Pallav Pokhrel1, Thaddeus A Herzog1, Pebbles Fagan2, Jennifer B Unger3, Alan W Stacy4. 1. Cancer Prevention in Pacific Program, University of Hawaii Cancer Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI. 2. Center for the Study of Tobacco, Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. 4. School of Community and Global Health, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA.
Abstract
Introduction: This study tested whether exposure to e-cigarette advertising increases e-cigarette use susceptibility among nonsmoking young adults by promoting explicit and implicit attitudes toward e-cigarettes as a safer and healthier alternative to combustible cigarettes. Methods:Young adult current nonsmokers who had never used an e-cigarette (n = 393; mean age = 22.1, standard deviation = 3.9; 66% women) were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions that involved viewing real-world, print e-cigarette ads. Two of the three conditions were experimental conditions where ads with different predominant themes (harm reduction ["Health"] versus social enhancement ["Social"] focused) were interspersed among ads of everyday objects. The third condition was the Control condition involving ads of everyday objects only. Participants provided data on explicit (ie, self-reported harm perceptions) and implicit (ie, Implicit Association Test) attitudes toward e-cigarette use and e-cigarette use intentions. Hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling. Results: Relative to Control participants, participants in Health and Social conditions were more likely to show higher implicit attitudes toward e-cigarettes as a safer alternative to cigarettes. Only the Social condition, relative to Control, had a significant effect on lower explicit harm perceptions of e-cigarette versus cigarette use. The Social condition had a significant indirect effect on e-cigarette use susceptibility, mediated by explicit harm perceptions. Conclusions: Social enhancement-themed ads may communicate the reduced harm messages more strongly among young adults so as to affect both explicit and implicit attitudes and, through these, e-cigarette use susceptibility. Regulatory bodies may need to scrutinize reduced harm claims communicated through social enhancement-themed ads. Implications: The findings imply that implicit and explicit health benefit or reduced harm claims in e-cigarette marketing may be propagated via ads that use social enhancement gimmicks to attract youth and young adults. As the US Food and Drug Administration develops regulations on e-cigarette marketing, informed decisions need to be made that address harm reduction needs of current smokers as well as e-cigarette use onset among nonsmokers. In regard to the latter, e-cigarette marketing may need to be studied closely to monitor implicit and explicit health benefit claims that are coupled with the use of visual and textual gimmicks in ads that intend to make e-cigarettes more appealing to youth and young adults.
RCT Entities:
Introduction: This study tested whether exposure to e-cigarette advertising increases e-cigarette use susceptibility among nonsmoking young adults by promoting explicit and implicit attitudes toward e-cigarettes as a safer and healthier alternative to combustible cigarettes. Methods: Young adult current nonsmokers who had never used an e-cigarette (n = 393; mean age = 22.1, standard deviation = 3.9; 66% women) were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions that involved viewing real-world, print e-cigarette ads. Two of the three conditions were experimental conditions where ads with different predominant themes (harm reduction ["Health"] versus social enhancement ["Social"] focused) were interspersed among ads of everyday objects. The third condition was the Control condition involving ads of everyday objects only. Participants provided data on explicit (ie, self-reported harm perceptions) and implicit (ie, Implicit Association Test) attitudes toward e-cigarette use and e-cigarette use intentions. Hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling. Results: Relative to Control participants, participants in Health and Social conditions were more likely to show higher implicit attitudes toward e-cigarettes as a safer alternative to cigarettes. Only the Social condition, relative to Control, had a significant effect on lower explicit harm perceptions of e-cigarette versus cigarette use. The Social condition had a significant indirect effect on e-cigarette use susceptibility, mediated by explicit harm perceptions. Conclusions: Social enhancement-themed ads may communicate the reduced harm messages more strongly among young adults so as to affect both explicit and implicit attitudes and, through these, e-cigarette use susceptibility. Regulatory bodies may need to scrutinize reduced harm claims communicated through social enhancement-themed ads. Implications: The findings imply that implicit and explicit health benefit or reduced harm claims in e-cigarette marketing may be propagated via ads that use social enhancement gimmicks to attract youth and young adults. As the US Food and Drug Administration develops regulations on e-cigarette marketing, informed decisions need to be made that address harm reduction needs of current smokers as well as e-cigarette use onset among nonsmokers. In regard to the latter, e-cigarette marketing may need to be studied closely to monitor implicit and explicit health benefit claims that are coupled with the use of visual and textual gimmicks in ads that intend to make e-cigarettes more appealing to youth and young adults.
Authors: Reinout W Wiers; Bruce D Bartholow; Esther van den Wildenberg; Carolien Thush; Rutger C M E Engels; Kenneth J Sher; Jerry Grenard; Susan L Ames; Alan W Stacy Journal: Pharmacol Biochem Behav Date: 2006-11-20 Impact factor: 3.533
Authors: Pallav Pokhrel; Pebbles Fagan; Thaddeus A Herzog; Qimei Chen; Nicholas Muranaka; Lisa Kehl; Jennifer B Unger Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-04-25 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Alyssa Lozano; Feifei Liu; Tae Kyoung Lee; Guillermo Prado; Seth J Schwartz; Adam M Leventhal; Annemarie R Kelleghan; Jennifer B Unger; Jessica L Barrington-Trimis Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-12-31 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Daniel S Kreitzberg; Josephine T Hinds; Keryn E Pasch; Alexandra Loukas; Cheryl L Perry Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Steven H Kelder; Dale S Mantey; Duncan Van Dusen; Kathleen Case; Alexandra Haas; Andrew E Springer Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Dana A Cavallo; Grace Kong; Daniel M Ells; Deepa R Camenga; Meghan E Morean; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2019-04-01
Authors: Elise M Stevens; Amanda L Johnson; Glenn Leshner; FuWei Sun; Seunghyun Kim; Eleanor L S Leavens; Alayna P Tackett; Emily T Hébert; Theodore L Wagener Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2020-03