How Smokers Think about Death

Do graphic warning labels on cigarette packages really deter people from lighting up?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In 2012 the U.S. will join dozens of nations around the world in labeling cigarette packages with large photographs of diseased organs, amputated limbs and other gruesome images. Previous research has borne out the idea that when people see images of cigarette-induced ailments, they are reminded of their own mortality. But a study presented in May at the annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science suggests that reminders of mortality might not always have the desired effect.

Jamie Arndt, a psychologist at the University of Missouri, had student smokers complete questionnaires designed to induce either thoughts of their own mortality or thoughts about failing an exam. Then the researchers offered the students a cigarette and measured every person’s smoking intensity—each puff’s volume, flow and duration. Students who did not smoke often indeed smoked with less passion after being reminded of their own mortality, as compared with the light smok­ers who read about failing an exam. As Arndt explains, the infrequent smokers may have been responding to thoughts of death by trying to reduce their own vulnerability. But students who were heavy smokers reacted to thoughts of death by taking even harder drags on their cigarettes. Arndt suggests they might have been sub­conscious­ly attempting to dispel a negative mood with an enjoyable activity. Although the reason is unclear, the finding suggests that the psychology involved in smoking and thinking about death is more complicated than previously assumed. Therefore, graphic warning labels on cigarettes might not have the intended effect on everyone who sees them.

About Karen Schrock

Kate Schrock has been an editor of Scientific American MIND since 2007, where she edits feature articles and runs Head Lines, the magazine's news department. After studying astronomy and physics at the University of Southern California, she worked in the Laboratory of Neuro Imaging at the University of California, Los Angeles, studying the brain structure of people with schizophrenia. She then enrolled in the Science, Health and Environmental Reporting program at New York University, where she earned a master's degree in journalism.

More by Karen Schrock
SA Mind Vol 21 Issue 4This article was published with the title “How Smokers Think about Death” in SA Mind Vol. 21 No. 4 (), p. 12
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0910-12b

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe