Study: Anti-smoking ads have opposite effect on teens

Atlanta Journal Constitution ^ | Published on: 07/19/07 | ANDREA JONES

[Sonny M]

The more exposure middle school students have to anti-smoking ads, the more likely they are to smoke, according to a new University of Georgia study.

Hye-Jin Paek, an assistant professor at UGA, found that many anti-smoking ad campaigns have the opposite effect on teenagers, backfiring because they actually encourage the rebellious nature of youth.

"They don't want to hear what they should do or not do," Paek said. Instead, she said, ads should focus on convincing teens their friends are heeding the anti-smoking warning because peer pressure has the most direct effect.

Paek and co-author Albert Gunther from the University of Wisconsin-Madison examined surveys from 1,700 middle school students about their exposure to anti-smoking ads and their intention to smoke. The study will be published in the August issue of the journal "Communication Research."

The study is the latest in a string of research showing that anti-smoking campaigns often have ad little to no impact on teens. In 2002, a study commissioned by an anti-smoking foundation found tobacco manufacturer Philip Morris' youth anti-smoking campaign was making students more likely to smoke.

Paek said the data showed middle school students are more like to be influenced by the perception of what their friends are doing, and that anti-smoking campaigns should be more focused on peer relations.

"Rather than saying, 'don't smoke,' it is better to say, "your friends are listening to this message and not smoking," she said. "It doesn't really matter what their peers are actually doing."

[Bronzy]

Shouldn’t we all feel compelled to buy a pack since a lot of state governments fund the health care of CHILDREN on cig taxes. LOL

[the_devils_advocate_666]

Why would it be any different with abstenence messages?

Or drinking, or doing drugs...

[Just another Joe]

Rather than getting mad at Big Tobacco, I want to go have a smoke just to pi$$ off that annoying little jerk.

Yep, every time one of those "Truth" ads comes on I have to fight an irrational urge to light up in response.

[Larry Lucido]

Study: Anti-smoking ads have opposite effect on teens

In other news, RJ Reynolds has announced that it will spend an extra one billion dollars on anti-smoking ads this year.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

This is what happens when you try to mold external behavior while refusing to promote the inner character and moral foundation that would produce the desired behavior naturally.

IOW, let's not be surprised when people behave according to their nature.

[Gabz]

There is not and never has been anything involving TRUTH in any of the “truth” campaigns. This is particularly true when you look into their funding. They are financed entirely by smokers through the Master Settlement Agreement, and are the first ones to start screaming about a cut in their funding when cigarette purchases start declining.

Hypocrites.

[Tall_Texan]

So, I guess the anti-drug, anti-fast food and anti-pollution ads are having the same negative effect?

[the anti-liberal]

Absolutely!

In fact, the more benefits seen (for them) in attaining and maintaining good health the better. And the less they are exposed to even the idea of smoking the better.

Put the two together and you have a winning combination!

[Billthedrill]

I cannot stand those ads from some group called “the truth”, where it’s some obnoxious kid with a megaphone shouting at “Big Tobacco” in some defiant “stick-it-to-the-man” voice while other kids around him engaged in some kind of faux performance art demonstration.

Those are exactly what ran through my mind reading this. They might as well run a line of text across the bottom reading "We think you're so stupid you'll fall for this manipulative crap." One certain way not to win the sympathies of young people (or anyone else) is to insult their intelligence.

Somewhere someone in those ad agencies - probably an art student - has confused the messages "I'm young, passionate, romantic and defiant" with "I'm a total loser." The fact of the matter is that Big Tobacco got mugged by Big Law, and it's awfully difficult to root for either side and still "stick it to the Man."

[3AngelaD]

Let me take a stab at this. I think the difference might be the “immediate results” effect. Kids can see the results of irresponsible sex, in that they see girls getting pregnant, STDs, and even HIV. Kids can also see the results of their friends being drunk and stoned: they get stupid and do stupid things. There are no immediate negative outcomes of smoking. Teenagers’ brain development is not complete, and often they are unable to foresee the long-term consequences of their actions if their is not an immediate signal. The immediate results effect, to a certain, limited extent, compensates for that.

[Tall_Texan]

I’d like to see pro-non-smoking ads instead of anti-smoking. That make sense? Instead of hammering on don’t smoke, glorify general fitness. You wouldn’t even have to mention smoking in some of the ads.

I took a course many years ago and learned that if you tell kids consistently that they are a negative trait (fat, lazy, messy, etc) that they'll internalize this as their identity. "Of course, I'm messy," the child thinks, "because you tell me I'm a messy child. That's who I am."

The way to correct such behavior is to set a standard and then reinforce that others are meeting that standard and that this child should too. i.e. "We have a clean house and everyone picks up after themselves". The underlying message is that, to be part of the desired peer group, the child must elevate their standards to meet the desired goal.

That's easier to instill while the desired peer group is the family unit. Once the peer group switches to friends and classmates, you'll have a tougher time gaining traction.

[hunter112]

Let me take a stab at this. I think the difference might be the “immediate results” effect. Kids can see the results of irresponsible sex, in that they see girls getting pregnant, STDs, and even HIV. Kids can also see the results of their friends being drunk and stoned: they get stupid and do stupid things.

I appreciate your contribution to this discussion. But the "immediate results" factor really doesn't apply to sex, either. The kids have been told that if they use condoms, nothing's going to happen, and besides (kids being kids) bad stuff happens to someone else. I doubt that outside of the inner cities, many kids have seen a fellow high schooler get HIV. Pregnant, yes, but that seems to have little deterrent value for boys, especially in a society that has free and easy abortion.

As for seeing the negative effects of alcohol and drugs, I'm sure that most think somebody acting plotzed is kind of funny. It gets negative only when somebody dies in an auto accident where intoxicants are identified as a factor.

I still believe the rebellion factor is quite strong with kids when they see the abstenance messages, and that's why they are of limited effect with young people, especially those who have no strong parental figures who reinforce the message.

[metesky]

Why is it that we lay people have more expertise than the experts?

Prolly because we remember the past while these monkeys are always re-inventing the wheel.

[Madame Dufarge]

[Gabz]

“Experts” bore me.

[Marie]

I hate them most when I'm trying to quit. I can be sitting comfortably, completely relaxed and not thinking about cigarettes at all, watching Scrubs (or whatever), then here comes a commercial that reminds me of exactly the thing I'm trying NOT to think of.

And you're right, I've noticed that every smoker I know lights up when an anti-smoking commercial comes on.

[Reeses]

Rather than getting mad at Big Tobacco, I want to go have a smoke just to pi$$ off that annoying little jerk.

Big Government is making much more money off cigarettes than Big Tobacco is. Showing socialist bureaucrats at their worst spending the money would be more beneficial than demonizing capitalism. I know I wouldn't buy a pack of cigarettes if saw who was getting the money. No effective ad like that will ever run though because socialists run the show.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Waverunner]

I see they haven’t started the fire yet.

[maryz]

So, I guess the anti-drug, anti-fast food and anti-pollution ads are having the same negative effect?

LOL! A few years back, a local TV station was running pseudo-"cool" PSAs with the message, "Be cool! Stay in school" (only a lot longer). I had two Masters degrees and always loved school -- those ads made me want to run up to the local high school, enroll -- and DROP OUT!