie A. Wakefield, and Sarah J. Durkin (2010), "Adolescents' Perceptions

of Cigarette Brand Image: Does Plain Packaging Make a Difference?," Journal of Adolescent

Health, 46 (April), 385-92. (C-235).

A9 Wakefield, M. A., D. Germain, and S. J. Durkin (2008), "How Does Increasingly Plainer

Cigarette Packaging Influence Adult Smokers' Perceptions About Brand Image? An Experimental

Study," Tobacco Control, 17 (December), 416-21. (C-253).

A10 Beede, P. and R. Lawson (1992), "The Effect of Plain Packages on the Perception of Cigarette

Health Warnings," Public Health, 106 (July), 315-22. (C-226).

A11 Goldberg, M. E., J. Liefeld, J. Madill, and H. Vredenburg (1999), "Notes from the Field—The

Effect of Plain Packaging on Response to Health Warnings," American Journal of Public Health,

89 (9), 1434-35. (C-236).

A12 Hammond, David (2010), "'Plain Packaging' Regulations for Tobacco Products: The Impact of

Standardizing the Color and Design of Cigarette Packs," Salud Publica de Mexico, 52 (Supplement

2), S226-S32. (C-239).

A13 Nonnemaker, James, Matthew Farrelly, Kian Kamyab, Andrew Busey, and Nathan Mann (2010),

Experimental Study of Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels: Final Results Report (Prepared for the

Center for Tobacco Products, FDA). Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. (C-245).

A14 Créatec, Les Études de Marché (2008a), Quantitative Study of Canadian Adult Smokers: Effects of

Modified Packaging through Increasing the Size of Warnings on Cigarette Packages. Montréal,

Canada: Créatec, Les Études de Marché. (C-224).

A15 Createc, Les Études de Marché (2008b), Quantitative Study of Canadian Youth Smokers and

Vulnerable Nonsmokers: Effects of Modified Packaging through Increasing the Size of Warnings

on Cigarette Packages. Montréal, Canada: Créatec, Les Études de Marché. (C-225).

A16 Environics Research Group (2008a), Consumer Research on the Size of Health Warning

Messages–Quantitative Study of Canadian Adult Smokers. Toronto, Canada: Canadian Cancer

Society. (C-230).

A17 Environics Research Group (2008b), Consumer Research on the Size of Health Warning

Messages–Quantitative Study of Canadian Youth. Toronto, Canada: Canadian Cancer Society. (C-

231).

A18 Environics Research Group (2011), Testing the Size of Cigarette Package Health Warnings: An

Online Survey of Canadian Youth. Toronto, Canada: Canadian Cancer Society. (C-232).

A19 Sambrook Research International (2009), A Review of the Science Base to Support the

Development of Health Warnings for Tobacco Packages. Newport, England: European

Commission, Directorate General for Health and Consumers. (C-249).