Pubdate: Fri, 28 May 2004
Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)
Copyright: 2004 Houston Chronicle Publishing Company Division, Hearst Newspaper
Contact:  http://www.chron.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/198
Author: S.K. BARDWELL

ANTI-DRUG ADS CAN BOOMERANG, STUDY DISCOVERS

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 psychology professors at Texas State 
University at San Marcos. Even worse, the ads may actually prompt some 
teens to experiment with drugs -- a reaction diametrically opposite of what 
was intended by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

The study, which researchers will present today 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.

A spokesman for 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," said Tom Riley, director of public affairs of 
the agency.

Researchers Harvey Ginsburg and Maria Czyzewska of the Department of 
Psychology at Texas State University at San Marcos 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 youths 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."

But Riley said teen drug use has dropped by over 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.

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 if 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."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart