Objective
To quantify the effect of exposure on initiation of tobacco use among adolescents.
Data Sources
A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, PsychINFO, ABI/INFORM, and Business Source Premier through October/November 2005 was conducted. Unpublished studies were solicited from researchers.
Study Selection
Of 401 citations initially identified, 51 (n = 141 949 participants) met the inclusion criteria: reporting on exposure and tobacco use outcomes and participants younger than 18 years. Included studies reported 146 effects; 89 were conceptually independent effects. Data were extracted independently by 3 of us using a standardized tool. Weighted averages were calculated using a linear mixed-effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed.
Main Exposures
Exposures (tobacco advertising, promotions, and samples and pro-tobacco depictions in films, television, and videos) were categorized as low or high engagement based on the degree of psychological involvement required.
Main Outcome Measures
Outcomes were categorized as cognitive (attitudes or intentions) or behavioral (initiation, tobacco use status, or progression of use).
Results
Exposure to pro-tobacco marketing and media increases the odds of youth holding positive attitudes toward tobacco use (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.13) and more than doubles the odds of initiating tobacco use (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.79-2.77). Highly engaging marketing and media are more effective at promoting use (odds ratio, 2.67; 95% confidence interval, 2.19-3.25). These effects are observed across time, in different countries, with different study designs and measures of exposure and outcome.
Conclusions
Pro-tobacco marketing and media stimulate tobacco use among youth. A ban on all tobacco promotions is warranted to protect children.
Approximately 1.4 million children younger than 18 years in the United States begin smoking cigarettes each year.1 Addiction to tobacco begins quickly, and the earlier a person initiates use the more likely he or she is to develop a severe and persistent addiction.2-4 Therefore, factors that influence children to start using tobacco represent a significant public health risk.
DiFranza et al5 applied the criteria of Hill6 for assessing causality in epidemiologic studies to examine the marketing of tobacco products and children's initiation of tobacco use. Youth exposed to marketing develop positive attitudes, beliefs, and expectations about tobacco use, which foster the intention to use, and intention leads to initiation. They concluded that the evidence strongly supported a causal inference. Other reviews7-9 have concluded that children's risk of using tobacco is increased by industry-sponsored tobacco promotion and the depiction of tobacco use in films. This meta-analysis assesses the magnitude of the risk and the stability of the effect across study design characteristics. We use the terms pro-tobacco marketing and media to refer to tobacco advertising, promotions, and samples and to pro-tobacco depictions in films, television, and videos, respectively. A quantified measure of risk will help resolve the tobacco industry–driven controversy about whether their marketing efforts are harmful10-14 and, if the risk is substantial, will provide evidence to policy makers supporting measures to restrict children's exposure.
Following the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology standards for reporting meta-analyses,15 we conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2005), PsychINFO (January 1985 to October 2005), Business Source Premier (January 1965 to October 2005), and ABI/INFORM Global (January 1971 to November 2005) to identify studies that assessed a link between any of 5 tobacco use outcomes (attitudes toward use, intention to use, initiation of use, tobacco use status, and progression to heavier use) and tobacco marketing (advertising, promotions, and samples) and media (depictions of tobacco use in films, television, and videos). We searched using Medical Subject Headings and the text key words advertising or tobacco advertising coupled with adolescent or adolescence and smoking or smoking initiation (or related headings appropriate to the database). Separate searches were conducted using the headings/key words motion pictures or television coupled with adolescent or adolescence and smoking or smoking initiation, or appropriate terms. Searches were limited to studies of humans published in English in peer-reviewed journals. We then searched the reference lists of review articles and all potentially relevant articles to identify additional candidates, and we solicited unpublished studies via a posting on the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Listserv and by talking with colleagues.
All potentially relevant articles were independently assessed for inclusion by 2 evaluators (R.J.W. and J.R.D.); in cases of disagreement, a third evaluator (D.B.S.) assessed the study and a consensus was reached.16 To be included, a study had to measure both a tobacco use outcome and exposure to marketing or media. Measures of exposure included asking participants to recognize a brand name or logo, recall a brand, identify a favorite brand, express appreciation of advertisements, report whether they had received a sample of tobacco or had received or would use a tobacco promotional item, or report how many actors they had seen smoking in movies or which movies they had seen. Measures of tobacco use outcome included attitudes toward or expectations about the act of using (rather than attitudes about users), intention to use among youths who had never done so, initiation of use, status as a nonuser or user, and progression to heavier use. We excluded articles without original data and those where the primary focus was on (1) tobacco in the context of disease, (2) adult tobacco use, (3) law or policy, (4) anti-tobacco campaigns, (5) effects of advertising on adult tobacco consumption, (6) comparison of smoking rates across nations without controlling for any factor other than advertising, or (7) marketing practices.
Data were extracted independently by 3 of us (R.J.W., J.R.D., and D.B.S.) using a standardized tool. In the rare instances when coding did not match, mismatches were resolved by consensus.16 We noted the first author's affiliation (medicine/public health, behavioral sciences, business/marketing, communications, government, or private industry); year of publication; year of data collection (first year for prospective studies); country and sample breadth (national, regional, single state, or local); sampling strategy (representative or convenience); final sample size; age, sex, and ethnicity of the sample; research design (cross-sectional, prospective, or experimental); and the number of effect size estimates (ESs) (which are unadjusted odds ratios [ORs] with accompanying 95% confidence intervals [CIs]).
Before the resolution of mismatches, raters coded categorical study characteristics identically 98.0% of the time on average (range, 93.9%-100%). For continuous variables, the mean correlation was 0.98 (range, 0.95-1.00). Before the resolution of mismatches, the raters coded exposure measures identically 97.3% of the time and outcome measures 97.9% of the time. Because of a high proportion of missing data, several variables (year of data collection, age, sex, and ethnicity) could not be included in analyses of moderator variables.
For each ES we determined the operational definition of the exposure variable and classified it within a conceptual category: awareness (eg, recognition of a brand name or logo, ability to name a brand, or expressed awareness of tobacco promotions), advertising exposure (eg, having seen advertisements or the number of advertisements seen), movie exposure (eg, the number of smoking scenes viewed in movies), appreciation of advertisements (eg, naming a favorite advertisement or rating advertisements as appealing), receipt of a tobacco promotional item or a sample of tobacco, participation in a promotional campaign (eg, willingness to use or actual use of a promotional item), or a scale of receptivity to marketing and media that combined aspects of the other measures. Likewise, we determined the operational definition of the outcome variable and classified it as follows: attitudes toward use, intention to use (typically measured either by a yes answer to a question about intention or by a score on the standardized susceptibility measure of Pierce et al17,18), initiation of use, status as a user or nonuser, or progression of use (ie, heavier use or earlier age at initiation).
In cases in which multiple studies used the same data to investigate conceptually equivalent exposure measures and outcomes, we used the study that most clearly showed the relationship. For example, if one study reported a dichotomous effect19 and a second reported a dose-response relationship,20 we chose the dichotomous effect. In cases in which a single article reported data derived from separate samples (eg, 2 different age groups21 or data collected in different years22) or from separate designs (eg, cross-sectional and longitudinal23), the sets of data were treated as separate studies.
To avoid overweighting of individual studies, when multiple ESs in a single study addressed the same conceptual categories of exposure and outcome (eg, comparing smokers' and nonsmokers' recognition of 6 brand names and logos, all of which would address awareness24), we averaged the ESs using DSTAT version 1.11.25
The primary analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-analysis version 2.2.023.26 Exposures and outcomes were treated as dichotomous variables. Weighted averages are reported as ORs and 95% CIs; study weights were assigned by means of inverse variance weighting. The overall ES and ESs for the analyses of moderator variables were calculated using a linear mixed-effects model to account for differences between studies.27,28 The consistency of effects across studies is reported as I2, the percentage of total variance attributable to heterogeneity among studies rather than to chance.29 Values of I2 less than 25% are considered low, those around 50% are moderate, and those greater than 75% indicate high heterogeneity.
We assessed the potential for publication bias in 6 ways. We calculated Begg and Mazumdar rank correlations30 and the regression intercept of Egger et al.31 Because the Egger et al regression test can yield false-positive results when ESs are reported as ORs, we also performed the alternative regression test of Peters et al.32 We calculated fail-safe Ns to determine how many additional null findings would be needed to render the results nonsignificant at α = .05, using the Rosenthal methods,33,34 or to yield a “trivial” OR of 1.05, using the Orwin method.35 Rosenthal suggested that meta-analysts calculate a tolerance level around a fail-safe N equal to 5 times the number of effects included in the meta-analysis (symbolized by k) plus 10 (the “5k + 10” benchmark)34,36,37; we used this benchmark to assess the observed fail-safe Ns. Finally, to assess whether smaller studies distorted the overall ES we conducted a cumulative meta-analysis, adding studies sequentially from largest to smallest sample size.38
To assess the relationship between design quality and ES, we analyzed differences in ES between 5 subgroups created to represent a continuum of increasing design quality: cross-sectional design/convenience sample, cross-sectional/representative, experimental/convenience, prospective/convenience, and prospective/representative. Ordinarily, an experimental design would be considered strongest for demonstrating causality, but because of ethical considerations, experimental studies in this field are limited to assessments of attitudes. Prospective studies, which can track the change from nonuse to use, were, therefore, ranked highest.
Long ago, the Federal Trade Commission raised concerns that tobacco industry marketing was targeted at young people.39 Similar concerns have been raised about depictions of tobacco use in movies.40 In 1998, the Master Settlement Agreement between the industry and 46 US states banned advertising on billboards and in youth-oriented magazines.41 To determine whether there was a decrease in ESs across time that might be attributed to changes in marketing and media, we conducted a second cumulative meta-analysis in which studies were sorted from oldest to most recent.
The initial search yielded 331 nonduplicated citations addressing marketing and 70 addressing media (Figure 1). After reviewing the abstracts we excluded 317 articles and retained 84 full-text articles for detailed evaluation; review of their reference lists yielded 9 additional published studies, and data from 2 unpublished studies were provided by colleagues. Via e-mail we requested additional data from the authors of 20 studies with insufficient published data. Up to 3 requests were made at monthly intervals; 8 authors met the request, providing data from 10 studies.12,17,19,80-84 Full review of the 95 studies resulted in excluding 44 for the following reasons: unavailable data (n = 10),42-51 no outcome measure (n = 8),52-59 no exposure measure (n = 8),18,60-66 duplicated another article (n = 6),20,67-71 no original data (n = 7),8,10,11,13,72-74 only time series data from which an ES could not be calculated (n = 2),75,76 included only tobacco users (n = 2),77,78 and studied only antismoking campaigns (n = 1).79 The 51 studies retained for the meta-analysis included 141 949 participants (Table 1) and presented 146 ESs, 89 of which were included in the analysis after averaging those estimates that were conceptually equivalent. Figures 2, 3, and 4 present the ESs and 95% CIs for all the studies, divided by decade of publication.
Quantitative data synthesis
The overall ESs from the fixed- and mixed-effects models did not differ (fixed-effects: OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 2.12-2.22; mixed-effects: OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.93-2.47; P<.001 for both), and there was considerable heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 96.9). Evidence of publication bias was not observed with either the Begg and Mazumdar30 rank correlation (P = .89, 2-tailed) or the Egger et al31 regression intercept (P = .57, 2-tailed), although the Peters et al32 alternative regression method yielded a significant result (slope = −67.34; P<.001). The Rosenthal fail-safe N indicated that 86 514 additional null effects would be needed to render the overall ES nonsignificant at P = .05; the Orwin fail-safe N indicated that 1324 null effects would be needed to yield an OR of 1.05 or less. Both fail-safe Ns greatly exceed the 455 ESs representing the 5k +10 threshold. Together, these tests suggest little likelihood of publication bias and, given the strength of the effect, little likelihood that the exclusion of studies with negative results (due to a file drawer effect34 or unavailability of data) could have led to this outcome. The cumulative meta-analysis revealed no shift in ES as smaller studies were included. The ES after addition of the 2 largest studies,92,103 which accounted for 6 ESs, was 1.92 (95% CI, 1.28-2.88), and the ES after all the studies were included was 2.19. Because the overall ES is well within the 95% CI for that of the largest studies, there is no evidence of a “small study effect.”38 There was no correlation between sample size and ES (slope = 0.00; P = .29).
We next examined the effects of design quality and sampling breadth (Table 2). Overall, quality of design was unrelated to ES. In the initial analysis, studies with national samples tended to yield lower ESs than those with regional, state, or local samples (P = .06). However, 2 ESs from 1 study86 were significantly different from the other ESs in that study and from those derived from the other 5 studies with national samples.22,98,102,112 When the 2 outlying ESs were removed from the analysis there was no difference among studies on the basis of sampling breadth (P = .67).
A preliminary analysis revealed that 56 of the 89 ESs had tobacco use status (nonuser vs user) as the outcome variable, followed by initiation of use (n = 13), intention to use (n = 10), progression to heavier use (n = 5), and attitudes toward use (n = 5). Among exposure measures, advertising exposure (n = 17) and awareness of marketing (n = 17) were most frequently represented, followed by use of a promotional item (n = 14), approval of advertising (n = 14), movie exposure (n = 10), receptivity (n = 9), receipt of a promotional item (n = 6), and receipt of a tobacco sample (n = 2). The small number of ESs in each subclassification precluded a fine-grained analysis. Consequently, we classified exposure measures by the degree of psychological involvement required: low engagement (awareness of marketing, advertising exposure, movie exposure, and receipt of a promotional item or tobacco sample) or high engagement (appreciation of advertising, willingness to use a promotional item, and receptivity). We classified outcome measures as either cognitive (attitudes toward use and intention to use) or behavioral (initiation of use, status, and progression). Overall, high-engagement exposures produced higher ESs than did low-engagement exposures, and ESs for behavioral outcomes were greater than those for cognitive outcomes (Table 3). The ES for progression to heavier use (OR, 1.42) was significantly lower than those for initiation of use (OR, 2.23) and tobacco use status (OR, 2.46).
The classification scheme gave us 4 possible combinations of exposure and outcome (see Table 1 for the classification of each ES). The overall ES for studies using a cognitive outcome was 1.51 (95% CI, 1.08-2.13; P = .02); the ES for low-engagement exposure was smaller than for high-engagement exposure with a cognitive outcome (Table 4). Because of the small number of included studies, we assessed the potential for publication bias in studies with a cognitive outcome. The Rosenthal fail-safe N indicated that 340 null effects would be needed to render the ES nonsignificant at P<.05. The Orwin fail-safe N indicated that 179 null effects would be necessary to yield a trivial OR of 1.05. These fail-safe Ns greatly exceed the 5k +10 threshold of 85 null effects. Given that the ratio of excluded null effects to included effects is greater than 5:1, there is little likelihood that the exclusion of studies led to the observed outcome. The overall ES for studies using a behavioral outcome was 2.33 (95% CI, 2.03-2.67; P<.001); low- and high-engagement exposures with behavioral outcomes produced equivalent ESs (Table 4).
The cumulative meta-analysis by publication date did not reveal a trend toward decreasing ESs across time. There was no overall difference in ESs derived from studies conducted between 1981 and 1990 (8 studies and 12 ESs), 1991 and 2000 (26 studies and 37 ESs), or 2001 and 2005 (21 studies and 40 ESs) (P = .15). However, studies conducted since 2001 tended to yield larger ESs (overall ES, 2.45; 95% CI, 2.05-2.95) than did those conducted in the 1990s (overall ES, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.52-2.35; P = .07).
DiFranza et al5 concluded that exposure to marketing causes children to initiate tobacco use. We quantified this risk; the odds of becoming a tobacco user are more than doubled by exposure to marketing and media. This relationship is robust, with similar effects observed across time in different countries, in cross-sectional and prospective designs using a variety of measures of exposure, and whether the outcome is initiation or tobacco use status.
Exposure that does not actively engage the recipient has a substantial impact, increasing the odds of tobacco use by approximately 90%. This suggests that youth are highly susceptible to the pervasive presence of marketing and media. Once a recipient is psychologically involved, the odds increase almost 3-fold, suggesting that the interaction between exposure and an individual's psychological processes is powerful. The impact of marketing and media remains powerful even after the initiation of use; exposure increased the odds of progression to heavier use by 42%.
A variety of psychosocial factors (eg, age, ethnicity, family structure, parental socioeconomic status, personal income, parental attitudes and tobacco use, sibling and peer tobacco use, peer attitudes and norms, family environment, engagement in other risky behaviors, stress, depression, and self-esteem) raise the odds of initiation.122-124 The appearance of symptoms of addiction seems to be the primary factor driving progression to heavier use.125 Thus, it is not surprising that marketing and media have a greater impact on initiation of use than on progression to heavier use.
Compared with unexposed youth, exposed youth had approximately 50% greater odds of holding positive attitudes toward tobacco use or expressing an intention to use in the future and more than twice the odds of initiating use. For years the tobacco industry has claimed that a cross-sectional association between exposure to marketing and tobacco use is found because users are more likely than nonusers to attend to marketing.13 If use causes exposure rather than vice versa, ESs in cross-sectional studies should exceed those in prospective studies of nonusers, in which assessment of exposure precedes the onset of use. The present findings refute the industry's argument; the ESs in prospective studies are equivalent to those in cross-sectional studies.
If attempts to mitigate the harm posed by marketing and media, embodied in voluntary and mandatory restrictions instituted during the past 2 decades, were effective, we would expect to observe a decrease in ESs across time. We did not. Indeed, the ES shows a trend toward increasing since 2001, suggesting that the risk to youth has increased. These measures have not had an evident effect on exposure. The tobacco industry has been remarkably adept at shifting strategies to avoid the restrictions imposed by the Master Settlement Agreement by preferentially placing their advertisements in magazines whose youth readership exceeds 20%,126,127 and tobacco use in current movies is comparable with that seen in the 1950s, when it was rampant.128
The strengths of this meta-analysis include the large number of ESs available for analysis, lack of evidence for publication bias, large overall sample size, the time during which data were collected, and diversity among studies in design, geographic distribution, and exposure and outcome measures. Potential limitations include the inability to assess possible moderation by demographic or psychosocial factors because of a lack of data or to conduct a fine-grained analysis of the interaction between exposure and outcome measures because of a paucity of studies in particular categories.
Despite the industry-fueled controversy surrounding the relationship between exposure to pro-tobacco marketing and media and initiation of use,10-14 the present findings offer considerable evidence for a causal link. First, the overall ES is strong and robust, showing consistency between cross-sectional and prospective studies. Second, the 3 experimental studies reviewed demonstrated that greater exposure led to more positive attitudes toward use. Third, the failure of design-related moderator variables to impact the ES suggests that such alternative explanations are limited. Most important, in 13 prospective studies, exposure more than doubled the odds of initiating tobacco use.
Ethical considerations preclude experimental studies that would expose youth to marketing and media to see whether they would initiate tobacco use. However, laboratory and field-based experiments have shown that media portrayals of violence in films (low engagement) and video games (high engagement) produce subsequent violent attitudes and behaviors in children and adolescents.129,130 The causal relationship between violent media and behavior makes it plausible that tobacco marketing and media also affect behavior.
Given the money spent by the tobacco industry on worldwide marketing and the global distribution of American movies, it is unlikely that many children escape exposure. Our findings suggest that half of all children who initiate tobacco use do so because of exposure to marketing and media. Half the youth who initiate smoking will likely continue for more than 15 years,3 making themselves vulnerable to serious harm. Smoking causes 36 diseases,131 which kill almost half of all smokers.132 Current and future schemes that expose children to pro-tobacco messages, products, or images are a public health menace. More definitive measures to curtail exposure, such as a ban on all tobacco promotional activities, as called for in the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control,133 are needed and warranted.
Correspondence: Robert J. Wellman, PhD, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Ave N, Worcester, MA 01655 (Robert.Wellman@umassmed.edu).
Accepted for Publication: June 27, 2006.
Author Contributions: Dr Wellman had full access to all the data presented in this study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Wellman, Sugarman, and DiFranza. Acquisition of data: Wellman, Sugarman, DiFranza, and Winickoff. Analysis and interpretation of data: Wellman, Sugarman, DiFranza, and Winickoff. Drafting of the manuscript: Wellman, Sugarman, and DiFranza. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Wellman, Sugarman, DiFranza, and Winickoff. Statistical analysis: Wellman and Sugarman. Obtained funding: Wellman and DiFranza. Administrative, technical, and material support: Wellman, Sugarman, DiFranza, and Winickoff. Study supervision: Wellman and Winickoff.
Financial Disclosure: None reported.
Funding/Support: This study was supported by grant 53081 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Dr Wellman).
Role of the Sponsor: The funding agency played no role in designing or conducting the study; in collecting, managing, analyzing, or interpreting the data; or in preparing, reviewing, or approving the manuscript.
Disclaimer: The ideas expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funding agency.
Acknowledgment: We thank Bethany J. Hipple, MPH (Center for Child and Adolescent Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital), for assistance in searching the business literature and for reviewing the first draft of the manuscript and William Shadel, PhD (Rand Corp) for reviewing the first draft.
2.DiFranza
JRSavageau
JARigotti
NA
et al. Development of symptoms of tobacco dependence in youths: 30 month follow up data from the DANDY study
Tob Control 2002;11228- 235
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 3.Pierce
JPGilpin
E How long will today's new adolescent smoker be addicted to cigarettes?
Am J Public Health 1996;86253- 256
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 4.Chen
JMillar
WJ Age of smoking initiation: implications for quitting
Health Rep 1998;939- 46
PubMedGoogle Scholar 5.DiFranza
JRWellman
RJSargent
JDWeitzman
MHipple
BJWinickoff
JP Tobacco promotion and the initiation of tobacco use: assessing the evidence for causality
Pediatrics 2006;117e1237- e1248
Google ScholarCrossref 6.Hill
AB The environment and disease: association or causation?
Proc R Soc Med 1965;58295- 300
PubMedGoogle Scholar 8.Lovato
CLinn
GStead
LFBest
A Impact of tobacco advertising and promotion on increasing adolescent smoking behaviours
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;
((4))
CD003439
PubMedGoogle Scholar 10.Boddewyn
JJ Cigarette advertising bans and smoking: the flawed policy connection
Int J Advertising 1994;13311- 332
Google Scholar 11.Jenkins
J Tobacco advertising and children: some Canadian findings
Int J Advertising 1988;7357- 367
Google Scholar 12.Mizerski
R The relationship between cartoon trade character recognition and attitude toward product category in young children
J Mark 1995;5958- 70
Google ScholarCrossref 13.Moschis
GP Cigarette advertising and young smokers
J Advertising Res 1989;April/May51- 60
Google Scholar 14.Sullum
J Unclear link between cigarette ads and adolescent smoking
Health Aff (Millwood) 2002;21280- 281
Google ScholarCrossref 15.Stroup
DFBerlin
JAMorton
SC
et al. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group, Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting
JAMA 2000;2832008- 2012
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 17.Evans
NFarkas
AGilpin
EBerry
CPierce
JP Influence of tobacco marketing and exposure to smokers on adolescent susceptibility to smoking
J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;871538- 1545
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 18.Pierce
JPChoi
WSGilpin
EAFarkas
AJMerritt
RK Validation of susceptibility as a predictor of which adolescents take up smoking in the United States
Health Psychol 1996;15355- 361
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 19.Sargent
JDDalton
MABeach
MBernhardt
APullin
DStevens
M Cigarette promotional items in public schools
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1997;1511189- 1196
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 20.Sargent
JDDalton
MBeach
M Exposure to cigarette promotions and smoking uptake in adolescents: evidence of a dose-response relation
Tob Control 2000;9163- 168
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 21.Charlton
A Children's advertisement awareness related to their views on smoking
Health Educ J 1986;4575- 78
Google ScholarCrossref 22.Braverman
MTAaro
LE Adolescent smoking and exposure to tobacco marketing under a tobacco advertising ban: findings from 2 Norwegian national samples
Am J Public Health 2004;941230- 1238
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 24.Aitken
PPLeathar
DSO'Hagan
FJSquair
SI Children's awareness of cigarette advertisements and brand imagery
Br J Addict 1987;82615- 622
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 25.DSTAT Software for the Meta-analytic Review of Research Literature, Version 1.11. Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Earlbaum Associates1995;
26.Comprehensive Meta-analysis, A Computer Program for Research Synthesis: Version 2.2.023. Englewood, NJ Biostat2005;
27.Overton
RC A comparison of fixed-effects and mixed (random-effects) models for meta-analysis tests of moderator variable effects
Psychol Methods 1998;3354- 379
Google ScholarCrossref 32.Peters
JLSutton
AJJones
DRAbrams
KRRushton
L Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis
JAMA 2006;295676- 680
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 36.Mullen
BMuellerleile
PBryant
B Cumulative meta-analysis: a consideration of indicators of sufficiency and stability
Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2001;271450- 1462
Google ScholarCrossref 37.Muellerleile
PMullen
B Sufficiency and stability of evidence for public health interventions using cumulative meta-analysis
Am J Public Health 2006;96515- 522
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 38.Borenstein
MRothstein
HRedSutton
AJedBorenstein
Med Software for publication bias
Publication Bias in Meta-analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. Chichester, England John Wiley & Sons Ltd2005;193- 220
Google Scholar 39. Report to Congress Pursuant to the Cigarette Smoking Act 1978: An Action Oriented Research Program for Discovering and Creating the Best Possible Image for Viceroy Cigarettes, Ted Bates Advertising, 1975. Washington, DC Federal Trade Commission1975;
Document AD11345 Google Scholar 41.National Association of Attorneys General, Master Settlement Agreement. Washington, DC National Association of Attorneys General1998;
42.Aitken
PPEadie
DRHastings
GBHaywood
AJ Predisposing effects of cigarette advertising on children's intentions to smoke when older
Br J Addict 1991;86383- 390
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 43.Armstrong
BKde Klerk
NHShean
REDunn
DADolin
PJ Influence of education and advertising on the uptake of smoking by children
Med J Aust 1990;152117- 124
PubMedGoogle Scholar 44.Arnett
JJ Adolescents' responses to cigarette advertisements for five “youth brands” and one “adult brand.”
J Res Adolesc 2001;11425- 443
Google ScholarCrossref 45.Borzekowski
DLFlora
JAFeighery
ESchooler
C The perceived influence of cigarette advertisements and smoking susceptibility among seventh graders
J Health Commun 1999;4105- 118
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 46.Goldberg
ME American media and the smoking-related behaviors of Asian adolescents
J Advertising Res 2003;432- 11
Google Scholar 47.Hawkins
KHane
AC Adolescents' perceptions of print cigarette advertising: a case for counteradvertising
J Health Commun 2000;583- 96
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 48.Kaufman
NJCastrucci
BCMowery
PDGerlach
KKEmont
SOrleans
CT Predictors of change on the smoking uptake continuum among adolescents
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002;156581- 587
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 49.Klitzner
MGruenewald
PJBamberger
E Cigarette advertising and adolescent experimentation with smoking
Br J Addict 1991;86287- 298
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 50.Straub
DMHills
NKThompson
PJMoscicki
AB Effects of pro- and anti-tobacco advertising on nonsmoking adolescents' intentions to smoke
J Adolesc Health 2003;3236- 43
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 51.Unger
JBJohnson
CARohrbach
LA Recognition and liking of tobacco and alcohol advertisements among adolescents: relationships with susceptibility to substance use
Prev Med 1995;24461- 466
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 52.Aitken
PPLeathar
DSSquair
SI Children's awareness of cigarette brand sponsorship of sports and games in the UK
Health Educ Res 1986;1203- 211
Google ScholarCrossref 53.Donovan
RJJancey
JJones
S Tobacco point of sale advertising increases positive brand user imagery
Tob Control 2002;11191- 194
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 56.Pechmann
CRatneshwar
S The effects of antismoking and cigarette advertising on young adolescents' perceptions of peers who smoke
J Consum Res 1994;21236- 251
Google ScholarCrossref 57.Shadel
WGNiaura
RAbrams
DB Who am I? the role of self-conflict in adolescents' responses to cigarette advertising
J Behav Med 2004;27463- 475
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 58.Shadel
WGNiaura
RAbrams
DB Adolescents' responses to the gender valence of cigarette advertising imagery: the role of affect and the self-concept
Addict Behav 2004;291735- 1744
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 59.Sun
DAnderson
MShah
AJulliard
K Early adolescents' perceptions of cigarette smoking: a cross-sectional survey in a junior high school
Adolescence 1998;33805- 810
Google Scholar 61.Distefan
JMGilpin
EASargent
JDPierce
JP Do movie stars encourage adolescents to start smoking? evidence from California
Prev Med 1999;281- 11
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 62.Gidwani
PPSobol
ADeJong
WPerrin
JMGortmaker
SL Television viewing and initiation of smoking among youth
Pediatrics 2002;110505- 508
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 63.Goldberg
MEBaumgartner
H Cross-country attraction as a motivation for product consumption
J Bus Res 2002;55901- 906
Google ScholarCrossref 64.Hunter
SMCroft
JBBurke
GLParker
FCWebber
LSBerenson
GS Longitudinal patterns of cigarette smoking and smokeless tobacco use in youth: the Bogalusa Heart Study
Am J Public Health 1986;76193- 195
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 65.Unger
JBJohnson
CAStoddard
JLNezami
EChou
CP Identification of adolescents at risk for smoking initiation: validation of a measure of susceptibility
Addict Behav 1997;2281- 91
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 66.Vaidya
SGVaidya
JSNaik
UD Sports sponsorship by cigarette companies influences the adolescent children's mind and helps initiate smoking: results of a national study in India
J Indian Med Assoc 1999;97354- 356, 359
Google Scholar 67.Albers
ABBiener
L Adolescent participation in tobacco promotions: the role of psychosocial factors
Pediatrics 2003;111402- 406
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 68.Biener
LSiegel
M The role of tobacco advertising and promotion in smoking initiation National Cancer Institute, ed
Changing Adolescent Smoking Prevalence Bethesda, Md US Dept of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute2001;NIH publication 02-5086
Google Scholar 69.Feighery
EBorzekowski
DLSchooler
CFlora
J Seeing, wanting, owning: the relationship between receptivity to tobacco marketing and smoking susceptibility in young people
Tob Control 1998;7123- 128
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 70.Gilpin
EAPierce
JPRosbrook
B Are adolescents receptive to current sales promotion practices of the tobacco industry?
Prev Med 1997;2614- 21
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 71.Pierce
JPDistefan
JMJackson
CWhite
MMGilpin
EA Does tobacco marketing undermine the influence of recommended parenting in discouraging adolescents from smoking?
Am J Prev Med 2002;2373- 81
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 72.Hastings
GBRyan
HTeer
PMacKintosh
AM Cigarette advertising and children's smoking: why Reg was withdrawn
BMJ 1994;309933- 937
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 73.Wakefield
MFlay
BNichter
MGiovino
G Role of the media in influencing trajectories of youth smoking
Addiction 2003;98(suppl 1)79- 103
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 74.Young
ECMoschis
GP Review of Eye Tracking and Recall Study of Adolescents Viewing Tobacco Advertisements. Fort Lee, NJ Perception Research Services, American Tobacco Document Collection1989; January5 Bates No. 980108834/8845
75.Pierce
JPGilpin
EA A historical analysis of tobacco marketing and the uptake of smoking by youth in the United States: 1890-1977
Health Psychol 1995;14500- 508
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 76.Pierce
JPLee
LGilpin
EA Smoking initiation by adolescent girls, 1944 through 1988: an association with targeted advertising
JAMA 1994;271608- 611
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 77.Wakefield
MARuel
EEChaloupka
FJSlater
SJKaufman
NJ Association of point-of-purchase tobacco advertising and promotions with choice of usual brand among teenage smokers
J Health Commun 2002;7113- 121
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 78.Pucci
LGSiegel
M Exposure to brand-specific cigarette advertising in magazines and its impact on youth smoking
Prev Med 1999;29313- 320
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 79.Andrews
JNetemeyer
RGBurton
SMoberg
DChristiansen
A Understanding adolescent intentions to smoke: an examination of relationships among social influence, prior trial behavior, and antitobacco campaign advertising
J Mark 2004;68110- 123
Google ScholarCrossref 80.Choi
WSFarkas
AJRosbrook
BElder
JPPierce
JP Does advertising promote smokeless tobacco use among adolescent boys? evidence from California
Tob Control 1995;4(suppl 1)S57- S63
Google ScholarCrossref 81.Audrain-McGovern
JRodriguez
DTercyak
KPCuevas
JRodgers
KPatterson
F Identifying and characterizing adolescent smoking trajectories
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;132023- 2034
PubMedGoogle Scholar 82.Henriksen
LFeighery
ECWang
YFortmann
SP Association of retail tobacco marketing with adolescent smoking
Am J Public Health 2004;942081- 2083
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 83.Lopez
MLHerrero
PComas
A
et al. Impact of cigarette advertising on smoking behaviour in Spanish adolescents as measured using recognition of billboard advertising
Eur J Public Health 2004;14428- 432
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 84.Santana
YGonzalez
BPinilla
JCalvo
JRBarber
P Young adolescents, tobacco advertising, and smoking
J Drug Educ 2003;33427- 444
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 85.Alexander
HMCallcott
RDobson
AJ
et al. Cigarette smoking and drug use in schoolchildren, IV: factors associated with changes in smoking behaviour
Int J Epidemiol 1983;1259- 66
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 86.Altman
DGLevine
DWCoeytaux
RSlade
JJaffe
R Tobacco promotion and susceptibility to tobacco use among adolescents aged 12 through 17 years in a nationally representative sample
Am J Public Health 1996;861590- 1593
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 87.Arnett
JJTerhanian
G Adolescents' responses to cigarette advertisements: links between exposure, liking, and the appeal of smoking
Tob Control 1998;7129- 133
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 88.Biener
LSiegel
M Tobacco marketing and adolescent smoking: more support for a causal inference
Am J Public Health 2000;90407- 411
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 89.Botvin
GJGoldberg
CJBotvin
EMDusenbury
L Smoking behavior of adolescents exposed to cigarette advertising
Public Health Rep 1993;108217- 224
PubMedGoogle Scholar 90.Chapman
SFitzgerald
B Brand preference and advertising recall in adolescent smokers: some implications for health promotion
Am J Public Health 1982;72491- 494
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 92.Chen
XCruz
TBSchuster
DVUnger
JBJohnson
CA Receptivity to pro-tobacco media and its impact on cigarette smoking among ethnic minority youth in California
J Health Commun 2002;795- 111
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 93.Choi
WSAhluwalia
JSHarris
KJOkuyemi
K Progression to established smoking: the influence of tobacco marketing
Am J Prev Med 2002;22228- 233
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 94.Dalton
MASargent
JDBeach
ML
et al. Effect of viewing smoking in movies on adolescent smoking initiation: a cohort study
Lancet 2003;362281- 285
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 95.DiFranza
JRRichards
JWPaulman
PM
et al. RJR Nabisco's cartoon camel promotes Camel cigarettes to children
JAMA 1991;2663149- 3153[published correction appears in
JAMA1992;268
(2034)
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 96.Emri
SBagci
TKarakoca
YBaris
E Recognition of cigarette brand names and logos by primary schoolchildren in Ankara, Turkey
Tob Control 1998;7386- 392
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 97.Goldstein
AOFischer
PMRichards
JW
JrCreten
D Relationship between high school student smoking and recognition of cigarette advertisements
J Pediatr 1987;110488- 491
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 98.Health Education Authority, An Investigation of the Appeal and Impact of the Embassy Regal “Reg” Campaign on Young People. London, England Health Education Authority1993;
99.Henke
LL Young children's perceptions of cigarette brand advertising symbols: awareness, affect, and target market identification
J Advertising 1995;413- 28
Google ScholarCrossref 100.Klein
JDForehand
BOliveri
JPatterson
CJKupersmidt
JBStrecher
V Candy cigarettes: do they encourage children's smoking?
Pediatrics 1992;8927- 31
PubMedGoogle Scholar 101.Lam
THChung
SFBetson
CLWong
CMHedley
AJ Tobacco advertisements: one of the strongest risk factors for smoking in Hong Kong students
Am J Prev Med 1998;14217- 223
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 102.Maassen
ITKremers
SPMudde
ANJoof
BM Smoking initiation among Gambian adolescents: social cognitive influences and the effect of cigarette sampling
Health Educ Res 2004;19551- 560
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 103.Unger
JBChen
X The role of social networks and media receptivity in predicting age of smoking initiation: a proportional hazards model of risk and protective factors
Addict Behav 1999;24371- 381
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 104.Pechmann
CShih
C-F Smoking scenes in movies and antismoking advertisements before movies: effects on youth
J Mark 1999;631- 13
Google ScholarCrossref 105.Peters
JBetson
CLHedley
AJ
et al. Recognition of cigarette brand names and logos by young children in Hong Kong
Tob Control 1995;4150- 155
Google ScholarCrossref 106.Pierce
JPChoi
WSGilpin
EAFarkas
AJBerry
CC Tobacco industry promotion of cigarettes and adolescent smoking
JAMA 1998;279511- 515
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 107.Sargent
JDDalton
MBeach
MBernhardt
AHeatherton
TStevens
M Effect of cigarette promotions on smoking uptake among adolescents
Prev Med 2000;30320- 327
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 108.Schooler
CFeighery
EFlora
JA Seventh graders' self-reported exposure to cigarette marketing and its relationship to their smoking behavior
Am J Public Health 1996;861216- 1221
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 109.Turco
RM Effects of exposure to cigarette advertisements on adolescents' attitudes toward smoking
J Appl Soc Psychol 1997;271115- 1130
Google ScholarCrossref 110.Vaidya
SGNaik
UDVaidya
JS Effect of sports sponsorship by tobacco companies on children's experimentation with tobacco
BMJ 1996;313400
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 111.While
DKelly
SHuang
WCharlton
A Cigarette advertising and onset of smoking in children: questionnaire survey
BMJ 1996;313398- 399
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 112.Sargent
JDBeach
MLAdachi-Mejia
AM
et al. Exposure to movie smoking: its relation to smoking initiation among US adolescents
Pediatrics 2005;1161183- 1191
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 113.MacFadyen
LHastings
GMacKintosh
AM Cross sectional study of young people's awareness of and involvement with tobacco marketing
BMJ 2001;322513- 517
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 114.Maziak
WRzehak
PKeil
UWeiland
SK Smoking among adolescents in Muenster, Germany: increase in prevalence (1995-2000) and relation to tobacco advertising
Prev Med 2003;36172- 176
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 115.Otake
KShimai
S Relationship between stages of smoking acquisition and environmental factors among junior high school students
Psychol Rep 2002;90257- 261
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 116.Pechmann
CKnight
SJ An experimental investigation of the joint effects of advertising and peers on adolescents' beliefs and intentions about cigarette consumption
J Consum Res 2002;295- 19
Google ScholarCrossref 118.Sargent
JDBeach
MLDalton
MA
et al. Effect of seeing tobacco use in films on trying smoking among adolescents: cross sectional study
BMJ 2001;3231394- 1397
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 119.Sargent
JDDalton
MABeach
ML
et al. Viewing tobacco use in movies: does it shape attitudes that mediate adolescent smoking?
Am J Prev Med 2002;22137- 145
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 120.Tickle
JJSargent
JDDalton
MABeach
MLHeatherton
TF Favourite movie stars, their tobacco use in contemporary movies, and its association with adolescent smoking
Tob Control 2001;1016- 22
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 121.Unger
JBCruz
TBSchuster
DFlora
JAJohnson
CA Measuring exposure to pro- and anti-tobacco marketing among adolescents: intercorrelations among measures and associations with smoking status
J Health Commun 2001;611- 29
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 123.de Vries
HEngels
RKremers
SWetzels
JMudde
A Parents' and friends' smoking status as predictors of smoking onset: findings from six European countries
Health Educ Res 2003;18627- 636
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 124.Tyas
SLPederson
LL Psychosocial factors related to adolescent smoking: a critical review of the literature
Tob Control 1998;7409- 420
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 126.Chung
PJGarfield
CFRathouz
PJLauderdale
DBLantos
J Youth targeting by tobacco manufacturers since the Master Settlement Agreement: the first study to document violations of the youth-targeting ban in magazine ads by the three top U.S. tobacco companies
Health Aff (Millwood) 2001;21254- 263
Google ScholarCrossref 127.Hamilton
WLTurner-Bowker
DMCelebucki
CCConnolly
GN Cigarette advertising in magazines: the tobacco industry's response to the Master Settlement Agreement and to public pressure
Tob Control 2002;11(suppl 2)ii54- ii58
PubMedGoogle Scholar 128.Glantz
SAKacirk
KWMcCulloch
C Back to the future: smoking in movies in 2002 compared with 1950 levels
Am J Public Health 2004;94261- 263
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 129.Anderson
CABushman
BJ Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: a meta-analytic review of the scientific literature
Psychol Sci 2001;12353- 359
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 130.Paik
HComstock
G The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: a meta-analysis
Communication Res 1994;21516- 546
Google ScholarCrossref 131.US Department of Health and Human Services, The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, Md US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health2004;DHHS publication 0-16-051576-2
132.Burns
DMGarfinkel
GSamet
JM Introduction, summary and conclusions
Changes in Cigarette-Related Disease Risks and Their Implication for Prevention and Control: Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 8 Bethesda, Md US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institute of Health, National Cancer Institute1997;NIH publication 97-4213
Google Scholar