Table 4.
Difference between ratings of actual premium and value cigarettes on Taste, sensory or variant measures, draw effort and purchase intent when the brand name on the pack is ignored
| Rating* | Actual premium cigarette (n=40) (mean (SE))† |
Actual value cigarette (n=41) (mean (SE))† |
Unadjusted model | Adjusted model‡ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taste (bad—good) | 55.99 (2.23) | 60.33 (2.20) | F(1,79)=2.32, p=0.132, ηp2=0.03 | F(1,77)=1.91, p=0.171, ηp2=0.02 |
| Sensory measures | ||||
| Harshness (smooth—harsh) | 52.60 (3.46) | 47.42 (3.40) | F(1,79)=1.48, p=0.227, ηp2=0.02 | F(1,77)=1.13, p=0.291, ηp2=0.01 |
| Dryness (moist—dry) | 56.29 (2.58) | 59.30 (2.54) | F(1,79)=1.04, p=0.310, ηp2=0.01 | F(1,77)=0.68, p=0.411, ηp2=0.01 |
| Staleness (fresh—stale) | 47.91 (3.29) | 49.54 (3.24) | F(1,79)=0.16, p=0.688, ηp2=0.00 | F(1,77)=0.12, p=0.726, ηp2=0.00 |
| Variant measures | ||||
| Tar (low—high) | 51.87 (2.07) | 47.56 (2.04) | F(1,79)=1.71, p=0.194, ηp2=0.02 | F(1,77)=2.18, p=0.144, ηp2=0.03 |
| Strength (weak—strong) | 53.75 (2.48) | 57.14 (2.44) | F(1,79)=1.19, p=0.278, ηp2=0.02 | F(1,77)=0.94, p=0.335, ηp2=0.01 |
| Volume (low—full) | 53.72 (2.62) | 52.52 (2.57) | F(1,79)=0.01, p=0.939, ηp2=0.00 | F(1,77)=0.11, p=0.745, ηp2=0.00 |
| Lightness (heavy—light) | 46.10 (2.57) | 50.17 (2.53) | F(1,79)=1.20, p=0.277, ηp2=0.02 | F(1,77)=1.26, p=0.265, ηp2=0.02 |
| Draw effort (easy—hard) | 43.32 (3.04) | 40.50 (2.99) | F(1,79)=0.42, p=0.520, ηp2=0.01 | F(1,77)=0.43, p=0.513, ηp2=0.01 |
| Purchase intent (unlikely—likely) | 52.76 (3.35) | 59.51 (3.30) | F(1,79)=2.63, p=0.109, ηp2=0.03 | F(1,77)=2.05, p=0.157, ηp2=0.03 |
*Ratings for each cigarette have been averaged across the apparent premium and value brand name conditions.
†Estimates are taken from the adjusted model.
‡Analyses controlled for pack order and the difference in number of puffs between the premium and value pack.
ηp2, partial eta squared.