On the Conceptual Ambiguity Surrounding Perceived Message Effectiveness

Abstract

Health message quality is best understood in terms of a message’s ability to effectively produce change in the variables that it was designed to change. The importance of determining a message’s effectiveness in producing change prior to implementation is clear: The better a message’s potential effectiveness is understood, the better able interventionists are to distinguish effective from ineffective messages before allocating scarce resources to message implementation. For this purpose, research has relied on perceived message effectiveness measures as a proxy of a message’s potential effectiveness. Remarkably, however, very little conceptual work has been done on perceived message effectiveness, which renders its measures under-informed and inconsistent across studies. To encourage greater conceptual work on this important construct, we review several threats to the validity of existing measures and consider strategies for improving our understanding of perceived message effectiveness.

Perceived Effectiveness of Antismoking Ads and Association with Quit Attempts Among Smokers: Evidence from the Tips From Former Smokers Campaign

“…Indeed, there is a great variety in the breadth and dimensionality of PE measures used in the context of antismoking campaigns, and further research is warranted to better understand the conceptual meanings of PE (Yzer et al, 2015). However, for practical purposes in the immediate term, the empirical results regarding the PE scale we have examined appear to confirm its utility in judging the quality of cessation television ads in advance of campaign implementation.…”

“…The relationships between PE and actual ad effectiveness have been demonstrated for a range of social issues addressed in PSAs, including binge drinking, child safety, marijuana and other drug use, physical activity, sexually transmitted diseases, and calls to HIV testing hotlines, among others (e.g., Alvaro et al, 2013;Davis, Uhrig, Bann, Rupert, & Fraze, 2011b;Dillard, Shen, & Vail, 2007a;Dillard et al, 2007b). Based on this research, PE is useful in assessing the likelihood of the success of potential campaign messages before a campaign is aired when large-scale efficacy pretesting for behavioral impact is impractical (Yzer, LoRusso, & Nagler, 2015).…”

Youth Receptivity to FDA’sThe Real CostTobacco Prevention Campaign: Evidence From Message Pretesting

“…The cognitive response tradition in social psychology suggests that the eventual outcomes of persuasion are fundamentally determined by the kind of thoughts and feelings generated by message exposure (Cacioppo & Petty, 1981; Greenwald, 1968). In the same vein, health communication research has focused on message evaluations, particularly perceived message effectiveness, as important outcomes in their own right (Dillard, Weber, & Vail, 2007; Yzer, LoRusso, & Nagler, 2015; Zhao, Strasser, Cappella, Lerman, & Fishbein, 2011). There is growing evidence that perceived message effectiveness is predictive of smoking-related beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behavior (Bigsby, Cappella, & Seitz, 2013; Davis, Nonnemaker, Duke, & Farrelly, 2013; Davis, Nonnemaker, Farrelly, & Niederdeppe, 2011; Duke, Nonnemaker, Davis, Watson, & Farrelly, 2014), although this evidence is mostly limited to the adult population.…”

Message Pretesting Using Perceived Persuasiveness Measures: Reconsidering the Correlational Evidence

“…For example, participants have been asked to respond to questionnaire items asking for ratings of messages on persuasiveness, convincingness, effectiveness, and the like (e.g., Mackert et al, 2014;Popova, Neilands, & Ling, 2014), to rank-order messages in terms of persuasiveness (e.g., Mouneyrac, Le Floch, Lemercier, Py, & Roumegue, 2017;Pollard et al, 2016), or to engage in focus-group discussions concerning relative message persuasiveness (e.g., Mowbray, Marcu, Godinho, Michie, & Yardley, 2016;Record, Harrington, Helme, & Savage, 2018). For some general discussions of such measures, see Choi and Cho (2016), Noar, Bell, Kelley, Barker, and Yzer (2018), and Yzer, LoRusso, and Nagler (2015).…”