Does ostracism help smokers quit?

Abstract

Research on the effects of stigmatizing on smokers shows that it is stressful to be reminded of one's devalued status and stigmatization might help or hinder quitting intentions. In this study, we asked smokers (N = 277) to play an online ball-tossing Cyberball game, ostensibly with nonsmoking strangers. Participants were randomly assigned to an ostracism (included or excluded) and concealment (smoking status concealed or revealed) manipulation. We found that exclusion led smokers (directly or via threat appraisals) to be more stressed, cognitively depleted, rejection sensitive, have fewer positive cognitions, see themselves at greater health risk, feel more internalized stigma, and be more interested in quitting, with stronger effects when their smoking status was revealed instead of concealed. These results suggest that concealment is imperfect in protecting against stigma and that exclusion (although stressful and cognitively taxing) can lead to cognitions, attitudes, and intentions helping smokers quit and thus leave their devalued identity. The results do not imply that one ought to stigmatize; stigmatizing smokers might be unethical or create barriers to health-seeking behaviors which could counteract structural efforts to help smokers quit. Future research should examine the role of self-affirmation to increase the effectiveness of health messages perceived as stigmatizing or identity threatening.

Using Moralization as a Persuasion Strategy in Public Health Messages: A Cross-Sectional, Experimental Study on Vaping

“…Moralization has often been employed in public health campaigns to deter people from engaging in health-risk behaviors, such as smoking [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. The rationale behind this strategy was that shifting the focus from health implications to moral values would strengthen people’s motivation to change their behaviors in the desired direction because of the importance that human beings place on being socially perceived as moral [ 10 ].…”

“…Despite its alleged efficiency in disease prevention [ 1 ]; but also see [ 19 ], the moralization of health behaviors in the general population can affect social cohesion, threatening societal integrity [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. The health of the people who deviate from the new social norm can also be negatively affected, either through the distress associated with being stigmatized and discriminated against [ 2 ] or due to paradoxical effects associated with perceived moral reproach [ 33 ], such as maladaptive coping mechanisms (i.e., “defensive overkill” responses to perceived moral threat [ 23 ]), such as binge eating in the case of weight moralization [ 14 ]. Finally, health behavior moralization alone can increase or decrease perceived health risks, despite a lack of scientific support or even evidence to the contrary: the more (im)moral a health behavior, the more/less its associated risk [ 9 , 13 ].…”