» Articles » PMID: 38206655

Does Reducing the Size of the Tobacco Power Wall Affect Young People's Risk of Future Use of Tobacco Products? An Experimental Investigation

Overview
Specialty Psychiatry
Date 2024 Jan 11
PMID 38206655
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: A ban on tobacco power walls (in-store package displays) is unlikely in the United States because of concerns that such bans violate commercial free speech rights. This experiment evaluated the effectiveness of a more measured strategy for mitigating the influence of the power wall on young people's susceptibility to tobacco use: limiting its size.

Method: The experiment took place in the RAND StoreLab, a life-sized replica of a convenience store. Participants ( = 275) ages 11-20 years were randomly assigned to shop in a variant of the StoreLab that had either a large (status quo), medium, or small power wall situated behind the checkout counter. Before and after shopping, participants completed measures of risk of future use of unflavored and flavored cigarettes and vaping products.

Results: Study condition was unrelated to future risk of smoking unflavored cigarettes, using menthol vaping products, and using sweet-flavored vaping products. Study condition was related to future risk of smoking menthol cigarettes and using unflavored vaping products; compared with exposure to a large power wall, exposure to a small power wall increased the odds of a participant's being at risk for future smoking of menthol cigarettes (odds ratio [OR] = 3.29, 95% CI [1.10, 9.83]) and the odds of a participant's being at risk for using unflavored vaping products (OR = 4.09, 95% CI [1.41, 11.85]).

Conclusions: These findings call into question the viability of reducing the size of the power wall as a singular strategy for dampening its effect on young people's susceptibility to tobacco use.

Citing Articles

Measuring susceptibility to use tobacco in an increasingly complex consumer marketplace: How many questions do we really need?.

Setodji C, Martino S, Dunbar M, Kim K, Jenson D, Wong J Psychol Addict Behav. 2024; 39(2):127-138.

PMID: 38421778 PMC: 11358647. DOI: 10.1037/adb0000997.

References
1.
Choi W, Gilpin E, Farkas A, Pierce J . Determining the probability of future smoking among adolescents. Addiction. 2001; 96(2):313-23. DOI: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.96231315.x. View

2.
Robertson L, McGee R, Marsh L, Hoek J . A systematic review on the impact of point-of-sale tobacco promotion on smoking. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014; 17(1):2-17. PMC: 4832971. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntu168. View

3.
Gentzke A, Wang T, Cornelius M, Park-Lee E, Ren C, Sawdey M . Tobacco Product Use and Associated Factors Among Middle and High School Students - National Youth Tobacco Survey, United States, 2021. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2022; 71(5):1-29. PMC: 8923300. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.ss7105a1. View

4.
Agaku I, Omaduvie U, Filippidis F, Vardavas C . Cigarette design and marketing features are associated with increased smoking susceptibility and perception of reduced harm among smokers in 27 EU countries. Tob Control. 2014; 24(e4):e233-40. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051922. View

5.
Cole A, Kennedy R, Chaurasia A, Leatherdale S . Exploring the Predictive Validity of the Susceptibility to Smoking Construct for Tobacco Cigarettes, Alternative Tobacco Products, and E-Cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2017; 21(3):323-330. PMC: 6379029. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntx265. View