Purpose: This study aimed to determine whether placing anti-smoking campaign messages in designated smoking areas elicits psychological reactance among female smokers and to assess whether message framing (controlling vs. non-controlling) moderates the association between psychological reactance and intention to quit smoking. Methods: A quasi-experimental survey was conducted with 259 female smokers. Of these, 58 participants completed the survey before exposure to smoking-cessation messages, and 201 completed the survey after exposure. Among the exposed participants, 100 were assigned to the controlling condition and 101 to the non-controlling condition. Measures included psychological reactance, intention to quit smoking, trait reactance, smoking disclosure, and smoking-related covariates. Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance and Hayes' PROCESS Model 1, with statistical significance set at p<.05. Results: Smokers exposed to anti-smoking messages within designated smoking areas reported higher psychological reactance (mean±standard deviation: 2.10±0.94) than those not exposed (1.81±0.77), with a significant between-group difference (p=.017). Simple slope analysis revealed that psychological reactance was negatively associated with quit intention under controlling messages (B=-0.20, p=.031), but not under non-controlling messages (B=-0.05, p=.591). Conclusion: Exposure to anti-smoking messages within designated smoking areas was associated with increased psychological reactance toward smoking cessation. In contrast, autonomy-supportive, non-controlling messages attenuated this effect. These findings suggest that smoking areas may serve as strategic behavioral intervention points when campaigns employ context-sensitive, autonomy-supportive message framing. This study was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) of the Republic of Korea (KCT0012514) on 27 August 2026.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mun et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: