IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i10p2071-d171276.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Targeted Versus Nontargeted Communication About Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems in Three Smoker Groups

Author

Listed:
  • Bo Yang

    (Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3995, Atlanta, GA 30302, USA)

  • Jiaying Liu

    (Department of Communication Studies, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA)

  • Lucy Popova

    (Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3995, Atlanta, GA 30302, USA)

Abstract

Background: This study used an audience segmentation and message targeting approach to identify three distinct smoker groups—Older Freedom Smokers (OFS), Reluctant Smokers (RS), and Young Enthusiasts (YE)—and examined whether an electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) message targeting each smoker group (targeted message) was associated with more health-enhancing outcomes than messages targeting other groups (nontargeted messages). Methods: An online experiment was conducted among 580 adult smokers with 180 OFS, 200 RS, and 200 YE. Each smoker group viewed a targeted message and two nontargeted messages in a random order. Following the presentation of each message, participants reported their perceived message effectiveness, message reactions, ENDS- and cigarette-related beliefs, and behavioral intentions. Results: The targeted vs. nontargeted messages mostly did not produce more health-enhancing outcomes on perceptions of absolute and comparative risks of ENDS and cigarettes, response efficacy of ENDS, and self-efficacy as well as intentions to quit smoking. Conclusions: Our targeted messages did not appear to be a better choice over nontargeted messages to communicate about ENDS to smokers. Given the increasing call to accurately inform the public of the risk differences among various tobacco products, future studies should continue to explore whether targeted messages could be employed to communicate about the comparative risks of ENDS.

Suggested Citation

  • Bo Yang & Jiaying Liu & Lucy Popova, 2018. "Targeted Versus Nontargeted Communication About Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems in Three Smoker Groups," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:10:p:2071-:d:171276
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/10/2071/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/10/2071/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Palmgreen, P. & Donohew, L. & Lorch, E.P. & Hoyle, R.H. & Stephenson, M.T., 2001. "Television campaigns and adolescent marijuana use: Tests of sensation seeking targeting," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 91(2), pages 292-296.
    2. Ling, P.M. & Glantz, S.A., 2002. "Why and how the tobacco industry sells cigarettes to young adults: Evidence from industry documents," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 92(6), pages 908-916.
    3. Pratibha Nayak & Terry F. Pechacek & Paul Slovic & Michael P. Eriksen, 2017. "Regretting Ever Starting to Smoke: Results from a 2014 National Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-12, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eugene Song, 2020. "South Korean Consumers’ Attitudes toward Small Business Owners Participating in the 2019 Anti-Japan Boycott," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-14, May.
    2. Joan Hanafin & Luke Clancy, 2020. "A qualitative study of e-cigarette use among young people in Ireland: Incentives, disincentives, and putative cessation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Ling, P M & Glantz, S A, 2004. "Tobacco industry research on smoking cessation - Recapturing young adults and other recent quitters," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt2t823095, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.
    4. Page D. Dobbs & Jason B. Colditz & Shelby Shields & Anna Meadows & Brian A. Primack, 2022. "Policy and Behavior: Comparisons between Twitter Discussions about the US Tobacco 21 Law and Other Age-Related Behaviors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-10, February.
    5. Nhung Nguyen & Louisa M. Holmes & Minji Kim & Pamela M. Ling, 2020. "Using Peer Crowd Affiliation to Address Dual Use of Cigarettes and E-Cigarettes among San Francisco Bay Area Young Adults: A Cross Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-13, October.
    6. Madeleine Steinmetz-Wood & Thierry Gagné & Marie-Pierre Sylvestre & Katherine Frohlich, 2018. "Do social characteristics influence smoking uptake and cessation during young adulthood?," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 63(1), pages 115-123, January.
    7. Li-Ling Huang & Allison J. Lazard & Jessica K. Pepper & Seth M. Noar & Leah M. Ranney & Adam O. Goldstein, 2017. "Impact of The Real Cost Campaign on Adolescents’ Recall, Attitudes, and Risk Perceptions about Tobacco Use: A National Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, January.
    8. Dorie E Apollonio & Lauren M Dutra & Stanton A Glantz, 2021. "Associations between smoking trajectories, smoke-free laws and cigarette taxes in a longitudinal sample of youth and young adults," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-17, February.
    9. Avishai, Aya & Ribisl, Kurt M. & Sheeran, Paschal, 2023. "Realizing the Tobacco Endgame: Understanding and mobilizing public support for banning combustible cigarette sales in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 327(C).
    10. Michael F. Dahlstrom & Anthony Dudo & Dominique Brossard, 2012. "Precision of Information, Sensational Information, and Self‐Efficacy Information as Message‐Level Variables Affecting Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 155-166, January.
    11. Scott, Kristin A. & Mason, Marlys J. & Mason, James D., 2015. "I'm not a smoker: Constructing protected prototypes for risk behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2198-2206.
    12. Karen M. HOOD & Christine M. KOWALCZYK & Christopher D. HOPKINS & Daniel PADGETT, 2017. "A Multi-Method Approach to Understanding Behavior Change. The Case of Texting and Driving," Expert Journal of Marketing, Sprint Investify, vol. 5(2), pages 78-91.
    13. Allison C. Veronda & Leah A. Irish & Douglas L. Delahanty, 2020. "Effect of smoke exposure on young adults' sleep quality," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 57-63, March.
    14. Carla J. Berg & Yael Bar-Zeev & Hagai Levine, 2020. "Informing iQOS Regulations in the United States: A Synthesis of What We Know," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440198, January.
    15. Laura Campo & Silvia Lumia & Silvia Fustinoni, 2022. "Assessing Smoking Habits, Attitudes, Knowledge, and Needs among University Students at the University of Milan, Italy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-15, September.
    16. Anderson, Stacey J. & Pollay, Richard W. & Ling, Pamela M., 2006. "Taking ad-Vantage of lax advertising regulation in the USA and Canada: Reassuring and distracting health-concerned smokers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 1973-1985, October.
    17. Lucy Hardie & Judith McCool & Becky Freeman, 2023. "E-Cigarette Retailers’ Use of Instagram in New Zealand: A Content Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-12, January.
    18. Adrian E. Ghenadenik & Katherine L. Frohlich & Lise Gauvin, 2016. "Beyond Smoking Prevalence: Exploring the Variability of Associations between Neighborhood Exposures across Two Nested Spatial Units and Two-Year Smoking Trajectory among Young Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:10:p:2071-:d:171276. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.