Development of measures assessing attitudes toward contraband tobacco among a web-based sample of smokers
© Adkison et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015
Received: 12 September 2014
Accepted: 15 March 2015
Published: 27 March 2015
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.
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.
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.
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.
As taxes on tobacco products have increased, tax avoidance behaviors among smokers may also increase [1-5] and larger scale tax evasion schemes such as smuggling may become more prevalent. Thus, an international protocol to control the illicit trade of tobacco, focusing on the supply chain, has been negotiated as part of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (http://www.who.int/fctc/protocol/about/en/). However, taxes may not be the sole influence on contraband tobacco use. As regulation of tobacco products tightens, concerns have also been expressed that illicit markets may develop to supply restricted products (e.g., menthol cigarettes) [6,7]. Therefore, it is important to generate knowledge about what characteristics are associated with people who purchase and use contraband tobacco products in order to mitigate possible iatrogenic consequences of newly implemented regulations. For purposes of the current article, contraband tobacco is defined as tobacco that has been obtained outside the regulated supply chain, purchased without appropriate taxation, and/or tobacco sought out to avoid local or state taxes (e.g. purchase on an Indian reservation among non-natives).
Background and conceptual model
While the scientific literature on contraband tobacco has examined prevalence of, attitudes toward, and correlates of contraband tobacco use [8-11], this literature has been limited by a dearth of validated measures . Previous literature seeking to understand purchase intentions for contraband tobacco outline some economic indicators. These include how perceived product quality and price are associated with purchase intentions; [13,14] however, research has not evaluated how social elements may also contribute to attitudes toward contraband tobacco and purchase intentions. Greater understanding of these influences is needed. Some non-tobacco contraband/counterfeit literature examines personal and interpersonal factors that promote or inhibit attitudes toward these products that could be applied to the contraband tobacco issue. Examples of these non-tobacco contraband/counterfeit products include pirated cd’s, handbags, and pharmaceuticals.
H1: Consumers who perceive that a higher priced product is associated with a better quality product (price quality) will have less favorable attitudes toward contraband tobacco and these attitudes will mediate the relationship between price quality and behavioral intentions.
H2: Consumers who perceive that the risk (perceived risk) associated with counterfeit/contraband products, in general, is high will have less favorable attitudes toward contraband tobacco and these attitudes will mediate the relationship between perceived risk and behavioral intentions
H3: Consumers who are prefer to avoid taking risks (risk averseness) when making purchases will have less favorable attitudes toward contraband tobacco and these attitudes will mediate the relationship between risk averseness and behavioral intentions.
Demographic characteristics by contraband tobacco purchase
N (% sample)
p < .000
p < .031
p = .003
p = .223
p = .128
Social norms and personality factors
H4: Consumers who have high levels of integrity will have less favorable attitudes toward contraband tobacco and these attitudes will mediate the relationship between integrity and behavioral intentions
H5: Consumers who value personal gratification will have less favorable attitudes toward contraband tobacco and these attitudes will mediate the relationship between personal gratification and behavioral intentions
H6: Consumers who perceive their significant others (subjective norms) would approve of the behavior will have more favorable attitudes toward contraband tobacco and these attitudes will mediate the relationship between subjective norms and behavioral intentions
H7: Having previously purchased contraband tobacco will be associated with more favorable attitudes toward contraband tobacco and behavioral intentions.
H8: Consumers with positive attitudes about contraband tobacco will have more favorable attitudes toward contraband tobacco higher behavioral intentions to purchase contraband products.
In May 2013, a pilot survey was developed to assess attitudes, behaviors, and purchase intentions for contraband tobacco based on previous research regarding non-tobacco contraband . The survey was administered using the Qualtrics web survey platform via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a crowdsourcing resource. Crowdsourcing refers to the outsourcing of tasks to a large pool of individuals over the Internet in return for compensation and has been utilized (MTurk in particular) for a variety of academic social science research, where it has been shown to be a reliable and useful approach to data collection . Furthermore, because of the large and diverse pool of MTurk workers, data is generated among a diverse sample [24-26] in a fast , inexpensive , and reliable way [24,28].
The study sample was limited to MTurk workers who were current smokers age 18 and older and lived in either the United States or Canada. Respondents first completed an informed consent and were then administered screening questions to assess whether they were qualified to complete the task. Smoking status was determined by a single question asking if the participant had smoked one or more cigarettes in the past 30 days. Respondents were compensated $1 USD for completing the 20 minute survey. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Roswell Park Cancer Institute.
For this research, contraband tobacco is defined as tobacco obtained outside regulated wholesale and retail channels, bought without the requisite taxes applied (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/tobac-tabac/tobacco-tabac-strat-2008-eng.htm), or purchased to avoid paying required taxes. Investigators have used an array of questions to estimate this behavior, so we used existing survey items and applied a relatively broad definition of contraband to capture as many smokers open to contraband use as possible, to have a sufficiently large sample to validate the measures. Respondents were classified as having purchased contraband tobacco if they responded “yes” to any of the 5 following questions: “Have you personally ever purchased contraband tobacco,” “In the past six months, have you regularly bought cigarettes outside the US (for US respondents)/in the US (for Canadians), “In the past 12 months, have you bought cigarettes that you think may have been smuggled or stolen,” “Have you EVER purchased cigarettes on an Indian Reservation/from a First Nations Reserve (among non-Indian respondents),” or “Have you EVER purchased cigarettes from a non-retail source, such as out of a person’s home, out a person’s vehicle, or from someone on the street?”
Marlowe-crowne social desirability scale
The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS) has been used widely to assess social desirability bias among respondents. Because in some instances we were asking about illicit behaviors, respondents were also administered the full 33 item MCSDS to assess possible social desirability bias. Scale scores were classified into three levels: low, medium, high . We hypothesized that those showing high social desirability bias may underreport contraband purchase behaviors and related attitudes.
Indicators of contraband tobacco purchase/use
Six scales were adopted from research on attitudes toward non-tobacco contraband products to assess their usefulness for evaluating intended purchase or use of contraband tobacco. The scale items are presented in Table 2 along with the means and standard deviations.a One 5-item scale was specifically adapted to assess attitudes regarding contraband tobacco.
Means, Standard Deviations, and T-Tests of items by contraband tobacco purchase status (N = 483)
Generally speaking, the higher the price of a product, the higher the quality
t(481) = 1.75, p = 0.08
The price of a product is a good indicator of its quality
t(481) = 0.55, p = 0.58
You always have to pay a bit more for the best
t(481) = 1.34, p = 0.18
When I buy something, I prefer not taking risks
t(481) = -1.88, p = 0.06
I like to be sure the product is a good one before buying it
t(481) = -1.55, p = 0.12
I don’t like to feel uncertainty when I buy something
t(481) = -2.85, p < 0.01
Subjective norm (Ajzen, 1991 [ 37 ] ) α = 0.915
My relatives and friends approve my decision to buy counterfeited products
t(481) = -4.17, p < 0.00
My relative and friends think that I should buy counterfeited products
t(371.34) = -3.57, p < 0.00
Behavioral intentions (Zeithaml et al., 1996 [ 38 ] ) α = 0.939
Considering today, what are the chances that you…
…think about a counterfeited product as a choice when buying something
t(382.24) = -5.90, p < 0.00
…buy a counterfeited product
t(359.22) = -6.29, p < 0.00
…recommend to friends and relatives that they buy a counterfeited product
t(346.60) = -5.42, p < 0.00
…say favorable things about counterfeited products
t(352.21) = -5.51, p < 0.00
Perceived risk (Dowling and Staelin, 1994 ) α = 0.766
The risk that I take when I buy a counterfeited product is high
t(382.84) = -3.95, p < 0.00
There is high probability that the product doesn’t work
t(370.79) = -4.29, p < 0.00
Spending money on a counterfeited product might be a bad decision
t(481) = -4.79, p < 0.00
Integrity (Ang et al., 2001 ) scale measured with PG: α = 0.866
I consider honesty as an important quality for one’s character
t(481) = -3.85, p < 0.00
I consider it very important that people be polite
t(481) = -2.80, p < 0.00
I admire responsible people
t(481) = -3.78, p < 0.00
I like people that have self-control
t(481) = -3.91, p < 0.00
Personal gratification (Ang et al., 2001 )
I always attempt to a have a sense of accomplishment
t(481) = -4.15, p < 0.00
Attitude toward contraband tobacco adapted scale α = 0.906
Considering price, I prefer contraband cigarettes
t(356.41) = -6.49, p < 0.00
I like shopping for contraband cigarettes
t(366.37) = -6.83, p < 0.00
Buying contraband cigarettes generally benefits the consumer
t(481) = -5.04, p < 0.00
There’s nothing wrong with purchasing contraband tobacco
t(326.68) = -6.33, p < .0.00
Generally speaking, buying contraband cigarettes is a better choice
t(481) = -6.37, p < 0.00
Inter-correlations between factors
Means and standard deviations for each of the measures proposed by contraband tobacco purchase status (buyer vs. non-buyer) are presented in Table 1. Overall, those who reported a previous purchase of contraband tobacco were significantly more likely to report higher subjective norms supportive of counterfeit products, higher levels of intentions toward purchasing counterfeit products, lower perceived risk associated with these products, and to have more favorable attitudes toward contraband cigarettes than those who had not purchased contraband tobacco. T-tests showed that the individual measures for price quality and risk averseness were unable to differentiate between buyers and non-buyers of contraband tobacco. The majority of the proposed scales had a high level of internal consistency, with alphas ranging from 0.77 to 0.91. The scale assessing risk averseness had a moderate alpha of 0.70. The risk averseness scale was ultimately dropped from the measurement model due to moderate internal consistency, lack of convergent validity, and invariance issues identified at a later stage of analysis (convergent validity concerns for the latent factor RA: AVE = 0.459, and invariance concerns based on SDS performance).
Following this, we employed EFA with principal axis factoring and Direct Oblimin rotation. Dimensionality was present for most of the proposed measures; however, Integrity and Personal Gratification loaded on the same factor, consistent with previous research . The pattern matrix is available in the Additional file 1: Supplemental material. Factor intercorrelations ranged from -0.599 (BI vs ATC) to +0.482 (ATC vs PR), validating the use of oblique rotation (see Table 2).
Reliability and validity of the measurement model
Validity of the measurement model
Significant relationships for the direct and mediated structural model
Direct Effect without Mediator (p-val)
Direct Effect with Mediator (p-val)
Standardized Indirect Beta (p-val)
BCT → ATC → BI
SN → ATC → BI
PR → ATC → BI
There are few validated measures for evaluating attitudes about contraband tobacco, including behavioral intentions. The current research used established measures of non-tobacco contraband/counterfeit attitudes, under the framework of the Theory of Reasoned Action, to assess their relevance for contraband tobacco among a sample of smokers. The structural model indicated that, at least among our sample, indicators of attitude and behavior are partially accounted for by the perceived risks associated with purchasing illicit products. Perceived risk had a strong impact on both attitudes toward contraband tobacco and behavioral intentions. This finding is consistent with economics research showing that increased perceived risk associated with the product quality reduces purchase intentions. Respondents’ perceptions that family and/or friends would support the purchase of these products were also associated with behavioral intentions, though this relationship was fully mediated by attitudes toward contraband tobacco. Overall, the model accounted for over half of the variance in attitudes toward contraband tobacco (53%) and behavioral intentions (54%) to purchase illicit products.
The final model varied from our initial hypotheses, not supporting the hypothesis that price quality and integrity were associated with behavioral intentions or attitudes toward contraband tobacco. While this may be a sample specific finding, it may also suggest that the relationship between antecedents of purchase behavior may be somewhat different than those for non-tobacco contraband. It is possible that the lack of relationship between product quality and attitudes regarding contraband tobacco may be because the majority of contraband tobacco is not counterfeit and is therefore the same product as that commercially sold with appropriate taxation. Product quality may be specifically associated with counterfeit rather than contraband cigarettes, as counterfeit cigarettes are illegally produced by someone other than the trademark holder. The statistical finding was also somewhat expected given the inability for the measure to differentiate between respondents who had previously purchased contraband tobacco and those who had not and is consistent with previous research for non-tobacco contraband/counterfeits . However, it should be noted that, the broad definition of contraband tobacco we applied in the current research may have captured some respondents who purchased counterfeit rather than contraband tobacco products, which may introduce some error.
Attitudes toward contraband tobacco mediated the relationship between prior purchase and behavioral intentions and favorable subjective norms and behavioral intentions. This highlights the importance of prior experience in influencing attitudes, which then influence behavior. Also, the measure of subjective norms was the strongest indicator of attitudes, which highlights the important role that family and friends have in influencing consumer behavior. These findings provide an avenue for public health communications about contraband tobacco to influence attitudes and future behaviors.
This study is subject to a number of limitations. While Amazon Mechanical Turk has been extensively used in research, it by its nature cannot produce a representative sample, so prevalence estimates are not expected to generalize beyond this study; however, the intention of this study was to test the validity of a set of measures not to assess population estimates of contraband tobacco use.
In addition, we employed a very broad definition of contraband tobacco purchase, intending to capture as many smokers as possible who have or would be open to contraband tobacco use. The questions used to capture contraband tobacco use also assessed purchase of these cigarettes across a number of time frames rather than a specified time frame. It is possible that if the questions were phrased differently the results may be somewhat different. Future research should examine the validity of this model with respect to various forms of tax avoidance and evasion, as well as other forms of contraband tobacco purchase.
Finally, this study used and adapted a variety of existing questions from previous research about attitudes and behaviors associated with counterfeit products, though was not exhaustive of the possible social, behavioral, and economic indicators that may be applicable to contraband tobacco. It would be useful to conduct focus groups among smokers to determine how relevant each of the domains is to contraband tobacco attitudes and purchase intentions as well as to determine if other indicators would further our understanding of behavioral intentions.
Developing a measurement and structural model for understanding attitudes toward contraband tobacco is important given increasing regulation of tobacco products. As taxes on tobacco products increase, among other changes, there may become an increased incentive for consumers to seek out lower price alternatives which may include tapping into illicit markets. Similarly, should regulatory actions establish product standards that significantly alter current products (e.g., removing menthol; reducing nicotine), smokers may be motivated to seek out noncompliant products. Establishing what elements influence attitudes regarding contraband may inform efforts to curtail the development of these markets.
aThe scale items are presented in Table 2 along with the means and standard deviations.
This work was supported by National Cancer Institute (P30 CA016036) with developmental funds from the RPCI Cancer Center Support Grant. The funder had no role in the design of the research, analysis of data, development of the manuscript, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
- Stehr M. Cigarette tax avoidance and evasion. J Health Econ. 2005;24(2):277–97.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Licari MJ, Meier KJ. Regulatory policy when behavior is addictive: smoking, cigarette taxes and bootlegging. Pol Res Q. 1997;50(1):5–24.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 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.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- TPSAC. Menthol cigarettes: No disproportionate impact on public health 2011.Google Scholar
- 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Bhagwati J, Hansen B. A Theoretical Analysis of Smuggling. Q J Econ. 1973;87(2):172–87.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Goel RK. Cigarette smuggling: price vs.nonprice incentives. Appl Econ Lett. 2008;15(8):587–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Huang J-H, Lee BCY, Ho SH. Consumer attitude toward gray market goods. Int Mark Rev. 2004;21(6):598–614.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Augusto de Matos C, Ituassu C, Rossi C. Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits: a review and extension. J Consum Mark. 2007;24(1):36–47.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaivor. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980.Google Scholar
- Lichtenstein DR, Ridgway NM, Netemeyer RG. Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: a field study. J Mark Res. 1993;30(2):234–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dowling GR, Staelin R. A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. J Consum Res. 1994;21(1):119–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ang SH, Cheng PS, Lim EAC, Tambyah SK. Spot the difference: Consumer responses towards counterfeits. J Consum Mark. 2001;18(3):219–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kraus SJ. Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 1995;21(1):58–75.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Behrend TS, Sharek DJ, Meade AW, Wiebe EN. The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behav Res Methods. 2011;43(3):800–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rand DG. The promise of Mechanical Turk: how online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. J Theor Biol. 2012;299:172–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Crowne DP, Marlowe D. A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J Consult Psychol. 1960;24(4):349–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2006.Google Scholar
- 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.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005.Google Scholar
- 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).Google Scholar
- Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 2010.Google Scholar
- Fornell C, Larcker D. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Donthu N, Garcia A. The Internet shopper. J Advert Res. 1999;39(3):52–8.Google Scholar
- Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zeithaml VA, Parasuraman A, Berry LL. The behavioral consequences of service quality. J Mark. 1996;60:31–43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.