Skip to main content

Advertising Disclaimer »

Main menu

  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Open Access
    • Editorial Policies
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Blogs
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • AAP Meeting Abstracts
  • Pediatric Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health
    • More Collections...
  • AAP Policy
  • Supplements
    • Supplements
    • Publish Supplement
  • Multimedia
    • Video Abstracts
    • Pediatrics On Call Podcast
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers
  • Other Publications
    • American Academy of Pediatrics

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Academy of Pediatrics

AAP Gateway

Advanced Search

AAP Logo

  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Open Access
    • Editorial Policies
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Blogs
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • AAP Meeting Abstracts
  • Pediatric Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health
    • More Collections...
  • AAP Policy
  • Supplements
    • Supplements
    • Publish Supplement
  • Multimedia
    • Video Abstracts
    • Pediatrics On Call Podcast
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers

Discover Pediatric Collections on COVID-19 and Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health

American Academy of Pediatrics
Article

Influence of Motion Picture Rating on Adolescent Response to Movie Smoking

James D. Sargent, Susanne Tanski and Mike Stoolmiller
Pediatrics August 2012, 130 (2) 228-236; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-1787
James D. Sargent
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susanne Tanski
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mike Stoolmiller
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
Loading
Download PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between movie smoking exposure (MSE) and adolescent smoking according to rating category.

METHODS: A total of 6522 US adolescents were enrolled in a longitudinal survey conducted at 8-month intervals; 5503 subjects were followed up at 8 months, 5019 subjects at 16 months, and 4575 subjects at 24 months. MSE was estimated from 532 recent box-office hits, blocked into 3 Motion Picture Association of America rating categories: G/PG, PG-13, and R. A survival model evaluated time to smoking onset.

RESULTS: Median MSE in PG-13–rated movies was ∼3 times higher than median MSE from R-rated movies, but their relation with smoking was essentially the same, with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.49 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23–1.81) and 1.33 (95% CI: 1.23–1.81) for each additional 500 occurrences of MSE respectively. MSE from G/PG-rated movies was small and had no significant relationship with adolescent smoking. Attributable risk estimates showed that adolescent smoking would be reduced by 18% (95% CI: 14–21) if smoking in PG-13–rated movies was reduced to the fifth percentile. In comparison, making all parents maximally authoritative in their parenting would reduce adolescent smoking by 16% (95% CI: 12–19).

CONCLUSIONS: The equivalent effect of PG-13-rated and R-rated MSE suggests it is the movie smoking that prompts adolescents to smoke, not other characteristics of R-rated movies or adolescents drawn to them. An R rating for movie smoking could substantially reduce adolescent smoking by eliminating smoking from PG-13 movies.

KEY WORDS
  • adolescent smoking
  • motion picture rating
  • movie smoking
  • Abbreviations:
    CI —
    confidence interval
    MPAA —
    Motion Picture Association of America
    MSE —
    movie smoking exposure
  • What’s Known on This Subject:

    The US Surgeon General has determined that the relationship between movie smoking exposure (MSE) and youth smoking is causal; however, it is not known whether movie rating influences how adolescents respond.

    What This Study Adds:

    The response to PG-13–rated MSE was indistinguishable from R-rated MSE. An R rating for smoking could reduce smoking onset in the United States by 18% (by eliminating PG-13 MSE), an effect similar to making all parents maximally authoritative in their parenting.

    Almost 50 years since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health, smoking remains the number 1 cause of preventable death in the United States, responsible for >400 000 deaths per year, prompting a need to know more about what fuels this epidemic. In March 2012, a new Surgeon General’s Report was released, entitled “Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults,” and in which the Surgeon General stated: “The evidence is sufficient to conclude that there is a causal relationship between depictions of smoking in movies and the initiation of smoking among young people.”1 Thus, much is known about the relation between exposure to movie smoking and youth smoking, but studies are only beginning to examine whether the context in which movie smoking is presented modifies its association with adolescent smoking. In a recently published experiment,2 exposure to movie clips portraying smoking as relaxing was associated with a significantly stronger desire to smoke compared with exposure to clips without a motive for the smoking. Although experimental studies allow the researcher to control exposure and serve to tease out underlying cognitive mechanisms, it is difficult to study actual smoking behavior in an experimental setting, and therefore it is hard to judge what the behavioral implications of the findings would be.

    Another way to assess context is to consider movie rating. Movie ratings are a marker for the presence of contextual elements considered to be “adult” by the ratings board. To the extent that sex, violence, profanity, and illicit drug use are considered in the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) ratings system,3 smoking in movies with an adult rating (eg, R [restricted to individuals aged ≥17 years unless accompanied by a parent or guardian]) would depict characters who model these behaviors, along with smoking. Indeed, a content analysis found that MPAA ratings can reliably distinguish levels of sex, violence, and profanity but not tobacco use.4Figure 1 depicts several examples of movie smoking by rating and a range of contexts that might be seen with movie smoking according to rating category: simple villainy (G [appropriate for general audiences]), visually stimulating (PG-13 [parents are strongly cautioned, content may not be suitable for children aged <13 years]), and violence and sex (R).

    FIGURE 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1

    Examples of different contextual treatments of movie smoking, clockwise from top left: Cruella de Vil, an uncomplicated villain in 101 Dalmatians (rated G; Walt Disney Productions, 1961); Gwyneth Paltrow smoking in the context of a sexually provocative scene in Great Expectations (rated R; 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, 1998); Ethan Hawke blowing smoke into a backlit wine glass to show what the planet Titan looks like in Gattica (rated PG-13; Columbia Pictures Corporation, 1997); and Brad Pitt smoking after a brutal fight scene from Fight Club (rated R; Fox 2000 Pictures, 1999).

    Examining how movie ratings affect the movie smoking–behavior association could have important implications on ratings for movie smoking,5 especially given that 60% of the movie smoking exposure (MSE) comes from youth-rated (almost entirely PG-13) movies.6 In the United States, an R rating for smoking would serve to effectively eliminate smoking from movies marketed to youths, based on the current business model for movie production, in which the rating is negotiated between production company and the director before movie production.7 The implication is that a production company intending to include the youth market would have to eliminate smoking in the production process, as is currently done with sex and violence to obtain the PG-13 rating. However, the hypothetical benefits of limiting MSE in youth-rated movies depends partly on how strongly the smoking in them is linked with adolescent smoking. Importantly, limiting smoking to R-rated movies would have little impact if the dose-response between smoking in youth-rated movies and adolescent smoking was small.

    In addition, if only R-rated movie smoking was linked with behavior, it would seriously undermine the idea that it is movie smoking specifically, as opposed to the sex, violence, profanity, and illicit drug use that prompts smoking onset. Indeed, a recent essay speculated that the movie smoking–youth smoking relationship might not be causal because MSE is “inextricably entangled with a host of other variables in movies…such as alcohol or recreational drug portrayal, violence, coarse language, and sexual content,”8 raising concerns about specificity. The essay went further, suggesting that it may not be the movies at all that prompt adolescents to smoke. Instead, adult movies may attract risk-taking adolescents who come to see the proscribed behaviors (ie, adolescents who end up smoking for other reasons). In this scenario, R-rated MSE would be hypothesized to be overwhelmingly strong in its ability to predict youth smoking, because R-rated MSE picks up the effect of seeing “adult” behaviors relegated to these movies and identifies unmeasured risk factors among the adolescents that see them.

    The current study examined smoking onset in a cohort of US adolescents followed up for 4 waves over a 2-year period. Exposure to smoking in movies at study onset was divided into 3 categories (G/PG, PG-13, and R) to assess the prospective relationship between each type of exposure and onset of smoking. Based on the idea that it is primarily the movie smoking that prompts adolescents to smoke (with the adult context being secondary), we hypothesized that R-rated movie smoking would have only a slightly stronger association with adolescent smoking than PG-13–rated movie smoking and that PG-13–rated movie smoking would still be an important predictor of smoking, given that it accounts for a large share of the exposure.

    Methods

    Participants and Procedure

    Participants were 6522 adolescents, ages 10 to 14 years, recruited in 2003 by using random digit dial methods described previously.9 After verbal parental consent and adolescent assent were obtained, participants were surveyed via telephone about media exposures, tobacco and alcohol use, sociodemographic characteristics, and other risk factors. Subjects were resurveyed every 8 months 3 more times, with the last follow-up at 24 months. The study procedures were approved by the Dartmouth College Committee for Protection of Human Subjects. The completion rate for the survey was 66%; distributions of age, gender, ethnicity, household income, and census region in the unweighted sample were comparable to those of the 2000 US Census.9

    Missing data/attrition increased from 7 adolescents at baseline to 2451 at 24 months. Attrition analyses indicated that adolescents lost to follow-up were more likely to be nonwhite; were from families with lower parental education/income and lived in rented versus parent-owned residences; had poorer school performance; and scored higher on sensation-seeking scales. To minimize attrition bias, estimation was carried out after multiple imputation using the missing at random assumption (missing data are missing at random conditional on covariates included in the model).10 The MICE procedure in R was used to stochastically impute missing data.11 To improve the quality of the imputations, baseline auxiliary variables that were predictive of missing data (but not necessarily the outcomes) were also included in the imputation. All variables were treated as numeric, and the predictive mean matching procedure was used to create 15 imputed values for each missing score. Convergence was assessed by checking plots of the mean and variance of the imputations for each variable across the 15 streams for signs of problems, such as trends or lack of proper mixing. No problems were apparent. For descriptive statistics, we averaged across the 15 imputations to obtain a single best estimate for each missing data point.

    Assessment of MSE Dose

    Adolescents’ exposure to movie smoking was estimated by using previously validated methods.12 The top 100 movies with highest US gross revenues each year were selected for each of the 5 years preceding the baseline survey (1998–2002, N = 500) and 32 high earners during the first 4 months of 2003. Older movies were included because adolescents often watch these movies on video/DVD. The survey randomly selected 50 movie titles from the larger pool of 532 movies for each adolescent interview. Movie selection was stratified according to the MPAA rating so that the distribution of movies in each list reflected the distribution of the full sample of movies (19% G/PG, 41% PG-13, and 40% R). Respondents were asked (no/yes) whether they had ever seen each movie title on their unique list.

    Trained coders counted the number of smoking occurrences in each of the 532 movies by using previously validated methods.13 A smoking occurrence was counted whenever a major or minor character handled or used tobacco in a scene or when tobacco use was depicted in the background (eg, brands present or “extras” smoking in a bar scene), irrespective of the scene’s duration or how many times the tobacco product appeared. We summed the number of smoking occurrences each adolescent had seen from his or her unique list of 50 movies, stratifying counts by rating blocks (G/GP, PG-13 and R categories), and scaling these counts to reflect exposure to that of the full sample of 532 movies, given the adolescent’s reported viewing habits by rating.12 To limit extreme values and reduce the effect of outliers, MSE measures were Winsorized14 at the second and 98th percentiles (values more extreme were recoded back to the second or 98th percentile value). To assess equivalent doses of exposure, the response to each increment of 500 movie smoking occurrences was modeled, which would approximate the median overall dose of MSE.

    Outcome Assessment

    Smoking initiation was assessed by asking: “Have you ever tried smoking a cigarette, even just a puff?” Those who answered “yes” were classified as having tried smoking. This measure was used rather than current (30-day) smoking because current smoking is infrequent in the early stages of cigarette use.15 Smoking initiation is an important outcome because approximately one-third of initiators go on to become addicted smokers.16,17 For the US sample, confidentiality in responses was assured in the adolescent assent statement, and subjects indicated their answers to sensitive questions by pressing numbers on the telephone.

    Covariates

    In addition to the movies viewed, other information was collected from the adolescents, including age, gender, race, parent education, household income, school performance, involvement in extracurricular activities, weekly spending money, television watching (hours per day), personality characteristics (rebelliousness, sensation-seeking propensity), parent/sibling/peer smoking, cigarette availability at home, and adolescent-reported parenting practices.18 Authoritative parenting style describes parents that are both responsive and effective in monitoring their children19; this construct has a strong and consistent track record in predicting lower levels of substance use.18,20–32 The current study used a 10-item version of the Authoritative Parenting Index,18 in which we combined results for questions about responsiveness (“he/she makes me feel better when I’m upset/listens to what I have to say”) and monitoring (“he/she asks me what I do with my friends/knows where I am on the weekend” [α = .79 survey 1, .81 survey 2]) and referenced questions to the person the adolescent viewed as the main caregiver. The assessment of other covariates and their reliabilities has been described previously.9,33 The sensation-seeking scale used here has been validated in longitudinal research and has α reliabilities comparable to other accepted scales for sensation seeking.34 To prevent problems due to outliers, covariates were Winsorized at the second and 98th percentiles.14

    Statistical Analysis

    Onset of smoking was ascertained at the 8-, 16-, and 24-month surveys. An incident case was defined as an adolescent who became a smoker from the pool of those who were not smokers at the previous survey. As a first step, generalized additive logistic models were fit to show the crude dose-response relation between the MSE according to MPAA rating and probability of smoking initiation. In addition to strong linear trends, both PG-13– and R-rated MSE had significant negative quadratic trends (significantly stronger response at lower dose ranges); however, only the negative quadratic effect for R-rated MSE remained significant after adjusting for all covariates in the full model. For ease of interpretation and because conclusions did not change, only the linear effects for all MSE measures were used (quadratic estimates available on request from the first author). For the models, MSE was entered as a continuous variable and scaled so that each 1-point increment represented an increase in dose of 500 movie smoking occurrences. To determine the association between exposure to movie smoking according to MPAA rating and time to smoking initiation, discrete time hazard survival models35–37 were fit to each of the 15 imputed complete data sets following standard procedures for pooling the estimates and obtaining SEs.11 The hazard model assessed time to onset based on data from all 3 intervals over the 24-month period. For all models, results for main effects were judged significant for P values <.05.

    Attributable fraction calculations were conducted after model fitting by obtaining the model-predicted number of events with the observed data and the model-predicted number of events when levels of MSE in our sample were altered to a low level (ie, the fifth percentile) to indicate what might happen if smoking was largely removed from movies the adolescents had watched. The attributable fractions were compared with similar assessments for sensation seeking (setting all adolescents at the lowest level), or authoritative parenting (setting all parents at the most authoritative level). For each of the 15 imputations, estimates and SEs were obtained for the attributable fractions using 100 bootstrap replications. The bootstrap estimates and SEs were then pooled across the 15 multiple imputation models using standard procedures.

    Results

    Description of the Sample

    Table 1 describes the predictor variables for the study sample at baseline. Age was equally represented and ranged from 10 to 14 years at baseline; male and female genders were also equally represented. Race/ethnicity was broadly reflective of the US population, with 11% black and 19% Hispanic ethnicity. Some 18% of families were classified as low-income, with 7% having incomes of ≤$20 000 and 11% having income between $20 000 and $29 000 per year. At baseline, 83%, 88%, and 69% of adolescents reported having no friends, siblings, or parents, respectively, who smoked, and 14% thought there was at least some chance that they could obtain cigarettes from home without their parent’s knowledge. With respect to media use, 28% watched ≥3 hours of television per day. Only 15% reported no weekly spending money, and 10% reported having >$20 per week to spend.

    View this table:
    • View inline
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Description of the Never Smoker Sample at Baseline (N = 5830)

    Dose of MSE by MPAA Rating and Its Relation With Smoking Onset

    Table 1 also displays the median and interquartile range for MSE according to MPAA rating category. High-dose (95th percentile) MSE was similar for PG-13– and R-rated movies (894 and 1002 occurrences, respectively) and ∼5 times that of the 95th percentile for G/PG-rated MSE. However, the typical (median) dose to adolescents for PG-13–rated MSE was much higher than for R-rated MSE (275 and 93 occurrences, respectively), reflecting higher viewership of PG-13–rated movies overall. The correlation between the 3 MSE variables was .53 for PG-13–rated versus R-rated movies, .18 for PG-13–rated versus G/PG-rated movies, and .15 for R-rated versus G/PG-rated movies.

    Figure 2 shows the dose-response relation of MSE according to rating category with the 8-month probability of trying smoking using all three 8-month observation periods; the unadjusted probability of trying smoking was not significantly different across the 3 periods. The null hypothesis is represented by the horizontal line set at the average probability of trying smoking (6.4%). Figure 2 illustrates the markedly larger exposure to PG-13–rated and R-rated movie smoking compared with G/PG-rated movies, for which dose did not extend past 200 occurrences, even for the most highly exposed adolescents. The relation for G/PG-rated MSE and adolescent smoking (dotted green line) was not significantly different from zero. The unadjusted hazard ratio associated with a 500-smoking occurrence dose of G/PG-rated MSE was 1.47 (95% CI: 0.65–3.36). Restricting G/PG-rated MSE to the observed range (0–165 occurrences) made the unadjusted hazard ratio even lower: 1.14 for the 95th percentile compared with fifth percentile of actual G/PG-rated MSE. In contrast, PG-13–rated (dashed red line) and R-rated (solid blue line) MSE had much larger exposure ranges and crude relations with youth smoking that were similar to each other and strongly divergent from the null hypothesis. The unadjusted hazard ratios for each 500 occurrences of PG-13–rated and R-rated MSE were 3.44 (95% CI: 2.74–4.32) and 3.14 (95% CI: 2.58–3.83), respectively.

    FIGURE 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2

    The unadjusted relation between exposure to G/PG-, PG-13–, and R-rated MSE and the 8-month hazard probability of smoking onset for US adolescents. The unadjusted probability (hazard) of trying smoking was not significantly different across each of the three 8-month follow up periods and was equal to 0.064, shown in the plot as a thin horizontal line. All 3 exposures (G/PG [dotted green line], PG-13 [dashed red line], and R [solid blue line]) were entered as linear effects. The small lines on either side of each curve represent the 95% CIs for the estimate. The model was estimated on the log odds scale by using logistic regression as is standard for discrete time survival analysis. Because the log odds scale is difficult to interpret, however, the fitted relations were converted to the probability scale. The change of scaling of the y-axis from log odds to probability creates the apparent curvilinearity.

    Table 2 shows the adjusted hazard ratios for MSE according to MPAA rating. There was no significant relation between exposure to G/PG-rated MSE and adolescent smoking. The adjusted hazard ratios for a 500-occurrence dose of PG-13– and R-rated MSE were 1.49 (95% CI: 1.23–1.81) and 1.33 (95% CI: 1.13–1.57), respectively. Wald tests showed that the MSE–youth smoking relation for PG-13– and R-rated movies was not significantly different from each other but both were significantly higher than the G/PG-rated MSE–youth smoking relation.

    View this table:
    • View inline
    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Association Between MSE According to MPAA Rating and Time to Trying (Hazard of) Smoking

    This study was designed to detect a main effect of MSE on adolescent smoking and powered to detect an overall odds ratio of 1.4 for the relation between smoking in movies and smoking onset with a power of 0.97. Power for these analyses was considerably reduced when MSE was subdivided by MPAA rating into 3 correlated variables, especially considering the small range of G/PG-rated MSE. However, additional power calculations indicated that, even with this small range, the power of the study to detect an effect similar to PG-13 MSE (an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.5 for a 500-occurrence dose) was 0.71.

    Attributable Fraction Estimation

    The attributable fraction estimate for setting all PG-13– and R-rated MSE to the fifth percentile was 0.26 (95% CI: 0.23–0.29), indicating that largely removing the risk factor would reduce smoking onset over the period by 26%. Setting PG-13-rated MSE alone to the fifth percentile (which approximates the probable impact of an R rating for smoking) was associated with an attributable fraction of 0.18 (95% CI: 0.14–0.21). For comparison, the attributable fractions for setting authoritative parenting to the highest level or sensation seeking to the lowest level were 0.16 (95% CI: 0.19–0.12) and 0.30 (95% CI: 0.35–0.25), respectively. Thus, eliminating smoking from youth-rated movies would reduce smoking by as much as making all parents maximally authoritative in their parenting.

    Discussion

    This study provided a test of whether it is primarily the smoking in movies, not the other adult behaviors that go along with it, that affects adolescents’ behavior. The dose-response between PG-13–rated MSE and youth smoking is indistinguishable from that of R-rated MSE, a finding that directly refutes speculation8 that it is other adult-oriented content or some yet-to-be-identified individual risk factor that attracts youths to R movies which causes the response. Combined with recently published experimental data that show a movie smoking effect on susceptibility to smoke using a randomized design,38 the results strongly support the idea that it is the movie smoking in PG-13- and R-rated movies that stimulates youths to smoke.

    Because exposure to PG-13–rated movies is large,39 the smoking in these movies accounts for about two-thirds of the population effect. Thus, an unambiguous R rating for smoking could reduce adolescent smoking onset by almost one-fifth, as newly produced smoke-free PG-13–rated movies come into the market and old ones lose the adolescent audience. The attributable fraction estimate for PG-13– and R-rated MSE is smaller than previous estimates in predominantly white adolescents40–42 (the pooled estimate for those studies from an earlier meta-analysis5 was 0.44 [95% CI: 0.34–0.58] compared with 0.26 [95% CI: 0.23–0.29] for this study), in part because the response to movie smoking among minority adolescents was less strong than among whites.43,44 Regardless of what the final attributable risk is, however, the public health impact of PG-13 smoking is important: it ranks on the order of the impact of parenting effectiveness.

    Not only was exposure to G/PG MSE-rated small, the relation for G/PG-rated MSE was not significantly different from zero. Low responsiveness to smoking in G/PG movies is consistent with the results of an experimental study that failed to find an effect of cartoon and G/PG movie smoking on attitudes in elementary school-aged children.45 Another similarly designed experimental study found an effect for smoking in a PG-13–rated movie.46 These 2 experimental studies, combined with our population-level results, suggest that the explanation is that smoking images delivered by G/PG cartoons and other family-oriented films fail to effectively communicate favorable expectancies or utilities for smoking. Thus, the emphasis afforded to cartoon smoking in previous studies47,48 may be misplaced from a public health standpoint. This finding also suggests that only eliminating smoking from G/PG-rated films would not reduce the effects of smoking in movies on youth smoking; there is little MSE in G/PG-rated films6,49 and what imagery is there is not particularly salient. Thus, the only effective ratings option for the MPAA in limiting the impact of MSE is an R rating for smoking.

    The causal inference for movie smoking and youth smoking mentioned earlier1 cannot be made from 1 study alone, but the findings of this study and a related publication50 are consistent with this causal interpretation. Our conclusion that it is the smoking in PG-13– and R-rated movies that prompts adolescents to smoke is strengthened theoretically on the parsimonious notion of a social modeling effect and supported by social cognitive theory.51 Our study was not powered to detect a small effect, such as that seen in the unadjusted relation between G/PG-rated MSE and adolescent smoking in this study (but it is adequate to rule out an effect similar to that of PG-13–rated movies). It also does not empirically test what might be found if smoking in G/PG movies was increased to the point that it was provided similar to exposure in other types of movies. Thus, the study cannot be used as a justification for adding more smoking to G/PG-rated movies. Finally, this study cannot tell us exactly what contextual situations are most problematic, as the study by Shadel et al2 was able to do.

    With the elimination of image-based tobacco marking, the epidemic of smoking is maintained, in part, by movie images of smoking. This study suggests that it is the depiction of smoking in movies, not other contextual variables, that matters for the onset of youth smoking. It suggests greater emphasis on reducing exposure to smoking in PG-13–rated movies through an unambiguous R rating for smoking52 and less emphasis on images of smoking commonly found in G- and PG-rated movies, which contribute little to exposure. Finally, even if the MPAA agrees to modernize its voluntary film rating system to eliminate smoking from youth-rated films, youth will still receive some exposure to smoking from R-rated movies, so it is also important to motivate and assist parents in restricting access to these movies, which would further reduce adolescent exposure to onscreen smoking.53–59

    Footnotes

      • Accepted April 16, 2012.
    • Address correspondence to James D. Sargent, MD, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, One Medical Center Dr, Lebanon, NH 03756. E-mail: james.d.sargent{at}dartmouth.edu
    • FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

    • FUNDING: Supported by the National Cancer Institute (grant CA077026) and the American Legacy Foundation. Funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    • COMPANION PAPER: A companion to this article can be found on page 221, and online at www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2011-1792.

    References

    1. ↵
      US Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2012.
    2. ↵
      1. Shadel WG,
      2. Martino SC,
      3. Haviland A,
      4. Setodji C,
      5. Primack BA
      . Smoking motives in movies are important for understanding adolescent smoking: a preliminary investigation. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010;12(8):850–854pmid:20576800
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      Motion Picture Association of America. Film ratings, 2011. Available at: www.mpaa.org/ratings. Accessed February 6, 2012
    4. ↵
      1. Tickle JJ,
      2. Beach ML,
      3. Dalton MA
      . Tobacco, alcohol, and other risk behaviors in film: how well do MPAA ratings distinguish content? J Health Commun. 2009;14(8):756–767pmid:20029709
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. Millett C,
      2. Glantz SA
      . Assigning an ‘18’ rating to movies with tobacco imagery is essential to reduce youth smoking. Thorax. 2010;65(5):377–378pmid:20435857
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    6. ↵
      1. Sargent JD,
      2. Tanski SE,
      3. Gibson J
      . Exposure to movie smoking among US adolescents aged 10 to 14 years: a population estimate. Pediatrics. 2007;119(5). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/119/5/e1167pmid:17473084
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    7. ↵
      1. Biederman DE,
      2. Pierson EP,
      3. Silfen ME,
      4. et al
      . Law and Business of the Entertainment Industries. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger; 2006
    8. ↵
      1. Chapman S,
      2. Farrelly MC
      . Four arguments against the adult-rating of movies with smoking scenes. PLoS Med. 2011;8(8):e1001078pmid:21886487
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    9. ↵
      1. Sargent JD,
      2. Beach ML,
      3. Adachi-Mejia AM,
      4. et al
      . Exposure to movie smoking: its relation to smoking initiation among US adolescents. Pediatrics. 2005;116(5):1183–1191pmid:16264007
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    10. ↵
      1. Schafer JL,
      2. Graham JW
      . Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods. 2002;7(2):147–177pmid:12090408
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. van Buuren S,
      2. Groothuis-Oudshoorn K
      . mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45(3):1–67
      OpenUrl
    12. ↵
      1. Sargent JD,
      2. Worth KA,
      3. Beach M,
      4. Gerrard M,
      5. Heatherton TF
      . Population-based assessment of exposure to risk behaviors in motion pictures. Commun Methods Meas. 2008;2(1–2):134–151pmid:19122801
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    13. ↵
      1. Dalton MA,
      2. Tickle JJ,
      3. Sargent JD,
      4. Beach ML,
      5. Ahrens MB,
      6. Heatherton TF
      . The incidence and context of tobacco use in popular movies from 1988 to 1997. Prev Med. 2002;34(5):516–523pmid:11969352
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    14. ↵
      1. Shete S,
      2. Beasley TM,
      3. Etzel CJ,
      4. et al
      . Effect of winsorization on power and type 1 error of variance components and related methods of QTL detection. Behav Genet. 2004;34(2):153–159pmid:14755180
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    15. ↵
      1. Pierce JP,
      2. Choi WS,
      3. Gilpin EA,
      4. Farkas AJ,
      5. Merritt RK
      . Validation of susceptibility as a predictor of which adolescents take up smoking in the United States. Health Psychol. 1996;15(5):355–361pmid:8891714
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Choi WS,
      2. Pierce JP,
      3. Gilpin EA,
      4. Farkas AJ,
      5. Berry CC
      . Which adolescent experimenters progress to established smoking in the United States. Am J Prev Med. 1997;13(5):385–391pmid:9315272
      OpenUrlPubMed
    17. ↵
      1. Kawakami N,
      2. Takatsuka N,
      3. Shimizu H,
      4. Takai A
      . Life-time prevalence and risk factors of tobacco/nicotine dependence in male ever-smokers in Japan. Addiction. 1998;93(7):1023–1032pmid:9744133
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Jackson C,
      2. Henriksen L,
      3. Foshee VA
      . The Authoritative Parenting Index: predicting health risk behaviors among children and adolescents. Health Educ Behav. 1998;25(3):319–337pmid:9615242
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    19. ↵
      1. Baumrind D
      . Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence. Youth Soc. 1978;9(3):239
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    20. ↵
      1. Barnes GM,
      2. Reifman AS,
      3. Farrell MP,
      4. Dintcheff BA
      . The effects of parenting on the development of adolescent alcohol misuse: a six-wave latent growth model. J Marriage Fam. 2000;62(1):175–186
      OpenUrlCrossRef
      1. Baumrind D
      . The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. J Early Adolesc. 1991;11:56–65
      OpenUrlCrossRef
      1. Beck KH,
      2. Boyle JR,
      3. Boekeloo BO
      . Parental monitoring and adolescent alcohol risk in a clinic population. Am J Health Behav. 2003;27(2):108–115pmid:12639068
      OpenUrlPubMed
      1. Chilcoat HD,
      2. Anthony JC
      . Impact of parent monitoring on initiation of drug use through late childhood. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1996;35(1):91–100pmid:8567618
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Cleveland MJ,
      2. Gibbons FX,
      3. Gerrard M,
      4. Pomery EA,
      5. Brody GH
      . The impact of parenting on risk cognitions and risk behavior: a study of mediation and moderation in a panel of African American adolescents. Child Dev. 2005;76(4):900–916pmid:16026504
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Cohen DA,
      2. Richardson J,
      3. LaBree L
      . Parenting behaviors and the onset of smoking and alcohol use: a longitudinal study. Pediatrics. 1994;94(3):368–375pmid:8065865
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Fleming CB,
      2. Kim H,
      3. Harachi TW,
      4. Catalano RF
      . Family processes for children in early elementary school as predictors of smoking initiation. J Adolesc Health. 2002;30(3):184–189pmid:11869925
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Jackson C,
      2. Bee-Gates DJ,
      3. Henriksen L
      . Authoritative parenting, child competencies, and initiation of cigarette smoking. Health Educ Q. 1994;21(1):103–116pmid:8188487
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Jackson C,
      2. Henriksen L,
      3. Dickinson D,
      4. Levine DW
      . The early use of alcohol and tobacco: its relation to children’s competence and parents’ behavior. Am J Public Health. 1997;87(3):359–364pmid:9096534
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Kandel DB
      . Parenting styles, drug use, and children's adjustment in families of young adults. J Marriage Fam. 1990;52(1):183
      OpenUrlCrossRef
      1. Latendresse SJ,
      2. Rose RJ,
      3. Viken RJ,
      4. Pulkkinen L,
      5. Kaprio J,
      6. Dick DM
      . Parenting mechanisms in links between parents’ and adolescents’ alcohol use behaviors. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2008;32(2):322–330pmid:18162066
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. O’Byrne KK,
      2. Haddock CK,
      3. Poston WS
      . Parenting style and adolescent smoking. J Adolesc Health. 2002;30(6):418–425pmid:12039511
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. ↵
      1. Stephenson MT,
      2. Helme DW
      . Authoritative parenting and sensation seeking as predictors of adolescent cigarette and marijuana use. J Drug Educ. 2006;36(3):247–270
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. Hanewinkel R,
      2. Sargent JD
      . Exposure to smoking in internationally distributed American movies and youth smoking in Germany: a cross-cultural cohort study. Pediatrics. 2008;121(1). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/121/1/e108pmid:18166530
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    23. ↵
      1. Sargent JD,
      2. Tanski S,
      3. Stoolmiller M,
      4. Hanewinkel R
      . Using sensation seeking to target adolescents for substance use interventions. Addiction. 2010;105(3):506–514pmid:20402995
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. ↵
      1. Allison PD
      . Event History Analysis: Regression for Longitudinal Event Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 1984
      1. Singer JD,
      2. Willett JB
      . Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003
    25. ↵
      1. Muthen B,
      2. Masyn K
      . Discrete-time survival mixture analysis. J Educ Behav Stat. 2005;30(1):27–58
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    26. ↵
      1. Shadel WG,
      2. Martino SC,
      3. Setodji C,
      4. Haviland A,
      5. Primack BA,
      6. Scharf D
      . Motives for smoking in movies affect future smoking risk in middle school students: An experimental investigation[published online ahead of print November 8, 2011]. Drug Alcohol Depend. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.10.019pmid:22074766
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Sargent JD,
      2. Stoolmiller M,
      3. Worth KA,
      4. et al
      . Exposure to smoking depictions in movies: its association with established adolescent smoking. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(9):849–856pmid:17768284
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. Dalton MA,
      2. Beach ML,
      3. Adachi-Mejia AM,
      4. et al
      . Early exposure to movie smoking predicts established smoking by older teens and young adults. Pediatrics. 2009;123(4). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/123/4/e551pmid:19336346
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Dalton MA,
      2. Sargent JD,
      3. Beach ML,
      4. et al
      . Effect of viewing smoking in movies on adolescent smoking initiation: a cohort study. Lancet. 2003;362(9380):281–285pmid:12892958
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. ↵
      1. Titus-Ernstoff L,
      2. Dalton MA,
      3. Adachi-Mejia AM,
      4. Longacre MR,
      5. Beach ML
      . Longitudinal study of viewing smoking in movies and initiation of smoking by children. Pediatrics. 2008;121(1):15–21pmid:18166552
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    30. ↵
      1. Jackson C,
      2. Brown JD,
      3. L’Engle KL
      . R-rated movies, bedroom televisions, and initiation of smoking by white and black adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(3):260–268pmid:17339507
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. ↵
      1. Tanski SE,
      2. et al
      . Moderation of the association between media exposure and youth smoking onset: Race/ethnicity, and parent smoking. Prev Sci. 2012;13(1):55–63
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    32. ↵
      1. Lochbuehler K,
      2. et al
      . Influence of smoking cues in movies on explicit smoking cognitions and implicit associations towards smoking among children. Pediatrics. 2012;130(2):XXXX
    33. ↵
      1. Pechmann C,
      2. Shih CF
      . Smoking scenes in movies and antismoking advertisements before movies: effects on youth. J Mark. 1999;63(3):1–13
      OpenUrl
    34. ↵
      1. Goldstein AO,
      2. Sobel RA,
      3. Newman GR
      . Tobacco and alcohol use in G-rated children’s animated films. JAMA. 1999;281(12):1131–1136pmid:10188668
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    35. ↵
      1. Thompson KM,
      2. Yokota F
      . Depiction of alcohol, tobacco, and other substances in G-rated animated feature films. Pediatrics. 2001;107(6):1369–1374pmid:11389259
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    36. ↵
      1. Polansky GS Jr
      . First-Run Smoking Presentations in U.S. Movies 1999–2006. San Francisco, CA: Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education; 2007
    37. ↵
      1. Dal Cin S,
      2. Stoolmiller M,
      3. Sargent JD
      . When Movies Matter: Exposure to Smoking in Movies and Changes in Smoking Behavior. J Health Commun. 2011;17(1):76–84
    38. ↵
      1. Bandura A
      . Social Foundations of Thought and Action. A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1986
    39. ↵
      1. Glantz SA
      . Smoking in movies: a major problem and a real solution. Lancet. 2003;362(9380):258–259pmid:12892950
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    40. ↵
      1. Dalton MA,
      2. Adachi-Mejia AM,
      3. Longacre MR,
      4. et al
      . Parental rules and monitoring of children’s movie viewing associated with children’s risk for smoking and drinking. Pediatrics. 2006;118(5):1932–1942pmid:17079564
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Dalton MA,
      2. Ahrens MB,
      3. Sargent JD,
      4. et al
      . Relation between parental restrictions on movies and adolescent use of tobacco and alcohol. Eff Clin Pract. 2002;5(1):1–10pmid:11874190
      OpenUrlPubMed
      1. Laugesen M,
      2. Scragg R,
      3. Wellman RJ,
      4. DiFranza JR
      . R-rated film viewing and adolescent smoking. Prev Med. 2007;45(6):454–459pmid:17707897
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Sargent JD,
      2. Beach ML,
      3. Dalton MA,
      4. et al
      . Effect of parental R-rated movie restriction on adolescent smoking initiation: a prospective study. Pediatrics. 2004;114(1):149–156pmid:15231921
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Stoolmiller M,
      2. Gerrard M,
      3. Sargent JD,
      4. Worth KA,
      5. Gibbons FX
      . R-rated movie viewing, growth in sensation seeking and alcohol initiation: reciprocal and moderation effects. Prev Sci. 2010;11(1):1–13pmid:19655251
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Tanski SE,
      2. Dal Cin S,
      3. Stoolmiller M,
      4. Sargent JD
      . Parental R-rated movie restriction and early-onset alcohol use. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2010;71(3):452–459pmid:20409440
      OpenUrlPubMed
    41. ↵
      1. de Leeuw RN,
      2. Sargent JD,
      3. Stoolmiller M,
      4. Scholte RH,
      5. Engels RC,
      6. Tanski SE
      . Association of smoking onset with R-rated movie restrictions and adolescent sensation seeking. Pediatrics. 2011;127(1). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/127/1/e96pmid:21135004
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    • Copyright © 2012 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
    PreviousNext
    Back to top

    Advertising Disclaimer »

    In this issue

    Pediatrics
    Vol. 130, Issue 2
    1 Aug 2012
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    View this article with LENS
    PreviousNext
    Email Article

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Academy of Pediatrics.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Influence of Motion Picture Rating on Adolescent Response to Movie Smoking
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from American Academy of Pediatrics
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Academy of Pediatrics web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Request Permissions
    Article Alerts
    Log in
    You will be redirected to aap.org to login or to create your account.
    Or Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
    Citation Tools
    Influence of Motion Picture Rating on Adolescent Response to Movie Smoking
    James D. Sargent, Susanne Tanski, Mike Stoolmiller
    Pediatrics Aug 2012, 130 (2) 228-236; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-1787

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Share
    Influence of Motion Picture Rating on Adolescent Response to Movie Smoking
    James D. Sargent, Susanne Tanski, Mike Stoolmiller
    Pediatrics Aug 2012, 130 (2) 228-236; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-1787
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Print
    Download PDF
    Insight Alerts
    • Table of Contents

    Jump to section

    • Article
      • Abstract
      • Methods
      • Results
      • Discussion
      • Footnotes
      • References
    • Figures & Data
    • Info & Metrics
    • Comments

    Related Articles

    • No related articles found.
    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

    Cited By...

    • Content analysis of tobacco in episodic programming popular among youth and young adults
    • R Ratings for Movies with Smoking?
    • Google Scholar

    More in this TOC Section

    • Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Studies Funded Under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act
    • Clinical Impact of a Diagnostic Gastrointestinal Panel in Children
    • Intrapartum Group B Streptococcal Prophylaxis and Childhood Allergic Disorders
    Show more Article

    Similar Articles

    Subjects

    • Media
      • Media
    • Journal Info
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Policies
    • Overview
    • Licensing Information
    • Authors/Reviewers
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit My Manuscript
    • Open Access
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Librarians
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Usage Stats
    • Support
    • Contact Us
    • Subscribe
    • Resources
    • Media Kit
    • About
    • International Access
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Statement
    • FAQ
    • AAP.org
    • shopAAP
    • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Instagram
    • Visit American Academy of Pediatrics on Facebook
    • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Twitter
    • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Youtube
    • RSS
    American Academy of Pediatrics

    © 2021 American Academy of Pediatrics