Journal of Health Communication, 13:667–680, 2008 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1081-0730 print/1087-0415 online DOI: 10.1080/10810730802412248

Interrupting a Narrative Transportation Experience: Program Placement Effects on Responses to Antismoking Advertising
SARAH DURKIN AND MELANIE WAKEFIELD
Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, The Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
It is thought that ‘‘transportation’’—absorption into the narrative flow of a story— may play a role in influencing resistance to persuasion. We hypothesized that advertising that disrupts the experience of narrative transportation may be adversely appraised by audiences. This study aimed to explore the influence of two types of television programs: narratives (dramas, comedies, and soap operas) versus nonnarratives (light entertainment, sports, documentaries, and news), on smokers’ reactions to antismoking advertisements. In preexposure interviews, daily smokers (n ¼ 779) were asked to watch a particular television program they usually watched. Postexposure interviews were conducted within 3 days of exposure. Results indicated that placing an antismoking ad within a program in which the viewer is focused on the narrative flow of a story may lead to reduced immediate cognitive and emotional impact of the ad and reduced intentions to quit, especially among those for whom the ad is most relevant, such as those preparing to quit smoking. Placing antismoking advertising in light entertainment, sports, documentaries, and news programs may make scarce public health dollars go further.

In recent years there has been substantial focus on which types of antismoking advertisements (ads) may be most influential (Biener, 2002; Biener, McCallumKeeler, & Nyman, 2000; Goldman & Glantz, 1998; Pechmann, Zhao, Goldberg, & Reibling, 2003; Witte & Allen, 2000), with research providing strong support for antismoking ads that evoke strong emotional responses through graphic portrayals or personal stories of the effects of smoking (Biener et al., 2000; Biener, Ji, Gilpin, & Albers, 2004; Terry-McElrath et al., 2005; Wakefield et al., 2003). There has, however, been less attention given to factors external to the ads themselves that may affect reactions, such as the context surrounding exposure to the ad (Durkin & Wakefield, 2006; Wong & Householder, 2004).
We thank the Graphic Health Warnings Campaign Research and Evaluation Committee, including Caroline Miller, David Hill, Robert Donovan, and Jenny Taylor, for help with the design of this study. We also thank the Steering Committee for the Graphic Health Warnings Campaign, especially Todd Harper and Trish Cotter. We also appreciate the contribution of the following funding organizations: Cancer Institute NSW; Quit Victoria; The Cancer Council Victoria; Quit South Australia; The Cancer Council South Australia; Queensland Cancer Fund; Queensland Health Department; Quit Tasmania; and the Northern Territory Department of Health and Community Services. Address correspondence to Dr. Sarah Durkin, Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, The Cancer Council Victoria, 1 Rathdowne Street, Carlton Vic 3053, Australia. E-mail: sarah.durkin@cancervic.org.au

667

668

S. Durkin and M. Wakefield

As most antismoking television advertising is seen in the context of a television program, it is important to consider the impact of different program contexts on the effectiveness of these ads. Research from the broader advertising domain indicates that congruity between program and advertising may increase the recall and perceived effectiveness of the advertising (Goldberg & Gorn, 1978; Sharma, 2000). In a forced-exposure experimental study, Wong and Householder (2004) found that those watching a serious antismoking ad in a ‘‘happy’’ program were more likely to think about peripheral design issues, rather than the antismoking message, compared with those watching the ad in a ‘‘sad’’ program. Wang and Calder (2006) also have explored the effects of advertising context, drawing on the theoretical idea of transportation and applying it to the context in which commercial advertising is presented in magazines. They describe transportation as the process in which ‘‘a person not only attends to information but also is absorbed into the narrative flow of a story in a pleasurable and active way.’’ Green and Brock (2000) define transportation as ‘‘a convergent process, where all mental systems and capacities become focused on events occurring in the narrative,’’ and experimental research has found that those transported by a narrative are more likely to endorse beliefs implied by the narrative. Dal Cin, Zanna, and Fong (2004) propose that narrative transportation may enhance message impact and persuasion through minimizing ability and motivation to counterargue. In the current study, we focus on whether advertising that disrupts the experience of narrative transportation may be adversely appraised by audiences. Over their three forced-exposure experimental studies, Wang and Calder (2006) demonstrated that being transported by a program positively influenced advertising that did not intrude on this transportation process but negatively influenced advertising that interrupted the ‘‘transportation experience.’’ In their first study, they found lower ratings when the ad was placed in the middle of the story than when the ad was placed at the end of the story. In the second study, intrusiveness of the ad was manipulated by increasing the personal relevance of the ad. They found lower ratings of the ad among those for whom the ad was more intrusive (i.e., more relevant to personal goals). In the third study, they found those who read an altered version of the story (i.e., the less transportable story) rated the ad more favorably than those who read the original story. In a previous study, we found that those who saw an antismoking ad within a drama, soap, or comedy were less likely to be motivated to quit than those who had seen the same ad in other less narrative-based programs (game shows, reality television; Durkin & Wakefield, 2006). Although we suggested these findings may be explained by the congruity between elements of the ad (dramatic images of what smoking does to you) and these programs (dramatic events happening to real people), it is also possible that the nonnarrative-based programs were less likely to induce the experience of transportation than dramas, soaps, or comedies and therefore not suffer from the negative effects of interrupting a transportation experience. Light entertainment, reality, game show, and other nonstory-based programs may be less likely to induce a transportation experience, as they usually do not have strong narrative story lines, whereas dramas and soaps do have strong narratives, and most comedies have narratives. It is possible that a lower level of motivation to quit after seeing the ad within a drama, soap, or comedy (as compared with a reality television or game show) may be due to the interruption of a transportation experience created by these narrative programs. Therefore, based on the findings of

Program Placement Effects on Antismoking Advertising

669

Wang and Calder (2006), we hypothesize that those exposed to an antismoking ad within a narrative program (drama, soap, or comedy) will be less likely to report favorable responses to the ad, compared with those watching the ad in a nonnarrative program. We also will explore the impact of program placement on recall and discussion of the ad. Wang and Calder (2006) also found that intrusiveness of the ad can be intensified if the ad is relevant to personal goals. Our second hypothesis is that those who saw the ad within a narrative program, and for whom the ad is particularly relevant to personal goals (i.e., those preparing to quit), will be less likely to report favorable responses to the ad than those preparing to quit who saw the ad within nonnarrative programs. We hypothesize that this difference between program types will be reduced among those for whom the ad is not as relevant (i.e., those not preparing to quit). Again, we also will explore the impact of program placement and personal goal relevance on recall and discussion of the ad.

Method
Procedure A feature of the current study is the use of a method whereby respondents view their usual television programs (with ads embedded) in their home viewing environment, as opposed to the forced exposure methods used in previous studies. We commissioned a market research agency to undertake data collection using this Natural ExposureSM advertising research (NEAR) methodology. The method involves a preexposure interview, in which participants are asked to watch a particular television program they usually watch (during which, unknown to them, the ad is scheduled to play), and then postexposure interviews are conducted within 2 days of the viewing session. Using this method, participants are exposed to the ads in their normal viewing environments while watching programs they choose to watch. Participants were recruited from the market research agency’s list of respondents to a survey conducted in the past year of more than over 55,000 Australians, which included detailed questions about television watching and use of a wide range of consumer products, including cigarettes. The sample was recruited to reflect the target group of the media campaign among whom smoking prevalence is highest in the community (selection criteria: daily smokers, aged 18–59 years, lower socioeconomic status, not university educated). Based on the initial survey, participants who fit the selection criteria, residing in the state Australian capital cities of Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, or Hobart, were approached to be involved in ‘‘a survey of people’s attitudes toward television programs.’’ Interviewers confirmed participants fit the selection criteria and whether they usually watched the television programs during which the ad was scheduled to play. During the preexposure interviews, interviewers asked how much time respondents usually watch television on a normal weekday, and respondents then were told, ‘‘We are interested in a number of lifestyle choices people make.’’ They then were asked how often they smoke cigarettes, how many cigarettes they smoke a day, and their intentions to quit smoking, which were placed in a randomly rotated order along with distracter questions about how often they drink alcohol, eat fast food, do extreme sports, and get sunburned during summer, and perceived danger to health of high cholesterol, being overweight, and being in the sun too long. Interviewers then asked respondents to watch the appropriate

670

S. Durkin and M. Wakefield

Table 1. Television program categorizations Mouth Amputation cancer (%) talks (%) 88 78 Program categorization examples CSI; Desperate Housewives; House; Cold Case; With out a Trace; Law & Order; How I Met Your Mother; Comedy Inc Rove Live; Great Outdoors; Getaway; The Footy Show; Beyond Tomorrow; Forensic Investigators

Program categorization Narrative programs: Drama, soap, or comedy

Nonnarrative programs: Light entertainment, Sport, Documentaries

12

22

Note. Those exposed to the ads during reality programs (5% of sample) were removed from the analysis as this program genre did not fit clearly into either the narrative or nonnarrative program type. Reality programs, at the outset, do not strictly fall within the definition of a narrative program (Green & Brock, 2000). They may, however, become much more like narrative programs toward the end of a series when, ‘‘characters’’, have been developed and these ‘‘characters’’, have gone through some transitions.

program this week, ‘‘paying attention to the parts that interest you and ignoring the parts that don’t.’’ The postexposure interviews of both ads were conducted in the first 3 days after their launch. In the postexposure interviews, respondents were screened to determine whether they had watched the specified program. If respondents had done so, they were then asked about program-related enjoyment, interest, and excitement, and whether they watched any of the advertisements in the program. Interviewers asked about recall, reactions to, and discussion of the ad; whether they had seen the ad more than once; and how often they had read the new graphic health warnings on cigarrette packs. To examine the effect of program type, the ‘‘light entertainment, sport, documentaries, and news’’ programs were categorized as nonnarrative, and the ‘‘dramas, soaps, or comedies’’ were categorized as narrative (see Table 1 for description of program categorizations for each ad). The scheduling of ads within different programs was controlled by marketing managers of the funding organizations (e.g., Quit organization). Therefore, we had no control over the distribution of the ads into either a narrative or nonnarrative style of program, and the scheduling resulted in an uneven distribution of the programs.

Description of the Ads In 2006, a group of 8 antitobacco organizations across 6 states in Australia produced two new emotive television ads called ‘‘Amputation’’ and ‘‘Mouth Cancer Talks’’ to capitalize on new graphic warnings on cigarettes packs, which were introduced in March 2006 (see http://www.quit.org.au). The campaign was intended to add depth and meaning to the new pictorial health warnings beyond their initial introduction.

Program Placement Effects on Antismoking Advertising

671

The ‘‘Amputation’’ ad shows a person about to undergo an amputation of their gangrenous leg with a surgeon describing how smoking caused their gangrene: Every time you inhale tobacco smoke . . . toxic chemicals go into your bloodstream and travel to every part of your body. That’s why this smoker has gangrene. I want you to think of what’s happening here . . . every time you look at your cigarette pack . . . every time. ‘‘Amputation’’ was launched in five Australian states on 1 May 2006 and ran for at least 1 week in each state. The ‘‘Mouth Cancer Talks’’ ad begins with a close-up of the pictorial mouth cancer health warning on a cigarette pack. As the camera moves away it reveals a woman with mouth cancer talking: ‘‘Smoking caused my mouth cancer. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t be needing radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Quitting is hard . . . not quitting is harder. If you don’t like looking at mouth cancer, look at another part of the pack.’’ While the woman is talking, the camera again focuses in on the mouth still talking as part of the pack and then cuts to the Quitline number on the pack. The ‘‘Mouth Cancer Talks’’ ad was launched in four states on 26 July 2006 and ran for at least 2 weeks in each state.

Outcome Measures Covariates. Preexposure interviews included questions about the amount of usual television watching on a weekday ( .10). There were no overall differences across semiprompted or fully aided recall between those who saw the ads in different program types. A significant interaction for fully aided recall indicated, however, that preparers (NNP 14%, NP 28%) and contemplators (NNP 18%, NP 30%) were more likely to remember the ads after a description was read out if they had seen the ad in a narrative program, whereas precontemplators were more likely to do this if they had seen the ad in a nonnarrative program (NNP 45%, NP 30%).

676

S. Durkin and M. Wakefield

Table 3. Recall and reactions to the amputation and mouth cancer talks antismoking television ads by program type Nonnarrative Narrative Nonnarrative programs (ref) programs versus Narrative % 4% 50% 27% % 99% 73% 83% 71% 50% 77% 59% 58% 30% % 18% 41% 30% % 92% 72% 72% 63% 37% 61% 45% 44% 39% Odds ratios 6.34Ãà 0.62t 1.19 Odds ratios 0.18 0.83 0.52t 0.73 0.55à 0.49à 0.51à 0.50à 1.56 Program type à Quitting Intentions Model v2 5.02t 3.58 6.07à Model v2 2.12 1.74 1.27 2.15 1.86 4.71t 6.35à 2.63 0.27

Program type Recall N ¼ 489 Unprompted recall Semiprompted recall Fully aided recall Responsesb N ¼ 427 Understand Believable Relevant Stop and think Tense Concern Try quit Thought of ad again Discussedc t a

p < .10. Ã p < .05. ÃÃ p < .01. All analyses were adjusted for gender, age, level of cigarette consumption, quitting intentions, whether exposed to the new graphic health warnings on cigarette packs at least sometimes, TV viewing frequency, whether had seen the ad more than once, and the different ads. b Responses also adjusted for type of recall (unprompted, semiprompted, or fullyaided). c Discussion also adjusted for whether there were any other people present when exposed to the ad.

There were no differences across types of programs on the levels of understanding and believability of the ads, or the extent to which the ad made smokers stop and think. Consistent with our first hypothesis, however, those who saw the ads while watching a narrative program tended to be significantly less likely to report the ads were relevant to them, to report feeling tense, to feel concerned about their smoking, to report the ad motivated them to try to quit, and to have thought about the ad again in the hours or days after first seeing it, than those exposed to the ads within the nonnarrative programs. Consistent with the second hypothesis, interactions indicated that there were differences between those at various levels of preparedness to quit smoking, with a trend for an interaction for feeling concerned about their smoking and a significant interaction for motivation to try to quit. Those preparing to quit who saw the ad in a narrative program were less likely to report feeling concerned (72%) about their smoking or motivated to try to quit (64%) compared with those preparing to quit who saw the ad in a nonnarrative program (both 100%, p < .05). In contrast, those contemplating quitting in the next 6 months did not show any differences in their responses to the ads between program types (Concern: NNP 79%, NP 74%, p > .10: Try to quit: NNP 66%, NP 59%, p > .10). There was a tendency for those not contemplating quitting in the next 6 months to be less likely to report feeling concerned about their smoking if they saw the ad during a narrative program, but there was no difference in likelihood

Program Placement Effects on Antismoking Advertising

677

of reporting the ad made them motivated to try to quit (Concern: NNP 64%, NP 43%, p ¼ .056: Try to quit: NNP 32% NP 20%, p > .10).

Discussion
Overall, the results of this study provide support for our prediction that smokers would respond less favorably to the emotive antismoking ads when placed within narrative programs. Smokers were less likely to rate ads placed in these programs as relevant and as making them feel tense, concerned about their smoking, motivated to try to quit, and to have thought about them again, than those seen in nonnarrative programs. These findings provide some support for an interrupted transportation experience effect as proposed by Wang and Calder (2006). Our findings for those with the goal of quitting smoking within the next 30 days provides further support for a process of interrupted transportation. These smokers who are preparing to quit are likely to have found the ad very relevant and therefore particularly intrusive. We found that those preparers who saw the ad within a narrative program were less likely to report the ad made them feel concerned about their smoking and motivated to try to quit than the preparers who saw the ad in a nonnarrative program. As predicted, program type differences were not as strong (nor significant) for those contemplating quitting in the next 6 months and those not contemplating quitting within the next 6 months, with one exception. Those not contemplating quitting showed a trend toward being less likely to report feeling concerned about their smoking if they had seen the ad within a narrative program than within a nonnarrative program. We also found that those who saw the ad within a narrative program were more likely to recall the ad in an unprompted manner, and the interaction analyses indicated that this effect was driven mostly by those contemplating quitting or in precontemplation, rather than those preparing to quit. It is possible that these findings also may be a result of interrupted transportation, whereby the disturbance of the experience of being absorbed into the narrative flow caused the ad to stand out and therefore be more likely to remain front of mind and easily recollected. Although previous research suggests that recall is important for campaign success (Borland & Balmford, 2003; Niederdeppe, 2005), there is no information about the specific impact of unprompted recall on outcomes. The unique methodology used in this study allows the examination of recall without reference to antismoking ads or health at all (‘‘Thinking about the advertising that you saw during the program, what sorts of companies, organizations, or products do you remember seeing advertisements for?’’). This usually is not possible in other population-based survey studies (e.g., Siegel & Beiner, 2000). What usually is termed unaided recall and aided recall (Niederdeppe, 2005) is analogous to our descriptors of semiprompted and fully aided recall. We found no program placement differences for either of these measures of recall. Future research is needed to examine whether there are differences between the extent to which unprompted, semiprompted, or fullyaided recall predicts attitude and behavior change. Overall, these results indicate that placing an emotive antismoking ad within a program in which the viewer is focused on the narrative flow of a story may lead to reduced cognitive and emotional impact of the ad and reduced intentions to quit. Influencing cognitive and emotive processing may be particularly important for increasing overall campaign impact, with a wealth of evidence indicating that

678

S. Durkin and M. Wakefield

message-related thoughts and emotions predict the direction and extent of persuasion (Biener et al., 2006; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Escalas, Moore, & Britton, 2004; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). These findings also indicate that this impact of antismoking ads may be particularly reduced when placed in narrative programs among those for whom the ad is very relevant as they are preparing to quit smoking. Placing antismoking ads in nonnarrative programs therefore may be especially important to effectively influence these smokers who are preparing to quit. Recent U.S. research has indicated that adult smokers are exposed to varying degrees to light entertainment (home=garden 23.3% reach; cooking 22.8% reach; entertainment news 9.9% reach), sports (34.7% reach), news programs (73.9% reach), dramas (52.1% reach), and comedies (54.9% reach; Nelson et al., 2008). This indicates that although placing emotive antismoking ads in nonnarrative programs may enhance the cognitive and emotional impact of antismoking ad messages and increase intentions to quit, it is important that placement within these programs provides the same level or greater overall exposure to smokers. If nonnarrative programs do not reach as many smokers as the narrative-style programs, any advantages of placement in nonnarrative programs may be eroded at the population level. The extent to which this varies over time with different programs on air needs to be monitored. These findings are consistent with our recent study of another emotive antismoking ad, where we also found less favorable responses among those who had seen the ad in narrative programs (comedies and dramas; Durkin & Wakefield, 2006). Also supporting these findings, a recent study of telephone Quitline calls generated from ads placed in cultural, informative, light entertainment, game show, or reality TV programs (Carroll & Rock, 2003) found calls were much higher for ads placed in these programs and were lower when ads were placed in comedies. In this study we did not measure the actual transportation experience of those who were watching narrative versus nonnarrative programs, and so we cannot be certain that it was interrupted transportation that drove the differences in responses to these different program types. It is much more likely, however, that transportation into the narrative would have occurred during a narrative-based program. Supporting this, in our preliminary analyses we found that the narrative-style programs were more likely to be judged as highly engaging than nonnarrative programs. Nevertheless, further research is required to ascertain the extent to which watching drama, soap, and comedy-style programs might induce the experience of transportation more than light entertainment, sports, documentaries, and news programs. Future research also is warranted to explore which specific programs encourage higher or lower intensities of transportation. For example, it may be likely that certain comedies may be less likely than serious dramas to induce transportation and that high transportation may be experienced during certain nonnarrative programs. It is also important to examine the extent to which reality programs might induce transportation, and if this increases over the course of a reality series as the audience gets to know the participants as they go through various challenges and transformations. A possible threat to validity of the study was selection bias, in that individuals with different characteristics may have watched different program types. In our preliminary analysis, none of the measured individual characteristics predicted watching a narrative versus a nonnarrative program. In order to account for any minor differences, in final analyses of program effects, we adjusted for all these characteristics.

Program Placement Effects on Antismoking Advertising

679

It is possible, however, that there are other unmeasured differences between the types of people who watch different programs that may influence our observed program effects (Hawkins et al., 2001; Potts, Dedmon, & Halford, 1996; Weaver, 1991). Experimental research should further examine narrative versus nonnarrative program placement effects on antismoking advertising after adjusting for these and additional potential individual difference covariates. It is also important to note the study samples were recruited from a list of participants who had agreed to complete the market research agency’s previous unrelated survey as well as this study, so the generalizability of these findings to the broader community are somewhat limited. A strength of the present research is the natural exposure methodology, however, which likely reduced the potential of priming participants and allowed for assessing reactions in a ‘‘normal’’ home viewing environment. Therefore, the findings presented here should not have been influenced by participants’ expectations of assessing a health-related campaign, and they should reflect viewers’ reactions within their usual exposure environment. In summary, these findings indicate emotive antismoking ads placed within nonnarrative-style programs may be more likely to produce stronger positive cognitive and emotive ad responses and intentions to quit, when compared with viewing ads within narrative-style programs. The practical conclusion from our study is that the placement of antismoking advertising in light entertainment and other nonnarrative-style programs may make scarce public health dollars go further, as long as these types of programs are able to reach at least equal numbers of smokers as popular dramas, soaps, and comedies.

References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2003). Information paper: 2001 census of population and housing—socio-economic indexes for areas. Catalogue No. 2039.0. Canberra, Australia: Author. Biener, L. (2002). Anti-tobacco advertisements by Massachusetts and Phillip Morris: What teenagers think. Tobacco Control, 11, ii43–ii46. Biener, L., Ji, M., Gilpin, E. A., & Albers, A. (2004). The impact of emotional tone, message, and broadcast parameters in youth antismoking advertisements. Journal of Health Communication, 9, 259–274. Biener, L., McCallum-Keeler, G., & Nyman, A. L. (2000). Adults’ response to Massachusetts anti-tobacco television advertisements: Impact of viewer and advertisement characteristics. Tobacco Control, 9, 401–407. Biener, L., Reimer, R., Wakefield, M., Szczypka, G., Rigotti, N., & Connolly, G. (2006). Relative impact of smoking cessation aids and mass media among recent quitters. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(3), 217–224. Borland, R., & Balmford, J. (2003). Understanding how mass media campaigns impact on smokers. Tobacco Control, 12, 45–52. Carroll, T., & Rock, B. (2003). Generating Quitline calls during Australia’s National Tobacco Campaign: Effects of television advertisement execution and programme placement. Tobacco Control, 12(Suppl. II), ii40–ii44. Dal Cin, S., Zanna, M., & Fong, G. (2004). Narrative persuasion and overcoming resistance. In E. Knowles & J. Linn (Eds.), Resistance to persuasion (pp. 175–191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Durkin, S., & Wakefield, M. (2006). Maximising the impact of emotive anti-tobacco advertising: Effects of interpersonal discussion and program placement. Social Marketing Quarterly, 12, 3–14.

680

S. Durkin and M. Wakefield

Escalas, J. E., Moore, M. C., & Britton, J. E. (2004). Fishing for feelings? Hooking viewers helps! Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1–2), 105–114. Germain, D. (September 2006). Graphic health warning audit. Research Memoranda for Quit Victoria (unpublished data). Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, The Cancer Council Victoria. Goldman, L., & Glantz, S. (1998). Evaluation of antismoking advertising campaigns. JAMA, 279, 772–777. Goldberg, M. E., & Gorn, G. J. (1978). Happy and sad TV programs: How they affect reactions to commercials. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 387–403. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701–721. Hawkins, R., Pingree, S., Hitchon, J., Gorham, B., Kannaovakun, P. Gilligan, E., Radler, B., Kolbeins, G., & Schmidt, T. (2001). Predicting selection and activity in television genre viewing. Media Psychology, 3(3), 237–263. Nelson, D., Gallogly, M., Pederson, L., Barry, M., McGoldrick, D., & Maibach, E. (2008). Using mass media channel data from consumer surveys to improve targeting of messages to smokers. American Journal of Public Health, 98(3), 536–542. Niederdeppe, J. (2005). Assessing the validity of confirmed ad recall measures for public health communication campaign evaluation. Journal of Health Communication, 10(7), 635–650. Pechmann, C., Zhao, G., Goldberg, M. E., & Reibling, E. T. (2003). What to convey in antismoking ads for adolescents? The use of protection motivation theory to identify effective message themes. Journal of Marketing, 67, 1–18. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press. Potts, R., Dedmon, A., & Halford, J. (1996). Sensation seeking, television viewing motives, and home television viewing patterns. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 1081–1084. Siegel, M., & Beiner, L. (2000). The impact of an antismoking media campaign on progression to established smoking: Results of a longitudinal youth study. American Journal of Public Health, 90(3), 380–386. Sharma, A. (2000). Recall of television commercials as a function of viewing context: The impact of program-commercial congruity on commercial messages. Journal of General Psychology, 127, 383–396. Terry-McElrath, Y., Wakefield, M., Ruel, E., Balch, G., Emery, S., Szczypka, G., Clegg-Smith, K., & Flay, B. (2005). The effect of antismoking advertisement executional characteristics on youth comprehension, appraisal, recall, and engagement. Journal of Health Communication, 10, 127–143. Wakefield, M., Durrant, R., Terry-McElrath, Y., Ruel, E., Balch, G., Anderson, S., Szczypka, G., Emery, S., & Flay, B. (2003). Appraisal of antismoking advertising by youth at risk for regular smoking: A comparative study in the United States, Australia, and Britain. Tobacco Control, 12 (suppl. II), ii82–ii86. Wang, J., & Calder, B. J. (2006). Media transportation and advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 151–162. Weaver III, J. B. (1991). Exploring the links between personality and media preferences. Personality and Individual Difference, 12, 1293–1299. Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27, 591–615. Wong, N., & Householder, B. J. (2004). Smoke and mirrors: Explaining the impacts of discrete emotions induced prior to and during television programming viewing, and BIS=BAS orientation on processing of an antismoking PSA. Presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.