Literature DB >> 19372574

Uncovering the most effective active ingredients of antismoking public service announcements: the role of actor and message characteristics.

William G Shadel1, Craig S Fryer, Shannah Tharp-Taylor.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: This study examined whether the appeal of actors (i.e., their likeability and attractiveness) used in antismoking public service announcements (PSAs) interacts with adolescents' risk of future smoking to predict adolescents' smoking resistance self-efficacy and whether the antismoking messages in the PSAs further moderate this relationship.
METHODS: We used a 2 (future smoking risk: low, high) x 2 (actor appeal: low, high) x 3 (PSA antismoking message: tobacco industry manipulation, short-term smoking effects, long-term smoking effects) study design. A diverse sample of 110 adolescents (aged 11-17 years), with varying levels of experience with smoking, rated their smoking resistance self-efficacy after viewing each of the PSAs in each design cell.
RESULTS: Overall, PSAs that used long-term smoking effects messages were associated with the strongest smoking resistance self-efficacy, followed in turn by PSAs that used short-term smoking effects messages and by tobacco industry manipulation messages. We found a significant interaction of actor appeal and PSA antismoking message. The use of more appealing actors was associated with stronger smoking resistance self-efficacy only in long-term smoking effects PSAs. The use of less appealing actors was associated with stronger smoking resistance self-efficacy for tobacco industry manipulation PSAs and short-term smoking effects PSAs. Future smoking risk did not moderate any of these findings. DISCUSSION: Antismoking PSAs that emphasize long-term smoking effects are most strongly associated with increased smoking resistance self-efficacy. The effect of these PSAs can be strengthened by using actors whom adolescents perceive to be appealing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19372574      PMCID: PMC2671467          DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntp045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res        ISSN: 1462-2203            Impact factor:   4.244


  17 in total

1.  Anti-smoking advertising campaigns targeting youth: case studies from USA and Canada.

Authors:  C Pechmann; E T Reibling
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 7.552

2.  Determining the probability of future smoking among adolescents.

Authors:  W S Choi; E A Gilpin; A J Farkas; J P Pierce
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 6.526

3.  Getting to the truth: evaluating national tobacco countermarketing campaigns.

Authors:  Matthew C Farrelly; Cheryl G Healton; Kevin C Davis; Peter Messeri; James C Hersey; M Lyndon Haviland
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Exploring antismoking ads: appeals, themes, and consequences.

Authors:  Christopher E Beaudoin
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2002 Mar-Apr

5.  Confirming "truth": more evidence of a successful tobacco countermarketing campaign in Florida.

Authors:  Jeff Niederdeppe; Matthew C Farrelly; M Lyndon Haviland
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 6.  Effects of anti-smoking advertising on youth smoking: a review.

Authors:  Melanie Wakefield; Brian Flay; Mark Nichter; Gary Giovino
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2003 May-Jun

7.  Smoking cessation during the transition from adolescence to young adulthood.

Authors:  Joan S Tucker; Phyllis L Ellickson; David J Klein
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 4.244

8.  The impact of emotional tone, message, and broadcast parameters in youth anti-smoking advertisements.

Authors:  Lois Biener; Ming Ji; Elizabeth A Gilpin; Alison B Albers
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2004 May-Jun

9.  The impact of anti-tobacco industry prevention messages in tobacco producing regions: evidence from the US truth campaign.

Authors:  J F Thrasher; J Niederdeppe; M C Farrelly; K C Davis; K M Ribisl; M L Haviland
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 7.552

10.  Anti-tobacco advertisements by Massachusetts and Philip Morris: what teenagers think.

Authors:  Lois Biener
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 7.552

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Tobacco industry denormalisation as a tobacco control intervention: a review.

Authors:  Ruth E Malone; Quinn Grundy; Lisa A Bero
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 7.552

2.  Targeting anti-smoking messages: does audience race matter?

Authors:  Shannah Tharp-Taylor; Craig S Fryer; William G Shadel
Journal:  Addict Behav       Date:  2012-03-17       Impact factor: 3.913

3.  Glaucoma public service announcements: factors associated with follow-up of participants with risk factors for glaucoma.

Authors:  Zakary Hoffelt; Shawn Fallon; Brad A Wong; Betty Lucas; Anne L Coleman; Richard P Mills; Richard Wilson; Steven L Mansberger
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2011-03-24       Impact factor: 12.079

4.  Association of school social networks' influence and mass media factors with cigarette smoking among asthmatic students.

Authors:  Mariano Kanamori; Kenneth H Beck; Olivia Carter-Pokras
Journal:  J Sch Health       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 2.118

5.  Comparing belief in short-term versus long-term consequences of smoking and vaping as predictors of non-use in a 3-year nationally representative survey study of US youth.

Authors:  Emma Jesch; Ava Irysa Kikut; Robert Hornik
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 6.953

6.  What defines an effective anti-tobacco TV advertisement? A pilot study among Greek adolescents.

Authors:  Constantine I Vardavas; Emmanouil K Symvoulakis; Gregory N Connolly; Evridiki Patelarou; Christos Lionis
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2010-01-08       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Tobacco industry manipulation messages in anti-smoking public service announcements: the effect of explicitly versus implicitly delivering messages.

Authors:  William G Shadel; Craig S Fryer; Shannah Tharp-Taylor
Journal:  Addict Behav       Date:  2010-01-04       Impact factor: 3.913

8.  Physical Distancing Behavior: The Role of Emotions, Personality, Motivations, and Moral Decision-Making.

Authors:  Fabio Alivernini; Sara Manganelli; Laura Girelli; Mauro Cozzolino; Fabio Lucidi; Elisa Cavicchiolo
Journal:  J Pediatr Psychol       Date:  2021-01-20
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.