Seth M Noar1, Jacob A Rohde2, Hannah Prentice-Dunn3, Alex Kresovich2, Marissa G Hall4, Noel T Brewer5. 1. Hussman School of Journalism and Media, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Electronic address: noar@email.unc.edu. 2. Hussman School of Journalism and Media, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 5. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of e-cigarette prevention ads among adolescents has seldom been studied. We examined the impact of ads from the The Real Cost vaping prevention media campaign on what adolescents think and believe about vaping. We also sought to test whether perceived message effectiveness (PME) served as a proxy for ad impact. METHODS: Participants were 543 U.S. adolescents ages 13-17. In an online experiment, we randomized participants to either: 1) persuasive e-cigarette prevention video ads from the Food and Drug Administration's The Real Cost campaign that was targeted to adolescents or 2) information-only e-cigarette harms control videos (control condition). Participants in each condition viewed 2 videos in a random order. After ad exposure, the survey assessed PME (message and effects perceptions), risk beliefs about vaping, attitudes toward vaping, and intentions to vape. RESULTS: The FDA's The Real Cost ads led to higher beliefs about the harms of vaping (p < .001), more negative attitudes toward vaping (p < .001), and lower intentions to vape (p < .05) compared to the control videos. The Real Cost ads also scored higher on both message perceptions (p < .001) and effects perceptions (p < .001) compared to control videos. Effects perceptions were associated with all three outcomes (all ps < 0.001, adjusting for both types of PME and covariates), but message perceptions did not offer additional predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to The Real Cost vaping prevention ads gave adolescents a more negative view of vaping and lowered their intentions to vape compared to control videos. Effects perceptions may be superior to message perceptions as a proxy for e-cigarette prevention ad impact.
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of e-cigarette prevention ads among adolescents has seldom been studied. We examined the impact of ads from the The Real Cost vaping prevention media campaign on what adolescents think and believe about vaping. We also sought to test whether perceived message effectiveness (PME) served as a proxy for ad impact. METHODS: Participants were 543 U.S. adolescents ages 13-17. In an online experiment, we randomized participants to either: 1) persuasive e-cigarette prevention video ads from the Food and Drug Administration's The Real Cost campaign that was targeted to adolescents or 2) information-only e-cigarette harms control videos (control condition). Participants in each condition viewed 2 videos in a random order. After ad exposure, the survey assessed PME (message and effects perceptions), risk beliefs about vaping, attitudes toward vaping, and intentions to vape. RESULTS: The FDA's The Real Cost ads led to higher beliefs about the harms of vaping (p < .001), more negative attitudes toward vaping (p < .001), and lower intentions to vape (p < .05) compared to the control videos. The Real Cost ads also scored higher on both message perceptions (p < .001) and effects perceptions (p < .001) compared to control videos. Effects perceptions were associated with all three outcomes (all ps < 0.001, adjusting for both types of PME and covariates), but message perceptions did not offer additional predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to The Real Cost vaping prevention ads gave adolescents a more negative view of vaping and lowered their intentions to vape compared to control videos. Effects perceptions may be superior to message perceptions as a proxy for e-cigarette prevention ad impact.
Authors: Jennifer C Duke; Anna J MacMonegle; James M Nonnemaker; Matthew C Farrelly; Janine C Delahanty; Xiaoquan Zhao; Alexandria A Smith; Pamela Rao; Jane A Allen Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Blair N Coleman; Benjamin J Apelberg; Bridget K Ambrose; Kerry M Green; Conrad J Choiniere; Rebecca Bunnell; Brian A King Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Lisa M Wilson; Erika Avila Tang; Geetanjali Chander; Heidi E Hutton; Olaide A Odelola; Jessica L Elf; Brandy M Heckman-Stoddard; Eric B Bass; Emily A Little; Elisabeth B Haberl; Benjamin J Apelberg Journal: J Environ Public Health Date: 2012-06-07
Authors: Ahmed Jamal; Andrea Gentzke; S Sean Hu; Karen A Cullen; Benjamin J Apelberg; David M Homa; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Angeline Sangalang; Allyson C Volinsky; Jiaying Liu; Qinghua Yang; Stella Juhyun Lee; Laura A Gibson; Robert C Hornik Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Maria L Roditis; Atanaska Dineva; Alexandria Smith; Matthew Walker; Janine Delahanty; Emily D'lorio; Kristen D Holtz Journal: Tob Control Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Anna H Grummon; Rebeccah L Sokol; Dina Goodman; Christina A Hecht; Meg Salvia; Aviva A Musicus; Anisha I Patel Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2021-10-20 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: S Elisha LePine; Elias M Klemperer; Julia C West; Catherine Peasley-Miklus; Caitlin McCluskey; Amanda Jones; Maria Roemhildt; Megan Trutor; Rhonda Williams; Andrea Villanti Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Joanne G Patterson; Brittney Keller-Hamilton; Amelia V Wedel; Theodore L Wagener; Elise M Stevens Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 4.852
Authors: Seth M Noar; Nisha Gottfredson; Rhyan N Vereen; Rachel Kurtzman; Jennifer Mendel Sheldon; Elizabeth Adams; Marissa G Hall; Noel T Brewer Journal: Tob Control Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 6.953
Authors: Jennifer Cornacchione Ross; Allison J Lazard; Jessica L King; Seth M Noar; Beth A Reboussin; Desmond Jenson; Erin L Sutfin Journal: Tob Control Date: 2021-07-30 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Andrea C Villanti; S Elisha LePine; Julia C West; Tess Boley Cruz; Elise M Stevens; Haley J Tetreault; Jennifer B Unger; Olivia A Wackowski; Darren Mays Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Andrea S Gentzke; Teresa W Wang; Monica Cornelius; Eunice Park-Lee; Chunfeng Ren; Michael D Sawdey; Karen A Cullen; Caitlin Loretan; Ahmed Jamal; David M Homa Journal: MMWR Surveill Summ Date: 2022-03-11