↓ Skip to main content

Influence of premium vs masked cigarette brand names on the experienced taste of a cigarette after tobacco plain packaging in Australia: an experimental study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
26 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Influence of premium vs masked cigarette brand names on the experienced taste of a cigarette after tobacco plain packaging in Australia: an experimental study
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5200-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gemma Skaczkowski, Sarah Durkin, Yoshihisa Kashima, Melanie Wakefield

Abstract

Few studies have experimentally assessed the contribution of branding to the experience of smoking a cigarette, compared with the inherent properties of the product. This study examined the influence of cigarette brand name on the sensory experience of smoking a cigarette. Seventy-five Australian smokers aged 18-39 years smoked two 'premium' cigarettes, one with the brand variant name shown and one with the brand variant name masked (which provided 'objective' ratings). Unknown to participants, the two cigarettes were identical. At recruitment, participants rated their expected enjoyment, quality and harshness of several premium cigarette brands. Branded cigarettes were rated as having a significantly more favorable taste (M(SE) = 64.14(2.21)) than masked cigarettes (M(SE) = 58.53(2.26), p = .031). Branded cigarettes were also rated as being less stale (M(SE) = 36.04(2.62)) than masked cigarettes (M(SE) = 43.90(2.60), p = .011). Purchase intent tended to be higher among those shown the branded cigarette compared to the masked cigarette (χ2 (1) = 3.00, p = .083). Expected enjoyment and quality of the brand variant (enjoyment: b = 0.31, 95%CI = 0.11, 0.51, p < .01; quality: b = 0.46, 95%CI = 0.21, 0.72, p < .01) contributed to the perceived smoking experience more than the objective enjoyment and quality of the cigarette (enjoyment: b = 0.23, 95%CI = 0.05, 0.41, p < .05; quality: b = 0.08, 95%CI = - 0.13, 0.30, p > .05). This pattern was not observed for cigarette harshness. A premium brand variant name can enhance the subjective experience of a cigarette. Further, smokers' expectations of such brand variants contribute to the smoking experience as much, if not more than, the actual qualities of the product.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 14 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Psychology 3 8%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 17 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,459,249
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,677
of 17,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,778
of 351,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#49
of 325 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,796 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,484 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 325 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.