IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i6p1170-1180.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowledge about Chemicals in e‐Cigarette Secondhand Vapor and Perceived Harms of Exposure among a National Sample of U.S. Adults

Author

Listed:
  • Andy S. L. Tan
  • Susan Mello
  • Ashley Sanders‐Jackson
  • Cabral A. Bigman

Abstract

Potentially harmful chemicals are detectable in e‐cigarette secondhand vapor (hereafter SHV), contrary to advertising and marketing claims that it contains “only water vapor.” We assessed public knowledge about the presence of chemicals in SHV and associations between knowledge and perceived harms of exposure to SHV. We conducted an online survey of a nationally representative sample of 1,449 U.S. adults (GfK's KnowledgePanel) from October to December 2013. Respondents were asked whether e‐cigarette vapor contains only water vapor, contains tar, or contains formaldehyde (true/ false/ do not know). Responses to these three items were recoded (1 = incorrect, 2 = do not know, and 3 = correct) and averaged into a knowledge scale. They were also asked if they perceived breathing SHV to be harmful to one's health (two‐item scale) and comparative harm of breathing SHV versus breathing secondhand smoke (SHS). Multiple regression analyses were weighted to the U.S. adult population and adjusted for potential confounders. Most respondents (58–75%) reported not knowing whether SHV contained only water vapor, if SHV contained tar, and if it contained formaldehyde. African‐American respondents (vs. white) and current smokers (vs. nonsmokers) had lower levels of knowledge about chemicals in SHV. Adjusting for covariates, correct knowledge about chemicals in SHV was associated with higher perceived harms about SHV for one's health and perceived comparative harm of SHV versus SHS. These findings suggest a need to provide accurate information about the presence of chemicals in SHV (e.g., using product ingredient labels or public education).

Suggested Citation

  • Andy S. L. Tan & Susan Mello & Ashley Sanders‐Jackson & Cabral A. Bigman, 2017. "Knowledge about Chemicals in e‐Cigarette Secondhand Vapor and Perceived Harms of Exposure among a National Sample of U.S. Adults," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1170-1180, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:6:p:1170-1180
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12676
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12676
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12676?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy Kraus & Torbjörn Malmfors & Paul Slovic, 1992. "Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 215-232, June.
    2. Paul Slovic & Baruch Fischhoff & Sarah Lichtenstein, 1982. "Why Study Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 83-93, June.
    3. Paul Slovic & Torbjörn Malmfors & Daniel Krewski & C. K. Mertz & Nancy Neil & Sheryl Bartlett, 1995. "Intuitive Toxicology. II. Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(6), pages 661-675, December.
    4. Choi, K. & Forster, J., 2013. "Characteristics associated with awareness, perceptions, and use of electronic nicotine delivery systems among young US Midwestern adults," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 103(3), pages 556-561.
    5. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    6. 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)

    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. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    2. Michael W. Slimak & Thomas Dietz, 2006. "Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1689-1705, December.
    3. Kazuya Nakayachi, 2013. "The Unintended Effects of Risk‐Refuting Information on Anxiety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 80-91, January.
    4. Morioka, Rika, 2014. "Gender difference in the health risk perception of radiation from Fukushima in Japan: The role of hegemonic masculinity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 105-112.
    5. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    6. Regina Schoell & Claudia R. Binder, 2009. "System Perspectives of Experts and Farmers Regarding the Role of Livelihood Assets in Risk Perception: Results from the Structured Mental Model Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 205-222, February.
    7. Sander C. S. Clahsen & Irene van Kamp & Betty C. Hakkert & Theo G. Vermeire & Aldert H. Piersma & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 439-461, February.
    8. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    9. Rianne van Duinen & Tatiana Filatova & Peter Geurts & Anne van der Veen, 2015. "Empirical Analysis of Farmers' Drought Risk Perception: Objective Factors, Personal Circumstances, and Social Influence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 741-755, April.
    10. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    11. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2021. "The Landscape of Risk Perception Research: A Scientometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-26, November.
    12. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson, 2014. "Growing Pains: How Risk Perception and Risk Communication Research Can Help to Manage the Challenges of Global Population Growth," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1378-1390, August.
    13. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    14. Biljana Kilibarda & Viktor Mravcik & Marcus Sebastian Martens, 2016. "E-cigarette use among Serbian adults: prevalence and user characteristics," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 61(2), pages 167-175, March.
    15. Seol-A Kwon & Hyun-Jung Yoo & Eugene Song, 2020. "Korean Consumers’ Recognition of Risks Depending on the Provision of Safety Information for Chemical Products," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-12, February.
    16. Richard P. Barke & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith, 1993. "Politics and Scientific Expertise: Scientists, Risk Perception, and Nuclear Waste Policy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 425-439, August.
    17. Mary E. Thomson & Dilek Önkal & Ali Avcioğlu & Paul Goodwin, 2004. "Aviation Risk Perception: A Comparison Between Experts and Novices," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1585-1595, December.
    18. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    19. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    20. Zhihua Xu & Jingzhu Shan, 2018. "The effect of risk perception on willingness to pay for reductions in the health risks posed by particulate matter 2.5: A case study of Beijing, China," Energy & Environment, , vol. 29(8), pages 1319-1337, December.

    More about this item

    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:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:6:p:1170-1180. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.