Literature DB >> 34286827

The "Organic" Descriptor and Its Association With Commercial Cigarette Health Risk Expectancies, Subjective Effects, and Smoking Topography: A Pilot Human Laboratory Study.

Jennifer L Pearson1, Mika Watanabe1, Jennifer Sanchez1, Suman Mann2, Cara Drake1, Melissa Mercincavage3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this mixed-method pilot study was to: (1) examine whether the "organic" descriptor affects smokers' health risk expectancies, subjective ratings of smoking, and topography, and (2) describe how smokers interpret the "organic" descriptor and relate it to their subjective smoking experience.
METHODS: Twenty-two daily smokers (45.5% men, 81.8% non-Hispanic White, M (SD) age = 47.3 [12.7], M (SD) cigarettes/day = 14.5 [5.1]) completed a within-person laboratory study. Following a baseline session, smokers attended 2 experimental sessions where they smoked a study-provided cigarette (identical across conditions) paired with either an "organic" or conventional (e.g., no "organic") descriptor condition and completed subjective and behavioral measures. Participants completed a semi-structured interview at the last visit.
RESULTS: Relative to the conventional cigarette, more participants rated the "organic" cigarette as healthier, having fewer chemicals, and having a more favorable burn rate (P's < 0.05). There were no differences in total puff volume by condition (P = 0.42). Stratifying by gender, men inhaled 225 ml (SE = 82.7) more in the conventional condition (P = 0.02); women inhaled 408 ml (SE = 233.3) more in the organic condition (P = 0.11). A common understanding of "organic" was that the product was "…less processed... like less chemicals and it's more natural." Some believed that "organic" cigarettes contained fewer chemicals, which in turn produced a "much cleaner and healthier smoking cigarette" and that they could "taste the difference."
CONCLUSIONS: Findings support that smokers associate the "organic" descriptor with health and reduced harm. This descriptor may differentially impact puffing behavior by gender. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides qualitative and quantitative data regarding how the "organic" descriptor influences adult daily smokers' perceptions and use of cigarettes. After smoking two identical cigarettes described as "organic" and conventional (e.g., no "organic"), smokers expressed more problematic health expectancies about the "organic" cigarette condition, providing further empirical support that the "organic" descriptor is associated with expectancies of reduced harm. The source of reduced harm was understood to be fewer chemicals in the organic cigarette. Though preliminary, findings suggest that "organic" may differentially affect puffing behavior by gender.
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34286827      PMCID: PMC8666116          DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntab151

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res        ISSN: 1462-2203            Impact factor:   5.825


  25 in total

1.  Smokers' beliefs about "Light" and "Ultra Light" cigarettes.

Authors:  S Shiffman; J L Pillitteri; S L Burton; J M Rohay; J G Gitchell
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 7.552

2.  Determinants of tobacco use and renaming the FTND to the Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence.

Authors:  Karl Fagerström
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2011-10-24       Impact factor: 4.244

3.  Double-blind versus deceptive administration of a placebo.

Authors:  I Kirsch; L J Weixel
Journal:  Behav Neurosci       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 1.912

4.  Public understanding of cigarette smoke constituents: three US surveys.

Authors:  Noel T Brewer; Jennifer C Morgan; Sabeeh A Baig; Jennifer R Mendel; Marcella H Boynton; Jessica K Pepper; M Justin Byron; Seth M Noar; Robert P Agans; Kurt M Ribisl
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2016-12-06       Impact factor: 7.552

Review 5.  Biochemical Verification of Tobacco Use and Abstinence: 2019 Update.

Authors:  Neal L Benowitz; John T Bernert; Jonathan Foulds; Stephen S Hecht; Peyton Jacob; Martin J Jarvis; Anne Joseph; Cheryl Oncken; Megan E Piper
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 4.244

6.  Adolescents' and adults' perceptions of 'natural', 'organic' and 'additive-free' cigarettes, and the required disclaimers.

Authors:  M Justin Byron; Sabeeh A Baig; Kathryn E Moracco; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 7.552

7.  American Spirit Pack Descriptors and Perceptions of Harm: A Crowdsourced Comparison of Modified Packs.

Authors:  Jennifer L Pearson; Amanda Richardson; Shari P Feirman; Andrea C Villanti; Jennifer Cantrell; Amy Cohn; Michael Tacelosky; Thomas R Kirchner
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 4.244

8.  Reduced Nicotine Content Expectancies Affect Initial Responses to Smoking.

Authors:  Melissa Mercincavage; Joshua M Smyth; Andrew A Strasser; Steven A Branstetter
Journal:  Tob Regul Sci       Date:  2016-10-01

9.  A Randomized Controlled Trial of Progressively Reduced Nicotine Content Cigarettes on Smoking Behaviors, Biomarkers of Exposure, and Subjective Ratings.

Authors:  Melissa Mercincavage; Valentina Souprountchouk; Kathy Z Tang; Rachel L Dumont; E Paul Wileyto; Steven G Carmella; Stephen S Hecht; Andrew A Strasser
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Tobacco industry marketing: an analysis of direct mail coupons and giveaways.

Authors:  Betsy Brock; Barbara A Schillo; Molly Moilanen
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2014-07-22       Impact factor: 7.552

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.