IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i12p7219-d837367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dissonance in Young Adult Cigarillo Users’ Categorization of Concept Flavored and Unflavored Products

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine C. Osborn

    (Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA)

  • Jessica P. Suratkal

    (Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA)

  • Stephanie N. Pike Moore

    (Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA)

  • Sarah Koopman Gonzalez

    (Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA)

  • Kymberle L. Sterling

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

  • Amanda J. Quisenberry

    (Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA)

  • Elizabeth G. Klein

    (Division of Health Behavior and Health Promotion, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA)

  • Erika S. Trapl

    (Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA)

Abstract

This study asks young adult cigarillo users to categorize their preferred flavor in order to examine user consensus and potential methodological and regulatory implications of flavor name-based categorization systems. Young adult (21–28 years) cigarillo users ( n = 426) named and categorized their favorite cigarillo flavor into one of seven categories: Fruit, Sweet and Candy, Mint, Alcohol, Menthol, Tobacco, and Other. Flavor responses were coded as characterizing (ex: Grape, Wine) or concept (ex: Jazz, Diamond) flavors. Variation within and between categories was assessed, including the presence of concept flavors and the placement of flavors in multiple categories. Of the 66 unique flavor names provided, participants placed 20 (30.1%) in more than one flavor category. Most of the Tobacco (76.9%) and Other (69.2%) flavor names appeared in multiple categories. The majority of flavor names in the Tobacco (69.2%) and Other (61.5%) categories were concept flavors. Concept flavors were placed in multiple categories (45.0%) twice as often as characterizing flavors (23.9%). This study has identified dissonance among cigarillo users’ flavor categorizations, particularly for concept flavored and unflavored products. Flavor names may obscure how and whether a product is flavored. Research on and regulation of flavored tobacco products should classify products by flavor additives rather than by name alone.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine C. Osborn & Jessica P. Suratkal & Stephanie N. Pike Moore & Sarah Koopman Gonzalez & Kymberle L. Sterling & Amanda J. Quisenberry & Elizabeth G. Klein & Erika S. Trapl, 2022. "Dissonance in Young Adult Cigarillo Users’ Categorization of Concept Flavored and Unflavored Products," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-13, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:12:p:7219-:d:837367
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/12/7219/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/12/7219/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:19:y:2022:i:12:p:7219-:d:837367. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.