Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2026 Jul 28;126(2):e70133. doi: 10.1002/jeab.70133

Effects of cigarette greenwashing advertising on behavioral economic demand, puff topography, and health risk perception

Justin C Strickland 1, Gideon P Naudé 1, Brett W Gelino 1, Rebekah D Schlitzer 1, Jessica C Harbaugh 1, Johannes Thrul 2,3,4, Lauren Czaplicki 5, Meghan B Moran 5, Matthew W Johnson 1,✉
PMCID: PMC13416014  PMID: 42522159

Abstract

Greenwashing tactics involve advertising products as ecofriendly and/or natural, which may reduce perceived health risk. We tested the effect of greenwashing advertising tactics on cigarette demand, puff topography, and perceived health risk. Young adults (N = 31) who smoke cigarettes completed a within‐subject experiment involving two topography and seven operant demand sessions. Participants were exposed to advertising for novel cigarette “brands.” One brand was advertised using greenwashing tactics, whereas the other brand included matched control tactics. Unknown to participants, both conditions used the same commercial cigarette brand. During topography sessions, participants smoked cigarettes ad lib and puff topography data were collected. During demand sessions, cigarettes were concurrently available at varying prices. No significant differences were observed for puff‐topography measures (dz values < 0.28). Participants demonstrated a preference for the cigarettes advertised using greenwashing tactics when concurrently available at the same low price with more puffs earned (dz  = 0.44) and a greater proportion of total puffs smoked (dz  = 0.55). Both brands acted as substitutes for each other, with substitution not reliably differing by brand. These findings indicate that greenwashing advertising tactics may increase the relative reinforcing effects of cigarettes particularly when available at prices similar to those for standard cigarettes, findings that should be considered by regulatory authorities.

Keywords: behavioral economics, demand, humans, tobacco regulatory science

INTRODUCTION

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act granted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate tobacco product marketing and restrict false or misleading advertising. Under this law, tobacco companies are prevented from implicitly or explicitly conveying that a product is of modified risk unless they are granted a modified tobacco risk product designation by the FDA. In 2015, the FDA issued warning letters to several tobacco companies (i.e., Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc., manufacturers of Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes; ITG Brands, manufacturers of Winston brand cigarettes; and Sherman's 1400 Broadway, manufacturers of Nat Sherman brand cigarettes) regarding their use of the descriptors “natural” and “additive‐free.” Research has documented that consumers inaccurately perceive cigarettes advertised with these descriptors to be lower risk than other cigarettes on the market (Gratale et al., 2019; Leas et al., 2017; Pearson et al., 2017). In early 2017, Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc. entered into a settlement agreement with the FDA that prohibited use of these terms with the exception of the phrase “natural” in the product's brand name.

However, the tobacco industry has a documented history of quickly pivoting to new tactics in the face of advertising restrictions. For example, following the 2017 decision, advertising for American Spirit brand cigarettes shifted to use of the phrase “Tobacco & Water,” with an emphasis on the ecofriendly nature of the company's manufacturing and growing practices (O'Gara et al., 2019). These tactics can broadly be defined as “greenwashing,” or the practice of explicitly promoting or implying an organization's environmental efforts and involvement in marketing. These methods have been well documented on American Spirit marketing materials as well as other consumer products (Ganz et al., 2020; Houghton et al., 2018; Moran et al., 2019; Pearson et al., 2023). Recent research has demonstrated the influence of lexical and graphical greenwashing tactics on the perceived harm and risk of tobacco products. Examples of lexical tactics include descriptors such as “organic” or “pure” or claims about sustainable farming or limited ingredients (e.g., “Tobacco & Water”). Examples of graphical greenwashing tactics include images of items (e.g., tobacco leaves, recycling signs) or settings (e.g., farms, forests, woods) that imply an ecofriendly connection. Several studies have shown that American Spirit cigarettes that are advertised using these tactics are rated as less harmful for oneself, others, and the environment as well as less addictive than cigarettes that are not advertised using these tactics (Epperson, Averett, et al., 2019; Epperson, Lambin, et al., 2019; Epperson et al., 2021; Gratale et al., 2018; Iles et al., 2021; Moran & Pearson, 2019).

Our group recently experimentally evaluated the effects of these newer textual and image‐based greenwashing tactics on consumer perceptions using a fictional cigarette brand, thus removing the potential historical biases that real‐world brands like American Spirit may introduce (Moran et al., 2025). These fictional brands were developed based on data from a longitudinal content analysis conducted by the study team of advertising tactics used by existing cigarette companies (Ibrahim et al., 2026). Young adults (ages 18–29) rated the cigarettes portrayed in advertisements with greenwashing text as having lower absolute harm, relative harm, and relative addictiveness than those in advertisements without greenwashing text. Participants also judged products advertised using greenwashing imagery as having lower relative harm, absolute addictiveness, and relative addictiveness than those that do not use greenwashing imagery. Notably, 42% of participants who viewed an advertisement using the combination of all greenwashing features rated the cigarettes as less harmful than typical cigarettes, whereas only 2% of participants who saw advertisements void of any greenwashing features rated the cigarettes as less harmful. Another pilot human laboratory study using the “organic” descriptor to describe cigarettes showed that participants rated these cigarettes as healthier and having fewer chemicals than cigarettes without these descriptors (Pearson et al., 2022). These findings, combined with extant research on real‐world American Spirit advertisements, collectively demonstrate the reduced health risk attributed to cigarettes advertised using greenwashing tactics.

The present study was designed to evaluate the effect of greenwashing advertising tactics on measures of behavioral economic demand, puff topography, and perceived health risk using a controlled human laboratory design. Behavioral economic approaches allow for evaluation of the influence of commodity price and context on multiple dimensions of reinforcement (Hursh, 1984; Hursh & Silberberg, 2008; Johnson & Bickel, 2006). Demand for (e.g., consumption or use of) a reinforcer (e.g., cigarettes) at specific prices and context can be plotted across varying unit prices to generate demand metrics describing different aspects of reinforcement. Demand approaches may also be used to evaluate reinforcer interactions in which two products are concurrently available at varying price manipulations (Hursh & Roma, 2013; Johnson & Bickel, 2003; Johnson et al., 2017). These cross‐price procedures allow for the determination of the change in consumption of a price‐fixed commodity as a function of the price of another commodity (i.e., the price‐varying commodity). Increases in consumption of the price‐fixed commodity with greater prices of the price‐varying commodity indicate substitution commodities, whereas decreases in consumption of the price‐fixed commodity indicate complement commodities. No change in consumption of the fixed‐price commodity designates it as an independent reinforcer with respect to the price‐manipulated commodity. Such approaches have proved useful in tobacco regulatory science to evaluate simulated effects of tobacco control policies and provide an evidence base on regulatory actions such as the FDA's modified tobacco risk product designation for reduced nicotine cigarettes (see review in Tidey et al., 2016).

The application of demand methods to the study of tobacco use was also central to the work of Dr. Warren Bickel, the focus of this in memoriam special issue. Dr. Bickel's work was some of the first to apply behavioral economic demand models to the study of substance use, broadly (e.g., Bickel et al., 1993), and tobacco use, specifically (e.g., Bickel et al., 1991). This research included the validation of operant methods like those used here to understand tobacco use alone and in the context of alternative commodity availability (e.g., Bickel and Madden, 1999; Johnson & Bickel, 2003; Johnson et al., 2004). This work also included methods developed to rapidly inform policy including the experimental tobacco marketplace (e.g., Bickel et al., 2018; DeHart, Kaplan, et al., 2019; DeHart, Mellis, et al., 2019; Pope et al., 2019).

Based on the existing literature on cigarette greenwashing advertising tactics and the foundational work of Dr. Bickel, we hypothesized that greenwashing tactics would lead to (H1) increased demand/preference, (H2) greater puff volume, and (H3) reduced health risk perception for cigarettes advertised with greenwashing tactics than for those advertised with no greenwashing. Data indicating such effects should be considered by the FDA when evaluating potential advertising regulations concerning greenwashing.

METHODS

Participants and screening

Inclusion criteria were participants 18–35 years old (inclusive), biological verification of combustible cigarette use via urinary cotinine and expired carbon monoxide (8 ppm or more; measured by the Smokerlyzer, CoVita, Haddonfield, NJ, USA), and use of five or more cigarettes per day. Exclusion criteria were intention to quit smoking in the next 30 days, use of “roll‐your‐own” cigarettes as primary form of smoking, positive urine drug screen for illicit drugs other than cannabis, pregnancy or plans for pregnancy, and serious medical or psychiatric disorder that would interfere with study participation. Young adults were the focus population given that this is a key age for smoking initiation and escalation and that this group may be particularly vulnerable to the influence of greenwashing tactics.

Interested participants completed a brief phone screening followed by an in‐person screening visit involving assessment of physical and mental health history, substance use history, physical examination, and standard medical laboratory tests. All participants completed informed consent prior to screening, and the study procedures were approved by the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board. In total, 31 participants (22 men, 7 women, and 2 nonbinary) completed all experimental procedures (see Table 1 for general sample characteristics).

TABLE 1.

Sample Characteristics (N = 31).

Characteristic Mean (SD)
Age 28.2 (4.1)
Race
White 11 (35.5%)
Black or African American 12 (38.7%)
Asian 2 (6.5%)
Multiracial 6 (19.4%)
Ethnicity
Hispanic 2 (6.5%)
Non‐Hispanic 29 (93.5%)
Gender
Men 22 (71.0%)
Women 7 (22.6%)
Nonbinary 2 (6.5%)
Cigarette use
Cigarettes/Day 12.2 (6.2)
FTCD 3.7 (2.3)
Menthol preference 16 (51.6%)
Open in a new tab

Note: FTCD = Fagerström test for cigarette dependence.

General overview

Participants completed a nine‐session, within‐subject, randomized human laboratory study. A two‐stage design was used including a topography phase and a behavioral economic phase to evaluate puff topography and demand, respectively. All experimental visits lasted approximately 4 hr. Participants were instructed to abstain from smoking for 6 hr before the beginning of each daily session to achieve a carbon monoxide reading ≤50% of the CO value obtained at the initial screening (Bickel et al., 1997). If a participant failed to meet this criterion, the session was rescheduled (or participation discontinued after multiple such instances). Participants completed two puff‐topography sessions in which they sampled from the greenwashing advertised cigarette in one session and standard‐advertised cigarette in the other session. Primary outcomes of puff topography and health risk perception were collected in these sessions. Participants then completed seven behavioral economic demand sessions in which cigarettes using greenwashing and standard advertising were concurrently available at varying prices (i.e., fixed‐ratio prices on a plunger pull operant response). Puff‐topography and behavioral economic demand sessions were completed in one of four rooms equipped with an exhaust ventilation system, desk, and computer apparatus for topography, operant administration of puff administration, and data collection (described below under Topography sessions and Behavioral economic sessions). Primary outcomes of demand and cross‐price demand were collected in these sessions. Participants completed an end‐of‐study assessment upon completion of the final session including a free response assessment of the study objectives for blinding assessment purposes (assessment of study objectives was included after the first four study completers; analytic n = 27).

Greenwashing manipulation and study cigarettes

Participants were exposed to advertising for two different fictional cigarette brands, Triumph and Victor (see examples in Figure 1). One brand was advertised using greenwashing tactics, whereas the other brand used standard advertising tactics with the brand name assigned to greenwashing randomized and counterbalanced across participants. Greenwashing tactics used were descriptive text (e.g., “Tobacco & Water”), background (e.g., natural style paper), pack style (e.g., green leaves on pack), and natural images (e.g., tobacco leaf). These greenwashing tactics were based on the study team's surveillance of existing cigarette brands (Ibrahim et al., 2026). The fictional brand names were unique and were not a cigarette brand available on the market (see Moran et al., 2025, for additional details).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Greenwashing and standard advertising tactics. Advertisements used for greenwashing and standard conditions. Note that the brand name was counterbalanced across participants such that for some participants the Victor brand had greenwashing elements and the Triumph brand did not and for the other participants the Triumph brand had greenwashing elements and the Victor brand did not.

Participants' exposure to the materials replicated real‐world exposure to cigarette marketing. Posters were placed on the walls to mimic advertising in retail settings. Participants were also given printed information about each brand, designed to mimic direct mail advertisements, and were allowed to view this information throughout the experimental session. These materials included a single poster for each brand that was hung on the wall in proximity to the response operant for that option. The printout was a magazine‐sized version of the brand information. All custom‐made cigarette packs included branding. A study brand questionnaire including details about the brand (e.g., brand name) was completed prior to all sessions, and participants were required to respond to items correctly to proceed to verify attention and understanding. Advertisements were present throughout the experimental session.

Although participants were instructed that each brand was unique (i.e., Triumph or Victor), the actual cigarettes provided to participants were the same commercial brand (i.e., Eagle 20s [Liggett Group, Mebane, NC]) repackaged into new, professionally manufactured cigarette packages that had either greenwashing elements or standard elements. Individual cigarettes lacked distinctive markings or other brand features on cigarettes or filters that would allow for identification. None of the participants reported Eagle 20s as their preferred cigarette brand at screening. This brand was selected as a relatively less common brand unlikely to be identified by participants. Menthol or regular cigarettes were used based on each participant's preference.

Topography sessions

Participants completed two 3‐hr ad lib puffing topography sessions on separate days in which one of the two experimental brands was available. Order of the two sessions was randomized across participants. After confirming the CO breath requirement, participants were free to smoke cigarettes ad lib and in any manner they chose (e.g., depth and timing of inhalations) so long as they smoked the cigarettes through the puff‐topography machine. Puff‐topography measurements were made using a topography instrument developed and manufactured at the American University of Beirut (Hiler et al., 2017; Spindle et al., 2015, 2017), which senses flow‐induced pressure drop across an orifice that is incorporated into the mouthpiece. Primary smoking‐topography measures included average puff volume, average puff duration, average flow rate, and number of puffs. Participants also completed subjective measures of nicotine withdrawal (Questionnaire on Smoking Urges; Cox et al., 2001), perceived health risk of the sampled cigarette (modified from Perceived Health Risk scale in Hatsukami et al., 2016), and tobacco subjective effects and taste. The Perceived Health Risk scale includes 10 physical health items (averaged to a physical health rating score) as well as individual items assessing potential for addiction, overall harm to self, and overall harm to others. Nicotine withdrawal and perceived health risk were collected upon arrival, after advertisement exposure, and at the end of the 3‐hr ad lib period. Tobacco subjective effects and taste were only collected at the end of the 3‐hr ad lib period.

Behavioral economic sessions

Participants completed seven experimental sessions in which both experimental brands were concurrently available at varying fixed‐ratio (FR) prices (i.e., plunger pulls). The operant administration of cigarette puffs was modeled on previous methods (Johnson & Bickel, 2003). During sessions, after confirming the CO breath requirement, the participant took one puff of each type of cigarette. A 3‐hr self‐administration session started 30 minutes after the initial puffs to standardize the time since last smoking across all participants and sessions. Participants were able to then respond on a console with two Lindsley‐type response plungers (Naudé et al., 2024; custom modeled based on Gerbrands No. G6310, Ralph Gerbrands Co., Arlington, MA, USA) horizontally spaced equidistantly along the front of the console. A force of 20 N was required to operate the plunger and register a response. Depending on the response requirement of the session, a certain number of plunger pulls (conveyed to participants before sessions) resulted in controlled self‐administration of a three‐cigarette‐puff bout. Either the left‐ or right‐side plunger was assigned to the greenwashing or standard‐advertised cigarettes in a counterbalanced manner.

Response costs were set at FR 10, FR 100, FR 1,000, or FR 10,000 across sessions. In one session, both types of cigarettes were concurrently available for the same fixed, low price (FR10 or 10 plunger pulls for a bout of three cigarette puffs). In three sessions, the standard cigarettes were available for 10 pulls (FR 10), whereas the cigarettes advertised using greenwashing tactics were concurrently available for 100, 1,000, or 10,000 pulls, and in three sessions, the cigarettes advertised using greenwashing tactics were available for 10 pulls, whereas the standard cigarettes were concurrently available for 100, 1,000, or 10,000 pulls. The order of the seven behavioral economic sessions with different price combinations was randomized for each participant.

Whenever a response requirement was met, the participant was able to smoke three puffs from the earned cigarette type according to a standardized smoking procedure. Specifically, after completion of the required ratio, a 180‐s consumption period began. The computer immediately showed the message “Puff Now” and emitted two tones. The participant then took a new cigarette, lit it without inhaling, put it in the mouthpiece, then inhaled. The mouthpiece measured cigarette puff volume and duration through two vinyl tubes connected to a volumetric low‐pressure transducer. The system provided real‐time feedback to participants on puff volume (mL units). Participants were instructed to aim for 70 mL of inhalation, with a tone presented once 60 mL was inhaled. The 70‐mL volume was selected based on prior standardized puffing protocols (Johnson et al., 2004). The presentation of the tone allowed for appropriate reaction time to cease inhalation around 70 mL. The participant was asked to hold the smoke for 5 s, when the computer emitted two tones, signaling exhale time. A 25‐s interpuff interval then began. After 25 s, “Puff Now” once again appeared and the cycle began again. During each behavioral economic session, mean puff volume was permitted to be between 65 and 75 mL. If participants did not obtain a mean puff volume within this target range, the session was repeated with the same FR value.

Data analysis

Puff‐topography, subjective effect, taste rating, and health risk perception data were summarized from puff‐topography sessions and compared between cigarettes advertised using greenwashing tactics and standard tactics using paired‐samples t tests, with effect sizes summarized as Cohen's d z for paired data. Health risk perception data were summarized as the mean score on all physical health symptoms (e.g., lung cancer, heart disease) for primary analyses. Analyses with individual items are presented in the Supplemental Materials.

Demand data were analyzed for own‐price (i.e., consumption at varying FR price for each cigarette brand) and cross‐commodity data. Our analysis primarily used curve observed or raw value approaches. Although we intended to summarize demand data using field‐standard demand curves (Hursh & Silberberg, 2008; Koffarnus et al., 2015), a significant percentage of participants earned zero cigarettes along the price‐varying response costs (n = 3 for greenwashing cigarettes; n = 9 for standard cigarettes). These responses patterns indicated an exclusive preference for the alternative at all FR prices of the price‐varying option and precluded reliable determination of demand elasticity for own‐price demand. Our primary analysis approach thus used observed demand approaches given these challenges in applying traditional, curve‐fit demand analyses to the acquired data due to the relatively sparse price density (four prices) and high rates of zero responding.

Own‐price demand was first compared for bouts earned at each FR price by advertising tactic with values square‐root transformed for normality. We next evaluated the proportion of cigarette bouts earned at equal concurrent price (i.e., the FR10:FR10 session) relative to indifference of 50% using a one‐sample t test. We then examined cross‐price cigarette purchasing (i.e., ratios completed for the fixed‐price alternative product). First, we computed the curve‐observed value of cross‐product crossover point as defined by Bono et al. (2024). Cross‐product crossover point was defined as the first price point at which a participant reported purchasing a greater quantity of the fixed‐price alternative than the price‐varying product. Next, we calculated slope metrics for each participant using a simple linear regression in which we modeled completed ratios for the alternative (i.e. fixed FR‐10 price) commodity at each ascending price for the primary (price‐manipulated) commodity. Sensitivity analyses using nonlinear cross‐price elasticity modeling are included in the Supplemental Materials.

RESULTS

Puff topography, cigarette subjective effects, and taste

Puff topography, subjective effect, and taste‐rating results are presented in Table 2. No significant differences in total puffs, average puff volume, duration, or flow rate were observed between cigarette advertising types (effect sizes dz  < 0.28). No significant differences in tobacco subjective effects or taste ratings were observed following ad lib consumption. Significant reductions in withdrawal on both QSU subscales were observed after ad lib use (main effects of time; p values < .001); however, this reduction did not differ by cigarette brand (Time × Brand interaction; p values > .52; see Supplemental Figure 1).

TABLE 2.

Puff topography, cigarette subjective effects, and taste ratings.

Greenwashing Standard
Mean SD Mean SD Cohen's dz
Puff topography
Total Puffs 52.97 25.24 49.90 22.35 0.17
Mean Puff Volume (mL) 29.19 17.48 26.41 16.15 0.14
Mean Puff Duration (sec) 1.53 0.30 1.48 0.29 0.28
Mean Flow Rate (mL/sec) 18.98 10.16 18.35 11.33 0.05
Tobacco subjective effects
Any Cigarette Effect 50.74 26.85 39.65 30.70 0.34
Feel a Rush 36.71 30.55 32.26 28.47 0.13
Like Cigarette 54.68 27.28 59.55 26.95 −0.17
Good Effects 53.77 24.47 51.52 27.54 0.09
Bad Effects 39.32 26.86 34.71 29.32 0.15
Drowsy/Sleepy 32.77 28.14 29.74 28.03 0.12
Alert/Energetic 53.00 22.94 52.77 25.81 0.01
Jittery 31.06 26.94 31.16 29.04 0.00
Calm/Relaxed 63.58 24.52 61.10 27.69 0.11
Stimulated 60.74 23.14 55.68 30.30 0.26
Brand taste measure
Overall Like (Effect+Taste) 59.42 28.01 58.00 28.23 0.05
Overall Dislike (Effect+Taste) 33.61 29.74 30.03 28.47 0.10
Like Cigarette 54.48 30.60 58.48 31.58 −0.11
Smoke to Get Effect 46.29 36.26 46.16 33.65 0.00
Smoke for Taste 35.65 31.12 38.39 29.78 −0.08
Taste Good 46.52 31.41 49.52 29.55 −0.08
Taste Bad 37.13 29.98 27.90 28.91 0.25
Strong Taste 51.84 28.36 48.81 27.83 0.13
Sweet 29.58 26.84 30.81 28.12 −0.05
Bitter 32.71 27.81 32.71 26.44 0.00
Open in a new tab

Note: Positive values indicate higher value for greenwashing, and negative values indicate higher ratings for standard‐advertised cigarettes. The Tobacco Subjective Effects and Brand Taste measures were both rated on a 0–100 scale with anchors of Not at All (0) and Extremely (100). Brand Taste Measures included items that specifically requested participants to consider in the context of “taste plus drug effect” (Effect + Taste).

Health risk perceptions

Health risk perception data are included in Supplemental Figure 2, with individual items presented in Supplemental Tables 1 and 2.

After acute advertisement exposure but before ad lib use, participants provided significantly lower ratings of cigarette harm to others for cigarettes advertised using greenwashing than for those using standard advertising tactics (p = .048, dz  = 0.37). However, significant differences in health risk and harm to self were not observed (p > .62). Following ad lib use, participants provided significantly lower ratings of health risk (p = .014, dz  = 0.47), potential for cigarette harm to self (p = .016, dz  = 0.46), and potential for cigarette harm to others (p = .014, dz  = 0.46) for cigarettes using greenwashing than for those using standard advertising tactics. No significant differences were observed in ratings of addiction potential after advertisement exposure or after ad lib use (p values > .27).

Concurrent demand for price‐varying commodity

Figure 2 includes observed demand and cross‐price demand for each advertising type. Figure 3 presents the within‐subject comparison in number of puff bouts earned at each FR price by advertising type. Comparisons at each FR price indicated significantly more puff bouts earned at FR 10 (p = .021, dz  = 0.44) and FR 100 (p = .017, dz  = 0.45) for the cigarettes using greenwashing than for those using standard advertising tactics. Figure 4 presents the percentage of cigarette bouts earned at equal concurrent price (FR10:FR10) when simultaneously available. Participants showed a relative preference for cigarettes using greenwashing over those using standard advertising tactics that was significantly higher than indifference (p = .004, dz  = 0.55).

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Demand and cross‐commodity demand curves. Group mean self‐administrations of cigarette puffs are plotted using double logarithmic coordinates. Instances of zero self‐administrations were replaced with 0.5 for plotting purposes, because zero is undefined in logarithmic coordinates.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Puff bouts earned by session type and price. Presented are cigarette puff bouts earned for each cigarette type at varying FR cost (mean ± SEM). The panel presents within‐person comparisons of the number of puff bouts earned for each cigarette type at each FR price. Overlapping values are depicted by the darker shading of the symbol. Greenwashing advertised cigarette values are presented in the green/circle symbols, whereas standard advertising cigarettes are presented in gray/square symbols.

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Preference for greenwashing cigarettes under concurrent choice. Presented are the percentage of total cigarette bouts earned in the equal price condition (FR10:FR10) that were greenwashing advertised when both cigarette types were simultaneously available. The dotted line presents indifference/equal choice (50%). Mean and 95% confidence intervals are presented as the solid line and error bars.

Cross‐price demand analysis

One participant did not complete the session for maximally priced cigarettes using greenwashing advertising tactics due to a technical error and was excluded from further cross‐price analysis. An additional participant did not complete sufficient ratios in the standard tactic cross‐price arrangement to permit logarithmic transformation (i.e., zeros at three prices). Cross‐product crossover points were higher for cigarettes advertised using standard tactics than for those advertised using greenwashing tactics (p = .001, dz  = 0.71), reflecting greater persistence of consumption for greenwashing‐advertised cigarettes at higher prices (Supplemental Figure 3).

Figure 5 presents best‐fit linear models fit to log10‐transformed individual‐participant cross‐price responding. Linear modeling adequately described ratios completed for the alternative commodity, with goodness‐of‐fit (R 2) values indicating moderate degrees of variance accounted for in ratios completed for standard (M = .49, SD = .33) and greenwashing (M = .46, SD = .29) advertising tactics. Fixed‐price ratios completed for standard cigarettes exhibited a slope (M = 0.05, SD = 0.12) that significantly differed from zero (p = .02, dz  = 0.44) when available concurrently with greenwashing‐advertised cigarettes. Fixed‐price ratios completed for the greenwashing‐advertised cigarettes exhibited a slope (M = 0.03, SD = 0.09) that did not significantly differ from zero (p = .12, dz  = 0.29) when available concurrently with standard cigarettes. There was no significant difference in the slope of fixed‐price purchasing across purchasing conditions (p = .39, dz  = 0.16).

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Open in a new tab

Best fit linear models for cross‐price ratios completed. Presented are cross‐price elasticity measures fit on a log–log space. Presented are individual subject fits for greenwashing (left panel) and standard (right panel) cigarettes using a linear regression approach.

Study purpose and demand characteristics

Demand characteristics (i.e., aspects of the experiment that may lead participants to infer the research purpose and alter their behavior) were evaluated in open‐ended responses at the end of the study. Few participants identified natural or greenwashing advertising tactics as a primary focus of the study (n = 2; e.g., “I believe researchers in this study were trying to measure/understand how much organic or nature‐y visuality (Triumph) affects the preference of tobacco”). A greater number of participants identified differences in tobacco use by brand or advertising generally as a purpose of the study (n = 10; e.g., “which cigarettes were more attractive based on the ads and tastes of the different cigarettes”). No differences were observed in greenwashing preference or number of greenwashing bouts earned at a low price based on identification of advertising as a purpose of the study (Supplemental Figure 4). No participants indicated that they believed the two brands were the same cigarette brand.

DISCUSSION

The primary finding of the current study was that cigarettes advertised using greenwashing tactics were preferred relative to those advertised using standard marketing tactics. Notably, these differences in consumption were observed when applying behavioral economic methods but not during simple ad lib sessions, emphasizing the importance of behavioral economics for evaluating relative reinforcing effects. This behavioral preference was accompanied by modest reductions in perceptions of the risk of greenwashing relative to standard‐advertised cigarettes, with no differences in puff topography or subjective effects observed between brands. These findings indicate that greenwashing tactics may increase the relative reinforcing effects of cigarettes particularly when available at low prices similar to those of cigarettes advertised using standard tactics.

Behavioral economic demand methods provide a comprehensive means to evaluate relative reinforcing effects including relative preference, sensitivity to price, and cross‐commodity relations (Johnson & Bickel, 2006; Tidey et al., 2016). These methods including demand procedures and conceptually related discounting procedures have proven useful in other venues for understanding the influence of environmental framing on decision making to inform public policy (e.g., Berry et al., 2017; Kaplan et al., 2018; Gelino et al., 2023; Hack et al., 2023). Differences across the varying behavioral mechanisms described by demand procedures provide concrete means for determining the sum influence of policy changes and the targets most likely effective for inducing behavioral change. Here we found that greenwashing advertising exacted a robust influence on demand intensity such that greenwashing‐advertised cigarettes were preferred over standard‐advertised cigarettes at the minimal price (FR 10). Notably, cigarettes advertised using both greenwashing and standard tactics showed high sensitivity to price in the context of a fixed‐price, lower price alternative, suggesting that the strongest influence of greenwashing tactics on preference likely occurs when these products are similarly priced in a marketplace.

This framework also allowed us to evaluate cigarette interactions via cross‐price elasticity, thus informing the degree to which people may pay more for greenwashing‐advertised cigarettes even if standard‐advertised cigarettes were available at a lower price. We found that both cigarette brands showed positive cross‐price elasticities, suggesting substitution. Although only the greenwashing advertised cigarette condition yielded slope values that were significantly different from zero, comparison of cross‐price responding between conditions revealed no significant differences, indicating that substitution patterns did not reliably differ by product type. These findings indicate that standard‐advertised cigarettes could serve as effective substitutes for those advertised using greenwashing tactics under conditions of increasing price. These data therefore suggest that greenwashing brand preference is highly sensitive to price and that policy to remove or restrict greenwashing advertising may not necessarily reduce cigarette purchasing among all established tobacco consumers.

Greenwashing advertisements also resulted in significantly lower ratings of health risk, potential for cigarette harm to self, and potential for cigarette harm to others relative to standard advertisements. This reduction in perceived risk is consistent with our prior study using this specific set of greenwashing tactics (Moran et al., 2025) and studies evaluating real‐world advertisements from American Spirit and others (Epperson, Averett, et al., 2019; Epperson, Lambin, et al., 2019; Epperson et al., 2021; Gratale et al., 2018; Iles et al., 2021). These findings suggest altered health risk perception as a mechanism underlying the relative preference observed in the behavioral economic data. We did not observe significant differences in either puff‐topography measures or subjective effects of tobacco, although puff‐topography measures did favor a nonsignificant increase in puff duration for the greenwashing brand, with a small effect size. The lack of brand differences observed in subjective effect and brand taste measures further emphasize the stronger relative rather than absolute effects of the greenwashing advertisements. Specifically, this and prior work (Moran et al., 2025) found that the strongest evidence for greenwashing advertising inaccurately conveying modified product risk and engendering preference is observed when evaluating risk relative to standard‐advertised cigarettes (i.e., relative risk) rather than when considering risk in isolation of other products (i.e., absolute risk).

Limitations of the current work can indicate directions for further investigation of greenwashing tactics, specifically, and marketing influence, broadly. Our behavioral economic procedure focused on demand when both cigarette brands were concurrently available. This design feature means that we cannot determine true own‐price demand for each brand (i.e., demand when that product is exclusively available). This design feature partly explains the difficulty in determining demand elasticity values at the individual level given that a substantial number of participants showed exclusive preference for one brand (and thus zero demand at all prices for the alternative). Offsetting this limitation, however, is the recognition that concurrent access better models real‐world marketplaces consistent with other designs from tobacco regulatory science research that incorporate multiple tobacco products (e.g., the Experimental Tobacco Marketplace; Bickel et al., 2018). Another limitation is that we studied an entourage of different tactics (e.g., text, paper style, imagery), eliminating the possibility of determining which of these domains or which variations within them accounted for the observed differences. Relatedly, we also did not collect in‐depth measures of response and reaction to advertisements (e.g., eye‐tracking data; Lochbuehler et al., 2016; Strasser et al., 2012), which could have provided insights regarding the most relevant features of the advertisements. This was done in part to mitigate potential demand characteristics related to study design and the identification of and emphasis on study purpose. Poststudy data demonstrated relative success to this end, with very few participants identifying the exact study purpose and minimal differences in primary outcomes based on identification of advertising as a primary purpose. Finally, we used a standardized 70‐mL puff for demand sessions that was higher than the average puff observed during ad lib periods. This divergence from ad lib consumption volume means that the puff volume in demand sessions may have been considered aversive for some participants. Offsetting this limitation is the fact that the same inhalation requirement was in place for all brands, meaning that any aversive effects would have equally applied across conditions, thus limiting a disproportionate influence on the experimental manipulation of advertising tactic.

These data add to other work that identifies greenwashing tactics as inaccurately conveying modified product risk as well as a direct influence on preference for these cigarettes in an experimental behavioral design. These data showing behavioral differences in smoking based on relatively subtle greenwashing tactics (e.g., not explicit use of the word “natural”) suggest that it will be challenging to specify in regulation all aspects of greenwashing that could influence consumers. Eliminating such potential might require more drastic regulation such as restriction of any graphics and other plain package requirements. More broadly, these data underscore previous arguments (Moran et al., 2025) that piecemeal regulations, in which specific terms are restricted, may fail to adequately protect consumers in light of the tobacco industry's ability to quickly pivot advertising following FDA rulemaking.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

JCS, GPN, BWG, JT, LC, MBM, and MWJ developed study design and measures. GPN, BWG, RDS, and JCH contributed to data collection. JCS drafted the initial draft of the manuscript with feedback from other authors.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

No conflicts of interest directly relevant to the conducted research are present. JCS has received research related funding from Canopy Growth Corporation and DynamiCare Health and consulting fees from Merck Corporation in the past three years. MWJ has served as consultant to AJNA Labs, Beckley Psychedelic Ltd., Clarion Clinics, MindMed, Negev Capital, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, and Reunion Neurosciences.

ETHICS APPROVAL

All participants completed informed consent prior to screening, and study procedures were approved by the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board.

Supporting information

Data S1: Supporting Information

JEAB-126-0-s001.docx (242.9KB, docx)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank David Cox, Sean Dolan, Nick Pfeiff, and nursing staff at the Behavioral Pharmacology Research Unit or assistance in data collection.

Strickland, J. C. , Naudé, G. P. , Gelino, B. W. , Schlitzer, R. D. , Harbaugh, J. C. , Thrul, J. , Czaplicki, L. , Moran, M. B. , & Johnson, M. W. (2026). Effects of cigarette greenwashing advertising on behavioral economic demand, puff topography, and health risk perception. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 126(2), e70133. 10.1002/jeab.70133

Guest Editor‐in‐Chief: Roberta Freitas Lemos

Guest Academic Editor: Katelyn Carr

In Memoriam of Warren K. Bickel – Contributions to Behavioral Economics, Decision‐Making, and Addiction Science

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data are available upon request.

REFERENCES

  1. Berry, M. S. , Nickerson, N. P. , & Odum, A. L. (2017). Delay discounting as an index of sustainable behavior: Devaluation of future air quality and implications for public health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(9), Article 997. 10.3390/ijerph14090997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bickel, W. K. , DeGrandpre, R. J. , & Higgins, S. T. (1993). Behavioral economics: A novel experimental approach to the study of drug dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 33(2), 173–192. 10.1016/0376-8716(93)90059-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bickel, W. K. , DeGrandpre, R. J. , Hughes, J. R. , & Higgins, S. T. (1991). Behavioral economics of drug self‐administration. II. A unit‐price analysis of cigarette smoking. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55(2), 145–154. 10.1901/jeab.1991.55-145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bickel, W. K. , & Madden, G. J. (1999). A comparison of measures of relative reinforcing efficacy and behavioral economics: Cigarettes and money in smokers. Behavioural Pharmacology, 10(6), 627–638. 10.1097/00008877-199911000-00009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bickel, W. K. , Madden, G. J. , & DeGrandpre, R. (1997). Modeling the effects of combined behavioral and pharmacological treatment on cigarette smoking: Behavioral‐economic analyses. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 5(4), Article 334. 10.1037//1064-1297.5.4.334 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bickel, W. K. , Pope, D. A. , Kaplan, B. A. , DeHart, W. B. , Koffarnus, M. N. , & Stein, J. S. (2018). Electronic cigarette substitution in the experimental tobacco marketplace: A review. Preventive Medicine, 117, 98–106. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.04.026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bono, R. S. , White, A. M. , Hoetger, C. , Lipato, T. , Bickel, W. K. , Cobb, C. O. , & Barnes, A. J. (2024). Expanding on cross‐price elasticity: Understanding tobacco product demand and substitution from the cross‐price purchase task. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 121(2), 175–188. 10.1002/jeab.890 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cox, L. S. , Tiffany, S. T. , & Christen, A. G. (2001). Evaluation of the brief questionnaire of smoking urges (QSU‐brief) in laboratory and clinical settings. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 3(1), 7–16. 10.1080/14622200020032051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. DeHart, W. B. , Kaplan, B. A. , Pope, D. A. , Mellis, A. M. , & Bickel, W. K. (2019). The experimental tobacco marketplace: Narrative influence on electronic cigarette substitution. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 27(2), 115–124. 10.1037/pha0000233 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. DeHart, W. B. , Mellis, A. M. , Kaplan, B. A. , Pope, D. A. , & Bickel, W. K. (2019). The Experimental Tobacco Marketplace: Narratives engage cognitive biases to increase electronic cigarette substitution. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 197, 203–211. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.01.020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Epperson, A. E. , Averett, P. E. , Blanchflower, T. , Gregory, K. R. , & Lee, J. G. (2019). “The packaging is very inviting and makes smokers feel like they're more safe”: The meanings of Natural American Spirit cigarette pack design to adult smokers. Health Education & Behavior, 46(2), 260–266. 10.1177/1090198118820099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Epperson, A. E. , Lambin, E. F. , Henriksen, L. , Baiocchi, M. , Flora, J. A. , & Prochaska, J. J. (2019). Natural American Spirit's pro‐environment packaging and perceptions of reduced‐harm cigarettes. Preventive Medicine, 126, Article 105782. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105782 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Epperson, A. E. , Wong, S. , Lambin, E. F. , Henriksen, L. , Baiocchi, M. , Flora, J. A. , & Prochaska, J. J. (2021). Adolescents' health perceptions of Natural American Spirit's on‐the‐pack eco‐friendly campaign. Journal of Adolescent Health, 68(3), 604–611. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.06.033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ganz, O. , Delnevo, C. D. , & Lewis, M. J. (2020). Following in the footsteps of Natural American Spirit: The emergence of Manitou cigarettes. Tobacco Control, 29(e1), e165–e167. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-055614 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gelino, B. W. , Kaplan, B. A. , & Reed, D. D. (2023). A behavioral economic analysis of carbon‐neutral home energy enrollment. Behavior and Social Issues, 32(2), 517–533. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gratale, S. K. , Maloney, E. K. , & Cappella, J. N. (2019). Regulating language, not inference: An examination of the potential effectiveness of Natural American Spirit advertising restrictions. Tobacco Control, 28(e1), e43–e48. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054707 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gratale, S. K. , Maloney, E. K. , Sangalang, A. , & Cappella, J. N. (2018). Influence of Natural American Spirit advertising on current and former smokers' perceptions and intentions. Tobacco Control, 27(5), 498–504. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053881 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hack, G. O. , DeLeon, I. G. , Bonner, A. C. , Weinsztok, S. C. , Dallery, J. , & Berry, M. S. (2023). Framing effects on hypothetical use of public transportation: A time cost demand analysis. Behavior and Social Issues, 32(2), 534–559. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hatsukami, D. K. , Vogel, R. , Severson, H. H. , Jensen, J. A. , & O'Connor, R. J. (2016). Perceived health risks of snus and medicinal nicotine products. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 18(5), 794–800. 10.1093/ntr/ntv200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hiler, M. , Breland, A. , Spindle, T. , Maloney, S. , Lipato, T. , Karaoghlanian, N. , & Eissenberg, T. (2017). Electronic cigarette user plasma nicotine concentration, puff topography, heart rate, and subjective effects: Influence of liquid nicotine concentration and user experience. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 25(5), 380–392. 10.1037/pha0000140 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Houghton, F. , Houghton, S. , O'Doherty, D. , McInerney, D. , & Duncan, B. (2018). ‘Greenwashing'tobacco products through ecological and social/equity labelling: A potential threat to tobacco control. Tobacco Prevention & Cessation, 4, Article 37. 10.18332/tpc/99674 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hursh, S. R. (1984). Behavioral economics. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42(3), 435–452. 10.1901/jeab.1984.42-435 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hursh, S. R. , & Roma, P. G. (2013). Behavioral economics and empirical public policy. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 99(1), 98–124. 10.1002/jeab.7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hursh, S. R. , & Silberberg, A. (2008). Economic demand and essential value. Psychological Review, 115(1), 186–198. 10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ibrahim, M. , Moran, M. B. , Czaplicki, L. , Kennedy, R. D. , Tfayli, D. , Naude, G. P. , Strickland, J. C. , & Johnson, M. W. (2026). A descriptive content analysis of greenwashing tactics used in U.S. cigarette advertisements between 2019‐2023. Tobacco Prevention & Cessation, 30, Article 12. 10.18332/tpc/213722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Iles, I. A. , Pearson, J. L. , Lindblom, E. , & Moran, M. B. (2021). “Tobacco and water”: Testing the health halo effect of Natural American Spirit cigarette ads and its relationship with perceived absolute harm and use intentions. Health Communication, 36(7), 804–815. 10.1080/10410236.2020.1712526 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Johnson, M. W. , & Bickel, W. K. (2003). The behavioral economics of cigarette smoking: The concurrent presence of a substitute and an independent reinforcer. Behavioural Pharmacology, 14(2), 137–144. 10.1097/01.fbp.0000063266.43827.42 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Johnson, M. W. , & Bickel, W. K. (2006). Replacing relative reinforcing efficacy with behavioral economic demand curves. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85(1), 73–93. 10.1097/00008877-200303000-00005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Johnson, M. W. , Bickel, W. K. , & Kirshenbaum, A. P. (2004). Substitutes for tobacco smoking: A behavioral economic analysis of nicotine gum, denicotinized cigarettes, and nicotine‐containing cigarettes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 74(3), 253–264. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2003.12.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Johnson, M. W. , Johnson, P. S. , Rass, O. , & Pacek, L. R. (2017). Behavioral economic substitutability of e‐cigarettes, tobacco cigarettes, and nicotine gum. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 31(7), 851–860. 10.1177/0269881117711921 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kaplan, B. A. , Gelino, B. W. , & Reed, D. D. (2018). A behavioral economic approach to green consumerism: Demand for reusable shopping bags. Behavior and Social Issues, 27(1), 20–30. [Google Scholar]
  32. Koffarnus, M. N. , Franck, C. T. , Stein, J. S. , & Bickel, W. K. (2015). A modified exponential behavioral economic demand model to better describe consumption data. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 23(6), 504–512. 10.1037/pha0000045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Leas, E. C. , Ayers, J. W. , Strong, D. R. , & Pierce, J. P. (2017). Which cigarettes do Americans think are safer? A population‐based analysis with wave 1 of the PATH study. Tobacco Control, 26(e1), e59–e60. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053334 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lochbuehler, K. , Tang, K. Z. , Souprountchouk, V. , Campetti, D. , Cappella, J. N. , Kozlowski, L. T. , & Strasser, A. A. (2016). Using eye‐tracking to examine how embedding risk corrective statements improves cigarette risk beliefs: Implications for tobacco regulatory policy. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 164, 97–105. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.04.031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Moran, M. , & Pearson, J. (2019). A pilot test of consumer harm perceptions in response to Natural American Spirit advertising. Tobacco Regulatoryl Science, 5(4), 360–368. [Google Scholar]
  36. Moran, M. B. , Heley, K. , Baldwin, K. , Xiao, C. , Lin, V. , & Pierce, J. P. (2019). Selling tobacco: A comprehensive analysis of the US tobacco advertising landscape. Addictive Behaviors, 96, 100–109. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.04.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Moran, M. B. , Ibrahim, M. , Czaplicki, L. , Pearson, J. , Thrul, J. , Lindblom, E. , & Johnson, M. (2025). Greenwashed cigarette ad text and imagery produce inaccurate harm, addictiveness, and nicotine content perceptions: Results from a randomized online experiment. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 27(2), 271–281. 10.1093/ntr/ntae200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Naudé, G. P. , Strickland, J. C. , Berry, M. S. , Dolan, S. B. , Cox, D. J. , & Johnson, M. W. (2024). Experience with reduced‐nicotine cigarettes and whether this decreases smoking and substitution for full‐nicotine cigarettes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 122(3), 282–296. 10.1002/jeab.4223 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. O'Gara, E. , D'Silva, J. , Weiger, C. , Villaluz, N. T. , Piedra, W. , & Moran, M. B. (2019). Restricting “Natural” and “Additive‐free”: Did FDA's Agreement with Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company change advertising for Natural American Spirit? Tobacco Regulatory Science, 5(4), 332–338. [Google Scholar]
  40. Pearson, J. , Giovenco, D. P. , Lewis, M. J. , Moran, M. , & Ganz, O. (2023). Natural American Spirit launches ‘Sky’, the brand's first commercial organic cigarette with a charcoal filter. Tobacco Control, 32(3), 397–399. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056731 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Pearson, J. L. , Johnson, A. , Villanti, A. , Glasser, A. M. , Collins, L. , Cohn, A. , & Stanton, C. A. (2017). Misperceptions of harm among Natural American Spirit smokers: Results from wave 1 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study (2013–2014). Tobacco Control, 26(e1), e61–e67. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Pearson, J. L. , Watanabe, M. , Sanchez, J. , Mann, S. , Drake, C. , & Mercincavage, M. (2022). The “organic” descriptor and its association with commercial cigarette health risk expectancies, subjective effects, and smoking topography: A pilot human laboratory study. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 24(1), 69–76. 10.1093/ntr/ntab151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Pope, D. A. , Poe, L. , Stein, J. S. , Kaplan, B. A. , Heckman, B. W. , Epstein, L. H. , & Bickel, W. K. (2019). Experimental tobacco marketplace: Substitutability of e‐cigarette liquid for cigarettes as a function of nicotine strength. Tobacco Control, 28(2), 206–211. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Spindle, T. R. , Breland, A. B. , Karaoghlanian, N. V. , Shihadeh, A. L. , & Eissenberg, T. (2015). Preliminary results of an examination of electronic cigarette user puff topography: The effect of a mouthpiece‐based topography measurement device on plasma nicotine and subjective effects. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 17(2), 142–149. 10.1093/ntr/ntu186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Spindle, T. R. , Hiler, M. M. , Breland, A. B. , Karaoghlanian, N. V. , Shihadeh, A. L. , & Eissenberg, T. (2017). The influence of a mouthpiece‐based topography measurement device on electronic cigarette user's plasma nicotine concentration, heart rate, and subjective effects under directed and ad libitum use conditions. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 19(4), 469–476. 10.1093/ntr/ntw174 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Strasser, A. A. , Tang, K. Z. , Romer, D. , Jepson, C. , & Cappella, J. N. (2012). Graphic warning labels in cigarette advertisements: Recall and viewing patterns. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43(1), 41–47. 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.02.026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Tidey, J. W. , Cassidy, R. N. , Miller, M. E. , & Smith, T. T. (2016). Behavioral economic laboratory research in tobacco regulatory science. Tobacco Regulatory Science, 2(4), 440–451. 10.18001/TRS.2.4.13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Data S1: Supporting Information

JEAB-126-0-s001.docx (242.9KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon request.

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES