IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v66y2008i4p970-981.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tobacco industry sociological programs to influence public beliefs about smoking

Author

Listed:
  • Landman, Anne
  • Cortese, Daniel K.
  • Glantz, Stanton

Abstract

The multinational tobacco companies responded to arguments about the social costs of smoking and hazards of secondhand smoke by quietly implementing the Social Costs/Social Values project (1979-1989), which relied upon the knowledge and authoritative power of social scientists to construct an alternate cultural repertoire of smoking. Social scientists created and disseminated non-health based, pro-tobacco arguments without fully acknowledging their relationship with the industry. After the US Surgeon General concluded that nicotine was addictive in 1988, the industry responded by forming "Associates for Research in the Science of Enjoyment" (c.1988-1999), whose members toured the world promoting the health benefits of the use of legal substances, including tobacco, for stress relief and relaxation, without acknowledging the industry's role. In this paper we draw on previously secret tobacco industry documents, now available on the Internet to show how both of these programs utilized academic sociologists, political scientists, anthropologists, psychologists, philosophers and economists, and allowed the industry to develop and widely disseminate friendly research through credible channels. Strategies included creating favorable surveys and opinions, infusing them into the lay press and media through press releases, articles and conferences, publishing, promoting and disseminating books, commissioning and placing favorable book reviews, providing media training for book authors and organizing media tours. These programs allowed the tobacco industry to affect public and academic discourse on the social acceptability of smoking.

Suggested Citation

  • Landman, Anne & Cortese, Daniel K. & Glantz, Stanton, 2008. "Tobacco industry sociological programs to influence public beliefs about smoking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 970-981, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:66:y:2008:i:4:p:970-981
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(07)00579-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rochel de Camargo, Kenneth, 2012. "How to identify science being bent: The tobacco industry's fight to deny second-hand smoking health hazards as an example," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(7), pages 1230-1235.
    2. Mamudu, Hadii M. & Hammond, Ross & Glantz, Stanton, 2008. "Tobacco industry attempts to counter the World Bank report curbing the epidemic and obstruct the WHO framework convention on tobacco control," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 1690-1699, December.
    3. Klausner, Kim & Landman, Anne & Taketa, Rachel, 2014. "“Create a Bigger Monster:” Tobacco industry actions to neutralize three landmark Surgeon Generals’ Reports," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt71b8s1c9, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:66:y:2008:i:4:p:970-981. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.