Scare tactics no good?

Mark Lindstrom, author of Buyology: Truth and Lies About What We Buy, contributed an interesting op-ed to today's NY Times.

Inhaling Fear briefly relates the results of a study Lindstrom conducted using brain imaging techniques to test the cognitive response in smokers brains to extreme anti-smoking labels on cigarette packages and ads, like the one pictured or like you might find at TheTruth.com. He explains that although smokers agreed that the health information was concerning, their brains weren't "scared straight".

We found that the warnings prompted no blood flow to the amygdala, the part of the brain that registers alarm, or to the part of the cortex that would be involved in any effort to register disapproval.

To the contrary, the warning labels backfired: they stimulated the nucleus accumbens, sometimes called the “craving spot,” which lights up on f.M.R.I. whenever a person craves something, whether it’s alcohol, drugs, tobacco or gambling.

The study was relatively small (only 32 subjects), but the results are pretty interesting. I wonder if the same would hold true for other kinds of addicts.

Also, I saw Mr. Lindstrom on the Today show awhile ago when his book came out and I was eating cereal in bed, being unemployed. Anyway, he was rather enjoyable to watch in the 3.5 minute segment devoted to him. Specifically, I remember he explained how product placement only goes so far to inspire us to want a similar product--not necessarily the brand name product we see. So, for example, if you saw one of those insanely annoying commercials for the Coke Side of Life, you might think, "Gee, that commercial was so terrible that I'm really thirsty... for a root beer!" Or something like that. I don't know really... read the book.

I checked out the comments because I've found that people tend to sound off more on the NY Times than other websites and it can be entertaining, if nothing else. Most of the comments were non-smokers saying how much that hated smokers blah blah blah join the club. But one from an ex-smoker seemed insightful to me:

I have not smoked in two years after 15 years of up to, ah, multiple packs a day. Now, the only time I truly crave a cigarette is not after a meal, or when drinking coffee or alcohol or even when around other people smoking but when those inane and insulting anti-smoking advertisements come on the television. Part of the joy of smoking (and there are many!) is the counter-culture aspect of the habit and these pro-conformity visual escapades make me want to stick a smoldering brown tipped finger up in the air. You tell me not to do something, or worse government tries to compel me to adapt my behaviour to its norms, and the 15 year old in me wants to do it even more!

— AFW, Greenwich, CT

You know, I'm no expert, but I think this guy is on to something. Isn't that how it is sometimes? The second someone tells you not to do something (without providing an immediately horrifying consequence) you want to do it!

Well, no. Not all the time. From that perspective though, it's interesting that people will resist conformity to the extent that they injure themselves, significantly and permanently. It's a completely passive response to whatever injustices smokers see and experience in the world.

Obviously, a lot more research is needed, which Lindstrom readily admits. If this phenomena checks out, though, this could have some interesting consequences for smoking prevention and cessation. Do smokers just need a forum to bitch about their issues? Would that help a person to quit? Can you tell I've been reading a book about psychoanalytic theory?