Comparison of Message and Effects Perceptions for The Real Cost E-Cigarette Prevention Ads

ABSTRACT

Perceived message effectiveness (PME) is commonly used in health communication research and practice, yet there has been a dearth of studies comparing different operationalizations of the PME construct. In the present study, we compared the two major types of PME – message perceptions and effects perceptions – among N = 557 young adults. Participants were randomized to one of two conditions: 1) The Real Cost e-cigarette prevention ads developed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA condition) or 2) information-only e-cigarette control ads developed by the Mayo Clinic (control ad condition). Study predictors were message and effects perceptions measures and actual message effectiveness (AME) outcomes were risk beliefs about vaping and intentions to vape. Results showed that both message perceptions (M = 3.82 vs M = 3.29; p < .001) and effects perceptions (M = 4.13 vs M = 3.82; p < .001) were higher in the FDA ad condition compared to control. Risk beliefs about vaping were also higher in the FDA ad condition than control (M = 3.95 vs M = 3.79; p =.022), but we found no differences in participants’ intentions to vape, which were low overall (M = 1.59 in FDA vs M = 1.58 in control). In multivariate analyses adjusting for covariates and including both types of PME, only effects perceptions (not message perceptions) were associated with risk beliefs about vaping (b =.37, p < .001) and intentions to vape (b = −.26, p < .001). Our findings advance PME research by demonstrating the differing nature of message and effects perceptions, and suggest that effects perceptions should be utilized during message pretesting.

Acknowledgments

We thank Veronica Correa for her contributions to this work.

Disclosure of potential conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest with this research.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website.

Additional information

Funding

This work was funded by an internal seed grant from the Hussman School of Journalism and Media at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. SMN's work on this paper was supported by grant number R01CA246600 from the National Cancer Institute and FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP). MGH’s work on this paper was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Grant number K01HL147713. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or the Food and Drug Administration.