IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i15p7790-d599447.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reasons for Pack Size Purchase among US Adults Who Purchase Cigars

Author

Listed:
  • Jessica L. King

    (Department of Health & Kinesiology, University of Utah, 250 S 1850 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA)

  • Anna Bilic

    (Department of Health & Kinesiology, University of Utah, 250 S 1850 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA)

  • Julie W. Merten

    (Department of Public Health, Brooks College of Health, University of North Florida, 1 S UNF Dr Building 39, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA)

Abstract

With municipalities across the US establishing minimum cigar pack size regulations, it is critical to understand what drives pack size preference. The purpose of this exploratory study was to identify reasons for cigar pack size purchase. We used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to survey adults who had purchased cigars and reported past 30 day use. Participants responded to an open-ended item asking their reasons for purchasing their usual pack size. Responses were double-coded and categorized. Of 152 respondents, 61 used traditional cigars, 85 used cigarillos, and 36 used filtered cigars. Across all cigar types, most participants (73.7%) purchased boxes rather than singles; 5–9-packs were the most popular pack size category (19.7%), followed by 20+-packs (18.4%). We identified 16 reasons for pack size purchase across seven categories: price, consumption, social aspect, convenience, product characteristics, availability, and general preferences. Reasons varied according to whether the consumer purchased larger or smaller pack sizes. In this exploratory study to identify reasons for cigar pack size purchases, findings were consistent with those identified through tobacco industry documents and in the cigarette literature. Future research should examine the prevalence of these reasons, including as a function of demographic and use characteristics, to help inform the understanding of potential minimum cigar pack regulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Jessica L. King & Anna Bilic & Julie W. Merten, 2021. "Reasons for Pack Size Purchase among US Adults Who Purchase Cigars," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-6, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:15:p:7790-:d:599447
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7790/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7790/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joachim Marti & Jody Sindelar, 2015. "Smaller Cigarette Pack as a Commitment to Smoke Less? Insights from Behavioral Economics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-14, September.
    2. Ollie Ganz & Jessica L. King & Daniel P. Giovenco & Mary Hrywna & Andrew A. Strasser & Cristine D. Delnevo, 2021. "Associations between Black and Mild Cigar Pack Size and Demographics and Tobacco Use Behaviors among US Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-12, June.
    3. Klaus Wertenbroch, 1998. "Consumption Self-Control by Rationing Purchase Quantities of Virtue and Vice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 317-337.
    4. Kozlowski, L.T., 1986. "Pack size, reported cigarette smoking rates, and public health," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 76(11), pages 1337-1338.
    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. Joachim Marti & Jody Sindelar, 2015. "Smaller Cigarette Pack as a Commitment to Smoke Less? Insights from Behavioral Economics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-14, September.
    2. Bryan, Gharad & Karlan, Dean & Nelson, Scott, 2009. "Commitment Contracts," Working Papers 73, Yale University, Department of Economics.
    3. Aydinli, Aylin & Lamey, Lien & Millet, Kobe & ter Braak, Anne & Vuegen, Maya, 2021. "How Do Customers Alter Their Basket Composition When They Perceive the Retail Store to Be Crowded? An Empirical Study," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 207-216.
    4. Wang, Siqi & Cheah, Jun-Hwa & Lim, Xin-Jean & Leong, Yee Choy & Choo, Wei Chong, 2022. "Thanks COVID-19, I'll reconsider my purchase: Can fear appeal reduce online shopping cart abandonment?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    5. Pier-André Bouchard St-Amant & Jean-Denis Garon, 2015. "Optimal redistributive pensions and the cost of self-control," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(5), pages 723-740, October.
    6. Ma, Qingguo & He, Yijin & Tan, Yulin & Cheng, Lu & Wang, Manlin, 2024. "Unveiling the Impact of Payment Methods on Consumer Behavior: Insights and Future Directions," OSF Preprints 3fphk, Center for Open Science.
    7. Sutan, Angela & Grolleau, Gilles & Mateu, Guillermo & Vranceanu, Radu, 2018. "“Facta non verba”: An experiment on pledging and giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 1-15.
    8. Damon Clark & David Gill & Victoria Prowse & Mark Rush, 2020. "Using Goals to Motivate College Students: Theory and Evidence From Field Experiments," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(4), pages 648-663, October.
    9. Roose, Gudrun & Van Kerckhove, Anneleen & Huyghe, Elke, 2017. "Honey they shrank the food! An integrative study of the impact of food granularity and its operationalization mode on consumption," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 210-220.
    10. Taekyoung Lim, 2020. "Using of Nudge Approaches for Sustainable Energy," International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 25(4), pages 193-198, September.
    11. Christensen, Else Gry Bro & Nafziger, Julia, 2016. "Packaging of sin goods – Commitment or exploitation?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 62-74.
    12. Miklós Antal & Ardjan Gazheli & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2012. "Behavioural Foundations of Sustainability Transitions. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 3," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 46424, August.
    13. Ishikawa, Yoshiko & Okada, Erica Mina, 2021. "Hedonic Alternatives in a Simple Choice Context," Hitotsubashi Journal of commerce and management, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 54(1), pages 1-14, January.
    14. Dilip Soman & Amar Cheema, 2002. "The Effect of Credit on Spending Decisions: The Role of the Credit Limit and Credibility," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 32-53, September.
    15. Nagpal, Anish & Lei, Jing & Khare, Adwait, 2015. "To Choose or to Reject: The Effect of Decision Frame on Food Customization Decisions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 422-435.
    16. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson, 2018. "Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia and information suppression in competitive markets," Chapters, in: Victor J. Tremblay & Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 3, pages 40-74, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Katherine L. Milkman & Todd Rogers & Max H. Bazerman, 2009. "Highbrow Films Gather Dust: Time-Inconsistent Preferences and Online DVD Rentals," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 1047-1059, June.
    18. Peggy J. Liu & Kelly L. Haws & Cait Lamberton & Troy H. Campbell & Gavan J. Fitzsimons, 2015. "Vice-Virtue Bundles," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(1), pages 204-228, January.
    19. Katharina Dowling & Daniel Guhl & Daniel Klapper & Martin Spann & Lucas Stich & Narine Yegoryan, 2020. "Behavioral biases in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 449-477, May.
    20. Jungkeun Kim & Jae-Eun Kim & Jongwon Park, 2018. "Effects of physical cleansing on subsequent unhealthy eating," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 165-176, June.

    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:18:y:2021:i:15:p:7790-:d:599447. 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.