The Effects of Natural Cigarette Claims on Adolescents' Brand-Related Beliefs, Attitudes, and Intentions

Kelly, Kathleen; Manning, Kenneth C.

doi:10.1080/10810730.2013.872720

Cited by 30 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many Canadian high school students and U.S. adults incorrectly believed that cigarettes labeled as “additive-free,” organic,” or “natural” are safer than other cigarettes (Czoli & Hammond, 2014; Kelly & Manning, 2014; McDaniel & Malone, 2007). A review of tobacco industry documents found that U.S. smokers perceived “chemicals” as unhealthy and therefore a “chemical-free” cigarette was preferable (McDaniel & Malone, 2007).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How people think about the chemicals in cigarette smoke: a systematic review

Morgan¹,

Byron²,

Baig³

et al. 2017

J Behav Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laws and treaties compel countries to inform the public about harmful chemicals (constituents) in cigarette smoke. To encourage relevant research by behavioral scientists, we provide a primer on cigarette smoke toxicology and summarize research on how the public thinks about cigarette smoke chemicals. We systematically searched PubMed in July 2016 and reviewed citations from included articles. Four central findings emerged across 46 articles that met inclusion criteria. First, people were familiar with very few chemicals in cigarette smoke. Second, people knew little about cigarette additives, assumed harmful chemicals are added during manufacturing, and perceived cigarettes without additives to be less harmful. Third, people wanted more information about constituents. Finally, well-presented chemical information increased knowledge and awareness and may change behavior. This research area is in urgent need of behavioral science. Future research should investigate whether educating the public about these chemicals increases risk perceptions and quitting.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How people think about the chemicals in cigarette smoke: a systematic review

Morgan¹,

Byron²,

Baig³

et al. 2017

J Behav Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, many consumers view such cigarettes as less hazardous. 26 27 American Spirit has recently attracted attention from regulators on the basis of its positioning, with FDA sending warning letters calling those descriptors unauthorised modified risk claims. Newport, the leading menthol brand, continues to gain market share in a near-linear fashion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in market share of leading cigarette brands in the USA: national survey on drug use and health 2002–2013

Sharma

Fix²,

Delnevo³

et al. 2016

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe main objective of this study is to examine trends in market share for leading cigarette brands, both before (2002–2008) and after (2009–2013) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation of tobacco products.Design Data come from the annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2002 through 2013. Descriptive statistics, cross tabulations, and logistic regression were employed. Data were weighted to the US population and adjusted for cigarette consumption. Our analysis is restricted to 164 343 current cigarette smokers who were at least 12 years of age or older, had smoked at least one cigarette in the 30 days prior to the survey, and reported a usual cigarette brand at the time of the survey.ResultsOver 12 years, 14 brands comprised over 77% of the cigarette market. Marlboro consistently held over 38% of the market. Newport held the second highest market share, and increased from 7.2% in 2002 to 10.9% by 2013. Market share of Pall Mall grew by over 400% (1.7% in 2002 vs 8.9% in 2013), likely aided by the 2009 Federal excise tax increase. No clear associations of changes in market share with the implementation of FDA's regulatory authority over tobacco in 2009 were noted.ConclusionsTracking market share trends offers clues about brand marketing changing preferences of consumers. Rapidly growing cigarette brands should be monitored to determine if specific marketing practices or design changes are drivers, as these could represent public health concerns. Monitoring trends in cigarette market share could inform regulatory decision-making efforts related to marketing and advertising.

show abstract

“…There are many framing devices in tobacco marketing and risk communication, ranging from glamorous or grotesque imagery, to narratives about manipulation, to simple words used to describe tobacco products and consumer behavior. [5][6][7][8] Shaping the ways people think about and describe secondhand smoke has been an industry tactic dating back to at least the early 1970s. 9 For example, tobacco industry representatives have referred to secondhand smoke as "environmental tobacco smoke" to make it sound more natural, with weaker direct linkages to their products, and thereby less harmful.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aerosol, vapor, or chemicals? College student perceptions of harm from electronic cigarettes and support for a tobacco-free campus policy

Rossheim

Zhao

Soule

et al. 2020

Journal of American College Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study is the first to examine the influence of e-cigarette emission phrasing on perceived harm of secondhand exposure, and whether harm perception was associated with support for a tobacco-free campus policy. Participants: In the fall 2018 and spring 2019 semesters, 52 sections of a college English course (N ¼ 791 students) were cluster randomized to one of three conditions ("vapor," "aerosol," or "chemicals") assessing harm of secondhand exposure to e-cigarette emissions. Methods: Regression models adjusted for demographic characteristics, tobacco use, and other potential confounders. Results: Compared to the "vapor" condition, "chemicals" and "aerosol" conditions were associated with increased odds of perceiving secondhand exposure to e-cigarettes to be harmful/very harmful (AOR ¼ 2.0, p < 0.01). Greater perceived harm of secondhand e-cigarette exposure was associated with increased odds of supporting a tobacco-free campus policy (AOR ¼ 2.22, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Health campaigns should use accurate terminology to describe e-cigarette emissions, rather than jargon that conveys lower risk.

show abstract

The Effects of Natural Cigarette Claims on Adolescents' Brand-Related Beliefs, Attitudes, and Intentions

Cited by 30 publications

References 35 publications

How people think about the chemicals in cigarette smoke: a systematic review

How people think about the chemicals in cigarette smoke: a systematic review

Trends in market share of leading cigarette brands in the USA: national survey on drug use and health 2002–2013

Aerosol, vapor, or chemicals? College student perceptions of harm from electronic cigarettes and support for a tobacco-free campus policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About