Cigarette filters are included on nearly all commercially sold cigarettes worldwide despite offering no demonstrable protection to smokers and generating substantial environmental waste. Filters may also alter the appeal of cigarettes and reinforce consumer misperceptions of reduced risk. This preprint reports an online randomised experiment conducted in Great Britain to evaluate whether the visual presence of filters influences cigarette appeal and perceptions of health harms and environmental harms among adults.
The study aimed to determine the effect of viewing images of cigarettes with versus without filters on (1) the likelihood of selecting a shown cigarette to smoke, and (2) perceptions that the cigarette is extremely harmful to health or to the environment.
The trial was a between-subject randomised experiment embedded within a nationally representative YouGov Social Omnibus survey in Great Britain in May 2026. The analytic sample comprised 3,961 adults aged 18 years and older. The authors reported subgroup samples of people who currently smoked (n=499) and people who smoked daily (n=270).
The manuscript is a medRxiv preprint posted September 20, 2026, and is explicitly labelled as not peer reviewed. The authors report that ethical approval was obtained from the University of Sussex.
Participants were randomised to view images of cigarettes either without filters (intervention) or with conventional filters (comparator). The primary outcome measure was whether a participant selected one of the displayed cigarettes to smoke versus selecting none.
Secondary outcomes were binary measures of whether participants perceived the displayed cigarette as extremely harmful to health and whether they perceived it as extremely harmful to the environment.
Logistic regression models were used to estimate associations between condition (no filter vs filter) and each outcome. Models were adjusted for age, sex and smoking status. The authors report adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals and p-values. Subgroup analyses were reported for the sample of people who currently smoked and for those who smoked daily.
Primary outcome (selection to smoke): Among the full sample, 19.1% of participants who viewed cigarettes without filters selected a cigarette to smoke compared with 28.1% of those who viewed filtered cigarettes. After adjustment, viewing cigarettes without filters was associated with markedly lower odds of choosing a cigarette (AOR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.38–0.55, p < .001).
Secondary outcome — perceived health harm: A larger proportion of participants who viewed unfiltered cigarettes rated the cigarette as extremely harmful to health (65.2%) compared with those who viewed filtered cigarettes (59.9%). Adjusted analyses indicated higher odds of rating extreme health harm for unfiltered versus filtered cigarettes (AOR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.10–1.45, p = .001).
Secondary outcome — perceived environmental harm: The proportion perceiving extreme environmental harm was 41.8% for unfiltered images versus 44.3% for filtered images. The adjusted analysis did not provide strong evidence of a difference between conditions (AOR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.78–1.01, p = .074).
People who currently smoke (n=499): In this subgroup, participants who viewed cigarettes without filters had substantially lower odds of choosing a cigarette to smoke compared with those who viewed filtered cigarettes (67.4% vs 94.2%). Reported adjusted odds ratio was 0.12 (95% CI 0.06–0.22, p < .001).
People who smoke daily (n=270): Findings were similar in the daily-smoking subgroup, with selection rates of 70.7% for the no-filter condition versus 94.8% for the filter condition. The reported adjusted odds ratio was 0.14 (95% CI 0.06–0.36, p < .001).
Perceived health harms in smoker subgroups: The authors report that evidence was insufficient to conclude differences between conditions in perceived health harms among people who currently smoke (29.7% vs 27.8%, p = .588) or among daily smokers (32.2% vs 28.6%, p = .324).
In this nationally representative online experiment, removing visible cigarette filters reduced the stated appeal of the cigarettes across the general population and among people who smoke. Removing filters was also associated with increased perceptions of extreme health harm in the full sample. Evidence was not sufficient to show a consistent effect on perceptions of environmental harm in adjusted analyses.
The authors note that because filters do not protect health and contribute to environmental pollution, regulatory actions that restrict, modify, or prohibit filters could support both public health and environmental objectives. These policy implications are framed in light of the experimental findings on appeal and harm perceptions.
The manuscript states that ethical approval was granted by the ethics committee of the University of Sussex and that relevant participant consent procedures were followed. The authors declare no competing interests.
Data and code supporting the analyses are available via the Open Science Framework at the URL provided in the manuscript. The paper lists several funders, including the University of Sussex (Sussex Knowledge Exchange Fellowship), the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the National Cancer Institute, Cancer Research UK, and the British Heart Foundation.
This preprint presents experimental evidence that visual removal of cigarette filters lowers cigarette appeal and increases perceived health harm among adults in Great Britain, including among people who smoke. The authors conclude that because filters offer no health protection and produce environmental waste, policies targeting filters may advance public health and environmental goals. The work is a preprint and has not undergone peer review; users should interpret findings accordingly and consult the full manuscript and data for further details.