You are on page 1of 11

Journal of Community Health, Vol. 30, No.

2, April 2005 (Ó 2005)

CIGARETTE ADVERTISING IN MAGAZINES FOR LATINAS, WHITE WOMEN, AND MEN, 1998–2002: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Senaida Fernandez, MS; Norval Hickman, BA; Elizabeth A. Klonoff, PhD; Hope Landrine, PhD; Kennon Kashima, PhD; Bina Parekh, PhD; Catherine R. Brouillard, BA; Michelle Zolezzi, BA; Jennifer A. Jensen, MPH; Zorahna Weslowski

ABSTRACT: Cigarette ads in popular magazines play a role in smoking and in brand preferences among women and men, but few studies have analyzed ads directed at women vs men, and no study has examined ads directed at women of different ethnic groups. Hence, we examined cigarette ads in popular magazines for White women, Latinas, and men 1998 through 2002 for the first time. Significant differences in the number of cigarette ads by magazine audience were found, along with significant differences in the type and brands of cigarettes advertised to each group. These preliminary findings suggest that the tobacco industry may target women in a manner that differs from its targeting of men, and may target Latinas in a manner that it does not target White women. Results are discussed in terms of the need for further research on tobacco ads directed at women.
KEY WORDS: cigarette advertising; magazines; women; minority women.

INTRODUCTION Cigarette advertising plays a role in smoking, smoking initiation, and brand preferences among youth and adults,1,2,11 and (historically) is the major cause of the birth and subsequent increase in smoking among girls and women.3,11 In the 1920s, the vast majority of smokers were men,
The authors are affiliated with the Behavioral Health Institute and the Department of Psychology at San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Elizabeth A. Klonoff, PhD, Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, San Diego State University, 6363 Alvarado Court, San Diego, CA 92120; e-mail: eklonoff@sunstroke.sdsu.edu. Supported by funds provided by National Cancer Institute Grant No. 1-U56-CA92079-01A1; the University of California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program Grant No. 9RT-0043; and by the California Department of Health Services Tobacco Control Section Grants 90-11528, 94-20962, and 96-26617.

141
0094-5145/05/0400-0141/0 Ó 2005 Springer Science+Business, Media, Inc.

142

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY HEALTH

and smoking was widely considered unfeminine and hence taboo for women.3–5 At that time, however, the tobacco industry began to view women as an untapped market of millions who could be coaxed into smoking. Hence, in the late 1920s, ads for cigarettes began to appear in women’s magazines (e.g., in House & Garden, Vogue) for the first time, and these were gender-tailored. For example, the ads of 1929 depicted thin women smoking cigarettes, and further linked smoking to weight control by using the caption, ‘‘Reach for a Lucky instead of a Sweet’’.6,7 Such ads led to a 312% increase in sales of Lucky Strike cigarettes that year, due mostly to women’s purchases.3 Encouraged by this success, tobacco advertising campaigns designed to recruit women to smoking increased in zeal in the 1930s: The number of gender-tailored ads for cigarettes increased in women’s magazines, famous actresses were paid to encourage smoking on the radio, and free cigarettes were distributed to women at fashion shows, bridge clubs, and secretarial schools nationwide. Consequently, smoking among girls and women increased (10-fold) from 0.5% before 1929 to 5% by 1939.3 Further encouraged by such success, in the 1960s, the tobacco industry began producing new brands of cigarettes for women alone, these accompanied by gender-tailored ads that linked smoking to women’s empowerment and liberation—the issue of the 1960s and 1970s.3,5,8–10 Foremost among these women’s brands is Virginia Slims whose 1960s ‘‘You’ve come a long way, Baby’’ slogan has been changed each decade to continue to attract women to smoking:3 In the 1970s and 1980s the slogan was changed to, ‘‘We made Virginia Slims especially for women because they are biologically superior to men.’’ In the 1990’s it was changed to, ‘‘Virginia Slims, it’s a woman thing,’’ then to, ‘‘Virginia Slims. Find your voice,’’ and then to, ‘‘Tame and timid? That goes against my instincts’’.3 Additional brands produced for and marketed solely to women in the 1960s through the 1990s include Capri, Misty, Eve, More, Style, Ms., and Satin (to name a few). Ads for these brands appear almost exclusively in women’s magazines, and entail captions such as ‘‘Dare to be More’’ (More), ‘‘Be the one with Style’’ (Style), ‘‘Spoil yourself with Satin’’ (Satin), ‘‘There is no slimmer way to smoke’’ (Capri), and ‘‘Smoke Pretty’’ (Eve, a cigarette in a flowered package with a flowered tip). Such ads always entail themes of thinness, independence, and glamour—unlike ads targeting men, which focus on cigarette flavor and on virility.3–5,8–10 The marketing of these women’s brands, along with intense gender-tailored cigarette advertising (and Virginia Slims’ sponsorship of women tennis for 23 years) played a significant role in the increase in smoking among women from the 1920s 0.5% prevalence rate to present rates:3,11 Today, 23.5% of White, 21.9% of Black and 13.8% of Hispanic

Senaida Fernandez et al. 143

women smoke, with rates of smoking among White and Black women nearly equal to those of their male counterparts.3,12 Because such advertising has been shown to play a role in smoking, smoking initiation, and brand preferences among women and girls,3,12,23 and because more than 46% of all tobacco ads are in popular magazines,13 further analysis of the targeting of women with cigarette ads in magazines is needed.14 Specifically, although studies have examined the targeting of women with cigarette ads in women’s magazines (e.g., Cosmopolitan), no study has compared ads in women’s magazines to those in men’s magazines (e.g., Playboy) to explore possible differences in the number of ads. One study compared ads in women’s magazines to those in magazines for the general public (e.g., Time, Newsweek) and found more ads in the former—indicating the differential targeting of women by the tobacco industry.15 Yet, without a comparison to magazines that specifically target men, possible differences remain unknown. Likewise, studies of cigarette ads in women’s magazines used magazines that target and are read most frequently by White women, with no magazines for minority women included. Although one ground-breaking study examined cigarette ads in a magazine for Black women (Essence), no comparison to magazines for White women was conducted. 16 Moreover, magazines for Hispanic women have never been included in such studies even though Latinas constitute the largest group of minority women.17 Given that smoking rates among Latinas are significantly lower than among White and Black women,3 the possibility that the tobacco industry now specifically targets Latinas warrants exploration. Finally, studies of the targeting of women have focused on ads for women’s brands in women’s magazines, but have not examined ads for other brands—for example, menthol vs. non-menthol brands. Several studies indicate that menthol cigarettes (e.g., Kool, Newport) are advertised almost exclusively in African-American magazines whereas non-menthol cigarettes (e.g., Winston, Marlboro) are advertised in White magazines.1,18–20 This differential advertising accounts for the finding that the majority of African-American smokers smoke a menthol brand whereas the majority of White smokers smoke a non-menthol brand.1,18,21,22 In addition, studies indicate that smoking mentholated (as opposed to non-mentholated) cigarettes is associated with increased rates of lung cancer,22 and lung cancer is 50–60% higher in African-Americans than in Whites despite their equal smoking prevalence rates.18,23 Hence, exploring ads for menthol brands in women’s vs. men’s magazines may yield valuable data. Thus, in this preliminary study, we explored the total number, type (menthol vs. non-menthol), brand (Black, White, Women’s, Other), and

144

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY HEALTH

size of cigarette ads in magazines that target White women, Latina women, and men for the first time, and examined changes in ads over time as well. METHODS Five monthly magazines were selected: Cosmopolitan (2002 readership ¼ 2.96 million) and Glamour (2002 readership ¼ 2.51 million) were selected as popular magazines that target White women, and Playboy (2002 readership ¼ 3.2 million) selected as a popular magazine that targets men, each based on annual subscription, demographic, and sales data (available at AdAge.com and at Market.Research.com). Then, Cosmopolitan en Espan and Glamour en Espan were selected as magazines that ˜ol ˜ol target Latina women. Data on the annual audience of the latter magazines (i.e., their popularity) were not available. However, Cosmopolitan and Cosmopolitan en Espan (like Glamour and Glamour en Espan are the ˜ol ˜ol) same magazine, with the same publisher. Selecting the Spanish versions of Cosmo and Glamour as the Latina magazines thereby controls for magazine content, length, publication and advertising policies etc., such that any differences in tobacco ads between the English and the Spanish versions of these two magazines represent the differential targeting of Latina vs. White women. Hence, Cosmopolitan en Espan and Glamour en Espan were ˜ol ˜ol viewed as superior to other magazines for Latinas (e.g., Latina magazine) for data-analytic purposes. Magazines for African-American women (e.g., Essence, Black Woman) were not included in this initial, preliminary study. Every issue of the aforementioned five monthly magazines for the 4.5 year period of January 1998 through August 2002 was examined. This yielded 53 issues of Playboy, 56 issues of Glamour, 53 issues of Cosmopolitan, 35 issues of Cosmopolitan en Espan , and 12 issues of Glamour en Espan ˜ol ˜ol; the latter two magazines did not appear until 1999 or 2000, hence their smaller sample size. The total number of magazine issues examined (i.e., subjects) was N ¼ 209. Each of the 209 issues was searched for cigarette ads. Digital photographs were taken of all ads discovered, and these used in analyses of the number, type (menthol vs. non-menthol), brand, and size (length · width, number of pages) of ads. These ad characteristics were coded by 2 and 3 researchers for each ad with 100% agreement. RESULTS Number of Ads The 209 magazine issues contained a total of 630 cigarette ads. White Women’s magazines (Cosmo and Glamour, N ¼ 109 issues)

Senaida Fernandez et al. 145

contained 311 ads (Mean ¼ 2.96 ads per issue, r ¼ 1.67); Latina women’s magazines (Cosmo and Glamour in Spanish, N ¼ 47 issues) contained 47 ads (Mean ¼ 1.0 ad per issue, r ¼ 0.722); and Men’s magazines (Playboy, N ¼ 53 issues) contained 272 ads (Mean ¼ 5.26 ads per issue, r ¼ 1.47). The analysis for differences in the average number of ads-per-issue by magazine was significant (ANOVA Mean Square ¼ 2228.765, F2,208 ¼ 107.554, p ¼ 0.0005). Follow-up Tukey tests (at 0.05) revealed Men’s > White Women’s > Latina Women’s magazines in the mean number of cigarette ads per issue. Ad Size The sizes of the cigarette ads were as follows: White Women’s magazines Mean ¼ 1.48 pages (r ¼ 0.888), Men’s magazines Mean ¼ 1.46 pages (r ¼ 0.882), and Latina women’s magazines Mean ¼ 1.13 pages (r ¼ 0.337). The analysis for differences in the average size of cigarette ads by magazine was significant (ANOVA Mean Square ¼ 2.604, F2,652 ¼ 3.537, p ¼ 0.03). Follow-up Tukey tests (at 0.05) revealed Men’s ¼ White Women’s > Latina Women’s magazines in the mean size of ads. Menthol vs. Non-Menthol Ads Significant differences in the prevalence of ads for menthol cigarettes (Salem, Newport, Marlboro menthol, etc.) were found as well. As shown in Table 1, 51.1% of the cigarette ads in Latinas’ magazines, 28.3% of the cigarette ads in White Women’s magazines, and 27.2% of the cigarette ads Men’s magazines were for menthol cigarettes. Magazines for Latinas contained more ads for menthol cigarettes and fewer ads for nonTABLE 1 Number Menthol vs. Non-Menthol Cigarette Ads in Magazinesa
Magazine Audience Latina Women White Women Men Menthol Ads (%) 51.1 28.3 27.2 (n) (24) (88) (74) Non-Menthol Ads (%) 48.9 71.7 72.8 (n) (23) (223) (198)

a Overall Likelihood ratio X2 df 2 = 10.460, p < 0.005; White vs. Latina women X2 df 1 = 9.219, p < 0.002; Latinas vs. Men X2 df 1 = 10.015, p < 0.002; White Women vs. Men X2 df 1 = 0.086, p = 0.769.

146

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY HEALTH

menthol cigarettes than did magazines for White Women and for men (Latinas’ > White Women’s ¼ Men’s magazines for menthol ads; Latinas’ < White Women’s ¼ Men’s magazines for non-menthol ads, determined by X2 analyses and analyses of X2 residuals). To clarify this finding, a stepwise logistic regression predicting menthol vs. non-menthol cigarette ads from magazine type was conducted. As shown in Table 2, magazines for Latinas were 2.64 times more likely than magazines for White Women to contain ads for menthol cigarettes (magazines for Men did not differ from those for White Women). Brands Advertised Fourteen different brands of cigarettes were advertised in White Women’s magazines and in Men’s magazines as well, but only four different brands were advertised in Latinas’ magazines. To explore the possibility that a restricted set of specific brands are differentially marketed to Latinas, all brands were categorized as follows, in a manner consistent with prior studies: White Brands (those advertised most often to Whites) ¼ Marlboro + Camel + Winston;1,9,14,18 Black Brands (advertised most often to Blacks) ¼ Kool + Newport;1,9,14,18 and Women’s Brands (advertised almost exclusively to women) ¼ Virginia Slims + Capri + Misty.4,5,8 All remaining brands were categorized as Other Brands (Salem + Pall Mall + Basic + GPC + Carlton + Cambridge, Merit etc.). As shown in Table 3, the magazines differed significantly in the pattern of ads for these four categories of brands: For White Brands, the pattern of ads was White Women’s > Men’s > Latinas’ magazines. For Black Brands, the pattern of ads was Latinas’ > White Women’s > Men’s magazines. For Women’s Brands, the pattern of ads was Latinas’ > White Women’s > Men’s magazines, with the latter containing zero ads for Women’s Brands. For TABLE 2 Stepwise Logistic Regression Predicting Menthol vs. Non-menthol Cigarette Ads From Magazine
Reference group: White Women’s Magazines Magazine Selected/Step Latinas’ Magazines Men’s Magazine
a

b 0. 972 )0.054

SE 0.318 0.186

Wald 9.363a 0.086b

Odds Ratio 2.644 0.947

95% CI 1.418, 4.930 0.658, 1.362

p = 0.001; bp = 0.266.

Senaida Fernandez et al. 147

TABLE 3 Brands of Cigarettes Advertised in Magazinesa
White Brands Magazine Audience White Women Latina Women Men
df 3 df

Black Brands (%) 25.7 59.6 20.8 (n) (83) (28) (59)

Women’s Brands (%) 15.2 21.3 0.0 (n) (49) (10) (0)

Other Brands (%) 11.1 0.0 40.3 (n) (36) (0) (114)

(%) 48.0 19.1 38.9

(n) (155) (9) (110)

a Overall Likelihood ratio X2 df 6 = 172.548, p = 0.0005; White vs. Latina women X2 = 32.887, p = 0.0005; White women vs. Men v2 df 3 = 119.661, p = 0.0005; Latina women vs. Men X2 3 = 97.074, p = 0.0005.

Other Brands, the pattern of ads was Men’s > White Women’s > Latinas’ magazines, with the latter containing zero ads for Other Brands. Stated differently, brands marketed to White Women were White Brands > Black Brands > Women’s Brands > Other Brands. Brands marketed to Latinas were Black Brands > Women’s Brands = White Brands > Other Brands. Brands marketed to men were Other Brands = White Brands > Black Brands > Women’s Brands. Hence, Latinas’ magazines contained more ads for Black Brands and for Women’s Brands than did the other magazines; White women’s magazines contained more ads for White Brands than did other magazines; and Men’s magazines contained more ads for Other Brands and fewer ads for Women’s Brands than did other magazines. Ads Over Time Each group of magazines (White Women’s, Latinas’, Men’s) was analyzed for possible changes in the average number of cigarette ads per issue over time; to reduce the number of consecutive significance tests, separate analyses for changes in menthol ads over time were not conducted. As shown in Table 4, the mean number of cigarette ads-per-issue decreased in White women’s magazines over time (1999 > 2000 > 2001= 2002); remained stable in Latinas’ magazines over time (1999 = 2000 = 2001 = 2002); and did not decrease in men’s magazines until 2002 (1999 = 2000 = 2001 > 2002). DISCUSSION Gender-related studies of cigarette ads in magazines have compared the number of ads per issue in women’s magazines to those

148

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY HEALTH

TABLE 4 Number of Cigarette Ads in Magazines, 1998–2002
White Women’s Magazinesa Mean Ads Per Issue (SD) Range Ads Per Issue Latina Women’s Magazinesb Mean Ads Per Issue (SD) Range Ads Per Issue Men’s Magazinesc Mean Ads Per Issue (SD) Range Ads Per Issue 1998 5.45 (1.13) 3–7 1998 3.42 (1.18) 2–6 1999 4.30 (1.99) 2–10 1999 1.18 (0.75) 0–2 1999 5.50 (1.31) 3–7 2000 3.04 (1.43) 0–5 2000 1.00 (0.91) 0–3 2000 5.25 (1.22) 3–8 2001 2.08 (1.02) 0–4 2001 1.08 (0.61) 0–2 2001 5.92 (1.51) 4–8 2002 1.36 (0.93) 0–3 2002 0.70 (0.18) 0–1 2002 3.17 (1.17) 1–4

a Mean square = 25.286, F (4,108) = 13.102, p = 0.0005; Tukey tests: 1998 = 1999 > 2000 > 2001 = 2002. b Mean square = 0.447, F (3,46) = 0.848, p = 0.475; Tukey tests: 1999 = 2000 = 2001= 2002. c Mean square = 8.144, F (4,52) = 4.903, p = 0.002 Tukey tests: 1998 = 1999 = 2000 = 2001 > 2002.

in magazines for the general public (e.g., Newsweek), and have found significantly more ads in the former—this interpreted as the differential targeting of women by the tobacco industry.15 This study is the first to compare the number of cigarette ads in magazines that specifically target men vs. women, and found significantly more cigarette ads per issue in men’s magazines. Although this finding may indicate that the tobacco industry targets men more so than it does women, such a conclusion cannot be drawn from this study for two reasons. First, only one magazine that targets men (Playboy) was examined. The content of this magazine differs from that of other magazines for men (e.g, Sports Illustrated, Popular Mechanics), and so its audience also may differ from that of other men’s magazines (e.g., may consist of more). The frequent cigarette ads in Playboy then may be specific to Playboy and its readers alone. Second, the greater number of cigarette ads in Playboy relative to women’s magazines simply may reflect differences in the number of cigarette ads that the respective publishers accept. Hence, studies with larger, more representative samples of magazines for men and for women are needed. That there were significantly more cigarette ads per issue in magazines for White Women (Mean = 2.96) than in magazines for Latinas (Mean = 1.0) is easier to interpret because the magazines in question

Senaida Fernandez et al. 149

were the same (in English vs. Spanish) with the same publisher. Hence, this preliminary finding suggests a greater targeting of White than of Latina women by the tobacco industry. Likewise, the findings on the brands and types of cigarettes advertised also are readily interpretable because such results are not an artifact of differences in publishers’ acceptance of tobacco ads: Once a publisher has decided to accept cigarette ads, the differential advertising of specific types and brands of cigarettes represents the differential targeting of populations with those types and brands.14 Three novel results emerged for types and brands of cigarettes advertised. First, there were significantly more ads for menthol brands in magazines for Latinas than in magazines for White Women or for Men, with Latinas’ magazines 2.6 times more likely to contain such ads. Because the magazines for White women and those for Latinas were the same (the English vs. Spanish versions of Cosmopolitan and Glamour), these data strongly suggest that the tobacco industry is targeting Latinas in a manner that it does not target White women, and indeed, in a manner similar to its targeting of Blacks. This interpretation is supported by the findings on specific brands of cigarettes marketed to Latinas: 60% of the cigarette ads in Latinas’ magazines were for Black Brands, compared to 26% and 21% of the ads in magazines for White women and for men, respectively. This suggests that the tobacco industry might view the Latino population as minorities who are similar to Blacks and so treats them similarly, i.e., with a preponderance of ads for menthol brands and with ads for a restricted set of brands (i.e., 14 different brands advertised to White Women and to Men vs. a mere four brands advertised to Latinas). Given the limitations of the sample of magazines studied however, this differential targeting of Latinas with a restricted set of primarily Black menthol brands is a preliminary finding necessitating verification by larger studies. The recent finding3 that most Latina (i.e., Puerto Rican women) smokers smoke Newport (a Black, menthol brand) is supportive of these preliminary findings and encourages such replications. The second novel finding was the differential advertising of Women’s Brands. Women’s Brands of cigarettes were never advertised to men and instead, continue to be marketed to White and to Latina women, in manner consistent with prior studies as well as with data indicating that the purpose of these brands is to encourage women to smoke. In addition however, Women’s Brands were advertised significantly more often to Latinas than to White women. This suggests that the tobacco industry may be targeting Latinas with Women’s Brands in the effort to increase smoking among Latinas, perhaps because their rates of smoking

150

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY HEALTH

are significantly lower than those of White and of Black women. Similarly, the third novel finding was that the most frequent brands advertised to White Women were not Women’s Brands, but instead, were White Brands, with more ads for White Brands (e.g., Marlboro) in magazines for White Women than for all other groups. Marketing Women’s Brands to Latinas while marketing White Brands to White Women might reflect a change in the tobacco-industry’s strategy. Specifically, the industry may view White Women as less traditional in gender roles than Latinas, and so may be targeting White women with the same brands (Marlboro) that it advertises to men, while targeting Latinas with gendertailored, traditional Women’s Brands. Such possibilities require further research with larger samples of magazines than used in this preliminary study. The recent finding3 that most White Women smokers smoke Marlboro (a White Brand) supports these preliminary findings and hence encourages such replication studies. Finally, an additional novel finding was for changes in ads over time. The average number of cigarette ads per issue in magazines for White Women has decreased in recent years while remaining stable in magazines for Latinas. Because the magazines in question are the same magazines with the same publisher, this too suggests the possible differential targeting of Latinas (relative to White women). Given the limitations of the sample of magazines and of the time-frame examined in this exploratory study however, further research is needed with larger samples of magazines that cover a broader time-frame. In summary, this preliminary investigation confirms prior studies indicating that cigarette advertising directed at women differs from that directed at men, and also suggests that there may be significant differences in cigarette ads directed at women of different ethnic groups. The latter is a novel finding that highlights the need for research on this topic as well as on the possible role that such advertising may play in ethnic differences in smoking and brand preferences among women.

REFERENCES
1. Cummings KM, Giovino G, Mendicino, AJ. Cigarette advertising and Black-White differences in brand preference. Public Health Rep 1987; 102:698–701. 2. Pierce JP, Gilpin EA, Choi WS. Sharing the blame: smoking experimentation and future smokingattributable mortality due to Joe Camel and Marlboro advertising and promotions. Tob Control. 1999; 8:37–44. 3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Women and Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. 2001; Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, Office on Smoking and Health, Atlanta, GA. Available at www.cdc.gov/tobacco/srg

Senaida Fernandez et al. 151

4. Amos A. How women are targeted by the tobacco industry. World Health Forum 1990; 11:416–422. 5. Amos A, Haglund M. From social taboo to ‘‘torch of freedom:’’ The marketing of cigarettes to women. Tob Control 2000; 9:3–8. 6. Journal of the American Medical Association. Bureau of investigation: tobacco advertising gone mad. JAMA 1930; 94:8–10. 7. Wagner P. Cigarettes versus candy. New Repub 1929; 57:343–345. 8. Boyd C, Boyd TC, Cash JL. Why is Virginia slim? Women and cigarette advertising. Int Q Community Health Edu 2000; 19:19–31. 9. Cotton P. Tobacco foes attack ads that target women, minorities, teens and the poor. JAMA 1990; 264:1505-1507. 10. O’Keefe AM, Pollay RW. Deadly targeting of women in promoting cigarettes. J Am Med Womens Assoc 1996; 51:67–69. 11. Pierce JP, Gilpin EA. Smoking initiation by adolescent girls, 1944 through 1988: an association with targeted advertising. JAMA 1994; 271:608–611. 12. Centers for Disease Control. Cigarette smoking among adults—United States, 1995. MMWR 1997; 46:1217–1220. 13. Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission Report to Congress for 1994: Pursuant to the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission; 1996. 14. Basil MD, Schooler C, Altman DG, Slater M, Albright CL, Maccoby N. How cigarettes are advertised in magazines: special messages for special markets. Health Commun 1991; 5:75–91. 15. Krupka LR, Vener AM, Richmond G. Tobacco advertising in gender-oriented popular magazines. J Drug Edu 1990; 20:15–29. 16. Hoffman-Goetz L, Gerlach KK, Marinoa C, Mills SL. Cancer coverage and tobacco advertising in African-American women’s popular magazines. J Commu Health 1997; 22:261–270. 17. Landrine H. Bringing cultural diversity to feminist psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1995. 18. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Tobacco use among U.S. racial/ethnic minority groups. 1998; Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, Office on Smoking and Health, Atlanta, GA. Available at www.cdc.gov/tobacco 19. Pollay RW, Lee JS, Carter-Whitney D. Separate but not equal: racial segregation in cigarette advertising. J Adv 1992; 21:45–57. 20. Muscat JE, Richie JP, Stellman SD. Mentholated cigarettes and smoking habits in whites and blacks. Tob Control 2002; 11:368–371. 21. Sidney S, Tekawa IS, Friedman GD, Sadler MC, Tashkin DP. Mentholated cigarette use and lung cancer. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155:727–732. 22. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco use among Young People: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: DHHS, CDC; 1994. 23. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports. Comparison of the cigarette brand preferences of adult and teenaged smokers. MMWR 1992; 41:179–181.