This study analysed the impact of anti-smoking campaigns (fear vs. humour) on emotions, perceived effectiveness, support for anti-tobacco policies, urges to smoke, and susceptibility to smoke. Participants (N = 108; 54 smokers; 54 non-smokers) were randomly assigned to one of two types of anti-smoking ads: inducing fear (N = 52) or humor (N = 56). During exposure, participants reported their emotions continuously, while physiological data (e.g., heart rate, skin conductance) was being collected using Flowsense – a multi-sensory system developed to register emotions in real time. Perceived campaign effectiveness, support for anti-tobacco policies, urges, and susceptibility to smoke, were measured after exposure. Results showed that participants in the fear appeal condition felt fear and sadness more frequently, more intensively, and for longer periods. Fear ads were also perceived more effective and decreased the urges to smoke among smokers. Nevertheless, fear was the only emotion that mediated the effects of fear appeals on the perceived effectiveness of these campaigns. Non-smokers were also more supportive of anti-tobacco policies than smokers. The data corroborate with prior studies by emphasizing the role of fear in anti-smoking advertisements on perceived effectiveness and urges to smoke, and explored how the flow of emotions can be captured continuously in persuasive campaigns.

--

fear,humor,emotional flow,perceived effectiveness,anti-smoking campaigns