tobacco socialization and anti-tobacco ad effectiveness ... · and behavioral smoking socialization...

Tobacco Socialization and Anti-TobaccoAd Effectiveness Among Children

SLIM KHALBOUS and HEIFA BOUSLAMAInstitute of Higher Business Studies, University of Carthage, Tunis, Tunisia

In order to prevent smoking onset among children, it is essentialto know the process of smoking socialization and its variousdimensions before being able to design any effective anti-tobaccoadvertisements. This research aims to conceptualize this processand to test the effectiveness of certain styles of anti-tobacco adver-tising addressed to children. The results show that both attitudinaland behavioral smoking socialization influence anti-tobaccoadvertisements effectiveness and that the least offensive andhumoristic are most effective in Tunisia.

KEYWORDS advertisement effectiveness, children, anti-tobacco,socialization, smoking

Smoking is a scourge of modern societies that affects the youngestpopulation. At the international level, this phenomenon has been studiedextensively by physicians, sociologists, psychologists, and more recently bymarketers (Peracchio & Luna, 1998; Pinilla, Gonzalez, Barber, & Santana,2002; Pechmann & Reibling, 2006).

In Tunisia, mainly doctors carried out the few studies on the prevalenceof smoking among the Tunisian population in general and especially amongthe youngest (Khalbous, 2004). In contrast, almost no study has focused onthe marketing actions that might be effective to educate or persuade smokersto stop smoking and prevent young people from the risks of smoking. Ofcourse, some anti-smoking campaigns are designed and set by the Ministryof Health; however, these campaigns have no theoretical background, andare perpetuated year after year intuitively and without any evaluation.

This research is set under the anti-tobacco marketing theme and moregenerally that of social marketing. Indeed, ‘‘the role of social marketing is

Address correspondence to Heifa Bouslama, 39, rue Ali Ayari El Menzah 9A, 1013 Tunis,Tunisia. E-mail: [email protected]

Health Marketing Quarterly, 29:97–116, 2012Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0735-9683 print=1545-0864 onlineDOI: 10.1080/07359683.2012.678255

97

to help develop the message that will initiate a change in the behavior of thetarget population. This is to assist the advertiser by giving him the characte-ristics of this target population and telling him what you want’’ (Berard,2001). In other words, it is meant to use the principles of classical marketingcommunication to initiate a target, in this case smokers or potential smokers,to change their attitudes or behavior.

In this research, we chose to focus on social origins that determine theeffectiveness of anti-smoking advertising targeting children. Indeed, through-out the process of socialization the child is subject to various interactions thatchange his attitudes and shape his behavior (Ward, 1974).

The fact of starting to smoke, like any other behavior, is a multifactorialphenomenon resulting from a long process of socialization that the childexperiences from birth (Pinilla et al., 2002). Thus, the main question of ourresearch is: How does smoking socialization influence the effectiveness ofanti-smoking advertising targeting children? In order to answer this question,this article will focus on two main objectives: identify and conceptualize theprocess of smoking socialization of the child; then, understand and explainthe relationship between smoking socialization and the effectiveness of theanti-smoking advertising targeting children.

CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND LITERATURE REVIEW

The theoretical background presents, at first an attempt to design the conceptof smoking socialization of children applied to marketing. In a second step, itis a synthesis of anti-tobacco advertising strategies and their effectiveness.

Smoking Socialization of Children

Our goal in this part is to understand and explain the process of socializationof the child as a consumer, using the different related theories.

Cognitive and Social Development of the Child as a Consumer

The period between birth and adolescence is an important step in the cogni-tive and social development of the consumer. Children develop abilities togo beyond appearances and think more abstractly about their environment.Consumer socialization was defined by Ward (1974) as referring to the ‘‘pro-cesses by which young people acquire skills, knowledge, and attitudes rel-evant to their functioning as consumers in the marketplace.’’ The theory ofsocial development as well as that of cognitive development illustrateshow the socialization of the child in his role as consumer is constructed; itequally shows the development of his knowledge and behavior of consumer,as a result of the qualitative changes experienced by this double develop-ment (John, 1999; Chan & McNeal, 2005).

98 S. Khalbous and H. Bouslama

On the one hand, studies based on the theory of social learning, try toexplain socialization as a function of environmental influences applied to theindividual. Learning takesplaceduring interactionsof the individualwith thevari-ous socialization agents: family, peers, andmassmedia (Moschis &Moore, 1979).

On the other hand, the theory of cognitive development explains theformation of behavior by the changes occurring between childhood andadulthood (Azjen & Fishbein, 1980). The various stages, defined by age inter-vals, correspond to different levels of cognitive and psychological develop-ment (Piaget & Inhelder, 1973). Therefore, the different influences onsmoking behavior we are about to study can be classified into two groups:one in relation to socializing agents, and one to sociodemographics.

Children Smoking Socialization Agents

As indicated by Catalano and Hawkins (1996) in their model of social devel-opment, social background (prosocial or antisocial), which is the ability tobind with socializing units (parents, community members, friends, etc.) isone of the factors that shape human behavior. They also specify that the anti-social path is to bind with smokers. Several sources of empirical evidencetend to confirm the important role of socializing agents in shaping childrensmoking attitudes and behavior (Stockdale, Dawson-Owens, & Sagrestano,2005; Piko, Luszczynska, Gibbons, & Tekozel, 2005).

FAMILY BACKGROUND

The family happens to have the biggest influence on consumer socialization.To understand how family influences the development of skills, values, andknowledge of consumer research focused on the different types of communi-cation in the family which seem to have the most important influence. Chil-dren from families with a history of smoking (Smith & Stutts, 1999), as well asthose who have a family member who smokes (Pinilla et al., 2002; Leather-dale, McDonalds, Cameron & Brown, 2005; Strong & Eftychia, 2006) have ahigh risk of becoming smokers themselves. Moreover, adolescents are morelikely to smoke if their parents, brothers, or friends do (Leatherdale, McDo-nald, Cameron, & Brown, 2005). Thus, smoking parents intensify the processof social reinforcement and children are more likely to smoke (Leatherdaleet al., 2005). Kaufman et al. (2002) have shown that parental smoking influ-ences smoking intentions indirectly through the perception of negativeeffects related to smoking.

FRIENDS AND PEERS

Peers are an additional source of influence that affects consumer beliefs froman early age (Moschis & Churchill, 1979), but also during adolescence: when

Tobacco Socialization and Anti-Tobacco Ads 99

the need for independence of the individual from his parents leads him tobecome addicted to his peers (Moschis & Moore, 1979). Given that adoles-cents interact with peers about issues related to consumption, they learn eachothers preferences and take them into account. Adolescents also need tohave their peers’ approval for consumption acts (John, 1999).

More precisely, several studies have shown that friends’ smoking is a bet-ter preacher than that of parents. This could be explained by the fact thatsocial relations with friends are stronger than those with parents during ado-lescence and may exert a stronger an influence on their smoking behavior.For example, to observe their peers buy and inhale cigarettes may provideadolescents with the knowledge and skills to obtain and consume cigarettes(Perrachio & Luna, 1998; Smith & Stutts, 1999). Friends’ social network canalso lead to smoking initiation: the more the closest friends smoke, the morerespondents are likely to smoke and=or become regular smokers. In addition,this situation of consumption between peers creates conditions for socialreinforcement of attitudes and behaviors among the young people com-munity (Flay et al., 1994; Catalano & Hawkins, 1996; Maney, Vasey, Mahoney,Gates, & Higham-Gardill, 2004; Leatherdale et al., 2005).

MEDIA EXPOSURE: INFORMATION AND ADVERTISING

Media and advertising give young people a lot of information regarding theuse and value of material goods. Literature clearly shows that advertising isa very important socializing force (John, 1999). The tobacco industry throughadvertising and other marketing mix elements clearly influences the smokingbehavior of children and adolescents (Maney et al., 2004). Moreover, havingor willing to possess promotional gadgets of cigarettes brands, having a favor-ite tobacco advertisement, have proven to lead to an increase in youth suscep-tibility to become smokers (Bobo & Husten, 2000; Kaufman et al., 2002).

The reasoning must be the same for the information and anti-tobaccoadvertisements that promote socialization in the opposite direction. Moregenerally, the fact of having prior knowledge about the dangers of tobaccoprevents the start of smoking among the youth (Smith & Stutts, 1999).

LEGAL RESTRICTIONS

The college period coincides with adolescence, a period during which stu-dents undergo a process of physical, intellectual, and emotional change, asit appears through the cognitive and social development set out previously,which make them vulnerable to pressures like those of the school and its com-plicity with the smoking rules. The level of reinforcement of smoking rules atschool is often a significant variable that appeared to explain the differencesin smoking behavior of adolescents from two different schools (Pinilla et al.,2002). Furthermore, smoking prevention programs at schools reduce the


impact of tobacco advertising campaigns, because they help adolescentsunderstand manipulation within smoking advertisements (Beltramini &Bridge, 2001). In contrast, the absence of barriers to engage in smoking beha-vior results in adolescents engaging in such behavior (Stockdale et al., 2005).Thus, the availability and ease with which one can buy cigarettes and, in theabsence of legislation, influence smoking (Smith & Stutts, 1999). Conversely,higher cigarette prices tend to decrease cigarette consumption especiallyamong adolescents (Bobo & Husten, 2000).

The Influence of Sociodemographic Dimensions onChildren Smoking

In Table 1, a summary of the major variables related to the child and theirpersonality, according to the literature review, is provided.

The Development of Attitudes and Behaviors Through SmokingSocialization

Socialization is a process during which the individual acquires the necessaryknowledge to develop their attitudes and behavior within society. In fact, asstated by Stockdale et al. (2005), attitudinal variables as well as social variablesplay a role in the initiation to smoking at the age of the college. Concerningbehavior, smokers’ attitudes are interesting variables in assessing the

TABLE 1 Sociodemographic Influence on Smoking Behavior

Dimensions Influence on smoking behavior References

Age Primordial effect: The proportion ofnonsmokers already declining from 13 to14 years old. And it is at this age thatchildren begin to shape their future statusof smokers or nonsmokers.

Kaufman et al., 2002;John, 1999;Perrachio, 1998

Sex Mixed effect: Differences are not veryimportant. However, girls appear to be alittle more sensitive to pressure, socialinfluences, and parent’s views.

Kaufman et al., 2002;Maney et al., 2004;Smith & Stutts, 1999;Flay et al., 1994

Familycharacteristics

Single-parent effect: Being raised in asingle-parent home where the biologicalfather is absent is associated with greatersusceptibility to smoke.

Pinilla et al., 2002

Residential area Important effect: Those who live in remoteareas of the city, rather disadvantaged,would be more likely to smoke.

Maney et al., 2004;Piko et al., 2005

School gradelevel

Essential effect: The act of missing schoollessons, having low grades at school, or alack of interest in studies lead to anincrease in adolescents’ susceptibility tobecome smokers.

Kaufman et al., 2002;Pinilla et al., 2002;Maney et al., 2004;Piko et al., 2005


intentions regarding cessation or progression toward smoking (Etter, Humair,Bergman, & Perneger, 2000). Thus, positive or negative attitudes to smokingare important determinants that significantly contribute to predict smokingbehavior (Shore, Tashchian, & Adams, 2000). For example, smokers hold lessnegative attitudes than nonsmokers about the health risks associated withsecond-hand smoking. Unlike nonsmokers, smokers do not see that theyrepresent a real health hazard for others and do not seem to understand theneed to create nonsmoking areas (Shore et al., 2000; Stockdale et al., 2005).

In addition, nonsmokers are significantly more favorable than smokersto the restrictions on tobacco sales. Similarly, nonsmokers hold less favorableattitudes than smokers do towards relationships, such as marriage andappointments with smokers (Ashley et al., 2000).

By helping to understand adolescents’ risky behaviors, the consumer socia-lization theory benefit to social marketing. Through the regulation of attitudes,social norms, and the control of the perceived behavior and intention to smoke,smoking can be controlled effectively. Indeed, if children and adolescents haveno obstacles to engage in smoking, and if their nonsmoking attitudes are weak,and their social pro-tobacco influences are strong, then they are at high risk tobecome smokers, and vice versa (Stockdale et al., 2005). In this research, we willconsider smoking socialization of children as a progressive, iterative, explana-tory process depending on the social conditioning of smoking.

Strategies and Effectiveness of Anti-Tobacco Advertising

According to the literature review, and also to the experts that we met, astrategy of anti-tobacco marketing should combine several tools and themessages must come from various sources over a long period of time, andmust be consistent with other programs to promote new laws and changesocial norms and attitudes towards tobacco.

The effect of anti-tobacco advertising must, necessarily, be combinedwith other effects. For example, Pechmann and Ratneshwar (1994) arguedthat the efforts made by school teachers to teach students the short-term dan-gers of smoking should not be neglected, and Vianelli (2006) stated that anadvertising campaign is effective only if it comes within a school curriculum.However, all anti-smoking campaigns are not equally effective, and it isimportant to establish the characteristics of advertising and marketing strate-gies that are most likely to achieve the objectives related to smoking control(Wakefield, Freman, & Donovan, 2003).

Identifying Strategies for Anti-Tobacco Advertising

In this research we adopted the typology of Goldman and Glantz (1998),who have reviewed the qualitative marketing research on the effectivenessof anti smoking advertising and effectuated tests on 1,500 children and


adults. In this research, the authors identified eight strategies used in theanti-tobacco campaigns. In the Appendix, Table 1 presents the theme, prin-ciple, and creative elements of each of these strategies.

In terms of advertising effectiveness, the findings of this study showedthat the most effective strategies to ‘‘de-normalize’’ tobacco and reduce con-sumption are strategies that focus on the physical or social consequences ofsmoking; the more aggressive strategies are less effective in reducing tobaccoconsumption. But above all, the information needs to reach the target audi-ence. In fact, Pederson and Lefcoe (1985) reported, after studying smokingamong the oldest adolescents in the United States, that smokers were notinformed about the effects of tobacco on health and maintain a rather posi-tive attitude towards this scourge.

Indicators of Effectiveness of Anti-Tobacco Advertising

The persuasion process goes through the emotional and cognitive processesthat take place during and after exposure to advertising. Thus, cognitive andemotional reactions to advertising are important determinants of its effective-ness (De Barnier, 2002). However, if one refers to the process of socializa-tion, the child-consumer is able to confront several points of view from theage of 10; when he becomes able to reason about abstract concepts.

Studies also indicate that children’s understanding of advertising and itscontent increases gradually with age (John, 1999). For example, even at theage of 8 children begin to develop a ‘‘healthy skepticism’’ towards advertising(Pechmann & Knight, 2002). On a sample of adolescents between the ages of12 and 18, Moschis and Churchill (1979), suggested that as teenagers headinto adulthood, they tend to develop greater resistance to persuasive adver-tising, better understand the marketing strategies related to products, andbecome sophisticated consumers.

The interactions between the socialization of children and their reactions toadvertising are numerous; the example of the study of Chan and McNeal (2005),on a sample of Chinese children between 6 and 14 years old, is quite significant.This study shows that young people from high-income families are more recep-tive to advertising. The authors also demonstrated that the model of cognitivedevelopment provides a greater contribution to predicting the understandingof advertising by children than the social learning theory. Similarly, parents donot seem to be an important socializing agent, instead television plays a moreimportant role in the socialization of the child as a consumer.

Moreover, in what has preceded, we have seen that the socializingagents and sociodemographic dimensions are the main predicators of theunderstanding of the anti-tobacco advertising by children or adolescents,and of its effectiveness.

Finally, we can logically assume that a positive attitude towards anti-tobacco advertising is a first step in the desired direction towards a change


of attitude and=or behavior. Practically speaking, anti-smoking advertise-ments can have two major objectives: effectiveness in terms of attitudesand effectiveness in terms of behavior. Moreover, these objectives are differ-ent whether they relate to adults or children. Thus, it is clear that whenresearch focuses on the effects of smoking socialization on advertising effec-tiveness, it must verify the effects on both attitudinal and behavioral terms,particularly when it comes to children.

METHOD

Since the goal of this research is to understand the relationship between smok-ing socialization and the effectiveness of anti-tobacco advertisements, we chosea data collection method in order to measure cause-and-effect relationships.

Measures and Research Proposals

This research is therefore largely explanatory, and at the same time explora-tory, given the necessity to identify the components of smoking socializationand the relative novelty of the subject for marketing.

SMOKING SOCIALIZATION

Three major components were identified in the literature: sociodemographicdimensions, smoking attitudes socialization, and smoking behavior socializa-tion (see Table 2).

TABLE 2 Major Smoking Socialization Components

Variables Indices of measurement

Sociodemographicdimensions

Age, sex, school level (average of the past quarter and the year),residential area, the situation of parents, type of family, and occupationof parents.

Smoking attitudes:Socialization

Scale consists of 17 items and four factors:Factor 1: Attitude toward interpersonal relationships with smokersFactor 2: Attitude toward laws and societal restrictions of smoking inpublic places

Factor 3: Attitudes toward health concernsFactor 4: Attitude toward the marketing and sale of cigarettes (Shoreet al., 2000)

Smoking behavior:Socialization

Own smokingbehavior

is to know whether the respondent has already testedthe cigarette, and in this case, if smoking is regular orcasual (nominal questions)

Others’behavior

is to know whether family members or peers smoke(father, mother, and siblings, but also friends andclassmates)


ANTI-SMOKING ADVERTISING EFFECTIVENESS

The literature has shown that various anti-smoking tobacco advertisementsdid not have the same effect on children. This is why we chose to design anti-tobacco advertisements on an experimental basis and then selected measure-ment indexes to assess the effectiveness of these anti-smoking ads.

Advertisement design. The literature review provided us with eightthemes for anti-tobacco advertising (see Table 1 in the Appendix). After elim-inating the theme ‘‘youth access,’’ which is intended exclusively to adults, wecreated seven advertisements corresponding to the seven identified themes(see Table 2 in the Appendix). The creative process and the scripts wereconceived with the help of advertising professionals and used comics, asrecommended by several authors to best 12- to 16-year-old children (Duffy,2000; Vianelli, 2006).

Measuring advertising effectiveness. In accordance with the literaturereview, the concept of advertising effectiveness was measured by two vari-ables: first, with the attitude towards anti-tobacco advertising by a semanticdigital comparative scale with five levels between two opposite adjectivesfor each of the three items: cognitive (interest), emotional (approval), andbehavior (incentive not to smoke).

Second, a semantic digital comparative scale with five levels rangingfrom never to probably yes, used by Vianelli (2006) in a similar context,was adopted. It includes three items related to behavioral intention to smoke.

RESEARCH PROPOSALS

Three research proposals related to advertising effectiveness and its relation-ship to smoking socialization were determined (P1, P2, and P3). The opera-tionalization of socialization requires the verification of the interdependencebetween the three dimensions (P4; see Figure 1).

Data Collection

CONSTRUCTION OF QUESTIONNAIRES

The questionnaires were first constructed in French before several tentativetranslations were made to produce a bilingual version (French and Tunisiandialect). The purpose of making such a survey is, of course, to make it asaccessible as possible to children. A pretest was conducted to check for clarity.

PARTICIPANTS

The experimentation was conducted in seven different colleges located indifferent areas of Tunis in order to vary social environments. In each panelwe repeated the experiment on two different school levels to cover the entire


age interval. We opted for the age group of 12- to 16-year-olds identified inthe literature as corresponding to the stage of cognitive and social develop-ment called the ‘‘reflective stage.’’ We ended up with about 50 respondentsper college, for a total sample of 351 students.

CONDUCT OF THE EXPERIMENTATION

The surveys took place in the classroom with the assistance of a teacher or asupervisor according to an appointment made in advance. We began by dis-tributing visual display advertisements inserted in a booklet (A5 size) next toa small text in French, quite complicated, related to demographic or eco-nomic situation of a country (a different country for each insertion). Weasked students to read the texts and lead them to believe that we wouldask them questions about these texts so that their attention would not befocused on the advertisement. After few minutes, we picked up the bookletand distributed the the questionnaires.

Statistical Analyses

First, we used the cluster analysis with hierarchical classification method toidentify the smoking socialization groups. Then, the association tests, bythe method of khi2, allowed us to verify the interdependence of the socializ-ing dimensions. Finally, a multiple analysis of variance was used to measurethe effects of socialization on the effectiveness of the anti-tobacco advertis-ing. Concerning the qualitative study: in order to enrich the development

FIGURE 1 Measurement model for the influence of smoking socialization on the efficacy ofanti-tobacco advertising.


of testing and interpretation of results, a classical thematic analysis of contentof the comments made by the experts was made.

The reliability of the scale variables was measured by Cronbach’scoefficient a. Thus, concerning the socialization types, two out of four factorswere retained. Concerning the attitudes towards advertising, five advertise-ments out of the seven tested were kept, with a greater than 0.690.

RESULTS

Hereafter are presented the results relating to interactions between thecomponents of socialization, and followed by those relating the influenceof these components on the anti- smoking advertising effectiveness.

Identification of Linkages Between Socialization Components

In this research, smoking socialization was measured through attitudes,behavior, and the sociodemographic dimension evolution.

Identification of Smoking Socialization Groups

The cluster analysis identified two groups of different socialization (Table 3).The first group of children hold more favorable attitudes about smokers and israther indifferent to anti-smoking bans, although they believe people shouldnot have the right to smoke whenever and wherever they wish. This groupwill be designated as ‘‘pro-smokers.’’ Individuals of the second group holdmore negative attitudes about smokers, and support the anti-smoking bans;it will be designated as ‘‘anti-smokers.’’ So, there is an attitudinal socialization

TABLE 3 Identification of Social Groups

ItemsGroup 1

(149 children)Group 2

(202 children)F

(p < .000)

I would not date a person who smokes 3.44� 2.62 21,756I would not marry a person who smokes 2.99 2.07 33,441I would object to living with a smoker 3.13 2.29 27,092I prefer not to spend a lot of time with people 2.36 1.63 29,856Laws restricting smoking in public spaces areunfair to smokers

2.70 4.67 231,748

Laws restricting smoking in the work place areunfair to smokers

2.53 4.77 333,440

People should have the right to smoke whereand when they want

3.36 4.51 64,291

Smoking should not be restricted by law in anyway

2.70 4.22 109,678

Group identification: Pro-smokers Anti-smokers

�About the scale: 1 corresponds to ‘‘strongly disagree’’ and 5 to ‘‘strongly agree.’’


that encourages children to accept tobacco or smoking and vice versa.Socialization to smoking attitudes enables us to classify children into groupsof socialization.

Linkage Between Sociodemographic Dimensions andSmoking Socialization

Chi-squared tests between the sociodemographic dimensions and socializa-tion variables show significant associations, which confirm research propo-sals P4.1 and P4.2. First, the effect of age appears to be essential, bothwith elements of attitudinal and behavioral socialization. On the one hand,the anti-smokers group is mainly constituted by the younger children andvice versa. On the other hand, the proportion of those who answered ‘‘neversmoker’’ decreases as children are older, while that of nonsmokers who‘‘experienced smoking’’ and the ‘‘regular smokers’’ increases correlated withtheir age. The results also showed that boys tend to experiment with cigar-ettes or to smoke regularly more often than girls do. Finally, with regard tothe school level, it appears that students with lower grades are those whotend to be regular smokers or at least to have experienced smoking.

Determination of Linkages Between Groups of Socializationand Smoking Behaviors

The chi-squared tests also show the existence of a strong link between smok-ing socialization groups and smoking behavior of the child and his entou-rage. These results confirm the proposal P4.3. In particular, important linksbetween the groups and best-friend smoking status, as well as siblings smok-ing status, were found. The percentage of regular smokers and that of smo-kers having tried smoking was greater in the group of pro-smokers, andtherefore the fact of belonging to this group increases the possibility that achild becomes a smoker. These results indicate that, in our context inTunisia, peers smoking=socialization and the personal experience are moreinfluential than parents (Table 4).

The same table clearly shows that the proportion of smoking peers is almosttwice higher among the pro-smokers group compared to the anti-smokers, andthe overwhelming share of smokers (80) belong to the pro-smokers group. Inconclusion, the pro-smoking socialization of children is greatly enhanced bythe consumption of peers and the personal experience of tobacco.

Influence of Smoking Socialization on the Effectiveness ofAnti-Smoking Advertising

The two indicators of efficiency measured in this research are (a) the attitudestoward advertising strategies and (b) smoking intentions. Before presenting


the effect of smoking socialization on these indicators, we begin by checkingthe interaction between the two.

Effect of the Attitude Toward the Anti-Smoking Ad on theIntention to Smoke

According to the results of the multivariate analysis of variance, the differentstyles of advertising determine the overall significance of correlation betweencomponents of the attitude towards the anti-smoking advertising and thesmoking intentions, therefore the proposal P3 is confirmed.

For the five advertising strategies, the behavioral component of attitudeis the one that most strongly influences the intention to smoke, followed bythe cognitive component. The emotional component does not influence theintention to smoke in any of these ads; maybe it is due to the nonprofessionalnature of the ads. The second interesting finding concerns the style of themost effective strategies. Indeed, the ads that are the least offensive, ‘‘short-term effects’’ and ‘‘second-hand smoke,’’ are those that affect the intentionto smoke more.

Smoking Socialization Effects on the Advertising Styles Effectiveness

The analysis of variance of the relationship between the socialization andattitudes of children towards the anti-smoking advertisements shows thatthree out of five strategies are affected by this link. This result confirms theresearch proposal P1 (Table 5).

The three strategies that have a significant effect are those used by theads short-term effects, ‘‘long-term health effects,’’ and ‘‘industry manipu-lation.’’ Going deeper into these results, once again it appears that the beha-vioral dimension of the assessment of the ads is the most strongly influencedone by children smoking socialization.

Table 6 shows that all the strategies of anti-smoking advertising aremore effective when tested among the anti-smokers group, than when testedamong the pro-smokers group. Indeed the proportion of pro-smokers who

TABLE 4 Interaction Between Smoking Attitudinal and Behavioral Socialization

Socialization group ()

Behavioral smoking socialization Pro-smokers Anti-smokers

Best friend smoking status Smoker 30 16Nonsmoker 70 84

Siblings smoking status Smoker 26 15Nonsmoker 73 85

Personal smoking status Smoker 84 16Has tried 51 49Nonsmoker 35 65


say that advertising encourages smoking is around 20, which representstwice the proportion found with the anti-smokers group.

Children with an anti-smoking socialization are more easily convincedby the strategies of anti-tobacco advertisements.

Socialization Effect of Smoking on the Intention to Smoke

The multivariate analysis of variance clearly shows that there are significantlinks between the intention to smoke and the three levels of socialization ofthis research. These results clearly corroborate the research proposal P2. Anin-depth analysis of these results is very instructive. Indeed, Table 7 showsthat first, children with a low educational level reported a higher intentionto smoke than others. Second, we notice that when the best friend smokes,the proportion of teenagers who say they intend to smoke a cigarette offeredby him or her is more than twice when the latter’s best friend does not smoke.In addition, to try a cigarette—even as an experiment—is another strongincentive to smoke more regularly a little later. Third, the anti-smoker childrenare far more determined in their intention not to smoke. These results defini-tively demonstrate that smoking socialization strongly affects the childrenintention to smoke after being exposed to the anti-smoking ads.

TABLE 5 Smoking Socialization Effects on the Advertising Strategies

Advertising strategies Value F ddl Sig.

Second-hand smoke Intercept 3.773 436,459 3 0.000Groups 0.020 2,340 3 n.s.

Short-term effects Intercept 3.907 451,957 3 0.000Groups 0.031 3,552 3 0.015

Long-term health effects Intercept 3.907 451,957 3 0.000Groups 0.031 3,552 3 0.015

Industry manipulation Intercept 4.351 503,220 3 0.000Groups 0.022 2,556 3 0.055

Cessation Intercept 3.678 425,384 3 0.000Groups 0.009 1,045 3 n.s.

TABLE 6 Socialization Effects on Advertising Attitudes: Descriptive Statistics

%

Advertising strategies Incites me to smoke Does not incite me to smoke

Short-term effects Pro-smokers 18.8 12.8 67.1Anti-smokers 11.9 10.9 77.2

Long-term health effects Pro-smokers 21.4 18.8 59.7Anti-smokers 11.4 11.9 76.4

Industry manipulation Pro-smokers 19.5 14.8 65.8Anti-smokers 11.4 11.9 76.7


TABLE7

SocializationEffect

ofSm

okingontheIntentionto

Smoke

%

Personal

smokingstatus

Best

friend’s

smokingstatus

Socialization

groups

Schoollevel

Intentionto

smoke

Nonsm

oker

Has

tried

Smoker

Yes

No

Pro-smokers

Anti-smokers

High

Medium

Low

Intentionto

smokeone

pufformore

Yes

623

72

25

12

25

814

13

16

Maybe

14

37

28

33

17

27

15

17

17

23

No

80

40

042

71

48

77

69

70

61

Intentionto

try

smokingforawhile

Yes

217

56

22

619

2n.s.

Maybe

14

32

36

28

17

31

11

No

84

51

15

50

77

50

87

Intentionto

smokeacigarette

suggestedbyafriend

Yes

518

64

20

10

22

4n.s.

Maybe

15

36

36

27

20

32

13

No

81

46

053

70

46

83

111

DISCUSSION

All of the results show that on one hand, socialization can pressure the indi-vidual to accept smoking or not, while on the other hand, the strategic choiceof anti-smoking advertising is not equally effective among children. So whatare the most influential variables of smoking socialization on consumer beha-vior? And what are the most effective anti-smoking advertising strategies? Con-cerning socialization, being a male over 13 years old, having a low educationallevel, having a mother and a best friend who smoke, having tried smoking,and being a pro-smoker, often means that the child is likely to be a regularsmoker. The integration of these components in the formulation of communi-cation strategies helps explain much of the effectiveness of anti-tobaccoadvertisements, especially in better targeting children. In fact, it seems easierto convince children that already have more negative attitudes toward smok-ing than to convince those who have favorable attitudes to never start smok-ing. The anti-smoking communication must begin at an early age, even beforethe age of the college, in order to further participate in the anti-smoking socia-lization of children. This approach should probably be done in conjunctionwith school programs to raise an awareness of the dangers of smoking.Another recommended communication technique to reduce the strong influ-ence of smoking peer is to promote positive word-of-mouth, which helps topromote anti-tobacco social attitudes against the attitudes that tend to glamo-rize the smoking child among his peers. We need to reverse the tendency.

About the advertising strategy choices: two contradictory examples illus-trate the difference in the effectiveness of the creative approaches. First, is thecase of the cessation ad, where the effectiveness is very low and the attitudestoward it are not explained by socialization. A second example is the short-termeffects ad, which seems to be the most effective and more predictable by socia-lization. In the former case, the message does not directly affect adolescents asthey are rather far from the concept of death and that they refuse the discourse oforder. In the latter one, the strategy uses little provocation, humor, and a dem-onstration of the short-term results. In addition, it achieves a better acceptance ofthe discourse and seems to be the right approach to convince children.

CONCLUSION, RESEARCH LIMITATIONS, ANDDIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The aim of any research is to convince its readers about the relevance of hiswork. Will this article direct some marketing research to further efforts in thestudy of social communication, particularly in Tunisia? In any case, the pos-sibilities of extending the subject of this research are quite important. Overall,this research has clearly shown that smoking socialization strongly influencesthe anti-smoking advertising effectiveness. However, this relationship differs


according to the advertising strategy chosen and the children targetingrelated to their smoking socialization.

Like any scientific research, this study has some limitations. For instance,the choice of the experimentation conditioned the children in time and spacemore than in everyday life. Moreover, the relative length of the survey, lan-guage difficulties for some children, the presence of persons of authority,and social bias related to the fact that children were sitting next to eachothers are others constraints to consider in future research where qualitativeapproaches should take more time, for example, to test current advertise-ments or to use projective tests. In addition, other variables may be intro-duced—in particular, the cultural dimensions. In terms of advertising, agreater variety of media and a longitudinal study must also be considered.

REFERENCES

Ashley, M. J., Cohen, J., Bull, S., Ferrence, R., Poland, B., Pederson, L., & Gao, J.(2000). Knowledge about tobacco and attitudes toward tobacco control: Howdifferent are smokers and non-smokers? Canadian Journal of Public Health,91, 376–380.

Azjen, R., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting socialbehaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Beltramini, R., & Bridge, P. (2001). Relationship between tobacco advertising andyouth smoking: Assessing the effectiveness of school based anti smoking inter-vention program. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(2), 263.

Berard, A. (2001). Le marketing social, quel apport dans les campagnes d’incitation?[Social marketing, which contribution in the incentive campaigns?] RevueMedicale de l’Assurance Maladie, 32(2), 145–149.

Bobo, J. K., & Husten, C. (2000). Sociocultural influences on smoking and drinking.Alcohol Research & Health, 24, 225–232.

Catalano, R. E., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory ofantisocial behavior. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Chan, K., & McNeal, J. (2005). Chinese children’s understanding of commercialcommunications: A comparison of cognitive development and social learningmodels. Journal of Economic Psychology, 27(1), 36–56.

De Barnier, V. (2002). Le role des emotions sur l’attitude envers la marque (Ab): Pourune mediation totale des attitudes envers le message (Aad) [The impact ofemotions on attitudes toward the brand (Ab): A total mediation of attitudes towardthe message (Aad)]. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 17(3), 81–100.

Duffy, S. A. (2000). Cartoon characters as tobacco warning labels. Archives ofPediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 154(12), 1230–1236.

Etter, J. F., Humair, J. P. M. Bergman, & Perneger, T. (2000). Development andvalidation of the attitudes towards smoking scale (ATS-18). Addiction, HealthModule, 95, 613–625.

Flay, B., Hu, F., Siddioui, O., Day, L., Hedeker, D., Petraitis, J., . . . Sussman, S. (1994).Differential influence of parental smoking and friends’ smoking on adolescent


initiation and escalation of smoking. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35,248–265.

Goldman, L., & Glantz, S. (1998). Evaluation of antismoking advertising campaigns.JAMA, 279, 772–777.

John, D. R. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at 25years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 183–213.

Kaufman, N., Castrucci, C., Mowery, P., Gerlach, K., Emont, S., & Orleans, C. T.(2002). Predictors of change on the smoking uptake continuum among adoles-cents. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 156, 581–587.

Khalbous, S. (2004, October). Enquete sur le tabagisme en milieu scolaire [Surveyson smoking in schools]. VIIIeme assises et IIeme Congres Maghrebin de SanteScolaire et Universitaire, Tunis, Tunisia.

Leatherdale, S., McDonald, P., Cameron, R., & Brown, S. (2005). A multilevel analysisexamining the relationship between social influences for smoking and smokingonset. American Journal of Health Behavior, 29, 520–530.

Maney, D. W., Vasey, J., Mahoney, B. S., Gates, S. C., & Higham-Gardill, D. A. (2004).The tobacco related behavioural risks of nationally representative sample ofadolescents. Journal of Health Studies, 19(2), 71–83.

Moschis, G., & Churchill, J. R. (1979). An analysis of the adolescent consumer.Journal of Marketing, 43(3), 40–48.

Moschis, G., & Moore, R. (1978, November). Consumer socialization: A theoreticaland empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 599–609.

Moschis, G., & Moore, R. (1979). Decision making among the young: A socializationperspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(2), 101–112.

Pechmann, C., & Knight, S. (2002). An experimental investigation of the joint effectsof advertising and peers on adolescents’ beliefs and intentions about cigaretteconsumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 5–19.

Pechmann, C., & Ratneshwar, S. (1994). The effects of antismoking and cigaretteadvertising on young adolescents’ perceptions of peers who smoke. Journalof Consumer Research, 21(2), 236.

Pechmann, C., & Reibling, E. (2006). Antismoking advertisements for youth: Anindependent evaluation of health, counter-industry, and industry approaches.American Journal of Public Health, 96, 906–913.

Pederson, L., & Lefcoe, N. M. (1985). Cross sectional analysis of variables relatedto cigarette smoking in late adolescence. Journal of Drug Education, 15,225–240.

Peracchio, L., & Luna, D. (1998). The development of an advertising campaign to dis-courage smoking initiation among children and youth. Journal of Advertising,27(3), 49–56.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1973). Memory and intelligence. New York, NY: BasicBooks.

Piko, B. F., Luszczynska, A., Gibbons, F. X., & Tekozel, M. (2005). A culture-basedstudy of personal and social influences of adolescent smoking. EuropeanJournal of Public Health, 15, 393–398.

Pinilla, J., Gonzalez, B., Barber, P., & Santana, Y. (2002). Smoking in youngadolescents: An approach with multilevel discrete choice model. Journal ofEpidemiology and Community Health, 56, 227–232.


Shore, T., Tashchian, A., & Adams, J. (2000). Development and validation of a scale mea-suring attitudes toward smoking. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 615–623.

Smith, K., & Stutts, M. (1999). Factors that influence adolescents to smoke. TheJournal of Consumer Affairs, 33, 321–357.

Stockdale, M., Dawson-Owens, H., & Sagrestano, L. (2005). Social, attitudinal, anddemographic correlates of adolescent vs. college-age tobacco initiation age.American Journal of Health Behavior, 29, 311–323.

Strong, C. A., & Eftychia, S. (2006). The influence of family and friends on teenagesmoking in Greece: some preliminary findings. Marketing Intelligence andPlanning, 24, 119–126.

Vianelli, D. (2006, January). L’efficacia della publicita contro il fumo: un’analisiempirica bel segmento degli adolescenti [Anti-tobacco ad efficacy: An empiricalanalysis on adolescent segments]. Congresso Internazionale Le tendenze DelMarketing, Venezia.

Wakefield, M., Freman, J., & Donovan, R. (2003). Recall and response of smokersand recent quitters to the Australian National Tobacco Campaign. TobaccoControl, 12(2), 15–22.

Ward, S. (1974). Consumer socialization. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(1), 1–17.

APPENDIX

TABLE A1 Key Strategies for Anti-Tobacco Advertising Adapted From Goldman and Glantz(1998)

Theme Message Creative elements

1. Industrymanipulation

Making illegitimate the tobaccoindustry.

To stage the way smokers are‘‘used’’ by the tobacco industry.

2. Secondhandsmoke

Convince passive smokers thatsmoking endangers others(nonsmokers).

To stage the harm done to lovedones and=or to nature.

3. Addiction Raise awareness that nicotinecauses addiction

To stage the weakness of thehuman facing the cigarette.

4. Cessation Convince smokers to stop bythemselves.

Focusing on the need to stopdrawing attention to theavailable aid.

5. Short-termeffects

Highlighting the negative socialconsequences and immediaterisks of smoking

Making a caricature of theseeffects to cause fear (bad breath,yellow teeth and skin).

6. Long-termhealth effects

Highlighting the effects ofsmoking on health in the longterm.

Presenting actual cases of patientsfrom smoking to cause fear.

7. Romanticrejection

Convincing young people thatsmoking makes themundesirable.

Show that smoking is sociallyundesirable and that themajority of people do notsmoke.

8. Youth access Draw attention to the need toimpose stringent regulatoryconstraints.

Present a situation where childrenhave easy access to cigarettes.


TABLE A2 Brief Summary of Conceptual Advertising

Strategicpriority Promise Underlying message Tone

1. Industrymanipulation

Induce a feelingof rebellion

‘‘The tobacco industryuses you’’

Sarcastic

2. Romanticrejection

Generate emotionalexcitement

‘‘Nobody wants youbecause of smoking’’

3. Addiction ‘‘You are a prisoner ofcigarettes’’

4. Short-termeffects

Provoking fear "You are still young andtobacco has alreadymarked you"

Coarsehumor

5. Long-termhealth effects

"Think about tomorrow"

6. Second-handsmoke

Induce a feeling of guilt inrelation to others

‘‘You are responsible for themisfortune of others’’

Moralizing

7. Cessation Give a reason to stop ‘‘Your only solution is tostop smoking’’

Scare


Copyright of Health Marketing Quarterly is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

tobacco socialization and anti-tobacco ad effectiveness ... · and behavioral smoking socialization...

Documents