IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i21p11443-d668914.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Little Cigars and Cigarillos Packaging Features on Product Preference

Author

Listed:
  • Ce Shang

    (Department of Internal Medicine, Medical Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH 43017, USA)

  • James Nonnemaker

    (RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC 22709, USA)

  • Kymberle Sterling

    (Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, School of Public Health, Dallas, TX 77054, USA)

  • Jessica Sobolewski

    (RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC 22709, USA)

  • Scott R. Weaver

    (Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30302, USA)

Abstract

Background: We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) among young adult cigarette smokers in the period July–August 2018 to examine their preference for cigarillos in response to various packaging-related attributes, including flavor, flavor description, quality descriptors, pack size, and prices. Methods: A convenience sample of 566 US young adult cigarette smokers aged 18–34, among whom 296 were current little cigar and cigarillo (LCC) smokers, were recruited using Facebook ads and invited to participate in an online (Qualtrics) tobacco survey containing DCE and tobacco use questions. In the experiment, participants chose among two cigarillo products or “neither” (opt-out). Results: We analyzed preferences for LCCs using multinomial, nested, random parameter logit models. Results showed that young adult cigarette smokers preferred grape over menthol, tobacco/regular, and wine flavors; “color only” and “color and text” flavor depictions over text only; “smooth” and “sweet” quality descriptors over “satisfying”; and larger pack sizes and lower prices. Conclusions: Regulating packaging-related features will impact LCC choices among US young adult smokers. FDA regulation over these packaging-related features may impact LCC use among young adult smokers.

Suggested Citation

  • Ce Shang & James Nonnemaker & Kymberle Sterling & Jessica Sobolewski & Scott R. Weaver, 2021. "Impact of Little Cigars and Cigarillos Packaging Features on Product Preference," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-13, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:21:p:11443-:d:668914
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/21/11443/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/21/11443/
    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. Buckell, John & Hess, Stephane, 2019. "Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 93-102.
    3. Kabindra Regmi & Dinesh Kaphle & Sabina Timilsina & Nik Annie Afiqah Tuha, 2018. "Application of Discrete-Choice Experiment Methods in Tobacco Control: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 5-17, March.
    4. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    5. Joachim Marti & John Buckell & Johanna Catherine Maclean & Jody Sindelar, 2019. "To “Vape” Or Smoke? Experimental Evidence On Adult Smokers," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(1), pages 705-725, January.
    6. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    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. Erin J. Miller Lo & William J. Young & Ollie Ganz & Eugene M. Talbot & Richard J. O’Connor & Cristine D. Delnevo, 2022. "Trends in Overall and Menthol Market Shares of Leading Cigarette Brands in the USA: 2014–2019," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-11, February.
    2. Jin-Hee Park & Mi-Jin Kim & Sung-Eun Kim, 2022. "Factors Influencing Smoking among Multicultural Adolescents," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-8, September.

    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. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Buckell, John & White, Justin S. & Shang, Ce, 2020. "Can incentive-compatibility reduce hypothetical bias in smokers’ experimental choice behavior? A randomized discrete choice experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    4. David A. J. Meester & Stephane Hess & John Buckell & Thomas O. Hancock, 2023. "Can decision field theory enhance our understanding of health‐based choices? Evidence from risky health behaviors," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(8), pages 1710-1732, August.
    5. Sabina De Rosis & Ilaria Corazza & Francesca Pennucci, 2020. "Physical Activity in the Daily Life of Adolescents: Factors Affecting Healthy Choices from a Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-23, September.
    6. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    7. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    8. Donald S. Kenkel & Sida Peng & Michael F. Pesko & Hua Wang, 2020. "Mostly harmless regulation? Electronic cigarettes, public policy, and consumer welfare," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(11), pages 1364-1377, November.
    9. Sicsic, Jonathan & Krucien, Nicolas & Franc, Carine, 2016. "What are GPs' preferences for financial and non-financial incentives in cancer screening? Evidence for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 116-127.
    10. Phu Nguyen Van & Thierry Blayac & Dimitri Dubois & Sebastien Duchene & Marc Willinger & Bruno Ventelou, 2021. "Designing acceptable anti-COVID-19 policies by taking into account individuals’ preferences: evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," EconomiX Working Papers 2021-33, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    11. Elizabeth Kinter & Thomas Prior & Christopher Carswell & John Bridges, 2012. "A Comparison of Two Experimental Design Approaches in Applying Conjoint Analysis in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(4), pages 279-294, December.
    12. Kaat de Corte & John Cairns & Richard Grieve, 2021. "Stated versus revealed preferences: An approach to reduce bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1095-1123, May.
    13. Chandoevwit, Worawan & Wasi, Nada, 2020. "Incorporating discrete choice experiments into policy decisions: Case of designing public long-term care insurance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    14. Allen, S. & Goddard, E., 2018. "The Effectiveness of High Sugar Warning Labels on Breakfast Cereals," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275885, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Krah, Kwabena & Michelson, Hope & Perge, Emilie & Jindal, Rohit, 2019. "Constraints to adopting soil fertility management practices in Malawi: A choice experiment approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Axel Mühlbacher & Uwe Junker & Christin Juhnke & Edgar Stemmler & Thomas Kohlmann & Friedhelm Leverkus & Matthias Nübling, 2015. "Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 613-628, July.
    17. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    18. Elzir Assy, Angela & Ribeiro, Tiago & Robalino, David A. & Rosati, Furio C. & Sanchez Puerta, Maria Laura & Weber, Michael, 2019. "The Jobs That Youth Want and the Support They Need to Get Them: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Kenya," IZA Discussion Papers 12864, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. John Buckell & David A Hensher & Stephane Hess, 2021. "Kicking the habit is hard: A hybrid choice model investigation into the role of addiction in smoking behavior," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 3-19, January.
    20. Osborne, Matthew & Lambe, Fiona & Ran, Ylva & Dehmel, Naira & Tabacco, Giovanni Alberto & Balungira, Joshua & Pérez-Viana, Borja & Widmark, Erik & Holmlid, Stefan & Verschoor, Arjan, 2022. "Designing development interventions: The application of service design and discrete choice experiments in complex settings," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).

    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:21:p:11443-:d:668914. 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.