Akshika Sharma1, Kristie M June2, Kaila J Norton3, Brian Fix4, Maansi Bansal-Travers5, Vaughan W Rees6, Richard J O'Connor7. 1. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, United States. Electronic address: Akshika.sharma@roswellpark.org. 2. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, United States. Electronic address: Kristie.kibby@roswellpark.org. 3. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, United States; Center for Tobacco Research, Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, United States. Electronic address: Kaila.norton@osumc.edu. 4. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, United States. Electronic address: Brian.fix@roswellpark.org. 5. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, United States. Electronic address: Maansi.travers@roswellpark.org. 6. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, United States. Electronic address: vrees@hsph.harvard.edu. 7. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, United States. Electronic address: Richard.Oconnor@roswellpark.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Tobacco manufacturers design and marketed products with appealing sensory characteristics to drive product uptake and continued use. We assessed smokers' and non-smokers' cognitive, affective, and sensory responses to Camel Snus (CS) and Nicotine gum (NG) to gauge future intentions to use. METHOD: In a single laboratory session, 348 participants (including current smokers and nonsmokers in Buffalo, NY and Boston, MA) were exposed to CS and NG products in counterbalanced order. Exposure involved a cumulative set of 3 steps in which participants i) viewed an advertisement; ii) viewed the packaging, and iii) touched and smelled the product, without actual use. Current daily and non-daily smokers were invited to undertake a fourth exposure step by sampling the product. Following product exposure, participants completed perception measures and reported future intentions to use either product at the end of the survey. After each exposure, participants' reported feelings of valence and arousal. RESULTS: Smokers reported greater preference to try NG (63.8%) compared with CS (17.4%) or neither (18.8%), whereas majority of nonsmokers preferred neither product (64.3%) (p < 0.01). Of those offered to sample the products, 78.3% daily smokers and 68.4% non-daily smokers opted to sample. When asked about intentions to try, a greater proportion of smokers stated a preference to try NG over CS, as did the small number of nonsmokers who expressed a preference. CONCLUSION: Intentions to try CS were low despite different levels of exposure to product, and this low product appeal and interest in use may translate to limited potential of CS to serve as a reduced harm product for smokers.
INTRODUCTION: Tobacco manufacturers design and marketed products with appealing sensory characteristics to drive product uptake and continued use. We assessed smokers' and non-smokers' cognitive, affective, and sensory responses to Camel Snus (CS) and Nicotine gum (NG) to gauge future intentions to use. METHOD: In a single laboratory session, 348 participants (including current smokers and nonsmokers in Buffalo, NY and Boston, MA) were exposed to CS and NG products in counterbalanced order. Exposure involved a cumulative set of 3 steps in which participants i) viewed an advertisement; ii) viewed the packaging, and iii) touched and smelled the product, without actual use. Current daily and non-daily smokers were invited to undertake a fourth exposure step by sampling the product. Following product exposure, participants completed perception measures and reported future intentions to use either product at the end of the survey. After each exposure, participants' reported feelings of valence and arousal. RESULTS: Smokers reported greater preference to try NG (63.8%) compared with CS (17.4%) or neither (18.8%), whereas majority of nonsmokers preferred neither product (64.3%) (p < 0.01). Of those offered to sample the products, 78.3% daily smokers and 68.4% non-daily smokers opted to sample. When asked about intentions to try, a greater proportion of smokers stated a preference to try NG over CS, as did the small number of nonsmokers who expressed a preference. CONCLUSION: Intentions to try CS were low despite different levels of exposure to product, and this low product appeal and interest in use may translate to limited potential of CS to serve as a reduced harm product for smokers.
Authors: Yoo Jin Cho; James F Thrasher; Hua-Hie Yong; André Salem Szklo; Richard J O'Connor; Maansi Bansal-Travers; David Hammond; Geoffrey T Fong; James Hardin; Ron Borland Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Micah L Berman; Warren K Bickel; Andrew C Harris; Mark G LeSage; Richard J O'Connor; Irina Stepanov; Peter G Shields; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Richard J O'Connor; Kaila J Norton; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Martin C Mahoney; K Michael Cummings; Ron Borland Journal: Harm Reduct J Date: 2011-01-10
Authors: Danielle M Smith; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Richard J O'Connor; Maciej L Goniewicz; Andrew Hyland Journal: Tob Induc Dis Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 2.600
Authors: Dorothy K Hatsukami; Herbert Severson; Amanda Anderson; Rachael Isaksson Vogel; Joni Jensen; Berry Broadbent; Sharon E Murphy; Steven Carmella; Stephen S Hecht Journal: Tob Control Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Paul R Nelson; Peter Chen; Deena R Battista; Janine L Pillitteri; Saul Shiffman Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 4.244