Meghan Bridgid Moran1, Samir Soneji2, Andy S L Tan3,4, Kelvin Choi5. 1. Department of Health, Behavior, and Society, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. 2. Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Lebanon, NH. 3. Center for Community-Based Research, McGraw/Patterson Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. 4. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 5. Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Exposure and receptivity to cigarette advertising are well-established predictors of cigarette use overall. However, less is known about whether exposure and receptivity to advertising for specific brands of cigarettes (ie, Marlboro, Camel, and Newport) are longitudinally associated with any subsequent cigarette use and subsequent use of those specific brands. METHODS: We analyzed data from a US sample of 7325 young adults aged 18-24 years who completed both Wave 1 and Wave 2 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study. Weighted logistic regression models were used to examine (1) among Wave 1 never-smokers, associations between Wave 1 exposure and receptivity to advertising for Marlboro, Camel, and Newport and subsequent overall and brand-specific smoking initiation at Wave 2, and (2) among Wave 1 ever-smokers, associations between Wave 1 exposure and receptivity to advertising for Marlboro, Camel, and Newport and subsequent preference of those brands at Wave 2. RESULTS: Among Wave 1 young-adult never-smokers, exposure to Camel advertising, but not Marlboro or Newport, was associated with smoking initiation with any brand of cigarettes at Wave 2. Among Wave 1 young-adult ever-smokers, receptivity to Marlboro, Camel, and Newport advertising was associated with subsequent preference for each brand, respectively, at Wave 2. CONCLUSIONS: This study found evidence for the association between receptivity to branded cigarette marketing and subsequent use of that brand. These findings provide evidence regarding the pathways through which cigarette marketing attracts young adults to use cigarettes and can inform tobacco prevention and counter-marketing efforts. IMPLICATIONS: This study extends prior work on the effects of cigarette advertising exposure and receptivity by illustrating the brand specificity of this advertising. These findings provide evidence that receptivity to branded cigarette advertising is longitudinally associated with preference for those specific cigarette brands.
INTRODUCTION: Exposure and receptivity to cigarette advertising are well-established predictors of cigarette use overall. However, less is known about whether exposure and receptivity to advertising for specific brands of cigarettes (ie, Marlboro, Camel, and Newport) are longitudinally associated with any subsequent cigarette use and subsequent use of those specific brands. METHODS: We analyzed data from a US sample of 7325 young adults aged 18-24 years who completed both Wave 1 and Wave 2 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study. Weighted logistic regression models were used to examine (1) among Wave 1 never-smokers, associations between Wave 1 exposure and receptivity to advertising for Marlboro, Camel, and Newport and subsequent overall and brand-specific smoking initiation at Wave 2, and (2) among Wave 1 ever-smokers, associations between Wave 1 exposure and receptivity to advertising for Marlboro, Camel, and Newport and subsequent preference of those brands at Wave 2. RESULTS: Among Wave 1 young-adult never-smokers, exposure to Camel advertising, but not Marlboro or Newport, was associated with smoking initiation with any brand of cigarettes at Wave 2. Among Wave 1 young-adult ever-smokers, receptivity to Marlboro, Camel, and Newport advertising was associated with subsequent preference for each brand, respectively, at Wave 2. CONCLUSIONS: This study found evidence for the association between receptivity to branded cigarette marketing and subsequent use of that brand. These findings provide evidence regarding the pathways through which cigarette marketing attracts young adults to use cigarettes and can inform tobacco prevention and counter-marketing efforts. IMPLICATIONS: This study extends prior work on the effects of cigarette advertising exposure and receptivity by illustrating the brand specificity of this advertising. These findings provide evidence that receptivity to branded cigarette advertising is longitudinally associated with preference for those specific cigarette brands.
Authors: Sandra Braun; Erika Nayeli Abad-Vivero; Raúl Mejía; Inti Barrientos; James D Sargent; James F Thrasher Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2018-02-04 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Monica E Cornelius; K Michael Cummings; Geoffrey T Fong; Andrew Hyland; Pete Driezen; Frank J Chaloupka; David Hammond; Richard J O'Connor; Maansi Bansal-Travers Journal: Tob Control Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Amanda Richardson; Ollie Ganz; Jennifer Pearson; Nathalie Celcis; Donna Vallone; Andrea C Villanti Journal: Tob Control Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Andrew Hyland; Bridget K Ambrose; Kevin P Conway; Nicolette Borek; Elizabeth Lambert; Charles Carusi; Kristie Taylor; Scott Crosse; Geoffrey T Fong; K Michael Cummings; David Abrams; John P Pierce; James Sargent; Karen Messer; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Ray Niaura; Donna Vallone; David Hammond; Nahla Hilmi; Jonathan Kwan; Andrea Piesse; Graham Kalton; Sharon Lohr; Nick Pharris-Ciurej; Victoria Castleman; Victoria R Green; Greta Tessman; Annette Kaufman; Charles Lawrence; Dana M van Bemmel; Heather L Kimmel; Ben Blount; Ling Yang; Barbara O'Brien; Cindy Tworek; Derek Alberding; Lynn C Hull; Yu-Ching Cheng; David Maklan; Cathy L Backinger; Wilson M Compton Journal: Tob Control Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: John P Pierce; James D Sargent; David B Portnoy; Martha White; Madison Noble; Sheila Kealey; Nicolette Borek; Charles Carusi; Kelvin Choi; Victoria R Green; Annette R Kaufman; Eric Leas; M Jane Lewis; Katherine A Margolis; Karen Messer; Yuyan Shi; Marushka L Silveira; Kimberly Snyder; Cassandra A Stanton; Susanne E Tanski; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Dennis Trinidad; Andrew Hyland Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Cheryl L Perry; Adriana Pérez; Meagan Bluestein; Nicholas Garza; Udoka Obinwa; Christian Jackson; Stephanie L Clendennen; Alexandra Loukas; Melissa B Harrell Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2018-07-09 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Jennifer Cantrell; Morgane Bennett; Paul Mowery; Haijun Xiao; Jessica Rath; Elizabeth Hair; Donna Vallone Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-08-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Julia Chen-Sankey; Jennifer B Unger; Edward Bernat; Jeff Niederdeppe; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Kelvin Choi Journal: Tob Control Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 6.953