Readers Day - Anti-smoking campaigns encourage teen use
A study conducted by the University of Georgia shows that the middle school students who are exposed to anti-smoking ads are more likely to smoke. You may wonder, how is that possible? Well, it’s a fact that the youth have a rebellious nature and don’t want to hear what they should do or not do. Often, when sending them a “don’t do that” message, they will do it just to express their nature.
In 2002, an anti-smoking foundation found that the anti-smoking campaign of the tobacco manufacturer Philip Morris had reverse effects, it was making the students more likely to smoke.
From a psychological point of view, these results are predictable if we take into consideration their target (the teens). This is because their minds are very vulnerable to sublime psychological marketing.
These anti-smoking campaigns aren’t the only ones that have positive results for the sales of the big companies. Almost everything that’s labeled as being “prohibited” or not recommended for an age group has reverse psychological effects, it creates want. Even drug use may be enhanced by the anti-narcotic campaigns, because of the human psyche.
I want to know what your opinion about this. What kind of message or approach do you think would have the desired results in stopping the youth from smoking or consuming other dangerous or restricted products?
If you're new here and have found useful information, please subscribe to my RSS feed or sign up for free Email updates. There are daily updates and you should stay tuned. Thanks for visiting!
or
Subscribe to e-mail updates:
Distribute ads that promote smoking?
Or maybe instead of attacking smoking from legal and health standpoint, just make it look as unattractive and uncool as possible:
“Smoking turns your teeth yellow.”
“You smoke? You stink.”
Personally, I don’t think ads are going to make much difference one way or another with teens who are going to do what they want to do. If they’re convinced that smoking is cool or exciting, or if they want to smoke because they like the idea of being rebellious, why would a poster change their mind? Similarly, if a kid has had a solid upbringing and is already against smoking, the ad is needless for him or her.
You make a few good points there. After reading your answer, I got a few ideas.
Zero anti-smoking ads are more efficient than 3, 6, 30, or 100 anti-smoking ads (and don’t waste any money). The reasons is simple. If exposed to the term “don’t start smoking” repeatedly, a teenager is way more vulnerable to start smoking. The explanation: “don’t start smoking” (this line may vary); the command to start smoking is in there, and it is picked up by his psyche. And if the other factors that contribute to the pleasure and coolness of smoking are untouched, the anti-smoking campaign adds to the pleasure and excitement of smoking.
The reason why teens pick up smoking is because the grownups smoke, and grownups seem cool to them.
Ads won’t work because there are many HUGE companies that have big interests in this market and they won’t let some “anti” campaign affect their business.
I believe that if the grownup smokers would show less pleasure (”it makes me forget my problems”, “it’s relaxing”, etc) from their vice, teens won’t be so eager to pick it up.
Hmmm, kind of like the “noble experiment”… make something forbidden, and all of a sudden it’s very, very attractive.
Yeah, one way or another, for better or worse, the “no smoking” ads make you think about smoking… it’s like telling someone not to think of a tree. It makes smoking seem even more important. I can easily see why they actually encourage teens to start smoking.
It’s indeed kinda like the noble experiment.
The interesting part is that it also works the other way around. Make something too available and common and it won’t create (so much) attraction.
Taxation! Seriously, make things expensive enough and they will become undesirable. Maybe a pack or two would be a luxury, but a pack a day habit would get pretty expensive for any kid, or adult for that matter.
Erin, I’m not sure that higher taxation would lower the consumption rate… as you said, it would turn smoking into a luxury habit, and luxury habits create a very high want aura around them.
Even if they are expensive, people will still buy them. And in order to be able to do that, some will be forced to make sacrifices in their lives or resort to other activities (criminal sometimes) that will help them get what they want.
Of course that a higher taxation would have some positive results, but it may also have other negative outcomes. The Noble Experiment that V. Neely brought into the discussion could be an example in this direction (it slightly lowered the alcohol consumption, but it increased violent crimes, smuggling, etc).
I think we should analyse the causes of the smoking desire and move the fight there.