For assignment 4 we were asked to pick 2 of our sources from the previous assignment and summarise and evaluate them. I pick 2 journal articles that i found particulary interesting and valuable, about smoking and the media.
The article “Out of the smokescreen”, aims to assess the effect anti
smoking adverts screened in cinemas have on young women's perception
of smoking. The piece opens by saying that there is a clear link
between the rise of smoking in movies and the tobacco advertising ban.
The tobacco companies have had to come up with new ways to promote
their product to one of their key audiences, females between 12 and
17. Product placement in films aimed at these age groups has been
frowned upon as it has been found that youngsters who idolise stars
who smoke on screen are much more likely to smoke themselves than
those whose role models are non-smokers. It comments “There is
mounting evidence linking Hollywood
and adolescents attitudes to smoking and their smoking behaviour.”
Reading this article poses the question, is the film industry
promoting smoking? Also it looks closely into how influenced we are by
what we see in film and how such subliminal signals can alter peoples
impression and intentions to smoke.
A study was carried out to see what would happen if an antismoking
advert was played before a film containing heavy smoking. It was to
find out if in fact you can ‘neutralise’ or cancel out the positive
connotations of smoking portrayed in the film. A previous study
carried out by Pechmann found this to be somewhat true. This more
recent research was carried out as teenagers left the cinema, by
asking them to fill out a casual questionnaire about what they had
just seen. The cinema is a medium that can access lots of different
people from many social backgrounds, so it makes sense to use it to
communicate the antismoking message. The findings of the study show
that featuring the antismoking ad significantly changed the audiences
view of smoking in the movie and a large percentage commented when
asked that they perceived the smoking to be ‘not ok’.
The authors main conclusion is that by showing the advert, they
could convert the teenagers intention to smoke. It is worth noting
though that this view mainly applied to the current non smokers as
fewer present smokers ticked that they would not be smoking this time
next year. “Screening the antismoking advertisement neutralised the
effect of the smoking or intention to smoke in the Pechmann study, as
suggested in our own study.” This though seems a very black and white
view and surely if it was this simple, smoking wouldn't be the problem
in society that it is. A similar study by Newcastle University
that showing the anti smoking advert had little or no effect on
smokers desires to quit the habit. Amanda Sandford, of the antismoking
campaign group Ash comments, that extreme care must be taken to make
sure that ads do not have the opposite effect. This raises the
question, is the problem the media promoting smoking or is it the
ineffectiveness of anti smoking campaigns to counteract it?
Another article called ‘Filthy or fashionable? young people’s
perceptions of smoking in the media’, contradicts argument. It notes
that most teenagers they surveyed thought that smoking was, ordinary,
acceptable and overall ‘cool’ and even though most were aware of the
heath risks, they chose to ignore them. This enforces that for
youngsters, smoking is primarily about image and that's why the
fashion industry has such an impact on promoting it. It is also
interesting talking to friends that smoke and hearing them completely
dismiss the graphic and shocking warnings printed on cigarette
packets. Research led by psychologist Jochim Hansen of New York
University agrees and suggests that printing slogans linked to illness
and death may actually increase smokers intention to carry on. They
carried out an experiment to see if by printing phrases linked to
image and self-esteem, this would enhance peoples urge to quit. Half
the group read warnings like, “Smoking leads to deadly lung cancer”
and the others along the lines of “Smoking makes you unattractive”,
then the group were asked to fill out a survey on their future smoking
intentions. By far the group who read slogans not linked to mortality
but appearance, were found more likely to be effected by them. "Kids
can't imagine themselves old," says Stanton Glantz, an anti-smoking
activist, therefore this is probably why the gruesome warnings had
little impact, the common ‘it wont happen to me’ attitude. This study
clearly shows a way in which antismoking advertising should change to
be more relevant to young people. Stop lecturing on the health effects
but concentrate on making it as uncool, unattractive and unremarkable
as possible.
The article “Perceptions of fashion images from youth magazines: does
a cigarette make a difference?”, touches on this point and seems to
agree. “Positive images of smoking abound in advertising, television,
film and magazines, and these may be more in tune with young peoples
self and aspirational images than current health promotion campaigns”
(lynch 1995). It is commenting that we need to shape up our anti
smoking propaganda to be more relevant to today's youth. Much research
has been done into the effectiveness of these campaigns, yet still
understandably models in fashion magazines and stars from popular
films have more of an influence on young people, than the health
professionals and doctors behind these campaigns. People buy fashion
magazines to aspire towards and identify with. Looking at fashionable
models and celebrities smoking help to encourage these positive
perceptions. They make it chic and a create justification for it. The
journal goes on to discuss in more detail young peoples opinions of
such smoking images. The journal is based around an experiment carried
out to find the difference in opinion between 2 identical sets of
pictures, one set including cigarettes and the other without. The
results of the research surprised me. The key word used to describe
the smoking pictures was ‘druggy’ and in complete contrast the primary
word used to describe the non smoking images was ‘healthy’. This seems
unusual as i would have thought that the smoking images would have
been looked upon more favourably. Again these results differed
depending on the teenagers smoking status. It was found that those who
smoked thought themselves as more of a risk taker and dangerous,
therefore concentrating efforts on creating clean cut and well behaved
images of non smoking might actually have the opposite effect. The
articles main conclusion is that there is a real call for images and
adverts that show non smokers with the desirable qualities of smokers.
One advert i can think of which attempts this is the ‘lose the smoke,
keep the fire.’ campaign by nicotinell.
However this article i don't feel is as reliable as “Out of The
Smokescreen”. This experiment was carried out like Pechmann’s, in a
class room environment. I believe that the teenagers might have been
prompted into their answers by being in the school context. The first
investigation was run in a working cinema during busy holiday period,
so the youngsters would have filled out the questionnaire more
truthfully, making the results more accurate. This therefore is a more
‘real life’ study.
Both sources though agree that something is needing to be done to balance out the amount of smoking images we are bombarded with daily. Hye-Jin Paek of UGA Grady College
attitudes and behaviour when adolescents think that their peers are
listening to those messages.” This is an interesting point, that again
ties in with the issue of self-esteem. Peer pressure and acceptance
are crucial factors determining teenagers intention to smoke. Another
element that antismoking advertisements could try to tap into. I feel
campaigns need to take a more modern and eye catching approach, as i
can probably count on one hand the memorable adverts i have seen
throughout my teens.
Through reading and researching I can conclude that young people will
always be lured in by the stylish way smoking is portrayed in the
media. But this isn’t necessarily the problem but the effectiveness of
the antismoking messages produced to attempt to reverse it. The
tradition of hard hitting adverts telling people not to smoke do not
have the desired effects and in teens perhaps in fact create a want.
Both the articles I have looked at have been valuable and have
prompted me to think more about the antismoking campaigns and new ways
this issue can be approached, rather than my initial question, ‘Does
the media promote smoking?’, because whether we like or not it does
and will continue to do so.
Bibliography
Jacobs T. Warnings on cigarette packs could be counter productive.
November 2010. http://www.miller-mccune.com/health/cigarette-warnings-counterproductive
(accessed 12/12/10)
Worth R. Making it uncool - ways to prevent teenage smoking. March
1999. http://findarticles.com/p/articles (accessed 13/12/10)
Smoking ads ‘do not always work’. http://bbc.co.uk (accessed 13/12/10)
Why some anti smoking ads succeed and others backfire. July 2007.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070719170315.htm
(accessed 12/12/10)
Edwards C, Harris W, Cook D, Bedford K, Zuo Y. Out of the Smokescreen:
does an anti-smoking advertisement affect young women’s perception of
smoking in movies and their intention to smoke? Tobacco Control 13,
(2004) 277–282.
Amos A, Currie C, Gray D, Elton R. Perceptions of fashion images from
youth magazines: does a cigarette make a difference? Health Education
and Research.13. (1998) 491-501.
Clarkson, J P, Donovan, R J, Giles-Corti, B, Watson, N A, ‘Filthy or
fashionable? Young people’s perceptions of smoking in the media’,
Health Education Research 18, (2003), 554-567.
