College students' expectancies for light cigarettes and potential reduced exposure products.

Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA.
American journal of health behavior (Impact Factor: 1.31). 05/2007; 31(4):402-10. DOI: 10.5555/ajhb.2007.31.4.402
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine positive and negative beliefs about light cigarettes and potential reduced exposure products (PREPs) among college student smokers and non-smokers.
A web-based survey conducted in October-November 2004 among 424 students rating 5 advertisements for cigarette brands (Marlboro Red, Light, and Ultralight; Quest; Eclipse) on 28 items tapping positive and negative product expectancies.
Marlboro Light and Ultralight were rated more positively and less negatively than their Red counterpart. PREPs showed low positive and negative ratings relative to Marlboro Light. Positive expectancies were significantly related to willingness to try each brand.
Advertising plays a role in influencing how college students view light and PREP cigarette brands.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many governments around the world have banned the use of misleading cigarette descriptors such as "light" and "mild" because the cigarettes so labeled were found not to reduce smokers' health risks. However, underlying cigarette design features, which are retained in many brands, likely contribute to ongoing belief that these cigarettes are less harmful by producing perceptions of lightness/smoothness through lighter taste and reduced harshness and irritation. Participants (N = 320) were recruited from the International Tobacco Control U.S. Survey conducted in 2009 and 2010, when they answered questions about smoking behavior, attitudes and beliefs about tobacco products, and key mediators and moderators of tobacco use behaviors. Participants also submitted an unopened pack of their usual brand of cigarettes for analysis using established methods. Own-brand filter ventilation level (M 29%, range 0%-71%) was consistently associated with perceived lightness (p < .001) and smoothness (p = .005) of own brand. Those whose brand bore a light/mild label (55% of participants) were more likely to report their cigarettes were lighter [71.9% vs. 41.9%; χ(2)(2) = 38.1, p < .001] and smoother than other brands [75.5% vs. 68.7%; χ(2)(2) = 7.8, p = .020]. Product design features, particularly filter ventilation, influence smokers' beliefs about product attributes such as lightness and smoothness, independent of package labels. Regulation of cigarette design features such as filter ventilation should be considered as a complement to removal of misleading terms in order to reduce smokers' misperceptions regarding product risks.
    Nicotine & Tobacco Research 08/2013; · 2.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine the relationship between a belief about Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety evaluation of cigarettes and smoking risk perceptions. A nationally representative, random-digit-dialed telephone survey of 1046 adult current cigarette smokers. Smokers reporting that the FDA does not evaluate cigarettes for safety (46.1%), exhibited greater comprehension of the health risks of smoking and were more likely (48.5%) than other participants (33.6%) to report quit intentions. Risk perceptions partially mediated the relationship between FDA evaluation belief and quit intentions. These findings highlight the need for proactive, effective communication to the public about the aims of new tobacco product regulations.
    American journal of health behavior 11/2011; 35(6):766-76. · 1.31 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Information about cigarettes can help smokers come to an informed decision about what cigarettes to purchase. Countermarketing information can help smokers make informed decisions, but little is known about the value of this information to smokers. In this article, we use data from experimental auctions to estimate the value of countermarketing information that counters industry claims about reduced-risk cigarettes. We find that this information has significant value to smokers who have been exposed to marketing information from tobacco companies touting reduced-risk cigarettes, but we find no evidence it provides value to smokers not exposed to this marketing information.
    Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 01/2011; 43(04).


Available from
May 23, 2014