Maximizing the Effectiveness of Anti-Smoking Campaigns With Targeted Framing Strategies: Evidence From Behavioral and Neurological Studies

The global prevalence of smoking remains a significant public health concern, necessitating the development of effective anti-smoking campaigns to promote smoking cessation and discourage smoking initiation. Understanding the factors that influence individual responses to anti-smoking messages is critical for tailoring campaigns to different populations. This study substantially exhibits the concepts of audience segmentation and targeting, informed by theory and formative research, and monitoring and evaluation research in the context of anti-smoking campaigns. The article aims to answer how smoking behavior and message framing influence individuals’ counterarguing responses to anti-smoking advertisements and the implications for ad effectiveness. The research investigates the role of smoking behavior (smokers vs. non-smokers) and message framing (positive vs. negative) in shaping individuals’ counterarguing responses to anti-smoking advertisements, using two studies involving behavioral and neuroscientific methods. Study 1 employed an online video task with 1920 participants, examining the effects of smoking behavior and message framing on ad effectiveness. Study 2 used electroencephalography (EEG) to record brain activity from 31 participants while they viewed anti-smoking video advertisements, focusing on the neural correlates of counterarguing and their effect on anti-smoking ad effectiveness. Study 1 found that smokers report lower ad effectiveness compared to non-smokers, and observed an interaction between smoking behavior and message framing. Study 2 found that smoking behavior significantly influenced brain activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC), ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC), and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) regions in response to anti-smoking ads. Additionally, a significant interaction was observed between smoking behavior and ad framing on brain activity in all three regions. The findings suggest that anti-smoking campaigns should be tailored to the specific needs and attitudes of smokers and non-smokers, with separate campaigns for each group. Future research could explore the role of other individual differences in shaping counterarguing responses, the long-term effects of exposure to different types of anti-smoking messages on smoking behavior, and using more advanced neuroimaging techniques to investigate the neural processes that underlie counterarguing responses to anti-smoking messages for better flow.