Research on the impact of smoking SB1518 cues on the effectiveness of antismoking ads assessed by those trying to quit or those who have quit is lacking. This study is designed to redress some of these limitations. Smoking Cues and AS of Antismoking Advertisements There is ample evidence that various smoking cues elicit smoking urges in smokers (Hutchison, Niaura, & Swift, 1999; Killen & Fortmann, 1997; Niaura et al., 1988). Urge in turn is associated with smoking relapse (Shadel & Cervone, 2006). The results from previous studies regarding smoking cue effects in antismoking ad processing, also consistently support that such cues, despite their contributions to messages�� relevance and realism, can elicit smoking urges (Kang, Cappella, Strasser, et al., 2009; Lee, Cappella, Lerman, & Strasser, 2011).

Specifically, smokers, after viewing no-smoking-cue ads, report decreased urges to smoke on a standard 10-item smoking urge measure, but their smoking urges increase after smoking-cue ads with weak antismoking arguments (Kang, Cappella, Strasser, et al., 2009). The smokers also pay more attention to smoking-cue ads compared with no-smoking-cue ads, shown in increased heart rate for smoking-cue condition (Kang, Cappella, Strasser, et al., 2009). In addition, smokers�� unfavorable thoughts (i.e., wanting to continue smoking), employed as a proxy for smoking urges, decreased as ads�� AS increased in no-smoking-cue ads, but in smoking-cue ads, the unfavorable thoughts remained flat or increased only slightly (Lee et al., 2011).

Smoking cues also influence perceived ad effectiveness��a strong predictor of a message��s persuasiveness (Kang, 2007; Lee et al., 2011). One study found that perceived ad effectiveness decreased from no-smoking-cue to smoking-cue ads, but only for those with weak arguments (Kang, 2007). In another study, perceived ad effectiveness in no-smoking-cue condition increased as AS of antismoking ads increased, whereas in smoking-cue condition, the slope of perceived ad effectiveness was depressed, indicating that the presence of smoking cues undermines the message effectiveness (Lee et al., 2011). Similarly, antimarijuana ads with marijuana cues were also rated less favorably by high-risk adolescents than those with no cues (Kang, Cappella, & Fishbein, 2009). AS, defined as messages�� persuasive impact, is a strong and consistent predictor of persuasion (Park, Levine, Westerman, Orfgen, & Foregger, 2007).

A message is more likely to be accepted if it produces more positive than negative thoughts or if it leads to relatively little counterarguing. Strong arguments are those that generate predominately positive (i.e., pro-message) thoughts in Anacetrapib message recipients and weak arguments are those that generate unfavorable (con-thoughts) thoughts (Park et al., 2007). That is, messages with strong arguments produce less counterarguing than those with weak arguments.