Images of rotting lips, healthy-versus-charred lungs and a man with smoke oozing out of a hole in his throat will soon grace the covers of cigarette packages, but two University of Missouri researchers say the gruesome warnings likely won’t keep people from lighting up.
Starting in September 2012, the Food and Drug Administration will require cigarette packs and advertisements to show prominent images of health problems associated with smoking. The visual warnings are part of a broader strategy to help people stop smoking and to keep youngsters from starting, according to the FDA.
Paul Bolls and Glenn Leshner, both on the Missouri School of Journalism faculty, aren’t confident the graphic pictures will work.
In a study published in the Journal of Media Psychology, they found people tend to get defensive and tune out information when gruesome images are over- the-top.
“Our research suggests that in health messages, when you go with negatively graphic, pretty intense content, you actually start to push people into the beginnings of defensive responses,” Bolls said. “For example, in our experience on televised anti-tobacco messages, at the time and point when the very nasty, graphic images come on the screen, we have evidence of people starting to shut down and withdraw cognitive resources from processing the messages.”
The FDA’s new label requirements are part of a World Health Organization tobacco initiative. Other countries have adopted the visual warnings and, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smokers in most of those countries reported at least thinking about quitting after seeing the packages.
Another recent study appearing in the latest issue of the academic journal Health Policy indicates adult smokers in four states were less likely to select cigarette packs with graphic images than traditional packages with written warning labels.
But the study from researchers at Susquehanna University in Selinsgrove, Pa., also found people were the least likely to buy cigarettes in plain, unbranded packs.
Communicating health messages is more complicated than simply scaring off buyers with nasty images, Bolls said.
Зазубриваемого messages, he said, tell consumers what they gain by making positive decisions, not what they potentially have to lose.
“Not only do you need to tell people and communicate how bad and nasty tobacco use is, but — particularly for smokers — you better have a component of the message that is really boosting their perceived ability to quit smoking.”
Reach Janese Silvey at 573-815-1705 or e-mailjsilvey@columbiatribune.com.
Copyright 2011 Columbia Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
This article was published on page A12 of the Wednesday, August 10, 2011 edition of The Columbia Daily Tribune with the headline "Images might not deter smokersMU study looks at user response.." Click here to Subscribe.
More like this story FDA mandates graphic labels for cigarettes- June 21, 2011 1:15 p.m. Under the counter- March 9, 2011 12:29 p.m. FDA seeks graphic tobacco labels- November 10, 2010 2 p.m. Hong Kong sets example on smoking- March 26, 2010 1:20 p.m. Allow FDA to clear smoke screen- June 7, 2009 6 a.m.
Comment E-mail to a friend facebook tweet digg reddit
The opinions expressed below are those of the readers who submitted them. Readers are solely responsible for the content of their comments.
capdun (anonymous) says...
Already seen the images... & it's not that effective. I've smoked for almost 25 years solid, and at my last checkup (x-ray was done as well), I have no signs of anything inside. Lungs are clear as a bell & everythings working just fine. Now, at the same time, I may choose to quit one day but it's unlikely. If cannabis ever becomes 100% legal, I will put 'em down cold turkey & walk away though.
August 10, 2011 at 6:11 p.m. (permalink|suggest removal) Log in to reply
Jeff (anonymous) says...
You might not have signs visible on an x-ray, but you do have physiological manifestations, for example, decreased sense of smell and poor circulation.
http://whyquit.com/whyquit/A_Benefits...
August 10, 2011 at 10:18 p.m. (permalink|suggest removal) Log in to reply
deliverydriver (anonymous) says...
Canada has been using these images for several years now. I quit over 5 years ago but for the person that has smoked for years and years it will probably not be a deterrent. Hopefully it may help people from starting but who knows.
August 10, 2011 at 6:48 p.m. (permalink|suggest removal) Log in to reply
Jeff (anonymous) says...
If there's one thing that advertising research teaches us, it's that the effects of advertising are not always intuitive or obvious. Many, many people think that they are less susceptible to than they prove to be in research.
August 10, 2011 at 10:22 p.m. (permalink|suggest removal) Log in to reply
Jeff (anonymous) says...
(Correction: "less susceptible to advertising than")
August 10, 2011 at 10:23 p.m. (permalink|suggest removal) Log in to reply
IcallBS (anonymous) says...
You want to make more smokers quit? Keep raising taxes on cigarettes. Until it hits their pocket every time they buy a pack they just won't care.
August 11, 2011 at 7:55 a.m. (permalink|suggest removal) Log in to reply
newsreach25 (anonymous) says...
We need to raise taxes on unhealthy foods as well. Right?
August 11, 2011 at 8:23 a.m. (permalink|suggest removal) Log in to reply
cielocamino3 (anonymous) says...
That's the problem. If you want to stop smoking, simply ban it and make it a crime. But the government won't do that because it wants money. That is why tobacco farmers still get subsidized.
The government could not care less if you live or die as long as it can extract the maximum amount of money from you. I have said this before, but the demand for tobacco is relatively inelastic due to its addictive nature. The government knows smokers will smoke regardless of the price, hence the high tax and farm subsidy.
The warnings are just lip service.
August 11, 2011 at 8:48 a.m. (permalink|suggest removal) Log in to reply
newsreach25 (anonymous) says...
You don't think we should outlaw smoking, do you? If so, how about unhealthy foods? I think I know your answers.
This take you have on the government is spot on, imo. But why do you trust and defend them so vehemently in the areas of police and military. Are they not capable of such deceptions in these departments as well?
August 11, 2011 at 12:09 p.m. (permalink|suggest removal) Log in to reply
cielocamino3 (anonymous) says...
I support law enforcement. I don't support stupid laws. I obey the law, whether I support it or not. Hindering law enforcement encourages illegal activity.
August 11, 2011 at 1:15 p.m. (permalink|suggest removal) Log in to reply
newsreach25 (anonymous) says...
Nice dodge. Epic!
August 11, 2011 at 1:32 p.m. (permalink|suggest removal) Log in to reply
cielocamino3 (anonymous) says...
Deceptions are also possible int the department of "I hate the cops and the military, so they shouldn't be allowed to do anything that might catch me". The result of that type of permissiveness is graphically illustrated in London.
The police department here does not agree with you and neither do I, so there is no need to "dodge" anything. You are just wrong.
August 12, 2011 at 7:28 a.m. (permalink|suggest removal) Log in to reply
newsreach25 (anonymous) says...
Another epic post. To question is not the same as hating and most certainly doesn't show guilt. You have a skewed view off all that opposes you.
...and you obviously aren't aware of what is really happening in London.
August 12, 2011 at 10:44 a.m. (permalink|suggest removal) Log in to reply
cielocamino3 (anonymous) says...
Who said anything about hating? And no, you are the one who "obviously isn't aware". That has always been obvious.
August 12, 2011 at 11:18 a.m. (permalink|suggest removal) Log in to reply
cielocamino3 (anonymous) says...
Except the cops and the military, I mean. Yeah, yeah I know.
And you aren't questioning, you are demanding. To those demands, the answer is no.
August 12, 2011 at 2:17 p.m. (permalink|suggest removal) Log in to reply
cielocamino3 (anonymous) says...
Is your "Question Authority" bumper sticker on the same side as the Peace nook one?
August 12, 2011 at 2:19 p.m. (permalink|suggest removal) Log in to reply
unixcorn (anonymous) says...
Why should any of us care if another adult wants to smoke? I could never figure out why it's so important to stop people from doing what they want, harmful or otherwise. I don't smoke but if you want to, go ahead and light up, its your choice. I am also against any sort of "sin" tax. @Newsreach makes a valid point - where do we draw the line on these kind of taxes?
These images won't do squat. After viewing a few times people will become desensitzed and their effectiveness will wear away. Or someone will come up with clever pack concealers/holders (like a mobile phone case) that will hide the images.
August 11, 2011 at 9:45 a.m. (permalink|suggest removal) Log in to reply
cielocamino3 (anonymous) says...
Because now that government has taken over health care it can tell you what to do in the name of "the public good".
August 11, 2011 at 11:07 a.m. (permalink|suggest removal) Log in to reply
newsreach25 (anonymous) says...
Kinda like how DWI checkpoints are for the overall public good, which outweighs the "minor" constitutional rights violation they cause, says U.S. Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist. ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment