|
Abstract
|
INTRODUCTION: In tobacco prevention campaigns, fear-appeal messages are widely used and generally shown to be effective, whereas the utility of humor appeals is less clear. This study compares the potential effectiveness of fear and humor ads developed for "The Real Cost" campaign.
METHODS: Adolescents (N=1,315) aged 13-17 years who were either experimenting with smoking or susceptible to smoking initiation were randomized to view either a single ad (of three fear and two humor ads in total) or nothing (control condition). Those in the ad viewing condition completed measures on fear, amusement, and perceived ad effectiveness. All participants completed measures on smoking attitudes and risk perceptions. Data were collected in 2014 and 2015. Analysis was performed in 2016.
RESULTS: Compared with control, both fear and humor ads produced greater risk perceptions (p<0.001). Fear ads also produced more negative smoking attitudes (p=0.001); humor ads had a similar effect on attitudes that approached significance (p=0.07). Fear ads scored higher on perceived ad effectiveness and fear, and lower on amusement than humor ads (p<0.001). In regression models, fear was a stronger predictor of perceived ad effectiveness, smoking attitudes, and risk perceptions than amusement for fear ads, whereas amusement was a stronger predictor of these outcomes than fear for humor ads.
CONCLUSIONS: Both fear and humor appeals have potential to be effective in "The Real Cost" campaign. Concurrent employment of these message strategies should help to diversify messaging and consistently recapture the target audience's attention. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled Fifth Anniversary Retrospective of "The Real Cost," the Food and Drug Administration's Historic Youth Smoking Prevention Media Campaign, which is sponsored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Language: en |