The impacts of parasocial interaction on the effectiveness

The impacts of parasocial interaction on the effectiveness of antismoking PSAs: Examining the role of parasocial interaction,

metacognition, and attitude certainty in attitude change

by

Boni Cui, B.A.

A Dissertation

In

Media and Communication

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Approved

Melanie A. Sarge, PhD Chair of Committee

Glenn Cummins, PhD

Jessica Alquist, PhD

Rebecca Ortiz, PhD

Mark Sheridan, PhD Dean of the Graduate School

August, 2015

© 2015, Boni Cui

Texas Tech University, Boni Cui, August 2015

ii

Acknowledgments

A lot of things in our lives are not planned. To me, earning a PhD degree was planned,

but the four years of time at TTU pursuing it is beyond my imagination. Learning itself is an

endless journey that is fun, engaging, challenging, and exhausting. Although it might be too early

to claim that the years in Lubbock are the most unique and precious time of my life, I can’t help

but miss my school days at TTU already.

Finishing a dissertation is truly an accomplishment. I would like to thank all of those

people who have helped me travelling all the way here. First of all, I could not done this

dissertation without the invaluable helps of Dr. Sarge, my committee chair. She has spent so

much time patiently with me discussing and revising the studies. Her suggestions have saved my

dissertation several times from getting stuck at a dead end. Because of her support, a simple

research question I had for the dissertation has been materialized eventually into comprehensive

studies. I truly appreciate your help, Dr. Sarge.

And I am very grateful to have Dr. Cummins in my committee. Knowing he is there is

already a relief because of his solid research background and academic reputation. I have learned

so many things from the years I spent taking his classes and working with him. My academic

mind is cultivated under the great influence of him. And my skills of using psychophysiological

apparatuses are learned from him.

Thanks to my committee members, Dr. Sarge, Dr. Cummins, Dr. Ortiz and Dr. Alquist

for providing critical feedbacks about my study design and structure. Your questions and

comments have forced me to think, think, and rethink the study in different angles. The great

improvement from the proposal to the final work will not be possible without all of your input.


iii

Also, I would like to thank my cohort 2011 and those who always back me up, especially

Sha li, Harrison Gong, Yvonne Qiu, and James Zhang. I would be totally insane if you were not

here for me. Thank you for the great times we spent together talking about everything. And I am

grateful to have Jessica El-Khoury and Mahrnaz Rahimi as my friends and classmates. They

made group works more fun than dry. And I will not forget how a hardworking and honest

person Mahrnaz is when I discovered that she is the only one who actually completed the reading

assignment and marked every key points on the book.

Finally, I dedicate this work to my parents, my mother Tu Xiaowen and my father Cui

Dongwei. My mother is the reason for writing this dissertation, to dissuade her from consuming

more packs of cigarettes. Thank you for your love, support, understanding, and encouragement.

We are in different time zones. My parents stay up at night waiting for my online calls just to

listen to my voice. They ask a little, but give a lot. I love you all.

我很怀念这段时光，因为有你们的支持。我爱你们。

谢谢！


iv

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... ii

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ vii

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. viii

Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

Chapter II. OVERVIEW OF ANTISMOKING CAMPAIGNS: WHAT IS EFFECTIVE AND WHAT IS INEFFECTIVE ....................................................... 3

Meta-analysis on the Effectiveness of Antismoking Campaigns ..................................... 3

Effective and Ineffective Elements of Antismoking Messages ........................................ 5

Chapter III. PARASOCIAL INTERACTION ......................................................................... 11

Conceptualization .............................................................................................................. 11

Eliciting Parasocial Interaction ........................................................................................ 16

Consequences of Parasocial Interaction .......................................................................... 19

Chapter IV. INTEGRATING THE ELM AND METACOGNITIVE APPRAISALS ........ 23

Brief Overview of the ELM and Thought Confidence ................................................... 24

The Current Study ............................................................................................................ 29

Chapter V. METHOD AND RESULTS ................................................................................... 33

Overview ............................................................................................................................. 33

Study 1 ................................................................................................................................ 34

Participants. .............................................................................................................. 34

Procedure. ................................................................................................................. 35


v

Stimulus. .................................................................................................................... 35

Measures. .................................................................................................................. 36

Data Analysis. ........................................................................................................... 38

Results. ...................................................................................................................... 38

Study 1 Discussion. ................................................................................................... 40

Study 2 ................................................................................................................................ 41

Participants. .............................................................................................................. 41

Procedure. ................................................................................................................. 42

Stimulus. .................................................................................................................... 43

Measures. .................................................................................................................. 44

Data Analysis. ........................................................................................................... 48

Results. ...................................................................................................................... 48

Study 2 Discussion. ................................................................................................... 54

Chapter VI. GENERAL DISCUSSION .................................................................................... 59

Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 59

PSI and Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) .............................................................. 62

PSI, Parasocial Relationship, and Transportation ......................................................... 63

Meta-cognition in the ELM .............................................................................................. 69

Limitations and Future Studies ........................................................................................ 71

Brief Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 74

References .................................................................................................................................... 77

Appendix A. Images of Experimental PSAs ............................................................................. 87


vi

Appendix B. Study 1 Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 88

Appendix C. Study 2 Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 90

Appendix D. Study 1 IRB Approval Letter .............................................................................. 94

Appendix E. Study 2 IRB Approval Letter .............................................................................. 96


vii

Abstract

The current dissertation explores the potential for parasocial interaction (PSI), a form of pseudo-

interpersonal communication between the spectacular and the mediated personae, to enhance

message processing and evaluation of anti-smoking PSAs. The outcomes measured include

certainty of attitude toward smoking, attitude toward smoking, and intention to quit. This

dissertation includes two studies. The first study examines the ability for addressing style of a

mediated character to trigger experienced PSI (EPSI), while the second examines the link

between EPSI and cognitive elaboration. Finally, a moderated mediation model was analyzed

that takes metacognition or cognitive appraisal of message-relevant thoughts and perceived

quality of the message into account when determining the effects of cognitive elaboration on

attitude certainty. Overall, the data suggests evidence for the relationship between addressing

style and EPSI, and between EPSI and cognitive elaboration. However, the moderated mediation

model was only partially supported by the data. Implications for the use of EPSI as an

advantageous motivational factor engaging smokers in careful thinking about antismoking

messages are discussed.


viii

List of Figures

1. Effects of addressing style on cognitive elaboration through PSI .......................................................... 22

2. The integrated ELM model with cognitive appraisal and attitude certainty. .......................................... 28

3. Conceptual model of PSI and the integrated ELM ................................................................................. 30

4. Interaction effect of cognitive elaboration and perceived persuasiveness on appraisal of resistance. ... 53

5. Estimates of effects of cognitive elaboration on attitude certainty though cognitive appraisals depends on perceived persuasiveness. .............................................................................................................. 57


1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco use is still the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the

United States (BeTobaccoFree.gov, n.d.), despite the annual decrease in the number of

smokers in the U.S. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.). Revenue from

cigarette sales generates huge profits (an estimated $35.1 billion in 2010) for the U.S.

tobacco industry, which is accompanied by an estimated 6 million deaths per year

(worldlungfundation.org, 2012). And rather than generating economic benefits for the

public, tobacco production and consumption cast a heavy economic burden and financial

harm on the public. An estimated $193 billion were spent every year for treating smoking

related diseases in the U.S (worldlungfundation.org, 2012).

Because of its harmful consequences, western governments announced a series of

policies to prevent people from smoking and to decrease the prevalence of smokers. For

example, the government restricts smoking by increasing taxes on tobacco products,

prohibiting public smoking, banning tobacco advertisements on the air, and financing

antismoking PSAs. However, according to the latest data available (Federal Trade

Commission, 2013), the tobacco companies spent far more dollars in promoting

cigarettes sales, which was 8.37 billion in 2013, than the amount spent by the government

and the public health organizations on developing and broadcasting anti-tobacco

campaigns.

Due to the limitation of economic resources available for antismoking campaign

creators and uncertainty regarding the impact of such content on the public, researchers


2

have examined the effectiveness of aired antismoking messages. Some findings have

revealed that public service announcements (PSAs) featuring emotional testimonies of

smokers are among the most effective (e.g. Burkin, Biener, & Wakefield, 2009). Using

mediated channels that feature a character telling their story fosters high levels of

attention and involvement (Giles, 2002). Creators of mediated antismoking messages

may not have the concept of parasocial interaction, the imaginary and one-sided social

communication between the viewer and the mediated character (Horton and Wohl, 1956),

in mind when they design antismoking campaigns. However, the theoretical construct

could provide an explanation as to why those emotional testimonial PSAs aired on TV or

the Internet are particularly effective. To preserve the positive outcomes and maximize

the benefits of such PSAs, the proposed study uses parasocial interaction as a framework

under which to identify mechanisms that lead featuring a human character to impact

target audiences. In addition, considering mediated health campaigns generally have

strategic means, the current study examines the specific persuasion process initiated by

parasocial interaction mechanisms. The chapters of the present dissertation will start with

an overview of antismoking campaigns, which will be followed by an analytic summary

of parasocial interaction. In the third chapter, the paradigm of Elaboration Likelihood

Model and crucial variables of mass media persuasion will be briefly reviewed to provide

a theoretical foundation to the novel investigation of the present study.


3

CHAPTER II. OVERVIEW OF ANTISMOKING CAMPAIGNS：

WHAT IS EFFECTIVE AND WHAT IS INEFFECTIVE

Meta-analysis on the Effectiveness of Antismoking Campaigns

Many studies have focused on the effectiveness of antismoking campaigns.

Snyder et al.’s (2004) meta-analysis of the effect of mediated health communication

campaigns on behavior change indicated small but tangible effects of health campaigns

on health behaviors in the short term. Campaign effect sizes varied by type of behavior

and ranged from r=.07 to r=.10. On average, the effect size was .09. In percentage terms,

campaigns changed the behaviors of about 8% of the population. For smoking, mediated

campaigns had the second lowest effect size among all health topics in the study (r=.05).

However, the evaluation studies of smoking campaigns were always conducted on a large

population. Although effect sizes for health campaigns were small, populations reached

and influenced by those campaigns are considerably large (as calculated in the review, an

average 8% change in a community of 100,000 would result in 8000 people engaging in

healthier behaviors). Thus, mediated health campaigns are promising in their ability of

reaching people and promoting health behaviors.

The study further pointed out the challenge prevention campaigns and cessation

campaigns may face. Among the 48 campaigns that were reviewed in the meta-analysis

study, antismoking campaigns were the only type of campaign that battles addictive

behaviors. Antismoking campaign creators face the greatest difficulty when they try to

advocate smoking cessation. A relatively less difficult goal would be preventing people


4

from smoking, although it is still harder than simply convincing people to begin a new

behavior. In general, antismoking efforts are hard to achieve.

The meta-analysis of mediated health campaigns calls attention to the significant

challenges antismoking campaigns face. They deal with addictive behavior that requires

the recipients to overcome social influence and physiological discomforts. Although the

review of effectiveness of antismoking interventions demonstrated positive effects of

smoking prevention advertising on those in pre-adolescence or early adolescence

(Wakefield et al., 2003), there is less success among cessation campaigns.

A review of 10-years of antismoking efforts in New York revealed a promising

outcome of reducing adult smoking prevalence (Kilgore et al., 2014). The comprehensive

review took into account all mediated antismoking campaigns (that includes TV, radio,

and printed prevention and cessation campaigns). Cessation campaigns alone rendered

mixed findings. Focus groups indicated that smokers were receptive to the messages but

did not generate attempts to quit. On the other hand, statistical analyses of annual surveys

indicated a significant reduction of daily cigarette consumption among heavy smokers

(>10 cigarettes per day) from 2002 to 2012 due to repeated exposure of mediated

cessation messages. However, the proportion of nondaily smokers had significantly

increased from 32% to 39% within this 10-year period (Kilgore et al., 2014).

It should be noted that there is much left to be learned about antismoking

campaigns, for instance their creation, implementation, and the optimum amount and

configuration of exposure, type of messages, and how the messages should be delivered.

In addition, more research could be conducted to examine whether and to what extent


5

antismoking messages are mediated by the personal characteristics and social

environments of recipients. Based on past studies, scholars have found that some message

characteristics are more advantageous than others in persuading people to quit smoking.

These promising but limited findings have fueled the current study’s aim to develop a

useful tactic for producing effective antismoking PSAs. The following section briefly

evaluates some notable impacts of antismoking campaigns on audiences.

Effective and Ineffective Elements of Antismoking Messages

Smoking cessation advocators take different angles to address the harmful

consequences of smoking. Dunlop (2014) investigated the potential for antismoking

messages to stir up interpersonal discussion after viewing the ads. The study employed

phone interviews with smokers and a content analysis of TV antismoking ads that were

aired at the time of the study. Ad-stimulated interpersonal communication was measured

by asking the smokers whether their friends or family members persuaded them to quit,

been upset with them because they smoke, or nagged them to quit after exposure to

antismoking ads. The content analysis had categorized the ads into low-, moderate-, and

high-emotion ads (multiple criterions were used such as “do the ads contain dramatic

health consequences of smoking” or “do the ads contain graphic portrayals of health

consequences of smoking”). The results showed that smokers were more likely to receive

interpersonal pressure after exposure to high-emotion ads.

The underlying theoretical mechanisms, as discussed by social psychologists,

might be emotional social sharing. Humans in general have a basic need to share

emotional experiences as a means to alleviate emotional distress. Those high-emotion ads


6

might have resulted in smokers’ friends and family imagining horrible events that could

happen to the smoker. Thus, friends and family are moved to intervene before the

consequences portrayed in the ads become the truth. However, behavioral intention is a

function of the actor’s attitude toward the behavior and the perceived importance of other

people’s opinions of his actions (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). In the situation that smokers

themselves do not respond actively or positively to the antismoking ads but are nagged by

their family and friends, the effectiveness of the interpersonal discussion may be

determined by how much the smoker cares about what these people think or feel. Besides

having to worry about smokers’ motivation to comply with their loved ones, another

concerning outcome is reactance (Brehm, 1966). Having friends and family members nag

smokers to quit may threaten their freedom to behave how they want to behave thus

potentially increasing the concerning behavior (Bolburg, 2006).

Media and health scholars also investigated the impacts of several different types

of appeals and message frames. The interaction between message frames, messages

appeals and outcome extremity has been addressed under the theoretical framework of

the limited-capacity model of motivated mediated message processing (LC4MP)

(Leshner & Cheng, 2009). Leshner and Cheng (2009) investigated the interaction

between frames (gain- vs. loss-frame), appeal types (social appeal vs. health appeal), and

outcome extremity (less or more extreme). The study implied that audiences process

loss-framed messages depicting an extreme outcome (bad consequences) more

comprehensively and deeply. The combination of loss-framed messages and extreme

outcomes may be considered as using a fear appeal. Fear appeals that evoke negative


7

emotions in antismoking ads have been effective in persuading people to quit smoking by

presenting horrible consequences and costs of smoking (Leshner et al., 2009). However,

high doses of fear should be accompanied with high doses of self-efficacy or audiences

will be scared away from the message (Witte, 1994 for a review of Extended Parallel

Process Model). The balance of fear and efficacy is very hard to achieve and will vary

across different samples. How the recipients respond to the fear appeal is a function of

people’s preexisting efficacy beliefs and risk perceptions (Ruiter, Abraham, & Kok,

2001). Unbalanced doses of fear and efficacy would lead to defensive mechanisms that

make people deny or accept and live with the health threat. For mass mediated campaigns,

achieving the balance of fear and efficacy is an unresolved issue.

Teenage Research Unlimited (1999) conducted focus groups that discovered ads

featuring real people telling real stories were rated highly in terms of perceived

effectiveness by youth in California. Emotionally evocative and testimonial PSAs were

again shown as effective in reducing smoking prevalence in Durkin, Biener, and

Wakefield’s (2009) longitudinal study. This study assessed which type of antismoking

media message would reduce disparities in smoking prevalence among disadvantaged

social groups. Messages that contained personal stories or graphic portrayals of

consequences of smoking on healthy bodies were among the most effective types.

Other studies also demonstrated the benefits of featuring a real person in

antismoking PSAs since the characters would draw audiences closer and make the

audiences feel that the PSAs are more personally-relevant (e.g., Farrelly, Niederdeppe, &

Yarsevich, 2003; Wakefield, Flay, Nichter, & Giovino, 2003). It is believed that the


8

story-based information coming from real individuals or characters will be processed

more readily since people learn to process it from an early age (Green, Brock, & Strange,

2002). Narrative communication is also helpful in reducing the potential side-effects of

interpersonal discussions and fear appeals by hiding the overtly persuasive attempts and

reducing counterargument (Dunlop, Wakefield, & Kashima, 2008). But the strategy

requires some sophisticated production techniques and like most health campaigns, its

effectiveness will vary by sample and producer. For example, in Durkin et al.’s study

(2009), emotional and testimonial PSAs were effective in reducing smoking prevalence

among mid- and low-SES groups. However, this type of PSA was not particularly

effective for high-SES groups. Also, creators of personal testimonial antismoking PSAs

may need to pay specific attention to ethnic and cultural differences and to tailor the

message for minority groups (Stoddard, Johnson, Sussman, Dent, & Boley-Cruz, 1998).

If produced well and tailored to the desired audience, encountering personal and

emotional testimony or narratives can increase processing of the message and adoption of

message consistent beliefs while reducing forms of resistance due to overtly persuasive

techniques. Yet, health advocates still face another challenge related to the initial

reactions of smokers when they are first exposed to antismoking messages. Without

forced exposure to such content, smokers may simply turn away or avoid the message.

In order to find a tactic that engages smokers quickly to antismoking ads, health

advocates have tried to use cues or symbols related to smoking in their PSAs. Using

smoking cues in antismoking ads was revealed to be effective in catching smokers’

attention (Sanders-Jackson, Cappella, Linebarger, Piotrowski, O’Keeffe, & Strasser, 2011)


9

but at a cost of the effectiveness of antismoking messages (Lee, Cappella, Lerman, &

Strasser, 2010). The reasons for embedding smoking cues in antismoking messages are to

show that the message is relevant to smokers and to increase smokers’ attention to the

message. It is believed that increased personal relevance can increase persuasion through

greater cognitive elaboration (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Tormala, 2008). However, in this

case, smoking cues may stir up smoking urges because the behavior has a physiological

base (smokers are physically addicted to nicotine) (Sanders-Jackson et al., 2011). Thus,

accumulative evidences indicate that antismoking efforts can be, but are not always,

effective in smoking cessation. In addition, having something is not always better than

nothing; a poorly designed antismoking ad may have boomerang effects on smoking

attitudes (Henriksen et al., 2006).

In sum, antismoking campaigns face even more challenges than most persuasive

campaigns. The aforementioned strategies include evoking interpersonal communication,

using graphic depictions of bad consequences of smoking (fear appeal), using

emotionally evocative and personal testimonials, and embedding smoking cues to

antismoking messages. However, all of these strategies have weaknesses that could

dampen the good intention of antismoking advocates. Antismoking ads that stir up

interpersonal discussion of the issue of smoking are good because of the potential

influence of family and friends on smokers but the influence is largely dependent on how

much the smoker cares about their thoughts and opinions. Graphic depictions of health

consequences of smoking are good at alerting smokers the severe outcomes and their

susceptibility to them. However, fear can easily leave smokers too frightened to do


10

anything to alter their current threat evoking attitude or behavior. Personal testimony

could hide persuasive attempts of antismoking ads and reduce potential counterargument.

However, they may be more believable and are memorable, but certain stories are

effective on certain groups and their power will be attenuated on other groups (Durkin et

al., 2009). And, poorly designed emotionally evocative antismoking ads may have

negative outcomes in the smokers’ attitudes and behaviors such as the “Think. Do not

smoke” antismoking campaign sponsored by a tobacco company that actually increased

the number of young smokers (Henriksen et al., 2006). In addition, smokers do not favor

antismoking messages at all, even when they know smoking is harmful for their health.

As a qualitative study revealed (Bolburg, 2006), smokers showed a strong sense of denial,

defiance, and even hatred toward antismoking media campaigns.

Given the difficulty of making antismoking ads, the current study works on

finding a means to engage smokers in antismoking messages without using

aforementioned strategies that have been shown to produce harmful side-effects and

require deliberative control of the content. Thus, the current study proposes a persuasive

model of addressing style that triggers parasocial interaction and integrates metacognition

as one feasible solution to engage smokers’ attention on the antismoking contents and to

potentially alter smokers’ confidence in their initial thoughts about smoking.


11

CHAPTER III. PARASOCIAL INTERACTION

Conceptualization

Parasocial interaction (PSI) is an evolving concept. Since it was created by

Horton and Wohl (1956), their vague and broad conceptualization of this construct has

been developed to a more specific and distinct phenomenon of media by other scholars.

The creators of the concept, Horton and Wohl (1956), used this term to describe one kind

of long-distance relationships, or the unilateral, nondialectical psychological connection

of audiences with performers. Horton and Wohl (1956) argued, in essence, the social

impacts of mass media are overarching. The influence of media personae on the

audiences’ lives and how the audiences come to relate to them is not limited to audiences’

behavioral consequences but includes their emotional responses. Founded on a repeated

pattern of parasocial interactions, the psychological connection between the character and

the viewers becomes a rather firm relationship. The performer is seen as a partner in this

parasocial relationship, but the nature of this relationship is imaginary and not reciprocal.

The concept parasocial interaction (PSI) should not be used interchangeably with

parasocial relationship because the two constructs describe distinct viewer responses. PSI

is defined as the online experience (thoughts, emotions, and actions) that occur during

exposure. These thoughts, emotions, and actions that are geared toward a performer will

eventually become routinized to form relationships. Based on repeated interactions across

viewing opportunities, viewers develop parasocial relationship with the fictional

characters over time. Thus, PSI is an imagined interpersonal interaction with the


12

mediated character, whereas parasocial relationship is an imagined friendship developed

over time with that mediated character.

The two concepts involve different mechanisms. Integrating social knowledge and

social behaviors that are learned from social interactions, viewers’ responses to mediated

performers are largely similar to their interactions with a real person. That is, during the

onset of repeated exposure, the spectators are able to make frequent references to past

programs, create a sense of history to relationships, and open up the possibility of “inside

jokes”. The feeling of familiarity and the perception of shared unique knowledge with the

performers then are formed among the audiences. Horton and Wohl (1956) defined this

process as the intimacy in long-distance.

Having to know about the performers’ lives, intimacy is formed between the

viewers and the mediated personae even though it is based on imaginary interactions and

physical distance. On the other hand, PSI occurs when the audiences respond

automatically, based on learned responses, to the performers’ communication cues and

engage in a one-sided interpersonal communication. When they care to think about it, the

audiences will realize that it is not a social interaction. As one study argued, the human

brain is out-paced by the rapid development of technology and may result in mistaking

human forms for real humans (Reeves & Nass, 1996). That is, the human brain lacks the

ability to distinguish images of humans from real humans unless an evolutionary

expansion on the mental efforts takes place that enables people to distinguish images

from reality. Viewers may experience a parasocial interaction in a similar way they

would experience a real social interaction. Thus, the feeling of intimacy and a special and


13

close relationship could have been formed between the viewers and the performers whom

they have never met in person.

One question scholars strive to answer is: to what degree are audience’s mediated

experiences similar to or different from real social interactions? Researchers

investigating this question have examined mediated social interactions, interactions

between two people using mediated communication channels, in addition to parasocial

interactions. Audience members feel that mediated interpersonal interactions are

enjoyable (e.g., online chat room and talk radio) (Rubin & Step, 2000; Wellman, 1996).

These interactions in virtual or mediated environments have been found as a functional

alternative to social interaction (Rubin & Step, 2000). The study of mediated

interpersonal interaction suggests that when mediated interaction satisfies the need of

reciprocity in communication (e.g., synchronous communications between users or

between listeners and show hosts take place in online chat rooms and talk radio that

replace unpleasant social interactions), the interaction is able to replace realistic, non-

rewarding social interactions (e.g. threatening and frustrating social interactions with

unfriendly or “cold” participants that hardly reply). However, mutual consciousness of

involvement in the interactions distinguishes mediated social interactions conceptually

from the notion of parasocial interaction. Parasocial interaction primarily describes an

imaginary interaction between the audience and the mediated personae.

The implication that PSI is imaginary or pseudo-social pathologizes viewers who

form parasocial attachments with mediated characters. As discussed in Horton and

Wohl’s (1956) original work, parasocial interaction tend to occur more frequently in “the


14

socially isolated, socially inept, aged and invalid, timid and rejected” (p. 219). The line of

early research on parasocial interaction and parasocial relationships treated the two

constructs as substitutes for social interaction that alleviate loneliness. Later, PSI along

with other constructs (such as identification, imitation, and attraction) that capture

responses to mediated personae were considered as complements to social interaction and

representing moderate forms of dependence on mass media (Rosengren & Windahl,

1972). But the failure of finding evidence on this compensatory role of PSI (e.g. Ashe &

McCutcheon, 2001; Tsao, 1996) suggested that PSI might be more than a substitute for

social interaction. Scholars began treating parasocial communication as “a form of

audience activity and as evidence for instrumental and active, rather than habitual and

passive, media consumption” (Cohen, 2009).

Given PSI is similar to social interaction in that both of the constructs involves

some of the same fundamental cognitive processes, conceptualizing PSI relative to

interpersonal communication may clarify the similarities and differences between the two

concepts. For example, on the continuum of interpersonal communication that “not only

describes how people socially interact, but also the degree of reciprocity in

communication during this media and digital era” (Giles, 2002), normal relationships that

involve face-to-face social interaction place at one end. At an intermediate level, people

communicate indirectly with each other through some mediated channels (e.g. through

phone or chat online). On the other end, PSI occurs when people imaginarily interact or

make friends with a cartoon character or a fictional persona on TV. Thus, PSI may

constitute a new way to theorize about social interaction and may even have variations or


15

degrees of appearance within the concept itself (Giles, 2002). For instance, depending on

the type of media figure, the degree of parasocial interaction could vary (Cohen, 2009).

Although PSI seems to imply an imaginary relationship that is not socially situated, there

might still be a slim hope of meeting the media figure (e.g., fan clubs). Moreover,

different levels of social interaction could be described as PSI depending on the type of

media figure in the pseudo-relationship. That is, different levels of imagination in

parasocial attachment could be plausibly induced by the interaction with a real person

(e.g., newscasters) and a fictional character performed by actors and actresses (e.g.,

Captain Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean). However, no conclusion can be

drawn without systematic evaluation of such differences.

Another theoretical extension of social interaction, which is studied closely along

side of PSI, involves story involvement and character identification. As mentioned in

Cohen’s article (2009), PSI is considered one type of involvement. PSI describes the

engagement between audience members and performers. In addition, PSI is closely

related to identification in the ways that audience members attach to the performers.

However, the difference between identification and PSI is that: by identifying with the

mediated personae, the viewers may discard their own identities temporarily and adopt

the characters’ identities. But for PSI, viewers may absorb the characters without

abandoning their own identities during the viewing experience (Giles, 2002). More

unique components of PSI, such as the ability to automatically draw the attention of

audience members (Goffmann, 1983; Malle & Hodges, 2005), can be identified when

examining what contributes to its formation.


16

Eliciting Parasocial Interaction

PSI is usually assessed with a self-report scale containing multiple items assessing

to what extent the participants think that the mediated character is aware of them during a

program. Levy (Levy, 1979, reviewed in Cohen, 2009) first measured PSI with

newscasters using seven items. These items captured liking, comparison, persuasion,

realism, and sympathy, all of which were considered as indicators of relationship

development with these personae. Based on Levy’s scale, Rubin and colleagues (1985)

created a scale that originally contained 20 items but was later reduced to 10 items, which

had a heavier emphasis on mutual awareness, realism, and sympathy than Levy’s

conceptualization. Versions of these scales were used to assess PSI with both fictional

(e.g., TV drama) and real (e.g., newscasters) characters. However, both scales rely on

audiences’ self-report. An examination of features the mediated personae represent in this

pseudo-social communication is largely neglected. Thus, studies that reveal message

characteristics or parasociability of performers are needed. Although limited, some

studies have been conducted along these lines.

Considering PSI is a type of imaginary social interaction that resembles real-life

social interactions, current researchers have begun to explore mechanisms that can induce

automatic responses one might have during social face-to-face interactions. For example,

naive production technology as simple as a close-up shot of the performer’s face with the

performer’s eyes staring at the audience can cue an automatic response (Hartmann &

Goldhoorn, 2011). Research consistently supports that certain addressing style

significantly helps viewers to form bonds with fictional characters. That is, certain types


17

of bodily and verbal language, such as mutual eye-contact that often accompanies direct

bodily addressing, induce PSI (Cummins & Cui, 2014; Hartmann & Goldhoorn, 2011;

Horton & Strauss, 1957). Horton and Strauss (1957) revealed that television news

anchor’s addressing style has a prominent influence on the strength of the bond between

the anchor and the viewer. Hartmann & Goldhoorn (2011) demonstrated that participants

who were making mutual eye-contact with the character and were addressed by

appropriate tones experienced significantly more intense feelings of communication in

mediated contexts. Bailenson et al.’s (2001) experiment using virtual agents in immersive

virtual environments indicated that participants behaved the same way they would in real

social encounters (e.g., participants respected personal space of the virtual agent). More

interestingly, the experiment illustrated that gaze behavior alone is sufficient to establish

the social interaction with the virtual agent. A virtual agent that is far from the

photographic realism of a real person could replicate social encounters. Thus, even in

virtual environments, gaze cues sent from virtual figures are able to engage people in

social interactions.

Hartmann and Goldhoorn (2011) advised a set of easy-to-apply production

techniques such as camera angle and verbal addressing style (particularly tones of verbal

addressing) that could have an impact on the experience of PSI in audiences. In the short

TV clip specifically made for the experiment, a female character either faced the camera

or only showed her side (bodily addressing manipulation). The manipulation of verbal

addressing was varied by the way she talked to the audience. She either adjusted her

words in such a way as if she would talk to adults (this verbal addressing was appropriate


18

for participants of the study), or she would use softer tone and adjusted words to address

her audience as if they were young children (inappropriate verbal address). Results

showed that more direct bodily and verbal addressing entailed more intense PSI. In turn,

stronger PSI was associated with higher commitment to social norms of social interaction

and greater enjoyment of the media content.

Another study corroborated and extended the findings of the previous study to a

reality TV show (Cummins & Cui, 2014). Using continuous response measurement, the

study captured the online PSI while the viewers watching an episode from The Biggest

Loser by letting them continuously rate how likely it is that the character is aware of them.

The results further suggested that in the context of a television program, PSI is intensified

when the audiences were both bodily addressed and verbally addressed. That is, in those

instances, the audiences experienced a greater extent of mutual awareness and mutual

adjustment during the program. They tend to perceive the character Mike as being aware

of them and adjusting his actions in accord to their responses. A greater sense of

commitment to social norms was also intensified in the group of participants who

experienced stronger PSI, just like what people would feel in real interpersonal

communication.

The aforementioned studies evidence that address is an important and determinant

factor of PSI. Thus, media production could feature characters directly addressing the

viewer (bodily and verbally) and use medium-range camera angles that resemble friendly

gatherings to induce experienced parasocial interaction among audience members (Cohen,

2009). The current study is designed to examine these simple yet deliberate


19

manipulations of production techniques in the creation of an antismoking PSA. To

maximize the power of an antismoking PSA on smoking cessation, the researcher of the

current study argues that these production techniques are easy to apply, cost-efficient and

attention grasping. The hypothesized relationship between addressing style and PSI could

be modeled as:

H1: An antismoking PSA that features direct addressing style, a

character looking into the camera and addressing viewers using first-

person pronouns (e.g., “me”), will result in greater PSI levels in

smokers than an antismoking PSA that features an indirect

addressing style, a character looking off-screen and addressing

viewers using third-person pronouns (e.g., “someone”).

Consequences of Parasocial Interaction

Apart from exploring antecedents of PSI, previous research has identified

potential outcomes of PSI. These consequences include enjoyment of the program

(Hartmann & Goldhoorn, 2011), increased sense of social interaction with mediated

characters (Horton & Strauss, 1957), and loyalty to the program (Cohen, 2009). In

addition, PSI is able to draw a considerable amount of attention from audience members

during viewing when audiences feel that they are engaged in an imaginary face-to-face

interaction with a media character (Malle & Hodges, 2005). Afterall, mutual awareness

and gaze serve as direct bodily addressing that demands attention from the viewer and

elicits PSI.


20

Moreover, the mechanism of mindreading--trying to understand the other person’s

intentions and emotions while trying to regulate and monitor their own thoughts and

behaviors (Hartmann & Goldhoorn, 2011)--will be activated automatically when viewers

attend to another individual and feel like they are interacting with that person. Biological

and evolutionary evidence supports the universality of the automatic responses of

attention and mindreading (triggered by gaze) (e.g., Frischen, Bayliss, & Tipper, 2007).

Human beings are born with the ability to detect gaze and to form perception of the

individuals with whom they are making eye contact (e.g. human infants detect mutual eye

gaze, Farroni, Csibra, Simion, & Johnson, 2002; development of social cognition in

infants, Striano & Reid, 2006). According to Frischen et al.’s (2007) review, previous

neural studies have revealed a brain region, the superior temporal culcus (STS), is

activated during the perception of gaze and head movement. More specifically, the

cortical region within and near the STS is responsible for the social perception. Scientists

proposed that these brain areas are part of the distributed network that enable us to

determine others’ intentions and are “specialized in processing the orientation of faces in

general and eye gaze in particular” (Frischen et al., 2007). Other gaze studies have

addressed emotional and social consequences of mutual gaze (e.g. Burgoon, Coker, &

Coker, 1986; Bavelas, Coates, Johnson, 2002). These studies suggested that gaze cueing

is an important nonverbal behavior which can convey subtle meanings and attract

people’s attention. In social communication, mutual gaze increases participants’

involvement as they try to decipher others’ intentions and emotions.


21

Based on the above research, PSI elicited by direct address in an antismoking

PSA should create a feeling of personal interaction that could serve as a trigger for

effortful engagement or processing. As noted in the earlier review of antismoking

cessation campaigns, getting smokers to engage an antismoking message is considered a

success. Thus, if PSAs that induce PSI can get smokers to cognitively process or

elaborate on the message, PSI could be considered a strategic message element that can

overcome the defensive mechanisms smokers usually employ, such as resistance or

avoidance (Bolburg, 2006). Further, PSI that engages smokers for higher level of

thinking (or central route processing in the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty &

Cacioppo, 1981)) could attenuate the need to catch smokers’ attention with potential

harmful peripheral message elements, such as smoking cues (Lee, Cappella, Lerman, &

Strasser, 2010) and unbalanced fear appeals.

This theorizing suggests PSI as a nontraditional motivational factor that

encourages high message engagement or elaboration due to a simulated social interaction

that demands more cognitive effort.

H2: The greater the level of PSI experienced, the higher the viewer’s

cognitive elaboration (more message relevant thoughts will be

generated).

To review both the antecedents and consequences of PSI proposed in the present

study thus far, simple eye-contact produced during a direct address should elicit a

parasocial interaction (see H1) and subsequently, this experienced PSI should heighten


22

cognitive elaboration of the message (see H2). See Figure 1 for a conceptual model

illustrating these relationships.

Figure 1. Effects of addressing style on cognitive elaboration through PSI

The following chapter will review collaborative persuasion theory and research

that can help further hypothesize the role PSI can play in strategic antismoking PSA

outcomes. More specifically, it will use established cognitive persuasion models in order

to determine how PSI and its consequent heightened message elaboration could lead to

persuasive ends.


23

CHAPTER IV. INTEGRATING THE ELM AND METACOGNITIVE

APPRAISALS

Successful persuasion through media campaigns can be achieved by changing

audiences’ attitudes, which in turn may influence the audiences’ behaviors in the desired

direction (Petty, Brinol, & Priester, 2009). Media effects were once believed to have

tremendous influence on the attitudes of the recipients. However, the accumulative

evidences (e.g., Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955) revealed an indirect influence of media content

through people’s idiosyncratic reactions.

The early theory of persuasion matrix model of media effects by McGuire (1985,

1989) has presented attitude change as the outcome of sequential steps. Those steps

include exposure, attention, interest, comprehension, acquisition, yielding, memory,

retrieval, decision, action, reinforcement, and consolidation (McGuire, 1989). The model

was developed partially in response to Lasswell’s (1964) well-known question: Who says

what to whom, when, and how? It comprehensively describes the communication process:

the source of communication (e.g., expert or not, attractive or not, etc.), features of the

message (e.g., long or short, emotional or logical, etc.), via which channel the message is

presented (e.g., printed or animated, audio or visual, etc.), characteristics of the recipient

(e.g., high or low intelligence, knowledge, good mood or bad mood, etc.), and the context

where the communication takes place (e.g., loud or quiet environment, individual

recipient or group, etc.). The persuasion matrix model is a good theoretical framework

that inspired the exploration and the development of persuasion in mass media. However,

it also has some issues. It is now clear that the sequential steps could take place


24

independently. For example, message learning and recall information are proved to be

closely related but are not necessary factors of attitude change (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981).

Also, the model tells us little about the factors that produce attitude change in the

communication. Therefore, more recent decades of persuasion research have focused on

how variables affect the processes of yielding to or resisting messages.

Despite the increasing number of distinct persuasion theories, a tendency has

emerged that shows many persuasion models in mass media borrow heavily from or are

extensions of earlier theories. The current study continues this trend by employing an

integrated model to explore the persuasive effects of PSI on smokers’ attitudes. The

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) provides a general theoretical guide while the

resistance appraisal hypothesis introduces the importance of metacognition or cognitive

appraisal to the attitude change process outlined by the ELM.

Brief Overview of the ELM and Thought Confidence

The ELM. The current study examines PSI’s influence on message processing and

attitude certainty. To better understand the persuasion mechanisms triggered by PSI, the

study designs a model under the theoretical framework of the Elaboration Likelihood

Model (ELM). The ELM states that people may process messages differently depending

on their amount of motivation and ability (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). It holds a major

contention: attitude change depends on the extent and direct of cognitive elaboration

(Petty & Wagener, 1999). People who engage the central route of processing (people who

are motivated and have the ability to process) attend to the merits of the message itself;

people who are processing the messages peripherally (people who are not motivated or


25

unable to process) attend to the peripheral cues such as the source, the layout of the

message, and the visual and auditory effects. Factors affecting a person’s motivation or

ability and thus their extent of thinking include source, context, and recipient variables

such as source trustworthiness, repetition, and personal relevance (e.g. Baker & Petty,

1994; Chou, Lien, & Liang, 2011; Priester & Petty, 2003). However, previous studies

have not examined the effect of addressing style on one’s motivation or ability to

centrally process a message under the ELM. The effect of addressing style is considered a

trigger of PSI, which is an automatic recognition and imagination of social presence in a

mediated communication. As discussed, mediated characters may effectively engage the

audiences by simply making eye contact with the audiences and using appropriate tones.

The current study suggests addressing style as a source or message factor that triggers

PSI, which serves as the motivation influencing the extent of an individual’s thinking.

Despite the extent of thinking, the direction of thinking also plays a determinant

role on the attitudinal outcomes in the ELM. That is, the likelihood of generating

favorable or unfavorable thoughts regarding the message will influence the attitudinal

outcomes. Argument quality is the determinant of whether favorable or unfavorable

cognition would be elicited regarding the message: strong arguments elicit more

favorable thoughts than negative thoughts and weak arguments elicit more negative

thoughts than positive thoughts regarding the message (Petty & Cacioppo, 1990).

However, favorability or valence of thoughts is not the immediate factor of

attitude change. The most recent adaptions of the ELM include the thought confidence as

an additional dimension of thinking (Petty, Brinol, & Tormala, 2002). According to the


26

self-validation hypothesis (Petty et al., 2002), the more confidence people have in their

issue-relevant thoughts, the more likely those thoughts would have a strong impact on

their attitudes. In a study examining this theory, participants were provided with a

scenario in which their university planned to implement qualifying exams for all senior

students (Petty et al., 2002). Participants were asked to list all consequences of this new

policy and rate each thought in terms of how confident they were with the thought.

Results revealed an interaction where the valenced thoughts better predicted the attitude

when confidence in the thoughts were high. For example, when people mostly generate

negative thoughts toward an issue, and they are confident in their thoughts, those

negative thoughts are more likely to determine their attitude rather than their positive

thoughts toward the issue. Similarly, when people mostly generate positive thoughts and

they are confident in the thoughts, those positive thoughts are more likely to determine

the valence of the attitude rather than the negative thoughts.

Later theoretical exploration on thought confidence further revealed an indirect

relationship between the perceived message strength and attitude certainty through

thought confidence. Attitude certainty, the subjective evaluation of attitudinal thoughts

and cognitive appraisal of thoughts, has been found influential in the process of resistance

(Tormala and Rucker, 2007). As in Tormala and Rucker’s (2007) review, individuals’

metacognition or cognitive appraisals of resistance can lead to an increase or decrease of

attitude certainty. That is, participants who perceive their counterarguments to persuasive

messages to be justified, correct, legitimate, appropriate, or impressive (positive appraisal)

should be more certain of their initial attitudes after exposure to persuasion. On the other


27

hand, participants who evaluate their resistance to be unjustified, incorrect, illegitimate,

inappropriate, or unimpressive (negative appraisal) should become less confident in their

initial attitudes (Tormala, 2008). It should be noticed that such effects of metacognitive

appraisal are independent from the true quality of counterarguments one generates to

defend their attitude (Tormala & Petty, 2002). As evidenced in Tormala and Petty’s

(2002) study, participants were given the same counterattitudinal message to read but

were told that the message was strong or weak. They then were asked to generate

counterarguments against it. Results indicated no significant differences in quantity or

quality of counterarguments generated for the resistance. However, after those

participants were told that they had resisted a strong argument (vs. weak argument), their

attitude certainty increased (decreased). The study implied that metacognitive appraisal

of cognitions is independent from the true quality of resistance but is a function of

perceived persuasiveness of the message.

In a follow-up experiment, Tormala and Petty (2002) directly manipulated quality

of resistance by giving false feedback that indicated attitude change. Results showed that

participants’ attitude certainty would increase only when they believed they have

successfully resisted strong and persuasive messages. The attitude certainty effect was

mediated by participants’ subjective assessments of thoughts generated and was

moderated by situational factors such as perceived message strength (Tomala & Petty,

2002). The resistance appraisal hypothesis unveils important variables for attitude change

in the central route of the ELM. Figure 2 depicts the ELM’s central route with cognitive


28

appraisal as the mediator and underlying psychological mechanism that produces attitude

change.

Figure 2. The integrated ELM model with cognitive appraisal and attitude certainty.

Furthermore, the theoretical discussion of cognitive appraisal and attitude

certainty may provide an explanation for delayed attitude change. Tormala and Rucker

(2007) showed that people who perceived their resistance as illegal and biased would

negatively appraise their cognitions and maintain a low level of attitude certainty. Low

attitude certainty in turn will make the participants more vulnerable to future attitudinal

attacks and leave more room for attitude change. Thus, integrating attitude certainty to

the present study’s persuasive model would allow the researcher to detect delicate change

of attitudinal aspects that could influence future change, which is especially valuable in

the study and design of antismoking messages.


29

As stated in the ELM, when people are motivated and able to process the

information, they will carefully evaluate the merits of the message and generate issue-

relevant thoughts. The last step outlined by the ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981), between

issue-relevant thoughts and the formation of a new attitude or the enhancement of the

initial attitude, is where the present study’s extension would be added. Confidence in

salient thoughts is proved to determine the extent of how much those thoughts influence

the attitude and its strength. Smokers exposed to antismoking messages produce

antismoking thoughts when considering the merits of the message during central

processing. Thoughts or consideration toward the message would have effects on attitude

certainty through the evaluation of how valid the thoughts are. Perceived quality or

persuasiveness of the argument/message would serve as a moderator that determines the

extent of perceived validity of the thoughts/consideration the smokers generated toward

the message. The current study proposes that metacognition or cognitive appraisal of the

thoughts is the missing segment of the ELM that plays an important role in determining

ensuing attitude and attitude strength.

The Current Study

The current experiment consisted of a series of two studies. The studies propose

the manipulation of addressing style as a message feature that elicits higher levels of

experienced PSI. In addition, the role of PSI as a motivational factor that triggers the

careful consideration of a message is suggested. Part A of the model illustrated in Figure

3 demonstrates the mediated relationship between addressing style, PSI and cognitive

elaboration.


30

Figure 3. Conceptual model of PSI and the integrated ELM

Part B of the model illustrated in Figure 3 shows the integrated ELM model

beginning with the central processing of a message triggered by a high PSI experience. It

adds two underlying mechanisms as mediators in the persuasion process of elaboration to

attitudinal outcomes: cognitive appraisal and attitude certainty. Perceived message

quality and number of valanced thoughts are still present as moderators but now appraisal

is dependent on these perceptions rather than the attitude change itself. That is, perceived

quality of the message and number of valaneced thoughts moderate the indirect effect on

attitude certainty between cognitive elaboration and cognitive appraisal.

Applying this integrated section of the model to the present investigation would

suggest a relatively complex but predictable thinking pattern for smokers. This pattern

outlines multiple processes happening simultaneously through the production of both


31

favorable and unfavorable thoughts. First, the proposed model’s impacts relative to

favorable thought production will be outlined. The model predicts that smokers who

perceived the antismoking PSA as persuasive will generate more favorable thoughts

regarding the antismoking PSA and perceive their favorable thoughts as more valid. This

will result in attenuated confidence in their initial attitude toward smoking and a less

positive attitude toward smoking (suggesting potential acceptance of the PSA’s message).

Smokers who perceived the antismoking PSA as less persuasive will generate less

favorable thoughts regarding the PSA and perceive their favorable thoughts as less valid.

However, given the message was perceived as weak it is likely that attitude certainty will

not be affected and no attitude change toward smoking will occur.

On the other hand, it is natural for recipients to generate unfavorable thoughts

toward any attitudinal object (Charkson, Valente, Leone, & Tormala, 2013). Thus, the

proposed model also predicts impacts through unfavorable thought production. Smokers

who perceived the antismoking PSA as persuasive will generate less unfavorable

thoughts regarding the antismoking PSA and perceive their unfavorable thoughts as less

valid, which will result in attenuated confidence in their initial attitude toward smoking

and a less positive attitude toward smoking (suggesting potential acceptance of the PSA’s

message). Smokers who perceived the antismoking PSA as less persuasive will generate

more unfavorable thoughts regarding the PSA and perceive their unfavorable thoughts as

more valid. However, given the message was perceived as weak it is likely that attitude

certainty will not be affected and no attitude change toward smoking will occur.

Hypothesis three proposes this integrated model’s process:


32

H3: Cognitive elaboration of the message will impact attitude

certainty indirectly through appraisal, which is dependent upon

perceived persuasiveness of the antismoking message and number of

valanced thoughts. That is, the indirect effect of cognitive elaboration

on attitude certainty through appraisals of how valid one’s thoughts

are is conditional on how persuasive participants perceived the PSA to

be and the number of favorable/unfavorable thoughts regarding the

message.


33

CHAPTER V. METHOD AND RESULTS

Overview

The current dissertation consisted of two studies. Study 1 involved testing the

ability of message features (direct vs. indirect addressing style and character gender) in

antismoking video PSAs to induce viewer’s self-reported level of parasocial interaction

(PSI). High and low PSI producing PSAs from Study 1 were used as stimuli for Study 2.

Study 2 was an online experiment hosted in the online survey administrator Qualtrics.

The second study assessed participants’ reactions to the three different versions (high PSI,

low PSI, and control) of the antismoking PSA.

Participants for both studies were recruited using the online survey sampling

service, Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk (AMT). Samples collected through this service

are suggested to be a reliable representative of population sample (Buhrmester, Kwang,

& Gosling, 2011). The study samples were volunteers and were provided a small

monetary incentive ($.50) for the completion of each study. Study 1 collected 125

smokers to serve as participants. Four of the 125 were excluded from data analysis due to

the unrealistic time spent on the study. Study 2 recruited 105 participants. Sixteen were

excluded from the data analysis due to not completing a portion of the questionnaire and

unrealistic time spent on the study. Thus, data of 121 participants in Study 1 and 89

participants in Study 2 were analyzed for the current dissertation. To exclude subjects

from Study 1 to take part in Study 2, a code was added to AMT that transmitted the

subject’s WorkerID to Qualtrics, the survey software program used to house/run the

stimuli and questionnaire. A screening survey was added to Qualtrics that contained a list


34

against which WorkerIDs were checked. Another screening survey was added to

Qualtrics to ensure that only smokers were able to participate in the study. Before

registered as a participant of the study, each individual answered two screening questions

to filter smokers from nonsmokers: (1) Would you identify yourself as a smoker (Y/N)?

(2) If yes, how many cigarettes do you smoke on average per day (enter a number)?

Individuals who answered ‘yes’ to the first questions and smoke at least one cigarette per

day were labeled as smoker in the study. Responses remained confidential, as there was

no way for the researcher to connect the WorkerID, used by AMT to distribute

participant incentives, to identifying information of the respondent.

Study 1

Participants.

Study 1 recruited 125 participants with four being excluded from data analysis.

Among the excluded participants, one was excluded due to a prolonged time spent on

completing the study (7 hours). The other three participants were excluded due to not

completing 15% of the questionnaire. Descriptive statistical analyses then were

conducted for an overview of the characteristics of the sample of 121 smokers and their

cigarette consumption. Results showed that the sample of Study 1 was relatively diverse.

The age range of the sample was from 20 to 75 years (M=32.34, SD=9.23). Among the

total sample of 121 participants, 64.8% were male smokers and 35.2% were female

smokers. In terms of ethnicity, 54.1% were White, 36.9% were Asian, 5.7% were Black

or African American, 2.5% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and .8% were


35

multiple races. Among them, 24.6% had Hispanic or Latino origin. The sample for Study

1 contained mostly heavy smokers who started smoking at a rather early age (M=17.77,

SD=3.63), given that the average number of cigarettes smoked per day was 9.25

(SD=7.64) and 77.1% of the participants reported they smoked two or more than two

packs of cigarettes in the past 30 days from the study.

Procedure.

The study is a between-subjects 2 (addressing style: direct vs. indirect address; a

more detailed description will be found in the section of Stimulus) x 2 (gender: female vs.

male character) online experiment. In each condition, smokers were randomly assigned to

view one of the four antismoking PSA stimuli (see stimuli description below). After

watching one of the four PSA stimuli, participants were forwarded to a questionnaire

with items measuring level of PSI experienced, personal relevance, identification with the

character, and perceived persuasiveness of the PSA. Some demographic questions such

as gender, age, race/ethnicity, and for how long the participants have been smoking were

also presented at the end of the questionnaire. After completing the questionnaire,

participants were thanked and dismissed. The study took about 15 to 20 minutes to

complete.

Stimulus.

The PSAs feature a male or female college student who is standing in a hallway

of a library. The PSA aims to create a calm and natural scene that could happen in daily

life. The character was asked to keep a calm facial expression without any obvious


36

emotional expression such as happiness or sadness. The two direct addressing stimuli

feature the character (1 using a male and 1 using a female) looking at the camera while

standing for the whole PSA to make sure there is mediated eye contact with the viewer.

The two indirect addressing stimuli feature the character (1 using a male and 1 using a

female) standing at a library without looking at the camera (the camera was taking an ear

shot of the character). The filming of the addressing stimuli took place in the same place

to hold the background constant. The text at the bottom of the screen in all stimuli asks

the question, “Would you tell me/someone to smoke?” The pronoun “me” is used in the

direct addressing condition (interpersonal addressing), whereas “someone” is used in the

indirect addressing condition (distant addressing). Thus, four experimental stimuli were

produced for the manipulation of addressing style (direct vs. indirect) by gender of the

character (male vs. female).

Measures.

Parasocial interaction. Level of PSI was assessed using the Scale of Experienced

Parasocial Interaction (EPSI) (Hartmann & Goldhoorn, 2011). The scale contains 6 items

that were designed to gauge three dimensions of PSI (mutual awareness, attention, and

adjustment). However, the creators of the scale realized that all responses loaded onto

one dimension. The scale asks participants to indicate agreement with 6 items that use the

same stem, “While watching the clip, I had the feeling that the character in the video... .”

The distinct elements of the items are “was aware of me”, “knew I was there”, “knew I

was aware of him/her”, “knew I paid attention to him/her”, “knew that I reacted to

him/her”, and “reacted to what I said or did”. All items are measured using a 7-point


37

response scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 7 (totally agree) (Cronbach’s

α=.93). A score of the scale of EPSI was calculated by averaging the scores from the 6

items. Lower scores indicated a low level of EPSI and higher scores indicated a high

level of EPSI (M=4.25, SD=1.62).

Perceived persuasiveness. The perceived persuasiveness of antismoking PSAs

was assessed using four items (Cronbach’s α=.95). The question asks participants to rate

the PSAs on how persuasive, convincing, effective, and thought-provoking they were

using a 7-point response scale anchored at not at all to extremely. The scores of the

variable were calculated by averaging the scores from the four items. Lower scores

indicated low perceived persuasiveness while higher scores indicated high perceived

persuasiveness (M=4.10, SD=1.89).

Perceived relevance. Relevance of the message for the smokers was measured

using two items adapted from Claypool, Mackie, Garcia-Marques, Mclntosh, and Udall

(2004) (r=.448, n=122, p=.00). The items are: (1) “The issue presented in the PSA is

personally important to me.” and (2) “I was highly motivated to pay close attention to the

issue presented in the PSA.” Participants were asked to respond to the items on a 7-point

scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 7 (totally agree). The score of the variable

was calculated by averaging the scores from the two items. Lower scores indicated low

perceived relevance while higher scores indicated high perceived relevance (M=5.21,

SD=1.24).

Identification to character. Three general questions concerning identification

with the character were provided to the participants (Cronbach’s α=.93). The three items


38

are, “I am similar to the individual in this ad”, “I could relate to the individual in this ad”,

and “I could identify with the individual in this ad”. Participants were asked to respond to

the items on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 7 (totally agree). The

score of the variable was calculated by averaging the scores from the three items. Lower

scores indicated low identification while higher scores indicated high identification

(M=4.05, SD=1.73).

Data Analysis.

Data collected from Study 1 were used to test H1, the effects of addressing style

on the level of experienced PSI (EPSI). The analysis for this examination was a single

factor ANCOVA to decide the influence of addressing style (independent variable) on the

level of PSI (dependent variable), with gender of the participant to be entered as a

covariate.

Results.

The first hypothesis predicts differences in levels of experienced PSI (EPSI) as a

result of addressing style. To test H1, a two-way ANCOVA was conducted examining

the effects of addressing style and gender of the character on EPSI, controlling the effect

of gender of the participants. However, gender of the participants, as a covariate in the

analysis, did not significantly influence levels of ESPI (F=(1,117)=.487, p=.487, η²=.000).

The ANCOVA results indicated a significant main effect of addressing style such

that direct addressing (textual addressing employs the first-person noun and bodily

addressing that features character facing the camera) rendered higher levels of EPSI than


39

indirect addressing (textual addressing employs the third-person noun and bodily

addressing that features character looking at side of the screen) (F=(1,117)=6.295, p<.05,

η²=.051). Thus, H1 was supported by the results. The main effect of gender of the

character was not significant (F=(1,117)=.949, p=.332, η²=.008), indicating that gender

of the character did not influence the levels of EPSI among participants. The interaction

of addressing style and gender of the character was also not significant (F=(1,117)=2.567,

p=.112, η²=.021). Planned contrasts were conducted to examine the specific mean

differences in EPSI for the direct and indirect address conditions within each gender

condition. Participants’ EPSI was significantly higher when they were exposed to the

male character with direct addressing (M=4.98, SD=1.056) than those exposed to the

male character with indirect addressing (M=3.76, SD=1.617), t(117)=. 2.918, p<.01.

However, when considering the differences in EPSI between direct (M=4.22, SD=1.759)

and indirect (M=4.00, SD=1.747) addressing PSAs featuring the female character, the

difference was not significant, t(117)=.614, p=.541.

Study 1 also examined to what extent the participants perceived the PSAs as

persuasive and personally relevant, and how likely they were to identify with the

character. Three one-way ANOVAs were conducted for this exploratory analysis of the

relationships between addressing styles and perceived persuasiveness, personal relevance

and character identification. However, results showed no significant differences between

the PSAs in terms of their perceived persuasiveness (F=(4,117)=1.981, p=.102, η²=.011),

personal relevance (F=(4,117)=1.107, p=.356, η²=.002) or character identification

(F=(3,117)=1.527, p=.199, η²=.008). The relationship between EPSI and perceived


40

persuasiveness was also investigated using regression. The results showed EPSI

significantly predicted perceived persuasiveness (b=.778, SE=.079, p<.001), indicating

with one unit increment in the level of EPSI, the PSA was perceived as .778 units more

persuasive. Regressions were also applied to the relationship between EPSI and personal

relevance and character identification. The analyses revealed that EPSI significantly

predicted both personal relevance (b=.327, SE=.063, p<.001) and character identification

(b=.509, SE=.086, p<.001). The results indicated that with a one unit increment in the

level of EPSI, participants perceived the PSA to be .327 units more relevant and were

more likely to identify with the character by a .509 unit increment in the character

identification scale.

Study 1 Discussion.

Study 1 aimed to test addressing style as an effective trigger of PSI. Results

indicated that direct addressing, which features mutual gaze and first-person tone, can

successfully enhance the feeling of PSI. Indirect addressing that does not feature mutual

gaze and uses the third-person tone, on the other hand, is less effective. These results

replicate the findings of previous studies (e.g. Hartmann & Goldhoorn, 2011). Mean

comparisons revealed that this difference in addressing style was significant for the male

condition but not significant across the female conditions. Thus, the male direct and

indirect addressing PSAs will be used as stimuli for Study 2. The results also showed that

gender of the participant was not related to experienced PSI. That is, direct addressing

PSAs render greater levels of EPSI than indirect addressing PSAs regardless of the


41

gender of participants and among no interaction with participant gender and gender of the

mediated character.

This study was also is interested in learning the effects of addressing style and

EPSI on perceived persuasiveness, personal relevance, and identification with character.

Findings demonstrated a significant positive correlation between EPSI and these

variables. However, none of the variables differed significantly by conditions. It appears

that addressing style alone is not sufficient to enhance the level of perceived

persuasiveness, personal relevance, and identification with character. But the feeling of

the imaginary interpersonal communication triggered by addressing style can impact the

perceived persuasiveness, personal relevance, and identification. That is, EPSI is

significantly related to those variables that are important antecedents in persuasion. To

test a more comprehensive model of how PSI impacts cognitive elaboration and

subsequent persuasion processes, Study 2 was conducted.

Study 2

Participants.

Study 2 recruited 105 participants and excluded 16 from data analysis. Among the

excluded participants, nine of them were excluded due to 15% of questions in the

questionnaire was skipped. And seven of the excluded participants spent more than 2

hours completing the study with a prolonged time interval between viewing antismoking

PSAs and thought-listing task. Descriptive statistical analyses then were conducted for an

overview of the characteristics of the sample of 89 smokers and their cigarette


42

consumption. Although Study 2 employed a different sample from Study 1, results

showed that the sample of Study 2 was similar to the sample of Study 1 in terms of its

diversity and heavy cigarette consumption. The age range of the sample was from 19 to

71 years (M=30.81, SD=8.60). Among the total sample of 89 participants, 62.9% were

male smokers and 37.1% were female smokers. In terms of ethnicity, 73% were White,

16.9% were Asian, 5.6% were Black or African American, 3.4% were American Indian

or Alaska Native, and 1.1% were multiple races. Among them, 22.5% had Hispanic or

Latino origin. The sample for Study 2 contained mostly heavy smokers who started

smoking at a rather early age (M=17.34, SD=4.10), given that the average number of

cigarettes smoked per day was 9.59 (SD=7.48) and in the past 30 days from the study,

84.3% of the participants reported they smoked two or more packs of cigarettes in total.

Procedure.

The current study is a between-subjects experiment with three conditions in which

participants were randomly assigned to view one of three PSAs (high PSI PSA, low PSI

PSA, or a control PSA). In the two experimental conditions, the researcher either showed

a high-PSI PSA that produced significantly higher levels of experienced PSI (or EPSI) in

Study 1 or showed a low-PSI PSA that produced significantly lower levels of EPSI in

Study 1. In the control condition, a PSA that featured a black screen with text across the

bottom was shown. In each of the conditions, participants first watched the video clip (a

more detailed description of the stimuli will be provided in the next section). After the

PSAs ended, a prompt appeared on the next screen. All participants read, “Please share

your thoughts regarding the message using the boxes below. List as many thoughts as


43

you can. Of course your thoughts could be pro and/or against smoking. Remember, each

box can hold only one thought. So please enter one thought in each box. You are allowed

as much time as you need.” Participants then were allowed unlimited time to list as many

thoughts as they desired.

After thought listing, all participants were given a questionnaire measuring the

following variables: appraisal measures that include perceived confidence, validity and

persuasiveness of each thought generated; explicit attitude towards smoking; certainty of

attitude towards smoking; intention to quit smoking; EPSI; perceived persuasiveness of

the PSA; perceived persuasive intent of the PSA; and demographic measures including

smoking specific assessments (e.g., number of cigarette packets smoked in the last 30

days).

Stimulus.

The two PSI PSAs serving as the experimental stimuli in the current study were

determined by the results of Study 1. Based on the results, one high-PSI clip and one low-

PSI clip were selected. Gender of the media character was considered during the selection

and based on the results of Study 1 the male high and low PSI PSA was chosen. A PSA

featuring only a black screen with text served as a control condition in the study.

The experimental PSAs feature a male college student who is standing in a

hallway of a library. The PSA aimed to create a calm and natural scene that could happen

in daily life. The character was asked to keep a calm facial expression without any

obvious emotional expression such as happiness or sadness. The high PSI PSA features

the character looking at the camera while standing for the whole PSA to make sure there


44

is mediated eye contact with the viewer. The low PSI PSA features the character standing

in a library without looking at the camera (the camera was taking an ear shot of the

character). The filming of the addressing stimuli took place in the same location to hold

the background constant. The text at the bottom of the screen in all stimuli asks the

question, “Would you tell me/someone to smoke?” The pronoun “me” was used in the

direct addressing/high PSI condition (interpersonal addressing), whereas “someone” was

used in the indirect addressing/low PSI condition (distant addressing). A third clip was

produced as a control for the study. The PSA did not feature any human character but

showed a black screen and a line of text stating, “Smoking influences other people to

smoke.” Each PSA was 30 seconds long.

Measures.

Message-relevant thoughts. Message-relevant thoughts were assessed by asking

participants to list their thoughts after viewing the stimulus. Without a time constraint,

participants were able to list as many thoughts as they were willing. The number of

message relevant thoughts were counted for each participant as an indicator of cognitive

elaboration (e.g. Cacioppo, von Hippel, & Ernst, 1997). Relevant thoughts were defined

as thoughts that clearly evaluated the content of the PSA (not quality) and the issue

presented in the PSA (i.e., any comment/opinion regard smoking). All participants’

responses were collected and entered into a new spreadsheet without labels that indicated

which condition the participant was from. The primary investigator then coded the

thoughts as 1=relevant thoughts, 0=irrelevant thoughts. To ensure the reliability of coding,

a research colleague of the primary investigator served as the co-coder and the inter-


45

coder reliability was checked. The two coders randomly selected 15 participants’

responses from the sample using an online randomizer (about 15% (n = 5) from each

condition) and coded the responses individually. The inter-coder reliability was

acceptable with the Krippendorff’s alpha (α) of .76. One example of a relevant thought

taken from the responses of a participant is, “Smoking is bad.” An example of an

irrelevant thought is, “Why was he just standing there?” The final index of the variable

was created by summing up all thoughts that had been coded 1 for each participant. The

index indicates the total number of message relevant thoughts for a participant (M=2.90,

SD=3.28).

Valence of message relevant thoughts. The valence of the message relevant

thoughts was also coded by the primary investigator. Only message-relevant thoughts

were considered. The procedures for coding the valence of thoughts were similar to the

coding procedures for message relevant thoughts. Favorable thoughts were defined as

positive comments about the message (positive evaluation of the content of the PSA) and

any message-consistent (antismoking) comments (coded as 1=favorable). Unfavorable

thoughts were defined as negative comments about the message (negative evaluation of

the content of the PSA) and any message-inconsistent (pro-smoking or resistant)

comments (coded as 2=unfavorable). A neutral thought was defined as those thoughts

that are not clearly positive or negative, or are ambivalent in their valence by taking both

sides (0=neutral). The inter-coder reliability was acceptable with a Krippendorff’s alpha

(α) of .865. An example of a favorable thought is, “No I wouldn’t tell him to smoke.” For

unfavorable thoughts, an exemplar is, “I shouldn’t have to curtail my behavior to prevent


46

others from smoking.” And, a neutral thought is, “I’ve never advised anyone to smoke…

or not to.” The number of favorable thoughts variable (M=1.92, SD=2.98) and the

number of unfavorable thoughts variable (M=.52, SD=1.00) then were created by

summing up the thoughts coded as favorable and unfavorable separately.

Appraisal measures. The measures that captured cognitive appraisal of thoughts

generated (a.k.a., metacognition) consisted of three questions. The questions assessed

perceived confidence, validity, and persuasiveness of the thoughts. For every thought the

participant provided, three questions adapted from Tormala and Petty (2002) were asked

to assess the cognitive appraisal of this thought. The three questions asked participants to

indicate, “how confident do you feel about your thought”, “how valid do you say your

thought is”, and “how convincing is your thought”. Responses were recorded on a 7-point

scale where higher numbers indicated more favorable assessments of cognitive appraisal.

Only cognitive appraisals of relevant thoughts were computed for the variable. Appraisals

of favorable and unfavorable thoughts were computed separately. Thus, two final scores

were obtained for the variables and were labeled cognitive appraisal of favorable

thoughts and cognitive appraisal of unfavorable thoughts. The scores of each relevant

thought were obtained by averaging the scores of the three items. The final scores for

each variable were obtained by calculating the average of the total cognitive appraisal

scores for all favorable thoughts (M=2.68, SD=3.15) and all unfavorable thoughts

(M=1.53, SD=2.69) separately.

Attitude toward smoking. Attitude toward smoking was operationalized as a

spectrum of possible cognitions concerning smoking. Thus, both favorable and


47

unfavorable cognitions were measured using semantic differential items (Cronbach’s

α=.96). Two previous studies (Czyzewska & Ginsburg, 2007; Valois & Godin, 1991)

were consulted for a semantic differential scale that assess attitude toward smoking.

Participants were asked to evaluate smoking, in their opinion, on nine dimensions using a

5-point scale: “healthy vs. not healthy,” “good vs. bad,” “pleasant vs. unpleasant”,

“worthless vs. valuable”, “favorable vs. unfavorable”, “acceptable vs. unacceptable”,

“awful vs. nice”, “wonderful vs. horrible”, and “useful vs. useless”. Scores on the

semantic differential measure were converted to numbers for each item. Participants

received higher scores for the item if they evaluated smoking to be “healthy”, “good”,

pleasant”, “valuable”, “favorable”, “acceptable”, “nice”, “wonderful”, and “useful”. Then

scores for each item were averaged for each participant (M=2.39, SD=1.11). High scores

on the scale indicated a more favorable and positive attitude toward smoking, whereas

low scores indicated an unfavorable and negative attitude toward smoking.

Attitude certainty. Attitude certainty was operationalized as how confident one is

in their attitude. The variable was measured using a single item adapted from Tormala

and Petty (2002) that requires the participant to indicate how much confidence they have

in the attitude they possess. Participants were asked “How certain are you of your opinion

toward smoking?” Responses were collected on a 9-point response scale anchored at not

at all certain to very certain (M=7.63, SD=1.41).

Intentions to quit. Intentions to quit were measured using two questions. The

questions asked the participants to indicate their intention to quit smoking in the near

future (r=.503, n=89, p=.00). The two items are, “I plan to quit smoking within the next


48

three months” and “Suppose you want to quit smoking within the next three months.

How sure are you that you could?” The responses were recorded on a 5-point scale with -

2 anchoring not likely at all and +2 anchoring very likely (M=.29, SD=1.16).

Data Analysis.

Data collected from Study 2 were used to examine H2 and H3. To analyze H2,

another one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine differences in the influence of

high versus low EPSI PSAs (independent variable) on cognitive elaboration (number of

message-relevant thoughts) (dependent variable).

To assess H3, a moderated mediation model or conditional indirect effect

involving cognitive elaboration (number of message-relevant thoughts), perceived

persuasiveness of the PSA, number of valenced thoughts, cognitive appraisal of thoughts

(favorable and unfavorable), and attitude certainty was examined. The SPSS macro

PROCESS (Model 7; Hayes, 2013) was used to test the conditional indirect effect of

cognitive elaboration’s impact on attitude certainty through cognitive appraisal of

thoughts dependent upon perceived persuasiveness of the message and number of

valenced thoughts. In addition, attitude certainty’s proposed positive association with

attitude toward smoking was examined by a simple linear regression analysis.

Results.

To address H2 predicting greater cognitive elaboration (generation of message-

relevant thoughts) among those in the high EPSI PSA condition compared to the other

two conditions, a one-way ANOVA with the conditions (high EPSI PSA, low EPSI PSA,


49

or no EPSI PSA (control)) as the independent factor and number of message-relevant

thoughts as the dependent variable was conducted. Results showed no significant

differences in number of message relevant thoughts across conditions, F(2, 83)=.307,

p=.74, η²=.007. The high EPSI PSA (M=3.21, SD=.613) did not produce significantly

more message-relevant thoughts than the low EPSI PSA (M=2.93, SD=.603), t(83)=-.719,

p=.474. Further, when compared to the control group (M=2.52, SD=2.190), participants

in high EPSI PSA condition did not generate more relevant thoughts than their

counterparts in the control condition, t(83)=.688, p=1.00, nor did participants from low

EPSI PSA condition, t(83)=.415, p=1.00. Thus, H2 was not supported.

However, when using EPSI as a predictor of the number of message-relevant

thoughts, the results of a linear regression showed a significant relationship between the

two variables, b=.644, SE=.225, p<.05. Participants generated more message-relevant

thoughts when they felt greater EPSI. A closer look at the relationship revealed that EPSI

significantly predicted the number of favorable thoughts generated, b=.655, SE=.197,

p<.005, indicating when EPSI levels increase by one unit, participants tended to

generate .655 more favorable thoughts regarding the message. On the contrary, EPSI did

not predict the number of unfavorable thoughts, b=-.044, SE=.063, p=.485.

Study 2, similar to Study 1, also examined to what extent the participants

perceived the PSAs as persuasive and personally relevant, and how likely they were to

identify with the character. Three one-way ANOVAs were conducted for this exploratory

analysis of the relationships between addressing styles and perceived persuasiveness,

personal relevance and character identification. However, results showed no significant


50

differences between the PSAs in terms of their perceived persuasiveness, F=(2, 86)=.038,

p=.963, η²=.001, personal relevance, F=(2,87)=1.033, p=.360, η²=.023, or character

identification, F=(1,61)=.189, p=.666, η²=.003. The relationship between EPSI and

perceived persuasiveness was also investigated using regression. The results showed

EPSI significantly predicted perceived persuasiveness, b=.766, SE=.086, p<.001,

indicating with one unit increment in the level of EPSI, the PSA was perceived as .766

units more persuasive. Regressions were also applied to the relationship between EPSI

and personal relevance and character identification. The analyses revealed that EPSI

significantly predicted both personal relevance, b=.349, SE=.083, p<.001, and character

identification, b=.656, SE=.079, p<.001. The results indicated that with a one-unit

increment in the level of EPSI, participants perceived the PSA to be .349 units more

relevant and were more likely to identify with the character by a .656 unit increment in

the character identification scale.

To investigate the integrated persuasion model conceptually illustrated in Figure 3

in its entirety, which proposed a conditional mediation model with two mediators

(cognitive appraisal and attitude certainty) and two moderators (valance of thoughts and

perceived persuasiveness) on attitude change, the current study conducts a three-step

analysis procedure. The first step was to answer the question about the relationship

between the perceived persuasiveness and valence of thoughts. That is, whether

increasing levels of perceived persuasiveness would generate a greater the number of

favorable and lesser the number of unfavorable thoughts produced. The second step was

to test the conditional mediation model proposed in H3 suggesting the indirect effect of


51

cognitive elaboration (number of relevant thoughts) on attitude certainty through

cognitive appraisal of thoughts (favorable and unfavorable), which depends on perceived

persuasiveness. The final step was to establish the relationship between attitude certainty

and attitude toward smoking.

Therefore, linear regressions were conducted to first address the relationship

between perceived persuasiveness of the PSAs and the number of favorable and

unfavorable thoughts generated. Results indicated that perceived persuasiveness

predicted the number of favorable thoughts, b=.785, SE=.133, p<.001, and the number of

unfavorable thoughts, b=-.120, SE=.052, p<.05. That is, the more persuasive participants

perceived the PSA was, the more favorable thoughts and less unfavorable thoughts were

produced regarding the PSA. With one unit increment in the level of perceived

persuasiveness, there would be .785 more favorable thoughts and .12 less unfavorable

thought generated regarding the message.

Secondly, to test the moderated mediation model proposed, the PROCESS macro

(Hayes, 2013) was used to run Model 7 (see Figure 3) with bootstrap samples set to 1000

for 95% bias corrected confidence intervals. Cognitive elaboration was inserted as the

predictor variable, both cognitive appraisal of favorable and unfavorable thoughts were

included as mediators, perceived persuasiveness served as the moderator, and attitude

certainty was input as the dependent variable. To account for the presumed influence of

the conditions on the predictor in the conditional mediation model, cognitive elaboration,

this variable was dummy coded and included in the analysis as a covariate.


52

The relationships proposed in the moderated mediation model were tested by

addressing the significance of the conditional mediation of cognitive elaboration on

attitude certainty through cognitive appraisal, which depends on how persuasive

participants perceived the PSAs to be. Results did not reveal a significant conditional

indirect effect of cognitive elaboration on attitude certainty through cognitive appraisal of

favorable thoughts that was dependent on perceived persuasiveness, (index = -.0045; CI

= -.028, .006). In fact, this indirect effect was significant (point estimate = .056; CI

= .018, .116) at all levels of perceived persuasiveness (see Table 1 for estimates at

various levels of the moderator). Unexpectedly, cognitive elaboration increased attitude

certainty through increased confidence in favorable thoughts (see Table 2 for direct

effects), but there was no significant interaction between cognitive elaboration and

perceived persuasiveness in predicting appraisal of favorable thoughts, b=-.041, SE=.068,

p=.549.

A significant conditional indirect effect was observed through the second

mediator; appraisal of unfavorable thoughts (index = -.0398; CI = -.077, -.008). Cognitive

elaboration increased attitude certainty through increased confidence in unfavorable

thoughts depending on how persuasive participants perceived the PSA to be. More

specifically, this indirect effect was only significant at average and below levels of

perceived persuasiveness (see Table 1 for estimates at various levels of the moderator).

Thus, cognitive elaboration increased attitude certainty through increased confidence in

resistance to the message only when participants saw the message as less persuasive;


53

whereas when they perceived the message to be highly persuasive this indirect impact on

attitude certainty disappeared.

A similar significant interaction as the moderation observed for the indirect effect

was found between cognitive elaboration and perceived persuasiveness on appraisal of

unfavorable thoughts, b=-.318, SE=.068, p<.005. The results after probing this interaction

indicate that when perceived persuasiveness was low (1 SD below the mean) or average,

as participants’ generated more message relevant thoughts their appraisal of unfavorable

thoughts (resistance) tended to be higher (more confident). This relationship between

thoughts generated and resistance appraisal was not significant for those with high

perceived persuasiveness (1 SD above the mean and higher) (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Interaction effect of cognitive elaboration and perceived persuasiveness on

appraisal of resistance.


54

Taken together, these findings partially support the metacognitive process

outlined in H3. While no effects were found to decrease attitude certainty under

circumstances of high perceived persuasiveness due to increased confidence in message-

consistent thoughts or decreased confidence in resistant thoughts, increases in attitude

certainty were observed when perceived persuasiveness was lower due to increased

confidence in their message resistance. See Table 1 for all conditional indirect effects and

Table 2 for all direct effects and indirect effects in the model (see the statistical model in

Figure 5).

Finally, the relationship between attitude certainty and attitude toward smoking

was investigated using regression and the results showed no significant relationship

between the two variables, b=-.066, SE=.083, p=.433. Out of curiosity regarding whether

or not attitude certainty needs to impact one’s attitude before it could impact their

behavioral intentions, an exploratory regression analysis was conducted to determine the

relationship between attitude certainty and intention to quit. The results showed no

significant relationship between the two variables, b=.172, SE=.098, p=.084.

Study 2 Discussion.

Study 2 aims to test the influence of PSI on cognitive processing of the antismoking

PSAs. Results showed no significant difference between high PSI PSA and low PSI PSA

in terms of cognitive elaboration. A manipulation check was conducted to explore this

nonsignficant difference across conditions. A one-way ANOVA to examine EPSI in each

condition revealed only a marginal significant difference between the PSAs, F(1,

61)=3.54, p=.065, η²=.055. Counter to what was found in Study 1, participants who


55

viewed the high PSI PSA did not sense greater EPSI than their counterparts in the low

PSI PSA group.

Table 1

Specific Conditional Indirect Effects at Indicated Levels of Persuasiveness. Mediator Perceived

Persuasiveness Effect 95% Bias-corrected

Confidence Intervals Favorable Appraisal

1.61 .055 (.038) .010, .171

3.70 .045 (.027) .010, .122

5.78 .036 (.022) .004, .093

Unfavorable Appraisal

1.61 .159 (.070) .035, .302

3.70 .076 (.034) .018, .150

5.78 -.007 (.014) -.046, .013

Note: Values for moderator are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean.

Table 2

Summary of Direct Effects and Indirect Effects in the Moderated Mediation Model Predictor variables in direct effects

Appraisal of favorable thoughts

Appraisal of unfavorable thoughts

Attitude certainty

b SE b SE b SE

Cognitive elaboration .559 .356 1.781* .355 -.067 .057


56

Perceived persuasiveness

0.737* .197 .225

.197

Condition dummy variable 1

-.478 .662 .677 .661 -.058 .391

Condition dummy variable 2

.296 .663 .606 .663 .087 .384


.111 .060


.125 .058

Mediator in indirect effects

Effect 95% Bias-corrected Confidence Intervals


.057* (.025)

.020, .117


.018 (.014)

-.001, .059

Note: *p < .05.


57

Indirect effect through cog. appraisal of favorable = .056 (95% CI= .018, .112) Indirect effect through cog. appraisal of unfavorable = .018 (95% CI= -.002, .057)

Note: *p<.05.

Figure 5. Estimates of effects of cognitive elaboration on attitude certainty though

cognitive appraisals depends on perceived persuasiveness.

However, EPSI successfully predicted the number of message-relevant thoughts

produced. That is, EPSI was positively associated with the generation of more relevant

thoughts, which is primarily driven by an increase of favorable thoughts toward the

message. This finding could be promising for message creators that strive for attitude

change. As discussed in Chapter III, attitude formation and change are heavily influenced

by number and valence of thoughts generated (Petty, Brinol, & Tormala, 2002).

Therefore, PSI could be an effective component in producing persuasive mediated

messages.


58

As expected, perceived persuasiveness was positively correlated with number of

favorable thoughts and negatively correlated with number of unfavorable thoughts;

however, the moderated mediation model was only partially supported. Cognitive

appraisal of favorable thoughts, dependent upon perceived persuasiveness, did not

mediate the relationship between cognitive elaboration and attitude certainty. That is,

when the number of message relevant thoughts increased, participants’ appraisal of

favorable thoughts always became more confident regardless the level of perceived

persuasiveness. Whereas, the conditional indirect effect through cognitive appraisal of

unfavorable thoughts was significant. This conditional indirect effect indicates that as the

number of message relevant thoughts increased, participants’ appraisal of unfavorable

thoughts became more confident if the message was perceived as less persuasive, and in

turn, participants’ attitude certainty increased due to the enhanced appraisal. Thus, the

results for H3 only capture increased attitude certainty through the process of resistance

appraisal that occurs when perceived persuasiveness of the PSA is lower. It did not reveal

support for the portion of H3 that predicts decreased attitude certainty through weakened

resistance appraisal or strengthened favorable thoughts when the PSA was perceived as

highly persuasive.


59

CHAPTER VI. GENERAL DISCUSSION

Summary of Findings

The findings of the two studies combined demonstrate the effects of experienced

parasocial interaction (EPSI) on perception and processing of antismoking messages

These studies tested the potential for addressing style manipulated in PSAs to 1) trigger

EPSI, 2) increase cognitive elaboration about the message, and 3) lead to a model of

metacognitive processing that involves cognitive appraisal of favorable and unfavorable

thoughts, evaluation of attitude certainty, and attitude change. However, the results only

partially support the model proposed.

In Study 1, addressing style did influence the level of EPSI as predicted in H1.

That is, participants in the condition that involved a media character making direct eye

contact with and textually addressing the participants using first-person pronouns

experienced significantly greater levels of EPSI than participants who were exposed to

the antismoking PSA featuring a side-shot of the character with textual address using

third-person pronouns. The results replicated previous studies (Hartmann & Goldhoorn,

2011; Cummins & Cui, 2014) that show addressing style, particularly eye contact and

textual addressing, can trigger a sense of EPSI. However, this previous research on EPSI

had not examined its potential to impact cognitive processing and thus, Study 2

investigated this potential.

In Study 2, EPSI was significantly related to the number of message relevant

thoughts generated and in particular, the number of favorable thoughts. As EPSI levels

increased among participants, their number of relevant thoughts overall and number of


60

favorable thoughts specifically increased. This result suggests support for the

effectiveness of EPSI’s ability to engage individuals in thinking about the message within

an antismoking PSA. However, the condition manipulation of addressing style did not

appear as a significant predictor for the number of message relevant thoughts generated

as proposed in H2 or EPSI as found in Study 1.

The reason for these insignificant effects of condition in Study 2 could be twofold.

Firstly, unlike Study 1, within which the EPSI measurement was conducted right after the

stimuli, the EPSI measurement was applied almost at the end in Study 2 so that

participants could immediately document and appraise their thoughts regarding the

message. Although there is no previous evidence of impacts due to order or delay of

measurement on the accuracy of capturing EPSI, PSI as a phenomenon is likely to be

denied when people care to think about it (Giles, 2002). It is also possible that after the

thought-listing task and cognitive appraisal of thoughts, participants simply forgot the

content of the PSA or they no longer possess the fresh sense of imaginary interpersonal

interaction with the character. Thus, Study 2 did not replicate the significant impact of

addressing style on EPSI.

Secondly, PSI itself may be a multi-faceted construct that is predicted by

individual characteristics such as perspective taking and empathy (e.g. Cummins & Cui,

2014). Thus, despites addressing style being the trigger of PSI, how easily an individual

adopts another person’s view and how susceptible one is to another’s emotional

expression may also determine the level of PSI experienced. It is possible that if Study 2

took those individual differences into account, differential impacts on PSI due to the


61

manipulated conditions might be found. Moreover, perhaps this muli-faceted nature of

PSI signals that it likely serves as a moderator rather than a mediator in the observed

relationships. For instance, whether addressing style impacts subsequent outcomes such

as cognitive processing may be dependent on individual levels of experienced PSI as

opposed to processing outcomes happening through EPSI.

The moderated mediation model predicted in H3 was only partially supported.

However, regression tests showed that greater perceived persuasiveness leads to a greater

number of favorable thoughts and less unfavorable thoughts. Moreover, it was revealed

that as the number of message relevant thoughts increase for a participant, their cognitive

appraisal of unfavorable thoughts becomes more confident when they perceived the PSA

as less persuasive, and their attitude certainty increases. Thus, when perceived

persuasiveness is low, increased message relevant thoughts would be driven mainly by an

increase of unfavorable thoughts. Meanwhile, the appraisal of those unfavorable thoughts

would be more confident. These findings corroborate the findings of Petty, Brinol, and

Tormala’s (2002) self-validation study regarding unfavorable thoughts, but not for

favorable thoughts. According to self-validation theory, the perceived quality of a

message influences the number of valenced thoughts and the evaluation of them. A less

persuasive message should elicit more unfavorable and less favorable thoughts regarding

the message; and individuals become more confident in those unfavorable thoughts and

less confident in their favorable thoughts.


62

PSI and Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

The current dissertation is the first study that addresses PSI and its influence on

cognitive processing. As discussed, the ELM proposes two routes of message processing,

one involves more careful and effortful processing, central processing, and the other

involves less effortful and heuristic processing, peripheral processing (Petty & Cacioppo,

1981). Aspects of the message itself could actually serve to influence the choice of these

processing routes and how the message is actually evaluated. For example, the layout of

newspaper news could serve as a contextual factor and attract readers to read the news

more carefully. The same layout could then serve as an argument element that increases

the quality of the news (Petty, Brinol, & Priester, 2009). In the current dissertation, EPSI

appears to be associated with an increase in cognitive elaboration and perceived

persuasiveness of the message. This suggests support for the concept of PSI as a

contextual factor that first engages smokers in central processing of an antismoking

message. Then, PSI becomes part of the argument as a message feature that could boost

the perceived quality of the message among the smokers, which is necessary before one

would experience any attitudinal outcomes (Petty & Wegener, 1999).

Furthermore, EPSI is also related to personal relevance, which is one of the

motivational factors for central processing in the ELM. It is possible that PSI creates a

sense of interpersonal communication, which in turn makes smokers perceive the

antismoking PSA as a private address from the mediated character that would enhance

perceived personal relevance of the message. EPSI is also positively related to character

identification in terms of similarity, which is another motivational drive for central


63

processing. A more vivid experience of interpersonal interaction with the mediated

character increases the likelihood for the viewer to perceive the character as more similar

to oneself, which could also serve as motivation for central processing. Thus, EPSI, like

personal relevance or similarity, could serve as a motivational factor that is associated

with an increase in likelihood of central processing or greater cognitive elaboration.

Overall, the automatic imagination and experience of social presence in mediated

communication, PSI, is an influential factor that is associated with both the likelihood of

cognitive elaboration and the perceived quality of a message, which is crucial to

attitudinal outcomes (Petty & Wegener, 1999). The current dissertation reveals that the

simple altering of a camera angle and adjustment of textual tone in addressing could have

profound impacts on how the message is going to be processed and perceived.

PSI, Parasocial Relationship, and Transportation

The findings of the present studies have both theoretical and applied value. When

studying PSI, scholars had used this concept as exchangeable with parasocial relationship

(PSR), which is the long-term imaginary friendship formed between audiences and the

mediated personae. However, the two concepts should be treated distinctly (see Dibble,

Hartmann, & Rosaen, 2015 for a conceptual clarification and empirical assessment of PSI

measures). As discussed in Chapter II, PSI is an online experience of social presence and

virtual interpersonal communication during exposure and can be triggered by direct

addressing. Gaze studies have proved that the human brain is programmed with a “gaze

detector” and responses to gaze are shown in human infants (Farroni, Csibra, Simion, &

Johnson, 2002). Another study showed that people respond to virtual characters as if they


64

were real persons when they made mutual eye contact with the avatar (Bailenson et al.’s,

2001). Therefore, unlike PSR, PSI is more likely a trigger or a message factor that serves

as premise for consequential message engagement and processing.

Previous studies tend to embed the phenomenon of PSI within the context of

narrative communication that involves sending a message through storytelling and plots.

The well-known theoretical exploration of PSI within this context is the entertainment

overcoming resistance model. In general, narrative persuasion proposes that

entertainment programs with embedded persuasive messages in narrative storylines have

the ability to persuade audiences without obvious attempts (Green & Brock, 2000;

Moyer-Guse, 2008; Singhal & Rogers, 2012; Slater & Rouner, 2002). The entertainment

overcoming resistance model (Moyer-Guse, 2008) specifically suggests PSI with

characters within such programs could reduce reactance, counterarguing and changes

audiences’ perceived norms. Thus, audiences are less likely to resist ideas proposed by

the characters in the entertainment programs with whom they have formed a parasocial

attachment. Audiences also become empathic with the mediated characters and share

those characters perspectives and norms (Moyer-Guse, 2008). However, the PSI

mentioned in this model is actually a long-term relationship, or rather PSR (see Moyer-

Guse & Nabi, 2010 for the use of PSI measures that tap into friendship and liking with a

mediated character); whereas the process by which one might come to adopt message

consistent beliefs through EPSI is not theorized.

Results indicated that EPSI is positively related to cognitive processing of a

message in that the recipients tend to think more about the merit of the message when


65

they feel mutual gaze and awareness of the character. The imagination of a social

interaction is associated with the greater likelihood of audiences’ engagement with the

message or a more careful thinking about the issue presented in the message. Moreover, a

closer look at the valence of those relevant thoughts indicate that greater EPSI is not only

accompanied with an increase of the number of relevant thoughts overall, but especially

the number of favorable or message-consistent thoughts. Since the present study’s

message was an antismoking message, these message-consistent thoughts were against

smoking. People tend to think more and more consistently with the message’s position

when they feel greater PSI with the mediated character. However, increased PSI did not

associate with decreased the number of unfavorable, or message inconsistent thoughts.

Therefore, the current dissertation adds to the understanding of PSI by testing its

immediate cognitive responses using thought listing. By bridging the elaboration

likelihood model (ELM) with PSI, the study indicates that EPSI may have the ability to

predict when the recipients process the message more carefully, and an increase of

message consistent thoughts but not necessarily the reduction of message-inconsistent

(e.g., counterarguing) thoughts as suggested by narrative persuasion theorists (Green &

Brock, 2000; Moyer-Guse, 2008; Slater & Rouner, 2002).

Transportation refers to the readers’ (or audiences’ and listeners’) absorption and

deep engagement with the narrative message (Green & Brock, 2000). After message

consumption, recipients show greater character identification when they report high

levels of transportation. More favorable cognitive responses to the transported message

are also often reported in transportation studies (e.g., Lane, Miller, Brown, & Vilar, 2013).


66

PSI is often suggested as an element in narrative communication that could contribute to

outcomes regarding attitudinal change or adoption of story-consistent beliefs. However,

the process by which this change occurs indicates that transportation may lead audiences

to accept simple falsities that contradict common sense because of reduced thinking and

increased perspective-taking caused by transportation (Appel & Richter, 2007; Green &

Brock, 2000). Once more, the concept that may be helpful in contributing to this covert

persuasion process is PSR; whereas PSI may act contrarily by associating with more

careful thinking of the messages presented. Interacting with a character is a very different,

more overt experience than perspective-taking with a character and becoming lost in a

narrative. Further, scholars contend that the primary motivation of consuming the

narrative materials is for entertainment value and personal enjoyment (Green, 2004),

which could then be lessened if the expected experience of transportation is interrupted

by PSI triggering central processing.

Questions then are raised based on the previous findings about PSR,

entertainment overcoming resistance model, and transportation and the potential conflict

with the findings of the current dissertation. When showing narrative persuasion content

such as educational TV shows or a health PSA with a storyline, featuring mediated

personae making mutual gaze with the audience would trigger PSI. It is possible that

during viewing, persistent direct addressing would enhance the sense of PSI, which in

turn associates with carefully thinking of the message and more favorable thoughts about

the message. Thus, contrasting with findings of transportation and narrative persuasion,

PSI predicts more thinking rather than reduces thinking. And, it associates with the


67

generation of more favorable thoughts rather than undermining unfavorable thoughts.

The crucial question would then be, do the findings of the current dissertation involving

PSI in an overt persuasive message apply to narrative contexts? Will the narrative context

override the ELM impacts of PSI or will the two components conflict with one another?

There are three reasons why narrative contexts should not override the impacts of

PSI. Firstly, the assumption that PSI induces PSR has never been tested because for many

years the two constructs are used interchangeably (Giles, 2002). However, repeated PSI

may help the formation of long-term parasocial attachment since the greater sense of

imaginary interpersonal interaction indeed helps the viewers becoming familiar with the

mediated personae and provides opportunity for the development of imaginary friendship.

Thus, PSI should contribute to the formation of PSR in the narrative contexts rather than

hinder the formation.

Secondly, media products aired contain different characters, changing background,

sound effects and visual effects, and are probably longer than the duration of the study

stimuli. Thus, without strict control of the production of stimulus, many confounds would

induce way more complex processing among viewers. The persistent changing content

allows multiple cognitive mechanisms to take place. Thus, when viewers are holding a

mutual gaze with a mediated character, they could engage in careful thinking of the

message and generate more favorable thoughts about the message as suggested by the

findings of the current dissertation. However, as the story goes on, newly incoming

information occupies mental resources and the viewers may switch to peripheral

processing or are transported in the story. Due to the difficulty of assessing viewer’s


68

mental activities without intruding the flow, and the artificial nature of breaking the

processing into pieces may have little applied value, no study has tried to distinguished

subtle differences in the message processing in narrative contexts. Thus, one cannot be

sure that in narrative contexts and transportation would override the effects of PSI and

future research should explore measurement that would allow for such an examination.

Thirdly, the findings of this dissertation reveal a positive relationship between PSI

and identification with character, which is a component in transportation. Also, PSI is

positively correlated with another component in transportation, perspective taking

(Cummins & Cui, 2014). In narrative contexts, PSI should increase thinking in a way that

leads the viewer to think and feel more consistent with what the character would think

and feel.

In general, audiences who form PSI with mediated characters may enjoy the

program more, and possibly are more likely to adopt the characters’ perspectives. Such

rewarding experiences of viewing would potentially result in increased consumption of

the program. When audiences are repeatedly exposed to the content, those perspectives

and views embedded in the show would be easier to be accepted or adopted by the

viewers. And as mentioned, audiences who form parasocial attachment with mediated

characters would likely deny such attachment when they care to think about it. Thus, PSI

may enhance attitude change in a way that is below awareness and by encouraging

audiences to actively seek out the similar content again and again. Future research may

want to develop materials that employ PSI with longitudinal study design to test the

delayed attitude change caused by PSI.


69

Thus, the current dissertation suggests message production should depend on the

purpose and format of the educational material. PSI may be more efficient for the

production of short, condensed, and straightforward advocate messaging, which is often

produced due to limited resources for production. Narrative material, on the other hand,

could be effective in terms of hosting educational elements and is better off having

attractive and convincing storylines, which require more resources for production.

Meta-cognition in the ELM

In addition to the present dissertation’s interest in cognitive elaboration or central

processing driven by EPSI, the complete process of elaboration to attitude change was

also examined. More specifically, the metacognitive process of thought appraisal under

the circumstance of careful thinking was examined. The integration of metacognitive

processing in the ELM would help enhance our understanding of the mental activities

that lead to attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.

The significant mediation (but nonexistent conditional mediation) of cognitive

elaboration on attitude certainty through cognitive appraisal of favorable thoughts

indicates that, regardless of the perceived quality of the message, when participants

generate more message-relevant thoughts, they tend to be more confident in their

message-consistent or favorable thoughts and then become more confident in their

attitude. Unlike what the ELM suggests, perceived quality of the message seems to be

less important for the influence of elaboration about message-consistent thoughts on

attitude and more important for deciding when someone will resist the message. That is,

when individuals are engaged in message processing and agree with the message


70

(evaluate their positive thoughts toward the message as valid), they tend to ignore the

quality of the message and become more confident in their attitude, which leaves little

room for attitude change.

However, the findings may not be conclusive. Without measuring smokers’ initial

attitude when they volunteered for the study, there is no way to exclude the influence of

pre-existing attitude and past experience on their attitudinal outcomes. For example,

smokers may possess thoughts of quitting or commit to quitting when the study begins. A

pre-existing negative attitude toward smoking would result in an easier acceptation of

antismoking messages than smokers who possess a positive attitude toward smoking. The

insignificant conditional indirect effects through favorable thoughts may simply reflect

such influence. If participants come with an antismoking attitude, they will be more ready

to agree with the antismoking messages used in these studies regardless of the quality of

the messages. Scholars of future studies may want to measure participants’ initial attitude

toward smoking and the history of quitting or the intention of quitting before the study. In

addition, the measure of attitude certainty is a rather general question that is not able to

indicate whether the participants became more certain of their positive attitudes or

negative attitudes. Future examinations should ask participants certainty about both their

pro- and anti-smoking attitdues.

The mediation effect of cognitive elaboration on attitude certainty through

cognitive appraisal of unfavorable thoughts was significant only when perceived

persuasiveness of the message was at average or low. Thus, perceived quality of the

message plays an important moderating role when participants resist the message.


71

Contrary to resistance appraisal hypothesis (Tormala & Rucker, 2007), which states that

people who resist a weak message will not change their attitude certainty, the findings of

this dissertation suggests that resistance to a weak message may increase attitude

certainty. These findings resembled a similar processing outlined in inoculation theory

(McGuire, 1961). A weak inoculation message prepares the recipients for future

persuasive attempts. The weak counter-attitudinal message engages the recipients in

resistance and it is not strong enough to persuade the recipients. Instead, the message

recipients practice generating counterarguments. Their attitude certainty also increases by

resisting the weak message. Thus, the weak message could work like an inoculation that

readies the recipients to combat future persuasive attempts. Although inoculation theory

does not address the construct of attitude certainty, the current dissertation provides

evidence that resisting a weak message increases attitude certainty, which could

potentially strengthen the attitude.

Limitations and Future Studies

Despite the significant results, the current dissertation also gathered some

nonsignificant findings that induce interesting speculations about the constructs examined

and highlight limitations of the current studies. One speculation generated due to a

nonsignficant finding is that PSI may be time-sensitive. That is, the experience of PSI is

actually an ongoing response to a stimulus. The simultaneous interactions may not be

best captured using the measures of the current dissertation. In Cummins and Cui’s (2014)

study, EPSI was measured using continuous responses scale that requiring participants to

consistently rate EPSI during viewing. Because PSI is an online experience, the best


72

measurement of the construct should be unobtrusive and continuous. Future studies may

want to employ measurements such as psychophysiological measures and secondary-task

response times to assess the responses that are below consciousness and attention

allocation, that is an indicator of PSI.

The lack of significant attitude change and intention to quit outcomes due to the

cognitive processing observed could be due to the fact this was a one-shot study design.

Attitudinal change is a gradual process that is said to eventually lead to behavioral

intentions overtime (Doherty & Kurz, 1996). The delayed change may be captured if

future studies measure attitudinal outcomes in time intervals. For example, with a

longitudinal design, researchers could measure attitudinal outcomes such as attitude

certainty and attitude at the time of the study and again after a certain period of time. The

longitudinal nature of that data could potentially capture the delayed influences of

attitude certainty on attitude and intention of behavior.

Another limitation was that the study stimuli were produced specifically for the

study. By doing this, the study ensures the experimental manipulation of the stimuli

would be controlled. However, the ecological validity may be threatened. The stimuli

used in the current study are very different from released antismoking PSAs. Future

studies may want to use aired antismoking PSAs as stimuli, but for the theoretical aim of

the current dissertation more extreme control of the stimuli was necessary. By providing

only a human face, a strict angle of camera and slight manipulation of textual tone (see

Appendix A for graphic exemplars of the PSAs), these studies are able to exclude

confounding variables such change of camera angle, lighting, background, number of


73

cuts/shots, verbal variation, etc. Thus, the dissertation can make a clear connection

between the visual elements and findings.

The forced nature of participants’ exposure to the antismoking stimuli was

another ecological validity related limitation of the present dissertation. The study could

not draw conclusions about whether EPSI could engage smokers in a more naturalistic

settings where the smokers could freely choose to be exposed to an antismoking message

or not. Based on the observations of previous studies (e.g., Bolburg, 2006), when exposed

to antismoking ads that are inconsistent with smokers’ attitude and behavior, they may

show selective avoidance and simply ignore antismoking messages. To investigate the

ability of EPSI to draw smokers to spend more time with antismoking messages, future

studies may imbed EPSI and non-EPSI inducing message in an online website or

magazine and measure smokers selective attention and exposure to the messages.

The last limitation of the current dissertation is that it was an online experiment

that allows participants to take the study whenever and wherever they would like.

Therefore, the environment in which the studies are conducted is impossible to control.

Due to the uncontrolled environment and invalid entry, many participants’ answers were

dropped from the analyses. Thus, based on the findings of the present study, researchers

may want to replicate the study in a laboratory. However, there are also disadvantages

associated with artificial laboratory settings such as diminished ecological value and the

power of generalization. How to balance the need of control over the study and its

applied value has always been a challenge for researchers.


74

Brief Conclusion

The primary goal of the current dissertation is to investigate whether PSI can

influence the effectiveness of antismoking ads. Overall, this dissertation examined the

effects of PSI in overt persuasive antismoking messages and found that PSI is positively

related to cognitive elaboration. And, smokers are more likely to produce antismoking

cognitions and message-consistent thoughts when they sense greater PSI. The cost-

efficient production technique of camera angle and textual addressing could have

influential impacts on how the message is processed by the audiences.

For practical value, this dissertation is looking for factors that decrease attitude

certainty. As discussed in earlier chapters, a decrease in attitude certainty signals a more

vulnerable attitude and potential attitude change in the future (resistance appraisal

hypothesis; Tormala & Rucker, 2007). However, the results did not indicate decreased in

attitude certainty. Attitude certainty was found to increase due to cognitive elaboration

through positive appraisal of favorable thoughts and the positive appraisal of resistance

providing the message was perceived as less persuasive. These findings only partially

support the proposed model and without further analyses it is unclear whether the

confidence participants gained was for anti- or pro-smoking attitudes. Moreover, the

theoretical conclusions of the current study are still tentative and practical application of

these findings should not be attempted before future studies further explore these

relationships (1) utilizing a measure of PSI that captures the dynamic nature of the

construct; and (2) testing across multiple messages.


75

In general, the current dissertation has several methodological advantages over

previous studies. First, the study measured perceived persuasiveness of the message

without explicit manipulation. In previous studies (e.g. Tormala & Petty, 2002),

perceived quality of the message was manipulated by telling the participants that the

message is strong or weak. Comparing to the manipulation of quality, the current

dissertation is able to capture the more naturalistic and holistic cognitive responses to

different message starting with the perception of the message. Second, the current

dissertation allows the participant to generate message-relevant thoughts freely (i.e. both

favorable and unfavorable thoughts). The design of the free thought listing helps the

researcher to picture a comprehensive model of the cognitive activities that could take

place simultaneously for attitudinal outcomes.

For future studies, researchers may want to explore the relationship between PSI,

PSR, and transportation. In general, studies about the possible impacts of PSI in a

narrative context may further broader the understanding and application of PSI as a

message element. Although it is plausible that PSI should not conflict with transportation

and its persuasive process in narrative contexts, empirical evidence is needed to support

this speculation. Moreover, the moderating role of PSI as an influential factor in the ELM

and metacognitive model should be tested in future studies. Metacognitive processing of

antismoking messages could be further broadened by selecting different types of released

ads as study stimuli. These existing ads and a multiple message experimental design

would strengthen generalizability of the current findings and their applicability to

message production. Future studies should also test existing ads that focus on various


76

types of antismoking messages designed for different purposes such as prevention and

cessation.

The current dissertation suggests a novel role for PSI as a motivational factor and

feature of the argument that influences the cognitive processing of messages. The

observed correlations between PSI and other motivational factors such as personal

relevance and identification to character also suggest the possible position for PSI to

serve as a moderator for central processing that in turn influences attitude certainty

through meta-cognitive processes. Taken together, the current dissertation discovered

great potential for PSI as an influential variable affecting perceptual and cognitive

responses to messages.


77

References

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Appel, M., & Richter, T. (2007). Persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase over

time. Media Psychology, 10, 113-134.

Ashe, D. D., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2001). Shyness, loneliness, and attitude toward

celebrities. Current Research in Social Psychology, 6, 124-32.

Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., & Loomis, J. M. (2001). Equilibrium theory

revisited: Mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments. Presence, 10(6),

583-99.

Baker, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Majority and minority influence: Source-position

imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 67, 5-19.

Bavelas, J.B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2002). Listener responses as a collaborative

process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52, 566-580.

Beavin, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2002). Listener responses as a collaborative

process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 566-80.

BeTobaccoFree.gov. Tobacco facts and figures. Retrieved April 23, 2015, from

http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov/about-tobacco/facts-figures/index.html#Why is

smoking harmful to smokers?

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. San Diego, CA: Academic

Press.


78

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A

new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological

Science, 6(1), 3.5.

Burgoon, J. K., Coker, D. A., & Coker, R. A. (1986). Communicative effects of gaze

behavior: A test of two contrasting explanations. Human Communication

Research, 12(4), 495-524.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.

Cacioppo, J. T., von Hippel, W., & Ernst, J. M. (1997). Mapping cognitive structures and

processes through verbal content: The thought-listing technique. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(6), 928-40.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015, March). Cigarette smoking in the

United States. Retrieved April 23, 2015, from

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/resources/data/cigarette-smoking-in-

united-states.html

Chou, H. Y., Lien, N. H., & Liang, K. Y. (2011). The antecedents and belief-polarized

effects of thought confidence. The Journal of Psychology, 145(5), 481-506.

Claypool, H. M., Mackie, D. M., Garcia-Marques, T., Mclntosh, A., & Udall, A. (2004).

The effect of personal relevance and repetition on persuasive processing.

Social Cognition, 22(3), 310-335.


79

Cohen, J. (2009). Mediated relationships and media effects: Parasocial interaction and

identification. In R.L. Nabi & M.B. Oliver (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Media

Processes and Effects (pp. 223-236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cook, T. D., Gruder, C. L., Hennigan, K. M., Flay, B. R. (1979). History of the sleeper

effect: Some logical pitfalls in accepting the null hypothesis. Psychological

Bulletin, 86, 662-79.

Cummins, R. G., & Cui, B. (2014). Reconceptualizing address in television programming:

The effect of address and affective empathy on viewer experience of parasocial

interaction. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 723-42.

Czyzewska, M., & Ginsburg, H. J. (2007). Explicit and implicit effects of anti-marijuana

and anti-tobacco TV advertisements. Addictive Behaviors, 32(1), 114-127.

Doherty, M. E., & Kurz, E. M. (1996). Social judgment theory. Thinking & Reasoning,

2(2-3), 109-40.

Dunlop, S. M., Cotter, T., & Perez, D. (2014). When your smoking is not just about you:

Antismoking advertising, interpersonal pressure, and quitting outcomes. Journal of

Health Communication, 19, 41-56.

Dunlop, S. M., Wakefield, M., & Kashima, Y. (2008). The contribution of antismoking

advertising to quitting: Intra- and interpersonal processes. Journal of Health

Communication, 13(3), 250-66.

Durkin, S. J., Biener, L., & Wakefield, M. A. (2009). Effects of different types of

antismoking ads on reducing disparities in smoking cessation among

socioeconomic subgroups. American Journal of Public Health, 99(12), 2217-23.


80

Farrelly, M., Niederdeppe, J., & Yarsevich, J. (2003). Youth tobacco prevention mass

media campaigns: Past, present, and future directions. Tobacco Control, 12(1),

i35-i47.

Farroni, T., Csibra, G., Simion, F., & Johnson, M. H. (2002). Eye contact detection in

humans from birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 9602-05.

Federal Trade Commission. (2013, May). FTC releases reports on 2011 cigarette and

smokeless tobacco advertising and promotion. Retrieved April 23, 2015, from

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/05/ftc-releases-reports-2011-

cigarette-and-smokeless-tobacco

Frischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Gaze cueing of attention: Visual

attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychological Bulletin,

133(4), 694-724.

Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for

future research. Media Psychology, 4, 279-305.

Goffmann, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48, 1-17.

Green, M. C. (2004). Transportation into narrative worlds: The role of prior knowledge

and perceived realism. Discourse Processes, 38, 247-266.

Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of

public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701-21.

Green, M. C., Strange, J. J., & Brock, T. C. (2002). Narrative impact: Social and

cognitive foundations. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Publishers.


81

Gross, S. J., & Niman, C. M. (1975). Attitude-behavior consistency: A review. Public

Opinion Quarterly, 39(3), 358.

Hartmann, T., & Goldhoorn, C. (2011). Horton and Wohl revisited: Exploring viewers’

experience of parasocial interaction. Journal of Communication, 61, 1104-1121.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process

analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Henriksen, L., Dauphinee, A. L., Wang, Y., & Fortmann, S. P. (2006). Industry

sponsored anti-smoking ads and adolescent reactance: Test of a boomerang effect.

Tobacco Control, 15, 13-18.

Horton, D., & Strauss, A. (1957). Interaction in audience participation shows. The

American Journal of Sociology, 62, 579-87.

Horton, D., & Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction:

Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229.

Katz, D., & Lazarsfeld, P. R. (1955). Personal influence. New York: Free Press.

Lane, R., Miller, A. N., Brown, C., & Vilar, N. (2013). An examination of the narrative

persuasion with epilogue through the lens of the Elaboration Likelihood Model.

Communication Quarterly, 61(4), 431-445.

Lasswell, H. W. (1964). The structure and function of communication in society. In L.

Bryson (Ed.), Communication of ideas (pp. 37-51). New York: Cooper Square

Publishers.


82

Lee, S., Cappella, J., Lerman, C., & Strasser, A. (2011). Smoking cues, argument strength,

and perceived effectiveness of antismoking PSAs. Nicotine & Tobacco Research,

13(4), 282-90.

Leshner, G., & Cheng, I. (2009). The effects of frame, appeal, and outcome extremity of

antismoking messages on cognitive processing. Health Communication, 24(3),

219-27.

Levy, M. R. (1979). Watching TV news as parasocial interaction. Journal of

Broadcasting, 23, 69-80.

Kelman, H. C., & Hovland, C. I. (1953). “Reinstatement” of the communicator in

delayed measurement of opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social


Kingstone, A., Tipper, C., Ristic, J., Friesen, C. K., & Ngan, E. (2004). The eyes have it!:

An fMRI investigation. Brain and Cognition, 55, 269-71.

Kilgore, E. A., Mandel-Ricci, J., Johns, M., Coady, M. H., Perl, S. B., Goodman, A., &

Kansagra, S. M. (2014). Making it harder to smoke and easier to quit: The effect

of 10 years of tobacco control in New York City. American Journal of Public

Health, 104(6), e5-e8.

Malle, B. F., & Hodges, S. (2005). Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between

self and other. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),

Handbook of social psychology (pp. 233-346). New York: Random House.


83

McGuire, W. J. (1989). Theoretical foundations of campaigns. In R. E. Rice & C. K.

Atkin (Eds.), Public communications campaigns (pp. 43-65). Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Moyer-Guse, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the

persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory,

18, 407-425.

Moyer-Guse, E., & Nabi, R. L. (2010). Explaining the effects of narrative in an

entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human

Communication Research, 36, 26-52.

Petty, R. E., Brinol, P., & Priester, J. R. (2009). Mass media attitude change: Implications

of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver

(Eds.), Media effects: Advanced in theory and research (pp. 125-64). New York:

Routledge.

Petty, R. E., Brinol, P., & Tormala, Z. L. (2002). Thought confidence as a determinant of

persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social


Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 124-192.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus

integration. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 367-74.


84

Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status

and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in

social psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford Press.

Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (2003). The influence of spokesperson trustworthiness on

message elaboration, attitude strength, and advertising effectiveness. Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 13, 408-21.

Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers,

television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University

Press.

Rosengren, K. E., & Windahl, S. (1972). Mass media consumption as a founctional

alternative. In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of mass communication: Selected

readings (pp. 166-94). Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd.

Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction,

and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 14, 155-80.

Rubin, A. M., & Step, M. M. (2000). Impact of motivation, attraction, and parasocial

interaction of talk radio listening. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media,

44, 635-54.

Ruiter, R. A. C., Abraham, C., & Kok, G. (2001). Scary warnings and rational

precautions: A review of the psychology of fear appeals. Psychology & Health,

16(6), 613-630.

Sanders-Jackson, A., Cappella, J. N., Linebarger, D. L., Piotrowski, J. T., O’Keeffe, M.,

& Strasser, A. A. (2011). Visual attention to antismoking PSAs: Smoking cues


85

versus other attention-grabbing features. Human Communication Research, 37,

275-92.

Slater, M. (1997). Persuasion processes across rece4iver goals and message genres.

Communication Theory, 7, 125-48.

Snyder L. B., Hamilton, M. A., Mitchell, E. W., Kiwanuka-Tondo, J., Fleming-Milici, F.,

& Proctor, D. (2004). A meta-analysis of the effect of mediated health

communication campaigns on behavior change in the United States. Journal of

Health Communication, 9, 71-96.

Stoddard, J. L., Johnson, C. A., Sussman, S., Dent, C., & Boley-Cruz, T. (1998).

Tailoring outdoor tobacco advertising to minorities in Los Angeles County.

Journal of Health Communication, 3(2), 137-46.

Striano, T., & Reid, V. M. (2006). Social cognition in the first year. Trends in Cognitive

Science, 10, 471-76.

Sussenback, P., Niemeier, S., & Glock, S. (2013). Effects of and attention to graphic

warning labels on cigarette packages. Psychology & Health, 28(10), 1192-1206.

Teenage Research Unlimited. (1999). Counter-tobacco advertising exploratory:

Summary report. Northbrook, Illinois: TRU.

Tormala, Z. L. (2008). A new framework for resistance to persuasion: The resistance

appraisals hypothesis. In W. D. Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and Attitude

Change (pp. 213-34). Psychology Press.


86

Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2002). What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger: The

effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 83, 1298-1313.

Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2007). Attitude certainty: A review of past findings and

emerging perspectives. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 469-92.

Tsao, J. (1996). Compensatory media use: An exploration of two paradigms.

Communication Studies, 47(1-2), 89-109.

Valois, P., & Godin, G. (1991). The importance of selecting appropriate adjective paires

for measuring attitude based on the semantic differential method. Quality &

Quantity, 25, 57-68.

Wakefield, M., & Flay, B., Nichter, M., & Giovino, G. (2003). Effects of anti-smoking

advertising on youth smoking: A review. Journal of Health Communication, 8(3),

229-47.

Wellman, B. (1996). An electronic group is virtually a social network. In S. Kiesler (Ed).

Culture of the Internet (pp. 179-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wolburg, J. M. (2006). College students’ responses to antismoking messages: Denial,

defiance, and other boomerang effects. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 40(2),

294-323.

Worldlungfoundation.org. (2012, March). New Tobacco Atlas estimates U.S. $35 billion

tobacco industry profits and almost 6 million annual deaths. Retrieved April 23,

2015, from

http://www.worldlungfoundation.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/20439/pid/6858


87

Appendix A. Images of Experimental PSAs

Male character direct addressing (High PSI

PAS)

Male character indirect addressing

(Low PSI PSA)

Female character direct addressing

Female character indirect addressing

Control PSA


88

Appendix B. Study 1 Questionnaire Instructions: Please answer each of the following questions, being completely honest in your responses. There are no “right” or “wrong” answers—we simply want you to indicate the most honest response.

For each statement listed below, please mark how strongly you disagree or agree with each statement. (NOTE: Response options for each statement will be 7-point Likert type response scales anchored by Do not agree at all and totally agree.)

Scale of PSI experienced:

While watching the clip, I had the feeling that [he/she]…

1. was aware of me. 2. knew I was there. 3. knew I was aware of him/her. 4. knew I paid attention to him/her. 5. knew that I reacted to him/her. 6. reacted to what I said or did.

Scale of perceived relevance:

1. The issue presented in the PSA is personally important to me. 2. I was highly motivated to pay close attention to the issue presented in the PSA.

Identification:

1. I am similar to the individual in this ad. 2. I could relate to the individual in this ad. 3. I could identify with the individual in this ad.

Perceived persuasiveness of the message:

Please rate the antismoking ad by its persuasiveness.

Not at all persuasive Very persuasive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


89

Demographic Questions

Now we’d like to know a little bit about you. Please answer the following questions about you and your smoking habits. Your responses will not be linked to your WorkID. Please indicate the most honest response.

Age: How old are you (in years)? ____

Gender: Please indicate your gender. ____ Male ____ Female

How long have you been smoking? Please indicate the number of months or years since you started to smoke.

I have been smoking for less than a year. And it is approximately _____ months.

I have been smoking for more than a year. And it is approximately _____ years.

In the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke a cigarette (even a puff)?

____ days

On the days that you smoke, how many cigarettes do you smoke on average?

____ cigarettes


90

Appendix C. Study 2 Questionnaire Instructions: Please answer each of the following questions, being completely honest in your responses. There are no “right” or “wrong” answers—we simply want you to indicate the most honest response.

Cognitive appraisal of message-related thoughts:

Now you have completed the thought-listing task. The following three questions will ask you to evaluate those thoughts you have generated.

1. Overall, how confident do you feel about your thoughts? Not confident at all Very confident

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. How valid do you say your thoughts are? Not valid at all Very valid

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. How convincing are your thoughts? Not convincing at all Very convincing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Attitude toward smoking:

To what extent do you think smoking is…


91

Certainty of smoking attitude:

How certain are you of your opinion toward smoking?

Not at all certain Very certain

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Intention to quit smoking: The responses will be a 5-point scale ranging from -2 to +2.

1. I plan to quit smoking within the next three months. Very unlikely Very likely

-2 -1 0 +1 +2

2. Suppose you want to quit smoking within the next three months. How sure are you that you could?

Sure I could not Sure I could

-2 -1 0 +1 +2

Identification (Response options for each statement will be 7-point Likert type response scales anchored by Do not agree at all and totally agree.)

4. I am similar to the individual in this ad. 5. I could relate to the individual in this ad. 6. could identify with the individual in this ad.

Perceived persuasiveness of the message:

Please rate the antismoking ad by its persuasiveness.

Not at all persuasive Very persuasive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived persuasive intent of the message:

The creator of the antismoking ad was trying to influence my attitude about smoking.

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


92

For each statement listed below, please mark how strongly you disagree or agree with each statement. (NOTE: Response options for each statement will be 7-point Likert type response scales anchored by Do not agree at all and totally agree.)

Scale of PSI experienced:

While watching the clip, I had the feeling that [he/she]…

7. was aware of me. 8. knew I was there. 9. knew I was aware of him/her. 10. knew I paid attention to him/her. 11. knew that I reacted to him/her. 12. reacted to what I said or did.

Scale of perceived relevance:

3. The issue presented in the PSA is personally important to me. 4. I was highly motivated to pay close attention to the issue presented in the PSA.

Demographic Questions

Now we’d like to know a little bit about you. Please answer the following questions about you and your smoking habits. Your responses will not be linked to your WorkID. Please indicate the most honest response.

Age: How old are you (in years)? ____

Gender: Please indicate your gender. ____ Male ____ Female

How long have you been smoking? Please indicate the number of months or years since you started to smoke.


93

I have been smoking for less than a year. And it is approximately _____ months.

I have been smoking for more than a year. And it is approximately _____ years.

In the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke a cigarette (even a puff)?

____ days

On the days that you smoke, how many cigarettes do you smoke on average?

____ cigarettes


94

Appendix D. Study 1 IRB Approval Letter

April 21, 2015

Dr. Melanie Sarge

Media and Communication Mail Stop: 3082

Regarding: 505121 Viewer Responses to Antismoking Ads: Study 1

Dr. Melanie Sarge:

The Texas Tech University Protection of Human Subjects Committee approved your claim for an exemption for the protocol referenced above on April 20, 2015.

Exempt research is not subject to continuing review. However, any modifications that (a) change the research in a substantial way, (b) might change the basis for exemption, or (c) might introduce any additional risk to subjects must be reported to the Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) before they are implemented.

To report such changes, you must send a new claim for exemption or a proposal for expedited or full board review to the HRPP. Extension of exempt status for exempt protocols that have not changed is automatic.

The HRPP staff will send annual reminders that ask you to update the status of your research protocol. Once you have completed your research, you must inform the HRPP office by responding to the annual reminder so that the protocol file can be closed.

Sincerely,


95

Rosemary Cogan, Ph.D., ABPP Protection of Human Subjects Committee

Box 41075 | Lubbock, Texas 79409-1075 | T 806.742.3905 | F 806.742.3947 | www.vpr.ttu.edu An EEO/Affirmative Action Institution


96

Appendix E. Study 2 IRB Approval Letter

April 8, 2015

Dr. Melanie Sarge

Media and Communication Mail Stop: 3082

Regarding: 505130 Viewer Responses to Antismoking Messages: Study2

DR. Melanie Sarge:

The Texas Tech University Protection of Human Subjects Committee approved your claim for an exemption for the protocol referenced above on April 8, 2015.

Exempt research is not subject to continuing review. However, any modifications that (a) change the research in a substantial way, (b) might change the basis for exemption, or (c) might introduce any additional risk to subjects must be reported to the Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) before they are implemented.

To report such changes, you must send a new claim for exemption or a proposal for expedited or full board review to the HRPP. Extension of exempt status for exempt protocols that have not changed is automatic.

The HRPP staff will send annual reminders that ask you to update the status of your research protocol. Once you have completed your research, you must inform the HRPP office by responding to the annual reminder so that the protocol file can be closed.

Sincerely,


97

Rosemary Cogan, Ph.D., ABPP Protection of Human Subjects Committee

Box 41075 | Lubbock, Texas 79409-1075 | T 806.742.3905 | F 806.742.3947 | www.vpr.ttu.edu An EEO/Affirmative Action Institution

Documents

The impacts of parasocial interaction on the effectiveness