The Potential Effects of Corrective Advertising on Consumer Beliefs Mandated by U.S vs. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2006)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In US v. Philip Morris USA Inc. (2006), six major tobacco companies were ordered to provide funding for an extremely large corrective advertising and marketing campaign. The Court ruled that consumers may have been misled and deceived about the (1) health effects of smoking, (2) addictiveness of smoking, (3) lack of health benefit from low tar/light cigarettes, (4) companies’ manipulation of nicotine delivery and cigarette design, and (5) health effects of secondhand smoke. Using print advertising copy test procedures, this research focused on the potential effectiveness of test ads submitted to the Court in impacting these target beliefs. In an initial pilot study, reliable multi-item measures for each of these belief themes were developed and assessed. These multi-item belief measures were then employed in the subsequent main study, in which the effects of two versions of a print advertisement (submitted to the Court in this litigation) were tested using a mixed experimental design. As hypothesized, results show that corrective ads can have a positive effect on the belief themes (compared to a control group not exposed to such ads), but there is an interaction demonstrating that some belief themes are more strongly affected by the test ads than are others. Results suggested that the beliefs about light/low tar cigarettes may be substantially affected by such a campaign. The addition to the ad copy of graphic visuals, such as those currently used on cigarette packages in Canada and Australia, had mixed results overall. Contributions of the research include the development of reliable multi-item measures for critical smoking-related beliefs, as well as implications of the copy test findings for this specific case and corrective advertising, tobacco counter advertising, and public policy, in general.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".