CAS 220 Persuasion
Thought Papers
This component of the course asks you to reflect on the readings for a given week. Each week, we read
a book chapter that overviews a central topic or theory of persuasion and a research article that applies
the topic/theory to a communication issue. Your goal is to provide a summary of the readings and offer
your reflections on the perspectives and findings. The thought paper should take the form of an
argument; that is, it should contain a thesis that reflects on your opinion on an issue, which is supported
by reasons and developed by drawing from the readings. You are not expected to go beyond the
assigned readings to support your arguments, but you are welcome to include other relevant scholarly
sources. You only need a reference section if you cite sources outside of those assigned in class (Please
use APA style if you do).
You will write 3 thought papers over the course of the semester, and they are due by 11:59 pm the night
before you intend to present. Given that presentations are always on Thursdays, each paper will be due
on a Wednesday night. The reflection papers are 2-3 double spaced pages in length and should be
written using Times New Roman, 12-point font, and 1-inch margins. Be prepared to discuss your written
ideas during class on Thursday.
Criteria for Evaluation (9 points total)
Introduction (1 paragraph, 1 point): Begin your paper with an introductory paragraph that sets up your
focus and previews your paper.
Summary of required readings (1/2 page, 3 points): Describe the major assumptions of the theoretical
framework (what is the theory/topic about?) and briefly summarize the key components of the
research article (hypotheses, methods, findings).
Reflection and reaction (1-1.5 pages, 4 points): Address a central issue of your own choosing in the
weekly readings. It should be an issue that links all of the assigned readings, and can deal with any
number of issues that may include (but should not be limited to): Discussion about questions and/or
issues that the articles raise; a critique about the method and/or theoretical assumptions in the
piece; an application of the ideas and/or research results to real-life communication issues; or
factual questions you may have about the work.
Conclusion (1 paragraph, 1 point): Summarize key elements of your paper and provide concluding
remarks.
Application
Applying Quantitative Approaches to the Formative Evaluation of Antismoking Campaign Messages
Social Marketing Quarterly
19(4) 242-264
ª The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1524500413506004
smq.sagepub.com
Sarah Parvanta1, Laura Gibson1, Heather Forquer1, Dina Shapiro-Luft1, Lorraine Dean2, Derek Freres3,
Caryn Lerman2, Giridhar Mallya4, Mihaela Moldovan-Johnson5, Andy Tan1, Joseph Cappella1, and Robert Hornik1
Abstract
This article shares an in-depth summary of a formative evaluation that used quantitative data to inform the development and selection of promotional ads for the antismoking communication component of a social marketing campaign. A foundational survey provided cross-sectional data to identify beliefs about quitting smoking, that campaign messages should target, as well as beliefs to avoid. Pretesting draft ads against quantitative indicators of message effectiveness further facilitated the selection and rejection of final campaign ads. Finally, we consider lessons learned from the process of balancing quantitative methods and judgment to make formative decisions about more and less promising persuasive messages for campaigns.
Keywords
tobacco cessation, monitoring and evaluation, formative evaluation
Introduction
Given the association between smoking, chronic disease, and mortality (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2012a, 2012b; World Health Organization, 2011), the U.S. Surgeon Generals National Prevention Strategy includes tobacco-free living as a top priority (National Prevention Council, 2011). Social marketing programs that include media campaigns are one vehicle for
1 Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
2 Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
3 Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
4 Philadelphia Department of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA
5 Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
Sarah Parvanta, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Parvanta et al. 243
delivering antismoking interventions to large numbers of adult smokers (National Cancer Institute, 2008). Included in many of these campaigns are mediated or promotional materials used to dis- seminate messages to target audiences (Luca & Suggs, 2010). In addition to product, price, and place, promotion is a key element of the social marketing mix. Ensuring that promotional materials contain messages that are persuasive before a campaign begins can contribute to the efficacy of a social marketing program overall. Formative evaluation provides an opportunity to assess the potential influence of messages on smokers cessation beliefs and behaviors.
While the literature provides examples of both quantitative and qualitative methods for formative selection and pretesting of messages, qualitative methods such as focus groups and in-depth interviews seem to dominate antismoking evaluations (e.g., Bradley, Thorson, Bothner, & Allen, 2000; McCausland et al., 2009). Focus groups have utility because they allow for open discussion of ideas, increasing the possibility of discovering new information related to the outcome of interest that investigators might not have otherwise considered (Hull, Gasiorowicz, Hollander, & Short, 2013). Still, quantitative approaches, such as closed-ended surveys, have other strengths that focus groups do not offer. For example, survey data from representative samples of the target population provide an understanding of how campaign- relevant indicators are distributed in the audience (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Questionnaire data also allow investigators to test which of those indicators are associated with a campaigns outcome behavior of interest (Niederdeppe, Porticella, & Shapiro, 2012). Finally, closed-ended surveys are an efficient method for collecting data from large, heterogeneous groups to measure perceptions of campaign messages, compare reactions to messages, and reduce bias in estimating message responsiveness (Wake- field et al., 2013).
Although theory-driven approaches germane to quantitative pretesting of message strategies are
described in the literature (Hornik & Woolf, 1999; Zhao, Strasser, Cappella, Lerman, & Fishbein, 2011), applications of these approaches for the development of antismoking social marketing cam- paigns have not been widely published. In response, this article describes a two-part formative evalua- tion for the communication component of an antismoking social marketing campaign. The evaluation relied on quantitative data to develop messages promoting the campaign product of quitting smoking with help. The field-tested approaches that we report may serve as useful models for formative evaluation planning in future campaigns.
Campaign Initiative
In 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act allocated US$650 million dollars for Com- munities Putting Prevention to Work, an initiative to reduce chronic disease stemming from tobacco use and obesity. As part of that initiative, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) awarded funds to the Philadelphia Department of Public Health (PDPH) for the Get Healthy Philly program. In Philadelphia, adult smoking prevalence ranks the highest among the 10 largest U.S. cities. To curb this tobacco use, Get Healthy Philly included a 16-month media campaign as well as a comprehensive set of other programmatic activities that have been reported previously (PDPH, 2012). Together, the programs components addressed important social marketing benchmarks, including audience targeting, reducing the costs of quitting with aids, formative investigation to understand audience beliefs and behaviors, and pretesting of intervention messages (Luca & Suggs, 2010). This article details the formative analysis and message pretesting phases of the media cam- paign. Program planners from PDPH designed this campaign in partnership with a Philadelphia-based advertising agency and an evaluation team from the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.
Low-income and African American smokers living in Philadelphia were selected as the campaigns
target audiences for several reasons. The rate of smoking among low-income Philadelphians (37%; Public Health Management Corporation [PHMC], 2008) is higher than the general Philadelphia
