background: Peer crowds are macro-level subcultures that transcend geography and demographics and comprise individuals who share similar interests, lifestyles, and social norms. Previous research suggests youth who identify with particular crowds (e.g., Hip Hop) are more at risk for cigarette use. Although it may be most accurate to describe an individual as identifying with multiple crowds, most studies categorize youth into a single crowd for analysis. We extend previous research by examining dual peer crowd identification and cigarette risk among Hip Hop youth. methods: Data on peer crowd identification and cigarette use/susceptibility were collected from 15,831 youth ages 13-17 who responded to a message testing study screener to inform a national tobacco education campaign. Using a photo-based assessment tool (I-Base Survey) to measure crowd identification, youth who identified with Hip Hop and a second crowd (Alternative; Mainstream; Popular; Country) were examined in the final analyses. Dual peer crowd identification and cigarette risk status (non-susceptible non-trier; susceptible non-trier; experimenter) were explored using a Chi-Square analysis with follow-up z-tests. results: Differences in proportions of non-susceptible non-triers and experimenters were found. A greater proportion of Hip Hop/Alternative youth were experimenters than all other identifications, while a greater proportion of Hip Hop/Mainstream, Hip Hop/Country, and Hip Hop/Popular youth were non-susceptible non-triers than Hip Hop/Alternative. A greater proportion of youth who solely identified with the Hip Hop peer crowd were experimenters than Hip Hop/Mainstream youth. A greater proportion of Hip Hop/Mainstream and Hip Hop/Popular identified youth were non-susceptible non-triers than youth who solely identified with Hip Hop. All reported comparisons were significant (p < .05). conclusions: Dual peer crowd identities are associated with different levels of cigarette risk. This study demonstrates that peer crowd identity is often not exclusive, and thus future research may benefit from a nuanced consideration of dual crowd identity.