1. Federal Trade Commission Cigarette report for 2003. Washington DC: FTC, 2005.
2. Wakefield M, Szczypka G, Terry‐McElrath Y. et al Mixed messages on tobacco: comparative exposure to public health, tobacco company and pharmaceutical company sponsored tobacco‐related television campaigns in the United States, 1999–2003. Addiction. (in press) [PubMed] 3. Landman A, Ling P M, Glantz S A. Tobacco industry youth smoking prevention programs: protecting the industry and hurting tobacco control. Am J Public Health 2002. 92917–930.930. [PubMed]
4. Action on Smoking and Health Critique of MTV Europe: “Youth smoking prevention” campaign, sponsored by BAT, Philip Morris and Japan Tobacco International. 2001. www.ash.org.uk/html/advspo/html/mtveurope.html (Accessed Aug 16, 2005)
5. Garfield B. “Tobacco is whacko”, Lorillard hits hard. Advertising Age. 1999 October 18 .
6. Beck J. Unselling tobacco: an overview of counteradvertising campaigns. TRDRP Newsletter 1999. 2(3)6–8.8.
7. Lippert B. Smoke and mirrors. Adweek . 1998 Monday, December 1424.
8. Pechmann C, Zhao G, Goldberg M E. et al What to convey in antismoking advertisements for adolescents: the use of protection motivation theory to identify effective message themes. JMK 2003. 671–18.18.
9. Bialous S A, Shatenstein S. Profits over people. Tobacco industry activities to market cigarettes and undermine public health in Latin America and the Caribbean (online document). Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization, 2002.
10. DiFranza J R, McAfee T. The Tobacco Institute: helping youth say “yes” to tobacco. J Family Pract 1992. 34694–696.696. [PubMed]
11. Goldberg F. Is PM blowing smoke in anti‐tobacco ads? Advertising Age . 1999 January 1824.
13. Farrelly M C, Healton C G, Davis K C. et al Getting to the truth: evaluating national tobacco countermarketing campaigns. Am J Pub Health 2002. 92901–907.907. [PubMed]
14. Brehm J W. A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press, 1966.
15. Brehm S S, Brehm J W. Psychological reactance: a theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press, 1981.
16. Bensley L S, Wu R. The role of psychological reactance in drinking following alcohol prevention messages. J Applied Soc Psychol 1991. 211111–1124.1124.
17. Fogarty J S. Reactance theory and patient noncompliance. Soc Sci Med 1997. 451277–1288.1288. [PubMed]
18. Bushman B J, Stack A D. Forbidden fruit versus tainted fruit: effects of warning labels on attraction to television violence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 1996. 2207–226.226.
19. Krcmar M, Cantor J. The role of television advisories and ratings in parent‐child discussion of television viewing choices. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 1997. 41393–411.411.
20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Teenage Research Unlimited Counter‐tobacco advertising exploratory summary report. Northbrook, Illinois: Teenage Research Unlimited, 1999 March,
21. Grandpre J, Alvaro E M, Burgoon M. et al Adolescent reactance and anti‐smoking campaigns: a theoretical approach. Health Communication 2003. 15349–366.366. [PubMed]
22. Rummel A, Howard J, Swinton J M. et al You can't have that! A study of reactance effects and children's consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 2000. 838–45.45.
23. Dowd E T, Milne C R, Wise S L. The therapeutic reactance scale: a measure of psychological reactance. Journal of Counseling & Development 1991. 69541–545.545.
24. Hong S ‐ M, Giannakopoulos E, Laing D. et al Psychological reactance: effects of age and gender. J Soc Psychol 1994. 134223–228.228. [PubMed]
25. Hong S ‐ M, Page S. A psychological reactance scale: development, factor structure and reliability. Psychol Rep 1989. 64(3, Pt 2)1323–1326.1326.
26. MacDonald M, Wright N E. Cigarette smoking and the disenfranchisement of adolescent girls: a discourse of resistance? Health Care Women Int 2002. 23281–305.305. [PubMed] 27. Jackson C. Perceived legitimacy of parental authority and tobacco and alcohol use during early adolescence. J Adolesc Health 2002. 31425–432.432. [PubMed]
28. Burgoon M, Alvaro E, Grandpre J. et al Revisiting the theory of psychological reactance: Communication threats to attitudinal freedom. In: Dillard JP, Pfau M, eds. The persuasion handbook: developments in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 2002.
29. American Legacy Foundation “truth” fact sheet. 2005. http://www.americanlegacy.org/americanlegacy/skins/alf/display.aspx? moduleID=8cde2e88‐3052‐448c‐893d‐d0b4b14b31c4&mode=User&action =display_page&ObjectID=7f514711‐eb01‐4d81‐939d‐9ad499256130 (Accessed Aug 22, 2005) 30. Evans W D, Price S, Blahut S. et al Social imagery, tobacco independence, and the truthSM campaign. Journal of Health Communication 2004. 9425–441.441. [PubMed] 31. Farrelly M C, Davis K C, Haviland M L. et al Evidence of a dose‐response relationship between “truth” antismoking ads and youth smoking prevalence. Am J Public Health 2005. 95425–431.431. [PubMed] 32. Sly D F, Hopkins R S, Trapido E. et al Influence of a counteradvertising media campaign on initiation of smoking: the Florida “truth” campaign. Am J Public Health 2001. 91233–238.238. [PubMed] 33. Niederdeppe J, Farrelly M C, Haviland M L. Confirming “truth”: More evidence of a successful tobacco countermarketing campaign in Florida. Am J Public Health 2004. 94255–257.257. [PubMed] 34. Pechmann C, Reibling E T. Planning an effective anti‐smoking mass media campaign targeting adolescents. J Public Health Manag Pract 2000. 6(3)80–94.94. [PubMed] 35. Fishbein M, Hall‐Jamieson K, Zimmer E. et al Avoiding the boomerang: testing the relative effectiveness of anti‐drug public service announcements before a national campaign. Am J Public Health 2002. 92238–245.245. [PubMed] 36. Pierce J P, Choi W S, Gilpin E A. et al Validation of susceptibility as a predictor of which adolescents take up smoking in the United States. Health Psychol 1996. 15355–361.361. [PubMed]
37. Pechmann C, Knight S J. An experimental investigation of the joint effects of advertising and peers on adolescents' beliefs and intentions about cigarette consumption. JCR 2002. 295–19.19.
38. Sethuraman S S. Hearing on the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) national youth anti‐drug media campaign. In: Subcommittee on criminal justice, drug policy and human resources of the United States House of Representatives, 1999 October 14 .
39. American Legacy Foundation Legacy media tracking survey II questionnaire database http://tobacco.rti.org (Accessed May 7, 2003)
40. Buboltz W C, Jr, Thomas A, Donnell A J. Evaluating the factor structure and internal consistency reliability of the therapeutic reactance scale. Journal of Counseling and Development 2002. 80120–125.125.
41. Thomas A, Donnell A J, Buboltz W C., Jr The Hong Psychological Reactance Scale: A confirmatory factor analysis. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 2001. 342–13.13.
42. SAS Institute SAS OnlineDoc, Version 8. 2 ( http://v8doc.sas.com/sashtml/ ) Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute, 2000.
43. Biener L. Anti‐tobacco advertisements by Massachusetts and Philip Morris: what teenagers think. Tobacco Control 2002. 11(suppl II)ii43–ii46.ii46. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 44. Healton C. Who's afraid of the truth? Am J Public Health 2001. 91554–558.558. [PubMed] 45. Biener L, Ji M, Gilpin E A. et al The impact of emotional tone, message, and broadcast parameters in youth anti‐smoking advertisements. Journal of Health Communication 2004. 9259–274.274. [PubMed] 46. Terry‐McElrath Y, Wakefield M, Ruel E. et al The effect of antismoking advertisement executional characteristics on youth comprehension, appraisal, recall, and engagement. Journal of Health Communication 2005. 10127–143.143. [PubMed] 47. Lorillard Tobacco Company Youth smoking prevention program. 2005. www.lorillard.com/index.php?id=5 (Accessed Aug 16, 2005)
48. Philip Morris U S A. Policies, practices, and positions: Youth smoking prevention ‐ parent communications. 2005. http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/policies_practices/ysp/communications.asp (Accessed Aug 16, 2005)
49. Lorillard Tobacco Company vs American Legacy Foundation. No. 02CVS2170, (Superior Court of North Carolina, Wake County 2003)
50. Hersey J C, Niederdeppe J, Evans W D. et al The effects of state counterindustry media campaigns on beliefs, attitudes, and smoking status among teens and young adults. Prev Med 2003. 37(6 Pt 1)544–552.552. [PubMed] 51. Hersey J C, Niederdeppe J, Evans W D. et al The theory of the “truth”: how counterindustry media campaigns affect smoking behavior among teens. Health Psychol 2005. 2424–31.31. [PubMed] 52. Arheart K L, Sly D F, Trapido E J. et al Assessing the reliability and validity of anti‐tobacco attitudes/beliefs in the context of a campaign strategy. Prev Med 2004. 39909–918.918. [PubMed] 53. Assunta M, Chapman S. Industry sponsored youth smoking prevention programme in Malaysia: a case study in duplicity. Tobacco Control 2004. 13(suppl II)ii37–ii42.ii42. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 54. Unger J B, Rohrbach L A, Howard K A. et al Attitudes toward anti‐tobacco policy among California youth: Associations with smoking status, psychosocial variables and advocacy actions. Health Educ Res 1999. 14751–763.763. [PubMed]