Does the exposure to smoking cues in movies affect adolescents' immediate smoking behavior?

Smoking in European adolescents: Relation between media influences, family affluence, and migration background

“…Another well-established environmental risk factor is media exposure. A number of cross-sectional (Sargent et al, 2001; Sargent et al, 2005; Hanewinkel & Sargent, 2007), longitudinal (Dalton et al, 2003; Hanewinkel & Sargent, 2008; Jackson, Brown, & L’Engle, 2007; Tanski, Stoolmiller, Gerrard, & Sargent, 2012), and experimental studies (Gibson & Maurer, 2000; Hanewinkel, 2009; Hines, Saris, & Throckmorton-Belzer, 2000; Pechmann & Shih, 1999; Lochbuehler, Kleinjan, & Engels, 2013) have found an association between seeing smoking imagery in movies and own smoking among adolescents. The evidence for this seems strong enough that a US National Cancer Institute (NCI) report (National Cancer Institute, 2008) as well as a report from the World Health Organization (World Health Organization, 2009) suggest a causal association.…”

Films as Object of Studies for Research in Applied Social Sciences

“…Moreover, there is space in the academy for articles that concern about providing a model for analyses of these same objects of study in areas such as the ASS. In order to provide examples of this, the articles of Cag and Acar (2015) and Lochbuehler, Kleinjan and Engels (2013) are mentioned. In the first, a film was analyzed based on the symbolic-experiential approach of family therapy.…”

“…Thus, we have the use of cinematographic resources in the education field. Such observation is also applied to the studies in applied social sciences, where it is possible to see articles such as Lochbuehler, Kleinjan and Engels (2013) and Tasci (2009). In articles mentioned alterations in consumption behaviors are analyzed in function of contacts with films.…”

“…In the last step presented in the model, it is proposed to analyze the reflection generated, the dissemination actions, derivations created and eventual awards. In terms of reflection generated, this concerns the interpretations of possible alterations of behavior, provoked by spectators that can have adhered or not to the purpose, either of the film or the research developed by the researchers, as seen in the study of Lochbuehler, Kleinjan and Engels (2013), recalling. Whereas the dissemination actions are about the unfolds, such as the mouth-to-mouth generated (recommending or criticizing) and the feedback (positive or negative) of experts (critics, journalists, and council members such as CONAR ii , just a few examples), which relate to the considerations of groups of inffluences, present in Henningsen and Henningsen (2015) and Cascio et al (2015) and that can also serve as analysis object complementary to the filmic analysis.…”