Cultivation and Spiral of Silence Effects: The Case of Smoking

Mass Communication and Society ISSN: 1520-5436 (Print) 1532-7825 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmcs20 Cultivation and Spiral of Silence Effects: The Case of Smoking James Shanahan , Dietram Scheufele , Fang Yang & Sonia Hizi To cite this article: James Shanahan , Dietram Scheufele , Fang Yang & Sonia Hizi (2004) Cultivation and Spiral of Silence Effects: The Case of Smoking, Mass Communication and Society, 7:4, 413-428, DOI: 10.1207/s15327825mcs0704_3 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0704_3 Published online: 17 Nov 2009. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 323 View related articles Citing articles: 12 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmcs20 Download by: [University of Arizona] Date: 12 June 2016, At: 16:57 MASS COMMUNICATION & SOCIETY, 2004, 7(4), 413–428 Cultivation and Spiral of Silence Effects: The Case of Smoking Mass Communication and Society 2004.7:413-428. James Shanahan Department of Communication Cornell University Dietram Scheufele Department of Journalism and Mass Communication University of Wisconsin Fang Yang and Sonia Hizi Department of Communication Cornell Univeristy Public opinion about regulating smoking is characterized by considerable ambivalence. On the one hand, more than 80% of Americans recognize the health risks of smoking cigarettes; the majority of the public favors various antismoking policies, such as restricting smoking in public places. On the other hand, a majority also agrees that a person should have the right to smoke in public. Studies about communication and media effects on smoking are mostly concerned about the effectiveness of antismoking campaigns. How general media use, where fewer intentional antismoking messages are present, might affect attitudes about smoking is less studied. This study compares the relative impact of mass media on attitudes about smoking behavior and on various smoking-related policy stances. In particular, we are interested in the role that mass media play in influencing perceptions of the social climate surrounding cigarette smoking. Data come from a survey of 794 respondents about media use, smoking behaviors, and attitudes toward smoking. Results show that TV viewing (exposure) is indirectly related to perceptions of public support for smoking. TV exposure is positively related to prevalence estimates of smoking, which in turn are related to support for a smoking ban and to perceptions Requests for reprints should be sent to James Shanahan, Department of Communication, Cornell University, 314 Kennedy Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853. E-mail: jes30@cornell.edu 414 SHANAHAN, SCHEUFELE, YANG, HIZI Mass Communication and Society 2004.7:413-428. of public support for such a ban. Implications for communication theories such as spiral of silence and cultivation are discussed. Mass media have long been regarded as a valuable resource for promotion of public health (Atkin & Wallack, 1990). How media might affect prohealth policy attitudes and prohealth advocacy efforts is a particularly important topic, especially insofar as public health professionals emphasize the media’s role in portraying images to improve public health. In this article, we explore media theories in the context of the issue of smoking, analyzing how people’s attitudes about smoking policy and their advocacy activity can be related to their general media use. Studies of media effects on smoking are mostly concerned with the effectiveness of antismoking campaigns. Most studies thus focus on messages in the context of purposive, short-term campaigns. Despite the obvious importance of these campaigns, people are arguably more exposed to protobacco commercial messages than antitobacco messages (Pierce et al., 1998). Even with a cigarette advertising ban on television and radio since 1971 in the United States, and a variety of consent agreements that have limited tobacco companies’ promotional activities, companies still spend billions of dollars on sales promotion each year through print media, billboards, sports sponsorships, and so on (Levine, 1988). How general media use, within which fewer intentional antismoking messages are present, might affect people’s perceptions about smoking, attitudes about antismoking policies, and motives to carry out antismoking advocacy action is less studied. We emphasize the media’s direct influence on people’s perceptions of the social climate surrounding cigarette smoking, which in turn affects individual attitudes about smoking and potential willingness to engage in advocacy efforts. Perceptions of what most others are doing and perceptions of others’ moral approval or disapproval can both be counted as forms of social influence (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990). People’s own smoking behavior and attitudes about smoking are both found to be subject to such forms of social influence. For instance, prevalence estimates of peer smoking are found to influence adolescents’ smoking behavior (Collins et al., 1987). Unfavorable public sentiment and opinion climate for cigarette smoking and smokers have also been found to be negatively related to state smoking rates and positively related to people’s willingness to quit smoking (Kim & Shanahan, 2003). Our approach was intended to explore first how media affect smoking prevalence estimates and perceptions of public attitudes toward antismoking policy, and then to look at how these perceptions affect individual policy attitudes and opinion expression. We explore media theories in the smoking context, particularly theories of cultivation (Shanahan & Morgan, 1999) and the spiral of silence (Noelle-Neumann, 1973). Not much work has been done in these areas that is directly related to smoking, although we will review some related studies that exist. Both theories posit a role for mass media in explaining how people develop Mass Communication and Society 2004.7:413-428. THE CASE OF SMOKING 415 conceptions of social reality and of social climate. Cultivation argues that exposure to message systems, particularly television, subtly encourages heavy viewers to accept the worldviews embodied and encoded in media messages. Typically, cultivation studies examine relationships between frequency of exposure to TV messages and conceptions about the real world. Spiral of silence theory argues that perceptions of majority opinion are likely to affect personal opinion formation and an individual’s willingness to speak out about issues. Individuals who perceive that their opinions are less supported by the majority are theorized to be less willing to speak out about those opinions. In this article, we try to combine both approaches by including relevant media measures (such as television exposure, normally an independent variable in cultivation research), measures of perception of smoking prevalence (a potential dependent variable in cultivation research), perceptions of public support for stringent smoking regulation (an independent variable in spiral of silence research), and finally, actual willingness to speak out in public about smoking (a potential dependent variable in spiral of silence research). We link these measures in a model that combines aspects of both cultivation and spiral of silence theory. Thus, the unique aspect of this study is that it explores a much-discussed issue (the connection between media and smoking behavior) in a direction opposite to that usually taken. Though the literature on purposive campaigns has much to offer, our approach opens up the debate to ideas about social aspects of smoking, within a social climate, that need to be considered. SMOKING AND THE MEDIA Content Analysis We begin with a review of some of the smoking content analyses that have been conducted. The tobacco control movement positions mass media as one of its main targets, assuming that mass media, particularly advertising, are a potent force for influencing people’s decisions to smoke. Content analytic studies are used to show to what extent smoking is prevalent in media content. Particularly after the decision was taken to ban smoking ads on U.S. television, the rate of appearance of smoking in mass media program content became an important issue. Breed and DeFoe (1984) found that media tobacco use declined and alcohol use increased over the three decades of their study. Very little smoking was portrayed in the 1981–1982 season. Examining trends, Cruz and Wallack (1986) found one smoking act per hour of programming, with more smoking in dramas than situation comedies; two thirds of smokers were lead characters, with 70% cast in strong, enduring roles. 416 SHANAHAN, SCHEUFELE, YANG, HIZI Mass Communication and Society 2004.7:413-428. Hazan and Glantz (1995) found that 24% of programs contain at least one tobacco event; 92% were protobacco events, whereas 8% were antismoking messages. In terms of character analysis, 55% of smokers were “good guys”; high-status characters were more likely than medium- or low-status characters to smoke. They argue that higher rates of smoking occur on television than in real life. Based on a more recent study on television during the 1998–1999 season, however, only [o]ne in five episodes (19%) portrayed tobacco use. No characters under the age of 18 were shown using tobacco. Eight percent of adult major characters used tobacco. Twenty-three percent of episodes that showed tobacco use expressed negative statements about smoking. Overall, teen viewers were exposed to relatively little tobacco use. These episodes avoided underage tobacco use and presented adult use to a limited extent. (Christenson, Henriksen, Roberts, with Kelly & Carbone, 2000, p. 4) This study also concluded that smoking was portrayed with decreasing frequency on television. Though the studies are not easily comparable, the recent data tend to confirm the impression that we see smoking less on television than we used to. If the Mediascope study is correct, TV characters smoke at a rate lower than in the “real world.” Recent studies show actual smoking rates in the low 20% range, varying by state (Centers for Disease Control, 2000). If so, this phenomenon suggests a cultivation hypothesis: H1: Heavy television viewers will underestimate the extent to which people smoke in the real world. At the same time, we should note that heavy viewers are themselves more likely to actually smoke (Sidney et al., 1996). We test this as our second hypothesis: H2: Smoking will be positively correlated with television exposure. Other studies have looked more at direct media content influences on smoking. Difranza et al. (1991) found that “Joe Camel” advertisements were effective marketing tools to children. Bauman, Laprelle, Brown, Koch, and Padgett (1991) found that media campaigns could directly influence smoking decisions. Pierce, Anderson, Romano, Meissner, and Odenkirchen (1992) found that TV spots affected people’s use of a cancer information line. But Klein et al. (1993) found that adolescents who used media more were also more likely to engage in risky behaviors, including tobacco use. Popham et al. (1993) estimated that 33,000 individuals quit smoking as a result of a tested media campaign. Pollay et al. (1996) found that advertising rates are related to market share, suggesting a direct influence. Again, Mass Communication and Society 2004.7:413-428. THE CASE OF SMOKING 417 FIGURE 1 Support for restricting smoking in restaurants, percentages. From Gallup; retrieved from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/statuniv. the studies are not completely consistent, but some researchers believe that targeted campaigns can influence viewers, both for and against smoking. Though our study does not include a measure of exposure to anticigarette campaigns, it should be remembered that overall exposure to television should be correlated to exposure to antismoking information. Perceptions of smoking. Turning to spiral of silence and perceptions of smoking, the research is newer and perhaps less clear (though see Dixon, Lowery, Levy, & Ferraro, 1991). Certainly very little spiral of silence research exists dealing directly with smoking. In this article the main attitude that concerns us is support for regulations restricting smoking. Public opinion data show that a majority of people do support some type of restriction on where people can smoke. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg led a well-publicized campaign in 2003 to ban indoor smoking in his city. As an example, Figure 1 shows an opinion trend for public support for either banning smoking in restaurants or supporting designated areas for smoking.1 The figure shows that about 60% favored setting aside special areas, whereas almost 40% favor completely banning smoking in restaurants. This growing support, of course, coincides with actual smoking bans in some communities, states, and cities but may also reflect a decreasing tolerance for smoking. Some surveys have even looked at the possibility of banning tobacco outright. Though this may seem to be something of a “modest proposal,” a 2001 Gallup survey found that 14% of respondents would favor making smoking “totally illegal.” A 1995 CBS–New York Times survey, using somewhat less ominous wording, 1All survey data in this paragraph are derived from poll results archived at Lexis-Nexis (http://web.lexis-nexis.com/statuniv). 418 SHANAHAN, SCHEUFELE, YANG, HIZI Mass Communication and Society 2004.7:413-428. found that 43% of respondents would favor “legislation banning tobacco altogether.” Thus, in some sense, subtle but broad changes seem to be under way with respect to public tolerance for smoking. As majority opinion about smoking drifts toward the negative direction, issues of social norms and tolerance for smoking become that much more interesting. Social norms have been considered important in recent work on health prevention communication, but much of this work is not aware of mass communication research dealing with media effects on social norms. For instance, recently two economists argued that Smokers do care about social acceptance. Inconsiderate smoking is assumed to trigger negative emotions on [the] non-smokers’ part, and these reactions are stronger the less used non-smokers are to such inconsiderate behavior. Smokers decide whether to be considerate or not by weighting the inconvenience costs of being considerate against the benefits of social acceptance. (Nyborg & Rege, 2001, p. 2) They were unwittingly stating the axioms of spiral of silence theory, in which willingness to express opinions publicly is weighed against social costs that might come from majority pressure. To some degree, these days, smoking in public is a very sensitive form of opinion expression. Social norms have been built into recent popular campus campaigns to reduce drinking and now even smoking. They use estimates of drinking or smoking behavior in advertising to convince abusing students that they are in the minority (Haines & Spear, 1996). This practice raises questions about how media portrayals play into perceptions of social norms. If the media are portraying smoking less, does this amplify the trends toward cementing the taboos developing around smoking? How do perceptions of smoking relate to media use? Spiral of silence studies have typically dealt with such questions by asking respondents to imagine themselves in a hypothetical situation, such as a party or traveling in a train compartment, where they meet strangers discussing political issues (Scheufele & Moy, 2000). The respondent is asked to imagine that the strangers are discussing a political issue, expressing opinions that would be different from the respondent’s own. How willing would the participant be to express his or her own opinion knowing that it differs from the strangers’? This so-called “train-test” measure has been used in many different studies (see Glynn, Hayes, & Shanahan, 2001, for a review of all of them). In our study we use a variant of the question: “Now, imagine a situation in which you are in a restaurant eating with friends. At the table next to you, a man begins smoking a cigarette, even though the section is clearly marked ‘no smoking.’ How likely would you be to ask the man to stop smoking?” In addition, we also included a more general measure of how likely the respondent would be to speak up in a social setting where the group’s opinion differed from the respondent’s own. Mass Communication and Society 2004.7:413-428. THE CASE OF SMOKING 419 This question differs slightly from the typical train test question in a few ways. It is similar in that it deals with opinion expression in a public setting. However, the assumed opinion of the interlocutor (the smoker, in this case) is known. That is, the smoker is smoking and therefore assumed to support the right to smoke in the restaurant. If the respondent also supports such a right, then there is less need for the respondent to ask to stop the behavior. Social pressure is less important in this case. Thus, we are more interested in the case in which the respondent would prefer that the smoker stop. In this case, what are the effects of media exposure and social pressure on the respondent’s willingness to speak up in this admittedly sensitive situation? Spiral of silence research normally predicts willingness to speak out from perceptions of public support for one’s own opinion. Thus, we included two variables, a measure of one’s own support for legislation banning tobacco and a measure of perception of public support for such legislation, which asked respondents to estimate the percentage of people that would support such legislation. Using these measures, we generate two additional hypotheses: H3: Personal support for legislation banning tobacco will be positively related to willingness to speak out in public. H4: Perceptions of public support will influence willingness to speak out, positively. Media use and perceptions. Finally, we need to examine how media conceptions influence perceptions, and how all of our variables relate to willingness to speak out. Spiral of silence theory typically proposes that the “media tenor” is an important factor in how people determine where majority opinion is centered. We measure respondent’s exposure to television and newspapers, as well as attention to both comedy and drama on television, to supply general measures of media exposure. We hypothesize that H5: Perceptions of public support for antismoking legislation are related positively to media use. This hypothesis is based on the assumption that smoking frequency is declining in the media. As viewers see fewer people smoking in the media, spiral of silence theory predicts that they will internalize these perceptions into their own beliefs about how prevalent smoking actually is. Policy relevance. The discussion thus far brings us to wonder how the phenomena we have examined might affect policy decisions. One possibility is increased attention to social norms campaigns, which have been widely used in alcohol awareness work. Also, greater understanding of the role of media in these 420 SHANAHAN, SCHEUFELE, YANG, HIZI broad social trends would complement well the work on individual media campaigns. Reception of individual media messages will be placed in the context of broader message systems. Those designing campaigns can expect greater effectiveness to be derived from such awareness. Individual programs and campaigns may show short-term effectiveness, but long-term message patterns are more likely to encourage subtle social shifts in behavior. Mass Communication and Society 2004.7:413-428. METHOD We conducted a telephone survey in Tompkins County, New York, in October 2001. The fieldwork was conducted by the Survey Research Institute at Cornell University. The survey used a random digit dialing method, eventually yielding a final sample size of 794. In the sample, the mean age was 45, 61% female, and highly educated (75% had graduated college). These demographics closely parallel the demographics of the larger county.2 The smoking rate was 15%; of the remainder 38.3% had smoked at one time. Response rate for the survey (following AAPOR3 definitions) was 44%. We used unweighted data in all analyses. Thus, the data used for this study came from a local survey based on a carefully constructed probability sample. Regardless of the quality of the sample, however, the question arises as to whether the local nature of the sample limits its generalizability. Despite the geographic limitations of the sample, the relatively elaborate and specific measures of opinion perception, opinion expression, and media use are not available in large national data sets, such as the National Election Study or the General Social Survey. In this work, then, there is a tradeoff between the generalizability offered by large-scale samples and the quality of measurement we could obtain in this sample. Given the fact that this study focused on relatively subtle distinctions between different types of climate perceptions and opinion expression, we feel that quality of measurement contributes heavily to the overall validity of the dataset and its interest. We included five main indicators of smoking and perceptions about smoking: • An estimate of the percentage of population that smokes (ESTIMATE). • An estimate of the percent of the population that would support a total ban on tobacco (BAN ESTIMATE). • A measure of personal support for such a ban (SUPPORT BAN). • Personal smoking status; has respondent ever smoked (SMOKE). • Willingness to ask person to stop smoking in a restaurant (ASK STOP). 2Our mean age differs from the reported county mean of 28.6 in the 2000 Census, due to the fact that we intentionally excluded student housing units from our sample. 3American Association of Public Opinion Research. Mass Communication and Society 2004.7:413-428. THE CASE OF SMOKING 421 The full text of these items is presented in Appendix A. Most of the aforementioned measures are straightforward. Though it may seem unusual that anyone would actually support a total ban on tobacco, we were looking for an issue imbued with a relatively high degree of moral controversy. This method is consistent with Noelle-Neumann’s original conceptualization of the “morally loaded” issue (1993). As well, we have seen earlier that at least one opinion survey has used such a question. Recognizing that the question does not capture the current state of thinking about tobacco control, we felt justified in using the measure based on these conceptual considerations. We also included a measure of how likely the respondent would be to speak up in a social setting where the group’s opinion differed from the respondent’s own. This is a typical measure used in spiral of silence research to indicate willingness to express opinion in controversial contexts. Though we did not use the opinion “congruency” measures that are often used in spiral of silence research, our variables allow tests parallel to those actually used by Noelle-Neumann on the smoking issue (1993, p. 47), one of the few extant tests of smoking as a spiral of silence issue. Also, these operationalizations allowed us to combine tests of cultivation and spiral of silence in a single analytic model. We also included measures of television viewing (hours–minutes of exposure per day) and newspaper readership (days per week). We also had measures of attention to both drama and comedy on television. Though other measures of media attention and exposure could have been useful, and possibly could have provided more sensitive indexes, we followed the normal cultivation practice of using exposure measures. These were accompanied by basic demographic indicators including sex, age, and education level. RESULTS Our sample, on average, thought that about 40% of the population smokes, which is an overestimate. Indeed, we found that many of our open-ended estimates of smoking behaviors and attitudes tended toward the high side. Similarly, the sample thought that about 40% of the public would support a smoking ban. Recall that only about 15% of Americans actually do support such a ban, although our question wording might have prompted some respondents to think about the question more in terms of public-place bans. The actual percentage of people supporting a ban in our sample was about 41%, definitely higher than the national statistic from Gallup. This may also suggest that question wording was prompting respondents to think about smoking in public places. Additionally, the political profile of Tompkins County, New York, is such that more residents probably would be in favor of antismoking legislation than what one would expect to see nationally. Finally, almost 70% said they would be willing to ask someone to stop smoking in a place that was labeled nonsmoking. Mass Communication and Society 2004.7:413-428. 422 SHANAHAN, SCHEUFELE, YANG, HIZI The relative frequencies confirm some of our foregoing discussion: People think that there is broad support for regulation of smoking; there is in our sample relatively broad support; and people would be willing to speak up in public about smoking. Thus, in some sense, our own data confirm what the national data show, which is that smoking is becoming less socially acceptable. Next we turn to examination of our hypotheses. First, we hypothesized that heavy television viewers would underestimate the extent to which people smoke. We test this hypothesis with a simple correlation. In fact, we found a positive correlation between television exposure and estimates of smoking in the real world (r = .22, p < .001). Thus, our first hypothesis did not receive support. Television viewing was also correlated to smoking itself (r = .14, p < .001), corroborating our second hypothesis, so it may be that heavy viewers are simply applying a projective bias to their estimates. In any case, the effect of actual television content, with its reduced smoking frequency, is unclear given these data. The cultivation hypothesis that reduced smoking rates on television would be associated with lowered estimates of smoking prevalence is not supported. Future content analysis needs to examine this issue; we take up some problems related to this finding in our discussion section. Our third and fourth hypotheses dealt with support for a smoking ban, perceptions of public support for such a ban, and their effect on willingness to speak out about smoking. Hypothesis 3 was supported, with a correlation showing that personal support for a smoking ban is positively related to willingness to speak out (r = .12, p < .01). Thus, as expected, personal opinion about public smoking plays a role. However, Hypothesis 4 was not supported; a correlation showed no significant direct relationship between perception of how many people support a smoking ban and willingness to speak out. This runs counter to the spiral of silence explanation of willingness to speak out. However, we should note that there is an interesting interaction between personal support, perception of public support, and willingness to speak out. Table 1 shows this interaction. Willingness to ask someone to stop smoking is coded on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (very likely to do so) to 4 (not at all likely). The means show that one group in particular is least willing to speak out. Clearly the group that thinks a majority supports a ban but that does not themselves support the ban is least willing to speak up, whereas the other groups all show relatively high willingness. This “discrepant” group probably feels somewhat defensive about smokers’rights. Because this group probably would be the least likely to speak up in any case, their motives are not necessarily rooted in trying to conform to the majority, but perceptions of majority opinion do mark them off from the others who also do not support a ban. All in all, then, apart from a defensive minority of individuals, social opinion and social norms are strongly in favor of smoking regulation. In examining Hypothesis 5, we wanted to tie all of our variables together. To do this, we used regression path analysis to test a causal model of media effects on smoking perceptions, attitudes, and willingness to speak out. The model begins with basic endogenous demographic variables, then includes media variables THE CASE OF SMOKING 423 TABLE 1 Willingness to Ask Someone to Stop Smoking in a Restaurant by Personal Support for Smoking Ban and Perceptions of Such Support Estimate of Support <50% Mass Communication and Society 2004.7:413-428. ≥ 50% Support F Estimate F Interaction F Overall F Support for Ban M No Yes No Yes Total Yes 15.5 (1) 3.22 (1) 7.07 (1) 7.3 (3) 1.98 1.87 2.38 1.79 2.00 1.82 <.001 >.05 .008 <.001 (television exposure, newspaper use, attention to comedy, and drama on TV). Next, estimates of number of smokers are entered in the model. These estimates are followed by estimates about percentage of support for smoking legislation, along with personal support for such a ban. Finally, these are all seen as influencing willingness to express opinions about smoking in a public place. Results from the analysis are presented in Figure 2. FIGURE 2 Path model. Mass Communication and Society 2004.7:413-428. 424 SHANAHAN, SCHEUFELE, YANG, HIZI As we saw earlier, media use (TV exposure) relates directly to estimates of the number of those who smoke. But the figure shows that media use is only indirectly related to estimates of public support for smoking legislation, as well as to personal support. Hypothesis 5 is thus only partially confirmed. Those who tend to see the world as populated by more smokers are also more likely to support antismoking legislation, and they themselves support such legislation. Newspaper use showed no effects of any kind. However, attention to TV drama was positively associated with perceptions of support for antismoking legislation, perhaps confirming Cruz and Wallack’s findings. The path model reveals some interesting overall patterns, some of which are revealed only by implementing the various demographic controls in the model. Though most people would be very or somewhat willing to speak up to someone about smoking in a public place, such willingness does vary according to perception of the social norm for such a situation. The model shows how perceptions of smoking and support for smoking legislation affect willingness to speak, taking into account all other variables. Personal support (β =.17) for a ban is related to willingness to speak up in public about smoking, but perception of social support for smoking bans is not directly related. However, there is an indirect relation through personal support. Thus, those who think that the majority supports smoking legislation are also more likely to support such laws themselves, which in turn positively relates to willingness to speak. This pattern comes much closer to a spiral of silence explanation. Thus, perceptions do relate to willingness to speak out, even if there is not a direct relationship as proposed by spiral of silence theory. Further, television exposure makes a positive contribution to willingness to speak out, indirectly through its relation to estimates of public support and personal support. DISCUSSION Overall, our data show that attitudes about smoking are by and large supportive of restrictions. People are very willing to speak out about smoking in public situations, and in general they overestimate the extent of the problem as far as public participation in smoking goes. Media exposure through television is positively associated with estimates of number of smokers. This highlights one of the major questions raised by our data. If smoking is being portrayed less prevalently on television, why do heavy viewers overestimate smoking prevalence? One possibility is that viewers do not derive estimates from mediated content, contrary to the assertions of cultivation theory. Another possibility is that television viewing is confounded with other variables, although we did control for demographics that would be typical sources of spuriousness, along with smoking status. A final possibility is that television viewing raises societal risk awareness and concerns about smoking as a social problem, Mass Communication and Society 2004.7:413-428. THE CASE OF SMOKING 425 which makes its viewers overestimate the prevalence of smoking. Television viewers may have internalized the antismoking messages of television, which have also increased in frequency. It is possible that increased reception of such messages means that viewers will be led to assume there are more smokers than there really are. The logic could be that there would not be so much antismoking campaigning unless the problem was highly significant in terms of numbers. So, although fewer smokers appear on television comedies and dramas, it may be that other forms of content highlight smoking as a social problem, in news, health reports, antismoking PSAs, and so on. These ideas need to be explored in further research, controlling societal risk perception of smoking and including variables that might help explain whether there are cross-currents in television programming that might both encourage and discourage smoking. The positive relationship between smoking rate perception and support for a smoking ban also suggests that such smoking prevalence estimates might have represented concerns about smoking as a social health problem, which leads to antismoking policy attitude. In terms of willingness to speak out, perceptions about support for smoking legislation do play an indirect role in the way individuals develop their willingness to speak in public. There is a fairly strong relationship between personal support and perceptions of public support. Personal support relates most strongly to willingness to speak out, as would be expected. Taking into account what is shown in Table 1, it is clear that, for at least one significant minority, perceptions of public support can condition willingness to speak out. These perceptions, in turn, are also directly related to media exposure. These findings are generally consistent with the principles of spiral of silence theory. The media effects that we examine are subtle, but on balance they tend to encourage support for smoking regulation. This finding is consistent with the notion that mass media programs tend to encourage audiences to hew toward mainstream viewpoints, without introducing messages that radically threaten the social order. As health doctrine has inexorably moved toward an antismoking perspective, mass media have tended to strengthen the messages of society’s dominant health institutions. Television’s heavy viewers seem to agree with health authorities that smoking is a prevalent problem that needs to be controlled. However, social norms regarding smoking are characterized by considerable ambivalence. Even though most Americans recognize the health risks of smoking cigarettes and favor various antismoking policies in public places, a majority also agrees that a person should have the right to smoke and cigarette companies should have their rights to advertise and to profit. In this study, we focused on media’s influence on social norms that potentially lead to antismoking policies. Mass media have also been claimed to cultivate consumerism, to foster a favorable attitude toward an individual’s freedom of choice to smoke, and to endorse free enterprise, which might lead to prosmoking attitudes. Whether media indeed affect these con- Mass Communication and Society 2004.7:413-428. 426 SHANAHAN, SCHEUFELE, YANG, HIZI sensual social norms and how the public resolves the ambivalent social norms concerning smoking need to be further investigated in understanding mass media, social norms, and smoking related policy attitudes and opinion expression. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was no problem to assume that frequent images of smoking as an essential component of a modern, professional lifestyle would translate into viewer acceptance of such beliefs. And obviously, advertising supplemented that view. Now, however, even prime-time television programming, which has never been accused of willingly serving prosocial purposes, might be changing its tune. With mixed opinion climate and changing social norms regarding smoking, smokers, and cigarette companies, mass media’s role in affecting smoking related public health becomes ambiguous and multifaceted. This study obviously does not show an exhaustively complete picture of the many ways that media programs might affect public attitudes about smoking. Our sample of residents from a single county in New York cannot provide conclusive evidence about national trends. Further, limitations placed on the number of media and smoking questions that we could put in the survey meant that more detailed and reliable measurement of each important variable could not be attempted. For instance, we did not have data on viewer reception of smoking images, which would have strengthened the rationale for Hypothesis 5. However, the study highlights several research directions that can be pursued, particularly as communication practitioners and campaigners seek to include notions of social norms into their plans and message designs. Most important is to look at the question of whether declining rates of smoking portrayal on TV are having positive or negative effects on people’s perception of smoking rates in the society at large. Also, how do portrayals of smoking interact with exposure to antismoking campaigns on TV and in other media? Given the suggestions of our data, such studies could well reveal that TV’s messages are in fact prosocial with respect to smoking. Further, spiral of silence effects with smoking need to be looked at more closely. We find that perceptions about smoking prevalence do matter in some situations. At the same time, antismoking sentiment has become so prevalent that we may well be beyond the threshold where spiral of silence effects can be meaningfully observed. In this case, a combination of cultivation and spiral of silence ideas might best explain how ideas about the social appropriateness of a behavior such as smoking are maintained over the long term. REFERENCES Atkin, C., & Wallack, L. (Eds.). (1990). Mass communication and public health: Complexities and conflicts. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bauman K., Laprelle, J., Brown J., Koch G., & Padgett C. (1991). The influence of 3 mass-media campaigns on variables related to adolescent cigarette-smoking: Results of a field experiment. American Journal of Public Health, 81, 597–604. Mass Communication and Society 2004.7:413-428. THE CASE OF SMOKING 427 Breed, W., & DeFoe, J. (1984). Drinking and smoking on television, 1950–1982 Journal of Public Health Policy, 5, 257–270. Centers for Disease Control. (2000). State-specific prevalence of current cigarette smoking among adults, and policies and attitudes about secondhand smoke. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 50, 1101–1128. Christenson, P., Henriksen, L., Roberts, D., with Kelly, M., & Carbone, S. (2000). Substance use in popular prime-time television. Report sponsored by Office of National Drug Control Policy and Mediascope Macro International, Inc. Cialdini, R., Reno, R., & Kallgren, C. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026. Collins, L., Sussman, S., Rauch, J., Dent, C., Johnson, C., Hansen, W., et al. (1987). Psychosocial predictors of young adolescent cigarette smoking: A sixteen-month, three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 554–573. Cruz, J., & Wallack, L. (1986). Trends in tobacco use on television. American Journal of Public Health, 76, 698–699. Difranza, J., Richards, J., Paulman, P., Wolfgillespie, N., Fletcher, C., Jaffe, R., et al. (1991). R.J.R. Nabisco’ s cartoon camel promotes Camel Cigarettes to children. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association, 266, 3149–3153. Dixon, R., Lowery, R., Levy, D., & Ferraro, K. (1991). Self-interest and public opinion toward smoking policies: A replication and extension. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 241–254. Glynn, C., Hayes, A., & Shanahan, J. (2001). Willingness to express one’s opinion as a function of perceived support for that opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 13, 45–58. Haines, M., & Spear, S. (1996). Changing perception of the norm: A strategy to decrease binge drinking among college students. Journal of American College Health, 45, 134–140. Hazan, A., & Glantz, S. (1995). Current trends in tobacco use on prime-time fictional television. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 116–117. Kim, S., & Shanahan, J. (2003). Stigmatizing smokers: Public sentiment toward cigarette smoking and its relationship to smoking behaviors. Journal of Health Communication, 8, 343–367. Klein, J., Brown, J., Childers, K., Oliveri, J., Porter, C., & Dykers, C. (1993). Adolescents risky behavior and mass-media use. Pediatrics, 92, 24–31. Levine, J. (1988). Cigarette promotion: Playing to a shrinking audience. Incentive, 162(9), 32–39. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1993). The spiral of silence. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Nyborg, K., & Rege, R. (2001). On social norms: The evolution of considerate smoking behavior (Discussion paper 279). Oslo, Norway: Statistics Norway. Pierce, J., Anderson, D., Romano, R., Meissner, H., & Odenkirchen, J. (1992). Promoting smoking cessation in the United-States: Effect of public-service announcements on the Cancer Information Service Telephone Line. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 84, 677–683. Pierce, J., Gilpin, E., Emery, S., Farkas, A., Zhu, S., Choi, W., et al. (1998). Tobacco control in California: Who’s winning the war? An evaluation of the tobacco control program, 1989–1996. La Jolla: University of California, San Diego. Pollay, R., Siddarth, S., Siegel, M., Haddix, A., Merritt, R., Giovino, G., et al. (1996). The last straw? Cigarette advertising and realized market shares among youths and adults, 1979–1993. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 1–16. Popham, W., Potter, L., Bal, D., Johnson, M., Duerr, J., & Quinn, V. (1993). Do antismoking media campaigns help smokers quit. Public Health Reports, 108, 510–513. Scheufele, D., & Moy, P. (2000). Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence: A conceptual review and empirical outlook. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12, 3–28. Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 428 SHANAHAN, SCHEUFELE, YANG, HIZI Sidney, S., Sternfeld, B., Haskell, W., Jacobs, D., Chesney, A., & Hulley, S. (1996). Television viewing and cardiovascular risk factors in young adults: The CARDIA study. Annals of Epidemiology, 6, 154–159. Mass Communication and Society 2004.7:413-428. APPENDIX A Text of Smoking Items We’re interested in your perceptions about smoking. First, can you tell me what percentage of Americans you think smoke cigarettes? Recently, the United States and many states have passed laws restricting where cigarettes may be smoked: on airplanes, in public buildings, and in restaurants, among others. What percentage of Americans do you think would support a total ban on tobacco use in this country? Would you support such a total ban or prohibition?—Yes/No Do you now regularly smoke cigarettes?—Yes/No Finally, imagine a situation in which you are in a restaurant eating with friends. At the table next to you, a man begins smoking a cigarette, even though the section is clearly marked no smoking. How likely would you be to ask the man to stop smoking?—Very likely; Somewhat Likely; Not Likely; Not at all likely