IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i13p4755-d379319.html

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. Abrahams, Scott, 2026. "Gender differences in choosing fast and slow: Evidence from competitive powerlifting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Goldzahl, Léontine, 2017. "Contributions of risk preference, time orientation and perceptions to breast cancer screening regularity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 147-157.
    5. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    6. Nisha Prakash & Subburaj Alagarsamy, 2022. "Does Gender and Family Income Impact Stock Trading of B-School Students? Findings from a Stock Simulation Exercise," Vision, , vol. 26(4), pages 454-460, December.
    7. Lorenzo Ductor & Sanjeev Goyal & Anja Prummer, 2018. "Gender & Collaboration," Working Papers 856, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    8. Oege Dijk, 2017. "For whom does social comparison induce risk-taking?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(4), pages 519-541, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Jose Maria Cabrera & Alejandro Cid, 2024. "Gender Differences in Response to Relative Performance Feedback: A Field Experiment in Education," Documentos de Trabajo/Working Papers 2408, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales y Economia. Universidad de Montevideo..
    11. Jean-Marc Bourgeon & José de Sousa & Alexis Noir-Luhalwe, 2022. "Social Distancing and Risk Taking: Evidence from a Team Game Show [Distanciation sociale et prise de risque : Les résultats d'un jeu d'équipe]," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) hal-03792423, HAL.
    12. 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.
    13. Ndoye Niane, Aifa Fatimata & Burger, Kees, 2012. "Gender and Experimental Measurement of Producers Risk Attitude Towards Output Market Price and its Effects on Economic Performance," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126928, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. 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.
    15. Inessa Love & Boris Nikolaev & Chandra Dhakal, 2024. "The well-being of women entrepreneurs: the role of gender inequality and gender roles," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 325-352, January.
    16. Ali Zeytoon-Nejad, 2025. "Price risk aversion vs payoff risk aversion: a gender comparison through a laboratory experiment," Papers 2512.20909, arXiv.org.
    17. Böheim, René & Lackner, Mario, 2013. "Gender and Competition: Evidence from Jumping Competitions," IZA Discussion Papers 7243, IZA Network @ LISER.
    18. Péter Elek & János Köllő, 2019. "Eliciting permanent and transitory undeclared work from matched administrative and survey data," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 46(3), pages 547-576, August.
    19. Sophia Belghiti-Mahut & Anne-Laurence Lafont & Angélique Rodhain & Florence Rodhain, 2020. "Women’s entrepreneurial narrative : making sense of the partner’s role," Post-Print hal-03084749, HAL.
    20. Ludwig, Sandra & Fellner-Röhling, Gerlinde & Thoma, Carmen, 2017. "Do women have more shame than men? An experiment on self-assessment and the shame of overestimating oneself," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 31-46.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (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.