Search

Significance: Tobacco product design features, including flavors and cigarette filter ventilation, are subject to regulation. This study examined the effects of cigarette and e-cigarette flavors on demand and substitution by preferred cigarette flavor and ventilation in the Experimental Tobacco Marketplace (ETM)., Methods: In a mixed between-group (usual cigarette flavor and ventilation)/within-subject design (policy conditions), individuals who use tobacco (n=176 cigarette (60.5 % female); n=91 multiple products (26.7 % female)) were recruited using Ipsos and InnovateMR, completed purchasing trials with increasing cigarette prices in the ETM. Participants were exposed to four conditions in a 2×2 factorial design with cigarette flavors restricted or unrestricted and e-cigarette flavors restricted or unrestricted., Results: In individuals who exclusively smoke cigarettes: 1) Cigarette menthol restrictions decreased willingness to purchase cigarettes (OR: 0.001; 95 % CI: 0.00002, 0.015) for individuals that prefer menthol cigarettes and increased willingness to purchase NRT (OR: 4.02; 95 % CI: 1.47, 11.0), 2) cigarette menthol restrictions reduced demand for cigarettes in individuals who smoke menthol cigarettes (p<0.001), 3) e-cigarette flavor restrictions reduced the degree of e-cigarette substitution in individuals who smoke menthol cigarettes (p=0.028), and 4) preference for higher cigarette filter ventilation was associated with higher demand for cigarettes (p=0.003) and lowered substitution of smokeless tobacco products (p=0.028). In individuals who use multiple tobacco products, restrictions did not impact product purchasing., Conclusion: Strategies to reduce flavored product sales and increase cessation resource accessibility may improve population health by reducing smoking and increasing NRT use in individuals who use menthol cigarettes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Although the following activities/relationships do not create a conflict of interest pertaining to this manuscript, in the interest of full disclosure, Dr. Bickel would like to report the following: W. K. Bickel is a principal of HealthSim, LLC; BEAM Diagnostics, Inc.; and Red 5 Group, LLC. In addition, he serves on the scientific advisory board for Ria Health; and serves as a consultant for Lumanity and AlphaSights. Dr. Tegge works on a project supported by Indivior, Inc. The other authors report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Cigarette smoking accounts for >30% of the socioeconomic gap in life expectancy. Flavored restrictions claim to promote equity; however, no previous studies have compared the effect of cigarette and e-cigarette flavor restrictions among individuals who smoke with lower and higher socioeconomic status (SES)., Aims and Methods: In a between-group within-subject design, individuals with lower (n = 155) and higher (n = 125) SES completed hypothetical purchasing trials in the experimental tobacco marketplace (ETM). Conditions were presented in a 2 × 2 factorial design (cigarette flavors restricted or unrestricted and e-cigarette flavors restricted or unrestricted) with increasing cigarette prices across trials., Results: Results show (1) SES differences in cigarette, e-cigarette, and NRT purchases under unrestricted policies, with lower SES showing higher cigarette demand and lower e-cigarette and NRT substitution than higher SES, (2) cigarette restrictions decreased cigarette and increased NRT purchases among lower SES, but no significant changes among higher SES, (3) decreased SES differences in cigarette demand under cigarette restrictions, but persistence under e-cigarette restrictions or their combination, (4) persistence of SES differences in e-cigarette purchases when all restrictions were enforced, and (5) waning of SES differences in NRT purchasing under all restrictions., Conclusions: Flavor restrictions differentially affected individuals based on SES. Within-group comparisons demonstrated restrictions significantly impacted lower SES, but not higher SES. Between-group comparisons showed SES differences in cigarette purchasing decreased under cigarette restrictions, but persisted under e-cigarette-restrictions or their combination. Additionally, SES differences in NRT substitution decreased under flavor restrictions. These findings highlight the utility of the ETM to investigate SES disparities., Implications: With increasing trends of socioeconomic differences in smoking prevalence and cessation rates, smoking-related health disparities are expected to continue to widen. Restricting menthol flavor in cigarettes while enhancing the availability and affordability of NRT have the potential to alleviate SES disparities in tobacco use, therefore, positively impacting health equity. However, this effect may depend on flavor availability in other tobacco products., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.)

Hypothetical purchase tasks (HPTs) are effective tools for evaluating participants' demand for substances. The present study evaluated the effect of task presentation on producing unsystematic data and purchasing behavior in a sample of individuals who smoke cigarettes. Participants ( n = 365) were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk and randomly assigned to complete two of three HPT presentations: List (prices on one page in an increasing order), Ascending (one price per page in an increasing order), or Random (one price per page in a random order). We evaluated outcomes using a mixed model regression with a random effect for participants. We observed a significant effect of task presentation on passing the criterion assessing consistency in effects of contiguous prices (i.e., Bounce; X ²(2) = 13.31, p = .001). A significant effect of task presentation on Trend or Reversals from Zero was not observed. For purchasing behavior, we observed a significant effect of task presentation on R ², X ²(2) = 17.89, p < .001; BP₁ , X ²(2) = 13.64, p = .001; ln(α), X ²(2) = 332.94, p < .001; and ln( O max ), X ²(2) = 20.26, p < .001; we did not observe a significant effect of task presentation on ln( Q ₀) or ln( P max ). We recommend against using the Random HPT presentation to avoid unsystematic data. While the List and Ascending presentations do not differ across unsystematic criteria or purchasing behavior, the List presentation may be preferred due to participant experience. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Background: Tobacco regulations may increase demand for illegal cigarettes. We use the Experimental Tobacco Marketplace to estimate the impact of banning menthol cigarettes (Experiment 1) and decreasing allowable cigarette filter ventilation levels (Experiment 2)., Methods: Crowdsourced participants were randomized into one of four groups (2×2 factorial design). Experiment 1 included menthol availability (yes/no) by purchasing option (legal only vs illegal available). Experiment 2 included filter-vented cigarettes availability (yes/no) by purchasing option (legal only vs illegal available). Participants were given an individualized budget to purchase tobacco. Percent budget spent was the outcome measure., Results: Experiment 1, with a legal marketplace only, non-menthol cigarette purchasing was lower (p=0.010) and electronic-cigarette purchasing was higher (p=0.016), when cigarettes were banned compared to when they were available. With an illegal marketplace, switching to legal non-menthol cigarettes was less likely (p<0.001) and purchasing illegal menthol cigarettes was higher (p<0.001), when cigarettes were banned compared to when they were available. Experiment 2, with a legal marketplace only, cigarette purchasing was lower (p=0.010), when the participant's filtered vented cigarettes were banned compared to when they were available. With an illegal marketplace, purchasing the legal low-ventilated cigarette option was lower (p<0.001) and significant differences in illegal filter-vented cigarette purchasing were not observed, when their filter-vented cigarettes were banned compared to when they were available legally., Conclusions: Without an illegal option, both restrictions decreased cigarette purchasing, but the menthol ban increased e-cigarette purchasing. With an illegal option, a menthol ban increased illegal cigarette purchasing, but decreasing filter ventilation did not., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Although the following activities/relationships do not create a conflict of interest pertaining to this manuscript, in the interest of full disclosure, Dr. Bickel would like to report the following: W. K. Bickel is a principal of HealthSim, LLC; BEAM Diagnostics, Inc.; and Red 5 Group, LLC. In addition, he serves on the scientific advisory board for Sober Grid, Inc.; and Ria Health; serves as a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim International and Lumanity; and works on a project supported by Indivior, Inc. Dr. Tegge reports work on a project supported by Indivior, Inc. Dr. Cummings and Shields report that they have and continue to serve as a paid expert witness in litigation filed against cigarette manufacturers. The other authors report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Previous research with individuals with substance use disorder indicated that different narratives have different effects on one's behaviors and decision-making. One question that remains unanswered is whether simulating real-world consequences of illegal purchases using narratives would induce psychological distress levels as expected in real-world situations. The present experiment used a between-group design to study how different narratives regarding penalties impact smokers' affective state and more specifically, psychological distress. Participants ( N = 93) were randomized into one of the three groups: (a) legal tobacco purchases (LTP), (b) illegal tobacco purchases with fines (ITP&#95;F), and (c) illegal tobacco purchases with fines, criminal record, and negative public exposure (ITP&#95;F + CR + NPE) to complete an online survey. The survey contained one narrative randomly assigned to each participant, demographic questions, the heaviness of smoking index, the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), and a single-item psychological distress question. The results showed that (a) narratives about making illegal tobacco purchases significantly increased psychological distress when compared to narratives about making LTP, (b) no differences were observed on psychological distress and negative affective state between a narrative describing a fine and a narrative describing a fine, a criminal record, and negative public exposure, and (c) a narrative about a criminal record had the greatest effect on psychological distress among the different narratives about penalty types. Narratives involving illegal purchases increase psychological distress, which varies according to the hypothetical penalties described. More research regarding the use of narratives on decision-making and purchasing of hypothetical substances is warranted. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Crowdsourcing platforms allow researchers to quickly recruit and collect behavioral economic measures in substance-using populations, such as cigarette smokers. Despite the broad utility and flexibility, data quality issues have been an object of concern. In two separate studies recruiting cigarette smokers, we sought to investigate the association between a practical quality control measure (accuracy on an instruction quiz), on internal consistency of number of cigarettes smoked per day and purchasing patterns of tobacco products in an experimental tobacco marketplace (ETM; Study 1), and in a cigarette purchase task (CPT; Study 2). Participants (N = 312 in Study 1; N = 119 in Study 2) were recruited from Amazon mechanical turk. Both studies included task instructions, a quiz, a purchase task, cigarette usage and dependence questions, and demographics. The results show that participants who answered all instruction items correctly: (a) reported the number of cigarettes per day more consistently (partial η² = 0.11, p < .001, Study 1; partial η² = 0.09, p = .016, Study 2), (b) demonstrated increased model fit among the cigarette demand curves (partial η² = 0.23, p < .001, Study 1; partial η² = 0.08, p = .002, Study 2), and purchased tobacco products in the ETM more consistently with their current usage. We conclude that instruction quizzes before purchase tasks may be useful for researchers evaluating demand data. Instruction quizzes with multiple items may allow researchers to choose the level of data quality appropriate for their studies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Obesity and cigarette smoking are leading preventable causes of mortality, with greater mortality risk when these disorders occur together. Comorbid obesity and cigarette smoking may affect the valuation of cigarettes. The present study examines the demand for cigarettes between obese and nonobese smokers., Method: Participants (N = 187) from four in-laboratory studies completed the hypothetical cigarette purchase task. According to self-reported height and weight, participants were assigned to either the obese group (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30) or to the nonobese group (BMI < 30)., Results: Significant differences in demand intensity were observed between individuals with and without obesity, F(1, 168) = 9.284, p = .003, with individuals who smoke and are obese showing higher demand intensity (product purchasing when free). These differences in demand intensity between groups remained after adjusting for the number of cigarettes consumed per day. No differences were observed in elasticity of demand, F(1, 168) = 1.033, p = .311., Conclusions: The results reported here suggest that individuals who smoke and are obese may value brief, intense, and immediate reinforcers more than individuals who smoke and are not obese. Further research may suggest reinforcer pathology as a basis for this result. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).