International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing

Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 13: 237–250 (2008)

Published online 11 September 2007 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/nvsm.326

The efficacy of anti-smoking

advertisements: the role of source,
message, and individual
characteristics
Sridhar Samu 1* and Namita Bhatnagar 2y
1
Indian School of Business, ISB Campus, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, India
2
University of Manitoba, Manitoba, Canada

This research investigates the effects of direct and indirect sources of anti-smoking
messages. Specifically, it examines the direct influence of advertised messages and the
indirect effect of the subsequent discussion.

Two studies examine the role of: (i) Source characteristics (i.e., messages disseminated
through mass media and subsequently via discussion by friends or strangers); (ii)
Message characteristics (i.e., messages that induce either low or high fear); (iii) Individual
characteristics (i.e., gender based differences within the target audience) in attitude
formation towards smokers, the act of smoking, propensity to smoke, and the likelihood of
being influenced.

Message efficacy is found to vary by gender, type of ad appeal, as well as group
membership of ad discussants. Implications for design of anti-smoking campaigns are
derived.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction other parts of the world. An estimated

The economic and health-related costs of
smoking have led to a substantial amount of
research to determine methods to reduce,
prevent, and eliminate smoking (Block and
Keller, 1995; Keller and Block, 1996; Pech-
mann et al., 2003). Smoking remains wide-
spread in North America and is growing in
*Correspondence to: Sridhar Samu, Assistant Professor of
Marketing, Indian School of Business, ISB Campus, Gachi-
bowli, Hyderabad 500032, India.
E-mail: sridhar_samu@isb.edu
y
Namita Bhatnagar is Assistant Professor of Marketing and
Ross Johnson Fellow at the University of Manitoba.
46.2 million Americans and 5.4 million Cana-
dians currently smoke and the highest pro-
portion of smokers belong to the ‘young
adults’ (18–24 years) segment (CTUMS,
2005). Hence, there is a critical need to
increase understanding of factors that can
contribute to reduction/cessation of smoking
among young adults.
Research on the effectiveness of anti-
smoking ads have focused on message type
and recipient characteristics—e.g., variations
in the level of fear arousal (high/low), type of
fear (physical/social, short-term/long-term),
message format, smoking status, and gender
(Block and Keller, 1995; Keller and Block,

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2008
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
238
1996; Smith and Stutts, 2003). There is some
evidence that the unconverted (e.g., smokers)
discount fear-based messages when elaborat-
ing on the consequences, while the converted
(e.g., non-smokers) are influenced by appeals
that arouse high fear (Keller, 1999). Anecdotal
evidence, garnered through focus group and
in-depth interviews, suggests that non-smokers
adopt more extreme views after exposure to
anti-smoking messages and become motivated
to engage smokers in cautionary discussions
(Price et al., 1987; Aronson and Gonzales,
1990; Fisher and Misovich, 1990). Such
discussions may enhance or mitigate the direct
effect of health communications by influen-
cing the amount of discounting or reactance
engaged in by smokers. Whether such inter-
ventions reinforce or weaken the original
message, and variations in persuasiveness
based on the source of such interventions
(e.g., in-group vs. out-group members), are
aspects that have not been explored in
sufficient depth.
Peer and opinion leader effects have been of
enduring interest in research on negative
behaviors (e.g., tobacco consumption, sexual
activity) especially in terms of conformity to
peer pressure (e.g., Santor et al., 1999;
Pechmann and Knight, 2002) and advocacy
(Howard et al., 2000). Research indicates a
strong group influence on negative behavior
like alcohol (Urberg et al., 1997; Maxwell,
2002), smokeless tobacco (Evans and Raines,
1990), and drugs (Mounts and Steinberg,
1995), and could be a key factor in anti-
smoking campaigns as well. Peer effects have
generally been studied for their negative
influence on other members in the group
(Pechmann and Knight, 2002), but positive
effects may also be possible (Aronson and
Gonzales, 1990; Weisse et al., 1990; Mounts
and Steinberg, 1995). The positive effect on
the basis of social influence may strengthen the
mass media communication by creating a buzz
involving the discussion of anti-smoking
messages. This additional influence of group
membership could lead to improvement on
the efficacy of existing anti-smoking messages.
Public policy makers may be able to initiate a
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Sridhar Samu and Namita Bhatnagar
discussion of anti-smoking messages to aug-
ment the direct message.
This research seeks to identify potential
factors that mitigate consumers’ propensity to
smoke, their attitudes towards smoking and
smokers, as well as their willingness to
advocate abstinence or cessation to others.
The major focus is on advertising appeals that
create different levels of fear arousal and
increase the effectiveness of anti-smoking
messages, along with the effects of peers
and individual factors in mediating the effec-
tiveness of such messages. In this paper, the
effects of the anti-smoking ads are examined
along with the effect of discussion of these ads
by other people. This approach combines the
individual level influence with the social
aspect of group behavior and is a significant
contribution towards the anti-smoking litera-
ture. It is important to consider the combined
effect of these three factors rather than the
individual effects due to the synergistic effect
between them.
Two studies examine variations in the
efficacy of anti-smoking messages given: (1)
differences in the levels of fear arousals; (2)
differences in the source of the discussion
about anti-smoking ads; and (3) gender
differences. Study 1 investigates the effects
of level of fear arousal and gender on the
effectiveness of anti-smoking messages.
Study 2 includes the additional effect of
discussion of anti-smoking messages by friends
or strangers.
Theoretical background
Impact of fear arousal on processing
of anti-smoking messages
It is well known that media portrayals help
shape pro and anti-smoking sentiments.
Positive media depictions of smoking in earlier
decades are now being tempered by caution-
ary messages. A majority of consumers turn to
media for health-related information (Block
and Keller, 1995) and it is possible to inoculate
youth by showing anti-smoking ads before
scenes depicting smokers in a positive light
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2008
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
The efficacy of anti-smoking advertisements
(Pechmann and Shih, 1999). Fear-inducing
messages are commonly used within public
health campaigns even though there is con-
flicting evidence for its effectiveness (Block
and Keller, 1995). To resolve such conflicts,
researchers have examined the types of fear
appeals (Pechmann et al., 2003), the format of
fear messages (Keller, 1999), the extent of fear
arousal (Hovland et al., 1953), and target
audience characteristics such as gender (Smith
and Stutts, 2003) and smoking status (Keller,
1999).
Conflicting evidence for the impact of fear
appeals may be rooted in the variety of ways
that risk appraisals can be made—e.g., in
terms of health, social or interpersonal risks
(Rogers, 1983); short-term or long-term;
physical or cosmetic (Smith and Stutts,
2003)—and the weight consumers put on
them. Researchers on healthy behaviors draw
heavily on the protection motivation model
(Rogers, 1983) to understand how people
process fear-inducing communications and
become motivated to protect themselves.
According to this framework, threat messages
generally consist of the consequences of
harmful behaviors and recommendations for
minimizing them. On being exposed to fearful
communications, people engage in two types
of appraisals: threat appraisal (i.e., about the
severity/vulnerability of the risk) and coping
appraisal (i.e., about the ability to engage in
recommended behaviors/the likelihood that
engaging in recommended behaviors would
actually decrease the risk). With a few
exceptions (Pechmann et al., 2003), appli-
cations of this model have been restricted to
mass-communicated fear messages. This is
limiting, given the number of ways in which
fear can be felt and there is evidence that
information is processed differently depending
on the type of perceived risk. For example,
Pechmann et al. (2003) found that messages
containing social disapproval rather than
physical health consequences were more
effective for adolescents.
Further, low-to-moderate levels of fear
arousal are most persuasive (Hovland et al.,
1953), and smokers (but not non-smokers)
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
239
tend to discount health-related messages that
are too fearful (Keller, 1999). Message formats
that contain consequences followed by recom-
mended behaviors are more effective for
non-smokers, but presenting recommen-
dations prior to consequences works best in
the case of smokers (Keller, 1999). Significant
gender differences have also been found across
appeal type (Maldonado et al., 2003). Females
are more persuaded by long-term health
appeals and males by short-term cosmetic
appeals (Smith and Stutts, 2003). Further,
factors such as importance of the issue,
perceived likelihood that the negative out-
come would actually occur, and the belief that
a change of behavior would affect the feared
outcome, also serve to enhance the effect of
fear appeals (Glascoff, 2000).
Impact of gender on processing
of anti-smoking messages
Females value empathy and are traditionally
assigned a submissive and subordinate com-
munal role while males emphasize values such
as self-respect and social recognition and are
assigned a dominant agentic role (Hall, 1984;
Wymer and Samu, 2002). Given a focus on the
self and others in the case of females, and
primarily on the self for males (Hupfer, 2002),
gender differences in processing anti-smoking
messages can be predicted. The Selectivity
Hypothesis (Meyers-Levy, 1989; Meyers-Levy
and Maheswaran, 1991) postulates that while
men are more likely to respond to broad
messages; women are more inclined to closely
examine the details of message content.
Further, if women are more apt to elaborate
than men (Meyers-Levy and Sternthal, 1991),
they may also make more extensive use of
message cues than males. Thus women may be
more likely to process and understand
messages, leading to a higher inclination to
persuade others.
Men and women differ in item-specific
versus relational processing (Hunt and
Einstein, 1981). While relational processing
involves focusing on shared themes among
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2008
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
240
information, item-specific processing concen-
trates on the characteristics of a specific
message. Given the male tendency to be
agentic and self-focused, men are more
inclined toward unique message attributes
that affect them personally while women are
more likely to consider all aspects of a message
and draw out similarities from multiple
messages. When exposed to a series of
anti-smoking ads, women should be able to
identify the common theme more easily than
men. Further, females will be more inclined to
elaborate and extrapolate the messages to find
relevance for themselves and others (Putrevu,
2001). The willingness among females to pay
attention to self and others and to care for their
well being should translate into higher
susceptibility to internalize and pass along
messages that encourage healthy behaviors.
Hence,
H1: Females will be influenced by anti-
smoking messages to a greater extent
than males.
Impact of gender and message appeal
on processing of anti-smoking
messages
A number of themes such as disease and death,
endangerment to others, cosmetic effects, and
smokers’ negative life circumstances dominate
anti-smoking ads (Pechmann et al., 2003).
Short-term cosmetic fear appeals (low fear
arousal) are more effective for males while
long-term health fear appeals (high fear
arousal) are more effective for females (Smith
and Stutts, 2003). It might also be that low fear
would be more effective for males because
they value social recognition (Wymer and
Samu, 2002). Females also tend to process
messages in depth (Myers-Levy and Sternthal,
1991) and should be less likely to discount
adverse health-related claims.
Both men and women react to emotional
messages in ads in very similar ways in private;
however, for emotional appeals, men were
more sensitive than women in the presence of
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Sridhar Samu and Namita Bhatnagar
other men or groups (Fisher and Dube, 2005).
Social fear is a low agency emotion and it can
be expected that men would be more sensitive
to ad appeals with social fear. However,
physical fear is a high agency appeal and so
men may not be as sensitive as women. A
second factor to consider is caring for others
which is conceptualized as a higher agency
emotion and gender differences can be
expected here as well with women being
more sensitive to such emotions compared to
men (Fisher and Dube, 2005). Hence,
H2: Males will be influenced by anti-smoking
messages that arouse low levels of fear to
a greater extent than messages that
arouse high levels of fear; females will
be influenced by anti-smoking messages
that arouse high levels of fear to a greater
extent than messages that arouse low
levels of fear.
Impact of discussion and
group membership
Previous literature on smoking has looked at
the effect of ad and peer effects in tandem and
separately (e.g., Pechmann and Ratneshwar,
1994; Pechmann and Knight, 2002), primarily
in terms of the influence that peer attitudes and
behaviors have on consumers. Group effects
have been studied in terms of the negative
effects of peer behavior encouraging other
group members to engage in similar behavior
(Pechmann and Knight, 2002). Little has been
done in terms of examining the role of peer
attitudes towards anti-smoking ads in the
formation of attitudes towards smoking. Anec-
dotal evidence suggests significant amounts of
discussion surrounding ads, which might lead
to the reinforcement or discounting of anti-
smoking messages. It may be important to look
at the combined effect of ad discussion and
exposure to anti-smoking ad.
When reminded of their group membership,
group mind-set becomes salient and consu-
mers make decisions that minimize the risk of
negative outcomes to themselves and their
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2008
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
The efficacy of anti-smoking advertisements
group (Briley and Wyer, 2002). Social influ-
ence theory explains how people compare
themselves to their social group to determine
appropriate behaviors in a given situation.
There is a strong peer influence among teens to
initiate risk behaviors such as smoking, but
such influence was less than the individuals’
direct effect on such risky behaviors (Maxwell,
2002). These findings also suggest that the
social context plays a role in determining
which risk behaviors may be pursued. How-
ever, this peer influence could lead to
reduction or cessation of some types of risk
behaviors. Other research has shown that
peers can influence in a positive direction,
both in promoting healthful behaviors and in
discouraging negative behaviors (Weisse et al.,
1990; Hansen and Graham, 1991). Peers’
smoking behavior along with extant attitudes
about health had the power to affect post-ad
attitudes about smoking (Quester, 1998).
Hence, peers do have an impact on the
behavior of adolescents and teens.
Peer tobacco use is an important mediator
between environmental/family factors and use
of tobacco products (Adamczyk-Robinette et al.,
2002) and it clearly indicates that peer behavior,
and by extension peer influence, can play a
significant role in the individual’s behavior.
H3: Consumers are more likely to be
influenced by anti-smoking messages
when friends rather than strangers
discuss these messages.
Since the type of ad appeal will be evaluated
based on the source of discussion, in-group
would be a more dependable source of
information than out-group. People have more
positive views and give preferential treatment
to members of the same group (Tajfel and
Turner, 1979) and this bias would increase
when their group becomes salient (Huddy,
2004). Consumers are also more sensitive to
in-group members when exposed to emotional
appeals (Fisher and Dube, 2005). When an
in-group member discusses a high versus low
fear appeal, this will be more relevant and
personal. Hence, it is hypothesized that high
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
241
fear ads will be more strongly reinforced by
in-group rather than out-group while no
differences are expected for low fear ads.
H4: Anti-smoking messages that arouse high
levels of fear will be more effective when
friends rather than strangers discuss
them; there will be no differences for
anti-smoking messages that arouse low
levels of fear.
Impact of gender and group
membership
The final interaction, between gender and
group membership, is of great interest to
marketers. Women are more socially oriented
and would be more influenced by the group
they belong to than men (Washburn-Ormachea
et al., 2004). Hence,
H5: Discussion of anti-smoking messages by
friends will have a greater impact on
females than males; there will be no
gender differences when strangers dis-
cuss anti-smoking messages.
Study 1
Participants and overview
The design was a 2 (fear arousal: high/low)  2
(gender: male/female) between-subjects design
where fear arousal was manipulated and gender
was measured. One hundred and two under-
graduate business students participated in the
study for course credit. Participants, randomly
assigned to either the high fear or low fear
arousal condition, were asked to view anti-
smoking ads and then fill out a questionnaire. Of
the participants 48.1% were male and 51.9%
were females, and 94.2% were under 25 years of
age. The sample consisted of 8.7% smokers,
18.3% ex-smokers, and 73.1% non-smokers.
Stimuli
The level of fear arousal was manipulated by
asking respondents to view two anti-smoking
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2008
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
242
print ads on the computer (see http://www.
tobaccofree.org/images/Utter%20fool%20web.
jpg and http://www.takingontobacco.org/qofm/
0202/virginiaslims.html sample ads). It was ex-
pected that ads dealing with the risk of early
death and the risk of requiring a tracheotomy
would induce high levels of fear, and ads dealing
with claims that the tobacco industry hides the
truth from consumers and that smokers appear
foolish would induce low levels of fear. The
order in which the ads were shown was
counterbalanced. Following this, respondents
were asked to respond to questions related to
the dependent variables, manipulation check,
and covariates.
Dependent variables, manipulation
check, and covariates
After exposure to the anti-smoking ads,
respondents’ propensity toward smoking,
attitude toward smoking, attitude toward
smokers, and perceived susceptibility to anti-
smoking messages were measured. Propensity
toward smoking was measured by averaging
responses to three seven-point scales
(a ¼ 0.78): ‘I often have an urge to smoke’;
‘If smoking were not unhealthy, I would
smoke’; ‘Even under extreme stress, I would
not smoke’ (reverse scored). Attitude toward
the act of smoking was measured by averaging
responses to four seven-point Likert scales
(a ¼ 0.92) anchored by extremely pleasant/
extremely unpleasant, extremely good/extre-
mely bad, extremely favorable/extremely unfa-
vorable, and extremely acceptable/extremely
unacceptable. General beliefs that it is okay to
smoke were gauged by using one seven-point
scale item: ‘As long as people do not smoke
near others it is okay for them to do so’
(1 ¼ Strongly Disagree, 7 ¼ Strongly Agree). A
single item measured the degree to which
participants believed they were susceptible to
anti-smoking ads: ‘When I am exposed to ads
that point out the dangers of smoking I have a
lower urge to smoke’ (1 ¼ Strongly Disagree,
7 ¼ Strongly Agree).
After exposure to the two ads, participants
expressed their fear arousal by responding to
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Sridhar Samu and Namita Bhatnagar
four seven-point scales anchored by very
unafraid/very afraid, relaxed/tense, calm/agi-
tated, and restful/excited (a ¼ 0.94). Partici-
pants’ smoking status and age were included in
the analysis as potential covariates, but were
dropped as they did not have significant
effects.
Results and discussion
Variation in the level of fear arousal induced by
the anti-smoking ads was successfully manipu-
lated. Fear arousal in the low fear condition
was significantly lower (Mlow fear ¼ 2.50) than
in the high fear condition (Mhigh fear ¼ 3.54;
F1, 100 ¼ 10.68, p < 0.005).
MANOVA was used to test H1 and H2.
The results were significant for Ad
Appeal (F4, 95 ¼ 3.451, p ¼ 0.011) and gender
(F4, 95 ¼ 4.07, p ¼ 0.004). Hypothesis 1 was
partially supported—females displayed a
significantly lower propensity to smoke
(Mfemale ¼ 2.03, Mmale ¼ 2.79; F1, 98 ¼ 4.84,
p < 0.05), had less favorable attitudes toward
smoking (Mfemale ¼ 1.99 and Mmale ¼ 2.63;
F1, 98 ¼ 4.59, p < 0.05), and had higher perce-
ptions of susceptibility to anti-smoking ads
(Mfemale ¼ 6.05, Mmale ¼ 4.75, F1, 97 ¼ 15.67,
p < 0.000) than males following exposure to
anti-smoking messages. However, no signifi-
cant gender differences were found in
beliefs about the acceptability of smoking
(Mmale ¼ 4.92, Mfemale ¼ 5.15, F1, 98 ¼ 0.59, ns).
Hypothesis 2 was not supported, but beliefs
about the acceptability of smoking were signi-
ficantly lower after exposure to high versus
low fear ads (Mlow fear ¼ 5.35, Mhigh fear ¼ 4.72,
F1, 98 ¼ 4.53, p < 0.05).
Discussion for study 1
Results of study 1 suggest that gender and fear
arousal influence perceptions of anti-smoking
messages. Women were more influenced than
men after exposure to anti-smoking ads.
Further, in support of meta-analytic con-
clusions (Glascoff, 2000), beliefs that it is
okay for people to smoke were found to be
stronger when fear arousal was low. Hypoth-
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2008
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
The efficacy of anti-smoking advertisements
esis 2—that women would be more influ-
enced by highly fearful ads and men by less
fearful ones—was not supported in study 1.
Multi-item measures in place of single-item
measures of response variables are used in a
follow-up study for a more rigorous test of this
hypothesis.
Study 2
Study 2 extended study 1 and looked at the
impact of group membership of consumers
that discussed the claims made in the anti-
smoking ads (i.e., in-group vs. out-group).
Participants and overview
Hypotheses 1–5 were tested in a 2 (fear arousal
by anti-smoking ad: low/high)  2 (group
membership of ad discussant: friend/
stranger)  2 (gender: male/female) between-
subjects design where fear arousal and group
membership were manipulated and gender
was measured. One hundred and forty-three
undergraduate business students participated
in the experiment for course credit in an
introductory marketing course.
Stimuli
Participants in each of the conditions were
asked to see two anti-smoking print ads similar
to study 1. After viewing the ads, subjects were
presented with paper-based scenarios (devel-
oped through a pre-test) asking them to
imagine that either a friend (in-group) or
stranger (out-group) was discussing the
message contained in the ads (see Table 1
for script). Following this, subjects responded
to the dependent variables, manipulation
check, and covariates.
Dependent measures, manipulation
check, and covariates
Multi-item scales were used to measure
single-item measures from study 1. Propensity
to smoke and attitude toward smoking
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
243
(measured as in study 1, a ¼ 0.82 and
a ¼ 0.85, respectively), beliefs about the
acceptability of smoking, and perceived susce-
ptibility to anti-smoking ads were measured.
Respondents indicated their beliefs that it is
acceptable to smoke by responding to five
seven-point scales (a ¼ 0.80): ‘I have a problem
with people who smoke’; ‘I believe that it is
okay for people to smoke’; ‘I believe that it
is okay for people to smoke in private places’; ‘As
long as people do not smoke near others it is
okay for them to do so’ (1 ¼ strongly disagree,
and 7 ¼ strongly agree); and ‘I find people who
smoke to be extremely: (1 ¼ unattractive, and
7 ¼ attractive). Respondents expressed their
perceived susceptibility to anti-smoking ads
by responding to the statement (a ¼ 0.81):
‘When I am exposed to ads that point out the
dangers of smoking’, on four seven-point scales:
‘I am willing to listen to the message’, ‘I believe
that it influences me’, ‘I have a lower urge to
smoke’, and ‘I use this information to influence
other people’, (1 ¼ strongly disagree, and
7 ¼ strongly agree).
The manipulation of group membership was
tested by measuring categorical responses to
the statement: ‘Who talked to you about the
anti-smoking ad?’ (1 ¼ a friend, 2 ¼ a stranger,
and 3 ¼ don’t recall). The success of the fear
arousal manipulation was assessed using
the same scales as in study 1 (a ¼ 0.91).
Respondents’ age and their self-designated
smoking status (1 ¼ smoker, 2 ¼ non-smoker,
3 ¼ ex-smoker) were included as covariates in
the analysis as in study 1.
Results and discussion
Both manipulations of fear arousal and group
membership of ad discussants were successful.
Respondents exposed to high fear ads reported
a higher level of fear arousal (M high ¼ 3.93)
than subjects in the low fear condition
(M low ¼ 2.96, F1, 109 ¼ 12.58, p < 0.001). For
group membership, 80% (i.e., 114 of the 143
subjects) of all participants correctly identified
the source of message discussion as either
friend or stranger. Participants that failed the
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2008
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
244
Table 1. Experimental stimuli for group membership of discussant of anti-smoking ads in study 2
Discussion by a friend
Your close friend sitting next to you also
notices the ads. After seeing the ads, your
friend says, ‘these ads are extremely scary!
I remember reading that tobacco companies
are very dishonest about the consequences of
smoking—people are totally unable to make
informed choices about smoking. Research has
shown that once people start smoking, it is
almost impossible to quit’
‘I am very confident that smoking is extremely
harmful, and that it causes serious health problems.
I don’t think that anti-smoking ads exaggerate the
consequences of smoking’
‘Smokers tend to be shunned and are extremely
uncool. Also, the cost of cigarettes has dramatically
increased and most smokers find it difficult to
keep up. I hope that more smokers would see these
ads and quit smoking’
manipulation check were not included in the
remaining analyses. Within this sample, 62% of
the respondents were male and 38% were
females. Fourteen per cent reported being
smokers, 72% identified themselves as non-
smokers, and 14% as ex-smokers.
MANOVA was used to test the impact of the
independent variables on the various depen-
dent measures and covariates. The results were
significant for gender (F4, 101 ¼ 2.85, p ¼ 0.02)
and the ad appeal  gender interaction (F4,
101 ¼ 2.45, p ¼ 0.05). Smoking status and age
did not have a significant impact and were
dropped from subsequent analyses.
Key results in support of hypothesis 1 in
study 1 were replicated. Significant main
effects of gender on propensity to smoke,
attitude toward smoking, beliefs about
the acceptability of smoking, and perceived
susceptibility to anti-smoking ads were
found. More specifically, females indicated
lower propensity to smoke (Mmale ¼ 2.90,
Mfemale ¼ 2.06, F1, 104 ¼ 6.96, p < 0.05), lower
beliefs about the acceptability of smoking
(Mmale ¼ 4.01, Mfemale ¼ 3.25, F1, 104 ¼ 9.27,
p < 0.005), lower attitudes toward smoking
(Mmale ¼ 2.50, Mfemale ¼ 1.80, F1, 104 ¼ 9.68,
p < 0.005), and higher perceptions of suscepti-
bility to anti-smoking messages (Mmale ¼ 4.82,
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Sridhar Samu and Namita Bhatnagar
Discussion by a stranger
The person sitting next to you (a stranger) also
notices the ads. After seeing the ads, this person
says, ‘these ads are extremely scary! I remember
reading that tobacco companies are very dishonest
about the consequences of smoking—people are
totally unable to make informed choices about
smoking. Research has shown that once people
start smoking, it is almost impossible to quit’
‘I am very confident that smoking is extremely
harmful, and that it causes serious health problems.
I don’t think that anti-smoking ads exaggerate the
consequences of smoking’
‘Smokers tend to be shunned and are extremely uncool.
Also, the cost of cigarettes has dramatically increased
and most smokers find it difficult to keep up. I hope
that more smokers would see these ads and quit smoking’
Mfemale ¼ 5.32, F1, 104 ¼ 4.02, p < 0.05) than
males following exposure to anti-smoking ads.
Further, partial support for Hypothesis 2
was found. Exposure to anti-smoking ads
influenced perceptions of susceptibility to
these messages and fear arousal was found
to significantly interact with gender (F1,
104 ¼ 4.08, p < 0.05) (See Figure 1). Females
(Mfemale ¼ 5.79) believed that they would be
more influenced than did males (Mmale ¼ 4.79,
F1, 104 ¼ 8.37, p < 0.005) when high fear was
aroused by the ads. No gender differences,
however, were found in perceptions of
susceptibility for low fear ads (Mmale ¼ 4.82,
Mfemale ¼ 4.84, F1, 104 ¼ 0.00, ns).
The interaction of fear arousal and gender on
propensity to smoke was significant (F1, 104 ¼
3.93, p < 0.05). There were no significant
differences in propensities to smoke when
males and females were exposed to less fearful
ads (Mmale ¼ 2.68, Mfemale ¼ 2.38, F1, 104 ¼
0.21, ns). On the other hand, females displayed
a significantly lower propensity to smoke
when exposed to high fear ads (Mmales ¼ 3.22,
Mfemales ¼ 1.74, F1, 104 ¼ 11.02, p < 0.005) (See
Figure 2).
The interaction of fear arousal and gender on
beliefs about acceptability of smoking was
significant (F1, 104 ¼ 7.76, p < 0.01). Males
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2008
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
The efficacy of anti-smoking advertisements 245

6.5
Average perceptions of susceptibility to anti 6 Women, 5.79

5.5

5 Women, 4.84
Men, 4.79
smoking messages

4.5 Men, 4.82

Women
4
Men
3.5
3

2.5

1.5
Low High
Fear Arousal

Figure 1. Impact of fear arousal and gender on perceived susceptibility to anti-smoking ads in study 2. This figure is
available in colour online at www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/nvsm

believed that it is acceptable to smoke to a (Mmale ¼ 3.71, Mfemale ¼ 3.64, F1, 104 ¼ 0.03, ns)
greater extent than females after viewing high (See Figure 3).
fear ads (Mmale ¼ 4.28, Mfemale ¼ 2.86, F1, 104 ¼ In support of H3, group membership of
17.56, p < 0.000); no differences between men anti-smoking ad discussants had a significant
and women were found for low fear ads effect on attitude toward smoking and a

3.5

3.3 Men, 3.22

3.1
Average propensity to smoke

2.9

2.7 Men, 2.68

Women
2.5
Men
2.3 Women, 2.38

2.1

1.9

1.7 Women, 1.74

1.5
Low High
Fear Arousal

Figure 2. Impact of fear arousal and gender on propensity to smoke study 2. This figure is available in colour online at
www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/nvsm

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2008
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
246 Sridhar Samu and Namita Bhatnagar

4.5
Men, 4.28

4
Average Beliefs about the Acceptability of

Men, 3.71

3.5 Women, 3.64

Smoking

Women
3
Men
Women, 2.86

2.5

1.5
Low High
Fear Arousal

Figure 3. Impact of fear arousal and gender on beliefs about the acceptability of smoking in study 2. This figure is
available in colour online at www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/nvsm

marginally significant influence on perceived Discussion for study 2

susceptibility to anti-smoking ads. Respon-
Results of study 2 replicated key findings in
dents reported lower attitudes toward smok-
study 1 on gender differences in message
ing after an in-group member discussed the
processing. Women displayed less positive
message versus when an out-group member
attitudes towards smoking, had lower beliefs
(Mfriend ¼ 1.84, Mstranger ¼ 2.45, F1, 104 ¼ 7.39,
about acceptability of smoking, and had a
p < 0.01). In addition, perceived susceptibility
lower propensity to smoke than males. They
to anti-smoking ads was higher when friends
also believe that they would be more open to
rather than strangers discussed the messages
anti-smoking messages, be persuaded by them,
contained within these ads (Mfriend ¼ 5.28,
and that they would use this information to
Mstranger ¼ 4.86, F1, 104 ¼ 2.89, p < 0.10).
persuade others. Other gender effects due to
Finally, results indicated partial support for
variations in fear arousal were also found,
H4. The interaction of fear arousal and group
perhaps due to the richer multi-item response
membership of message discussants was mar-
measures used here.
ginally significant (F1, 104 ¼ 3.51, p < 0.10).
The main effects of gender should be
When friends discussed high fear ads, the
interpreted with the results of the interactions
influence on perceived susceptibility to anti-
that men seemed to discount the high fear ads
smoking messages was significantly higher than
more than the low fear ads. As expected,
when strangers discussed them (Mfriend ¼ 5.74,
friends had a higher influence than strangers
Mstranger ¼ 4.83, F1, 104 ¼ 6.60, p < 0.05). Further,
and high fear ads had a stronger influence than
no significant differences were found when
low fear ads.
friends or strangers discussed low fear ads
(Mfriend ¼ 4.84, Mstranger ¼ 4.85, F1, 104 ¼ 0.01, Overall discussion
ns). Figure 4 illustrates these results. No support
and conclusions
was found for H5—that friends are more
successful when discussing anti-smoking ads in This research has important theoretical and
the case of women. practical implications. It introduces peer

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2008
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
The efficacy of anti-smoking advertisements 247

5.8
Friends, 5.74
Average Perceived Susceptibility to the Ads

5.6

5.4

5.2
Friends
Strangers
5
Strangers, 4.85
Strangers, 4.83
4.8
Friends, 4.84
4.6

4.4

4.2
Low High
Fear Arousal

Figure 4. Impact of fear arousal and group membership of anti-smoking ad discussants on perceived susceptibility to
the ads in study 2. This figure is available in colour online at www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/nvsm

effects of others-on-self in terms of discussions tion of public service campaigns. Second,

about anti-smoking ads. This role of consumers discussions among peers about ads, and not
as recipients of mass media and peer mediated only the ads themselves, have an impact on
messages of public service campaigns has not attitudes and beliefs about smoking. Under-
previously been addressed. Given that discus- standing the source and content of these
sions surrounding public service announce- discussions is therefore important. It may be
ments are widespread, the combined effect of possible to generate peer discussion of anti-
these two sources is something that warrants smoking ads in order to increase the effective-
closer scrutiny. ness of such messages. It can be seen that peer
Results indicate interesting practical impli- effects have a strong influence on responses
cations. First, significant gender differences in from consumers and should be a priority when
message efficacy were found. Women have a deciding on an appropriate mechanism to
lower urge to smoke and hold less favorable convey anti-smoking messages. Further, dis-
attitudes towards smokers and the act of cussion among peers also depends on the type
smoking. They are also more susceptible to of ads with high fear ads being more effective
anti-smoking messages—this is especially true when discussed with friends, suggesting that
for ads that generate high levels of fear. In peer discussion of public service ads can be an
addition to being more receptive to smokin- effective weapon in the fight against tobacco
g-related information, women are also more consumption. Hence, it is important to
willing to persuade others to quit smoking. acknowledge the interaction between gender,
This may be a manifestation of the traditional type of appeal, and discussion among peers,
role of nurturers and caretakers assigned to and that the combined effect of some of the
women. Results of these studies therefore factors has more impact than just the direct effect.
indicate that gender should be an important Finally, greater budget/funding at the state/
consideration in the design and implementa- federal level could be allocated for health

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2008
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
248
communications that target people in general
and not just smokers. The focus of messages
aimed at non-smokers should be to motivate
them to engage in abstinence related dialogs
with at-risk individuals. Further, these
messages have to be crafted in such a manner
that the right combination of fear level is
created and care is taken to ensure that the
target group is chosen after due consideration.
It is also important that the right media are
used to reach the targeted consumers. From a
practitioner perspective, it is important to
understand the potential for mass-message
enhancement or distortion as it enters the
peer discussion process, and to gain further
understanding of factors that contribute to the
former and detract from the latter.
Limitations and future research
While this research makes a beginning in
identifying the influence of peers/strangers in
enhancing ad messages, much more needs to
be done to understand and manage this effect.
In addition to examining the influence of the
source of this discussion, future research also
needs to look at the impact when there is
support or opposition for public service ads.
The role of time lags and gender within this
process can also be examined. Second, based
on work by Pinel (1999), scales to measure
how groups differ on the extent to which they
expect to be stereotyped by others (i.e., stigma
consciousness) need to be developed. This has
important implications for how people per-
ceive and evaluate messages from members of
the same or different groups. Finally, the role of
individual characteristics such as interpersonal
influence susceptibility, venturesomeness, and
susceptibility to peer influence also need to be
examined.
Some limitations also need to be acknowl-
edged. The current study focuses primarily on
the impact of fear appeals, gender, and group
membership on specific dependent variables.
These measures need to be broadened to
include additional variables such as people’s
willingness to take a non-smoking pledge,
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Sridhar Samu and Namita Bhatnagar
willingness to post non-smoking signs in their
residence, willingness to attend anti-smoking
rallies, and willingness to make anti-smoking
speeches in front of various audiences (e.g.,
same vs. opposite gender audiences, friendly
vs. hostile audiences, audiences comprising
acquaintances vs. strangers). These measures,
considered as actionable by the target popu-
lation, will provide greater insights into a
variety of inter-personal actions that people
can engage in to combat the spread of tobacco
consumption.
Biographical notes
Sridhar Samu (Ph.D., Indiana University) is
Assistant Professor of Strategic Marketing at
the Indian School of Business, Hyderabad,
India. His research interests are in the area
of non-profit and social marketing, branding,
and information processing.
Namita Bhatnagar is Assistant Professor of
Marketing, I.H. Asper School of Business, Uni-
versity of Manitoba, Canada (Ph.D. from Uni-
versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). Dr.
Bhatnagar’s research interests lie in consumer
psychology, persuasive communications, and
social and health marketing.
References
Adamczyk-Robinette SL, Fletcher AC, Wright K.
2002. Understanding the authoritative parentin-
g-early adolescent tobacco use link: the mediat-
ing role of peer tobacco use. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence 31(4): 311–318.
Aronson E, Gonzales MH. 1990. Alternative social
influence processes applied to energy conserva-
tion. In Social Influence Processes and Preven-
tion, Edwards J, Tindale RS, Heath L, Posavac EJ
(eds). Plenum Press: New York; 301–326.
Block L, Keller PA. 1995. When to accentuate the
negative: the effects of perceived efficacy and
message framing on intentions to perform a
health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing
Research 32: 192–203.
Briley DA, Wyer RS, Jr. 2002. The effect of group
membership salience on the avoidance of nega-
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2008
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
The efficacy of anti-smoking advertisements
tive outcomes: implications for social and con-
sumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research
29: 400–415.
Canada Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey CTUMS.
2000–2005. http://www.cdha.nshealth.ca/pub-
lichealth/ctumsTrends.pdf. Accessed on
14 October 2006.
Evans RI, Raines BE. 1990. Applying a social
psychological model across health promotion
interventions: cigarettes to smokeless tobacco.
In Social Influence Processes and Prevention,
Edwards J, Tindale RS, Heath L, Posavac EJ
(eds). Plenum Press: New York; 143–158.
Fisher RJ, Dube L. 2005. Gender differences in
responses to emotional advertising: a social desir-
ability perspective. Journal of Consumer
Research 31: 850–858.
Fisher JD, Misovich SJ. 1990. Social influences and
AIDS-preventive behavior. In Social Influence
Processes and Prevention, Edwards J, Tindale
RS, Heath L, Posavac EJ (eds). Plenum Press:
New York; 39–70.
Glascoff DW. 2000. A meta analysis of fear appeals:
implications for effective public health cam-
paigns. Marketing Health Services 20(4): 35.
Hall JA. 1984. Nonverbal Sex Differences: Com-
munication Accuracy and Expressive Style.
John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.
Hansen WB, Graham JW. 1991. Preventing, alco-
hol, marijuana, and cigarette use among adoles-
cents: one year results of the adolescent alcohol
prevention trial. Preventive Medicine 20:
414–430.
Hovland CI, Janis IK, Kelley HH. 1953. Com-
munication and Persuasion. Yale University
Press: New Haven, CT.
Howard KA, Rogers T, Howard-Pitney B, Flora JA,
Norman GJ, Ribisl K. 2000. Opinion leaders’
support for tobacco control policies and participa-
tion in tobacco control activities. American
Journal of Public Health 90(8): 1282–1287.
Huddy L. 2004. Contrasting theoretical approaches
to intergroup relations. Political Psychology
25(6): 947–967.
Hunt RR, Einstein GO. 1981. Relational and item-
specific information in memory. Journal of Ver-
bal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20: 497–514.
Hupfer M. 2002. Communicating with the agentic
woman and the communal man: are stereotypic
advertising appeals still relevant? Academy
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
249
of Marketing Science Review 6(4). Available
http://www.amsreview.org/articles/hupfer03-
2002.pdf
Keller PA. 1999. Converting the unconverted: the
effect of inclination and opportunity to discount
health-related fear appeals. Journal of Applied
Psychology 84: 403–415.
Keller PA, Block LG. 1996. Increasing the persua-
siveness of fear appeals: the effect of arousal and
elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research 22:
448–459.
Maldonado R, Tansuhaj P, Muehling DD. 2003. The
impact of gender on ad processing: a social pers-
pective. Academy of Marketing Science Review
7(4). Available at http://www.amsreview.org/
articles/maldonado03-2003.pdf
Maxwell KA. 2002. Friends: the role of peer influ-
ence across adolescent risk behaviors. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence 31(4): 267–277.
Meyers-Levy J. 1989. Gender differences in infor-
mation processing: a selectivity interpretation. In
Cognitive and Affective Responses to Advertis-
ing, Cafferata P, Tybout A (eds). Lexington:
Lexington, MA; 219–260.
Meyers-Levy J, Maheswaran D. 1991. Exploring
differences in males’ and females’ processing
strategy. Journal of Consumer Research 18:
63–70.
Meyers-Levy J, Sternthal B. 1991. Gender differ-
ences in the use of message cues and judgments.
Journal of Marketing Research 28: 84–96.
Mounts NS, Steinberg L. 1995. An ecological
analysis of peer influence on adolescent grade
point average and drug use. Developmental Psy-
chology 31(6): 915–922.
Pechmann C, Knight SJ. 2002. An experimental
investigation of the joint effects of advertising
and peers on adolescents’ beliefs and intentions
about cigarette consumption. Journal of Consu-
mer Research 29: 5–19.
Pechmann C, Ratneshwar S. 1994. The effects of
anti-smoking and cigarette advertising on young
adolescents’ perceptions of peers who smoke.
Journal of Consumer Research 21: 236–251.
Pechmann C, Shih C-F. 1999. Smoking in movies
and antismoking advertisements before movies:
effects on youth. Journal of Marketing 63:
1–13.
Pechmann C, Zhao G, Goldberg ME, Reibling ET.
2003. What to convey in antismoking advertise-
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2008
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
250
ments to adolescents: the use of protection
motivation theory to identify effective message
themes. Journal of Marketing 67: 1–18.
Pinel EC. 1999. Stigma consciousness: the psycho-
logical legacy of social stereotypes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 76(1):
114–128.
Price LL, Feick LF, Higie RA. 1987. Information
sensitive consumers and market information.
The Journal of Consumer Affairs 21(2):
328–341.
Putrevu S. 2001. Exploring the origins and infor-
mation processing differences between men and
women: implications for advertisers. Academy
of Marketing Science Review 6(1). Available
at www.amsreview.org/articles/putrevu10-2001.
pdf (accessed 21 July 2005).
Quester PG. 1998. Antecedents of anti-smoking
advertisings’ effectiveness: a bi-cultural study.
Journal of International Consumer Marketing
10(4): 29–48.
Rogers RW. 1983. Cognitive and physiological pro-
cess in fear appeals and attitude change: a revised
theory of protection motivation. In Social Psycho-
physiology: A Source Book, Cacioppo J, Petty R
(eds). Guilford Press: New York; 153–176.
Santor DA, Messervey D, Kusumakar V. 1999.
Measuring peer pressure, popularity, and con-
formity in adolescent boys and girls: predicting
school performance, sexual attitudes, and sub-
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Sridhar Samu and Namita Bhatnagar
stance abuse. Journal of Youth and Adolescence
29(2): 163–182.
Smith KH, Stutts MA. 2003. Effects of short-term
cosmetic versus long-term health fear appeals in
anti-smoking advertisements on the smoking
behavior of adolescents. Journal of Consumer
Behavior 3(2): 157–177.
Tajfel H, Turner J. 1979. An integrative theory of
intergroup conflict. In The Social Psychology of
Inter-Group Relations, Austin WG , Worchel S
(eds). Brooks/Cole: Monterey, CA; 33–47.
Urberg KA, Degirmencioglu SM, Pilgrim C. 1997.
Close friend and group influence on adolescent
cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Developmen-
tal Psychology 33(6): 834–844.
Washburn-Ormachea JM, Hillman SB, Sawilosky
SS. 2004. Gender and gender-role orientation
differences on adolescents coping with peer
stressors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence
33(1): 31–40.
Weisse CS, Nesselhof-Kendall SEA, Fleck-Kandath
C, Basum A. 1990. Psychosocial aspects of AIDS
prevention among heterosexuals. In Social Influ-
ence Processes and Prevention, Edwards J,
Tindale RS, Heath L, Posavac EJ (eds). Plenum
Press: New York; 15–38.
Wymer W, Jr, Samu S. 2002. Volunteer service as
symbolic consumption: gender and occupational
differences in volunteering. Journal of Market-
ing Management 18: 971–989.
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2008
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm