The effects of vape packaging and point-of-sale restrictions on intentions to buy and harm perceptions among youth and adults in Great
Abstract
Background and aims Since the Royal Assent of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, the United Kingdom Government has indicated that its regulatory preference is for vapes to be in standardised white packaging, and hidden from point of sale (POS) in a similar style to cigarettes. We aimed to examine the effects of vape packaging and POS display restrictions on the likelihood of buying a vape and their perceived harm relative to cigarettes among adults and youth in Great Britain. Design Online experiment embedded within national cross-sectional surveys conducted between February and May 2026. Setting Great Britain. Participants Analyses included adults aged ≥18 years (n=13,137) and youth aged 11-17 years (n=1,679). Interventions Participants were randomised to view images of one of four vape retail display conditions: (1) branded packaging on full display, (2) standardised white packaging on full display, (3) standardised white packaging with reduced display, or (4) no vape display. Measurements Associations between condition, likelihood of buying a vape, and perceptions that vaping is less harmful than smoking were investigated using binary logistic regression models adjusted for demographics and smoking/vaping status. Interactions by vaping and smoking status were subsequently included. Support for POS policy was also explored. Findings Among adults, compared with vapes in branded packaging on full display (10.3%), those who viewed vapes in standardised packaging on full display (7.4%,AOR=0.67[95%CI=0.55-0.81]), standardised packaging on reduced display (8.8%,AOR=0.79[0.65-0.95]), and not on display (7.4%,AOR=0.70[0.58-0.85]) had lower odds of likelihood of buying a vape. Interactions revealed that these effects were predominantly among those who did not vape/smoke. Among youth, compared with vapes in branded packaging on full display (10.6%), those who viewed vapes in standardised packaging on full display (5.9%,AOR=0.48[0.28–0.82]), standardised packaging on reduced display (4.8%, AOR=0.36[0.20–0.65]), and not on display (6.4%,AOR=0.50 [0.29–0.85)]) had lower odds of likelihood of buying a vape. Interactions revealed that these effects were predominantly among those who had vaped experimentally or in the past. All standardised and restricted display conditions were associated with significantly lower odds of perceiving vaping to be less harmful than smoking among adults (AORs=0.07-0.31) and youth (AORs=0.05-0.27), compared to branded packaging on full display. Most adults (71.3%) and youth (67.8%) supported regulating vape displays in the same way as cigarette displays. Conclusions Standardised white vape packaging and restricting POS displays may reduce purchasing, but may also substantially increase misperceptions of the harm of vapes relative to cigarettes. The public health consequences of these regulations warrant careful consideration by governments.
Related
- Testing the effects of nicotine concentration and nicotine source claims on oral nicotine pouch packaging engagement, self-reported perceptions and use intentions, and product trial in young adults and adults: Protocol for a randomized trial
- Impact of warning labels on energy drink perceptions and purchase intentions among emerging adults in Uruguay.
- Exploring possible point-of-sale restrictions for vapes and nicotine pouches: cross-sectional surveys with adults and adolescents in the UK
- Shared and vaccine-specific factors associated with COVID-19 and influenza vaccination intentions among adults in Poland: a COM-B-informed cross-sectional study.
- Anti-tobacco advertisements in India: insights from content analysis and young adults’ perceptions
BibTeX
@misc{taylor2026effects,
title = {{The effects of vape packaging and point-of-sale restrictions on intentions to buy and harm perceptions among youth and adults in Great}},
author = {Eve Taylor and Hazel Cheeseman and Laura Bunce and Katherine East},
howpublished = {PsyArXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.31234/osf.io/hgn83_v1},
url = {https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/hgn83_v1/},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - The effects of vape packaging and point-of-sale restrictions on intentions to buy and harm perceptions among youth and adults in Great
AU - Eve Taylor
AU - Hazel Cheeseman
AU - Laura Bunce
AU - Katherine East
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/08
PB - PsyArXiv
DO - 10.31234/osf.io/hgn83_v1
UR - https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/hgn83_v1/
AB - Background and aims Since the Royal Assent of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, the United Kingdom Government has indicated that its regulatory preference is for vapes to be in standardised white packaging, and hidden from point of sale (POS) in a similar style to cigarettes. We aimed to examine the effects of vape packaging and POS display restrictions on the likelihood of buying a vape and their perceived harm relative to cigarettes among adults and youth in Great Britain. Design Online experiment embedded within national cross-sectional surveys conducted between February and May 2026. Setting Great Britain. Participants Analyses included adults aged ≥18 years (n=13,137) and youth aged 11-17 years (n=1,679). Interventions Participants were randomised to view images of one of four vape retail display conditions: (1) branded packaging on full display, (2) standardised white packaging on full display, (3) standardised white packaging with reduced display, or (4) no vape display. Measurements Associations between condition, likelihood of buying a vape, and perceptions that vaping is less harmful than smoking were investigated using binary logistic regression models adjusted for demographics and smoking/vaping status. Interactions by vaping and smoking status were subsequently included. Support for POS policy was also explored. Findings Among adults, compared with vapes in branded packaging on full display (10.3%), those who viewed vapes in standardised packaging on full display (7.4%,AOR=0.67[95%CI=0.55-0.81]), standardised packaging on reduced display (8.8%,AOR=0.79[0.65-0.95]), and not on display (7.4%,AOR=0.70[0.58-0.85]) had lower odds of likelihood of buying a vape. Interactions revealed that these effects were predominantly among those who did not vape/smoke. Among youth, compared with vapes in branded packaging on full display (10.6%), those who viewed vapes in standardised packaging on full display (5.9%,AOR=0.48[0.28–0.82]), standardised packaging on reduced display (4.8%, AOR=0.36[0.20–0.65]), and not on display (6.4%,AOR=0.50 [0.29–0.85)]) had lower odds of likelihood of buying a vape. Interactions revealed that these effects were predominantly among those who had vaped experimentally or in the past. All standardised and restricted display conditions were associated with significantly lower odds of perceiving vaping to be less harmful than smoking among adults (AORs=0.07-0.31) and youth (AORs=0.05-0.27), compared to branded packaging on full display. Most adults (71.3%) and youth (67.8%) supported regulating vape displays in the same way as cigarette displays. Conclusions Standardised white vape packaging and restricting POS displays may reduce purchasing, but may also substantially increase misperceptions of the harm of vapes relative to cigarettes. The public health consequences of these regulations warrant careful consideration by governments.
ER -