Author ORCID Identifier

https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5199-3091

Semester

Spring

Date of Graduation

2026

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Type

MS

College

Eberly College of Arts and Sciences

Department

Psychology

Committee Chair

Melissa D Blank

Committee Co-Chair

Mariya V Cherkasova

Committee Member

Eric E Soule

Abstract

SIGNIFICANCE. The rewarding properties of nicotine increase when administration is paired with external stimuli, or “cues”, including those related to vaping products. Given the visual similarity between nicotine vaping products (NVPs) and THC vaping products (TVPs), exposure to one product may elicit reactivity (e.g., craving, urge to use) to the other. The present study aimed to develop a set of cues capable of differentiating NVPs from TVPs to inform investigations of cross-cue reactivity. METHODS. Images (n=61 NVPs; n=64 TVPs; 7=unspecified) were obtained via an online search using both generic (“vape”, “vape pen”) and product-specific (e.g., “nicotine vape”, “dab pen”) keywords to capture a variety of brands, models, and designs. Selected vaping product images were presented to participants via an online survey platform (Prolific) in randomized order, with each accompanied by two subjective rating scales (0-10) that assessed the degree to which the device was “likely to be used to vape [nicotine/THC]”. Participants’ mean ratings were then used within two different analytic approaches to categorize devices as follows: NVP, TVP, either/both, or other. The first approach used predefined mean rating cutoffs to determine categories while the second approach used a tertile split. Discrepant categorizations between approaches were reviewed to consider how they may differ from those with congruent categorizations based on product features (e.g. brands, models, shapes). RESULTS. Participants were adult (M=35.11 years of age) residents of the U.S. who reported weekly use of both NVPs (M=6.05 days, SD=1.41) and TVPs (M=4.74 days, SD=1.89). The pattern of results was identical between analytic approaches, with 131 of 131 devices being categorized the same. The number of devices categorized was as follows: 46 NVPs; 44 TVPs; 2 either/both; and 40 other. Participants’ mean ratings classified some devices differently from that indicated by the product marketing materials (n=22 NVPs; n=28 TVPs). CONCLUSIONS. Overlap may be explained by shared features like size, shape, or color. Still, many devices were clearly categorized as either nicotine-only or THC-only, indicating the presence of distinctive visual cues, such as brand-specific features or design elements, that differentiate the two. Future work will evaluate cross-cue reactivity using the cue sets developed herein.

Download

Share

COinS