Andrew J Barnes1, Rose S Bono2, Rebecca C Lester3, Thomas E Eissenberg4, Caroline O Cobb5. 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA. 2. Research Assistant, Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA. 3. Research Coordinator, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. 4. Professor, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. 5. Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To measure e-cigarettes' abuse liability compared to conventional tobacco cigarettes under flavor and message conditions amenable to regulation. METHODS: Two studies used 2×2 within-subjects designs with factors of e-cigarette flavor (Study 1: tobacco vs. menthol; Study 2: cherry vs. unflavored) and message (Study 1: reduced harm vs. no message; Study 2: reduced exposure to carcinogens vs. no message) with cigarette smokers (N(total) = 36). Linear mixed effects models assessed abuse liability for tobacco products. Outcomes included the price after which consumption is zero (the maximum amount participants would pay for a tobacco product) from the multiple choice procedure (MCP) and cigarette purchase task (CPT) and demand elasticity (price sensitivity) from the CPT. RESULTS: In the MCP, the price where consumption reached zero was significantly lower in all e-cigarette conditions except tobacco flavor (message or no message) compared to cigarettes (p < .05 each). Demand elasticity was significantly higher for menthol/no message and unflavored/reduced exposure message conditions relative to cigarettes (p < .05 each). CONCLUSIONS: Flavors and modified risk messages included with e-cigarettes may affect e-cigarette abuse liability among smokers, suggesting regulatory pathways to influence demand for conventional and alternative tobacco products.
OBJECTIVES: To measure e-cigarettes' abuse liability compared to conventional tobacco cigarettes under flavor and message conditions amenable to regulation. METHODS: Two studies used 2×2 within-subjects designs with factors of e-cigarette flavor (Study 1: tobacco vs. menthol; Study 2: cherry vs. unflavored) and message (Study 1: reduced harm vs. no message; Study 2: reduced exposure to carcinogens vs. no message) with cigarette smokers (N(total) = 36). Linear mixed effects models assessed abuse liability for tobacco products. Outcomes included the price after which consumption is zero (the maximum amount participants would pay for a tobacco product) from the multiple choice procedure (MCP) and cigarette purchase task (CPT) and demand elasticity (price sensitivity) from the CPT. RESULTS: In the MCP, the price where consumption reached zero was significantly lower in all e-cigarette conditions except tobacco flavor (message or no message) compared to cigarettes (p < .05 each). Demand elasticity was significantly higher for menthol/no message and unflavored/reduced exposure message conditions relative to cigarettes (p < .05 each). CONCLUSIONS: Flavors and modified risk messages included with e-cigarettes may affect e-cigarette abuse liability among smokers, suggesting regulatory pathways to influence demand for conventional and alternative tobacco products.
Authors: James MacKillop; James G Murphy; Lara A Ray; Daniel T A Eisenberg; Stephen A Lisman; J Koji Lum; David S Wilson Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Michael T Amlung; John Acker; Monika K Stojek; James G Murphy; James MacKillop Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2011-10-21 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Lawrence P Carter; Maxine L Stitzer; Jack E Henningfield; Rich J O'Connor; K Michael Cummings; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: James MacKillop; Lauren R Few; James G Murphy; Lauren M Wier; John Acker; Cara Murphy; Monika Stojek; Maureen Carrigan; Frank Chaloupka Journal: Addiction Date: 2012-07-30 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Richard J O'Connor; Kristie M June; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Matthew C Rousu; James F Thrasher; Andrew Hyland; K Michael Cummings Journal: Am J Health Behav Date: 2014-01
Authors: Konstantinos E Farsalinos; Giorgio Romagna; Dimitris Tsiapras; Stamatis Kyrzopoulos; Alketa Spyrou; Vassilis Voudris Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Daniel Owusu; Rachel Lawley; Bo Yang; Katherine Henderson; Brittaney Bethea; Christopher LaRose; Sam Stallworth; Lucy Popova Journal: Tob Control Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Ivori Zvorsky; Tyler D Nighbor; Allison N Kurti; Michael DeSarno; Gideon Naudé; Derek D Reed; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Prev Med Date: 2019-08-07 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Alison Breland; Sarah F Maloney; Eric K Soule; Carolina Ramôa; Andrew Barnes; Thokozeni Lipato; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Rose S Bono; Caroline O Cobb; Catherine S Wall; Rebecca C Lester; Cosima Hoetger; Thokozeni Lipato; Mignonne C Guy; Thomas Eissenberg; Warren K Bickel; Andrew J Barnes Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Eric K Soule; Joseph G L Lee; Kathleen L Egan; Kendall M Bode; Abigail C Desrosiers; Mignonne C Guy; Alison Breland; Pebbles Fagan Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Andrew J Barnes; Rose S Bono; Alyssa K Rudy; Cosima Hoetger; Nicole E Nicksic; Caroline O Cobb Journal: Addiction Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 6.526