Information and sin goods: Experimental evidence on cigarettes

Maclean, Johanna Catherine; Buckell, John

doi:10.1002/hec.4189

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 85 publications

(98 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the literature has shown that it is difficult to debias beliefs [27,28], there is evidence that perceptions of e-cigarettes change over time [29,30]. Changes in perceptions may be due to experiences [23][24][25], marketing [10], message framing [31] or federal or changes in state policy [32,33]. Policy changes and enforcement at the state and Federal levels to ban e-cigarettes in key flavors, tax e-cigarettes and ban sales to those under 21 years of age may indirectly aid in the debiasing of perceptions.…”

Section: Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who, me? Optimism bias about US teenagers’ ability to quit vaping

Strombotne

Sindelar²,

Buckell

2021

Addiction

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims The vaping rate among US teenagers has doubled in the last 2 years, which may be explained in part by teenagers’ optimism that they would have relatively little trouble in quitting. The aim of this study was to estimate the extent to which teenagers exhibited optimism bias, what characteristics are associated with optimism bias and which factors are related to respondents’ perceptions of how hard it would be for them to quit. Design A national, on‐line, cross‐sectional survey in 2018 using quota sampling. Setting United States. Participants Respondents were 1610 teenagers aged 14–18 years who had ever tried or heard of JUULs or e‐cigarettes generally. Measurements Optimism bias was defined as respondents’ perceptions of their own difficulty quitting vaping compared with that of an average US person of their own age. Linear regression was used to examine associations between respondents’ characteristics with both optimism bias and their own perceived difficulty quitting vaping. Findings More than 60% of teenagers were optimistically biased about their ability to quit vaping. Smoking (b = −0.69, P < 0.01) and JUULing (b = −0.62, P < 0.01) were negatively associated with optimism bias but reduced‐price school lunch eligibility (0.27, P = 0.02) and school satisfaction were positively associated (b = 0.05, P = 0.02). Smoking (b = 0.85, P < 0.01) was associated with an increased perception of the difficulty of quitting. That association was negative for black respondents (b = −0.81, P = 0.01) and those eligible for reduced‐priced lunches (b = −0.48, P = 0.01), and positive for Hispanic respondents (b = 0.47, P = 0.04). Conclusions On average, US teenagers appear to show optimism bias about their ability to quit vaping, which decreases with smoking and vaping and increases with eligibility for reduced‐price school lunches.

show abstract

Section: Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who, me? Optimism bias about US teenagers’ ability to quit vaping

Strombotne

Sindelar²,

Buckell

2021

Addiction

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Can social media encourage diabetes self-screenings? A randomized controlled trial with Indonesian Facebook users

Fritz,

Grimm,

Weber

et al. 2024

npj Digit. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nudging individuals without obvious symptoms of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) to undergo a health screening remains a challenge, especially in middle-income countries, where NCD awareness is low but the incidence is high. We assess whether an awareness campaign implemented on Facebook can encourage individuals in Indonesia to undergo an online diabetes self-screening. We use Facebook’s advertisement function to randomly distribute graphical ads related to the risk and consequences of diabetes. Depending on their risk score, participants receive a recommendation to undergo a professional screening. We were able to reach almost 300,000 individuals in only three weeks. More than 1400 individuals completed the screening, inducing costs of about US$0.75 per person. The two ads labeled “diabetes consequences” and “shock” outperform all other ads. A follow-up survey shows that many high-risk respondents have scheduled a professional screening. A cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that our campaign can diagnose an additional person with diabetes for about US$9.

show abstract