Eric N Lindblom1, Andrea C Johnson1, Tiffany Gray1, George Luta1, Darren Mays1. 1. Eric N. Lindblom, Program Director, O'Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC. Andrea C. Johnson, Doctoral Student, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC. Tiffany Gray, Doctoral Student, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC. George Luta, Associate Professor, Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics, and Biomathematics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Darren Mays, Associate Professor, Cancer Prevention & Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test if consumers perceive filtered "little cigars" as legally-defined cigarettes and identify features they associate with cigarettes but not little cigars and vice versa. METHODS: 1,030 adults (mean age 31.1 years, 34% male, 25% non-white) were randomized in a 2×2 between-subjects experiment to view images of filtered "little cigars" that varied by package labeling (cigars: yes/no) and the product displayed in front of the packaging (filtered "little cigar" or cigarette). Measures assessed participants' perceptions that the product shown can be used as a substitute for cigarettes and features perceived to be associated with cigarettes vs. little cigars. RESULTS: Participants perceived filtered "little cigars" as substitutes for cigarettes, perceived certain features to be more like little cigars (e.g., no filter/tip, wrapped in tobacco leaf) and others to be more like cigarettes (e.g., filtered, could be inhaled deeply). In analysis of covariance assessing experimental condition effects, participants viewing images of cigarettes had stronger perceptions that filtered "little cigars" could be used as cigarette substitutes and had cigarette characteristics, but the effect was small. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new evidence that filtered "little cigars" are perceived by consumers as cigarettes under current laws and identifies features distinguishing little cigars from cigarettes.
OBJECTIVE: To test if consumers perceive filtered "little cigars" as legally-defined cigarettes and identify features they associate with cigarettes but not little cigars and vice versa. METHODS: 1,030 adults (mean age 31.1 years, 34% male, 25% non-white) were randomized in a 2×2 between-subjects experiment to view images of filtered "little cigars" that varied by package labeling (cigars: yes/no) and the product displayed in front of the packaging (filtered "little cigar" or cigarette). Measures assessed participants' perceptions that the product shown can be used as a substitute for cigarettes and features perceived to be associated with cigarettes vs. little cigars. RESULTS: Participants perceived filtered "little cigars" as substitutes for cigarettes, perceived certain features to be more like little cigars (e.g., no filter/tip, wrapped in tobacco leaf) and others to be more like cigarettes (e.g., filtered, could be inhaled deeply). In analysis of covariance assessing experimental condition effects, participants viewing images of cigarettes had stronger perceptions that filtered "little cigars" could be used as cigarette substitutes and had cigarette characteristics, but the effect was small. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new evidence that filtered "little cigars" are perceived by consumers as cigarettes under current laws and identifies features distinguishing little cigars from cigarettes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Little cigars; consumer perceptions; filtered cigars
Authors: Arunava Ghosh; Sabri H Abdelwahab; Steven L Reeber; Boris Reidel; Abigail J Marklew; Andrew J Garrison; Shernita Lee; Hong Dang; Amy H Herring; Gary L Glish; Mehmet Kesimer; Robert Tarran Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Darren Mays; Andrea C Johnson; Allison Glasser; Melissa Mercincavage; Andrew A Strasser Journal: Tob Control Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 6.953