The article is called: ‘Why No smoking signs actually ENCOURAGE smokers to light up’.
The article is written by a Daily Mail Reporter.
The article explains how telling smokers not to light up may increase their desire for nicotine and is therefore a wrong approach.
Psychological studies suggest the No smoking signs may drive more people to light up because it increases their craving. Without being aware of it, they react to the signs by thinking of cigarettes and wanting to smoke. No smoking signs are everywhere, if you walk down the street, you pass several of them, this will boost a smokers craving.
The article explains several tests done to prove the statement above.
Follow-up research, indicates that anti-smoking messages really do prompt smokers to light up.
In my opinion there are two things being discussed here. The article seems to mix them up. The first is that the image of a cigarette boosts the craving for one. The second is that anti-smoking messages prompt smokers to light up. We have to think of the message we are sending. If a sign is simply telling you, you may not smoke here, it doesn’t matter whether the smoker gets a craving, just walk down the street and smoke somewhere where it is aloud. If you want to encourage smokers to stop smoking, then perhaps this article has a point and there might be a better way to do it. A smoker who has quit smoking is going to have cravings anyway, I don’t think the anti-smoking messages are actually making things a lot more difficult for them.
This is a very well known psychological mechanism. When you get the assignment to think of a pink elephant for an hour, it is very likely that you don't think of it within 5 minutes. When you get the assignment DON'T think of white polar bear for an hour, that polar bear will pop up in your brain for hours to come. They have a point.
BeantwoordenVerwijderen