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. 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.
    4. Breaban, Adriana & van de Kuilen, Gijs & Noussair, Charles, 2016. "Prudence, Personality, Cognitive Ability and Emotional State," Other publications TiSEM 9a01a5ab-e03d-49eb-9cd7-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    6. Ertac, Seda & Gurdal, Mehmet Y., 2012. "Deciding to decide: Gender, leadership and risk-taking in groups," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 24-30.
    7. Lex Borghans & Angela Lee Duckworth & James J. Heckman & Bas ter Weel, 2008. "The Economics and Psychology of Personality Traits," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 43(4).
    8. Lorenzo Ductor & Sanjeev Goyal & Anja Prummer, 2018. "Gender & Collaboration," Working Papers 856, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    9. Fellner, Gerlinde & Maciejovsky, Boris, 2007. "Risk attitude and market behavior: Evidence from experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 338-350, June.
    10. Oege Dijk, 2017. "For whom does social comparison induce risk-taking?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(4), pages 519-541, April.
    11. 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.
    12. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/3t1fcs7p369jmaalnboqhpgknn is not listed on IDEAS
    13. 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]," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03792423, HAL.
    14. Thushyanthan Baskaran & Sonia Bhalotra & Brian Min & Yogesh Uppal, 2018. "Women legislators and economic performance," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2018-47, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Fernando Aguiar & Pablo Brañas-Garza & Ramón Cobo-Reyes & Natalia Jimenez & Luis Miller, 2009. "Are women expected to be more generous?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(1), pages 93-98, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Böheim, René & Lackner, Mario, 2013. "Gender and Competition: Evidence from Jumping Competitions," IZA Discussion Papers 7243, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. 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(1), June.
    21. Olaf Hübler & Lukas Menkhoff, 2011. "Do Women Manage Smaller Funds?," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 58(1), pages 107-126, February.

    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.