Roachclip
New Member
Anti-drug ads, which the government plans to spend $145 million to produce this fiscal year, do little to dissuade young people from taking drugs, according to research conducted by Texas State University at San Marcos psychology professors.
Even worse, the ads may actually prompt some teens to experiment with drugs -- a reaction diametrically opposite that sought by the White House Office of National Drug Policy.
The study, which researchers will present Friday at a meeting of the American Psychological Society in Chicago, is part of a larger, ongoing project sponsored by the Marijuana Policy Project, a national marijuana policy reform organization.
Researchers Harvey Ginsburg and Maria Czyzewska, of the Department of Psychology at Texas State, said 53 college students were asked to watch several of the commercials and give detailed descriptions of the thoughts the ads generated.
Three of every four students reported the ads sparked thoughts that ran counter to the ads' message, the study showed.
"For example, in response to ads linking drug use to the war on terror, the most frequent unanticipated thoughts were that marijuana should be legalized, the war on drugs has been ineffective, and that marijuana users should grow their own," said Czyzewska.
The results did not surprise her: "There were already hints and indications that the ads were eliciting an unfavorable response," she said. "That not only were they not improving anti-drug attitudes, but are actually making young people have a more favorable attitude toward drugs."
A national survey conducted in 2002 by Westat Inc. and the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania for the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that most parents and youth surveyed recalled seeing the anti-drug ads, and that the ads had a favorable effect on parents.
But, the government-funded survey concluded, "There is little evidence of direct favorable campaign effects on youth." It went on to note, "For some ... analysis raises the possibility that those with more exposure to the (ads) ... had less favorable outcomes over the following 18 months."
Czyzewska noted that the research conducted by her and Ginsburg was a psychological experiment, not a survey, and said the results bear out earlier indications that the anti-drug ad campaign is working counter to its aim.
"This is a classic example of the 'boomerang effect' that other researchers have warned about," Czyzewska said: "Commercials producing a response that is precisely the opposite of what the ads' creators intended."
Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, said the research being presented Friday came as no surprise to that organization either.
"A lot of data suggests these ads don't work," Mirken said, adding the government is spending "a lot of taxpayer money on what appears to be a boondoggle."
Dr. Stuart Yudofsky, chairman of the psychiatry department at Baylor College of Medicine and chief of psychiatry at The Methodist Hospital, said he would not be surprised that the ads didn't work.
"I believe ads can help make a decision, like to buy a product," Yudofsky said. "But changing behavior is far more difficult."
As for the ads having an opposite or boomerang effect, Yudofsky said he would have to look at the design of the study very carefully before agreeing: The ads "try to influence people to make a decision not to do something," he said. "That involves many, many parameters."
Tom Riley, director of public affairs of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, called the study ``absurd.''
``This would be like tobacco companies coming out and saying that anti-smoking ads don't work,'' Riley said.
He said teen drug use has dropped by more than 10 percent over the last two years, in large measure because of the message of the ads. He also pointed out that the study recorded responses from college students, while the ads are aimed at 13- to 17-year-olds.
Source: Houston Chronicle
Author: S.K. BARDWELL
Published: 6/1/2004
Copyright: 2004 Houston Chronicle
Contact:
Website: Texas study shows anti-drug ads don't work
Even worse, the ads may actually prompt some teens to experiment with drugs -- a reaction diametrically opposite that sought by the White House Office of National Drug Policy.
The study, which researchers will present Friday at a meeting of the American Psychological Society in Chicago, is part of a larger, ongoing project sponsored by the Marijuana Policy Project, a national marijuana policy reform organization.
Researchers Harvey Ginsburg and Maria Czyzewska, of the Department of Psychology at Texas State, said 53 college students were asked to watch several of the commercials and give detailed descriptions of the thoughts the ads generated.
Three of every four students reported the ads sparked thoughts that ran counter to the ads' message, the study showed.
"For example, in response to ads linking drug use to the war on terror, the most frequent unanticipated thoughts were that marijuana should be legalized, the war on drugs has been ineffective, and that marijuana users should grow their own," said Czyzewska.
The results did not surprise her: "There were already hints and indications that the ads were eliciting an unfavorable response," she said. "That not only were they not improving anti-drug attitudes, but are actually making young people have a more favorable attitude toward drugs."
A national survey conducted in 2002 by Westat Inc. and the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania for the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that most parents and youth surveyed recalled seeing the anti-drug ads, and that the ads had a favorable effect on parents.
But, the government-funded survey concluded, "There is little evidence of direct favorable campaign effects on youth." It went on to note, "For some ... analysis raises the possibility that those with more exposure to the (ads) ... had less favorable outcomes over the following 18 months."
Czyzewska noted that the research conducted by her and Ginsburg was a psychological experiment, not a survey, and said the results bear out earlier indications that the anti-drug ad campaign is working counter to its aim.
"This is a classic example of the 'boomerang effect' that other researchers have warned about," Czyzewska said: "Commercials producing a response that is precisely the opposite of what the ads' creators intended."
Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, said the research being presented Friday came as no surprise to that organization either.
"A lot of data suggests these ads don't work," Mirken said, adding the government is spending "a lot of taxpayer money on what appears to be a boondoggle."
Dr. Stuart Yudofsky, chairman of the psychiatry department at Baylor College of Medicine and chief of psychiatry at The Methodist Hospital, said he would not be surprised that the ads didn't work.
"I believe ads can help make a decision, like to buy a product," Yudofsky said. "But changing behavior is far more difficult."
As for the ads having an opposite or boomerang effect, Yudofsky said he would have to look at the design of the study very carefully before agreeing: The ads "try to influence people to make a decision not to do something," he said. "That involves many, many parameters."
Tom Riley, director of public affairs of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, called the study ``absurd.''
``This would be like tobacco companies coming out and saying that anti-smoking ads don't work,'' Riley said.
He said teen drug use has dropped by more than 10 percent over the last two years, in large measure because of the message of the ads. He also pointed out that the study recorded responses from college students, while the ads are aimed at 13- to 17-year-olds.
Source: Houston Chronicle
Author: S.K. BARDWELL
Published: 6/1/2004
Copyright: 2004 Houston Chronicle
Contact:
Website: Texas study shows anti-drug ads don't work
