RESEARCH PAPER
Development of measures assessing attitudes toward contraband tobacco among a web-based sample of smokers
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, USA
2
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3
The Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Sarah E. Adkison   

Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, 60 Carlton Street, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA
Publish date: 2015-03-27
 
Tobacco Induced Diseases 2015;13(March):7
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
As regulation of tobacco products tightens, there are concerns that illicit markets may develop to supply restricted products. However, there are few validated measures to assess attitudes or purchase intentions toward contraband tobacco (CT). As such, it is important to investigate individual level characteristics that are associated with the purchase and use of contraband tobacco.

Methods:
In May 2013, a pilot survey assessed attitudes, behaviors, and purchase intentions for contraband tobacco based on previous research regarding non-tobacco contraband. The survey was administered via Amazon Mechanical Turk, a crowdsourcing resource, among current smoking respondents in the United States and Canada. Structural equation modeling was used to evaluate the validity of the proposed model for understanding attitudes toward contraband tobacco.

Results:
CT purchasers were more likely to report norms supportive of counterfeit products, more intentions toward purchasing counterfeit products, a lowered risk associated with these products, and to have more favorable attitudes toward CT than those who had not purchased CT. Attitudes toward CT mediated the relationship between subjective norms and prior purchase with behavior intentions. Perceived risk had a significant direct effect on intentions and an indirect effect through attitudes toward CT. The structural model fit the data well and accounted for over half (53%) of the variance in attitudes toward tobacco.

Conclusions:
Understanding the mechanisms associated with CT attitudes and purchase behaviors may provide insight for how to mitigate possible iatrogenic consequences of newly implemented regulations. The measures developed here elucidate some elements that influence attitudes and purchase intentions for CT and may inform policy efforts to curtail the development of illicit markets.

 
REFERENCES (38)
1.
Stehr M. Cigarette tax avoidance and evasion. J Health Econ. 2005;24(2):277–97.
 
2.
Ayers JW, Ribisl K, Brownstein JS. Using search query surveillance to monitor tax avoidance and smoking cessation following the United States’ 2009 “SCHIP” cigarette tax increase PloS one. 2011;6(3). Epub e16777. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016777.
 
3.
Hyland A, Bauer JE, Li Q, Abrams SM, Higbee C, Peppone L, et al. Higher cigarette prices influence cigarette purchase patterns. Tob Control. 2005;14(2):86–92.
 
4.
Hyland A, Laux FL, Higbee C, Hastings G, Ross H, Chaloupka FJ, et al. Cigarette purchase patterns in four countries and the relationship with cessation: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tob Control. 2006;15 suppl 3:iii59–64.
 
5.
Licari MJ, Meier KJ. Regulatory policy when behavior is addictive: smoking, cigarette taxes and bootlegging. Pol Res Q. 1997;50(1):5–24.
 
6.
O’Connor RJ, Bansal-Travers M, Carter LP, Cummings KM. What would menthol smokers do if menthol in cigarettes were banned? Behavioral intentions and simulated demand. Addiction. 2012;107(7):1330–8.
 
7.
TPSAC. Menthol cigarettes: No disproportionate impact on public health 2011.
 
8.
Coady MH, Chan CA, Sacks R, Mbamalu IG, Kansagra SM. The impact of cigarette excise tax increases on purchasing behaviors among New York city smokers. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(6):e54–60.
 
9.
Cantrell J, Hung D, Fahs MC, Shelley D. Purchasing patterns and smoking behaviors after a large tobacco tax increase: a study of Chinese Americans living in New York City. Public Health Rep. 2008;123(2):135–46.
 
10.
Shelley D, Cantrell MJ, Moon-Howard J, Ramjohn DQ, VanDevanter N. The $5 man: the underground economic response to a large cigarette tax increase in New York City. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(8):1483–8.
 
11.
Wiltshire S, Bancroft A, Amos A, Parry O. “They’re doing people a service”-qualitative study of smoking, smuggling, and social deprivation. BMJ. 2001;323(7306):203–7.
 
12.
Lasnier B, Cantinotti M, Leclerc B-S. Prévalence e l‘achat et de l‘usage de tabac illicite chez les fumeurs québecois, 2005-2010. Drogues Santé et societé. 2011;10(2):1–53.
 
13.
Bhagwati J, Hansen B. A Theoretical Analysis of Smuggling. Q J Econ. 1973;87(2):172–87.
 
14.
Goel RK. Cigarette smuggling: price vs.nonprice incentives. Appl Econ Lett. 2008;15(8):587–92.
 
15.
Huang J-H, Lee BCY, Ho SH. Consumer attitude toward gray market goods. Int Mark Rev. 2004;21(6):598–614.
 
16.
Augusto de Matos C, Ituassu C, Rossi C. Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits: a review and extension. J Consum Mark. 2007;24(1):36–47.
 
17.
Cordell VV, Wongtada N, Kieschnick RL. Counterfeit purchase intentions: role of lawfulness attitudes and product traits as determinants. J Bus Res. 1996;35(1):41–53.
 
18.
Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaivor. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980.
 
19.
Lichtenstein DR, Ridgway NM, Netemeyer RG. Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: a field study. J Mark Res. 1993;30(2):234–45.
 
20.
Dowling GR, Staelin R. A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. J Consum Res. 1994;21(1):119–34.
 
21.
Ang SH, Cheng PS, Lim EAC, Tambyah SK. Spot the difference: Consumer responses towards counterfeits. J Consum Mark. 2001;18(3):219–33.
 
22.
Kraus SJ. Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 1995;21(1):58–75.
 
23.
Behrend TS, Sharek DJ, Meade AW, Wiebe EN. The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behav Res Methods. 2011;43(3):800–13.
 
24.
Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011;6(1):3–5.
 
25.
Etchegaray JM, Fischer WG. Understanding evidence-based research methods: reliability and validity considerations in survey research. Health Environm Res Design J. 2010;4(1):131–5.
 
26.
Simons DJ, Chabris CF. Common (mis)beliefs about memory: a replication and comparison of telephone and Mechanical Turk survey methods. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):18.
 
27.
Truell AD, Bartlett 2nd JE, Alexander MW. Response rate, speed, and completeness: a comparison of Internet-based and mail surveys. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2002;34(1):46–9.
 
28.
Rand DG. The promise of Mechanical Turk: how online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. J Theor Biol. 2012;299:172–9.
 
29.
Crowne DP, Marlowe D. A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J Consult Psychol. 1960;24(4):349–54.
 
30.
Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2006.
 
31.
Lt H, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Model. 1999;6(1):1–55.
 
32.
Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005.
 
33.
Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods. 2008;40:879-891.
 
34.
Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 2010.
 
35.
Fornell C, Larcker D. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50.
 
36.
Donthu N, Garcia A. The Internet shopper. J Advert Res. 1999;39(3):52–8.
 
37.
Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211.
 
38.
Zeithaml VA, Parasuraman A, Berry LL. The behavioral consequences of service quality. J Mark. 1996;60:31–43.
 
 
CITATIONS (3):
1.
The impact of overtly listing eligibility requirements on MTurk: An investigation involving organ donation, recruitment scripts, and feelings of elevation
Jason T. Siegel, Mario A. Navarro, Andrew L. Thomson
Social Science & Medicine
 
2.
Smoking cessation in severe mental ill health: what works? an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Emily Peckham, Sally Brabyn, Liz Cook, Garry Tew, Simon Gilbody
BMC Psychiatry
 
3.
Tobacco and cannabis co-use and interrelatedness among adults
Saima A. Akbar, Rachel L. Tomko, Claudia A. Salazar, Lindsay M. Squeglia, Erin A. McClure
Addictive Behaviors
 
eISSN:1617-9625