Impact of product-based e-cigarette marketing on the attitudes and behavioural intentions of young Australians: an experimental study.

Abstract

Background: The tobacco industry has a history of using language to downplay the harms associated with cigarettes and mislead consumers and policymakers. Emerging evidence suggests similar tactics are being used in the context of e-cigarettes; however, exploration of the impact of product name on attitudes towards e-cigarettes and susceptibility to use is lacking. This experimental study explored whether attitudes towards e-cigarettes and susceptibility to use are influenced by the names used by the industry to describe and market these products.

Method: An accredited web panel provider recruited a sample of 383 Australians aged 12-29 years who had never smoked to participate in an online survey that featured an embedded experiment. Participants were randomly allocated to one of three conditions, each of which used a different name to describe e-cigarettes (condition 1: 'e-cigarettes', condition 2: 'vapes'; condition 3: either 'IGETS', 'Puff Bars', 'HQD Cuvies' or 'Gunnpods'). The survey assessed respondents' overall opinion of the product described; attitudes towards the product; liking of the product; and curiosity, willingness and intentions to use the product.

Results: Those in the 'brand name' condition scored higher than those in the 'e-cigarettes' condition on all dependent variables. Those in the 'vapes' condition scored higher than those in the 'e-cigarettes' condition on product attitude.

Conclusion: Findings indicate that the use of brand names and terms such as 'vapes' instead of 'e-cigarettes' results in more favourable attitudes towards e-cigarettes and susceptibility to use among young Australians. Results highlight the problematic influence of promotional language use favoured by industry.