One cigarette is one too many: evaluating a light smoker-targeted media campaign

Abstract

This study provides evidence that light smokers were receptive to a targeted antitobacco message encouraging use of cessation services. The campaign appears to have been particularly effective in increasing smoking-related health concerns in this group. The lack of difference in perceived ad effectiveness by smoker type suggests the potential to develop such ads without sacrificing broad impact.

Perceived Message Effectiveness Measures in Tobacco Education Campaigns: A Systematic Review

“…While the measures mentioned above have tended to focus on message perceptions or effects perceptions as their theoretical territory, several measures have included items representing both types of perceptions in the same measure (Jasek et al, 2015; Mowery et al, 2016; Wakefield et al, 2005). PME has also been assessed using single item (Biener, 2000; Stewart et al, 2011) as well as multiple-item scales (Jasek et al, 2015; Lee, Cappella, Lerman, & Strasser, 2013), and as a one-factor (Bigsby et al, 2013; Davis, Nonnemaker, Duke, & Farrelly, 2013) or multiple-factor (Brennan et al, 2014; Dillard & Ye, 2008) phenomenon. While some variability in PME measures may exist because researchers are testing messages with different goals, a larger issue seems to be the considerable ambiguity around the conceptualization of PME (Yzer et al, 2015).…”

Can I Influence You? Development of a Scale to Measure Perceived Persuasiveness and Two Studies Showing the Use of the Scale

“…Additionally, it is possible for a systematic review to miss papers due to the search terms used or the limitation of searching abstracts, titles, and keywords. Some other papers related to measuring persuasiveness were found after the review was completed, most noticeably (Feltham, 1994;Allen et al, 2000;Lehto et al, 2012;Popova et al, 2014;Jasek et al, 2015;Yzer et al, 2015;McLean et al, 2016). We will discuss how the scales developed in this paper relate to this other work in our discussion section.…”

“…Fourth, Popova et al (2014), Jasek et al (2015), and Yzer et al (2015) used multi-item scales, but without a development phase. Popova et al (2014) used five items (convincing-unconvincing, effective-ineffective, believable-unbelievable, realistic-unrealistic, and memorable-not memorable), Jasek et al (2015) 13 (boring, confusing, convincing, difficult to watch, informative, made me want to quit smoking, made me want to smoke, made me stop and think, meaningful to me, memorable, powerful, ridiculous, terrible), and Yzer et al (2015) 7 (convincing, believable, memorable, good, pleasant, positive, for someone like me). There is considerable overlap between these items and the ones we used for the scale development, though there are some items in these papers that seem more related to usability (e.g., "confusing") and some more related to feelings (e.g., "pleasant, " "terrible").…”