HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

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

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

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:

				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]

				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]