Markers of the denormalisation of smoking and the tobacco industry

School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Australia.
Tobacco control (Impact Factor: 5.15). 05/2008; 17(2):25-31. DOI: 10.1136/tc.2007.021386
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In nations with histories of declining smoking prevalence and comprehensive tobacco control policies, smoking-positive cultures have been severely eroded. Smoking, smokers and the tobacco industry are today routinely depicted in everyday discourse and media representations in a variety of overwhelmingly negative ways. Several authors have invoked Erving Goffman's notions of stigmatization to describe the process and impact of this radical transformation, which importantly includes motivating smoking cessation. Efforts to describe nations' progress toward comprehensive tobacco control have hitherto taken little account of the role of cultural change to the meaning of smoking and the many ways in which it has become denormalised.
This paper identifies a diversity of generally undocumented yet pervasive markers of the "spoiled identity" of smoking, smokers and the tobacco industry, illustrated with examples from Australia, a nation with advanced tobacco control.
We caution about some important negative consequences arising from the stigmatization of smokers.
We recommend that schemes rating the comprehensiveness of national tobacco control should be supplemented by documentation of markers of this denormalisation.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Qualitative methodologies offer various approaches to interpreting qualitative data. Here, we consider how different approaches to interpreting the same data can be useful in learning about the scope and utility of qualitative methods, as well as exploring the role of reflexivity in analytic decision-making and interpretation. We apply both thematic and discourse analysis to university students’ responses to an open-ended question about ‘women who smoke while pregnant’. We show how our interpretations differ when analytic attention is paid to the content (thematic analysis) versus the rhetorical function (discourse analysis) of participants’ responses. We also show how reflexivity, compatible with our discursive analysis, allowed us to identify the local discursive context in which the data were produced and therefore how participants oriented to this context. We use our learning experience as a way of showcasing the value of dynamic and reflexive approaches to qualitative data.
    Qualitative Research in Psychology 01/2014; DOI:10.1080/14780887.2014.902523
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is growing evidence that cigarette smoking has become a stigmatized behaviour, at least in western countries, and there is ongoing debate among experts about whether or not such stigma should be an instrument of anti-tobacco policy. We investigated French non-smokers attitudes toward cigarette smokers, using data from a telephone survey carried out in 2010 among a representative random sample of non-smokers aged 15-75 (N=3091). We carried out a cluster analysis to build contrasted attitudinal profiles and we also computed a score of stigmatization. We found evidence for the existence of stigma associated with cigarette smoking in France: a majority of French non-smokers would not date a smoker, nor hire one to take care of their children. The cluster analysis identified four contrasting profiles, corresponding to different levels of stigmatization, including one cluster whose respondents demonstrated strong levels of moral condemnation and social rejection of smokers. Older people, those with a lower educational level and those reporting financial difficulties were more prone to stigmatize smokers, while those who reported that somebody smoked in their home were less likely to do so. Those who had never smoked and those who abstained from alcohol were more prone to stigmatize smokers. Obese people were also more likely to do so (in bivariate analysis only). The process of tobacco stigmatization seems well-advanced in France, despite a cultural context that may be less permeable to this process. Further research is needed as our results raise some questions regarding its efficiency as a policy tool. First, people who are familiar with smokers are less prone to stigmatize them. More generally, simultaneously stigmatizing several categories of people may provide each of these same categories with stereotyped 'others' onto whom they can deflect their stigma.
    The International journal on drug policy 09/2013; 25(2). DOI:10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.08.009 · 2.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Australia is at the forefront of tobacco control, yet 17% of Australian women smoke during pregnancy. Negative attitudes to smoking are intensified when the smoker is pregnant, consistent with a discourse that encourages surveillance of pregnant women. Such overt anti-smoking attitudes create a context which may make it difficult for pregnant smokers to seek assistance to stop. However, there is little evidence on the extent to which pregnant smokers are stigmatised by community members. We used vignettes to examine the degree of smoking-related stigma expressed by 595 Australian university students who rated a woman, described as a mother who was smoking or not, and pregnant or not. Further, we examined whether provision of individuating information reduced the degree of stigma. Mothers described as smokers were rated more negatively than those not, particularly if they were pregnant: smokers were perceived as unhealthy, and also as bad mothers. Provision of individuating information slightly reduced these effects. These findings support the view that smokers - particularly if pregnant - are subject to negative moral judgement. Our findings contribute to the ethical debate about stigma-inducing tobacco control efforts, and suggest that anti-smoking campaigns that contextualise smoking in pregnancy might reduce stigma and assist cessation.
    Psychology & Health 01/2013; DOI:10.1080/08870446.2012.762101 · 1.95 Impact Factor


Available from