In the March 2003 issue of the Journal of Advertising
Research, Marvin Goldberg suggests that correlations found in his
study correspond with findings of other studies and, hence, suggest a
causal relationship between exposure to cigarette advertising (as well
as promotional items and American movies) and the smoking-related
behaviors of Hong Kong adolescents. In an earlier comment, Robert
Reitter pointed out that the study provides no evidence of causality.
We point out additional methodological flaws including inappropriate
reclassification of data, the need to consider potential sources of
bias, and lack of internal consistency of reported data. Additionally,
the design of the study does not allow for a test of the proposed
theories. We note that the study cites only literature that supports
the author's views on the effects of cigarette advertising. The
weight of the evidence from the academic literature suggests that (1)
advertising does not play a significant role in smoking initiation; (2)
advertising does not increase primary demand for cigarettes; and (3)
advertising bans do not appear to reduce demand for cigarettes in
mature markets.