The survey and methodology were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Pennsylvania. Previous work verified that there were no significant differences between panel responders and nonresponders (Weibe, http://www.selleckchem.com/products/ganetespib-sta-9090.html Eyerman, & Loft, 2001). To ensure that participants were current and regular smokers, inclusion criteria were the following: (a) currently smoking cigarettes, (b) had smoked an average of 5 or more cigarettes/day in the past week, and (c) had smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime. Participants responded to questions related to their own smoking habits and their family history of smoking, as well as their general attitude toward vaccines. Next, participants were randomly assigned to read one of two paragraphs describing the nicotine vaccine.

Supplementary material contains full-text wordings of each paragraph. Both versions explained the vaccine, mentioned safety and efficacy, and the possibility of periodic booster shots for long-term efficacy. One version of the paragraph framed nicotine addiction in terms of genetic susceptibility, while the other version framed nicotine addiction in terms of environmental influences. The ��genetic�� version was 166 words, and the ��environmental�� version was 164 words. Participants were then asked about their intentions to get a nicotine vaccine if one were to become available in the future. Main effects of the experimental manipulation were assessed using analysis of variance, and predictors of intention to vaccinate were determined using multivariate linear regression.

Measures Measures asked prior reading the framing paragraph Number of previous quit attempts. Participants were asked, ��How many times have you previously quit smoking on purpose for more than one complete day?�� Based on distribution of responses, participants were placed into one of four categories: 0, 1�C2, 3�C4, or 5 or more previous quit attempts. Previous quit methods. Participants were asked, ��Have you ever tried any of the following methods to quit smoking.�� Response options were: (a) counseling or calling a quitline; (b) going ��cold turkey�� without using any products; (c) nicotine patch; (d) nicotine gum; (e) nicotine lozenge; (f) nicotine nasal spray; (g) nicotine inhaler; and (h) medications, such as Zyban or Wellbutrin. Participants could choose multiple quit methods if necessary.

Nicotine dependence. Nicotine dependence was measured using the Fagerstr?m Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND; Heatherton, Kozlowski, AV-951 Frecker, & Fagerstr?m, 1991). Based on distribution, participants�� scores were separated into three categories of nicotine dependence: low (0�C3), medium (4�C5), and high (6�C10). Internal consistency of the FTND has been previously reported as 0.61 (Heatherton et al.). Personal vulnerability to smoking-related illness. Participants were asked, ��To what extent do you feel your overall health has been affected by smoking.