Momentary effects of exposure to prosmoking media on college students' future smoking risk.

Abstract

Objective This study used ecological momentary assessment to examine acute changes in college students’ future smoking risk as a function of their exposure to pro-smoking media (e.g., smoking in movies, paid advertising, point-of-sale promotions). Methods A sample of 135 college students (ever and never smokers) carried handheld computers for 21 days, recording their exposures to all forms of pro-smoking media during the assessment period. They also responded to three investigator-initiated control prompts during each day of the assessment period (i.e., programmed to occur randomly). After each pro-media smoking exposure and after each random control prompt they answered questions that measured their risk of future smoking. Responses between pro-smoking media encounters were compared to responses made during random control prompts. Results Compliance with the study protocol was high, with participants responding to over 83% of all random prompts. Participants recorded nearly three encounters with pro-smoking media each week. Results of linear mixed modeling indicated that all participants had higher future smoking risk following exposure to pro-smoking media compared with control prompts (p < 0.05); this pattern of response did not differ between ever and never smokers (p = 0.769). Additional modeling of the variances around participants’ risk of future smoking revealed that the response of never smokers to pro-smoking media was significantly more variable than the response of ever smokers. Conclusions Exposure to pro-smoking media is associated with acute changes in future smoking risk, and never smokers and ever smokers respond differently to these exposures.

Qualitative exploration of young adult RYO smokers' practices

“…Nevertheless, further work with larger samples comprising mixed and exclusive RYO users is required to estimate the effects of dissuasive interventions. For example, future research could use naturalistic methods or ecological momentary assessments to explore how coloured papers affect smoking behaviours,38 39 while experimental studies could test when the price-value trade-offs RYO users make are exceeded 40. New studies could also quantify the extent of erroneous reduced-harm perceptions of RYO tobacco; evidence that these beliefs are widespread could support measures that limit or even eliminate this form of tobacco 9 25.…”

How social media influence college students’ smoking attitudes and intentions

“…Prior research has found significant effects of prosmoking messages (e.g., tobacco industry-sponsored promotion and portrayals of smoking in movies, magazine advertising) on tobacco use, attitudes, and beliefs among college students (Rigotti, Moran, & Wechsler, 2005; Shadel, Martino, Setodji, & Scharf, 2012). …”

Conceptualizing Analyses of Ecological Momentary Assessment Data

“…Accordingly, it is not surprising that EMA methods are being widely applied to studies of tobacco use, particularly smoking. EMA methods have been used to study antecedents and consequences of smoking in adolescents (Mermelstein, Hedeker, & Wesintein, 2010) and adults (Carter et al, 2010;Warthen & Tiffany, 2009), in smokers with posttraumatic stress disorder and other disorders (Beckham et al, 2008;Epstein, Marrone, Heishman, Schmittner, & Preston, 2010;Piper, Cook, Schlam, Jorenby, & Baker, 2011), during ad libitum smoking (Shapiro, Jamner, Davydov, & James, 2002) and smoking cessation (Bolt, Piper, Theobald, & Baker, 2012;Cooney et al, 2007;Minami, McCarthy, Jorenby, & Baker, 2011), and in relation to a range of variables ranging from alcohol use (Holt, Litt, & Cooney, 2012;Piasecki, Wood, Shiffman, Sher, & Heath, 2012;Witkiewitz et al, 2012) to worried thoughts about smoking (Magnan, Köblitz, McCaul, & Dillard, 2013), and exposure to media messages (Shadel, Martino, Setodji, & Scharf, 2012) or proximity to tobacco sales outlets (Kirchner, Cantrell, et al, 2013). EMA methods have also been fruitfully applied to study the effects of treatment, both to define treatment outcome (Shiffman et al, 2000;Shiffman et al, 2006) and to examine the processes that mediate treatment effects (Ferguson, Shiffman, & Gwaltney, 2006;McCarthy et al, 2008;Piper et al, 2008).…”