E-cigarette flavours and vaping as a social practice: implications for tobacco control

ABSTRACT

E-liquid flavours are perhaps the most materially disruptive aspect of vaping compared with smoking, especially for people who smoke tobacco and who wish to quit. A better understanding of whether and how e-liquid flavours create personal and social value for people who smoke may offer insights into how vaping has become a social practice among this group. These insights may be useful for countries such as New Zealand, where health authorities have endorsed e-cigarettes to help achieve the Government’s Smokefree 2025 goal. We drew on longitudinal in-depth interviews with 11 New Zealand young adults (19–29 years old) who smoked tobacco and who were willing to try an e-cigarette to stop smoking. Each participant was interviewed five times over 18–24 weeks during 2018–2019 and at every interview asked about their e-liquid flavour use and perceptions and experiences of these flavours compared to smoking. We thematically analysed the transcripts with an emphasis on exploring tensions between old and new skills, meanings, and emotions associated with smoking, vaping, and e-liquid flavours. We found that flavours could disrupt tobacco’s value proposition by provoking emotional responses that had a crucial impact on participants’ feelings of emotional security when vaping. Competence to deal with initially unsettling feelings when vaping was key to helping participants reorient meanings and emotions and embed vaping in their lives. As e-liquids are purchased regularly, and flavours ideally sampled in-person, countries could optimise vaping regulations by limiting online sales and mandating cessation advice and support at all point-of-sale interactions.

KEYWORDS:

• E-cigarettes
• vaping
• smoking
• practice theory
• qualitative

Introduction

E-cigarettes are a “disruptive technology” that have up-ended traditional nicotine inhalation practices centred on smoking tobacco, which remains the most harmful way of consuming nicotine (Abrams, 2014, p. 135). Vaping mimics many aspects of smoking, such as nicotine delivery and hand-mouth coordination. However, for people who smoke tobacco (the group of interest in the present study), e-liquid flavours are perhaps the most materially disruptive facet of vaping. Thousands of vaping flavours exist, including ‘cheesecake’, ‘mojito’, and ‘watermelon’ (Havermans et al., 2021). Although ‘tobacco’ flavoured e-liquids are available, flavour ingredients are better at recreating sweet and fruity flavours, and cannot yet replicate the taste of burning tobacco (Krüsemann et al., 2020).

Public health advocates have grappled with the controversial role of e-liquid flavours in attracting non-smoking youth to vaping through the personal and social value created by appealing flavours (King, 2022). However, studies of people who smoke rarely explore the value creation role of flavours and instead often focus narrowly on describing the flavours used and possible associations with smoking cessation outcomes (Blank & Hoek, 2021; Gades et al., 2022). The mainstream public health emphasis on vaping-assisted cessation obscures consideration of how e-liquid flavours may attract people who smoke independently of cessation-related motivations. A different understanding of flavours may be useful as many who smoke and wish to quit struggle with vaping and eventually abandon the new practice (Yong et al., 2019). These insights could inform policy options for countries such as New Zealand, where the Government endorses vaping to achieve the country’s Smokefree 2025 goal (Ministry of Health, 2020).

A social practice theory approach could complement findings reporting smoking-to-vaping behavioural transitions by exploring whether and how e-liquid flavours help vaping become habituated and embedded in daily routines (Shove et al., 2012). The few studies exploring vaping from a practice perspective find that long-term practitioners view vaping as paradoxically distinct from, yet defined by, previous smoking experiences (Keane et al., 2017; Lucherini et al., 2018, 2019; McQuoid et al., 2020). Smoking and vaping have become overlapping nicotine inhalation practices, which, using Shove et al’.s simplified practice element framework, blend old and new materials, competences, and meanings (Shove et al., 2012) as they compete and collaborate for practitioners (Blue & Shove, 2016). For example, vaping integrates new and familiar materials (e.g. new e-cigarettes and e-liquids; familiar nicotine) and competences (e.g. new charging, filling, cleaning; familiar inhaling), and affords temporal and spatial flexibility, especially where smoking is socially and legally constrained (Keane et al., 2017; McQuoid et al., 2020).

Compared with tobacco’s “obdurate materiality” (Phipps & Ozanne, 2017, p. 366) that creates predictable and stable smoking experiences, flexible materials, sensations, and meanings characterise vaping. E-liquid flavours expand the variation within nicotine inhalation practices (Hui, 2017), create opportunities for sensory exploration (Chen et al., 2019), and introduce customisable experiences. However, flavours may also disrupt comforting sensations and meanings provided by entrenched smoking practices (McQuoid et al., 2020). For people who smoke, vaping fuses new and old practice elements that are initially unstable and failure prone (McQuoid et al., 2020), potentially challenging the essential ontological security required for a new practice to establish and endure (Giddens, 1986).

Despite the opportunities and uncertainties e-liquid flavours present, we are unaware of any studies that have used a practice theory approach to investigate specifically how flavours influence vaping and smoking practices among people who smoke and wish to quit. In this analysis, we combined Blue and Shove’s ideas of practice establishment and persistence (Blue & Shove, 2016) with Phipps and Ozanne’s extension of Gidden’s work on ontological security (Giddens, 1986; Phipps & Ozanne, 2017) to explore how flavours influenced the personal and social value participants obtained from vaping and smoking, and the role they played in helping vaping evolve as a disruptive social practice among people who smoke.

Theoretical framing

We used Shove et al’.s materials-competences-meanings framework (Shove et al., 2012) as our starting point before extending our analysis using a simplified version of Blue and Shove’s five processes describing how practices may evolve through competition and collaboration (Blue & Shove, 2016). Three of their processes (‘predation’, ‘encroachment’, and ‘appropriation’) refer to a novel practice co-opting an existing practice’s materials, competences, or meanings to ease the new practice into everyday life. These co-opting processes build upon existing knowledge and structures. The remaining two processes refer to internal developments within a practice. ‘Cultivation’ describes how a practice builds upon itself by developing its own ‘internal ladders or “levels” of expertise’. By contrast, ‘simplification’ or becoming ‘open access’ reduces the need for expertise and makes the practice accessible to a greater number and wider range of people.

We link these processes with Phipps and Ozanne’s work analysing states of security and insecurity when entrenched practices are irrevocably disrupted and new replacement practices must be established (Phipps & Ozanne, 2017). Novel practices like vaping precipitate the ‘pulling apart’ that occurs when routines like inhaling tobacco smoke are disrupted, while processes facilitating the ‘putting together’ again must engender feelings of security for the new practice to flourish (p. 363). Phipps and Ozanne describe how changes in materials associated with a secure and established practice trigger a cascade of disruptive effects (the ‘pulling apart’) as associated competences and meanings must be realigned (the ‘putting together’), often with great effort, to create a secure replacement practice. Unresolved misalignment between materials, competences, or meanings within the new practice fosters various states of tolerable or intolerable insecurity and a fragile practice prone to continuing disturbance and demanding effortful enactment. Conversely, stable and comfortable realignments facilitate the reattainment of secure feelings and help ensure the effortless continuation of the new practice.

Methods

We conducted in-depth longitudinal interviews in Dunedin, Aotearoa-New Zealand from May 2018–September 2019 to explore behavioural, psychological, and social transitions among people who smoked and tried vaping to quit smoking (please refer to the methods report for full details of the study – https://tinyurl.com/36t5rsbd). The main study explored participants’ experiences as they attempted to switch from smoking to vaping.

We enrolled adults aged at least 18 years old. Key eligibility criteria included that participants currently smoked (all enrolled participants smoked daily at entry), wished to stop smoking, and were not currently vaping but willing to try an e-cigarette to become smokefree. These criteria meant participants’ smoking practices were already disrupted before study entry as their desire to continue smoking was changing. All participants had heard of vaping, many had tried others’ e-cigarettes while socialising before entry, and many knew of people who had used vaping to reduce or stop smoking. However, no participants entered with an established vaping practice.

We conducted up to five interviews with each participant over approximately 18–24 weeks (baseline (T1), and post-baseline at two (T2), six (T3), 12 (T4), and 18 (T5) weeks); all gave written consent before each interview. At every interview we asked all participants about the e-liquid flavours they used, and their perceptions of these flavours compared with smoking. Participants were also asked to record video diaries and complete daily surveys throughout the study and were reimbursed a maximum of NZ$290 (in 2019; NZ$260 in 2018) to recognise their contribution. During the intake session, participants selected an e-cigarette starter kit (up to NZ$80 value purchased with research funds and gifted to the participant) from a collaborating retailer and could sample from approximately 39 individual flavours (including tobacco, mint, fruit, candy, dessert) before purchasing the e-liquid(s) of their choice. We gifted participants the starter kit and replacement coils to reduce financial barriers of participation.

We asked participants to use their e-cigarette as they wished and did not impose or suggest any usage patterns. Participants were free to continue smoking if they desired, and we encouraged all participants, regardless of their smoking or vaping, to complete all five interviews. We did not provide formal cessation support; however, some participants interpreted the interviews and daily surveys as support.

We developed semi-individualised interview guides for each participant, depending on responses during past interviews. Core areas explored at every interview included physical, psychological, and social experiences of smoking and vaping. An online service transcribed the audio files and transcripts were checked against the audio to ensure accuracy. We analysed all interviews for smoking and vaping flavour-related content and coded these according to Shove et al’.s simplified practice theory framework comprising materials, competences, and meanings (Shove et al., 2012). This content was then thematically analysed within and between participants using the theoretical frameworks described by Blue and Shove (2016) and Phipps and Ozanne (2017). This analysis explored tensions between old and new skills, meanings, and emotions, and how these tensions affected practice establishment among the participants.

Overall, we enrolled 45 participants. This analysis focusses on young adult participants aged up to 30 years as they belong to the first generation in Aotearoa-New Zealand to experience a substantial shift in smoking as a social practice, following bans on tobacco advertising and sponsorship, and expanded smokefree spaces (New Zealand Government, 1990, 2003). The oldest of these participants were in their mid-teens when the last of these changes occurred. As we were interested in exploring change both within and between participants, we included only participants who completed all five interviews to ensure similar periods to (potentially) embark on behavioural, psychological, and social processes of change (n = 11, please see Table 1). Nine enrolled young adults completed three or fewer interviews (i.e. withdrew or were lost to follow-up within six weeks of enrolment) and were therefore excluded from this analysis. Included and excluded participants did not appreciably differ in terms of demographic or baseline smoking characteristics. All quotations are identified by pseudonyms and interview number (i.e. T1, T2, etc).

Table 1. Characteristics of the participants included in the current analysis.

Pseudonym	Gender	Age*	Highest completed education	Ethnicity	# Cigarettes/day at intake	Vaping experience before intake	Smoking reported at last interview	Vaping reported at last interview
Clara	F	19	High school	Māori	42–44	No	Yes, daily	Yes
Lily^†	F	19	Certificate/diploma	NZE	14–15	No	Yes, occasional	Yes
Abigail	F	22	High school	NZE	1	Yes	No	Yes
Louise^†	F	23	High school	NZE	6	Yes	Yes, daily	No
Amanda^†	F	26	Bachelor’s	Asian	4	Yes	Yes, daily	No
Charlotte^†	F	27	No formal qualification	Māori, NZE	20	Yes	No	Yes
Andrea^†	F	29	High school	Māori, NZE	22–27	Yes	Yes, daily	No
Oscar^†	M	20	High school	Asian	3, plus 3 dokha bowls^‡	No	No	Yes
George^†	M	20	High school	NZE	9–10	Yes	Yes, daily	Yes
Noah^†	M	24	High school	NZE	13	Yes	Yes, daily	Yes
Ryan	M	26	Bachelor’s	NZE	10–14	Yes	No	Yes

NZE: New Zealand European; *Based on birth year; ^†2018 participant; ^‡Dokha is a Middle Eastern tobacco product smoked in a midwakh pipe.

Findings

Materials: co-opting flavours and emotions

Many people who smoke initially choose a ‘tobacco’ flavoured e-liquid, but then transition to non-tobacco flavours following disappointment in the materials’ inability to reproduce the taste of smoking (Marković, 2021). About half our study participants sampled a ‘tobacco’ flavour during their intake session; however, almost all were using only non-tobacco flavours by their final interview (Blank & Hoek, 2021). ‘Tobacco’ flavours failed to generate value for some participants as they were described as, ‘close, but not close enough’ (Clara, T2), lacked the sensory complexity of smoky ‘campfire remains’ (Noah, T5), and created frustration and disappointment for some. For these people, unresolvable misalignments between new materials and valued physical sensations produced negative emotions and intolerable insecurity when vaping, prompting the continuation of familiar and emotionally secure smoking practices (Phipps & Ozanne, 2017).

Although e-liquids could not accurately reproduce tobacco flavours, material flexibility enabled them to successfully co-opt (Blue & Shove, 2016) comforting familiar flavours, such as fruit and candy. E-liquids often employ a controversial ‘youthful’ marketing strategy using well-known flavours, especially candies and soft drinks (Measham et al., 2016). While deservedly criticised for potentially enticing non-smokers to vaping (Shah et al., 2021), these food and drink flavours are infused with memories and emotion (Vignolles & Pichon, 2014). For some participants, the taste of smoking became tightly connected with ‘guilt’ and ‘disgust’, while vaping’s successful co-option of many non-tobacco flavours felt ‘fun’ and ‘exciting’. New materials could prompt an emotional realignment that disrupted and replaced the negative feelings many participants associated with smoking (Phipps & Ozanne, 2017). For example, compared with smoking, candy and beverage flavours sparked excitement and nostalgic childhood memories for participants. As Andrea explained when contrasting her ‘Sour Patch’ e-liquid with the taste of smoking, ‘ … it takes me back to when I was a kid, to the sour lollies. Whereas, you know, smoking cigarettes, I don’t get anything like that’ (T2). By generating positive emotions and dispelling negative feelings, successfully co-opted e-liquid flavours could help align new materials and meanings, thus creating secure feelings with the new practice.

Lily illustrated how e-liquid flavours could facilitate these emotional transformations when describing her disappointment after accepting cigarettes from friends: ‘… there was a few times where I went, “Oh, I really, really want a smoke”. And then someone would give me one, and I’d have a cigarette and I’d be like, “This tastes disgusting, I don’t like this, I want to go home, I want to have my vape”. And then as soon as [the] cigarette was done I’d just go into the corner and suck away on my vape for a bit just to get the taste out of my mouth, and I’d go, “Why did I do that?” You know, that wasn’t nearly as fun as I had thought it would be in my mind’ (T2). Several months later, at her last interview, she described how e-liquid flavours displaced the ‘disgusting’ taste of smoke, and her feelings of guilt and social condemnation: ‘Well, I guess I feel less guilty about it … .so it’s not kind of like a go outside and have a little sneaky cigarette. Where this one it’s, it’s easier to relax with it, because it tastes better and it, it feels less kind of grotty’ (T5).

Materials: combining with other flavour-related practices

Over time, some participants cultivated ‘ladders of expertise’ (Blue & Shove, 2016) as they used non-tobacco e-liquid flavours to successfully align new positive feelings when vaping with other valued practices such as drinking alcohol. For example, Ryan selected ‘fruit-menthol’ and vanilla-tinged ‘tobacco spice’ flavours at his first interview. Two weeks later at his second interview, he speculated about the material compatibility and appropriateness of e-liquid and alcohol flavours, and his feelings of uncertainty: ‘ … the taste of the smoke actually goes far too well with dark spirits like bourbon. Um, I don’t think the fruitiness [of vaping] is going to go all that well with bourbons and those sorts of drinks. But maybe goes well with [Vodka] Cruisers’ (T2). A month later at his third interview, Ryan reported combining his ‘tobacco spice’ flavour with his preferred spirits, which emphasised familiar feelings built up over years of smoking: ‘ … I still like to have that one [tobacco spice] ‘cause it goes better with drinking … .it’s a sweet version of smoking almost. So, when you’re drinking and that’s what I’m craving a lot, it hits the spot a wee bit nicer. … it’s closer to what you’re used to. It’s still quite far off, but it’s not mandarin and other stuff. It’s a tobacco-inspired flavour’. The ‘tobacco-inspired flavour’ created a comforting bridge between smoking and vaping while drinking. At this stage, the new practice was tolerable but still fragile and insecure, and depended on ‘tobacco-inspired’ flavours to recreate comfortable feelings associated with smoking (Phipps Ozanne, 2017). However, six weeks later at his fourth interview, Ryan had replaced his ‘tobacco spice’ with a ‘Vanilla Beanie’ dessert flavour when drinking (reflecting a pre-study preference for vanilla flavours). For Ryan, vaping’s co-option of favourite flavours supported a successful emotional realignment and a new security that eventually helped embed vaping as the preferred practice when drinking.

For other participants, e-liquids’ inability to successfully co-opt tobacco flavours created unresolvable emotional misalignments and intolerable insecurities with the new vaping practice, and could prompt a return to the stability and security of smoking (Phipps & Ozanne, 2017). For example, Amanda’s struggles with her candy-flavoured e-liquid thwarted attempts to use her e-cigarette while drinking coffee. As she explained, vaping was simply inappropriate with coffee: ‘I wouldn’t have a vape with my coffee … . No way. It’s like having white wine with steak … ’ (T2). At a later interview, she described how cigarettes and coffee were perfectly matched materials, creating an intensely satisfying and pleasurable flavour experience compared with the deeply inappropriate ‘white wine with steak’: ‘ … like a rich, strong coffee and then like a cigarette … it’s a good flavour combination, I suppose. Got it down pat – soy flat white, my Camels’ (T3). The seamless alignment of compatible materials, skills in obtaining pleasure, and embodied sensory rules directing appropriate and inappropriate flavour combinations reinforced the comfort, stability, and security of Amanda’s ‘got it down pat’ smoking and coffee combination.

Competence: choosing

Developing ‘choosing’ skills is an inescapable part of vaping practices (Keane et al., 2017). Skills in discerning and selecting from the array of vaping-related materials afford opportunities for customisation, creativity, and self-expression that may attract and then maintain interest in the practice (McCausland et al., 2020; Tokle & Pedersen, 2019). While having ‘choices’ may be associated with optimism and freedom (Keane et al., 2017; Lucherini, 2021), the complexity of ‘choosing’ may also overwhelm and create feelings of insecurity (Phipps & Ozanne, 2017), potentially leading to simplified choosing processes (Blue & Shove, 2016).

For example, Ryan reflected on the challenges of choosing an e-liquid flavour compared with selecting cigarettes: ‘ … it’s very daunting the first time trying to pick a flavour when they’ve got 400 options and you can try like 95% of them … .it was a big daunting process to go through from “Oh, brand blue or red?” … there are so many options and you have to stand there and try them all … .daunting might not be the word for that, but it’s a lot more involved than I’m wanting to get into. I want to: “Red or blue?” (T5). For Ryan, the anxiety of choosing e-liquid flavours led him to develop a ‘simplified’ strategy (Blue & Shove, 2016) that recreated the automated decision making of choosing tobacco and securely realigned the new practice with different, positive emotions (Phipps & Ozanne, 2017). Ryan reconstructed manageable choices by deliberately narrowing his selection to vanilla flavours, his long-standing, pre-vaping favourite flavour. He was restricted to ‘Vanilla Cupcake’ and ‘Vanilla Beanie’ at his usual retailer, which recreated the easy-to-navigate ‘red or blue’ options he encountered when buying cigarettes.

Difficulty choosing sometimes created fear of missing out as excitement and hope dissolved to frustration and despair. Stopping smoking can be emotionally draining (Heckman et al., 2018), and e-liquid flavours may create confidence in vaping as a smoking cessation method (McCausland et al., 2020), or destroy that confidence. For example, George’s extensive pre-study social experiences with vaping led him to believe: ‘ … if I find one [flavour] that I really like, it will make me much more likely to quit smoking, than if I just get the same one and then think it’s kind of fine’ (T1). His flavour search started hopefully as he remarked two weeks later: ‘I’d be really happy if I, if I got one and it’s like, “This is fantastic” … .I think it will be one time I’ll try one and be like, “This is the one”’ (T2). However, choosing created intolerable anxiety as he feared not finding ‘the one’: ‘ … I could miss one that I would really like but just never tried … . I need to go and, go through and try everything’ (T2). At his third interview a month later, he was despairing at the challenge of choosing from among so many options, and his confidence in locating ‘the one’ had disappeared, replaced by hesitation and indecision: ‘I haven’t really looked into the other, the other ones [flavours] too much. I’m not sure. There’s like, there’s quite a lot of them I’m sure I might like, but I don’t know … ’ (T3). Six weeks later at his fourth interview, George had rejected the customisation and complexity that initially intrigued him, yet kept vaping (while also continuing to smoke) and had graduated to a ‘simplified’ (Blue & Shove, 2016) non-refillable pod device available in only four or five flavours. Despite the exhausting roller coaster of hope, frustration, and disappointment, processes of ‘simplification’ helped George recreate a tolerable, yet unsatisfying, sense of security with his new vaping practice.

Material flexibility was doubled-edged, creating opportunities alongside challenges. Compared with practice ‘simplification’, embracing alternatives beyond ‘red or blue’ created exciting possibilities for sensory exploration and ‘cultivation’ of flavour know-how (Blue & Shove, 2016). Variety offered chances to craft a superior consumption experience through exercising personal taste, discernment, and distinction (Keane et al., 2017). For example, Lily, a chef in training, bubbled with excitement during two separate interviews as she anticipated a local Vape Day festival. After finally attending, she rattled off the many flavours she had sampled, and displayed her newly developed flavour sophistication when she described one as tasting of ‘late harvest black raspberries’ (T4). The number and complexity of vaping flavour choices facilitated sensory connoisseurship akin to wine or craft beer appreciation, including distinct vocabularies (Maciel & Wallendorf, 2017; Tokle & Pedersen, 2019). Connoisseurship signalled an advanced stage in Blue and Shove’s (Blue & Shove, 2016) ‘internal ladders of expertise’. Flavours were not just ‘raspberry’ or even ‘black raspberry’, but developed layers of ‘late harvest’ complexity discernible only by those with advanced levels of competence. As we describe in the next section, expert knowledge signalled well-embedded security with the new practice that enabled Lily to pro-actively use e-liquid flavours to recruit other people who smoke to vaping.

Competence: social and emotional connections

Vaping spreads easily through personal networks and via word-of-mouth (Fraser et al., 2015; Keane et al., 2017). E-liquid flavours facilitated this spread through the physical sharing of materials, advice, and support, and ‘belongingness’ connecting users (Katz et al., 2020). Compared with the relative sameness of tobacco flavours, the novelty and flexibility of non-tobacco e-liquid flavours may strengthen connections between fellow users, and link existing and potential users (Ranjit et al., 2021).

E-liquid flavours promoted practice spread by creating intrigue and curiosity among bystanders that could bolster feelings of security with the new practice if those reactions were positive, while also establishing a platform for ‘cultivation’ and ascending levels of competence (Blue & Shove, 2016). Novices developed flavour discernment and critiquing skills that might evolve into social displays of expert knowledge. These new competences reinforced differences between vaping and smoking and created opportunities for personal and social enhancement. For example, Lily described the social connecting role of curiosity and embodied experience of sharing flavours when people who vape meet: ‘ … they’ll often be like, “Ooh, do you want to try the different flavours that you’ve got?” So it’ll be like, you do a little pass over of vapes, try the flavour and then pass them back and go, “Ah, your flavour was a bit, this and that”, or you know. You don’t do that with cigarettes ‘cause they all taste like shit … ’ (T2). Novel, especially non-tobacco, flavours may attract positive attention and opportunities to take centre stage. As Lily explained, ‘I think it’s a big part of the culture, is being able to kind of have new and exciting flavours and you’re getting to kind of, share them and show them off’ (T2). ‘Showing off’ spreads practices through sharing materials and information while creating self-enhancing attention (Tokle & Pedersen, 2019) and contributing to feelings of social and personal security. Like Lily, many participants enjoyed the attention-grabbing potential of flavours, which reinforced their flavour choices and decision to stop smoking (Measham et al., 2016).

Participants often framed the smoking community as functional or transactional, while vaping was ‘Belonging somewhere. You don’t have that with smoking … .Totally different’ (Charlotte, T2). As Lily explained, ‘ … with cigarettes, you know, you’ve got that community where you might ask someone for a paper or a filter … .But you’re not going to have that, “Ah, do you want to like try my vape ‘cause it’s got this flavour in it?”’ (T2). Community was created through ‘ladders’ (Blue & Shove, 2016) of emotional connection and intimacy. Charlotte was an enthusiastic participant of online vaping groups, initially motivated to go online to obtain information needed to use her e-cigarette correctly. However, she became deeply involved emotionally when she discovered a thriving community filled with optimism and hope (Lucherini, 2021), and free of the judgement and social censure associated with smoking (McCausland et al., 2020). Shared emotions were key, as she described how, ‘ … I get excited when people get their new flavours or people get excited when I get mine. There’s none of that with smoking’ (T2). These intense, communal emotional responses created a powerful glue and provided security for community members (Phipps & Ozanne, 2017). Shared emotions combined with other social aspects, such as information exchange and advice, to facilitate the alignment of positive emotions with vaping and embed and sustain the practice (Katz et al., 2020; Lucherini, 2021).

Experienced users could employ e-liquid flavours to recruit smokers to vaping. For example, Lily cultivated her expertise as she moved from sharing and critiquing flavours to dispensing advice and recruiting others who smoked to vaping through sharing flavour materials and offering new sensory experiences. Her early efforts involved proffering her e-cigarette to people smoking at the pub so they could experience the taste of her e-liquid and compare it to smoking. At later interviews, as her knowledge and personal security in vaping increased, she skilfully utilised emotion in her recruitment efforts to ‘Get them excited about the different flavours, compared to the kind of disgusting tobacco flavours’ (T4). Lily represented a pinnacle of competence in her use of e-liquid flavours and sharing of embodied experiences and emotions. Her highly developed skills expanded the practice of vaping to incorporate evangelising to others and grass-roots community development (Lucherini, 2021).

Limitations

Like all studies, our has limitations. We purposively sampled participants for study inclusion and analysis because they completed all five interviews. Nine participants aged 18–30 enrolled in the study but failed to complete more than three interviews. Retaining these nine participants for all five interviews may have afforded further insights. Interviews explored vaping in general and did not focus specifically on flavour experiences, although all participants were asked to describe their e-liquid flavours and perceptions of these compared to smoking.

This study was conducted when New Zealand did not regulate e-liquid flavours and their availability. Since then, the New Zealand Government has introduced retail restrictions, with the full range of flavours now only available at specialist licenced vaping shops. Non-specialist shops (e.g. convenience stores) are limited to selling ‘tobacco’, mint, and menthol flavours. Future research should explore how these restrictions influence the personal and social value of vaping for people who smoke.

Conclusion

We found that e-liquid flavours could disrupt tobacco’s value proposition by provoking emotional responses that had a crucial impact on participants’ emotional security when vaping. E-liquid flavours supported, and often challenged, positive emotional engagement. Competence to deal with initially unsettling emotions when vaping was key to helping participants reorient meanings and emotions with unfamiliar materials and technology and embed vaping in their lives. Our findings highlight how emotional security helps spread voluntary practices like vaping and extends the findings of Phipps and Ozanne (2017), who explored responses to severe water restrictions arising from a multi-year drought. In contrast to a potentially irreversible environmental collapse demanding new practices, no matter how fragile or intolerable, tobacco remains a legal option for all adults who smoke and try vaping. Our findings suggest that e-liquid flavours can create positive emotional security when established practices such as smoking are voluntarily disrupted. Unlike new practices arising from unavoidable and potentially irreversible disruptions, a voluntary practice must address the emotional needs of users if it is to persist.

Our longitudinal method with relatively short intervals between interviews enabled us to garner more contemporaneous accounts of participants’ experiences compared with one-off or less demanding interview schedules. While resource intensive, we believe this approach has considerable strengths in illuminating how specific practices change over time and may help identify key moments during smoking-to-vaping transitions where additional support may be desirable, for example when purchasing e-liquids or other consumables.

As a fast-moving consumer good, e-liquids are purchased regularly, and flavours ideally sampled in-person. These attributes suggest further optimisation of New Zealand’s vaping regulations by limiting online sales and mandating cessation advice and support at all point-of-sale interactions to further disrupt smoking social practices and normalise vaping-assisted cessation attempts among people who smoke.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval came from the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee (Health) (18/014).

Acknowledgements

We thank Grace Teah for her assistance with interviewing two participants. We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and challenging comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

Although we do not consider it a conflict of interest, we note that the authors are members of ASPIRE2025, a research collaboration working to achieve the New Zealand Government’s Smokefree 2025 goal.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund (Te Apārangi Aotearoa Te Pūtea Rangahau a Marsden) under [Grant 17-UOO-129].