Contrary to our expectations, the AGI-6780? impact of smoking cues on former smokers�� smoking urges was not statistically significant. However, this null effect may result from several factors. The pattern of means in smoking urges across conditions was similar to that from previous studies targeting smokers. Given that eligible participants in this study had to have refrained from smoking at least 1 year and their average length of abstinence was reported to be longer than 6 years, the nonsignificant impact of cues on smoking urges might reflect the lengthy periods of abstinence with real urges substantially reduced in this sample. Also, the standard questions about smoking urge are quite direct in asking about smoking right now. Former smokers may seek to manage their impressions in the context and not admit enhanced levels of urge��despite anonymity.

Given these considerations, the absence of differences in self-reported urge may be due to factors of the specific population of long-lived abstainers or motivations to manage impressions. Subsequent studies should consider more covert measures. Our results on perceived ad effectiveness are consistent with those from previous studies. Smoking cues in weak antismoking arguments ads undermine message persuasiveness for former smokers�� ad processing as was the case for smokers. As we expected, strong antismoking argument ads were rated higher in perceived ad effectiveness compared with ones with weak antismoking arguments. In addition, when antismoking ads include smoking cues and their arguments not to smoke are weak, they were rated as the least effective among four conditions.

We also investigated the impact of smoking cues and AS on self-reported self-efficacy, attitude, and intention about smoking abstinence based on the notion that messages perceived as effective produce greater changes in beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors compared with messages perceived as weak or less effective (Barrett, Cappella, Fishbein, Yzer, & Ahern, 2009). Our results indicate that smoking-cue ads lower former smokers�� self-efficacy and intention to refrain from smoking. Further analyses were performed using data collected after the first set of outcomes only, showed that the negative effects of smoking cues on behavioral self-efficacy, attitude, and intention about smoking abstinence in former smokers were significant.

In addition, antismoking ads showing smoking cue in the context of weak antismoking arguments, which were perceived less effective than any other conditions, also led to former smokers�� reporting the lowest intention to continue abstinence among all conditions. Taken together, antismoking ads frequently use visual smoking cues to carry their message of harm Anacetrapib and risk (Terry-Mcelrath et al., 2005). However, the inclusion of such cues can undermine message effectiveness and encourage intentions to smoke when accompanied by weak antismoking arguments.