Efficiently and Effectively Evaluating Public Service Announcements: Additional Evidence for the Utility of Perceived Effectiveness

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 anti-smoking 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.

Assessing the Consequences of Implementing Graphic Warning Labels on Cigarette Packs for Tobacco-Related Health Disparities

“…We built on findings from previous studies that have tested the effectiveness of the FDAproposed GWLs, 7,10,18,20 by assessing the potential impact of each individual warning label as well as the set of GWLs. We compared responses from those exposed to GWLs and those exposed to TWLs on quit intentions, and on eight other measures shown to be positively associated with quitting intentions or behaviors: (1) "negative emotional responses," which may play a role in message acceptance and are positively linked to thinking about the health risks of smoking, quit intentions, and quit behaviors 6,23 ; (2) "perceived effectiveness of the warning" (PE), as PE ratings of smoking cessation public service announcements have been shown to predict quit intentions and subsequent changes in smoking behavior [24][25][26] ; (3) "beliefs about the harms of smoking," as having concerns about the effect of smoking on health has been shown to predict quit attempts 27 ; (4) "intentions to talk about the warning," as smokers who talk about GWLs are more likely to quit smoking or make cessation attempts 28 ; "intentions to talk about quitting" (with either (5) "a medical professional" or (6) "a close other") as that is also predictive of increased quit intentions and behaviors 29,30 ; (7) "intentions to avoid warnings"; and (8) "intentions to hold back from smoking a cigarette as a result of warnings," as avoiding warning labels and forgoing smoking a cigarette also increases the likelihood of quitting activities as well as decreasing adolescent intentions to smoke. 31,32 We also measured reactance to see if the labels induced resistance to persuasion.…”

“…Beliefs about the harms of smoking were measured with 11 items using the 5-point agreement scale. Respondents were also asked about three intentions to talk to someone in the next 30 days using the 4-point willingness scale: likelihood of talking "to someone (such as a friend, family member, partner) about the warning on the pack of cigarettes that I just saw," "to someone (such as a friend, family member, partner) about my quitting smoking," and "to a medical professional about my quitting smoking" (adapted from Bigsby and colleagues 24 ). Finally, respondents rated how much they agreed that seeing the warning labels would make them engage in avoidance behaviors and forgo cigarettes using 5-point agreement scales.…”

“…After the first and third exposures, smokers rated their intentions to engage in three quitting-related behaviors in the next 30 days: "reduce the number of cigarettes I smoke in a day," "call a quitline," and "try to quit smoking" on a 4-point willingness scale (1 = definitely will not and 4 = definitely will; adapted from Bigsby and colleagues and Nonnemaker and colleagues 24,35 ). These items were averaged into a quit intention scale (Cronbach's α =.79).…”

“…PE was measured by the degree to which: the warning was "relevant to my everyday life," "important to me," "convincing," "believable," "accurate," "makes me think about what it would be like if the situation shown in the warning happened to me," "put thoughts in my mind about quitting," and "put thoughts in my mind about wanting to continue smoking." The last two items were subtracted to create a difference score and then averaged with the remaining items (Cronbach's α = .87; adapted from Bigsby and colleagues and Zhao and colleagues 24,34 ). Cognitive reactance was measured by the degree to which: the warning "is dishonest," "is exaggerated," "tries to manipulate me," and "makes me feel angry at the warning label and its sponsors" (Cronbach's α =.80).…”

“…Respondents had smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and currently smoked cigarettes. Young adult smokers (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25) were sampled and analyzed separately from older adults because young adults have a higher rate of cigarette smoking relative to older adults. 3 Therefore smokers were stratified by age (18-25 vs. ≥26) into our targeted groups: general population (n 18-25 = 602; n 26+ = 644), African Americans (n 18-25 = 600; n 26+ = 600), Hispanics (n 18-25 = 600; n 26+ = 600), and low education smokers (n 18-25 = 962; n 26+ = 828).…”