Tobacco Control

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

Tobacco Control 2006;15:13-18; doi:10.1136/tc.2003.006361
Copyright © 2006 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Henriksen, L
Right arrow Articles by Fortmann, S P
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Henriksen, L
Right arrow Articles by Fortmann, S P
Related Collections
Right arrow Tobacco use (youth)
Right arrow Advertising and Marketing

REVIEW

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

L Henriksen, A L Dauphinee, Y Wang, S P Fortmann

Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA

Correspondence to:
Dr Lisa Henriksen
Stanford Prevention Research Center, Hoover Pavilion, Room N145, 211 Quarry Road, Stanford, CA 94305-5705, USA; lhenriksen{at}stanford.edu


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.


Abbreviations: HRS, Hong reactance scale; TRS, therapeutic reactance scale

Keywords: advertising; adolescents; reactance; tobacco industry




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Health Educ ResHome page
M. C. Farrelly, K. C. Davis, J. Duke, and P. Messeri
Sustaining 'truth': changes in youth tobacco attitudes and smoking intentions after 3 years of a national antismoking campaign
Health Educ. Res., January 17, 2008; (2008) cym087v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Public HealthHome page
E. M. Sebrie and S. A. Glantz
Attempts to Undermine Tobacco Control: Tobacco Industry "Youth Smoking Prevention" Programs to Undermine Meaningful Tobacco Control in Latin America
Am J Public Health, August 1, 2007; 97(8): 1357 - 1367.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2006 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.