Measuring susceptibility to use tobacco in an increasingly complex consumer marketplace: How many questions do we really need?

OBJECTIVE: Predicting which young people are likely to use tobacco in the future is critical for prevention and intervention. Although measures for assessing susceptibility to using tobacco have fulfilled this goal for decades, there is almost no standard for the number of items that should be administered, or which items should be administered for which products. This study explored whether brief but psychometrically sound versions of commonly used susceptibility measures can adequately capture the construct relative to longer measures. METHOD: A sample of young people (N = 451; Mage = 16.5 years; 64% females; 65% White) completed 33 susceptibility items, which are designed to assess susceptibility to use different types of tobacco products (cigarette, smokeless tobacco, vaping products, and little cigars/cigarillos) of various flavors (tobacco, menthol, and sweet). RESULTS: Analysis of these 33 items indicated that asking about the likelihood of using each tobacco product class when a best friend offers it (four items in all) captures 98.5% of information that is captured using the longer set of items; asking the best friend question for each product by each flavor category (11 items in all) captures 99.7% of the information. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on research needs, tobacco use susceptibility can be measured with little loss of information by administering a limited set of items assessing the likelihood that a young person will use a tobacco product if a friend offers it for any product-flavor combination. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Doing more with less: A proposal to advance cigarette packaging regulations in the United States.

Cigarette packages are potent marketing tools. Following guidance from the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, many countries have sought to diminish this marketing power by mandating that (1) large graphic health warnings be affixed to the packages (i.e., text warnings combined with graphic images of the health consequences of smoking) and (2) all packages be fully "plain" in their design (i.e., all packages use the same drab/bland color and font type; no brand logos, other colors, or designs are permitted). Yet, the United States lags other countries in implementing regulations designed to blunt the marketing power of cigarette packages. This is not because of a lack of effort on the part of the Food and Drug Administration, the main governmental body charged with regulating tobacco products in the United States. Rather, it is because the regulatory options that that have been advanced in the country (e.g., graphic health warnings) have not been found - yet - to be legally feasible by its courts. This commentary works through some of the conceptual, practical, and legal issues regarding packaging regulations in the United States. It considers the political and bureaucratic risks involved with issuing new regulations. The overall intent is to prompt our field to think creatively about what is realistic in this regulatory space and to offer a novel perspective that may help move the United States tobacco control community forward in its efforts to reduce the promotional power of cigarette packages.

Does Reducing the Size of the Tobacco Power Wall Affect Young People's Risk of Future Use of Tobacco Products? An Experimental Investigation.

OBJECTIVE: A ban on tobacco power walls (in-store package displays) is unlikely in the United States because of concerns that such bans violate commercial free speech rights. This experiment evaluated the effectiveness of a more measured strategy for mitigating the influence of the power wall on young people's susceptibility to tobacco use: limiting its size. METHOD: The experiment took place in the RAND StoreLab, a life-sized replica of a convenience store. Participants (N = 275) ages 11-20 years were randomly assigned to shop in a variant of the StoreLab that had either a large (status quo), medium, or small power wall situated behind the checkout counter. Before and after shopping, participants completed measures of risk of future use of unflavored and flavored cigarettes and vaping products. RESULTS: Study condition was unrelated to future risk of smoking unflavored cigarettes, using menthol vaping products, and using sweet-flavored vaping products. Study condition was related to future risk of smoking menthol cigarettes and using unflavored vaping products; compared with exposure to a large power wall, exposure to a small power wall increased the odds of a participant's being at risk for future smoking of menthol cigarettes (odds ratio [OR] = 3.29, 95% CI [1.10, 9.83]) and the odds of a participant's being at risk for using unflavored vaping products (OR = 4.09, 95% CI [1.41, 11.85]). CONCLUSIONS: These findings call into question the viability of reducing the size of the power wall as a singular strategy for dampening its effect on young people's susceptibility to tobacco use.