IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i13p4755-d379319.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Harm Perceptions of the JUUL E-Cigarette in a Sample of Ever Users

Author

Listed:
  • Elise M. Stevens

    (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115, USA)

  • Emily T. Hébert

    (Oklahoma Tobacco Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA)

  • Alayna P. Tackett

    (Oklahoma Tobacco Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA)

  • Eleanor L. S. Leavens

    (Department of Population Health, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS 66160, USA)

  • Theodore L. Wagener

    (Center for Tobacco Research, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
    Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA)

Abstract

Background: Monitoring trends and perceptions of new nicotine salt-based electronic cigarettes (ECs), like JUUL, is important to identify associations with product experimentation and use. Understanding harm perceptions of these new devices will inform prevention and intervention efforts. The current study assesses perceptions of the absolute harmfulness of JUUL use in addition to comparing it to other tobacco products. Methods: Participants ( N = 839, 52% male) reporting ever use of JUUL were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk from January to March 2018. Respondents completed questionnaire items assessing demographics, co-use of non-JUUL products, JUUL use status (i.e., daily users (10.8%), non-daily users (29.4%), and triers (59.9%)), and JUUL and other tobacco products absolute harm perceptions. Results: Overall, participants rated JUUL as significantly less harmful than all other tobacco products ( p < 0.001), except other ECs. Daily JUUL users rated JUUL as less harmful compared to non-daily JUUL users and JUUL triers ( p < 0.05). JUUL was rated as more harmful by women compared to men ( p < 0.05). Conclusions: Increased frequency of JUUL use was associated with decreased harm perceptions. JUUL was associated with reduced perceptions of absolute harm compared to most other tobacco products, except other ECs. Public health practitioners should develop public health interventions that increase harm perceptions of ECs.

Suggested Citation

  • Elise M. Stevens & Emily T. Hébert & Alayna P. Tackett & Eleanor L. S. Leavens & Theodore L. Wagener, 2020. "Harm Perceptions of the JUUL E-Cigarette in a Sample of Ever Users," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-9, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:13:p:4755-:d:379319
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/13/4755/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/13/4755/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ying Xu & Yanfang Guo & Kaiqian Liu & Zheng Liu & Xiaobo Wang, 2016. "E-Cigarette Awareness, Use, and Harm Perception among Adults: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2008. "Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 113, pages 1061-1073, Elsevier.
    3. Pearson, J.L. & Richardson, A. & Niaura, R.S. & Vallone, D.M. & Abrams, D.B., 2012. "E-cigarette awareness, use, and harm perceptions in US adults," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 102(9), pages 1758-1766.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shilpi Goenka & Sanford R. Simon, 2021. "Effects of E-Cigarette Refill Liquid Flavorings with and without Nicotine on Human Retinal Pigment Epithelial Cells: A Preliminary Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-15, November.

    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. Kim A. G. J. Romijnders & Liesbeth Van Osch & Hein De Vries & Reinskje Talhout, 2018. "Perceptions and Reasons Regarding E-Cigarette Use among Users and Non-Users: A Narrative Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Galliera, Arianna, 2018. "Self-selecting random or cumulative pay? A bargaining experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 106-120.
    3. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    4. Oege Dijk, 2017. "For whom does social comparison induce risk-taking?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(4), pages 519-541, April.
    5. Sumit Agarwal & Richard K. Green & Eric Rosenblatt & Vincent Yao & Jian Zhang, 2015. "Who Bears the Pen? Relative Income and Gender Gap in Mortgage Signing Order," Working Paper 9475, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate.
    6. Thushyanthan Baskaran & Sonia Bhalotra & Brian Min & Yogesh Uppal, 2024. "Women legislators and economic performance," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 151-214, June.
    7. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    8. Marco Lambrecht & Andis Sofianos & Yilong Xu, 2025. "Does Mining Fuel Bubbles? An Experimental Study on Cryptocurrency Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(3), pages 1865-1888, March.
    9. Böheim, René & Lackner, Mario, 2013. "Gender and Competition: Evidence from Jumping Competitions," IZA Discussion Papers 7243, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Mehar, Mamta & Yamano, Takashi & Panda, Architesh, 2017. "The Role of Gender, Risk, and Time Preferences in Farmers' Rice Variety Selection in Eastern India," Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), vol. 14(01), June.
    11. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Georgantzís, Nikolaos & Guillen, Pablo, 2007. "Direct and indirect effects of pathological gambling on risk attitudes," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 126-136, April.
      • Pablo Brañas-Garza & Nikolaos Georgantzis & Pablo Guillen, 2005. "I do not play lotteries," ThE Papers 05/04, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    12. Sule Alan & Seda Ertac & Elif Kubilay & Gyongyi Loranth, 2020. "Understanding Gender Differences in Leadership," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(626), pages 263-289.
    13. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Mathieu Lefebvre & Ranoua Bouchouicha & Thorsten Chmura & Rustamdjan Hakimov & Michal Krawczyk & Peter Martinsson, 2015. "Common Components Of Risk And Uncertainty Attitudes Across Contexts And Domains: Evidence From 30 Countries," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 421-452, June.
    14. Caliendo, Marco & Cobb-Clark, Deborah A. & Obst, Cosima & Uhlendorff, Arne, 2023. "Risk preferences and training investments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 668-686.
    15. Grossman, Philip J. & Eckel, Catherine & Komai, Mana & Zhan, Wei, 2019. "It pays to be a man: Rewards for leaders in a coordination game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 197-215.
    16. Fellner-Röhling, Gerlinde & Krügel, Sebastian, 2014. "Judgmental overconfidence and trading activity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 827-842.
    17. David A. Matsa & Amalia R. Miller, 2014. "Workforce Reductions at Women-Owned Businesses in the United States," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 67(2), pages 422-452, April.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:234-279 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Marco Castillo & Gregory Leo & Ragan Petrie, 2013. "Room Effects," Working Papers 1040, George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science, revised Apr 2013.
    20. Parrotta, Pierpaolo & Smith, Nina, 2013. "Female-Led Firms: Performance and Risk Attitudes," IZA Discussion Papers 7613, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    21. Avner Seror, 2021. "Social Roles," AMSE Working Papers 2134, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.

    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:17:y:2020:i:13:p:4755-:d:379319. 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.