ively lower in smokers. The anti smoking ads had only reiterated what the subjects had already known about the health effects of smoking. However, the subjects judged the smoker even lower on both common sense and personal appeal. Also, the smoker was judged lower on maturity, glamour, and traits that even subject had no negative preconceptions about for smokers. The cigarette ads depicted sexy, cool, popular, and exciting layouts. The results showed that even after viewing anti smoking ads, subjects interpreted the smoker’s traits to be more positive and had more favorable thoughts about the smoker. However, the subjects did not rank the smoker higher on common sense, personal appeal, glamour, or maturity. Pechmann and Ratneshwar concluded that ads did indeed have an effect on the subjects. Anti smoking ads worked well if they were used more often and in conjunction with school and home education. The cigarette ads slightly influenced the subjects’ judgements of the smoker, but their effect was not as profound as were the effects of the anti smoking ads, thus, more anti smoking ads and lessons need to be implemented.To further illustrate how the tobacco industry has impacted youth, a study by DiFranza, Richards, Paulman, Wolf-Gillespie, Fletcher, Jaffe, and Murray (1991) investigated the extent to which advertising influences children. This study, included 1,060 high school students from five states. In addition, 345 adults from one state were included. The researchers exposed subjects to various ads and famous icons and to determine if the subjects could identify them. The results were astounding. When the students were shown a picture of Old Joe Camel without making any reference to cigarettes, 97.7% recognized him as compared to 72.2% recognition by the adults. The students were also better at recognizing what Old Joe Camel sold - 97.5% versus 67% by the adults. The students also found the ad more appeali...
