BACKGROUND: Recent data suggests that positive beliefs about electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) use can lead to later e-cig use. Considering that many advertisements claim that e-cigs are superior to cigarettes, individuals' likelihood to view e-cigs more favorably than cigarettes can also influence subsequent e-cig use; however, no studies have directly assessed such a comparison. OBJECTIVES: The present study created and validated the Comparing E-Cigarettes and Cigarettes questionnaire (CEAC), which asks individuals to directly compare e-cigs and cigarettes on a number of dimensions, in two independent samples. METHODS: In sample 1 (451 undergraduates; mean age = 20.35, SD = 5.44, 72.4% female, 73.4% Caucasian) we explored the factor structure of the CEAC and in sample 2 (699 community adults collected via Amazon's Mechanical Turk; mean age = 34.04, SD = 10.9, 47.7% female, 83.3% Caucasian) we replicated the factor structure. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis suggested a three-factor structure: General Benefits (α = 0.80), General Effects (α = 0.86), and Health Benefits (α = 0.88), which was replicated via confirmatory factor analysis, χ2 = 4.36; RMSEA = 0.07, 90% CI = 0.06-0.08; TLI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99, and was relatively invariant across product use and gender. Individuals reported viewing e-cigs as safer and more beneficial than cigarettes and these beliefs were higher in e-cig users. CONCLUSIONS: Future work should establish how these comparative beliefs are influenced by e-cig use and/or influence subsequent transition to and increases in e-cig use. Although e-cigs are likely less harmful than cigarettes, and thus these comparative beliefs represent that state of nature, e-cigs are not completely without risk.
BACKGROUND: Recent data suggests that positive beliefs about electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) use can lead to later e-cig use. Considering that many advertisements claim that e-cigs are superior to cigarettes, individuals' likelihood to view e-cigs more favorably than cigarettes can also influence subsequent e-cig use; however, no studies have directly assessed such a comparison. OBJECTIVES: The present study created and validated the Comparing E-Cigarettes and Cigarettes questionnaire (CEAC), which asks individuals to directly compare e-cigs and cigarettes on a number of dimensions, in two independent samples. METHODS: In sample 1 (451 undergraduates; mean age = 20.35, SD = 5.44, 72.4% female, 73.4% Caucasian) we explored the factor structure of the CEAC and in sample 2 (699 community adults collected via Amazon's Mechanical Turk; mean age = 34.04, SD = 10.9, 47.7% female, 83.3% Caucasian) we replicated the factor structure. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis suggested a three-factor structure: General Benefits (α = 0.80), General Effects (α = 0.86), and Health Benefits (α = 0.88), which was replicated via confirmatory factor analysis, χ2 = 4.36; RMSEA = 0.07, 90% CI = 0.06-0.08; TLI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99, and was relatively invariant across product use and gender. Individuals reported viewing e-cigs as safer and more beneficial than cigarettes and these beliefs were higher in e-cig users. CONCLUSIONS: Future work should establish how these comparative beliefs are influenced by e-cig use and/or influence subsequent transition to and increases in e-cig use. Although e-cigs are likely less harmful than cigarettes, and thus these comparative beliefs represent that state of nature, e-cigs are not completely without risk.
Entities:
Keywords:
Electronic-cigarettes; attitudes; cigarettes; public health; smoking
Authors: Andreas D Flouris; Maria S Chorti; Konstantina P Poulianiti; Athanasios Z Jamurtas; Konstantinos Kostikas; Manolis N Tzatzarakis; A Wallace Hayes; Aristidis M Tsatsakis; Yiannis Koutedakis Journal: Inhal Toxicol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 2.724
Authors: Peter S Hendricks; Mallory G Cases; Christopher B Thorne; JeeWon Cheong; Kathleen F Harrington; Connie L Kohler; William C Bailey Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2014-09-28 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Joshua O Barker; Dannielle E Kelley; Seth M Noar; Beth A Reboussin; Jennifer Cornacchione Ross; Erin L Sutfin Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Eunhee Park; Misol Kwon; Thomas Chacko; Yanjun Zhou; Chiahui Chen; Maciej L Goniewicz; Chin-Shang Li; Yu-Ping Chang Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-06-07 Impact factor: 4.135
Authors: Theodore M Brasky; Alice Hinton; Nathan J Doogan; Sarah E Cooper; Haikady N Nagaraja; Wenna Xi; Peter G Shields; Mary Ellen Wewers Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2018-01-01
Authors: Alexandra R Hershberger; Amanda Studebaker; Zachary T Whitt; Mark Fillmore; Christopher W Kahler; Melissa A Cyders Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-03-21 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Paul T Harrell; Thomas H Brandon; Kelli J England; Tracey E Barnett; Laurel O Brockenberry; Vani N Simmons; Gwendolyn P Quinn Journal: Subst Abuse Date: 2019-08-19