Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL PAPER
Navigating social interactions and constructing vaping
social identities: A qualitative exploration
with New Zealand young adults who smoke
Mei-Ling Blank
1
| Janet Hoek
2
1
Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
2
Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
Correspondence
Mei-Ling Blank, Department of
Preventive and Social Medicine,
University of Otago, 18 Frederick Street,
Dunedin 9016, New Zealand.
Email: meiling.blank@otago.ac.nz
Funding information
Royal Society Te Ap
arangi, Grant/Award
Number: 17-UOO-129
Abstract
Introduction: Social interactions help smoking and vaping practices evolve,
and are essential when constructing social identities. Among people who
smoke, vaping offers an alternative practice to ‘smoking’and ‘non-smoking’,
and using e-cigarettes blurs the boundaries between ‘smoker’and ‘non-
smoker’social identities. In this study, we explored the development of vaping
and smoking social identities over time among young adults who smoked and
used e-cigarettes.
Methods: Over 18–24 weeks during 2018–2019, we conducted five interviews
with each of 11 New Zealand young adults aged 19–29 years who tried vaping to
stop smoking. We analysed participants’interview transcripts for social interac-
tions involving smoking or vaping and used social identity theory to explore their
construction of vaping social identities.
Results: Participants entered the study with smoke-free goals, and constructed
social identities explicitly in relation to a smoke-free transition. Two key iden-
tity processes, ‘adopting legitimacy’and ‘transferring considerateness’,
informed participants’social identity construction as they attempted to recon-
cile their e-cigarette use with their pre-study characterisations of vaping as
‘illegitimate’and ‘obnoxious’. Our findings suggest that adopting a ‘legiti-
mate’vaper identity focussed on smoking cessation, and being perceived and
accepted by others as a ‘legitimate vaper’, were essential in participants’iden-
tification as ‘vapers’. Identifying as a ‘legitimate’vaper was a pre-requisite to
transferring a ‘considerate’identity from smoking to vaping.
Discussion and Conclusion: Participants’construction of vaping social identi-
ties suggests that negotiating and reconciling valued aspects of a smoking social
identity with nascent vaping practices may be important during smoking-to-
vaping transition attempts.
Received: 13 December 2021 Revised: 7 August 2022 Accepted: 16 August 2022
DOI: 10.1111/dar.13542
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2022 The Authors. Drug and Alcohol Review published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.
268 Drug Alcohol Rev. 2023;42:268–276.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/dar
KEYWORDS
e-cigarettes, qualitative research, smoking, social identity, vaping
Key points
•Understanding how vaping social identities are constructed may help identify
new opportunities for individual-level smoking cessation interventions.
•Support that enables people to discover how to ‘adopt legitimacy’and ‘transfer
consideration’may foster more successful, and complete, smoking-to-vaping
transitions.
1|INTRODUCTION
Social interactions help establish and maintain smoking
and vaping practices [1–3]. For people who smoke,
e-cigarettes may change the meanings they associate with
these practices and their social identities as they come to
‘see themselves and are seen by others in a different way’
[4, p. 55]. Social identities arise as people affiliate with
some groups and not with others (e.g., ‘smokers’and
‘non-smokers’)[
5] and help explain relations between
groups with different social standing. For example, in
countries like New Zealand, tobacco policies have denor-
malised smoking practices [6], which have lost the social
acceptability they once enjoyed, and reinforced distinc-
tions between less accepted ‘smokers’and more accepted
‘non-smokers’[7]. Social identities depend on social
interactions: individuals observe and categorise people
into groups, and identify with groups that maintain and
enhance their self-esteem. Through continued observa-
tion, people compare groups and refine, strengthen or
weaken their affiliations and social identities [5]. Incon-
gruity between current and desired statuses may prompt
change processes to enhance individual and collective
positions [5].
Using e-cigarettes potentially blurs boundaries between
traditional ‘smoker’and ‘non-smoker’social identities.
Studies suggest long-term smoking cessation may par-
tially depend on embracing a new ‘non-smoker’or ‘absti-
nent’social identity [8–11]. Yet, while status differences
between ‘smokers’and ‘non-smokers’are clear [7], vap-
ing’s position is ambiguous. Young adults report vaping-
related stigma [12, 13] and, coupled with the difficulty of
a smoking-to-vaping behavioural transition [14], there is
uncertainty for people who smoke adopting a vaping
practice and social identity.
Studies have generally categorised vaping social iden-
tities as functional (primarily motivated by smoking ces-
sation), recreational (primarily motivated by pleasure)
and ambivalent [15], and highlighted the contextualising
role of social norms [16]. For example, in studies that
included young adult participants, Tokle and Pedersen,
and McCausland et al. identified ‘substitutes’and ‘cloud
chasers’[17, 18], while Ward et al. nuanced these catego-
ries, describing recreational ‘invested vapers’, functional
‘enthusiastic switchers’and ‘nicotine quitters’[19]. Peo-
ple adopting functional identities felt acutely aware that
smoking stigma could transfer to vaping [19] and man-
aged their personal vaping visibility using avoidance or
minimisation strategies, especially when around children
[18, 19]. By contrast, recreational vapers felt less con-
cerned about the visual impact of their vaping [19],
which they sometimes used as a performative statement
to signal their identification as a ‘vaper’[17, 20]. People
in this latter group may become enmeshed in vaping sub-
cultures and countercultures that celebrate community
and creativity [17, 18].
While studies have reported broadly similar vaping
social identity outcomes among established e-cigarette
users, we are unaware of any work describing the early
stages of social identity formation over time among people
using e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. To explore this
gap, we analysed longitudinal interviews undertaken with
New Zealand young adults who tried e-cigarettes to stop
smoking. Interviewing every participant five times over
18–24 weeks allowed us to explore social interactions involv-
ing smoking or vaping, and their social identity construction
during the first months of their smoking-to-vaping attempt.
2|METHODS
The methods report provides full details of the study [21].
Briefly, data were collected in Dunedin, New Zealand
from May to December 2018 and March to September
2019 as part of the longitudinal, qualitatively focussed
mixed-methods Smoking-to-Vaping study (interviews,
daily surveys, videography) that investigated social, psy-
chological and behavioural transitions among smokers
trying vaping. New Zealand’s e-cigarette market was
unregulated during the study period, with no marketing
restrictions or quality standards for devices, components
and e-liquids. Participants were recruited via posting on
local Facebook groups and word-of-mouth. Participants
were purposively sampled (age, gender, ethnicity, cigarettes
VAPING SOCIAL IDENTITIES 269
per day) and invited to participate if they were at least
18 years old, smoked at least one cigarette per week, did
not currently use an e-cigarette once a week or more often
(i.e., ‘regular’use), were not currently trying to quit using
any means (including e-cigarettes, nicotine replacement
therapy and ‘cold turkey’),hadneverstoppedsmokingfor
30 or more days with the aid of an e-cigarette, and were
willing to use an e-cigarette to try and stop smoking. Those
who had tried others’e-cigarettes in social settings, but who
were not ‘regular’users, were eligible. Overall, 45 partici-
pants enrolled and completed at least one interview
(29 completed all five interviews). The enrolled participants’
mean age was 33 years (range: 19–56 years old), 26 were
female and 13 were M
aori (Indigenous peoples of
New Zealand). We focussed on participants aged up to
30yearsinthisanalysisbecausecross-culturalevidence
suggests younger adults have more frequent daily social
interactions than older adults [22].
Participants attended up to five interviews (intake
(T[ime]1), and approximately 2, 6, 12 and 18 [T5] weeks
after intake); the timing of the fifth interview was depen-
dent on participants’availability with a small number
interviewed 19–24 weeks after intake. We attempted to
interview each participant five times in order to obtain
more contemporaneous accounts of changes in vaping
and smoking than is possible when intervals between
interviews are longer. All gave written consent before
each interview. During intake (T1), participants selected
an e-cigarette starter kit (up to NZ$80 value purchased
with research funds and gifted to the participant;
Data S1, Supporting Information) from a collaborating
retailer and allowed to use their device as they wished
(i.e., no requirement to adhere to a particular usage
pattern). Participants were reimbursed a maximum of
NZ$290 (in 2019; NZ$260 in 2018) to recognise their
contribution. Participants were considered lost to follow-up
if they did not respond to at least two researcher-initiated
contacts to reschedule missed interviews.
We created semi-structured interview guides for each
participant at each time point and developed participant-
specific questions based on past interviews. Core topics at
every interview included self-reported smoking and vap-
ing; physical, psychological and social experiences of vap-
ing; and smoking perceptions in relation to vaping
experiences. The interview guides were developed based
on the preliminary findings of an 8-week pilot study [23],
with more details available in the methods report [21].
Formal cessation support was not provided; however,
some participants interpreted the interviews and daily
surveys as support. Interviews lasted between 45 and
80 minutes. Audio files were transcribed by an online ser-
vice with transcripts compared with the audio files to
ensure accuracy.
We analysed the transcripts using reflexive thematic
analysis [24]. We identified all real and hypothetical
(e.g., speculation about upcoming parties) social interac-
tions involving smoking or vaping described by partici-
pants. We included hypothetical interactions as these
could offer rich insight into how participants wished to be
seen, or imagined they were seen, by others. To explore
potential changes over comparable periods (i.e., approxi-
mately 18 weeks), we decided to exclude from the analysis
participants who completed three or fewer interviews
(i.e., nine young adult participants excluded because they
withdrew from the study or were lost to follow-up). There
were no appreciable demographic or baseline smoking dif-
ferences between the included and excluded participants.
Transcripts for each participant were first analysed line-by-
line, chronologically from T1 to T5, to identify themes and
patterns within individuals. Next, we compared participants
at each time point (i.e., T1, T2, etc) to identify themes and
patterns across individuals, while recursively revisiting and
revising our chronological within-person analyses and inter-
pretations. Finally, we considered the participants as a
group over time to explore possible group-level changes or
trajectories in smoking and vaping identities. Analytical
memos were written and revised for each participant, and
at each stage of the analysis. Mei-Ling Blank selected three
participants, based on data richness, for Janet Hoek to inde-
pendently analyse, and we met to discuss and nuance
themes and interpretations.
3|RESULTS
Forty-five participants enrolled, including 20 aged 18–
30 years. Eleven young adults completed all five inter-
views and were included in this analysis (Table 1). These
11 participants averaged 23 years old, included 7 women,
and smoked from one to over 40 cigarettes a day at
intake. Eight reported at least one occasion of social vap-
ingbeforeentrybutnonewereregularlyvapingatT1.
E-cigarette use varied by participant, from vaping only a
few times throughout the study, to consistent daily (includ-
ing hourly) use. Vaping’s novelty evaporated quickly; few
participants reported substantive behavioural, perceptual or
attitudinal changes after T3 (approximately 6 weeks after
T1). Attempting to integrate vaping into daily life was not
linear, smooth or consistent; we observed considerable vari-
ation within individuals over time. Those who struggled
with the technicalities of vaping (e.g., inhalation technique,
nicotine titration, charging and maintenance routines) also
had fewer social interaction opportunities to negotiate iden-
tities because of their reluctance to vape around others. At
T5, participants self-reported the gamut of behavioural out-
comes (return to exclusive smoking, transition to exclusive
270 BLANK AND HOEK
vaping, ‘dual use’[both smoking and vaping]). At exit, most
participants still aspired to become both smokefree and
vapefree. Only two viewed vaping as a desirable long-term
outcome.
In the next section, we present findings from our analy-
sis of the 11 young adult participants. We first outline their
pre-study social categorisations (as reported at T1) of people
who smoke and those who vape, then elaborate on two key
processes central to their vaping identity negotiations dur-
ing social interactions. Quotations are identified by pseudo-
nym and interview number (T1, etc.).
3.1 |‘Considerate’smokers, ‘obnoxious’
vapers and ‘legitimacy’through
acknowledging addiction
Participants viewed people who smoke or who vape as
occupying lower status positions than non-smokers.
However, the status difference between ‘smokers’and
‘vapers’was ambiguous. Participants described people
who smoke as ‘filthy’,‘careless’and ‘constantly broke’.
Some identified deeply with these descriptors, as Louise
(T1) stated, ‘We smell like cigarettes’(emphasis added).
However, alongside these labels, participants claimed
‘considerate smoker’identities. As Ryan (T1) explained,
‘I still smoke, but I try to be polite about it, you know? I
will cross the street if I see a lady with her kids, just to
make sure I’m not too close’. Politeness was both a delib-
erate choice to limit the spread of toxins and smells to
others, and a strategy to reclaim status when engaging in
a socially disparaged activity.
People who vape were described as ‘less smelly’and
‘cleaner’, but also as ‘lame’and ‘uncool’. Participants
ridiculed vapers for their appearance, which they carica-
tured as ‘the hipster, long hair, beard’(Ryan T1). They
scorned ostentatious displays of vaping that produced
‘obnoxious white clouds’(Noah T1) and upended norms
of politeness and discretion. The ‘obnoxious’material
attributes of vaping clouds (size, visibility, smell) chal-
lenged valued ‘considerate smoker’identities.
Crucially, vaping obtained its ‘legitimacy’as an alter-
native to smoking, and participants criticised people they
thought vaped purely for pleasure or ‘the look’. Smoking
and nicotine addiction were essential precursors of ‘legit-
imate’vaping and formed the basis of an acceptable
‘vaper’identity among participants. As Lily (T1) stated,
‘if you don’t smoke and you’re not addicted to nicotine,
what’s the point in having a vape?’. Many feared categor-
isation as an ‘illegitimate’vaper. As Clara (T1) explained,
‘I’m scared people will look at me and be like, “Uh, she
thinks she’s one of those cool kids who vapes”…it’s a big
worry that people would think that’.
Pre-study interactions with people who vape reflected
unattractive ‘illegitimate’and ‘obnoxious’identities.
Participants who accepted ‘vaper’social identities
TABLE 1 Characteristics of the participants included in the current analysis
Pseudonym Gender Age
a
Highest
completed
education Ethnicity
Number of
cigarettes/
day reported
at intake
Time to
first
cigarette
at intake
Vaping
experience
before intake
Smoking
reported at
last
interview
Vaping
reported at
last interview
Clara F 19 High school M
aori 42–44 ≤5 min No Yes, daily Yes
Lily
b
F 19 Certificate/diploma NZE 14–15 6–30 min No Yes, occasional Yes
Abigail F 22 High school NZE 1 >60 min Yes No Yes
Louise
b
F 23 High school NZE 6 6–30 min Yes Yes, daily No
Amanda
b
F 26 Bachelor’s Asian 4 >60 min Yes Yes, daily No
Charlotte
b
F 27 No formal
qualification
M
aori, NZE 20 ≤5 min Yes No Yes
Andrea
b
F 29 High school M
aori, NZE 22–27 ≤5 min Yes Yes, daily No
Oscar
b
M 20 High school Asian 3, plus 3 dokha
bowls
c
6–30 min No No Yes
George
b
M 20 High school NZE 9–10 31–60 min Yes Yes, daily Yes
Noah
b
M 24 High school NZE 13 6–30 min Yes Yes, daily Yes
Ryan M 26 Bachelor’s NZE 10–14 6–30 min Yes No Yes
Abbreviations: F, female; M, male; NZE, New Zealand European.
a
Based on birth year.
b
2018 participant.
c
Dokha is a Middle Eastern tobacco product smoked in a midwakh pipe.
VAPING SOCIAL IDENTITIES 271
(with varying degrees of enthusiasm) needed to navi-
gate identity transitions informed by their social inter-
actions. Adopting a ‘legitimate’social identity was a
pre-requisite to transferring a ‘considerate’identity
from smoking to vaping.
3.2 |‘Legitimate’identities
Throughout the study, social interactions reinforced
distinctions between ‘legitimate’and ‘illegitimate’
identities, which participants always framed in refer-
ence to ‘smoker’identities. George (T3) watched
strangers vaping to ‘try and figure out if they were a
smoker beforehand by looking at them’.Otherswere
assigned identities based on their e-cigarette, as Clara
(T4) explained, ‘…people who more want the effect of
like, cool smoke, and like clouds, and like the enjoy-
ment, of like the fun of it, they normally have the big,
bulky hardcore ones. Whereas I’ve noticed people
who are trying to quit smoking, they more just have
the pen looking ones’. The materiality of e-cigarettes
cued participants’categorisation of ‘legitimate’and
‘illegitimate’social identities.
Ironically, acknowledging nicotine addiction and identi-
fying as a ‘smoker’during personal social interactions cre-
ated opportunities to adopt higher status ‘legitimate vaper’
identities. For example, Clara (T2) explained, ‘when people
ask questions [about her e-cigarette], then I’ll be like, “Oh,
well I smoke,”and they’ll be like, “Oh, well good on you”’.
Coupling her ‘smoker’and ‘legitimate vaper’identities
ameliorated her earlier fears of being perceived as an ‘ille-
gitimate’‘cool kid’vaper. This feedback also encouraged
Clara to seek out supportive situations where her vaping
inspired others who smoked, which reinforced her nascent
‘legitimate’identity.
3.3 |‘Considerate’identities
Social interactions also bolstered status differences
between ‘considerate smoker’and ‘obnoxious vaper’
identities. All participants tried to transfer ‘considerate’
identities to vaping as they sought to mitigate harsh
judgements directed at ‘obnoxious vapers’,whoselowly
status remained consistent throughout the study. Con-
trolling vaping clouds was as important as controlling
smoke, and many successfully transitioned ‘politeness’
strategies directly from smoking to vaping. As Charlotte
(T3) explained, ‘I was always aware that people don’t
like smoke and don’t want it near them. So I was always
mindful about not doing that around people. So I think
I’ve probably taken that on board with the vaping as
well, just being mindful that some people might not
want that near them’. While acknowledging elements,
like wind, which were outside of their control, making
an effort and being ‘mindful’of others applied to both
vaping and smoking practices.
3.4 |Social identity transitions:
Adopting legitimacy before transferring
considerateness
Adopting a ‘legitimate’identity and being perceived as a
‘legitimate vaper’were essential pre-cursors to transfer-
ring a ‘considerate’identity from smoking to vaping. For
example, shortly after starting vaping, Noah feared facing
the same criticism he had levelled against ‘obnoxious
vapers’, as he explained, ‘my hang ups from always
thinking, “Oh my god. There’s people blowing these big
clouds are obnoxious and annoying [sic].”Um, now I feel
like I’m doing it …I feel it’s more acceptable to have a
cigarette then just sitting there with my vape, because of
the big cloud of smoke [vaping cloud]’(T2). Noah’s key
moment of identity negotiation occurred at a concert
where, for the first time, he interacted with large num-
bersofpeoplevaping.Hedescribedtheseparategroups
of smokers and vapers, and how he physically situated
himself in the middle of these groups, as he explained,
‘obviously older people that had quit smoking and
started vaping. Um, and yeah, they were also standing
in a group. And there was all the young smokers over
there,andtherewaskindofjustlikeagroupinthemid-
dle and so we stuck with them …There were lots of peo-
ple doing it [vaping], so I just felt like I fit in’(T3).
These interactions reflected the normalisation of ‘legiti-
mate’vaping identities, which started shifting his atti-
tude about ‘considerateness’, as he explained, ‘Istill
think they’re obnoxious, but I’m becoming more accept-
ing about that …Just of the fact that like, good on them
for choosing that over smoking, or choosing to do it
either way …just as long as you’re not directly blowing
it at someone, it’s not really that bad. That’sjustrude,
doesn’t matter whether it’s cigarette smoke or anything’
(T3). Legitimate motivations coupled with deliberate
efforts at politeness made being a ‘vaper’more accept-
able. Later, Noah’s identity metaphorically shifted to the
middle as he reflected on changing perceptions of
‘obnoxiousness’and vaping’s social acceptability, as he
explained, ‘Ithinkit’s having the second option. So like
rather than just being a smoker and thinking all vapers
are twats, it’slike,um,I’ve got an option now that I can
just go have a little bit, or I can go have a cigarette …
Well, I guess I’m not the smoker I used to be …A good
mix of both. Vaper and smoker’(T4).
272 BLANK AND HOEK
3.5 |Longitudinal case studies
In this section, we present two longitudinal case studies
and focus on the role of social interactions in validating,
or invalidating, ‘legitimate’identities. We focus on ‘legit-
imacy’as it was central to most participants’experiences
throughout the study. The two participants differed in
how frequently they reported social interactions while
vaping. They were not selected as exemplars of partici-
pants’experiences or identity change processes.
‘Vaper through and through’
Social interactions could help resolve the gap between
how participants perceived themselves and how they
thought others perceived them when they vaped. These
interactions created opportunities to form desirable iden-
tities by facilitating the adoption of ‘vaper’identities and
the discarding of ‘smoker’identities.
Lily was a 19 year old New Zealand European female
who had smoked daily for 1 year. She lived with her
mother and studied cooking at the local polytechnic. At
T1 she smoked about 15 cigarettes a day and had no
experience with using e-cigarettes, although her mother
used a cigalike to remain smokefree. Lily strongly identi-
fied with other smokers, as she stated, ‘…we’re just nor-
mal people. I mean, we’dbe the same if we didn’t smoke,
but the difference is that we do’[emphasis added]. Her
strong smoker identification made ‘legitimacy’crucial to
her early vaping, as she opined, ‘if you don’t smoke and
you’re not addicted to nicotine, what’s the point in hav-
ing a vape?’. She condemned people she perceived as
‘illegitimate’, labelling them ‘stupid’,‘idiots’and ‘hipster
teenagers’.
Lily continued to hold strong opinions about personal
and social legitimacy of vaping at T2. Nicotine addiction
remained essential for her personal legitimacy, as she
explained, ‘I don’t think that I would still keep vaping if
there wasn’t any nicotine in the e-liquid, ’cause if there’s
no nicotine, then what’s the point?’. These beliefs helped
her identify with other people who smoked and hoped to
switch to vaping. As she stated, ‘I still don’t like people
that vape that don’t have nicotine in it …whereas if
someone that has nicotine in the vape, then I’m like,
“Well, great,”you know …it always cheers me up a bit’.
At T3, Lily missed the smoking community camara-
derie at her local pub, and felt others viewed her with
suspicion for indulging in a ‘hipstery trend’. However,
seeing more people using vaping to stop smoking (at the
pub, at polytech) started to shift her perceptions of legiti-
macy in two ways. First, nicotine’s centrality diminished
as she started to view people who formerly smoked but
who currently vaped with zero nicotine as acceptable.
She acknowledged vaping’s ability to substitute valued
inhaling and exhaling practices, not just nicotine con-
sumption, and the ‘safety blanket’conferred by transfer-
ring some of smoking’s physical rituals to vaping. Lily
started personally identifying with other people she saw
vaping and described the difference between vaper identi-
fication and smoker identification, as she recounted,
‘someone at the polytech has the exact same vape and
the exact same colour as me. And we saw each other and
we were like, “Ah, same vape!”Which was very exciting.
Whereas, you know, if I was smoking, I was down at the
neighbour’s, we wouldn’t be like, “Ha! Same tobacco!”’.
Here, social interactions that reflected Lily’s own vaping
materials and experiences facilitated vaper identification.
Lily’s social identity transformed after attending a
local Vape Day festival (T4) where feeling accepted as a
vaping community member substituted the communal
feeling she experienced when smoking with others at the
pub. Her ‘legitimacy’concerns dissolved as she inter-
acted with people who vaped for many reasons, as she
explained, ‘well, after that [Vape Day] I’m much happier
to be like, “Yep, I’m a vaper. Sign me up for things.”You
know, whereas before I was a bit like, “Hmm.”You
know, there’s a stigma around it and people who vape
with no nicotine are a bit weird. You know, what’s the
point? But now I’m kind of like, “Meh”. You know,
‘We’re all one big group, go for it’.
Lily’s‘vaper’identity transition consolidated at T5 when
she declared herself, ‘definitely a vaper. Vaper through and
through’. Her perception of ‘legitimacy’shifted and ‘vaper’
identities now encompassed smokers, non-smokers and
never-smokers, as she explained, ‘a vaper, you know, and
they might have smoked, but they might not have’.Identify-
ing with others who vape felt normal rather than novel, as
she explained, ‘Ithink,“Oh, yeah, cool”.Idon’t, I’m not feel-
ing, go up to them and be like, “Hey, same vape”…but it’s
nice to see other people vaping …because it’sakindofa
sense of community. So it’skindoflikea,“Hey, I’mnotthe
only who’sdoingthis”’.
‘We’ll call me a social smoker, shall we?’
Social interactions also created occasions that could
impede adoption of a vaper identity and some partici-
pants struggled to reconcile the gap between their vaping
and others’response to their choice. ‘Smoker’identities
became reinforced when participants could not negotiate
and reconcile these identity gaps during interactions with
others.
Andrea was a 29 year old home healthcare worker
who identified as M
aori and New Zealand European. She
had her first cigarette at 11 years old and regularly
smoked at 13. She smoked 20–30 cigarettes a day at T1,
VAPING SOCIAL IDENTITIES 273
and her only experience with vaping before the study was
trying her boyfriend’s e-cigarette once or twice. Her boy-
friend had tried vaping to stop smoking, and she had
heard about people who had successfully stopped smok-
ing using e-cigarettes.
Andrea described a conflicted relationship with smok-
ing at T1. Her first cigarette at age 11 offered her a sense
of belonging, as she described, ‘that social interaction
with other ones my age that were doing it as well. And I
guess, being with the cool kids …’. However, she admit-
ted that although she ‘despises smoking’, it simulta-
neously filled a ‘void’she could not describe.
Andrea had few social interactions while vaping dur-
ing the study. At T2 she mostly vaped alone, and
described vaping as ‘antisocial’and ‘lonely’. As she
explained, ‘Well, for me at the moment, vaping’s antiso-
cial. Um, it’s something I do on my own at night, or in
the car on my own, whereas smoking is something that I
generally do with other people that smoke …Smoking, I
guess, um, for me, in a way, is a social thing, I guess. You
know? Well, my partner smokes, his father smokes, his
brother smokes, the sister smokes, you know? Um, so it’s
all, you know, when we’re around each other, it’s always
with smoking around each other, so we’re interacting in
that way’. The thought of vaping if others were smoking
was almost unthinkable, as she explained, ‘Oh no. I guess
I’d feel different and left out if they’re smoking and I’m
vaping, if that makes sense?’.
Things had changed at T3 as Andrea reported a rela-
tionship breakdown and subsequent emerging relation-
ship with a new flatmate, whom she had introduced to
vaping. In contrast to other participants, Andrea reported
almost no curiosity from others about her vaping, and
most of her interactions while vaping elicited neither pos-
itive nor negative reactions from others, simply ‘Noth-
ing’. The lack of social engagement while vaping meant
Andrea could not begin identity negotiations with others.
Vaping was described as, ‘my own dirty little secret …I
just don’t do it out in public’. However, Andrea’s interac-
tions with her new flatmate provided the first opportuni-
ties to negotiate a ‘legitimate vaper’identity with another
person. Her girlfriend’s smoking quickly declined after
she started vaping and Andrea was inspired by her
progress.
At T4, Andrea reported substantial changes to her
vaping and smoking as her new relationship evolved.
She was vaping more often, although not daily, and
while she still identified as ‘a heavy smoker’,vaping
had become social, while smoking had become solitary.
As she explained, ‘we’ll both just puff away on our
vapes, um, and then have the occasional cigarette.
Whereas, if it’s myself, I just constantly smoke, yeah’.
As vaping became more integrated into her life,
Andrea began trying to assert a ‘legitimate vaper’iden-
tity with her father, an ex-smoker with whom she had
a fraught relationship. However, these interactions
simply repeated the unsupportive patterns in their rela-
tionship. For example, as she recalled, ‘I was vaping
inside, and he goes, “Don’tdothatinside!”Isaid,
“Why?”“Because it’s like a cigarette.”Isaid,“No, it’s
not. It doesn’t leave a vapour or an odour behind, or
tar and that, like a cigarette does.”He’sveryantivapes,
but, yeah’.
Andrea’s final interview was delayed for personal rea-
sons. At T5 she reported that she had not used her e-
cigarette since her last interview approximately 12 weeks
before. Vaping had never filled the ‘void’that smoking
filled, as she explained, ‘It just, it wasn’t smoking’. While
she had abandoned vaping, at exit she identified as a
‘social smoker’, as she mused, ‘We’ll call me a social
smoker, shall we? …a smoker’s someone that smokes all
the time, like I was, 25, 30, you know, cigarettes every
day. Whereas a social smoker is someone that will smoke
with someone else that is smoking. Which is generally
what I do now’.
4|DISCUSSION
We used longitudinal interviews to explore the social
interactions of New Zealand young adults who tried to
substitute vaping for smoking. Participants entered the
study with smoke-free goals and constructed social iden-
tities explicitly in relation to a smoke-free transition. Our
findings suggest attempts to construct vaping social iden-
tities hinged on adopting a ‘legitimate’vaper identity
before attempting to transfer a ‘considerate’identity from
smoking to vaping. We observed considerable variation
within and across individuals over time. However, for all
participants, social interactions (public and private;
acquaintances and strangers) with others trying vaping
for ‘legitimate’motivations influenced whether and how
their progress from a ‘smoker’to a ‘vaper’occurred.
Interactions perceived as supportive rapidly normalised
vaping, facilitated participants’adoption of ‘legitimate
vaper’identities, and helped diminish self-consciousness
that lingered from important pre-study ‘considerate
smoker’identities. Seeing others vape as an alternative to
smoking helped many participants adopt ‘legitimate’and
‘considerate’identities. Successfully navigating these pro-
cesses led some to accept ‘vaper’identities, with varying
degrees of enthusiasm. However, participants who stopped
vaping and returned to exclusive smoking found personal
interactions invalidated their attempts to adopt and be per-
ceived as ‘legitimate’vapers and consolidated pre-study
‘smoker’identities. These participants felt their ‘legitimate
274 BLANK AND HOEK
vaper’identities were not accepted by others, which
obstructed their e-cigarette use, frustrated their identity
negotiations and entrenched ‘smoker’identities.
Our study has limitations and strengths. Participants
were purposively sampled for gender, ethnicity and
smoking consumption at baseline, and were selected for
this analysis because they completed all five interviews.
This approach generated rich qualitative data and
allowed us to explore social identity processes over an
extended period. We enrolled nine participants aged 18–30
who failed to complete more than three interviews; fur-
ther insights into vaping social identity processes may
have been obtained if we had retained these participants
for all five interviews. The social context of vaping also
changed during the study. Nicotine salt pods became
available in New Zealand mid-way through the 2018
enrolment. Participants were not permitted to choose
these devices during their T1 shop visit though could
change or upgrade their device using their own funds at
any time during the study. As pod devices produce negli-
gible vaping clouds, participants’social experiences of
vaping may have differed if they had been allowed to
select these devices at T1. Furthermore, the New Zealand
government subsequently endorsed vaping for smoking
cessation. Vaping is now publicly promoted for harm
reduction to achieve the Government’s smokefree 2025
goal [25]. Conducting the study in this changed environ-
ment could yield different, or additional, insights.
Many participants grappled with adopting ‘legitimate’
identities. While smoking and nicotine dependence were
important pre-requisites for ‘legitimate’vaping, transfer-
ring physical dependence from smoking to vaping created
uncomfortable, ‘reluctant vaper’identities for some. Most
participants still aspired to become nicotine-free and vape-
free, which as Ward et al. [19] highlighted, suggests an
important transitional component to abstinence-focussed
vaping identities. Thus, a liminal ‘betwixt and between’
[26] identity may be a crucial step towards a non-smoking,
non-vaping, nicotine-free identity. By contrast, Tokle and
Pedersen contend that ‘long-term replacement’goals, as
opposed to ‘abstinence’, may not depend on becoming vape
free and nicotine abstinent, but encompass reduced health
risks, minimised smoking-related stigma, and manageable
nicotine dependence [17].
Transferring a ‘considerate’identity from smoking to
vaping was important for all participants, but depended on
adopting and being perceived as a ‘legitimate’vaper. Suc-
cessful transfer helped some identify with a ‘vaper’social
identity. A study of Scottish young adults who tried vaping
also discussed identity transfer attempts [3]. However,
while most of our participants found ways to transfer a
valued ‘considerate’identity from smoking to vaping, this
study reported that most failed to transfer a ‘controlled
smoker’identity to vaping. Unsuccessfully managing vap-
ing use was a factor that impeded the Scottish participants’
attempts to integrate vaping into their lives.
Constructing vaping social identities in relation to
smoking perpetuates the traditional narrative that
‘stopping’or ‘quitting’smoking depends on individual
effort and self-control [27]. Social identities hinging on
‘substitution’or ‘long-term replacement’focusonper-
sonal betterment and identity enhancement, and do
nothing to alter the collective status of people who
smoke or people who vape. Instead, these social identi-
ties utilise individual-level ‘social mobilisation’pro-
cesses to maintain or enhance personal self-esteem [5].
Other studies have described recreational ‘cloud chas-
ing vapers’engaging in collective action, including
actively building vaping communities, cultivating
interest in vaping technology and skills, and becoming
politically empowered to challenge restrictive vaping
legislation [17, 18]. These efforts created a distinctive
space for vaping as an independent, non-conformist
practice no longer framed in traditional terms of
‘smoking’and ‘non-smoking’.
Social interactions shape how vaping practices and
social identities evolve. Participants’construction of
vaping identities suggests that negotiating and recon-
ciling valued aspects of their smoking social identities
with nascent vaping practices may be important as they
attempt to transition from smoking to vaping. Transfer-
ring considerateness and adopting legitimacy may
influence how nicotine inhalation practices develop
and influence how well vaping, or other ‘non-smoking’
practices, can attract people who smoke. These insights
mayhelpidentifynewopportunitiesforcessation
intervention services. Recognising that smoking-to-
vaping transitions involve more than substituting nico-
tine administration may aid more complete smoke-free
transitions.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
MB and JH conceptualised this project. MB led the analy-
sis, data interpretation and drafting of the manuscript.
JH reviewed data interpretation and provided critical
feedback on the manuscript. MB is the guarantor.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Ms Grace Teah for her assistance with
interviewing two participants, and Associate Professor
Tamlin Conner, Dr Shelagh Ferguson, Associate Profes-
sor Lee Thompson and Dr Kerri Haggart, who were
members of the overall project team. Open access pub-
lishing facilitated by University of Otago, as part of the
Wiley - University of Otago agreement via the Council of
Australian University Librarians.
VAPING SOCIAL IDENTITIES 275
ETHICS STATEMENT
University of Otago Human Ethics Committee (Health)
(HECH 18/014). M
aori consultation: University of Otago
Ng
ai Tahu Research Consultation Committee.
ORCID
Mei-Ling Blank https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0728-4598
REFERENCES
1. Simons-Morton BG, Farhat T. Recent findings on peer group
influences on adolescent smoking. J Prim Prev. 2010;31:
191–208.
2. Buu A, Hu YH, Wong SW, Lin HC. Comparing American col-
lege and noncollege young adults on e-cigarette use patterns
including polysubstance use and reasons for using e-cigarettes.
J Am Coll Heal. 2020;68:610–6.
3. Lucherini M, Rooke C, Amos A. “They’re thinking, well it’s
not as bad, I probably won’t get addicted to that. But it’s still
got the nicotine in it, so…”: maturity, control, and socializing:
negotiating identities in relation to smoking and vaping - a
qualitative study of young adults in Scotland. Nicotine Tob
Res. 2019;21:81–7.
4. Shove E, Pantzar M, Watson M. The dynamics of social prac-
tice: everyday life and how it changes. London: Sage Publica-
tions; 2012.
5. Tajfel H, Turner JC. The social identity theory of intergroup
behaviour. In: Worchel S, Austins WG, editors. Psychology of
intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson; 1986. p. 7–24.
6. Thompson L, Pearce J, Barnett JR. Moralising geographies:
stigma, smoking islands and responsible subjects. Area. 2007;
39:508–17.
7. Hoek J, Edwards R, Waa A. From social accessory to societal
disapproval: smoking, social norms and tobacco endgames.
Tob Control. 2022;31:358–64.
8. Notley C, Colllins R. Redefining smoking relapse as recovered
social identity–secondary qualitative analysis of relapse narra-
tives. J Subst Use. 2018;23:660–6.
9. Vangeli E, West R. Transition towards a ‘non-smoker’
identity following smoking cessation: an interpretative
phenomenological analysis. Br J Health Psychol. 2012;17:
171–84.
10. Vangeli E, Stapleton J, West R. Residual attraction to smoking
and smoker identity following smoking cessation. Nicotine
Tob Res. 2010;12:865–9.
11. Tombor I, Shahab L, Herbec A, Neale J, Michie S, West R.
Smoker identity and its potential role in young adults’smok-
ing behavior: a meta-ethnography. Health Psychol. 2015;34:
992–1003.
12. Hiler M, Spindle TR, Dick D, Eissenberg T, Breland A,
Soule E. Reasons for transition from electronic cigarette use to
cigarette smoking among young adult college students.
J Adolesc Health. 2020;66:56–63.
13. Katz SJ, Erkinnen M, Lindgren B, Hatsukami D. Beliefs about
e-cigarettes: a focus group study with college students.
Am J Health Behav. 2019;43:76–87.
14. Conner TS, Zeng J, Blank ML, He V, Hoek J. A descriptive
analysis of transitions from smoking to electronic nicotine
delivery system (ENDS) use: a daily diary investigation. Int J
Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:6301.
15. Farrimond H. A typology of vaping: identifying differing
beliefs, motivations for use, identity and political interest
amongst e-cigarette users. Int J Drug Policy. 2017;48:81–90.
16. Smith H, Lucherini M, Amos A, Hill S. The emerging norms
of e-cigarette use among adolescents: a meta-ethnography of
qualitative evidence. Int J Drug Policy. 2021;94:103227.
17. Tokle R, Pedersen W. “Cloud chasers”and “substitutes”: e-cig-
arettes, vaping subcultures and vaper identities. Sociol Health
Illn. 2019;41:917–32.
18. McCausland K, Jancey J, Leaver T, Wolf K, Freeman B,
Maycock B. Motivations for use, identity and the vaper subcul-
ture: a qualitative study of the experiences of Western
Australian vapers. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1552.
19. Ward E, Dawkins L, Holland R, Notley C. Responsibility, nor-
malisation and negotiations of harm: e-cigarette users’opin-
ions and experiences of vaping around children. Int J Drug
Policy. 2021;88:103016.
20. Lucherini M, Rooke C, Amos A. E-cigarettes, vaping and per-
formativity in the context of tobacco denormalisation. Sociol
Health Illn. 2018;40:1037–52.
21. Hoek J, Blank M, Conner T, Ferguson S, Thompson L,
Teah G, et al. Smoking-to-vaping (S2V) study: methods report.
Wellington: ASPIRE 2025; 2020.
22. OECD. How’s life? 2020: measuring well-being. Paris: Organi-
sation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2021.
23. Blank M-L, Hoek J, George M, Gendall P, Conner TS, Thrul J,
et al. An exploration of smoking-to-vaping transition attempts
using a “smart”electronic nicotine delivery system. Nicotine
Tob Res. 2019;21:1339–46.
24. Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis. In: Cooper H,
Camic PM, Long DL, Panter AT, Rindskopf D, Sher KJ, edi-
tors. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol
2 research designs: quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychologi-
cal, and biological. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association; 2012. p. 57–71.
25. Ministry of Health, Agency HP. Vaping to Quit Smoking 2019
[updated 2019]. Available from: https://vapingfacts.health.nz/
vaping-to-quit-smoking/.
26. Turner VW. Betwixt and between: the liminal period in rites
de passage. In: Turner VW, editor. The Forest of symbols:
aspects of Ndembu ritual. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Univer-
sity Press; 1967. p. 93–111.
27. White C, Oliffe JL, Bottorff JL. Tobacco and the invention of
quitting: a history of gender, excess and will-power. Sociol
Health Illn. 2013;35:778–92.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online
in the Supporting Information section at the end of this
article.
How to cite this article: Blank M-L, Hoek J.
Navigating social interactions and constructing
vaping social identities: A qualitative exploration
with New Zealand young adults who smoke. Drug
Alcohol Rev. 2023;42(2):268–76. https://doi.org/10.
1111/dar.13542
276 BLANK AND HOEK
