Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8 1673 groups may be more responsive to cigarette price increases compared to more advantaged strata [19]. There is suggestive evidence of a negative social gradient by occupation as well, but this association was limited to the United Kingdom [19]. Additionally, the forthcoming IARC handbook also provides evidence that socially disadvantaged adults are more price sensitive [13]. In addition to the intended cessation outcomes associated with price or tax increases, smokers also have several options available to minimize their expenditures for cigarettes (see Figure 1). Based on a compensatory model of price effects developed by investigators on the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project [20], unintended outcomes associated with a price increase are possible, including: (1) having no effect on the smokers‘ behavior, (2) cutting back on cigarettes smoked, or (3) engaging in techniques to help alleviate the price burden. Previous literature has suggested that at least half of the decrease in cigarette demand occurs as a result of reductions in individual cigarette consumption, as opposed to complete cessation [1,7]. Although some evidence suggests that consumers have become more price sensitive over time [5,14], a recent IARC review has concluded that cigarette price elasticity has remained relatively stable over time and across different price levels in high income countries [13]. Figure 1. Modified Compensatory Model of Price effects in response to a price or tax increase. Econometric evidence of cigarette price and cessation consistently reports an inverse relationship between higher prices and cessation [3,9-14]. However, the effect on cessation behaviors with use of