IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v38y2018i5p906-916.html

Influence of Risk Perception on Attitudes and Norms Regarding Electronic Cigarettes

Author

Listed:
  • Craig W. Trumbo

Abstract

The use of electronic cigarettes has grown substantially over the last few years. Currently, about 4% of adults use electronic cigarettes, about 16% of high school students report use in the past 30 days, as do approximately 11–25% of college students. A hallmark of the reduction in tobacco use has been the shift in social norms concerning smoking in public. Such norms may also drive views on acceptability of public electronic cigarette use. While normative factors have been given attention, little substantive application of the literature on risk perception has been brought to bear. The overall aim of this study was to place a cognitive–affective measure of risk perception within a model that also includes social cues for e‐cigarettes, addictiveness beliefs, and tobacco use to predict perceived social acceptability for public use of e‐cigarettes. To do so, a cross‐sectional study using an online survey was conducted among a sample of undergraduate students at a Western university (n = 395). A structural equation model showed that the acceptability of public e‐cigarette use was influenced by social cues, beliefs about addiction, and cognitive risk perception, even after controlling for nicotine use. What is revealed is that cognitive assessment of e‐cigarette risk and perception of addictiveness had a suppressing effect on perceived acceptability of public vaping, while greater exposure to social cues exerted a countervailing effect. This is evidence of the role that risk perception and social norms may play in the increases in electronic cigarette use that have been observed.

Suggested Citation

  • Craig W. Trumbo, 2018. "Influence of Risk Perception on Attitudes and Norms Regarding Electronic Cigarettes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 906-916, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:5:p:906-916
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12918
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12918
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12918?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. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    2. Sutfin, E.L. & Reboussin, B.A. & Debinski, B. & Wagoner, K.G. & Spangler, J. & Wolfson, M., 2015. "The impact of trying electronic cigarettes on cigarette smoking by college students: A prospective analysis," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 105(8), pages 83-89.
    3. Craig W. Trumbo & Lori Peek & Michelle A. Meyer & Holly L. Marlatt & Eve Gruntfest & Brian D. McNoldy & Wayne H. Schubert, 2016. "A Cognitive‐Affective Scale for Hurricane Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(12), pages 2233-2246, December.
    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. Yaodong Yang & Huaqing Ren & Han Zhang, 2022. "Understanding Consumer Panic Buying Behaviors during the Strict Lockdown on Omicron Variant: A Risk Perception View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Nina Veflen & Joachim Scholderer & Solveig Langsrud, 2020. "Situated Food Safety Risk and the Influence of Social Norms," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 1092-1110, May.
    3. Judith I. M. de Groot & Elisa Schweiger & Iljana Schubert, 2020. "Social Influence, Risk and Benefit Perceptions, and the Acceptability of Risky Energy Technologies: An Explanatory Model of Nuclear Power Versus Shale Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1226-1243, June.

    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. Ruikun Peng & Yinyin Zhao & Ehsan Elahi & Benhong Peng, 2021. "Does disaster shocks affect farmers’ willingness for insurance? Mediating effect of risk perception and survey data from risk-prone areas in East 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. 106(3), pages 2883-2899, April.
    2. Julie L. Demuth, 2018. "Explicating Experience: Development of a Valid Scale of Past Hazard Experience for Tornadoes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1921-1943, September.
    3. Yaodong Yang & Huaqing Ren & Han Zhang, 2022. "Understanding Consumer Panic Buying Behaviors during the Strict Lockdown on Omicron Variant: A Risk Perception View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Zeynep Altinay & Eric Rittmeyer & Lauren L. Morris & Margaret A. Reams, 2021. "Public risk salience of sea level rise in Louisiana, United States," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(4), pages 523-536, December.
    5. Robyn S. Wilson & Adam Zwickle & Hugh Walpole, 2019. "Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 777-791, April.
    6. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    7. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    8. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    9. Thomas Deroche & Yannick Stephan & Tim Woodman & Christine Le Scanff, 2012. "Psychological Mediators of the Sport Injury—Perceived Risk Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 113-121, January.
    10. Pam A. Mueller & Lawrence M. Solan & John M. Darley, 2012. "When Does Knowledge Become Intent? Perceiving the Minds of Wrongdoers," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 859-892, December.
    11. Mutlu, Asli & Roy, Debraj & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Capitalized value of evolving flood risks discount and nature-based solution premiums on property prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    12. Therese Kobbeltvedt & Katharina Wolff, 2009. "The Risk-as-feelings hypothesis in a Theory-of-planned-behaviour perspective," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(7), pages 567-586, December.
    13. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    14. Dolores J. Severtson & Jeffrey B. Henriques, 2009. "The Effect of Graphics on Environmental Health Risk Beliefs, Emotions, Behavioral Intentions, and Recall," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11), pages 1549-1565, November.
    15. Christiane Riedinger & Jackie Campbell & William M P Klein & Rebecca A Ferrer & Juliet A Usher-Smith, 2022. "Analysis of the components of cancer risk perception and links with intention and behaviour: A UK-based study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-16, January.
    16. Liana Fraenkel & Marilyn Stolar & Jonathan R. Bates & Richard L. Street Jr & Harjinder Chowdhary & Sarah Swift & Ellen Peters, 2018. "Variability in Affect and Willingness to Take Medication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 34-43, January.
    17. Frisch, L.C. & Mathis, J.T. & Kettle, N.P. & Trainor, S.F., 2015. "Gauging perceptions of ocean acidification in Alaska," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 101-110.
    18. Samir S Soneji & Hai-Yen Sung & Brian A Primack & John P Pierce & James D Sargent, 2018. "Quantifying population-level health benefits and harms of e-cigarette use in the United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, March.
    19. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    20. Diego Fernandez-Duque & Timothy Wifall, 2007. "Actor/observer asymmetry in risky decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 1-8, February.

    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:38:y:2018:i:5:p:906-916. 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.