Industry sponsored anti-smoking ads and adolescent reactance: test of a boomerang effect

Abstract

Objective: To examine whether adolescents' exposure to youth smoking prevention ads sponsored by tobacco companies promotes intentions to smoke, curiosity about smoking, and positive attitudes toward the tobacco industry. Design: A randomised controlled experiment compared adolescents' responses to five smoking prevention ads sponsored by a tobacco company (Philip Morris or Lorillard), or to five smoking prevention ads sponsored by a non-profit organisation (the American Legacy Foundation), or to five ads about preventing drunk driving. Setting: A large public high school in California's central valley. Subjects: A convenience sample of 9th and 10th graders (n = 832) ages 14-17 years. Main outcome measures: Perceptions of ad effectiveness, intention to smoke, and attitudes toward tobacco companies measured immediately after exposure. Results: As predicted, adolescents rated Philip Morris and Lorillard ads less favourably than the other youth smoking prevention ads. Adolescents' intention to smoke did not differ as a function of ad exposure. However, exposure to Philip Morris and Lorillard ads engendered more favourable attitudes toward tobacco companies. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that industry sponsored anti-smoking ads do more to promote corporate image than to prevent youth smoking. By cultivating public opinion that is more sympathetic toward tobacco companies, the effect of such advertising is likely to be more harmful than helpful to youth.

Prevalence and correlates of cigarette smoking among adolescents in Malawi: results from the Global Youth Tobacco Survey 2005

“…Another alternative explanation is that the anti-tobacco messages were yet to be effective. Henriksen et al (2006) have reported that tobacco industry sponsored anti-tobacco messages may not result in decreasing tobacco use. These authors have reported that anti-tobacco messages from tobacco firms were more effective in building corporate image rather than preventing smoking.…”

Proscriptive Models and Evidence in Antismoking Advertising

“…Some MCRC antismoking advertisements used proscriptive models similar to the tobacco industry advertisements by portraying tobacco use as safe and a rite of passage. This portrayal of smokers could have a boomerang effect (Henriksen et al, 2006) on smoking rates, especially in teenagers. In addition, most antismoking advertisements failed to use any type of evidence to support the claims of their advertising.…”

“…Inadvertently portraying smokers as healthy or normal may create an undesired boomerang effect in antismoking campaigns (Henriksen, Dauphinee, Wang, & Fortmann, 2006). The following questions are potential markers for this process: RQ1: How often are there no graphic visual consequences to a smoker's behavior when antismoking advertisements show images of an individual smoker?…”

« Think. Don’t Smoke » : le discours subliminal de Philip Morris dans sa campagne de prévention du tabagisme chez les adolescents

“…En outre, nous observons un écart entre le locuteur et le langage. 60 Certains chercheurs (Henriksen et al 2006 ;Farrelly et al 2002) n'ont pas hésité à affirmer que des campagnes comme TDS nuisaient à l'efficacité de la prévention orchestrée par les organismes officiels (comme la campagne nationale « Truth » de The American Legacy) en créant une confusion : puisque l'industrie du tabac fait elle-même de la prévention auprès des jeunes, elle crée implicitement un amalgame entre fumer et santé. .…”

“…Il est néanmoins frappant de constater que tous les articles auxquels j'ai eu accès parviennent à la même conclusion : l'inefficacité, voire la contre-productivité (en termes de prévention) des spots TDS (Biener 2002 ;Farrelly et al 2003 ;Wakefield et al 2003 ;Henriksen et al 2006 2006 : 2156). En outre, l'article a mis en évidence que les spots s'adressant aux parents accroissaient chez les adolescents l'idée que les dangers de la cigarette étaient exagérés.…”