Despite efforts to create dedicated smoking areas and no-smoking signs, many smokers continue to light their cigarettes in front of public building entrances—leading to concerns over health consequences for non-smokers passing by. To increase compliance with no-smoking requests, behavioral interventions that tap into habitual and automatic processes seem promising. A pseudo-randomized controlled trial was conducted to assess the differential impact of seven behavioral interventions based on Cialdini's principles of persuasion. Over a period of 9 weeks, the number of smokers was counted (total n = 17,930 observations) in front of a German University Medical Center. Relative to a baseline and a control condition, interventions based on the principles of reciprocity, scarcity, and authority were most effective in reducing the number of observed smokers in front of the building entrance (41.5%, 45.7%, and 52.1% reduction rates, respectively). Having observed smokers' behavior in vivo, this study provides substantial evidence for the impact of persuasive strategies on outdoor smoking. In the future, this knowledge should be used to protect non-smokers from second-hand smoke by increasing the use of designated smoking areas, leave to another place to smoke, or not smoke at all.

中文翻译：

---

应用有说服力的信息来减少公共场所户外吸烟：一项伪随机对照试验

尽管努力建立专门的吸烟区和禁烟标志，但许多吸烟者仍继续在公共建筑入口前点燃香烟——这导致人们担心路过的非吸烟者的健康后果。为了提高对禁烟要求的遵守，利用习惯性和自动过程的行为干预似乎很有希望。进行了一项伪随机对照试验，以评估基于 Cialdini 说服原则的七种行为干预的不同影响。在 9 周的时间里，统计了吸烟者的人数（总数n = 17,930 次观察）在德国大学医学中心前。相对于基线和控制条件，基于互惠、稀缺和权威原则的干预措施在减少建筑物入口前观察到的吸烟者数量方面最有效（减少率分别为 41.5%、45.7% 和 52.1%，分别）。通过在体内观察吸烟者的行为，本研究为说服策略对户外吸烟的影响提供了大量证据。将来，应该利用这些知识来保护非吸烟者免受二手烟的伤害，方法是增加指定吸烟区的使用、离开到另一个地方吸烟，或者根本不吸烟。