Anti‐smoking advertisements are perceived differently by smokers and individuals with health or advertising knowledge
Abstract Objective: Several studies have examined the characteristics of anti‐smoking advertisements that are associated with quitting behaviour. Some studies use researchers or graduate students to code advertisement characteristics, while others recruit smokers or members of the general public. Th...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2019-12-01
|
| Series: | Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12945 |
| _version_ | 1797724981193342976 |
|---|---|
| author | Natalia Lizama Terry Slevin Simone Pettigrew |
| author_facet | Natalia Lizama Terry Slevin Simone Pettigrew |
| author_sort | Natalia Lizama |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Objective: Several studies have examined the characteristics of anti‐smoking advertisements that are associated with quitting behaviour. Some studies use researchers or graduate students to code advertisement characteristics, while others recruit smokers or members of the general public. The aim of this study was to assist future campaign development by assessing whether anti‐smoking advertisement characteristics are coded differently by smokers and ‘experts’ (individuals with knowledge of health promotion, public health or advertising). Methods: A total of 49 smokers and 42 experts coded anti‐smoking advertisements according to four key characteristics (emotional/cognitive approach, negative/positive tone, message frame, and main message) and the use of eight executional techniques. Chi‐squared tests were used to measure differences in coding outcomes between smokers and experts. Results: There were significant differences between smokers and experts in the coding of all key characteristics and four of the eight executional techniques. Compared with smokers, experts were more likely to perceive advertisements as negative in tone and as inducing fear. Conclusions: Smokers and experts perceived the characteristics of anti‐smoking advertisements differently. Implications for public health: Differences between smokers and experts may need to be taken into account where studies use either of these groups to code advertisements for campaign development or evaluation purposes. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T10:24:39Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-750bbb164dd841c58b1213a5986eec54 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1326-0200 1753-6405 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T10:24:39Z |
| publishDate | 2019-12-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health |
| spelling | doaj.art-750bbb164dd841c58b1213a5986eec542023-09-02T09:52:25ZengElsevierAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health1326-02001753-64052019-12-0143652953110.1111/1753-6405.12945Anti‐smoking advertisements are perceived differently by smokers and individuals with health or advertising knowledgeNatalia Lizama0Terry Slevin1Simone Pettigrew2Cancer Council Western AustraliaCancer Council Western AustraliaSchool of Psychology Curtin University Western AustraliaAbstract Objective: Several studies have examined the characteristics of anti‐smoking advertisements that are associated with quitting behaviour. Some studies use researchers or graduate students to code advertisement characteristics, while others recruit smokers or members of the general public. The aim of this study was to assist future campaign development by assessing whether anti‐smoking advertisement characteristics are coded differently by smokers and ‘experts’ (individuals with knowledge of health promotion, public health or advertising). Methods: A total of 49 smokers and 42 experts coded anti‐smoking advertisements according to four key characteristics (emotional/cognitive approach, negative/positive tone, message frame, and main message) and the use of eight executional techniques. Chi‐squared tests were used to measure differences in coding outcomes between smokers and experts. Results: There were significant differences between smokers and experts in the coding of all key characteristics and four of the eight executional techniques. Compared with smokers, experts were more likely to perceive advertisements as negative in tone and as inducing fear. Conclusions: Smokers and experts perceived the characteristics of anti‐smoking advertisements differently. Implications for public health: Differences between smokers and experts may need to be taken into account where studies use either of these groups to code advertisements for campaign development or evaluation purposes.https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12945tobacco smokingsmoking preventionadvertisementsanti‐smoking campaign |
| spellingShingle | Natalia Lizama Terry Slevin Simone Pettigrew Anti‐smoking advertisements are perceived differently by smokers and individuals with health or advertising knowledge Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health tobacco smoking smoking prevention advertisements anti‐smoking campaign |
| title | Anti‐smoking advertisements are perceived differently by smokers and individuals with health or advertising knowledge |
| title_full | Anti‐smoking advertisements are perceived differently by smokers and individuals with health or advertising knowledge |
| title_fullStr | Anti‐smoking advertisements are perceived differently by smokers and individuals with health or advertising knowledge |
| title_full_unstemmed | Anti‐smoking advertisements are perceived differently by smokers and individuals with health or advertising knowledge |
| title_short | Anti‐smoking advertisements are perceived differently by smokers and individuals with health or advertising knowledge |
| title_sort | anti smoking advertisements are perceived differently by smokers and individuals with health or advertising knowledge |
| topic | tobacco smoking smoking prevention advertisements anti‐smoking campaign |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12945 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT natalializama antismokingadvertisementsareperceiveddifferentlybysmokersandindividualswithhealthoradvertisingknowledge AT terryslevin antismokingadvertisementsareperceiveddifferentlybysmokersandindividualswithhealthoradvertisingknowledge AT simonepettigrew antismokingadvertisementsareperceiveddifferentlybysmokersandindividualswithhealthoradvertisingknowledge |