Optimizing Images for an E-Cigarette Messaging Campaign: Liking and Perceived Effectiveness
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample, Procedures, and Measures
2.2. Images and Coding
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Participants
3.2. Image Features: Liking
3.3. Image Features: Perceived Effectiveness
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Crankshaw, E.; Gaber, J.; Guillory, J.; Curry, L.; Farrelly, M.; Saunders, M.; Hoffman, L.; Ganz, O.; Delahanty, J.; Mekos, D.; et al. Final evaluation findings for this free life, a 3-Year, multi-market Tobacco public education campaign for gender and sexual minority young adults in the United States. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guillory, J.; Crankshaw, E.; Farrelly, M.C.; Alam, I.; Fiacco, L.; Curry, L.; Hoffman, L.; Ganz, O.; Delahanty, J. LGBT young adults’ awareness of and receptivity to the this free life tobacco public education campaign. Tob. Control 2021, 30, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guillory, J.; Henes, A.; Farrelly, M.C.; Fiacco, L.; Alam, I.; Curry, L.; Ganz, O.; Hoffman, L.; Delahanty, J. Awareness of and receptivity to the fresh empire tobacco public education campaign among Hip Hop youth. J. Adolesc. Health 2020, 66, 301–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarro, M.A.; Hoffman, L.; Crankshaw, E.C.; Guillory, J.; Jacobs, S. LGBT identity and its influence on perceived effectiveness of advertisements from a LGBT tobacco public education campaign. J. Health Commun. 2019, 24, 469–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cornelius, M.E.; Wang, T.W.; Jamal, A.; Loretan, C.G.; Neff, L.J. Tobacco product use among adults—United States, 2019. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2020, 69, 1736–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leventhal, A.M.; Dai, H. Prevalence of flavored e-cigarette use among subpopulations of adults in the United States. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2021, 113, 418–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villanti, A.C.; LePine, S.E.; West, J.C.; Cruz, T.B.; Stevens, E.M.; Tetreault, H.J.; Unger, J.B.; Wackowski, O.A.; Mays, D. Identifying message content to reduce vaping: Results from online message testing trials in young adult tobacco users. Addict. Behav. 2021, 115, 106778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; Office on Smoking and Health. Preventing Tobacco Use among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US): Atlanta, GA, USA, 2012.
- Vakratsas, D.; Ambler, T. How advertising works: What do we really know? J. Mark. 1999, 63, 26–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, K.C.; Nonnemaker, J.; Duke, J.; Farrelly, M.C. Perceived effectiveness of cessation advertisements: The importance of audience reactions and practical implications for media campaign planning. Health Commun. 2013, 28, 461–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duke, J.C.; Nonnemaker, J.M.; Davis, K.C.; Watson, K.A.; Farrelly, M.C. The impact of cessation media messages on cessation-related outcomes: Results from a National Experiment of Smokers. Am. J. Health Promot. 2014, 28, 242–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X.; Alexander, T.N.; Hoffman, L.; Jones, C.; Delahanty, J.; Walker, M.; Berger, A.T.; Talbert, E. Youth receptivity to FDA’s the real cost tobacco prevention campaign: Evidence from message pretesting. J. Health Commun. 2016, 21, 1153–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Perrin, A.; Anderson, M. Share of U.S. Adults Using Social Media, Including FACEBOOK, Is Mostly Unchanged Since 2018; Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Francis, D.B.; Mason, N.; Ross, J.C.; Noar, S.M. Impact of tobacco-pack pictorial warnings on youth and young adults: A systematic review of experimental studies. Tob. Induc. Dis. 2019, 17, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stevens, E.M.; Johnson, A.L.; Leshner, G.; Sun, F.; Kim, S.; Leavens, E.L.S.; Tackett, A.P.; Hebert, E.T.; Wagener, T.L. People in E-cigarette ads attract more attention: An eye-tracking study. Tob. Regul. Sci. 2020, 6, 105–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alpert, J.M.; Chen, H.; Adams, K.-A. E-cigarettes and social media: Attitudes and perceptions of young adults to social media messages. Addict. Res. Theory 2020, 28, 387–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baig, S.A.; Noar, S.M.; Gottfredson, N.C.; Boynton, M.H.; Ribisl, K.M.; Brewer, N.T. UNC Perceived message effectiveness: Validation of a brief scale. Ann. Behav. Med. 2018, 53, 732–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavallo, D.A.; Kong, G.; Ells, D.M.; Camenga, D.R.; Morean, M.E.; Krishnan-Sarin, S. Youth generated prevention messages about electronic cigarettes. Health Educ. Res. 2019, 34, 247–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villanti, A.C.; Johnson, A.L.; Ambrose, B.K.; Cummings, K.M.; Stanton, C.A.; Rose, S.W.; Feirman, S.P.; Tworek, C.; Glasser, A.M.; Pearson, J.L.; et al. Flavored tobacco product use in youth and adults: Findings from the first wave of the PATH study (2013–2014). Am. J. Prev. Med. 2017, 53, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ickes, M.; Hester, J.W.; Wiggins, A.T.; Rayens, M.K.; Hahn, E.J.; Kavuluru, R. Prevalence and reasons for Juul use among college students. J. Am. Coll. Health 2020, 68, 455–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leavens, E.L.S.; Stevens, E.M.; Brett, E.I.; Hébert, E.T.; Villanti, A.C.; Pearson, J.L.; Wagener, T.L. JUUL electronic cigarette use patterns, other tobacco product use, and reasons for use among ever users: Results from a convenience sample. Addict. Behav. 2019, 95, 178–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brewer, N.T.; Jeong, M.; Hall, M.G.; Baig, S.A.; Mendel, J.R.; Lazard, A.J.; Noar, S.M.; Kameny, M.R.; Ribisl, K.M. Impact of e-cigarette health warnings on motivation to vape and smoke. Tob. Control 2019, 28, E64–E70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Banerjee, S.C.; Shuk, E.; Greene, K.; Ostroff, J.S. Content analysis of trends in print magazine tobacco advertisements. Tob. Regul. Sci. 2015, 1, 103–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mays, D.; Villanti, A.; Niaura, R.S.; Lindblom, E.N.; Strasser, A.A. The effects of varying electronic cigarette warning label design features on attention, recall, and product perceptions among young adults. Health Commun. 2019, 34, 317–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bailey, R.L.; Wang, T.; Kaiser, C.K. Clash of the primary motivations: Motivated processing of emotionally experienced content in fear appeals about obesity prevention. Health Commun. 2018, 33, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leavens, E.L.S.; Stevens, E.M.; Brett, E.I.; Leffingwell, T.R.; Wagener, T.L. JUUL in school: JUUL electronic cigarette use patterns, reasons for use, and social normative perceptions among college student ever users. Addict. Behav. 2019, 99, 106047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jeong, M.; Zhang, D.; Morgan, J.C.; Ross, J.C.; Osman, A.; Boynton, M.H.; Mendel, J.R.; Brewer, N.T. Similarities and differences in tobacco control research findings from convenience and probability samples. Ann. Behav. Med. 2019, 53, 476–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haley, R.I.; Baldinger, A.L. The ARF copy research validity project. J. Advert. Res. 2000, 40, 114–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Image | Image Assigned# | Coding | n | Likeability M(SD) | PME M(SD) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | C, W | 39 | 3.03 (1.16) | 2.41 (1.35) | |
2 | C | 39 | 3.97 (0.81) | 1.94 (1.17) | |
3 | C, P, V | 38 | 2.74 (1.27) | 3.32 (1.30) | |
4 | C, P | 38 | 3.55 (0.95) | 2.27 (1.24) | |
5 | C, V | 37 | 3.27 (1.22) | 2.77 (1.32) | |
6 | C, P | 36 | 3.06 (0.83) | 2.59 (1.17) | |
7 | P, V, W | 38 | 3.11 (1.06) | 3.16 (1.20) | |
8 | C, D | 36 | 3.06 (1.07) | 2.17 (1.19) | |
9 | D, P | 38 | 2.74 (1.08) | 2.36 (1.27) | |
10 | C | 38 | 3.61 (1.10) | 2.54 (1.36) | |
11 | C, P | 38 | 3.08 (0.88) | 2.44 (1.28) | |
12 | C, P | 38 | 3.11 (1.11) | 2.29 (1.35) | |
13 | C, D, P | 37 | 2.62 (1.09) | 2.38 (1.22) | |
14 | P | 36 | 3.19 (0.82) | 2.83 (1.18) | |
15 | P, V | 36 a | 2.43 (1.07) | 2.92 (1.21) | |
16 | P | 38 | 3.39 (1.08) | 2.77 (1.44) | |
17 | C, P | 38 | 3.16 (1.17) | 2.49 (1.37) | |
18 | P, V | 36 | 2.39 (1.10) | 3.19 (1.08) | |
19 | P, V | 39 a | 3.05 (1.11) | 2.84 (1.41) | |
20 | P, V | 37 | 2.86 (1.23) | 3.07 (1.24) | |
21 | C, P, V | 37 | 3.27 (1.15) | 2.51 (1.31) | |
22 | P, V | 35 | 2.66 (1.28) | 2.78 (1.25) | |
23 | C, D | 36 | 3.28 (1.06) | 2.92 (1.22) | |
24 | C, P, V | 38 | 2.63 (1.32) | 2.97 (1.32) | |
25 | D, P | 37 | 3.14 (1.25) | 2.44 (1.31) | |
26 | C, W | 38 | 2.63 (1.10) | 2.75 (1.30) | |
27 | C, P | 38 | 3.58 (1.00) | 2.10 (1.32) | |
28 | V | 38 | 3.08 (1.15) | 2.76 (1.32) | |
29 | V | 37 a | 3.17 (1.23) | 2.53 (1.18) | |
30 | C, D | 36 | 2.97 (1.21) | 2.76 (1.34) | |
31 | C, D | 38 | 2.63 (1.08) | 2.91 (1.29) | |
32 | W | 38 | 2.47 (1.29) | 3.40 (1.21) |
Likeability | PE | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
M (SE) | p-Value | M (SE) | p-Value | |
Univariable models | ||||
People (vs. no people) | −0.13 (0.06) | 0.03 | 0.04 (0.05) | 0.36 |
Vapor (vs. no vapor) | −0.19 (0.06) | 0.001 | - | - |
Past 30-day EVP users | - | - | 0.21 (0.06) | <0.001 |
Not past 30-day EVP users | - | - | 0.52 (0.08) | <0.001 |
Device/e-liquid (vs. no device/e-liquid) | - | - | −0.06 (0.06) | 0.29 |
Past 30-day EVP users | 0.05 (0.08) | 0.56 | - | - |
Not past 30-day EVP users | −0.48 (0.11) | <0.001 | - | - |
Color (vs. predominantly black/dark) | 0.23 (0.06) | <0.001 | - | - |
Past 30-day EVP users | - | - | −0.15 (0.06) | 0.01 |
Not past 30-day EVP users | - | - | −0.40 (0.08) | <0.001 |
Warning (vs. not similar to image from a warning) | −0.37 (0.08) | <0.001 | 0.35 (0.07) | <0.001 |
Multivariable models | ||||
People (vs. no people) | −0.26 (0.06) | <0.001 | 0.08 (0.05) | 0.12 |
Vapor (vs. no vapor) | −0.32 (0.07) | <0.001 | - | - |
Past 30-day EVP users | - | - | 0.27 (0.07) | <0.001 |
Not past 30-day EVP users | - | - | 0.60 (0.08) | <0.001 |
Device/e-liquid (vs. no device/e-liquid) | - | - | 0.23 (0.06) | <0.001 |
Past 30-day EVP users | −0.28 (0.09) | 0.003 | - | - |
Not past 30-day EVP users | 0.80 (0.12) | <0.001 | - | - |
Color (vs. predominantly black/dark) | 0.05 (0.06) | 0.473 | - | - |
Past 30-day EVP users | - | - | 0.04 (0.06) | 0.56 |
Not past 30-day EVP users | - | - | −0.23 (0.08) | 0.004 |
Warning (vs. not similar to image from a warning) | −0.64 (0.09) | <0.001 | 0.49 (0.07) | <0.001 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Stevens, E.M.; Keller-Hamilton, B.; Mays, D.; Unger, J.B.; Wackowski, O.A.; West, J.C.; Villanti, A.C. Optimizing Images for an E-Cigarette Messaging Campaign: Liking and Perceived Effectiveness. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12989. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182412989
Stevens EM, Keller-Hamilton B, Mays D, Unger JB, Wackowski OA, West JC, Villanti AC. Optimizing Images for an E-Cigarette Messaging Campaign: Liking and Perceived Effectiveness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(24):12989. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182412989
Chicago/Turabian StyleStevens, Elise M., Brittney Keller-Hamilton, Darren Mays, Jennifer B. Unger, Olivia A. Wackowski, Julia C. West, and Andrea C. Villanti. 2021. "Optimizing Images for an E-Cigarette Messaging Campaign: Liking and Perceived Effectiveness" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 24: 12989. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182412989