SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for Pregnancy

Pregnancy

Actors & Actresses – img12360

by

If recognized, celebrities tend to attract attention. People get excited in their presence and flock to them for an opportunity to connect with them, either with an autograph, a photo, or just a chance to say “hello.” Thus it has become popular belief that advertisements with celebrity endorsements will generate similar levels of attention and enthusiasm (2). The tobacco industry has been actively utilizing this strategy by recruiting big names from across disciplines, including TV, movies, sports, science, and politics. Lucille Ball from “I Love Lucy” was the face of Philip Morris in the 50s, Ronald Reagan claimed Chesterfield was a favorite, and numerous Olympic athletes apparently smoked Camels “for its mildness.” Antismoking campaigns must counter the tobacco industry’s moves, and so they use celebrities to enhance the delivery of their anti-smoking messages as well.

Anti-smoking campaigns use celebrities from a variety of fields to connect with a wide audience and deliver many different anti-smoking messages, from secondhand smoke to social acceptance to diseases. Beautiful models and actresses are often photo-shopped or made to look ridiculous to prove that smoking can taint the appeal of even the most beautiful people. In other ads, celebrities embrace that they are smoke-free and encourage their audience to follow their lead. They are proof that one can be successful and attractive without the influence of cigarettes. There are also the personal testimonials, in which celebrities who used to smoke have now quit for various reasons, such as the death of a loved one or for personal health reasons. Some of these themes have been shown to be effective on their own, and some not quite. The big question, however, is whether the message has a larger impact when a prominent person is presenting it.

The CDC advises using celebrities with caution in anti-smoking campaigns, but a recent study by Ace Metrix indicates that products actually do not benefit from celebrity endorsements (1), and often they even have a negative impact (4). An obvious advantage to the use of celebrities is that they draws attention, which can raise awareness for the campaign. By putting a face to the name, an ad should be more easily recalled. However, the type of attention and the reactions to the celebrity aren’t always positive, which then affects the reception of the message. Businesses run a high risk by investing their product in an individual because the consumer’s opinion of the celebrity can overshadow their opinion of the actual product. In Ace Metrix’s study, the most common reasons celebrity ads were unsuccessful are because there was confusion about what product the celebrity was endorsing, the ad was not interesting, or a person might harbor negative attitudes towards the celebrity (1).

Successful ads need to focus on delivering their message in a creative and clear way, and then, like any other element (such as humor or special effects), celebrity endorsements can be powerful in the right context.. Personal testimonials seem to be the most effective use of celebrities among teens (4). Many teens have not personally experienced the negative impacts of smoking, but the message is made more real and relatable by having a celebrity, or someone they respect or want to feel connected to, describe their own experiences. Teens are also responsive to the emotional appeal of personal stories (3).

Choosing the right celebrity is also an important factor to consider. A celebrity must support something that is relevant to the celebrity or that the celebrity is likely to use. Teens realize celebrities are paid to say things, and if they are advertising something that is not believable, the ad will lose its credibility. It is also important to realize that the likeability of a celebrity is entirely objective. Some people may enjoy the celebrity, while others find the individual annoying; these opinions are taken into account when an ad is processed. The credibility of the ad is also linked to the reputation of the celebrity. A celebrity who has recently quit smoking but later regresses or picks up another drug can severely undermine a campaign (2, 4). There are many factors to consider when creating an effective anti-smoking campaign, and the power of an advertisement comes down to the power of the message rather than who delivers it.

REFERENCES:
1) Ace Metrix. Celebrity Advertisements: Exposing A Myth of Advertising Effectiveness. Ace Metrix, Inc. Proprietary: 2012.
2) Daboll P. “Celebrities in Advertising Are Almost Always a Big Waste of Money.” Ad Age. Crain Communications, 12 January 2011. Web. 5 June 2013. http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/celebrities-ads-lead-greater-sales/148174/
3) Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. JAMA 1998; 279: 772-777.
4) Schar E, Gutierrez K, Murphy-Hoefer R, Nelson DE. Tobacco Use Prevention Media Campaigns: Lessons Learned from Youth in Nine Countries. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on smoking and Health; 2006.

Gums – img12390

by

The message of quitting is widespread in anti-smoking advertisement and is found practically throughout every theme. Cessation ads explicitly advise their target audience to quit smoking. They offer certain objectives for quitting, including more money, improved health, and freeing up time and energy to engage in other exciting activities. These ads often acknowledge that quitting is extremely difficult, but they provide advice and support for quitting. Many of them employ an empathetic smoker-to-smoker voice that shows smokers they are not alone in their struggles.

There is also an array of cessation ads sponsored by nicotine-replacement products and other anti-smoking products. Their main purpose is not exactly aligned with public health departments’ concern for improving the well-being of the community, but rather focuses on marketing an alternative product to smokers. Many of these product-sponsored ads are more creative than the cessation ads produced by public health departments and other health organizations. This difference may reflect the inequality in funding and resources between businesses and non-profit organizations. There are some product-sponsored ads that do use tactics and persuasive messages similar to those used in public health messages, such as demonstrating incentives to quit smoking ranging from personal health and the health of children to personal beauty. However, unlike public health ads, which are persuading smokers to quit, many of these anti-smoking product ads are targeted to an audience that already wants to quit, making it unlikely that these ads make a significant difference in reducing the number of individuals attempting to quit smoking.

Cessation ads target all age groups, though they are more commonly directed towards adult smokers, because these ads have been correlated with increasing quit attempts in older age groups (1). The success of these ads begins by getting smokers to think about quitting. They then help to increase attempts to quit, often by providing a plan and/or a phone number for a support or quitline. (1, 2). In 1991, California’s antismoking campaign’s heavy focus on cessation efforts resulted in dramatic increases in calls to local health departments and quitlines (1). Many former smokers have, to some degree, attributed their decision to quit to their exposure to anti-smoking ads. In one study, 6.7% of smokers who were interviewed and uncued about the influence of antismoking ads on their decision to quit admitted that antismoking ads were the main reason they quit. When cued, 34.3% said the media campaigns were influential in their decision to quit. (3).

Cessation ads are an important component of antismoking campaigns because of their effectiveness in reducing the prevalence of smoking in the adult population. The power of the message of quitting can also be enhanced when coupled or rotated with other themes, such as anti-industry manipulation and secondhand smoke (1). Although cessation advertisements play an important role in the fight against smoking, they should not be the only antismoking campaigns in circulation. Again, the majority of adult smokers pick up the habit when they are under 18, and prevention among youth is extremely important in the fight to eliminate smoking.

REFERENCES:

1. Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. JAMA 1998; 279: 772-777.

2. Valone DM, Duke JC, Mowery PD, McCausland KL, Xiao H, Constantino JC, Asche ET, Cullen J, Allen JA. The Impact of EX: Results from a Pilot Smoking-Cessation Media Campaign. Am J Prev Med 2010; 38(3S): S312-S318

3. Popham WJ, Potter LD, Bal DG, Johnson MD, Duerr JM, Quinn V. Do Anti-Smoking Media Campaigns Help Smokers Quit? Public Health Reports 1993; 108(4): 510-513.

Gums – img12391

by

The message of quitting is widespread in anti-smoking advertisement and is found practically throughout every theme. Cessation ads explicitly advise their target audience to quit smoking. They offer certain objectives for quitting, including more money, improved health, and freeing up time and energy to engage in other exciting activities. These ads often acknowledge that quitting is extremely difficult, but they provide advice and support for quitting. Many of them employ an empathetic smoker-to-smoker voice that shows smokers they are not alone in their struggles.

There is also an array of cessation ads sponsored by nicotine-replacement products and other anti-smoking products. Their main purpose is not exactly aligned with public health departments’ concern for improving the well-being of the community, but rather focuses on marketing an alternative product to smokers. Many of these product-sponsored ads are more creative than the cessation ads produced by public health departments and other health organizations. This difference may reflect the inequality in funding and resources between businesses and non-profit organizations. There are some product-sponsored ads that do use tactics and persuasive messages similar to those used in public health messages, such as demonstrating incentives to quit smoking ranging from personal health and the health of children to personal beauty. However, unlike public health ads, which are persuading smokers to quit, many of these anti-smoking product ads are targeted to an audience that already wants to quit, making it unlikely that these ads make a significant difference in reducing the number of individuals attempting to quit smoking.

Cessation ads target all age groups, though they are more commonly directed towards adult smokers, because these ads have been correlated with increasing quit attempts in older age groups (1). The success of these ads begins by getting smokers to think about quitting. They then help to increase attempts to quit, often by providing a plan and/or a phone number for a support or quitline. (1, 2). In 1991, California’s antismoking campaign’s heavy focus on cessation efforts resulted in dramatic increases in calls to local health departments and quitlines (1). Many former smokers have, to some degree, attributed their decision to quit to their exposure to anti-smoking ads. In one study, 6.7% of smokers who were interviewed and uncued about the influence of antismoking ads on their decision to quit admitted that antismoking ads were the main reason they quit. When cued, 34.3% said the media campaigns were influential in their decision to quit. (3).

Cessation ads are an important component of antismoking campaigns because of their effectiveness in reducing the prevalence of smoking in the adult population. The power of the message of quitting can also be enhanced when coupled or rotated with other themes, such as anti-industry manipulation and secondhand smoke (1). Although cessation advertisements play an important role in the fight against smoking, they should not be the only antismoking campaigns in circulation. Again, the majority of adult smokers pick up the habit when they are under 18, and prevention among youth is extremely important in the fight to eliminate smoking.

REFERENCES:

1. Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. JAMA 1998; 279: 772-777.

2. Valone DM, Duke JC, Mowery PD, McCausland KL, Xiao H, Constantino JC, Asche ET, Cullen J, Allen JA. The Impact of EX: Results from a Pilot Smoking-Cessation Media Campaign. Am J Prev Med 2010; 38(3S): S312-S318

3. Popham WJ, Potter LD, Bal DG, Johnson MD, Duerr JM, Quinn V. Do Anti-Smoking Media Campaigns Help Smokers Quit? Public Health Reports 1993; 108(4): 510-513.

Other Bodily Disease – img12539

by

One of the most common anti-smoking advertisement approaches is featuring smoking-related diseases as the consequence of smoking. Ads in this “disease” category stress the long-term and short-term consequences of smoking. They are meant to inform people about the risks of smoking and counter the tobacco industry’s portrayal of smoking as glamorous and healthy.

These advertisements range from gruesome pictures of pain and suffering to images that would seem completely unrelated to smoking if it were not for the captions. Many show what smoking-related diseases look like and what they do to specific parts of the human body. The most graphic ads are meant to evoke feelings of disgust and fear that will discourage people from continuing to smoke or will prevent people from beginning to smoke in the first place.

According to the current literature, the effectiveness of these ads is ambiguous and varies among target groups. Several studies have found that ads that show long-term health consequences of smoking, such as cancers and heart disease, are less effective among youth than adults. One study suggests that adolescents are not responsive to these ads because they are already aware of the potential dangers of smoking, and these consequences seem so far in the future that they feel immune to them, believing they can quit before they contract the diseases in question (1). Adults, however, seem to be much more receptive to fear and threat, and rises in calls to quitlines and public health departments demonstrate increases in quit attempts as a result of exposure to antismoking campaigns (1).

Another reason these ads may be ineffective is because threatening information can induce defensive biases that cause the audience to stop processing the information (2). Fear, specifically, activates psychological reactance, which is a response that may lead to rejection of the message because a person’s freedom is threatened (3).

However, another study shows contrasting results and suggests that ads with higher emotional intensity, such as those that feature graphic disease or suffering, lead to reduced intention to smoke (3). These ads are more likely to be recalled, which means that they are cost-effective because they don’t have to be distributed as often to be effective.

An explanation for these conflicting results may come from another study, which examines the closely tied feelings of fear and empathy, sentiments that can both arise from seeing images of people suffering from diseases (4). The findings of this study suggest that the feeling of empathy that often comes from seeing people suffer from these diseases can increase the persuasiveness of the message, while, fear may decrease the persuasiveness of the ads by activating psychological reactance, leading to rejection of a message when freedom is threatened (4).

The effectiveness of disease-related ads may also vary between smokers and nonsmokers. Anit-tobacco advertisements are often processed in an attitude-consistent fashion. This means non-smokers tend to agree with the ads and retain the messages better, while smokers tend to avoid negative-self implications, disagree with the messages, and become less responsive to them. Repeatedly showing these advertisements to people who look upon these messages unfavorably may even strengthen these initially defensive responses(5). Similarly, fatigue by repetition may desensitize any audience to these messages.

Some methods of using disease to discourage smoking behaviors may be more effective than others. For youth audiences, highlighting their vulnerability to these diseases may be much more important than stressing the severity of the potential problems(6). In the context of low perceived vulnerability, emphasizing health risks could increase the symbolic value of smoking as a risk-seeking, rebellious, and thus attractive behavior(6). These ads appear to work better if youth know how to refuse cigarettes from peers. Thus, to enhance the effectiveness of these ads, they should be supplemented with in-school programs that teach youth these skills.

As mentioned above, ads that evoke empathy, instead of fear, can increase the persuasiveness of disease ads for youth(4). The youth audience has to be able to personally relate to the ads in order to respond to the messages. Ads that feature the long-term effects of smoking are more influential on adolescents who have personal experience with the disease represented in the ads, such as a friend or family member who has suffered or is suffering from the condition(1).

However, for youth who do not have personal experience with smoking-related diseases, the presence of a peer or someone slightly older in age that can act as a role model in the ad can increase responsiveness and help the young audience relate to the message. Anti-smoking ads that feature attractive models also lower smoking intent more than ads with unattractive models (7). Many studies have stressed the importance of testing the effectiveness of ads on focus groups to ensure that they work on their target audience before distributing them.

REFERENCES:

1. Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. JAMA 1998; 279: 772-777.

2. Agostinelli G, Grube JW. Tobacco Counter-Advertising: A Review of the Literature and a Conceptual Model for Understanding Effects. Journal of Health and Communication 2003; 8: 107-127.

3. Biener L, Wakefield M, Shiner CM, Siegel M. How Broadcast Volume and Emotional Content Affect Youth Recall of Anti-Tobacco Advertising. Am J Prev Med 2008; 35 (1).

4. Shen L. The Effectiveness of Empathy- Versus Fear-Arousing Antismoking PSAs. Health Communication 2011; 26: 404-415.

5. Leshner G, Bolls P, Wise K. Motivated Processing of Fear Appeal and Disgust Images in Televised Anti-Tobacco Ads.

6. Pechmann C, Zhao G, Goldberg ME, Reibling ET. What to Convey in Antismoking Advertisements for Adolescents: The Use of Protection Motivation Theory to Identify Effective Message Themes. Journal of Marketing 2003; 67: 1-18.

7. Shadel WG, Fryer CS, Tharp-Taylor S. Uncovering the most effective active ingredients of antismoking public service announcements: The role of actor and message characteristics. Nicotine & Tobacco Research; 11 (5); 547-552

Brazil – img12824

by

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html

Camel Knockoffs – img12241

by

Tobacco brand advertisements are among the most spoofed in advertising history, particularly for anti-smoking campaigns (7). Perhaps this is because the success of cigarette advertising has been immense. RJ Reynold’s Joe Camel was extremely successful at establishing itself as a household name. By age 6, an equal number of children were able to recognize Joe Camel and its association with cigarettes as Mickey Mouse with the Disney Channel, even though cigarette ads had been banned from television before their lifetime(6). Though Joe Camel’s campaign only ran from 1987 to 1997, this era saw an increase in Camel’s market share of cigarettes among children from 0.5% to 32.8%, with estimated sales of $476 million per year (4). If such brands are so successful at bringing positive attention to a harmful product through advertisements, then the same advertisements, altered to present a different message, can be used to ruin the product’s image as well. This is the basis of using knock-offs or spoofs as a form of anti-smoking advertisement.

Spoof ads are considered subvertisements, and have been dubbed a type of “culture jamming” by Adbusters, an anti-consumerism organization that created “Joe Chemo” ads(1). Whereas advertisements are meant to enhance the image of a product , subvertising uses irony and sarcasm to criticize and mock the product.

The research that has been done on other anti-tobacco campaign strategies may apply to these spoofs and give us an idea of their effectiveness. One study evaluated the reactions to spoofs by evaluating Youtube comments on ad spoofs, and it seems that most of the ads invoke humor, rather than fear, empathy, or anger (8). It is uncertain whether humor enhances the effectiveness of the ads. In focus groups, humor seems to increase the likeability of an ad, which aids in recall (2). However, likability doesn’t necessarily translate into altered behaviors, and there is a possibility that humor distracts viewers from the intended message (8).

Another study showed that children were more likely to pay attention to a message that featured familiar characters (3). Using recognizable icons like Joe Camel or the Marlboro Man, two of the more popular choices for knock-off ads, will draw more attention to the ad and make people stop and look twice. But again, more attention doesn’t necessarily mean the ads are more effective in reducing smoking, especially if the ads generate negative responses. The smoking status of the viewer influences how the viewer will respond. Someone who doesn’t smoke and does not find smoking appealing with have a positive reaction to the ad and be more likely to recall the ad, while someone who smokes will be less accepting of the anti-smoking information. This may mean that spoofs may not be very effective at changing smoker’s beliefs and reducing intentions to smoke (8).

Though the persuasiveness of these ads has not been confirmed by research, the industries targeted by subvertisements feel threatened. Tobacco industry perception of potential damage may be an indicator of the power of the spoof ads. Legal action in Canada has been taken against Adbusters to prevent the group from airing their other spoofs on television. TV stations believe that subvertisements are influential enough to eliminate the rest of their sponsors (1). The resistance is towards subvertisements targeting other consumer products like fast food and alcohol, because previous anti-tobacco campaigns have already resulted in the restriction of tobacco ads on TV, so those sponsors are not a concern for the TV industry.

 

REFERENCES:

Adbusters. “Kalle Lasn: Clearing the Mindscape.” Adbusters Medial Foundation, 4 March 2009. Web. 20 June 2013. https://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters_blog/kalle_lasn_clearing_mindscape.html

Agostinelli G, Grube JW. Tobacco Counter-Advertising: A Review of the Literature and a Conceptual Model for Understanding Effects. Journal of Health and Communication 2003; 8: 107-127.

Blum A. Medicine vs Madison Avenue: Fighting Smoke With Smoke. JAMA 1980; 243(8): 739-740.

Brody JE. “Smoking Among Children is Linked to Cartoon Camel in Advertisements.” New York Times, 11 Dec 1991. Web. 20 June 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/11/us/smoking-among-children-is-linked-to-cartoon-camel-in-advertisements.html

DiFranza JR, Richards JW, Paulman PM, Wolf-Gillespie N, Fletcher C, Jaffe RD, Murray D. RJR Nabisco’s Cartoon Camel Promotes Camel Cigarettes to Children. JAMA 1991: 266(22): 3149-3153.

Fischer PM, Meyer PS, Richards JW Jr., Goldsten AO, Rojas TH. Brand Logo Recognition by Children Aged 3 to 6 Years: Mickey Mouse and Old Joe the Camel. JAMA 1991; 266(22): 3145-3148.

Harvest Communications LLC. Fwd: this made me laugh. How viral ad parodies impact your brand. Harvest Communications LLC 2002.

Parguel B, Lunardo R, Chebat JC. When activism may prove counterproductive: An exploratory study of anti-brand spoof advertising effects in the tobacco industry. Première Journée Interantionale du Marketing Santé, France (2010).

Canada – img12757

by

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html

Canada – img12760

by

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html