![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
Abstract
Recent research has made significant progress identifying measures of the perceived effectiveness (PE) of persuasive messages and providing evidence of a causal link from PE to actual effectiveness (AE). This article provides additional evidence of the utility of PE through unique analysis and consideration of another dimension of PE important to understanding the PE–AE association. Current smokers (N=1,139) watched four randomly selected antismoking Public Service Announcements (PSAs). PE scores aggregated by message were used instead of individual PE scores to create a summed total, minimizing the likelihood that PE perceptions are consequences of an individual's intention to quit, supporting instead the PE → AE order. Linear regression analyses provide evidence of PE's positive and significant influence on smoking-cessation-related behavioral intentions.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the funding support of the National Cancer Institute's Center of Excellence in Cancer Communication Research (CECCR) located at the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania (P20-CA095856). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health. An earlier version of this manuscript, with only one sample of participants, was presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Boston, MA, May 2011.
Notes
1. In both studies, participants received additional behavioral intention items if they answered “probably will not,” “probably will,” or “definitely will” to quit smoking completely and permanently. The additional items asked about their intentions in the next three months to buy a nicotine replacement product, seek counseling/support to help quit, and enroll in a smoking-cessation program. These items are not analyzed here because the sample would not be one of smokers in general but rather those intending to quit. Although this is an interesting and important subgroup of smokers and their intentions to use various methods to assist in quitting matters in tobacco control, they are not comparable to the full set of smokers that includes those who are very difficult to reach.
2. In reaction to the message, participants were asked to respond to the item, “I felt angry.” However, from the responses, it is unclear what their anger was directed at: the message or themselves. That is, were participants angry after watching an antismoking message because they did not like something about the message or because it reminded them they engage in a socially undesirable behavior? In Study 2, a follow-up question was asked of those who reported feeling some level of anger. Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the following two statements: “I was angry about my being a smoker” and “I was angry at the ad and its sponsors.” Unfortunately, because these follow-up questions were only asked in the second study, we were unable to include them in this paper.
3. When all independent variables were examined in the same regression model, the collinearity problem was apparent as several of the coefficient signs reversed direction from the correlations.
4. Sensation seeking was initially included in all analyses but was not significant; therefore, it was removed from the model estimations reported here.
5. Individual behavioral intention analyses were conducted with both linear and ordinal logistic regression. The significance of the ordinal logistic regression results did not differ from the linear regression results presented in this paper. Therefore, assumptions made about the dependent variable did not change the results.
6. Analyses were also conducted with a three-level ordinal measure of readiness to quit smoking (low, medium, high). The significance of the aggregate PE–behavioral intention relationships did not change in any of the models.
7. Marketing tactics messages were characterized by claims that tobacco companies use powerful and targeted (i.e., women, children, minority groups) marketing strategies. Cosmetic messages were characterized by arguments that smokers must deal with unattractive and annoying side effects like yellow teeth and bad breath. Smokers’ negative life circumstances messages were characterized by suggestions that smoking is a barrier to achieving goals important to adolescents like attractiveness/coolness and independence/maturity.
