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

Abstract

Target audience ratings of the likely impact of persuasive messages, known as perceived message effectiveness (PME), are commonly used during message development and selection. PME is also used to examine receptivity of messages after they are fully developed or deployed. Despite this, we know little about the conceptual and methodological characteristics of extant PME measures used in the literature. We conducted a systematic review of tobacco education video, print, and audio campaign studies to examine conceptual and methodological characteristics of PME measures. One hundred twenty-six PME measures from 75 studies conducted in 21 countries with more than 61,000 participants were reviewed. Results indicated considerable variability in measures’ focus on general perceptions of a message (i.e., message perceptions) versus perceptions of expected message effects (i.e., effects perceptions). Considerable variability was also found on underlying persuasive constructs, use of referents, and referencing of behavior in PME items and measures. We conclude with several recommendations for future research on PME measurement and validation.

Comparing responses to public health and industry-funded alcohol harm reduction advertisements: an experimental study

“…Items (ii) and (iii) were averaged together (α=0.81) into a measure of motivation to behave responsibly and/or not get drunk, and items (iv) and (v) were averaged together (α=0.82) into a measure of motivation to limit drinking around/never supply to minors. Measures of selfreported motivation to engage in behaviour change are often included in measures of perceived message effectiveness, 36 including in a scale that has been validated as a predictor of subsequent intention and behaviour change following exposure to tobacco control ads. 37 After viewing all three ads, participants responded to three questions about their intentions to consume alcohol: In the next week, how likely is it that you will (i) avoid drinking completely, (ii) reduce the number of occasions when you drink alcohol and (iii) reduce the amount of alcohol you have on each drinking occasion.…”

Perceived Message Effectiveness and Campaign-Targeted Beliefs: Evidence of Reciprocal Effects in Youth Tobacco Prevention

“…A recent systematic review focusing on tobacco education campaigns alone found 75 studies employing 126 PE measures in 21 countries (Noar, Bell et al, 2018). The widespread use of PE is often attributed to its expected utility in message development and selection in the formative phases of persuasive campaigns (Dillard, Weber et al, 2007;Noar, Bell et al, 2018;O'Keefe, 2018a;Yzer et al, 2015). The general idea is that PE would offer a useful indicator of candidate messages' eventual ability to bring about the intended campaign outcomes once they are placed into the market.…”

“…Perceived message effectiveness (PE) has been widely used in campaign research, both as a tool to assess message potential in formative research (Dillard, Weber et al, 2007;Fishbein et al, 2002), and as a surveillance device to monitor audience receptivity during campaign implementation (Duke et al, 2015;Rath et al, 2019). The last few years have seen a surge of interest in this concept and its application, leading to increased awareness of some important gaps in the literature (Noar, Bell et al, 2018;O'Keefe, 2018aO'Keefe, , 2020Yzer et al, 2015). At the core of the ongoing discussion is the relationship between PE and the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes that campaigns are ultimately interested in (termed actual effectiveness [AE]).…”

“…While previous research suggested a robust relationship between PE and AE (Dillard, Shen et al, 2007;Dillard, Weber et al, 2007), recent reexamination of the literature has called this conclusion in question (O'Keefe, 2018a(O'Keefe, , 2020. Concurrently, there is also concern that many PE measures have been developed and put to use without rigorous validation within the proper campaign context (Noar, Bell et al, 2018). This also adds murkiness to the current evidence base.…”

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).…”