Hide cigarette display and teens buy less, says new study

A virtual reality game study of teens by the New York Department of Health found that in virtual convenience stores, 16 to 24 percent of teens tried to buy tobacco when the cigarette display was open, compared with 9 to 11 percent when it was closed.

AP
Teens are more likely to make better decisions about smoking when convenience store counters are free of cigarettes, suggests a New York Department of Health study. Here, a store clerk places cigarettes on display at a shop in Ballwin, Mo. in October 2012.

A new study conducted using a virtual reality game suggests teens may be less likely to try to buy cigarettes at convenience stories if they aren't sold in plain sight behind the counter.

Requiring stores to hide tobacco product displays is one option some states are considering to curb teen smoking after the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 was passed, according to the study's lead author.

"We know the retail environment is a very important place for tobacco companies to advertise and market their products," said Annice Kim, from the independent research institute RTI International in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

"They're prominently displayed at the point of sale, and it exposes all customers, including kids."

Kim's team wanted to test the effects of covering up such cigarette displays on teen shopping and opinion. But the researchers couldn't conduct a real world experiment because as of yet, no states have banned the displays.

So they designed a virtual reality game and sent more than 1,200 youth, between age 13 and 17, into a simulated online convenience store. Researchers asked the participants to select four items in the store: a snack from the aisles, a drink from the coolers and two products of their choice from the checkout counter.

In some scenarios, the cabinet behind the counter prominently displayed cigarettes, while other teens saw the cabinet closed and the display covered up.

Any teens that tried to ask the cashier for cigarettes were denied because of age - but what the researchers were interested in was how many asked.

Depending on other changes they made to the virtual convenience stores, the researchers found that 16 to 24 percent of teens tried to buy tobacco when the display was open, compared to 9 to 11 percent when it was closed.

In a post-virtual shopping survey, whether cigarettes were openly displayed wasn't clearly tied to teens' perceptions of how easy it would be to buy tobacco products if a similar store existed in their neighborhood.

However, 32 percent of youth said they were aware cigarettes were available for sale when the display case was closed in their virtual store, compared to 85 percent of those who had the open version, according to findings published today in Pediatrics.

"Policies that require retailers to store tobacco products out of view... could have a positive public health impact," Ms. Kim told Reuters Health.

Still, she said this single study, funded by the New York State Department of Health, would have to be considered along with other evaluations of the display restrictions before making policy recommendations.

One tobacco control researcher not involved in the new study said he thinks there is "strong justification" for hiding cigarette displays from youth, but that this study doesn't necessarily add much to that debate.

"It certainly shows that tobacco displays get people to think about cigarettes, which is what they're for," said Dr. Michael Siegel, from the Boston University School of Public Health.

But, "It can't be extrapolated into real life, because in real life kids would go to a store when they want to buy cigarettes," Mr. Siegel told Reuters Health.

"I don't know how many situations there are when a kid is hanging out in a convenience store with nothing to do and says, 'Oh, I'll just try a cigarette as long as they're here.'"

RELATED: Are you a 'Helicopter Parent?' take our QUIZ!

Rather, he said, banning the displays could help prevent youth from being exposed to marketing by cigarette companies and influenced in their attitudes toward smoking.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.