<%BANNER%>

Influence of Message Framing, Involvement, and Nicotine Dependence on Effectiveness of Anti-Smoking Public Service Annou...

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022338/00001

Material Information

Title: Influence of Message Framing, Involvement, and Nicotine Dependence on Effectiveness of Anti-Smoking Public Service Announcements
Physical Description: 1 online resource (56 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Jung, Wan
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: addiction, framing, involvement, psa, smoking
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Advertising thesis, M.Adv.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Studies examining message framing effects have yielded conflicting findings. Some studies find that positively framed messages are more persuasive than negatively framed messages. Other studies report reverse outcomes. This study tried to find the reasons for the conflicting results in message framing research, and found that the effects of message framing was varied depending on the involvement level and smoking addiction level. The study suggests that subjects who are more involved with smoking issue prefer negative messages, while subjects who are less involved with smoking issue prefer positive messages. The second finding is that the more dependent on cigarette smoking subjects are, the more favorable attitude toward negatively framed PSAs they tend to have. The contrary is true when anti-smoking PSAs are framed positively.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Wan Jung.
Thesis: Thesis (M.Adv.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Villegas, Jorge.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022338:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022338/00001

Material Information

Title: Influence of Message Framing, Involvement, and Nicotine Dependence on Effectiveness of Anti-Smoking Public Service Announcements
Physical Description: 1 online resource (56 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Jung, Wan
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: addiction, framing, involvement, psa, smoking
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Advertising thesis, M.Adv.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Studies examining message framing effects have yielded conflicting findings. Some studies find that positively framed messages are more persuasive than negatively framed messages. Other studies report reverse outcomes. This study tried to find the reasons for the conflicting results in message framing research, and found that the effects of message framing was varied depending on the involvement level and smoking addiction level. The study suggests that subjects who are more involved with smoking issue prefer negative messages, while subjects who are less involved with smoking issue prefer positive messages. The second finding is that the more dependent on cigarette smoking subjects are, the more favorable attitude toward negatively framed PSAs they tend to have. The contrary is true when anti-smoking PSAs are framed positively.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Wan Jung.
Thesis: Thesis (M.Adv.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Villegas, Jorge.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022338:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101221_AAAAAW INGEST_TIME 2010-12-21T15:18:04Z PACKAGE UFE0022338_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 1051985 DFID F20101221_AAAUMN ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH jung_w_Page_12.jp2 GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
48c15b708013f5a69b68a08e2f9be890
SHA-1
d99aac89b34a55d5e21aaa8a67efaaf780d6fd0d
54773 F20101221_AAAUWH jung_w_Page_39.pro
75faa8165be15df7b95fca77090c5d9a
cd021dc0c0b2c7ab6f26f5aabe6fa597ccc96e4e
114451 F20101221_AAAURK jung_w_Page_22.jpg
a8124f2fdcc768c0dbacc3311a0a95bd
7a38b386c6c348f9f2073b1c49dd5c8f71978755
669114 F20101221_AAAUMO jung_w_Page_47.jp2
ea596d5a4e64149a2333763d127ddb31
36b9b15e64e09e3f6eb05783f03bda4bd77099e6
56889 F20101221_AAAUWI jung_w_Page_40.pro
1cccd738a44c818c972810970c637bf2
1bd8da936d80ad1a6adfcaf8ad0a6410c02f1af4
105761 F20101221_AAAURL jung_w_Page_24.jpg
fb6e33805e5f8888ed5863e27371a3aa
e46d26da4df3ac53f66a9a5138ac41e1acca9619
56354 F20101221_AAAUMP jung_w_Page_22.pro
a8b5bd4b95bfdd48dfa758b3df91977d
967e0ee82ac00a469a9b6213c2f7252714ebbfd0
34483 F20101221_AAAUWJ jung_w_Page_41.pro
6054aae2622435d5437b4f0098dd4f31
772a97ae3abb73992e69b35012fce62534a8fed7
113350 F20101221_AAAURM jung_w_Page_25.jpg
6b9ee31c5b7ba89b2d10055ed87ca384
f3b17d47cbc59e8dff6e03fbe29881ae7174c0ec
2101 F20101221_AAAUMQ jung_w_Page_18.txt
83dc70207019a587d23b13f134e10af0
a036181d06409c94f6ce26c88beb32e119f737f5
1139 F20101221_AAAUWK jung_w_Page_42.pro
0e419140ec9cdcf7f956c3b771d5b0d9
10c4150182797f9ca570681f83520387f0e4e211
79547 F20101221_AAAURN jung_w_Page_27.jpg
e80bec96c27aaf5963db2b9429afe268
252259d5c07b22bbd51a4374805a21f23d237ff0
2700 F20101221_AAAUMR jung_w_Page_44.txt
09dfdd22f1e551b1d3609a1ba0673847
247aba03cafdc7def8895d52194c4e7e0e3eae62
F20101221_AAAUWL jung_w_Page_43.pro
edeb0d70646c14ed45392f896162878c
c216992a773de4b85cf6cfbc95c88b0a5eb46a93
68537 F20101221_AAAURO jung_w_Page_28.jpg
2c31aa7c48e0e9292b2af0a10e68d49a
84a0813f610e8c417702d632fc12a5fa65fc06ab
22719 F20101221_AAAUMS jung_w_Page_45.jpg
f04544e7b6db10e282675a7f8176f602
3ebbcbe5edead99ebe2fca4f044acb9b0ed02c4d
67597 F20101221_AAAUWM jung_w_Page_44.pro
db7017281e570373425cf896706fca3d
251575ea0ab1b153200aa5eb7393c74e024acc55
95048 F20101221_AAAURP jung_w_Page_29.jpg
8a9457421ba651db2fb371d60b80c0ee
e3f981bf1bcccdd6fdc501da08bd6505d34f7221
127603 F20101221_AAAUMT jung_w_Page_50.jpg
c7655acc460eb3a28a7bc05a4a40a734
7066d2062b6156b2e3c88b983af472fe664edefe
10459 F20101221_AAAUWN jung_w_Page_45.pro
24091cda37a5cd0e5096c77ca680f675
d58a8657bdbc1d05c340217ef4dbb8acd476c4e4
97202 F20101221_AAAURQ jung_w_Page_31.jpg
abab67b586dc5ffae63a86f2018082c7
61ddf3aaafe1fb7ca49094e6a2a00c6e40703f8b
34895 F20101221_AAAUMU jung_w_Page_16.QC.jpg
437fd4a566804d54623cae0b4169f376
9af974a382a5d56c2eb0a2f818093cf5391fe995
31676 F20101221_AAAUWO jung_w_Page_47.pro
7d784fcdc3383c3bbf611ce1119a563e
dd0c4d367776574d834738e88659f6c4535c2d91
103830 F20101221_AAAURR jung_w_Page_33.jpg
771c3579494607b50d7328b22d2bf9f6
9d05c32b6eb0eedc14a4b45a87db1ee8f9ab7a20
83 F20101221_AAAUMV jung_w_Page_02.txt
4abe660b5130787aae5ce3d1404d0bf8
1c047c27154f7263cb54b1550fd62ad6a2c86cd4
65544 F20101221_AAAUWP jung_w_Page_50.pro
92a8e9acf9265f47b5d970df8232ea91
5a6da9ea16bba4a43752a9be8451fb078eafeb6c
80263 F20101221_AAAURS jung_w_Page_35.jpg
7216a6821815370ecaf4198387711499
1aeb6956c967d9aee5b1aab94b6cf7516f59e148
34839 F20101221_AAAUMW jung_w_Page_33.QC.jpg
6ccd2da8448f51ee07ff6359c7b287ba
941fa52e4802044eed7ed5e990dd259393f4cc9f
63159 F20101221_AAAUWQ jung_w_Page_52.pro
41efd25bf2446f635ec4340fab086d4e
893ec0b50b8871928ab42d4e883d8fc7f49366ea
111526 F20101221_AAAURT jung_w_Page_39.jpg
3e51e137f3b6a8ca87dff8cbbd317599
6bf414fcf86fcbeeadd2ba7f693c03618ed3a4bc
9340 F20101221_AAAUMX jung_w_Page_13thm.jpg
8f789a303f9fdf4b3f6df4a90afad376
fb2e35757136f55c8dcb4e7e718713793e095723
56789 F20101221_AAAUWR jung_w_Page_53.pro
90bfe4c4144855044e021cc252318812
0f2e17b8fb45d19a19a9e6ebf66cd4a0805d131d
115276 F20101221_AAAURU jung_w_Page_40.jpg
f3ce05cfe307995fc5538c916aad9978
2d03cc897228d6a9a9e20086b95a744f5629d6ae
36330 F20101221_AAAUMY jung_w_Page_25.QC.jpg
f51d4fa7411f3e602a7e5c8775666451
1376b1ffe4fa68280b0962064fa40f5400f0b702
62564 F20101221_AAAUWS jung_w_Page_54.pro
a240d3bf6e93b5fccaa459ad33c7851c
ae88e6c887cc32a66d19e82279bf0ca8a26a1443
36793 F20101221_AAAURV jung_w_Page_42.jpg
705833d6d5a78bb01319941e6ecb048f
e90feff6c88fabd9c260ac267ef4e3b0d91c2033
101278 F20101221_AAAUMZ jung_w_Page_30.jpg
53205925010d5f4dfb6752f7c6f697b3
d3022ccda5546c28d8478e4a24a7a4b1a9cef967
10340 F20101221_AAAUWT jung_w_Page_56.pro
df87da7dfd2b05dc383c9a4bbed4a524
be50d493b18ec1d656ef9d9666e531e72d290370
36827 F20101221_AAAURW jung_w_Page_43.jpg
578ec017197da5c5653300e1b881833b
1f4fa4dadbb83915d7f3c52324d6d01a664e8798
520 F20101221_AAAUWU jung_w_Page_01.txt
f45c77d0071ea9b1988cab2160831830
f9ac4b41ef47147e361b953b8b7fc3819e8aef54
139686 F20101221_AAAURX jung_w_Page_44.jpg
2dbf5b12851bf6ed1c722b552647eda3
8f5b7af7e735fc70a0a2ee74e991145d8463cec5
91 F20101221_AAAUWV jung_w_Page_03.txt
e435b289e58b0f4dfc5b91c3c6e67318
2e2b3317e0ab17648d31ced2ecaf655bb2c21cb6
77782 F20101221_AAAURY jung_w_Page_46.jpg
5dca8ea7258b0d34f935ba75702e6cf2
4b3deac5731a54c7e3708830b44bd5b1b7bdd0df
1362 F20101221_AAAUWW jung_w_Page_04.txt
f2303fa5eb204b0022f239799bb8c4e8
c7d12e75ae065e32ff77487c84dc2a8272a7ded8
72194 F20101221_AAAUPA jung_w_Page_41.jpg
1144250a1395969d80ca5c0c5a378bda
a6a85c2a8d22429b42148a661f756294aeddfff6
33993 F20101221_AAAURZ jung_w_Page_48.jpg
d3750dc2059b574b9f726767f6d704ff
a43d5c664aee52ada3797c87577ac4087c881102
2631 F20101221_AAAUWX jung_w_Page_05.txt
309d128c342a346c8804d4a7e8a3b2ef
6a8cf33f3f222d6eb29ce2fb23119467917aff52
1051956 F20101221_AAAUPB jung_w_Page_11.jp2
953ce9aa693d1435302f0f2727e6eacb
6055f2deb3176917110ef02a74fb8cbf7b88eba2
262 F20101221_AAAUWY jung_w_Page_06.txt
7e3d2f8a9806afad342f72ca522d0666
e098858d703c043531e70762a11434340d0dd2c5
723164 F20101221_AAAUPC jung_w_Page_34.jp2
7cd50a89f7a64a553efc0809f3e8957a
a8ed80652b426bcc96340c157d632c3db53200ce
25271604 F20101221_AAAUUA jung_w_Page_20.tif
608f34f00284506a3a3a18d4c2ad4019
e0daf157f1fe8a6bae0b241f597854263c2ff9df
1196 F20101221_AAAUWZ jung_w_Page_07.txt
fb0478b55ced188d4d7c2da8ad09015f
7b5f455aaaae3f58fd70b552f45df43321deea31
F20101221_AAAUPD jung_w_Page_23.tif
1392c43514de3a48f1e2d8cd3e629bc8
1994239b6a9f69d7d5500a1508588eb2ef8d7bcd
F20101221_AAAUUB jung_w_Page_21.tif
121afb7ebe4d043cabfd2f9369aaaad4
f1e7e993313893d58703d123aea35d4abb423b21
799966 F20101221_AAAUPE jung_w_Page_10.jp2
e7a4fbb528e4cd442a8a5530f02d149c
5df53dfda03b48fbbb0c8f5850ecbcecf4ea84e3
F20101221_AAAUUC jung_w_Page_22.tif
b0a89a84517c87ad775617a36a4c2f1f
633fbd98a8be7901c48ebc051b9ca99617d27ef8
1051969 F20101221_AAAUPF jung_w_Page_19.jp2
a9dc394be33e68ea141159d6916113fb
9f4e701d502aba235d9a52158a58d13725229b35
35148 F20101221_AAAUZA jung_w_Page_11.QC.jpg
f5e98d5e68664ca690e7f7a901a13803
9bbafb9461dfde2a7216239b49c97205a4b33774
35862 F20101221_AAAVBA jung_w_Page_51.QC.jpg
e1d58d375f2de1c31ecb849ba201b1a8
dea34edda1ea613bf787185ce077655dc4c83f7d
F20101221_AAAUUD jung_w_Page_24.tif
9d1d77079e2baec123022567e8aaf82a
eac15eaf26c365e7a3335019400f67a455e2389f
8055 F20101221_AAAUPG jung_w_Page_20thm.jpg
e326613d9e2dce0298705792b32570b9
8974046132d7aa8bc226e64a3652a41ed723fddf
8581 F20101221_AAAUZB jung_w_Page_11thm.jpg
dfd1f40f3684a884d37aa0eb73e26e9e
63ecc77c354c3291aa97b0fb027280bfb916261c
36010 F20101221_AAAVBB jung_w_Page_52.QC.jpg
f0fc08e6033cdb333bbf825a9a97813c
c8423d18db4dd8d87474da41ddd9b269a64ad92e
2292 F20101221_AAAUPH jung_w_Page_49.txt
4b080dbd98a9318033d206c2ac064dcb
0a733a86fa51c1db946cda3dd44a79597069211e
9048 F20101221_AAAUZC jung_w_Page_12thm.jpg
4df510088b654e287be4e65001b7457b
cb2766537874aa4313209db6ebf2d94e559d2b78
9281 F20101221_AAAVBC jung_w_Page_52thm.jpg
0003f4c6f84def41231c740f74134a66
796cff5c80b238aa7cea6d87c9b634a8f1e54e12
F20101221_AAAUUE jung_w_Page_25.tif
607aa35e9c4d1281d96d4686bd8b46c7
c6a6f1b2256773cc38be718c4ae83c1883d83dc4
F20101221_AAAUPI jung_w_Page_08.tif
4550e033b0311e3ddba353d34fa6298e
1b781e977558c916420f7122b9cebe53b8bb2acd
36533 F20101221_AAAUZD jung_w_Page_13.QC.jpg
9b29a18ec5a9711cb749a19fcf83269b
ce543304e13d81e8d1a5e6cfa5cf7ce26255a00e
32983 F20101221_AAAVBD jung_w_Page_53.QC.jpg
f1d4ae358c8d14c90a5e4a4d4ed0692f
16fdd8fefc3235a32eb75175c3034ff7c7018b21
F20101221_AAAUUF jung_w_Page_26.tif
54bef9d4fbac29dc5528a55547e198f3
9be2087e45e28c2a72f6f07953842c027eb4e138
F20101221_AAAUPJ jung_w_Page_46.tif
b77de8db2237eb51af32a24e7b58e750
fa292e27582a55c35571a680b0eebf58fce7ce9e
24960 F20101221_AAAUZE jung_w_Page_14.QC.jpg
8af0f7068a8336381568b7a06d4bdf83
d1807842f6ed5f11682d49e64d45454eacdcd8fd
8365 F20101221_AAAVBE jung_w_Page_53thm.jpg
0a5d2714d347950f46abfa0631d2a28f
5a2d8000b944f10d546c7f8823d54767a3dc93fd
F20101221_AAAUUG jung_w_Page_27.tif
237f08d10f279261e396f25daba570c8
d44b408a0e9144c2a709dffcea8c63d925cbf21c
243372 F20101221_AAAUPK jung_w_Page_45.jp2
6228e23e6c9abb9f7caf4be17c34fa39
7343ae56a0dfa3bd575b377ba5ccfff9f0afbd63
6100 F20101221_AAAUZF jung_w_Page_14thm.jpg
e4b4ec28dd82228f909f195a574dd6d7
ffd88c46f67d67c09809cecf57aaed7c1be58aa9
35127 F20101221_AAAVBF jung_w_Page_54.QC.jpg
22d685782e0e781ebc5f231a1deb704c
7c32b0d37b3fd664d2b544af3ae46a5f68368351
F20101221_AAAUUH jung_w_Page_28.tif
9cde662d7d8f8e3d1de238372c5cf147
ca4de85c6751fb28c63a4594dcb8f3abece3b7a6
1051965 F20101221_AAAUPL jung_w_Page_07.jp2
2608361391a468885561461e2a8217db
1204f5ac6708e866993044c09fde89e510a1f0e5
8346 F20101221_AAAUZG jung_w_Page_15thm.jpg
8bbdab632b23f8559e6a7b04d4989a3d
da87186542fa7df798232bfdaf05365c14b248cc
8760 F20101221_AAAVBG jung_w_Page_54thm.jpg
6b72875a24e90e14728603ba54140249
3d0fdd4b6eecd5c8e866778819529e8cdcadd22c
F20101221_AAAUUI jung_w_Page_29.tif
dadb4b4ed8e2470a40b9ede5aa8f3ac2
c8cc15c9fac0a4ebca7ec0481446b1f07a30b8ae
1411 F20101221_AAAUPM jung_w_Page_06thm.jpg
8cf3aaa1a0725f3f3658ea981e2da279
ed0981b9d369bdb66846e80d59050503e3239326
8687 F20101221_AAAUZH jung_w_Page_16thm.jpg
54a688b2aa895ea38968f0188e53f796
144a9a2943a111da729180aa4d3d55f3097c625c
994 F20101221_AAAVBH jung_w_Page_55thm.jpg
415404671c6d15e43b7782b92dc1c51e
ea04df21de57b4508bca0e31349773c27672fc07
F20101221_AAAUUJ jung_w_Page_30.tif
fd2477f4f7e5ad50b30cef55d46be213
3063bb1c6938980ecbf88f676cafc4db48803bb3
F20101221_AAAUPN jung_w_Page_17.tif
fe2e52878b34c4c08be5d1d17fab34f8
0e60b6bd5e8859007e0fff9a60dc4ed200430902
37154 F20101221_AAAUZI jung_w_Page_17.QC.jpg
040728b5cd0f862d731ad24933e2218c
f5bd94fb9c258e6cddb4154edbf79797749598cb
8399 F20101221_AAAVBI jung_w_Page_56.QC.jpg
013c7e95648209d779d2b27e7aa61ec9
70e15cd7f169414838809021a429ab6593180c76
F20101221_AAAUUK jung_w_Page_32.tif
5db63a87eaa648b717f1cda48eaffe29
82dbb4e65e16734f0e02efa4688c41c595ccfea9
F20101221_AAAUPO jung_w_Page_52.tif
5462a632ffa6b11a5f6a812599d5d04b
01c680e32b50f46e93baccfe69e8ed45a5a70a61
66774 F20101221_AAAVBJ UFE0022338_00001.mets FULL
e556bb3bf1a171d6a93f319a14fdb163
0601dc400a2a883e10fee3fa577ac3e3a01701e7
F20101221_AAAUUL jung_w_Page_33.tif
830128ccd21edc867c06abd93d694d18
6f13d6ae8821acc1986504988b186cef3cf16064
14412 F20101221_AAAUPP jung_w_Page_48.pro
c62620849620516724ba2e0f53c11a09
0bfbc822b823097eae45b9b2dd3fafe51e853d73
8931 F20101221_AAAUZJ jung_w_Page_17thm.jpg
d0fab2aac94501d9967cb231b2003ad7
e385e9afac6af4bc66ebc653ac64751a281b9d65
F20101221_AAAUUM jung_w_Page_34.tif
ac37c723b080cdc7e04302ee50489e7d
06f359894f4e2aa78eaf2cf41957e0758c126ce7
8843 F20101221_AAAUPQ jung_w_Page_22thm.jpg
a8fabd0ffae90d3e3385e22980ab2a82
27c6fc341171608c16a559531424e15026d15bca
35384 F20101221_AAAUZK jung_w_Page_18.QC.jpg
7d13ccc54f09d5f64e00465f3592417d
58749c6771ee047930178397935a85d1d89c5ba8
F20101221_AAAUUN jung_w_Page_35.tif
26ae6ffb5646b1887e623457906cef7f
845610644f17dbd05a2611edf633f19469b26022
9390 F20101221_AAAUPR jung_w_Page_51thm.jpg
cf9c83cb4b5f4773cc9648b3347f6115
ef2c8a7287f3558b5bd61b645493db3cca6c3d78
38273 F20101221_AAAUZL jung_w_Page_19.QC.jpg
556874945ab28005e69eefca597d4f5d
1c6063811445d784954fa860efe0facea5c8c2dc
F20101221_AAAUUO jung_w_Page_36.tif
4cf69dde15cd0bcf1d66fc01b5d1134c
9eb7b2341aa6e9da2444b481bebbb9ef3874ba1d
4534 F20101221_AAAUPS jung_w_Page_55.pro
d59a651815cb7663ac06e4c6c88004af
71fed865f9e1d6e43cac4cf172533c09c78b4871
9143 F20101221_AAAUZM jung_w_Page_19thm.jpg
0f55cb668670b93c789134279d9d7695
589dde885f0c15b233ee4b92977ac1506c3246ae
F20101221_AAAUUP jung_w_Page_37.tif
76a1a484139370f9ab3b339b70f310c9
878dc1233c89b7a76873b54a919294bf41a675cd
2002 F20101221_AAAUPT jung_w_Page_26.txt
e0a486c216f76ea2dd6ca0daad2be39f
aa5e510c05e35bf1f44e84be73a1b504f53a6f1f
32827 F20101221_AAAUZN jung_w_Page_20.QC.jpg
48f47d6ab7dae6f4c0e82d659e0adaf9
ba9227052dde6bed9458bdb3829d777df6e431e6
F20101221_AAAUUQ jung_w_Page_38.tif
2b6fc38a51f36bd4836f26e16341eea2
ae1415082a1e704495350e90fc0ba7817e9389ae
12352 F20101221_AAAUPU jung_w_Page_55.jpg
294bda9ea42cc55b72340597b4a84480
f4ed66248547e81aa937490bc235fd64e0f00a59
32043 F20101221_AAAUZO jung_w_Page_21.QC.jpg
fe39c10c5e650a9f7cdf18c8118a03ed
ee65fb7dbc7f46fbc68106ea4b780a972e89d646
F20101221_AAAUUR jung_w_Page_40.tif
4dcfe9eb209507f1d824a0feb940956a
55fc5e5c1cbfa79ac89a6c015913677e11f79f57
F20101221_AAAUPV jung_w_Page_42.tif
6783036dad1a318bd79054202f60d75e
7598615710473e8dea22dcfed2eeadadbe21ee8c
7854 F20101221_AAAUZP jung_w_Page_21thm.jpg
9a74379c64ae0a62b70d2d33ed907e06
8c53e42f4b2e5c7cf0be15887ec8ab31ac163e71
F20101221_AAAUUS jung_w_Page_41.tif
2ac55d81fd373f4498bdc888756e7ad0
647420a065b4e883a899753140646aab6352ae99
37873 F20101221_AAAUZQ jung_w_Page_22.QC.jpg
b8d9b8f57162f14fea0667c5c68ec544
9170d620fa92f23a6a847f8e569bc79d1fbd0b20
F20101221_AAAUUT jung_w_Page_43.tif
0cf523371f241321841e6833e769c117
ab9cea5e914ed4a765b39b9507ca930de8f5b5a0
F20101221_AAAUPW jung_w_Page_55.tif
e408d1c7ca2ebd96146c065906c83acf
6d645759c77ead3ea82162d78ef5ad39d8960f06
19888 F20101221_AAAUZR jung_w_Page_23.QC.jpg
9aefad019482526ae388e7ded32d2f5b
e3e403bdb17d849e2e203c437c0b5d51833ad0d8
F20101221_AAAUUU jung_w_Page_44.tif
1a75074d425a9056b32e6350e479c7e9
4a556246a313f31ff164e753fb0899de7342292a
105267 F20101221_AAAUPX jung_w_Page_26.jpg
0d0a5c23e1c2489e24ea85bdba2bcafb
1a8237221f86dab94cfccf24111c26a238eefe7f
4938 F20101221_AAAUZS jung_w_Page_23thm.jpg
c89bfb652d1f56743104dfda973cba54
a34af4d84b056f8af3bf85efc9861f6a4f303c55
F20101221_AAAUUV jung_w_Page_45.tif
b7ce9077f3d5e69b9fb6bb3d1b26e4c1
94e2b0cc9042f53a1da820d2ea184dd4192885ee
94011 F20101221_AAAUPY jung_w_Page_32.jpg
45f40f663111aab6bec7bf957b26e4a8
6f3c78a85dc752b94061be012a9b52bc430fdbef
34688 F20101221_AAAUZT jung_w_Page_24.QC.jpg
7696cd67d76abdba0226191a363f5500
28d723d2b7b540f08165bd4d89fe064e460aa344
F20101221_AAAUUW jung_w_Page_47.tif
bbdb519bbbfe30ebdcede8e34bfe98a7
3c948dd937eff1ee485e58f14c598331c4a942e4
8509 F20101221_AAAUNA jung_w_Page_18thm.jpg
cc4ff78a63d860a66c51d4da19fb7e2c
b8e13ba5a0444448ea9c006d2e7641058f425bc3
116111 F20101221_AAAUPZ jung_w_Page_19.jpg
cc3a38079ab54ce29573c7caa8d5d754
2e3c4004ca5e9480d50340ca43ea9f9e96c9e269
8560 F20101221_AAAUZU jung_w_Page_24thm.jpg
4f4ed2580cc6a54c10036098966cbc0b
172821ae5cff51cd7eb56325c54216ab090ce07c
F20101221_AAAUUX jung_w_Page_50.tif
8065d54c6ecf1b8ccd02393b82301eb5
e5aef6cc8a2b744dc790e8c34bc3ad2399c569e7
237 F20101221_AAAUNB jung_w_Page_09.txt
dc5582a385a535f52753cbe781400e1f
0b52527afd14e310d269bd9d4508b99327869410
33902 F20101221_AAAUZV jung_w_Page_26.QC.jpg
16ca1315c56feed5d1ff2bbb4be40072
87f1018c0c5d5a822650f3ae50ccfd37aceb200b
118829 F20101221_AAAUSA jung_w_Page_49.jpg
a2308c569d1ab52211f3ac28b0cf0e09
93d8a6fb102093f72d8f9f5adcc809db9a66557a
F20101221_AAAUUY jung_w_Page_51.tif
c7a4e60165c7f212383ea285e4daf6b9
7bd8e2f28d25a957947e24815489ce257148900b
6200 F20101221_AAAUNC jung_w_Page_47thm.jpg
c255a98d5e7f11e65ebb7e6f88145f5c
952ec3cf335c9527d65f63e90d5729b551b428eb
8594 F20101221_AAAUZW jung_w_Page_26thm.jpg
cfa3b707eb48e3a9212823c90f156a64
f0a7c71d1677783f4d8ea8df289851ad25920b7e
125592 F20101221_AAAUSB jung_w_Page_51.jpg
ccc7bcdf27eb27c55a4e947ba1597bc6
dcbc19820b4443bc87c91f6081384c79ba42e954
F20101221_AAAUUZ jung_w_Page_54.tif
246affd3f7ec6cf934e77389a4021e73
5da258c439ea96ea3bd6579e877fdd04bc506a1d
2046 F20101221_AAAUND jung_w_Page_56thm.jpg
6c9d52bc28774803f8c619eb95e4461e
4d8f9b1f4d54953b1c40ad0e95667666cf713e3b
23750 F20101221_AAAUZX jung_w_Page_27.QC.jpg
c669cbce574f2f4e342b1fb6642de6b8
c7c3425ebf4d6ff2409e20a2e4920c55d5d6709a
29107 F20101221_AAAUNE jung_w_Page_01.jpg
a28ae6e973578c606ce61936cf2cdbb7
a0e0298b74bffc5398fe22365d2b537f2dd30c86
22553 F20101221_AAAUZY jung_w_Page_28.QC.jpg
bc7f304b108ed32ccd0929b060528afe
d68e6c967659750a00ffef2fb6408be7d34edef0
125886 F20101221_AAAUSC jung_w_Page_52.jpg
7861b949e0e8fb471e024ddd242ab3b6
9325672dbf1774419d4d05f9e3d2e47713c23cfe
7616 F20101221_AAAUNF jung_w_Page_32thm.jpg
6a5ca69680e4038eed042a8e845b3d9a
6b74097ec6ef43d0d9f7746017fcbabd6d027438
1543 F20101221_AAAUXA jung_w_Page_10.txt
ef03313013efbad8fbf8b9f3ec17703d
0bdba8490e20e538c13091975917a36e35750c8d
5605 F20101221_AAAUZZ jung_w_Page_28thm.jpg
023fae8471958fa538a5c72bf0983e81
c091078384a01f3f622125f004ed67c3d47934b8
112460 F20101221_AAAUSD jung_w_Page_53.jpg
944b59b9f454bc2c68253cd5ac6534ff
f160e1bfc431e34a8ecd78ea09b35da72d0c2f7f
9685 F20101221_AAAUNG jung_w_Page_48.QC.jpg
62d8c11bb9b4de2f25d2f0968138bca6
db3e5c13e209507f22cf45864c5bb63d2976f267
2132 F20101221_AAAUXB jung_w_Page_11.txt
7d1686787f3eec1534ef4f6a5a8e167d
8716c6333872745813072531bbf33833c418e827
123413 F20101221_AAAUSE jung_w_Page_54.jpg
f869a933c89a9e97a24605b46aa7a7c3
ef193a8f8836838b47f900f568a01c4ade6f6c4a
F20101221_AAAUNH jung_w_Page_31.tif
665d42ab96facdc2e9614ff06e07deed
d921db8cf91f2a82a548b64f63a2f44f4c448910
2136 F20101221_AAAUXC jung_w_Page_13.txt
9e2c6431618f92ff9ea6dd4743123ef4
878c823d948b13fca059cb0f056d48fa40f4bef3
25874 F20101221_AAAUSF jung_w_Page_56.jpg
9171ecf798799ceda5bc12e065ce0454
634fae0e3cb8104f91b04c4bbd257b65320ab7ed
853 F20101221_AAAUNI jung_w_Page_03.pro
7f7fb1818097a0b891b4c10261d7537b
5f5c578dffb0b096360f5bdfae937c47a9643120
2107 F20101221_AAAUXD jung_w_Page_15.txt
5c59317ae7bc818964b4e67d99a63a7c
75be0e43ca102407560572e235591d3d58845b55
23868 F20101221_AAAUSG jung_w_Page_03.jp2
6281852713811ad3f96cd6a6325cf35a
b787cb9b8ad654380c873ad6fe000e90662df2e4
1979 F20101221_AAAUNJ jung_w_Page_45thm.jpg
be5ec12b7f0dd2cada140a2c6eddd6ad
7dacebe4478d8757116f8ac097a8a8f237be3d20
2227 F20101221_AAAUXE jung_w_Page_17.txt
7934caa978c8b36a9c24c25de25a78a1
91e02d41d70e8ec6d96fced506cd4ab3b8bd7eb3
764878 F20101221_AAAUSH jung_w_Page_04.jp2
cab517a1de04b13419424eced308e862
7bac9eecd24fa7a694089bf58514b643a31db38d
32398 F20101221_AAAUNK jung_w_Page_31.QC.jpg
990c246c133ae3245bc434dcfe39931c
22b52413bd6295719874ff01a203f9e5d7198f28
2293 F20101221_AAAUXF jung_w_Page_19.txt
5575addde651f1dfd82ca70193ba1292
fa9b073f3af25da7b2a27930bed06d6b173e980c
1051978 F20101221_AAAUSI jung_w_Page_05.jp2
283580b9204e89a2ff032c96bb4ce328
920348c5ab8975ef9086da8e9f1fa2308bd6cb9e
1457 F20101221_AAAUNL jung_w_Page_14.txt
2e88e5978739db53b27fa5b4de75f583
0a2bfcf8760d026304680305b1e5e1cd4a4f3b4b
1953 F20101221_AAAUXG jung_w_Page_20.txt
06c2d4806d447fce3b173a50f47fc14b
188ca5a1ae70ca27065f7cd8a6bf65d824ae808e
183263 F20101221_AAAUSJ jung_w_Page_08.jp2
d6aefa6b801b0300999c6e9d00498c88
57c8b1427426ee42442df61fb3cf45573e72822a
869679 F20101221_AAAUNM jung_w_Page_27.jp2
29f965eae9a05061f3da170f3c21ac66
7bf048128d2acd17d6f3b740fa3481f7f057d781
131865 F20101221_AAAUSK jung_w_Page_09.jp2
57977c2f31034bd48435215aa741899b
38f8812e73d7cf5e3af9553fc905dbc8deb49735
75356 F20101221_AAAUNN jung_w_Page_47.jpg
656d71e8cd8118a330642eb81432dd41
fd1371c6f115aab5714f90596b5dab3fe5a3c9c6
1961 F20101221_AAAUXH jung_w_Page_21.txt
ba193491d3bcfb1f4a90b6515035aa82
06b0c697428cbbd3fef514da7e3f262c5f1c36bf
1051981 F20101221_AAAUSL jung_w_Page_16.jp2
fb1da00d7907579ad25246fc7662f4bc
48d87320725eb858979ea9d5b5315f26eaf4bfe7
F20101221_AAAUNO jung_w_Page_11.tif
8b55e572c49a2c7b06a894ed9393a6c1
436040572a125db1dc32db0995a89dee5e193a4e
2236 F20101221_AAAUXI jung_w_Page_22.txt
ce0ba2b0571a72a4553c9a15867db30a
9fe6eac593474ff3fa8e163ec32d71657305569e
1051944 F20101221_AAAUSM jung_w_Page_17.jp2
5d5bd57276f9ed1b1d9fa5fe78e552e0
ef9390ef1374e218f9d631026793e08d60a275f2
25494 F20101221_AAAUNP jung_w_Page_36.QC.jpg
1fcd22ac51f3de7d3e4e61e824222f69
d3d707cd93fe5593e20318f13923a666d039da5b
1188 F20101221_AAAUXJ jung_w_Page_23.txt
f450a9cfc4ea7f724c34db972530608b
5db705aaef97e2aa3c9265783a6986e50ac6ef11
F20101221_AAAUSN jung_w_Page_20.jp2
376f04bf9ee4cf049a978225a061a6d3
cbb2d8289b55455c4c2c124e0bf89d4671a70a6c
36372 F20101221_AAAUNQ jung_w_Page_12.QC.jpg
a80b66b0698233fc5177de334472dfd6
7cf8252ff4321d65ecb72449d10d6bf67c7bdf61
2105 F20101221_AAAUXK jung_w_Page_24.txt
2013d6f2a264f98eccdfa51461f8be60
051a1fc6ccbdb9f30219e692e413a5c4b6ca832f
1051986 F20101221_AAAUSO jung_w_Page_21.jp2
219379b72a187d97fdcffed6a3f6c005
4dd43503f9d555ef2feadc7a4c0bb5d27fc14164
1051977 F20101221_AAAUNR jung_w_Page_44.jp2
943ed3affb00f62b847e61247003f390
1d9be6ed5654d6baf42308d8f6f58e8fc26dec7b
2167 F20101221_AAAUXL jung_w_Page_25.txt
f1675939322b01b6d10c6bb9a4b1235c
e871e9b04e5056ff47c3d75befb61fc13217dc87
1051967 F20101221_AAAUSP jung_w_Page_22.jp2
d13b13f82023b3d95b8409f46bdb5a99
2264df1db8c931fa73d6aac44933a1875d4df58f
33344 F20101221_AAAUNS jung_w_Page_30.QC.jpg
876b8b0cd3f6d31a99063626747cb61b
8ad6773570e3bb46add098e02c299b0cf8a5b486
1832 F20101221_AAAUXM jung_w_Page_27.txt
05b54d2069fd6055b2449f05e5019363
3bdaaa62b89ce46a8a7c07551e4fb0bb7296d6c3
671429 F20101221_AAAUSQ jung_w_Page_23.jp2
d017a738f4c844b5b75fdd81bb1aafa7
1863679943431565ddcce9fa0be8f8f0ca8a68cb
66648 F20101221_AAAUNT jung_w_Page_34.jpg
4d63a845c5b14ef3136a20d52cd19975
58a2d6ea626eaf504807e1e857467a08790734f3
1340 F20101221_AAAUXN jung_w_Page_28.txt
8559cb59a960f60fbbb682a4867f238f
ddbdae5af7e2cfc8416bff0554f0b4aae0a60223
F20101221_AAAUSR jung_w_Page_24.jp2
86af122e1f9b48e5d9c39829e37c8205
ab7d864aa1a8838206175d035bf4eec744a20098
114156 F20101221_AAAUNU jung_w_Page_13.jpg
5e8e4e1394a4adba33271b7cd1b998c2
c39b7d4c4860a1e036c911bb4f86f7120697ff94
1943 F20101221_AAAUXO jung_w_Page_29.txt
0391d29701e64cd389543a6b130509b3
08c0f1483bea2341b1b0f75c55bc36d3fda378ff
1051976 F20101221_AAAUNV jung_w_Page_18.jp2
ace4688f7c14aefe9190d40c72fc89d2
a61fb1aa49aa28db50d9f7d97414c1bb58d5b010
2039 F20101221_AAAUXP jung_w_Page_30.txt
ffeec4838f8957e60effd553fb516bcb
1786d4a148d215c406d9d2d052faf28712d8f66f
1051974 F20101221_AAAUSS jung_w_Page_26.jp2
a4853b96c254e85ab2e95496f4863b40
07ca28c48d8e1068b45052e77a382915d7fbb81a
335 F20101221_AAAUNW jung_w_Page_08.txt
328588fc4596f349f54f14cf260cd324
d9279f30f656eac6fe68b497d432401a39c1e72c
1924 F20101221_AAAUXQ jung_w_Page_31.txt
8e013515919124790d2dbfcf7f6edd30
267a864e924a9d8b1d8c2ba58f78b2e9c345d289
741601 F20101221_AAAUST jung_w_Page_28.jp2
7c8ec8bc7beed113a1797848f8dff5d3
1c93f1ab6aaf205a1fa63d2749867becb3ffce5d
37363 F20101221_AAAUNX jung_w_Page_39.QC.jpg
98ee0c8986362a63fcf057bf8765f19c
1f809612980dc1287eddeb26da321455d77f0313
1840 F20101221_AAAUXR jung_w_Page_32.txt
3ee4efe987619593f7bb31e19051bf44
d8a72d53ed15a9c20a6f1ae7d58e620621bc5465
1035164 F20101221_AAAUSU jung_w_Page_29.jp2
ee2fef51303e3d564c72ebc09827144b
c8e283a2161e2fdad64346a728bd9a2cd81e92b6
1023729 F20101221_AAAUNY jung_w_Page_32.jp2
e446b742e8e68bc30acf408a35c1a0d4
6d2159bd42efe393e434ca2e600859c757e7d3b7
2016 F20101221_AAAUXS jung_w_Page_33.txt
a98c5284b977223586e0115c01406e5f
4063713664e456b0b0b4fc97b7c378b976ec2fbd
1051910 F20101221_AAAUSV jung_w_Page_33.jp2
bf4d2ed171a9779b4216b9fe71a539de
2da353ca623c89efeaf603ea1723bc18d249e5f3
F20101221_AAAUNZ jung_w_Page_14.tif
3d0ddbc47bacfc0614819a9750d907fa
e942cd1d5fc2b0dd4ab92a09335b3cde3cd31a8d
1424 F20101221_AAAUXT jung_w_Page_35.txt
3c2685600353dd1c6fe77b1ab8ba9651
ec99e66adba12fabc7015be8c5a4c913ca647f2d
733744 F20101221_AAAUSW jung_w_Page_35.jp2
9acaecb21ba14a7194f82c7e3894ba5d
6bb2a7297683d1ac01a8d3ed57bcbd5877d64d3d
616 F20101221_AAAUXU jung_w_Page_37.txt
b54d0745a1865a6748bdf2c4fe2fb0f0
233be252765c3c0f9128469f2bbf3d578d99f246
715269 F20101221_AAAUSX jung_w_Page_36.jp2
1613eccd549bf7e9ca8d0fbd603381c1
da12acb971bf5f8677b4693c928abcbfc22e6ae2
1935 F20101221_AAAUXV jung_w_Page_38.txt
9aa869e5f7ec07fc69e3fba86e62ed53
6fbcada616eeba946dd7837446074635e925a334
372939 F20101221_AAAUSY jung_w_Page_37.jp2
23eff5aa6917da541bac8773f143e3a3
00531a36353c6d0664f1efa51d10ee904e4ce0b5
2195 F20101221_AAAUXW jung_w_Page_39.txt
7ab40b439e945509fdfa0e85b53ebbed
2f90f6fae0a236fad81e2b3981c6b777580f8cf4
F20101221_AAAUQA jung_w_Page_01thm.jpg
e8190ca3127e017f736e6a2a6bd08d80
1dde7db8dfd80b0086cfe545fff33f6866767273
F20101221_AAAUSZ jung_w_Page_38.jp2
b65f0c7138aab7874bed8c87cae20264
c903c10b4f73d5fa17d758a8102d7680bc1953f1
106 F20101221_AAAUXX jung_w_Page_42.txt
f8427886638394992e1c47196be6d6f4
573f47e6b7ffc602492ac9b148cac5bf141ca73a
655559 F20101221_AAAUQB jung_w_Page_46.jp2
cddb28ea8daaec19c7b6f645714db84d
d5bdea46aebbcdca0eee7f32d00fd3e327d84e9b
F20101221_AAAUVA jung_w_Page_56.tif
716808a90059ba84aade05d72c4de871
7d5d3b11844d00d92de409b8d69fd7f6c4d0329b
F20101221_AAAUXY jung_w_Page_43.txt
a594146f1a39ff47b7a107c5e303e570
d022901f287a77a7f1c0c999f3b9bf6f01248cad
2262 F20101221_AAAUQC jung_w_Page_40.txt
597c47a55b12cc9e2fbcacabe04e188b
c533a1395785f493e37e4183b75a76e56bbd4072
9316 F20101221_AAAUVB jung_w_Page_01.pro
41d9dde44585e7302fc47a3c3abcfdbf
01da3a486379496bb980c3a4dd2b631ddcd6f306
486 F20101221_AAAUXZ jung_w_Page_45.txt
e101915623210d9abe0cee0595d10682
63378ba849240c0cfec820bbcc02e69ad431fa9b
14634 F20101221_AAAUQD jung_w_Page_09.jpg
87dd11c569cde41b29cc369e7b8b3990
10756869d1ea075b66588e46a1244c5c01f94aff
801 F20101221_AAAUVC jung_w_Page_02.pro
a2697b0a7b126d2fdfb737aeb6ad1c4b
7c2fff8e6c68d855dc1fb6596f21fc7f1c873240
F20101221_AAAUQE jung_w_Page_13.jp2
4f6e0949bc812d4870520602c069237b
de4c4729f5a6d4a8beaee3e90e9666b8a789429b
33108 F20101221_AAAUVD jung_w_Page_04.pro
7af7dfe8a3337a182e2ff2b2b3dd0051
648fa848a166d0f9a35e266f80f40e91b401be5c
37852 F20101221_AAAUQF jung_w_Page_44.QC.jpg
787d6b82e6322125c8bd297ef42cdf89
5cdd2c0574ae17bb6e18d811feef6f292d3a2502
61546 F20101221_AAAUVE jung_w_Page_05.pro
6b34bec3ebf38525a28bc58bfc609994
01c6da22682c0ff12663b03044e2d9aa151b8b43
841873 F20101221_AAAUQG jung_w_Page_14.jp2
27b6b48838c41815fdd0415e00469b5c
59e6870cf94cf3efc74e0966cc2320640e4f5244
41687 F20101221_AAAUQH jung_w_Page_37.jpg
3ee079663bcfd5022d5c90374c9b92fe
182c1f196eac076a63f8f45b81a6f004b4114fe3
7330 F20101221_AAAUVF jung_w_Page_06.pro
6d1edea863a774deaadfb71905da3cdb
df8203c2770bd34ab75c9f55a4870c879b7f7a47
96292 F20101221_AAAUQI jung_w_Page_38.jpg
6142bb4eabbd007f798b3e094b78a2a1
9ca149a004fdcb2277a8833fa16f1fa3f0b3fea1
28454 F20101221_AAAUVG jung_w_Page_07.pro
299f8e884e5fbba6eb7539a43eba17af
796ccfa19c8f082b8c64d4265eecef3e13f94a8d
3819 F20101221_AAAUQJ jung_w_Page_03.jpg
3f85f0e2fae9dd228282dbee18697c86
5ff919e5dfee2b9eb62af18da27b47d0a54304fe
4891 F20101221_AAAUVH jung_w_Page_09.pro
2a3d30eebe2973ee6fe016e8fe6071fd
9fbed3b65e9c5228a15f9328fb96f87c55b5f0f3
6171 F20101221_AAAUQK jung_w_Page_08.pro
027f92b5af44c35140c760efda1d6cc6
acfc12c2e105f15def3fc5795221652643ba0556
33159 F20101221_AAAUVI jung_w_Page_10.pro
2d9c18cd0fec1b4a04d2cd5bdaf4aef7
b55cd5d420bfa41c39e892bd92afa833b40b7c8c
F20101221_AAAUQL jung_w_Page_31.jp2
64aa9c71d02d90ecfcb80a12bcc1b2d5
edb8b8398140b15d371b36aa9f2662200460addb
52290 F20101221_AAAUVJ jung_w_Page_11.pro
156d29575cd976289bea74be44718f45
06153fefb2e82192388df7697c3645f6dd904d2a
6838 F20101221_AAAUQM jung_w_Page_45.QC.jpg
64b189696ed72c635ff04ad967dba595
0628384779081264fb5509f00e1a04009df48f42
53698 F20101221_AAAUVK jung_w_Page_12.pro
42db37ff63ed7ee18e6fc42e196a3979
9383783740920abe18b550e3fe9c42f7fd92e05e
1051940 F20101221_AAAUQN jung_w_Page_25.jp2
48836d765eb488eabbe292c6bb27b0fe
d09073886a3029851af822b08d9394dac938625b
54214 F20101221_AAAUVL jung_w_Page_13.pro
32a7c35d395d3f23c471e6dd41ac4e99
694712c50a62773df3f77426e3942708acf358c8
25697 F20101221_AAAUQO jung_w_Page_02.jp2
837069199e95a9c31dffb21ab98f9a82
74a6c17ebbff64f7253655a96dbb71fcd8a674aa
36630 F20101221_AAAUVM jung_w_Page_14.pro
e509a88c79abda28251cbf3056a33543
7769b6d6d35ad3a5445977e774348a0df7e2d1c9
61421 F20101221_AAAUQP jung_w_Page_51.pro
19d47bd6b33f95b8aa07e3475ed4f66a
b0caa7a5b18ecbc62ffe406b3d25c89cd68c07cf
50656 F20101221_AAAUVN jung_w_Page_15.pro
985433bcaba35b1d345ec43af37066f2
3901494fe960907bbca5bb592ba268a1ef3d10f1
1051945 F20101221_AAAUQQ jung_w_Page_15.jp2
f466280c0cc2a3cfce11a7774fa42ca9
bb3f14b693d15cec5ef0c0c5e4e488ecbdd7cea9
61666 F20101221_AAAUQR jung_w_Page_23.jpg
16370d42fc0dd9b2e2727ca9d657888b
5c3d7b20b5483efae0c0e86c4588ad377fe54ad7
52803 F20101221_AAAUVO jung_w_Page_16.pro
c9ca64bb11c529dfb8f58756a8513644
8011585b6025a96d9f54862496e5cb3c21509e61
85833 F20101221_AAAUQS UFE0022338_00001.xml
c3a66516fe0f4fdde59237c473b06caf
59312ff7a0ca864a5466845413101b16395ae6a0
55466 F20101221_AAAUVP jung_w_Page_17.pro
1572bf7e8fd9a978635c6cd94996a49c
6bb9f25359f1b4b80b748e6dc261c8969db55697
53432 F20101221_AAAUVQ jung_w_Page_18.pro
9904cf882061852743b44e13983f9707
45906605ed305a9f214db5cac6ec9846834ac589
57741 F20101221_AAAUVR jung_w_Page_19.pro
19cd221b57cfe678ab531946c67cf596
ec993f5f5f80dbde27a68fa474cb9f208ab551ac
3642 F20101221_AAAUQV jung_w_Page_02.jpg
e2d3fbfa2b056cf167a014d2a72434f4
c42fd09ee8833298c6d37514e23c7af252f7389c
48502 F20101221_AAAUVS jung_w_Page_20.pro
1d7021ce86e26970bec1d7d24ebd3f9e
0ad4d9d5136c073bbc8e85ec66f8bd9b294f3864
71472 F20101221_AAAUQW jung_w_Page_04.jpg
012975451a7765c5a9e5cfa506327c41
e98a343deba305906543a7f6cae8d6d667194117
48593 F20101221_AAAUVT jung_w_Page_21.pro
773bcbe7509e5ffea0f7572e687795f9
00c6c548f761a3cdd13644604444f6e074e2a17f
98882 F20101221_AAAUQX jung_w_Page_05.jpg
4f3dbc64aec55c8c76928addbde72701
a9bc0c238085630509b2887866e9e07a70855e6a
28817 F20101221_AAAUVU jung_w_Page_23.pro
0dad780d6933a136efdd05815188d3d9
f2dbeb8fa590005b39337273afb0fd1e2a459df3
16502 F20101221_AAAUQY jung_w_Page_06.jpg
0eb1151323cd28c885df904710552121
56c1dcc6392d8cef139ff42cc71b2e494c107051
51482 F20101221_AAAUVV jung_w_Page_24.pro
6ecb297ad4fad85baa21c960ed3aa025
13db8c32542627f666fda0d566a0e1e6160222d4
1051964 F20101221_AAAUOA jung_w_Page_30.jp2
98a450fd24a8cf5410be75244940b978
766e1c3a746e3787c2b3ded66a17310a11d22ee2
62936 F20101221_AAAUQZ jung_w_Page_07.jpg
3449d39eedc97a3272eeac263a043b1d
8649b24ab9b468f2388baa06f92f5bc6cb5ba816
55078 F20101221_AAAUVW jung_w_Page_25.pro
44aa28c1b766caba097f6dede40ee793
127dd5e9f640934bfdbd222ad13266d3a072e653
50423 F20101221_AAAUVX jung_w_Page_26.pro
d3a2986d44c66d8338dbbbf287ef94e1
15cee9cebcc6dd8b79db7413f0dd7ba586a69a23
1051957 F20101221_AAAUOB jung_w_Page_54.jp2
d59a379c36d718edaaecae985460ce41
24f48340bf2f6e382fc297fe000712272e520bde
1051922 F20101221_AAAUTA jung_w_Page_39.jp2
b63125d9b4683207a3c5097df7ad720e
169b5e9035dc6995c4a2d1afd0a670d2f3a3724d
33322 F20101221_AAAUVY jung_w_Page_28.pro
09be84953455fe7f472e88a2204f800e
174d32f7726afd88c696e889a271cfa4335aea48
56841 F20101221_AAAUOC jung_w_Page_49.pro
b602db2609350b1a4ca08d383cc64c28
820500b0b6cbef40cd359fe0ccc1685bacaa51f4
1051937 F20101221_AAAUTB jung_w_Page_40.jp2
9abb13615900d4bef30c8a381a160f3a
2336b92c071553c5d1945c43f49304b6869aafca
45058 F20101221_AAAUVZ jung_w_Page_29.pro
07b0994d412c763135fb8e6d2097cdc8
54564b2bb79993718fd779445b7c8bee867a7ef5
233617 F20101221_AAAUOD jung_w_Page_06.jp2
418198a75e4a5b5d966641a76ad2ec7c
b4d9b3271cf0bd8b56cfed49e2defd1acbae0cdc
792600 F20101221_AAAUTC jung_w_Page_41.jp2
730e2292c891f455e1bf69284c0c18ab
b0c55de81b2cb47406d8f8343f5feabe0e416c71
6503 F20101221_AAAUOE jung_w_Page_27thm.jpg
24d46e0807c09f93dbb04d3464b3cc8a
ceb4446e932f998cc9c6e22de44bd2a2e729a7de
1453 F20101221_AAAUYA jung_w_Page_47.txt
2a62042b3c11c04a372458797aa6dcb9
b645c78f497b51173b48caafb956ec4c7c509970
8110 F20101221_AAAVAA jung_w_Page_30thm.jpg
cc92bdf298eab60cb5916b4b003d9c0d
1528e12621df53ae97ccec8b9085a15c770bfa6c
282293 F20101221_AAAUOF jung_w_Page_01.jp2
9cfb13f134e72f7e8b3868eb2a7aceca
f32c226ad78d02b5d83741f29f74dfce3bcbe057
650 F20101221_AAAUYB jung_w_Page_48.txt
c9b17ce2bd5b7afe055e93dc5b8d263e
71e8131942114f01f14d4f2641e6ef8d2018dabf
8064 F20101221_AAAVAB jung_w_Page_31thm.jpg
6f5ef46fd6af862a2b48b79583f98e6d
cb2d605b2a46da68bd82401185ed9a9d9b3f78ad
419306 F20101221_AAAUTD jung_w_Page_42.jp2
c673abd67ab252ce60777ff0e0999eff
c1c2caa357ab0eaa0537539dace25f9948a54a29
1377 F20101221_AAAUOG jung_w_Page_36.txt
f6e96f87e80e4b162d9246f6f08d8cef
bcec1a34de9ac16e3e8a4ded01f0bce6959920c7
2628 F20101221_AAAUYC jung_w_Page_50.txt
53a47088f5ee319f719748d284589328
d87cdf9ac32b6db8c8c37fe06a7003b9278ee55d
8165 F20101221_AAAVAC jung_w_Page_33thm.jpg
428c02f137e231e69aed39edccdc4416
b3e8027b08553d2c4efb0fefd9f942250e4dacc1
419932 F20101221_AAAUTE jung_w_Page_43.jp2
1c5d5c0bbc5ace07e81b32fb49f4ad9e
a51aab153bdbc17c900ce49beb12af49288749f6
109656 F20101221_AAAUOH jung_w_Page_11.jpg
4a92e04450da7dafbb0b59ce677379ed
4cef2f6b0c018415cead469df4500003fc75bea3
2472 F20101221_AAAUYD jung_w_Page_51.txt
05567fabcc4242a3ae81c3a9f5bab54e
de1d797d0408b99b1fb2ae5d3671f48d9636216b
21740 F20101221_AAAVAD jung_w_Page_34.QC.jpg
a24f0735e59f622e5110274b88f2c4a6
73cda432912772b90ae4f9426034eca1e2c8ae76
341226 F20101221_AAAUTF jung_w_Page_48.jp2
59dcf0f8a33b72ffea4f3b7d12033611
aba5faf9e629b6b79ef9b0a1b34cce1e34647415
76601 F20101221_AAAUOI jung_w_Page_36.jpg
55e3c45dbcae270a38d8d6c5935d5964
9ad45a274bc811c3147bfb9334682e05b3edfda3
2524 F20101221_AAAUYE jung_w_Page_52.txt
97b9429c10d6e0ea73729d59e5329bf5
b567d7ea227f22295ab09f214e7d5e662a920a2b
27275 F20101221_AAAVAE jung_w_Page_35.QC.jpg
aedb5f348547affb5244549f583998a2
3f23db19d0ab29311c2e06b97af5ae9847a0a5a1
1051948 F20101221_AAAUTG jung_w_Page_49.jp2
255303fab8a734ca64efdf5ed4938a95
df951885b7477c8c13411c1c3d0d0173e23dc2f6
5619 F20101221_AAAUOJ jung_w_Page_34thm.jpg
2c85953035268a28bf2d8f592725bf2a
84bb1dd853a2768caeeef5f23c54b80ab71c5d67
2518 F20101221_AAAUYF jung_w_Page_54.txt
ab988ddc33175346cb94f7f66ccca117
fde504eea7fa47cedddabd7cad1e5246d0148dce
6932 F20101221_AAAVAF jung_w_Page_35thm.jpg
a07e96ab103d8f38ab9118691b790a31
664ffc4c3f131179e202e197623f16378031a08e
F20101221_AAAUTH jung_w_Page_50.jp2
249318500e216d2ddfaf3a55943f4420
3eb75c4fcda11417d76904dae53fe93e923f210d
1256 F20101221_AAAUOK jung_w_Page_34.txt
31bc679170f903687d7eebc43cdcd30c
897c44648e44707e543ac945308b9502e1171c67
188 F20101221_AAAUYG jung_w_Page_55.txt
9aed53ce20c08a83a2464df01bb911c8
32e5910422df63ca421ffa59a35fde15d3ea9eb4
7241 F20101221_AAAVAG jung_w_Page_36thm.jpg
3e7bf626b28dfff6640dc6230add4228
af8cc60cd4eedb2f7a59824daca7b8ef6fb5f810
F20101221_AAAUTI jung_w_Page_51.jp2
6cd677271ac3fb727ad1fd4cce77e5aa
327fb927a8d3254875f7e0bc044d4a086f82941a
47279 F20101221_AAAUOL jung_w_Page_31.pro
497fc9d566c9561a96d665ed9390415f
5d42e176482fd9fa57330489ca877d4c88ef0f18
451 F20101221_AAAUYH jung_w_Page_56.txt
7260471fc92ccc09d618a3d3df439998
e9102b00a6d1bbeb3d34650b6673494269b9a4d3
13539 F20101221_AAAVAH jung_w_Page_37.QC.jpg
3cd82847c1d4eba103f9acfe8845839c
17fc9d46dc7bcbb4614f13be4df7787ee8c65f7c
1051958 F20101221_AAAUTJ jung_w_Page_52.jp2
f8e8a2df249b87a195c28674af70980f
37f9d4f630c52895f1032982da17208dc4317326
F20101221_AAAUOM jung_w_Page_53.txt
76f56b887038387fb52f0f6c96139fcf
3f830984723e6f5e6c55ca996a5f088498b472f0
3639 F20101221_AAAVAI jung_w_Page_37thm.jpg
669c8f3e876352460ac5f9c2e07b95c2
24d2a0d1d93acf479f653f5a223aed6dcef85679
1051931 F20101221_AAAUTK jung_w_Page_53.jp2
b7a6e6bfcae400597756624d634fc19b
9448327d4cad90d3bdd5622895e370b8df6fd083
7743 F20101221_AAAUON jung_w_Page_29thm.jpg
f0dfc328153520bc37655f523f8d6daa
2566187e0375f606b42f4b0e49031837f2b46b1d
480402 F20101221_AAAUYI jung_w.pdf
a3065c275ce71a7f63001290beceeb2e
9377a1606ae4094c5779e4f4756f2900c278958f
31194 F20101221_AAAVAJ jung_w_Page_38.QC.jpg
70a6cb7af99145d15dd26e2bedca9be2
0eb134327135e311fea006cb07d5e2ded9e4a421
109537 F20101221_AAAUTL jung_w_Page_55.jp2
94b12e83180953e51d2d62ee92a221ce
93cf918588c33d20877a3697113a3c14d2426aa3
4381 F20101221_AAAUOO jung_w_Page_42thm.jpg
d2253aa2f1b9d41f851a19a4e92f75bb
4629a8d849c4d9ab71e09d84774417f8c60042a3
8957 F20101221_AAAUYJ jung_w_Page_01.QC.jpg
af2cd24853b0c0f9f6139f797ae2f63e
a9a02a7ce05dd39bb7bff0c52b4491350d26ae6c
7813 F20101221_AAAVAK jung_w_Page_38thm.jpg
a84f5d582bb20dbc40130fef64cf9185
a6fe23e07e3f7c3bd49aebce90b28973025f4f93
250098 F20101221_AAAUTM jung_w_Page_56.jp2
0890c442e95bdc6572ec8e449426e48f
d6cae703d797f859a34544573eb5d56a4352af8a
F20101221_AAAUOP jung_w_Page_39.tif
666cf7e4dfecadf9d397bbaa31409a39
38be5db6f18a8280d711708fe7df5123096b79e9
8874 F20101221_AAAVAL jung_w_Page_39thm.jpg
ab14857fa9ed0e7d61715409c095d4d5
0341a2e05dc9c7ccdc26f3ef27d4cf262e84f118
F20101221_AAAUTN jung_w_Page_01.tif
684c2ad226b72bf3e53c6ab866f1845d
14605aa325b852dbcdc41ba454b58ceae8288976
8993 F20101221_AAAUOQ jung_w_Page_25thm.jpg
76a6881d46b989d53a8467e64ab74eda
facf39f6b451785a8e17f80b616150df5f12ed27
1323 F20101221_AAAUYK jung_w_Page_02.QC.jpg
5b0c1d290358d52af63dee6425f58221
3e309148b74bff81d18568671e4aa6ce54b4ba26
37470 F20101221_AAAVAM jung_w_Page_40.QC.jpg
66fffcf0960644c2e61c882a6fd51618
d53f45cf31d92e7c0da833945a980ba72aed4553
F20101221_AAAUTO jung_w_Page_02.tif
35afd595555fe1e76994edb0de4daf65
3b859e7f1966566f7799a6138f5474da3274ecd9
34145 F20101221_AAAUOR jung_w_Page_15.QC.jpg
dbbe2b6f3c223483e87dc4cf04a75dc3
1760e172214efdfbde2bc773ce17d642f62e25e3
539 F20101221_AAAUYL jung_w_Page_02thm.jpg
5ba1b62e66f2bf49e0cc3b29bad63b3f
f7cf9c91beaebd0235a71baacf35e3a7ae7a0a9b
9160 F20101221_AAAVAN jung_w_Page_40thm.jpg
e3fbf9b9d22dd02cd6e207e72a2d58db
4bac6e225e8e74010d78c2db60426b9c1f85c2e9
F20101221_AAAUTP jung_w_Page_03.tif
52e33dac47017dab011885631216c261
5fd7a3d225b2156bc4bf26d4f4a4dbb2406f2b67
F20101221_AAAUOS jung_w_Page_46.txt
9baf31eb564d5bff326600586721288d
f077909692188b2d6955fe0ae7bae0cfa2c3d2c2
1144 F20101221_AAAUYM jung_w_Page_03.QC.jpg
48127ae7a89eb176d1e9ae41a09ab112
ed8d4596960c2012b875f5a3e379d1c1ed49ff12
6080 F20101221_AAAVAO jung_w_Page_41thm.jpg
9e97bf28d864e17f94da51c07358fdfc
a6ff9148f26abc3c805c839e069430c8f1d5fbb3
F20101221_AAAUTQ jung_w_Page_04.tif
50271df99515674342be1192623c5b14
685517b6e7a15953969d67cf6d976da4970e1731
F20101221_AAAUOT jung_w_Page_53.tif
51028cbbb8f7083387a55f1b38a086d7
dab9d7996ebb3bf361a8eec113132bd73ee72834
528 F20101221_AAAUYN jung_w_Page_03thm.jpg
cf5c4fd3e252f047fb736482df0b2ba2
d38d816d8b19f260e217395f6d22c0888044e796
F20101221_AAAUTR jung_w_Page_05.tif
0710eb0cedcd7d7e2bb861c036e5d4fb
375b91071e9269c47fbe7caeec97005ee1bb494d
1385 F20101221_AAAUOU jung_w_Page_41.txt
4fa8979aceaf6a282e64a0e5087bb743
8ecc665ea2498529030c9140918c7bd33a59daac
23405 F20101221_AAAUYO jung_w_Page_04.QC.jpg
2be29f2de1fbe0a7aa199f08d9d7a36d
2d73e523f9188c31e083492a57b687ac4fc41003
12522 F20101221_AAAVAP jung_w_Page_42.QC.jpg
d452ccf5db9e706c4676b46a2570eada
af06bfef96c533cade8ab6dd6eb949584a7e8220
F20101221_AAAUTS jung_w_Page_06.tif
6f73f29aab46675dacf79482595c25f8
6f4558083a0c0dd5de450d50690c2525db3392d0
40243 F20101221_AAAUOV jung_w_Page_27.pro
128afd03445d7561c3d5d492991b0645
fabc524f6ac9ab673ceb2ccdba14459cd3a3e5a7
5886 F20101221_AAAUYP jung_w_Page_04thm.jpg
7f907c197ca64ffd5c1dd287dd08b934
e86d0a410fa742e48cf2711ce5930fcabd91335c
12792 F20101221_AAAVAQ jung_w_Page_43.QC.jpg
57532dbc40e7e385ebdd1e511618f370
4b52c7eae5a62393526c34eb07c40b92dd317317
F20101221_AAAUTT jung_w_Page_09.tif
490ca1ff8170b8e2c4d760787b30b9e7
ed06405e8e23eb5423b193cbc9b26cd455a18dc2
2081 F20101221_AAAUOW jung_w_Page_16.txt
509d1438ecf5de64b2e0bbf47084e651
7e091744ea9ed4ca4af657c2824e511f0fa6e87c
22210 F20101221_AAAUYQ jung_w_Page_05.QC.jpg
d292d3a48f0f6ce372f0c9357e2fbf57
d0f63f1f2b242ad4b6f16002e707f39acebd2d9d
F20101221_AAAUTU jung_w_Page_10.tif
66799b917cc69f5402b1b4941f893ae2
88c05ac681363f168218074fa493da9c153bca88
30238 F20101221_AAAUOX jung_w_Page_32.QC.jpg
8c1646c7cd637caa0971ce98daa690d1
2b22226954a786977b7cd89ef6706a7fd2c6ddf5
5832 F20101221_AAAUYR jung_w_Page_05thm.jpg
01db1166827edf79e0ebfdbe3a114748
04aca9921f896ed9c0fc85eeab5c571e0d0559ae
4411 F20101221_AAAVAR jung_w_Page_43thm.jpg
8ff392d53b5e20001f66476ea9cc0270
06ef393d7b32d2b83cfd86bd9c5856dfd8a36557
F20101221_AAAUTV jung_w_Page_12.tif
8a6267da2ab0e91a091de1640f3b3aba
52a8c0e3451b44a3ade1bfb064298bc01a336a9e
F20101221_AAAUOY jung_w_Page_48.tif
92c115f151e18d84b4dd06d191a5e7a7
7dd3e913a2e742d1187a9d88bdfea05c4e97aa94
4429 F20101221_AAAUYS jung_w_Page_06.QC.jpg
072a96a5fa205aff9041e0417f4f2946
c241e33114357e9760628d89c50a0aa31f999404
8622 F20101221_AAAVAS jung_w_Page_44thm.jpg
19e58be431e8f6c12e5713d95e78b9ec
8f6ad60dfb96a988d7d9a4cb68fd62499f8b2e3d
F20101221_AAAUTW jung_w_Page_15.tif
f0540ab8e5a1243e0be737badbdba4b7
05a98d1d4a47a51abeaf9594ebfed293fad25385
23073 F20101221_AAAUOZ jung_w_Page_10.QC.jpg
7f448c9b4122023a628c557c4139d974
04d7ad8fd9ec001b05f7d3ed1322e4f5128ab3bf
18001 F20101221_AAAUYT jung_w_Page_07.QC.jpg
5a8a5ce674e1908667fde6089e38fa52
b67c683cf9922e9d4f3850ec016e7d949c7ab46b
26742 F20101221_AAAVAT jung_w_Page_46.QC.jpg
6b888abc68417a8975c751011f4e585c
558f172ab09cf0663380d0b3353302150796fc13
F20101221_AAAUTX jung_w_Page_16.tif
8d69a195f09876bb042d996710a07b07
2b9842dc7aacd54bb17e17abb4f54eca292d8b14
4422 F20101221_AAAUYU jung_w_Page_07thm.jpg
63f339286b81bf823038da655582bc71
5698858c06cce0f40a28d7c8ee32efd4e3e0a6cf
6772 F20101221_AAAVAU jung_w_Page_46thm.jpg
f8699fe398edb50d9c0e71b67d50ed98
986d5346f9dae0212153376fb241d6e50490266e
F20101221_AAAUTY jung_w_Page_18.tif
20d24a2a859976cc1f702b7b748799b0
4e59d176e3da5de609104ec785886691a3ba663d
4252 F20101221_AAAUYV jung_w_Page_08.QC.jpg
a2f13febbece9759e88ab1e68d970f70
4fb033e807355245a6d2fac961686f89e6cb6584
25102 F20101221_AAAVAV jung_w_Page_47.QC.jpg
c8bd36c54e5c6444a5bfb2637e32f857
2db77774b239a2026c99485ad5bc80a4f2202c35
13613 F20101221_AAAURA jung_w_Page_08.jpg
201cbb8dab881033544eac8bee619b13
81d54b31a9c87b3d7fc437ae3fc025168ad98c96
F20101221_AAAUTZ jung_w_Page_19.tif
bce4f00ea4803357ec4e7c55edd36738
4b234cdef05edf3aa07e8676ec8ca705f8903fd5
29861 F20101221_AAAUMD jung_w_Page_46.pro
bc749d32a7cd4dacf4be8d821e5985a0
713faf6ab14de57fdc0573cbb850ed3f434a307a
1374 F20101221_AAAUYW jung_w_Page_08thm.jpg
5a17b80e323919662b9f9f12f7b22dd6
845ac4cdb41953f6e2e776979cd9dfc83ec7b135
2644 F20101221_AAAVAW jung_w_Page_48thm.jpg
16c417927ba2c62167d85b88e95041a2
b79a3472bcb18d8f2e5042279db97e06006d5216
2122 F20101221_AAAUME jung_w_Page_12.txt
1d79b680c65e0468e32afe47878d395e
a32ee7d5ead33381d7c785f3e3d31a2c44a57e35
4737 F20101221_AAAUYX jung_w_Page_09.QC.jpg
6a943caaef368e1f7dfd77046ed92eab
4db2fe95f4efd5dcb8480a85d4a1516b7fc5189a
33933 F20101221_AAAVAX jung_w_Page_49.QC.jpg
2228c229b6fcc81fd26ff6e351daf3ee
47b52ecb67d5580aa9f6b042b34491915f0fd544
74880 F20101221_AAAURB jung_w_Page_10.jpg
eba898c8bf97c2d969582be8431d373c
d1cc321b5f2fc09887e7022c3f10241dd857cd5d
31140 F20101221_AAAUMF jung_w_Page_29.QC.jpg
52dd425ce2ecd24b4d4cc2981bb6b83d
a15f3b1cba30f1752cae24021c91874d61ecb218
49351 F20101221_AAAUWA jung_w_Page_30.pro
90e91fdf373bd8121049aaf81ce207b9
d65fc3367c373fac5d86f1b2f88a0957ddb1ddff
1422 F20101221_AAAUYY jung_w_Page_09thm.jpg
db3f037b82604b0d6b20aa363a485c02
4a8b35931432365307bb71ce779bb5c7fcf68c71
36496 F20101221_AAAVAY jung_w_Page_50.QC.jpg
fd972ed1841ad903251efd8dbf0170e7
81708b5fff52a669c971dd8e37369e52401fb5e3
110688 F20101221_AAAURC jung_w_Page_12.jpg
3456961a0b97fa6db43e3c73c397b059
a4b6b2684359eeba7ca6f280a19d46cc27f2f900
F20101221_AAAUMG jung_w_Page_13.tif
20313ceab53b7ad3947ba816fc565bd3
023a102ca78a398044c9e07a5fd2591312c4a454
44530 F20101221_AAAUWB jung_w_Page_32.pro
7c6c080908329ac0fd8eb4b5afc2e482
5c69c57bd44b7380a311dc08d461db25db71d0f5
5785 F20101221_AAAUYZ jung_w_Page_10thm.jpg
0b87b5a2221d4ec559db0225c8196715
029c5124d103162854ac0fd83c1cba91bea67328
9056 F20101221_AAAVAZ jung_w_Page_50thm.jpg
91057cf4a197cf41058e89990c666a34
31f6d3636ee374e65cefe8f307c2931442b112c7
76168 F20101221_AAAURD jung_w_Page_14.jpg
5582dbfb6ebfe0a634179af8be5b818c
af16d38d9a0fde3d26776b119d500bb5b49f8313
4027 F20101221_AAAUMH jung_w_Page_55.QC.jpg
0e83c28608c03cc3f84c9b225f88b72e
4ebcb59b5fbdff3944ee50b8c5645994f2fd8cf7
49476 F20101221_AAAUWC jung_w_Page_33.pro
a1bf7ef14ce00f65ed5bc3003d238c35
68360df63b42ab68c0bfa63a3025453b868fed2d
104768 F20101221_AAAURE jung_w_Page_15.jpg
c653844945f109a24637b973eee4b646
10232b7a10b9a43a0567727d6e4bfdee5488f199
29789 F20101221_AAAUMI jung_w_Page_36.pro
52a96917202a8d319ac640e08b6453ca
30bfe077c796d79301fa9b1a0b3e82baf158c7ae
31481 F20101221_AAAUWD jung_w_Page_34.pro
f3e50d13b46a2994946e9efd0a4394e7
6e85a37514358f9c0bb3339ea5b13a1702e162b1
106140 F20101221_AAAURF jung_w_Page_16.jpg
0430b5f324e1a3f4640ff7a5adf07916
b16926d7ce9153e232c4ec72af88695b11f25fdf
F20101221_AAAUMJ jung_w_Page_49.tif
4c13cd2246f7ac0f644f891de20534ae
fe3e2a2da94e700b96fe0118612ee02cd120e9f5
30900 F20101221_AAAUWE jung_w_Page_35.pro
da4370f83546b77aef595a9d3998e573
75c1ad8d8062b5777f52143c2d8221c8797e96bd
112490 F20101221_AAAURG jung_w_Page_17.jpg
5cb44cd2286be6d7a2f74a3140e32350
0d6a6fbd15bcff5320f1badb896c499c266670cc
23597 F20101221_AAAUMK jung_w_Page_41.QC.jpg
576648ad9cebede261a916a2897d29d0
fb65cee087005a0cd8d9cf59df34567c629526b3
15603 F20101221_AAAUWF jung_w_Page_37.pro
96d2ec1e181b7bea666de3e1423dbece
c54c26c404f670e8b0e952be93e70c9d8a6b60fe
108083 F20101221_AAAURH jung_w_Page_18.jpg
c07d3c9b8d77f44dc5bf57759365221b
326ab42de52277c1aaf5f4b14a51c489a6f6e054
F20101221_AAAUML jung_w_Page_07.tif
240ee07385e008157fb03a5e5b9975af
9621511d8eacfd9a3e832312e2e93a857a09722b
100530 F20101221_AAAURI jung_w_Page_20.jpg
b50be4fcd654df1d9213bae6a649f909
41dd6180baf36338f4fb7ff3fe061cdf85dc36b1
8793 F20101221_AAAUMM jung_w_Page_49thm.jpg
687fc4b4703b0a9e4c5fd71ebb421ea7
51354e0558be03f9523294314d30e6099aa55943
45898 F20101221_AAAUWG jung_w_Page_38.pro
0d9f699616a273b3729e5657eacf14e6
81b3556b0dfce852f8fe0c78c26715bec73b5428
99684 F20101221_AAAURJ jung_w_Page_21.jpg
d4c5994dc0c3dfa164f34799f332b02e
bd17c7f0435a10eddd8bffd957396e7c4da0772a







INFLUENCE OF MESSAGE FRAMING, INVOLVEMENT, AND NICOTINE
DEPENDENCE ON EFFECTIVENESS OF ANTI-SMOKING PUBLIC SERVICE
ANNOUNCEMENT S
















By

WAN SEOP JUNG


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ADVERTISING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008
































O 2008 Wan Seop Jung



































To my wife and parents









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is an accomplishment of all who helped me directly and indirectly. It is

especially dedicated to my beloved wife, Soo, who has encouraged and supported me. It is also

dedicated to my parents, Dong Kun Jung and Bok Sook Seo; without their helping hands, it

would have been impossible to complete this thesis.

I extend my sincere gratitude to my advisor and chair, Dr. Jorge Villegas, who has guided,

encouraged, and supported me with the warmest heart and has given me tremendous guidance

and support. I also want to express my thanks to my wonderful committee members, Dr. Chang-

Hoan Cho and Dr. Hyojin Kim, for their invaluable advice and encouragement. I appreciate all

the time and efforts they put into helping me with my thesis, and challenging me to learn more.

Although I first assumed that graduate schools are not fun, my adorable friends at UF

proved my assumption to be wrong. I express my thanks to my classmates. I will never forget

those wonderful moments spent with them. I especially appreciate Korean gators, Jay, Hyung

Seok, Jun Seong, Jun, Sang Won, Chang Dea, Mihyun, Yeuseung, Hyunji, Minji, Hyunmin,

Seonmi, Sooyeon and all other sisters and brothers, for helping me to go through all of those

hard tasks.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S ............ _...... ._ ...............4....


LIST OF TABLES ............_...... ._ ...............7....


LI ST OF FIGURE S .............. ...............8.....


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............. ...... ._ ...............9....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 10...


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............11.......... ......


2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................. ...............15................


Message Framing ................. ...............15.................
Involvem ent ............... .... ......... .. ...............17....
Connection of Involvement with Message Framing. ................ ............. ........ .......19
Nicotine Dependence ................ ... .......... ... ......... .. ..........2
Connection of Nicotine Dependence Level with Message Framing .............. ....................22


3 METHODOLOGY .............. ...............24....


4 RE SULT S .............. ...............29....


Hypothesis 1 .............. ...............29....
Manipulation Check ................. ...............29.................
Involvem ent ................. ...............3.. 0..............
Test of Hypothesis 1 .............. ...............30....
Hypothesis 2 .............. ...............3 1....
Manipulation Check. .........._..._. ...............32........ ......
Nicotine Dependence .........._....__......._. ...............32.....
Test of Hypothesis 2 ..........._.._. ...............33...._._. .....


5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .............. ...............38....


Discussion............... ...............3

Implications .............. ... ....... .............3
Limitations and Future Research ................. ...............40....._.. .....


APPENDIX


A INFORMED CONSENT FORM............... ...............44..












B QUESTIONNAIRE ............ ..... .__ ...............45...

LIST OF REFERENCES ............ ..... .__ ...............49...


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. ...............56....











LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4-1 Manipulation Check of Positively Framed Message for Item 1 in H1 Testing ........._.........3 5

4-2 Manipulation Check of Negatively Framed Message for Item 2 in H1 Testing. ........._.......3 5

4-3 Descriptive Statistics of H 1 .............. ...............35....

4-4 M odel Statistics of H 1 .............. ...............35....

4-5 Regression of H1............... ...............35..

4-6 Follow-up Analyses for Interaction in H1 .............. ...............36....

4-7 Manipulation Check of Positively Framed Message for Item 1 in H12 Testing ................... .36

4-8 Manipulation Check of Negatively Framed Message for Item 2 in H12 Testing. ................. .36

4-9 Descriptive Statistics of H2 .............. ...............36....

4-10 M odel Statistics of H2 .............. ...............36....

4-11 Regression of H2............... ...............37..

4-12 Follow-up Analyses for Interaction in H12 .............. ...............37....










LIST OF FIGURES

FiMr page

3-1. Positively Framed PSA............... ...............42..

3-2. Negatively Framed PSA ................ ...............43................












LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CDC Centers for Disease Control

FCC Federal Communications Commission

PSA Public Service Announcement

USDHHS U. S. Department of Health and Human Service









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Advertising

INFLUENCE OF MESSAGE FRAMING, INVOLVEMENT, AND NICOTINE
DEPENDENCE ON EFFECTIVENESS OF ANTI-SMOKING PUBLIC SERVICE
ANNOUNCEMENT S

By

Wan Seop Jung

August 2008

Chair: Jorge Villegas
Major: Advertising

Studies examining message framing effects have yielded conflicting findings. Some

studies find that positively framed messages are more persuasive than negatively framed

messages. Other studies report reverse outcomes. This study tried to Eind the reasons for the

conflicting results in message framing research, and found that the effects of message framing

was varied depending on the involvement level and smoking addiction level. The study suggests

that subj ects who are more involved with smoking issue prefer negative messages, while

subjects who are less involved with smoking issue prefer positive messages. The second Einding

is that the more dependent on cigarette smoking subj ects are, the more favorable attitude toward

negatively framed PSAs they tend to have. The contrary is true when anti-smoking PSAs are

framed positively. Other findings and implications are discussed.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Cigarette smoking has great societal and clinical importance (American Cancer Society,

2001). According to the American Cancer Society (2008), smoking was responsible for

approximately 559,3 12 U.S. premature deaths in 2005. Moreover, a number of non-smokers

suffered from second-hand smoking. A sizable percentage of youth (20%-30%) begin smoking

as early as middle school (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 1998). A large number of

smokers initiate cigarette smoking during youth-88% by age 18 (U. S. Department of Health and

Human Service [USDHHS], 1994), with approximately fifty percent becoming addicted (CDC,

1991). Smoking behavior in middle school has a tendency to last for a long time due to the

smoking addiction (Oei, 1987). Anti-smoking PSAs are useful due to its preventive effects

(USDHHS, 1994). In addition to the health-related damages, other economical and

environmental damages are caused by smoking. The following are examples of the damages:

productivity decrease due to cigarette breaks, dirtiness from cigarette butts, and budgetary

allocations for anti-smoking. Therefore, much research of anti-smoking Public Service

Announcements (PSAs) tried to abate the prevalence of smoking.

Schneider et al. (1981) estimated the effects of the Faimness Doctrine, which was a

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation regarding broadcasting license

acquisition. Tobacco companies were subj ected to restriction on inserting their advertisements in

radio or TV because of the Fairness Doctrine. After the Faimness Doctrine, cigarette consumption

decreased from 1967 to 1970. Researchers have experienced that the restriction of tobacco

advertisements had an influence on decrease of cigarette consumption. However, in 1984, the

Supreme Court recommended the FCC to abolish the Faimness Doctrine because it harmed the

public interest and violated the First Amendment. Then, there had been an emerging interest in









attempting to find other devices to abate the prevalence of smoking instead of restriction of

tobacco advertising. Therefore, researchers began to study anti-smoking PSAs.

A substantial number of studies have supported the efficacy of anti-smoking PSAs

empirically and practically. Goldman and Glantz (1998) found that anti-smoking PSAs had an

influence on decline in cigarette consumption in California, Massachusetts, and Arizona.

Popham and Potter (1993) did a research to test whether state- or government-sponsored PSAs

were effective by using the California Department of Health Service sponsored anti-smoking

PSAs, conducted from 1990 to 1991. They concluded that the government-sponsored PSAs

helped smokers to quit significantly.

In recent years, researchers tried to test anti-smoking PSAs using different target groups

(e.g., youth, adolescent, and adult) instead of general population. For instance, Seigel and Biener

(2000) reported that anti-smoking PSAs played a role in decrease of cigarette consumption

among youth in Massachusetts. Other studies found that anti-smoking PSAs were persuasive to

reduce tobacco consumption both for adults and for youth in California (Hu, Sung, & Keeler,

1995; Pierce et al., 1998). Bauer et al. (2000) suggested that anti-smoking PSAs have reduced

and prevented youth cigarette smoking. A result showed that anti-smoking PSAs could have an

effect both on adolescents and on young adults in Florida (Sly, Trapido, & Ray, 2002).

There has been an attempt to understand the persuasion processes that occur when

smokers are exposed to anti-smoking PSAs. For example, a Florida baseline research revealed

that anti-smoking PSAs were effective to change attitude and beliefs toward cigarette smoking

and smoking behavior among youth, and helped reduce the prevalence of smoking among youth

(Sly, Heald, & Ray, 2001). The study was the evidence that anti-smoking PSAs had an influence

on not only changing attitude and belief toward smoking behavior but smoking cessation.









A large amount of studies have supported the positive effect of anti-smoking PSAs in

terms of decrease of cigarette consumption or smoking cessation. Many researchers, however,

suggested different results. For instance, O'Keefe (1971) reported that PSAs produced an effect

on smoking behavior in a limited way. He found that the effectiveness of PSAs depended on

recipients' inclination to give up smoking. In other words, anti-smoking PSAs were effective

only for the smokers who were determined to give up smoking. Wallack and Corbett (1987)

tested how a variety of PSAs such as anti-drug, anti-drinking, and anti-smoking diminished the

rate of smoking, drinking, and drug-taking. The study showed that the contribution of PSAs was

minor in the context of lowering of the rates of smoking, drinking, and drug-taking because

addictive behaviors were unwilling to be changed. Wallack (1981) reported the minor effects of

PSAs on smoking cessation as well.

Traditional anti-smoking PSA research rather related to the efficacy of anti-smoking

PSA in terms of whether persuasion occurs. Recently, researchers have expanded research topics

of anti-smoking PSAs to understand how and why the effect of PSAs varied; further, they tried

to optimize the effectiveness of PSAs. For example, Goldman and Glantz (1998) have examined

a variety of message themes of anti-smoking PSAs such as industry manipulation, addiction,

health issue and second-hand smoke to find the relative effectiveness of each message theme,

and revealed that the industry deception theme was the most effective. A number of studies have

tested the relative effectiveness of ad appeal types among fear, humor, dirtiness (e.g., bad breath

and odor), sports, and sociability because those were frequently used ad appeals in anti-smoking

PSAs (Blum, 1980; Millstein. 1986; Hale & Dillard, 1995; Witte, 1995). The studies found that

fear and humor were the most effective appeals in their appeal type research, and other appeal

types failed to reduce the prevalence of smoking.









In recent years there have been numerous attempts to apply message framing effects

(effects of negatively framing message versus effects of positively framed message) to anti-

smoking PSAs. This is because a substantial amount of health-related studies have tested the

effectiveness of message framing, and yielded inconsistent results. Some studies reported

positively framed messages to be more effective than negatively framed messages. Reverse

results have been obtained in other studies. Anti-smoking researchers also tried to test the

relative effectiveness between differently framed messages how the effects of message framing

differ from other health-related research. Anti-smoking studies that have studied message

framing effects have produced conflicting finding as well. The purpose of this study is to Eind the

reason of the conflicting results in message framing research, and to explore how message

recipients react to two types of anti-smoking messages. Specifically, it will be tested how the

involvement and nicotine dependence level moderate the relative effectiveness of two different

messages. The next chapters will cover previous literatures about message framing, involvement,

and nicotine dependence and methodology used to test hypotheses. The findings of this study

will be helpful to create effective PSAs in terms of lowering smoking rate or smoking cessation.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

In this study, it will be investigated how to create more effective anti-smoking PSAs by

identifying the role of involvement and nicotine dependence in message framing effects.

Message Framing

Message framing effects can be conceptualized as the perspective that individuals

process and respond differently to dissimilar but obj ectively equivalent messages (Kuihberger,

1998). The analogy of gambling being labeled as "80% of probability of losing money" or "20%

of probability of earning money" is an example of message framing. As stated by Kithberger

(1998), same message tone, manner, and value should be applied to different messages. That is,

different messages should contain a factually equal value. Message framing can be

operationalized either by stressing on benefits gained, namely positively framed message, or by

stressing on benefit lost, namely negatively framed message. Inspired by the message framing

effects, a substantial stream of literature has investigated the effect of message framing on

individual' decisions (Puto, 1987). Puto's study revealed that people tend to be risk averse when

they process a positively framed message, but they tend to be risk seeking when they receive a

negatively framed message.

There has been little research addressing how and why people response differently to

different messages (Levin, Schneider & Gaeth, 1998; Meyerowitz & Chaiken, 1987;

Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990; Stuart & Blanton, 2002; Umphrey, 2003). Moreover, those

studies failed to yield consistent results. For instances, in Levin and Gaeth's research (1988;

Levin, 1987), people have more favorable attitude toward positively framed messages than

negatively framed ones when they are exposed to messages, stressing either percentage of lean in

total meat or percentage of fat (e.g. containing 75% of lean vs. containing 25% of fat). However,










Meyerowitz and Chaiken (1987) found opposing results about message framing effect. In the

Meyerowitz and Chaiken's study (1987), a negatively framed breast self-examination (BSE)

message was more effective than positively framed one when women were exposed to both

negatively and positively framed BSE messages. They have observed that the negatively framed

message attracts more attention than the positively framed one. Since people are more responsive

and emotional towards negative messages, the researchers have supported the effect of negative

framing (Pratto and John, 1991).

Recent message framing studies tried to find reasons for the conflicting findings. The

studies found that the effectiveness of message framing would differ depending on various

factors. For instance, Ganzach and Karsahi (1995) reported that a study setting can moderate the

effectiveness of the message framing on buying behavior in terms of credit card uses.

Specifically, when the experiment was conducted in the laboratory, a positive message was more

persuasive in terms of increase of card use, whereas a negative one was more effective when the

experiment was conducted in the natural market environment. They found that individuals'

perceived importance level varied in situations, i.e., laboratory setting versus natural market

environment setting. That is because message recipients regarded the issue as more important so

they are motivated to process the ad information in the natural market environment than

laboratory setting.

Smith (1996) revealed that a consumer education level has a moderating effect on the

message framing effects. The study assumed that the education level is highly related to

information processing ability which determines the dominant information processing route

(central vs. peripheral). The central route to persuasion refers to "the persuasion processes

involved with elaboration is relatively high," whereas the peripheral route to persuasion refers to










"the persuasion processes involved when elaboration is relatively low" (O'Keefe, 2002, p. 139).

Elaboration is meant "engaging in issue-relevant thinking" (O'Keefe, 2002, p. 138). Since the

education level plays a key part in cognitive ability to process information, he concluded that

positively framed messages are more effective for the more-educated persons than for the less-

educated. The contrary is true when messages are framed negatively.

Zhang and Buda (1999) reported that there is the moderating effect of one' s need for

cognition (NFC) on the processing of framed advertising messages. Since NFC is an indicator

for the motivation of information processing, it plays an important moderating role in message

framing effects. When individuals' NFC level is high, they devote more attention to advertising

messages. On the other hand, when individuals' NFC level is low, they tend to avoid paying

attention to advertising messages. As a result, positively framed messages were more effective

when one' s NFC was high. The contrary was true when one' s NFC was low.

A number of studies suggested that people's involvement level can influence how they

react to and process information (Greenwald & Leavitt, 1984; Kardes, 1988). This study begins

by exploring role of involvement and nicotine dependence, and relevant theory.

Involvement

Since Krugman (1965) presented the construct of involvement as personal relevance,

this topic has played a vital role in the understanding of persuasion. There is general agreement

that involvement plays a key role in explaining consumer behavior and information processing

procedure. However, the effect of involvement is debatable due to different ideas for

conceptualization and operationalization. The following two issues are barriers for obtaining

general agreement about involvement: type of involvement and intensity of involvement. Those

two are in the midst of involvement issue. The type of involvement is the first issue for the

disagreement. Some researchers proposed two types of involvement to explain the construct









better, namely, enduring involvement and situational involvement (Houston & Rothschild, 1978;

Rothschild, 1979). The categorization of involvement helped researchers begin to propose the

reasons for the disagreement. The second issue for the disagreement is the intensity of

involvement, namely, high involvement and low involvement (Gainer, 1993). Involvement is

also debatable due to the measuring the involvement construct (Celsi and Olson, 1988). While

researchers have defined the construct of involvement differently (Gainer, 1993), the general

agreement of involvement is the person' s perceived relevance of a product or situation on the

basis of personal goals, values, and interests (Zaichkowsky, 1985).

Enduring involvement can be defined as "enduring personally relevant knowledge

structures" or ongoing concern (Martin & Marchall, 1999, p. 208). The structures are stored in

the relatively long-term memory and obtained from prior experiences. Situational involvement

can be defined as "situation-specific, involving the cues and stimuli that consumers perceive as

personally relevant" (Martin & Marchall, 1999, p. 208). Situational involvement occurs only in

specific situations. The analogy of situations being labeled as "being interested in cars" or

"purchasing a car" is an example of two involvement types. The level of enduring involvement is

concluded by how well the issue is pertained to personally relevant value, whereas the level of

situational involvement is concluded by how well the situation arouses personal goals and values.

The level of situational involvement is dramatically dropped when the personal goals and values

are fulfilled. Since situational involvement rather relates to characteristics of the decision

situation, it is inapposite to the purpose of this study which tries to explain how enduring or long-

term involvement moderates the effectiveness of the message framing. Therefore, this study

employed enduring involvement as a moderator of message framing effects.









There has been a substantial amount of research about message framing and involvement,

respectively. However, the research about how involvement interacts with message framing has

considerably been neglected. Since both involvement and framing have been considered as

important factors to predict advertising effectiveness, this disregard is amazing. In this study, it

will be investigated how message framing effects will be moderated by intensity of involvement.

Connection of Involvement with Message Framing

Petty and Cacioppo's elaboration likelihood model (ELM) (1986) is helpful to

understand how involvement affects message framing effects. The model is composed of a

central route and a peripheral route. When individuals are more involved with an issue or a

product, they use the central route to process messages, whereas they use the peripheral route to

process messages when they are less involved with an issue or a product. The model also

suggests that those who are more involved with an issue or product are more motivated to

process relevant messages thoroughly, whereas those who are less involved with an issue or a

product are less motivated to process messages. Motivation in the model is defined as inner

arousal for goal achievement. The level of message processing motivation has an effect on how

much individuals pay more attention to and devote to process information (Celsi & Olson, 1988).

According to the model, the level of message processing motivation determines whether

message claims predominate in persuasion because individuals employ either a central route or a

peripheral route in persuasion process. That is, the motivation level determines the use of one of

processing routes. Under conditions of low message processing motivation, individuals are more

likely to form an attitude by relying on peripheral cues, such as message tone, wording, and

message attractiveness instead of scrutinizing message claims thoroughly and integrating

relevant thoughts and beliefs to form an overall attitude. Hence, the positively framed PSA "You

are saving $1,000 every year by being a non-smoker" may be interpreted as "Non-smokers cash









in without any efforts". Similarly, the negatively framed PSA "You are burning $1,000 every

year by smoking cigarettes" may be interpreted as "Smoking costs a lot." If so, positively framed

PSAs should be more effective under low involvement conditions.

Under conditions of high message processing motivation, individuals are more inclined

to process all information in the ad to arrive at a decision. Thus, they process messages in detail

with prior knowledge to judge the validity of messages (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990),

and integrate relevant thoughts and beliefs to form an overall attitude (Petty, Cacioppo, &

Schumann, 1983). Wright (1981) suggested that negative messages received more considerable

weight and influence than positive messages when individuals integrate message-relevant

information. That is because overweightingg may only occur when an audience member is

sufficiently concerned over the message content to bother generating reactions and integrating

those into an overall impression, and to worry about making errors in this" (Wright, 1981, p.

279-280). A variety of studies have supported the overweighting to high involvement conditions

(Kanouse, 1984; Weinberger, Allen, & Dillon, 1981). The implication of those studies is that

messages should be processed thoroughly and negative messages should be more persuasive

under high involvement conditions. Based on the previous theoretical background, following

hypotheses can be predicted:

H1: The relationship between message framing effects and attitude toward anti-smoking
PSAs is moderated by involvement.

H1.1: For those who are highly involved in smoking, an anti-smoking PSA is more
persuasive when it is framed negatively.

H1.2: For those who are less involved in smoking, an anti-smoking PSA is more
persuasive when it is framed positively.









Nicotine Dependence

In the first hypothesis, it is suggested that involvement moderates the effectiveness of

message framing by using general subj ects including both smokers and non-smokers. This is

because the message framing effects depend on the motivation of message recipients to process

information. The second hypothesis is inspired by the Petty and Cacioppo's model (1983) as well.

In their model, motivation influences the way to process information by using either peripheral

route or central one. In the second hypothesis, it is suggested that the nicotine dependence level

moderates the effectiveness of message framing by using smoker samples instead of general

subj ects. A number of anti-smoking researchers revealed the relationship between nicotine

dependence and motivation. Reflecting the relationship among nicotine dependence, motivation

and the way of information processes, the second hypothesis examines how the cigarette

addiction level affect attitudes toward anti-smoking PSAs differently depending on the message

framing.

Dependence is conceptualized as compulsive physiological need for a habit-forming

substance. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders (APA, 1994) provides

several criteria for dependence which are (1) tolerance; (2) withdrawal; (3) using larger amounts

or longer than intended; (4) unsuccessful efforts to cut down; (5) much time spent to obtain

substance; (6) negative social and/or occupational consequences; (7) persistent physical and/or

psychological problems. The manual recommends that an individual must meet at least three

criteria to be diagnosed with dependence. Nicotine dependence refers to the physical

vulnerability of our body to the chemical nicotine, which is possibly addicting when carried by

various cigarette products (MayoClinic.com, 2006).









Connection of Nicotine Dependence Level with Message Framing

Bauer (1960) presented the construct of perceived risk. And it was introduced to the

marketing literature. Perceived risk is conceptualized as the perspective that "the amount that

would be lost if the consequences of an act were not favorable, and the individual's subjective

feeling of certainty that the consequences will be unfavorable" (Cunningham, 1967, p.37).

Similarly, Stone and Winter (1987) considered risk as an expectation of loss. In connection with

this study, perceived risk regarding smoking can be re-conceptualized as the perspective how

well individuals understand the risk of smoking.

The second hypothesis focuses on the nicotine dependence level as a moderator of

message framing effects by using a sample of smokers. In Wong and McMurray (2002) study,

the nicotine dependence level was related to one's perceived health risk level. In addition,

Rindfleisch and Crockett (1999) tested the relationship between nicotine dependence and

perceived risk by using a college student sample. Specifically, the less dependent on cigarette

smoking subj ects are, the lower level of perceived risk they tend to have. Conversely the more

dependent on cigarette smoking subj ects are, the higher level of perceived risk they tend to have.

A number studies proposed that a perceived health risk level be strongly related to one's

motivation to process health-related information (Block & Keller, 1995; Rothman & Salovey,

1997; Umphrey, 2003). In addition, Bock et al. (2000) revealed the relationship between risk

perception and motivation. They found that subj ects who had higher risk perceptions were more

motivated to process smoking cessation information and consult doctors to discuss smoking

issues than those who had lower risk perceptions. The sum of the relationship among nicotine

dependence, perceived risk and motivation is that highly addicted subj ects are more motivated to

process information than less addicted subj ects, while less addicted subj ects are less motivated to

process information than highly addicted subj ects.









As for the relationship between motivation and message framing, the causality that

individuals' motivation to process information affects the effectiveness of message framing was

supported (Kanouse, 1984; Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990; Weinberger, Allen, & Dillon,

1981). The more motivated individuals are, the more favorable attitude toward negatively framed

PSAs formed, while the less motivated individuals are, the more favorable attitude toward

positively framed PSAs. Therefore, nicotine dependence has an impact on perceived risk,

perceived risk relates to motivation. In addition, the motivation would moderate message

framing effects. Finally, such relationships affect attitude toward anti-smoking PSAs.

H2: The relationship between message framing effects and attitude toward anti-smoking
PSAs is moderated by nicotine dependence.

H2.1: For smokers who are highly dependent on smoking, an anti-smoking PSA is more
persuasive when it is framed negatively.

H12.2: For smokers who are less dependent on smoking, an anti-smoking PSA is more
persuasive when it is framed positively.









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study is to investigate how involvement and nicotine dependence

moderate the message framing effects. The experiment was conducted to test two hypotheses

from March 3rd to March 11th. at the same period. In the H1, the study was conducted to test the

moderating effects of involvement on message framing with general samples, including both

smokers and non-smokers. In the H2, the study was conducted to test the moderating effects of

nicotine dependence on message framing with only smoker samples among collected data.



Study design. To test H1, two independent variables were involvement and message

framing with attitudes toward anti-smoking PSAs as a dependent variable. The involvement level

as one of independent variables was continuous (from 0: low to 7: high), and message framing

was categorical variable manipulated (positive versus negative). The dependent variable,

attitudes toward anti-smoking PSAs, was measured from 1 (unfavorable) to 7 (favorable). To test

H2, two independent variables were nicotine dependence and message framing with attitudes

toward anti-smoking PSAs as a dependent variable. The nicotine dependence level as one of

independent variables was continuous (from 0: low to 10: high), and message framing was

categorical variable manipulated (positive versus negative). The dependent variable, attitudes

toward anti-smoking PSAs, was measured from 1 (unfavorable) to 7 (favorable).

Participants. In the H1 testing, the total number of participants was one hundred and

eighty eight. They were recruited from undergraduate-level classes and a street on the campus in

the area of a southeastern American university. Due to relatively small number of participants

who currently smoke, more subjects were additionally recruited from a street on the campus. The

courses where students were recruited did not include smoking topics that might have sensitized










subj ects to the purpose of the study. Female participants made up 5 1. 1% of the sample, and

18. 1% were smokers. The dominant percentage of ethnicity was Caucasians (54.9%), and

followed by Hispanics (20.7%), Asian-Americans (19.0%), and African-Americans (3.8%). In

the H2 testing, a sample of smokers among collect data was used. Out of original participant,

forty six were smokers. Female participants made up 42.2% of the sample, and all experiment

participants were smokers. The dominant percentage of ethnicity was Caucasians (55.6%), and

followed by Hispanics (15.6%), Asian-Americans (26.7%), and African-Americans (2.2%).

Stimuli. Two versions of a print anti-smoking public service announcements were

created to test both hypotheses. As shown Figure 1 and 2, visuals and layout were equal across

experimental groups. Two advertisements contained either a positively framed message or a

negatively framed message. Both advertisements presented the argument that stopping or

continuing with cigarette consumption can lead to a financial gain or loss equivalent to two

iPhones which is one of the most appealing and familiar products among college students. Thus,

experiment participants can recognize the value of financial gain or loss easily that is caused by

stopping or continuing with cigarette consumption. The manipulation of message framing

occurred in the body copy. For the negatively framed message, the following message was used:

"You are burning $1,000 every year by smoking cigarettes. You can buy 2 iPhones with $1,000."

For the positively framed message, the following message was used: "You are saving $1,000

every year by being a non-smoker. You can buy 2 iPhones with $1,000."

Procedure. Sessions were conducted in small classroom settings and on a street on the

campus. Participants were instructed that the purpose of the study was to understand consumers'

ideas about smoking message. After the informed consent was secured, participants were

randomly assigned into one of the two experimental conditions. In the H1 testing, ninety one










participants (48.4%) were assigned into Group 1 and shown the negatively framed PSA. Ninety

seven participants (51.6%) were assigned into Group 2 and shown the positively framed PSA. In

the H12 testing, twenty four participants (52.2%) were assigned into Group 1 and shown the

negatively framed PSA. Twenty two participants (47.7%) were assigned into Group 2 and shown

the positively framed PSA. After reading the anti-smoking PSA, they completed the scales

designed to check manipulation, involvement, and measure of dependent variable. For the

duration of each session, the experimenter ensured that participants completed the instrument

independently and did not turn back to the pages they had already read. Upon completion of the

instrument, subj ects were thanked and debriefed. Each session took about ten minutes.

Independent Variables

Message framing (positive vs. negative). Message framing was employed as an

independent variable to test both hypotheses. The positively-framed PSA illustrated the positive

effect of quitting smoking by stating "You are saving $1,000 every year by being a non-smoker.

You can buy 2 iPhones with $1,000," while the negatively framed PSA emphasized the adverse

effects of smoking by stating "You are burning $1,000 every year by smoking cigarettes. You can

buy 2 iPhones with $1,000." The participants reported on a two-item, seven-point (1 = strongly

disagree, 7 = strongly agree) Likert scale how much they agreed with the following two

statements: "The ad is focusing on the positive effect of smoking cessation," and "The ad is

focusing on the negative effect of smoking."

Involvement. Involvement was used as a measured variable in the H1. Participants were

asked to answer smoking involvement items. Five seven-point semantic differential items were

used to measure involvement level (1 = important, irrelevant, valuable, useful, and interesting, 7









= unimportant, relevant, invaluable, useless, and not interesting). The scales were adapted from

Zaichkowsky (1985). The scale was internally consistent (a = .89).

Nicotine dependence. The nicotine dependence level was measured using the

Fagerstroim Nicotine Dependence Scale (Heatherton, 1991) in the H2. Smokers were asked to

answer the following questions:

1. How soon after you wake up do you smoke your first cigarette?
a. Within 5 minutes (3 points)
b. Within 6-30 minutes (2 points)
c. Within 31-60 minutes (1 point)
d. After 60 minutes (0 points)

2. Do you find it difficult to refrain from smoking in places where it is forbidden (e.g.,
in church, at the library, in cinema, etc)?
a. Yes (1 point)
b. No (0 points)

3. Which cigarette would you hate most to give up?
a. The first one in the morning (1 point)
b. Any other (0 points)

4. How many cigarettes per day do you smoke?
a. 10 or less (0 points)
b. 10-20 (1 point)
c. 21-30 (2 points)
d. 31 or more (3 points)

5. Do you smoke more during the first hours after waking than during the rest of the
day?
a. Yes (1 point)
b. No (0 points)

6. Do you smoke even when you are ill enough to be in bed most of the day?"
a. Yes (1 point)
b. No (0 points)

All points were added up on the basis of subj ects' responses and the assigned points. For

example, if someone smokes his or her first cigarette after waking up within 5 minutes, finds it

difficult to refrain from smoking-free places, hates to give up the first morning cigarette, smokes










31 or more cigarette per day, smokes more cigarette during the first hour after waking, and

smokes even when he or she is ill enough to be in bed most of the day, the nicotine dependence

level indicates 10. The nicotine dependence level was measured being continuous. The range of

the nicotine dependence level is from 0 (low) to 10 (high). Heatherton et al. (1991) suggested

that a score of 5 or more indicates a significant smoking dependence, while a score of 4 or less

shows a low to moderate dependence.

Dependent variable.

Attitude toward Ad. One dependent variable was measured to test both hypotheses:

Attitudes toward Ad. The dependent variable was measured using a four-item, seven-point

semantic differential scale (1 = unpleasant, unlikable, not irritating, and not interesting, 7 =

pleasant, likable, irritating, and interesting) (Olney, Holbrook, and Batra, 1991). The third item

for measuring involvement level (i.e., not irritating vs. irritating) was reverse coded. The scale

was internally consistent (a = .85), and the responses were averaged to represent the construct for

the H1 (M~= 4.32, SD = 1.34). For the H2, the scale was internally consistent (a = .93), and the

responses were averaged to represent the construct (M~= 4.26, SD = 1.63).









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Hypothesis 1

Multiple regressions were conducted to test H1, with two independent variables,

involvement and message framing, and one dependent variable, attitude toward ad. A sample of

smokers and non-smokers was used to test how involvement moderates message framing effects.

Manipulation Check

Before testing H1, a manipulation check was conducted. As expected, the message that

"You are saving $1,000 every year by being a non-smoker, You can buy 2 iPhones with $1,000"

was perceived as the positive anti-smoking message, whereas the message that "You are burning

$1,000 every year by smoking cigarettes. You can buy 2 iPhones with $1,000" was perceived as

the negative message. Participants reported on a two-item, seven point (1 = strongly agree, 7 =

strongly disagree) Likert scale how much they agreed with the following two statements: "The

ad is focusing on the positive effect of smoking cessation," and "The ad is focusing on the

negative effect of smoking." As shown Table 1, difference between observed value for positively

framed message and test value (= 4) was significant on item one, t = -4.96, p < .001,

f.1 I = 3.06, SD = 1.86. As shown Table 2, difference between observed value for

negatively framed message and test value (=4) was significant on item two, t = -6.07, p < .001,

if = 2.88, SD = 1.76. Subj ects felt that the anti-smoking PSA was more negative

when it was negatively framed rather than positively framed, and they felt that the anti-smoking

PSA was more positive when it was positively framed rather than negatively framed. Therefore,

these manipulation check measures suggest that the intended factors were manipulated

successfully.









Involvement

In the H1 testing, the study was conducted to investigate how involvement moderates the

message framing effects. And the message framing was manipulated. Involvement was measured

as a continuous variable on the basis upon Zaichkowsky (1985). The scale measuring

involvement level was internally consistent (a = .89).

Test of Hypothesis 1

Influence of Involvement and Message Framing

This study investigated how involvement moderates the effectiveness of message

framing. Specifically, Subj ects who are more involved with smoking issue would have more

favorable attitude toward negatively framed PSAs, while subj ects who are less involved with

smoking issue would have more favorable attitude toward positively framed PSA.

A multiple regression was conducted to test H1, with attitude toward the ad as a

dependent variable, with the involvement level and message framing as independent variables.

The descriptive statistics are presented in Table 3. The mean of involvement was 2.67 (SD =

1.62), .52 (SD = .50) for message framing, and 4.31 (SD = 1.33) for attitude toward ad,

respectively.

The model with two independent variables, the involvement level and the message

framing, and the j oint effect of these two variables was statistically significant, F (3, 184) = 7.75,

p < .001. Message framing was employed as a dummy variable where a negatively framed PSA

was 0, and a positively framed PSA was 1. The results are presented in Table 4 and 5. Initially, a

multiple regression was conducted with only two independent variables, involvement and

message framing. Its F-value was 1.86. Adding the interaction, then, contributed to 9.3% of the

model with only two independent variables. F-value change was 19. 18. The effect of the

interaction between the addiction level and message framing was b = -.50, t = -4.3 8, p < .001.









The interaction term was again explored by re-computing the regression analyses

separately for groups of subj ects exposed to negative message or positive message in terms of

message framing. Results from follow-up analyses revealed that involvement was positively

associated with attitude toward anti-smoking PSA among subj ects who were exposed to the

negative message (F (1, 89) = 2.34, a = .16, t = 1.53, p > .05), whereas involvement was

negatively associated with attitude toward anti-smoking PSA among subj ects who were exposed

to positive message (F (1, 95) = 24.40, a = -.45, t = -4.94, p < .001). Results of the interaction

tests are presented in Table 6.

Thus, the more involved in smoking, the more favorable attitude toward negatively framed

PSAs individuals tend to have, while the less involved in smoking, the more favorable attitude

toward positively framed PSAs individuals tend to have. These results support overall

assumption of H1. However, when regression analyses were conducted separately by selecting

cases (e.g., subj ects who were exposed to the negatively framed PSA vs. subj ects who were

exposed to the positively framed PSA), H1 was partially supported. That is, H1.1 was supported

whereas H1.2 was not supported. The main effect of the involvement level was b = .13, t = 1.65,

p > .05. The main effect of message framing was b = 1.32, t = 3.71, p < .001. Since this result is

irrelevant to this study, no interpretations are provided for main effects.

Hypothesis 2

Multiple regressions were conducted to test H1, with two independent variables, nicotine

dependence and message framing, and one dependent variable, attitude toward ad. A sample of

smokers among collected data was used to test how nicotine dependence moderates message

framing effects.










Manipulation Check

Before testing H12, manipulation check was conducted. As expected, the message that "You

are saving $1,000 every year by being a non-smoker, You can buy 2 iPhones with $1,000" was

perceived as the positive anti-smoking message, whereas the message that "You are burning

$1,000 every year by smoking cigarettes. You can buy 2 iPhones with $1,000" was perceived as

the negative message. Participants reported on a two-item, seven point (1 = strongly agree, 7 =

strongly disagree) Likert scale how much they agreed with the following two statements: "The

ad is focusing on the positive effect of smoking cessation," and "The ad is focusing on the

negative effect of smoking." As shown Table 7, difference between observed value for positively

framed message and test value (= 4) was significant on item one, t = -5.89, p < .001,

.f I = 2.05, SD = 1.56. As shown Table 8, difference between observed value for

negatively framed message and test value (=4) was significant on item two, t = -3.09, p < .01,

if = 2.92, SD = 1.72. Subjects felt that the anti-smoking PSA was more negative

when it was negatively framed rather than positively framed, and they felt that the anti-smoking

PSA was more positive when it was positively framed rather than negatively framed. Therefore,

these manipulation check measures suggest that the intended factors were manipulated

successfully.

Nicotine Dependence

In the H12 testing, the study was conducted to investigate how nicotine dependence

moderates the message framing effects. And the message framing was manipulated. Nicotine

dependence was measured as a continuous variable on the basis upon Heatherton et al. (1991).










Test of Hypothesis 2

Influence of Nicotine dependence and Message Framing

This study investigated how addiction level affects attitude toward anti-smoking PSA

when it is framed either positively or negatively. Specifically, Subj ects who are more addicted to

smoking would have more favorable attitude toward negatively framed PSAs, while subjects

who are less addicted to smoking would have more favorable attitude toward positively framed

PSA.

A multiple regression was conducted to test H12, with attitude toward the ad as the

dependent variable, and with the addiction level and message framing as independent variables.

The descriptive statistics were presented in Table 9. The mean of smoking addiction was 3.11

(SD = 2.27), .48 (SD = .51) for message framing, and 4.26 (SD = 1.63) for attitude toward ad,

respectively.

The model with two independent variables, the addiction level and the message framing,

and the j oint effect of these two variables was statistically significant, F (3, 42) = 6.72, p < .001.

Message framing was employed as a dummy variable where a negatively framed PSA was 0, and

a positively framed PSA was 1. The results are presented in Table 10 and 11. Initially, a multiple

regression was conducted with only two independent variables, nicotine dependence and

message framing. Its F-value was 7.46. Adding the interaction, then, contributed to 6.7% of the

model with only two independent variables. F-value change was 4. 15. The effect of the

interaction between the nicotine dependence level and message framing was b = -.38, t = -2.04, p

< .05.

Interaction was again explored by re-computing the regression analyses separately for

groups of subj ects exposed to negative message or positive message in terms of message framing.

Results from follow-up analyses revealed that nicotine dependence was positively associated










with attitude toward anti-smoking PSA among subj ects who were exposed to the negative

message (F (1, 22) = .02, a = .03, t = .13, p > .05), whereas nicotine dependence was negatively

associated with attitude toward anti-smoking PSA among subj ects who were exposed to positive

message (F (1, 20) =9.63, a = -.57, t = -3.10, p < .01). The results of interaction tests are

presented in Table 12.

Thus, the more dependent on cigarette smoking, the more favorable attitude toward

negatively framed PSAs individuals tend to have, while the less dependent on cigarette smoking,

the more favorable attitude toward positively framed PSAs individuals tend to have. These

results support overall assumption of H1. However, when regression analyses were conducted

separately by selecting cases (e.g., subjects who were exposed to the negatively framed PSA vs.

subjects who were exposed to the positively framed PSA), H1 was partially supported. That is,

H1.1 was supported whereas H1.2 was not supported. The main effect of the addiction level was

b = .02, t = .14, p > .05. The main effect of message framing was b = -. 16, t = -.23, p > .05. Thus,

both main effects were not statistically significant.












Table 4-1. Manipulation Check of Positively Framed Message for Item 1 in H1 Testing
N Mean SD t df Sig. Mean Difference

Poitvey raed97 3.06 1.86 -4.96 96 .000 -.94
Message (Item 1)
Test value = 4

Table 4-2. Manipulation Check of Negatively Framed Message for Item 2 in H1 Testing
N Mean SD t df Sig. Mean Difference
Negatively Framed
91 2.88 1.76 -6.07 90 .000 -1.12
Message (Item 2)
Test value = 4

Table 4-3. Descriptive Statistics of H1
M SD
Attitude toward Ad 4.31 1.33
Involvement 2.67 1.62
Message Framing .52 .50

Table 4-4. Model Statistics of H1
Model Source SS df MS F Sig. R R Square R4d
Involvement Regression 6.55 2 3.27
Model 1 Framing Residual 325.93 185 1.76 1.86 .159 .14 .02 .01
Total 332.48 187
Involvement Regression 37.32 3 12.44
Model 2 Framing Residual 295.17 184 1.60 7.75 .000 .34 .11 .10
Interaction Total 332.48 187

Table 4-5. Regression of H1
Source B SE fl t Sig.
(Constant) 3.96 .25 15.68 .000
Involvement* .13 .08 .16 1.65 .100
Framing** 1.32 .36 .50 3.71 .000
Interaction -.50 .11 -.66 -4.38 .000
*Involvement: 1 (low) to 7 (high)
**Message Framing: 0 (negatively framed message), 1 (positively framed message)










Table 4-6. Follow-up Analyses for Interaction in H1
Message Framing IV B SE fl t Sig.
Negative Involvement .133 .087 .160 1.529 .130
R= .160, R2 = .026, R2Adl = .015
Positive Involvement -.367 .074 -.452 -4.939 .000
R= .452, R2 = .204, R2Adl = .196

Table 4-7. Manipulation Check of Positively Framed Message for Item 1 in H2 Testing
N Mean SD t df Sig. Mean Difference
Positively Framed
22 2.05 1.56 -5.89 21 .000 -1.96
Message (Item 1)
Test value = 4

Table 4-8. Manipulation Check of Negatively Framed Message for Item 2 in H2 Testing
N Mean SD t df Sig. Mean Difference

Neatvey raed24 2.92 1.72 -3.09 23 .005 -1.08
Message (Item 1)
Test value = 4

Table 4-9. Descriptive Statistics of H2
M SD
Attitude toward Ad 4.26 1.63
Addiction Level 3.11 2.27
Message Framing 0.48 0.51

Table 4-10. Model Statistics of H2
Model Source SS df MS F Sig. R R Square RAdl
Addiction Regression 30.90 2 15.45
Model 1 Framing Residual 89.03 43 2.07 7.46 0.002 0.51 0.26 0.22
Total 119.94 45
Addiction Regression 38.91 3 12.97
Model 2 Framing Residual 81.02 42 1.93 6.72 0.001 0.57 0.32 0.28
Interaction Total 119.94 45










Table 4-11i. Regression of H2
Source B SE P t Sig.
(Constant) 4.85 0.52 9.36 0.000
Addiction* 0.02 0.14 0.03 0.14 0.892
Framing** -0.16 0.71 -0.05 -0.23 0.820
Interaction -0.38 0.19 -0.55 -2.04 0.048
*Nicotine Addiction: 1 (low) to 10 (high)
**Message Framing: 0 (negatively framed message), 1 (positively framed message)

Table 4-12. Follow-up Analyses for Interaction in H2
Message Framing IV B SE P t Sig.
Negative Nicotine Dependence .019 .146 .028 .133 .895
R= .028, R2 =.001, R2Ad = -.045
Positive Nicotine Dependence -.358 .115 -.570 -3.104 .006
R= .570, R2 =.325, R2Ad = .291









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Discussion

This study was designed to resolve the conflicting findings of message framing effects

and identify the variables that have an impact on the effectiveness of message framing. Overall,

the results are compatible with this study's grand assumption that involvement level and cigarette

addiction level moderate message framing effects.

In the H1, the contention of this study is that involvement level moderates the

effectiveness of either positively or negatively framed anti-smoking PSAs. This contention is

based on Petty and Cacioppo's model and previous research about overweighting of negative and

positive messages (Kanouse, 1984; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Weinberger, Allen, & Dillon, 1981;

Wright, 1981). Consistent with the H1, the involvement level indicates favorability of either a

positively framed PSA or a negatively framed one. These results are consistent with previous

research dealing with involvement and message framing (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990)

that proposed the moderating role of involvement.

However, after conducting separate analyses by selecting cases whether subj ects were

exposed to either negatively or positively framed message, H1 was partially supported.

Specifically, in the H1.1, the following was predicted: Under high involvement conditions, an

anti-smoking PSA is more persuasive when it is framed negatively. Although an intended

direction was found, it was not statistically significant. Therefore, H1.1 was not supported. In the

H1.2, the following was predicted: Under low involvement conditions, an anti-smoking PSA is

more persuasive when it is framed negatively. Intended significant results were found. Thus,

H1.2 was supported.









In the H2, the contention of this study is that smoker's nicotine dependence level

moderates the effectiveness of either positively or negatively framed anti-smoking PSAs. This

contention is based on the relationship among nicotine dependence, perceived risk, motivation,

and message framing. The causalities are that nicotine dependence has an impact on perceived

risk (Rindfleisch & Crockett, 1999; Wong & McMurray, 2002), perceived risk relates to

motivation (Block & Keller, 1995; Rothman & Salovey, 1997; Bock et al., 2000; Umphrey,

2003). In addition, the motivation would moderate message framing effects (Kanouse, 1984;

Weinberger, Allen, and Dillon, 1981). Consistent with the H2, the nicotine dependence level

indicates favorability of either a positively framed PSA or a negatively framed one.

However, after conducting separate analyses by selecting cases whether subj ects were

exposed to either negatively or positively framed message, H2 was partially supported.

Specifically, in the H2. 1, the following was predicted: Under high nicotine dependence

conditions, an anti-smoking PSA is more persuasive when it is framed negatively. Although an

intended direction was found, it was not statistically significant. Therefore, H2.1 was not

supported. In the H2.2, the following was predicted: Under low nicotine dependence conditions,

an anti-smoking PSA is more persuasive when it is framed negatively. Intended significant

results were found. Thus, H2.2 was supported.

Implications

This study improves our understanding how individuals process and respond differently to

dissimilar but obj ectively equivalent messages. In the practice, anti-smoking clinic consultants

might be advised to use either negatively or positively framed message depending on clients'

nicotine dependence level. For example, the consultants can measure their clients' nicotine

dependence level. When they consult with clients with low nicotine dependence, positive

message will be more effective in terms of lowering cigarette consumption or smoking cessation.









In other words, negative message will be more effective when they consult with clients with high

nicotine dependence. Anti-smoking PSA executioners might be advised to employ either

negatively or positively framed message depending on message recipients' involvement level.

Moreover, it is also helpful to choose appropriate place and time for implementing anti-smoking

PSAs. For instance, when PSA executioners place anti-smoking PSAs in magazines, the message

framing will depend on magazine types. More specifically, when a positively framed PSA is

placed in a teen magazine, we can predict better effects because teens' involvement level might

be low. Therefore, anti-smoking consultants and PSA executioners can create either negative or

positive message by categorizing target groups into either smoker or non-smoker group.

Limitations and Future Research

There are a few limitations in the study. This proj ect is based the use of student

participants as a sample. Although the use of student participants is more acceptable in

experimental studies than in survey, homogeneity of the sample may have produced results that

are not typically found in the population. Findings of this proj ect need to be replicated using

more a heterogeneous, adult sample to achieve external validity.

This study tested anti-smoking PSAs' impact on attitude toward messages, not intention

to quit smoking or attitude toward smoking behavior. Attitude toward ad has been posited to be a

mediator of advertising effectiveness which includes brand attitudes and future intentions

(Mitchell & Olson, 1981; Shimp, 1981). This study measured one dependent variable: attitude

toward ad. This study found significant interaction effects by measuring attitude toward ad as a

dependent variable in both experiments. However, it might have different results if different

dependent variables such as attitude toward smoking behavior or intention to quit were employed.

This is because the maj ority of smokers do not have an intention to give up smoking in the near

future (Hennrikus, Jeffery & Lando, 1995; John, Meyer, Rumpf, & Hapke, 2003). Therefore,










future research should employ other dependent variables, and test whether attitude toward ad can

predict future intentions in anti-smoking PSA research.

In the message framing studies, different messages should contain a factually equal

value. The two versions of stimuli used in this study should be equal across experimental groups

except message framing (e.g., saving money vs. burning money). Except for the framing,

causalities of messages are different. For example, in the positively framed message, the message

posits that non-smoking can save $1,000 every year, whereas, in the negatively framed message,

the message posits that smoking can burn $1,000 every year. The different causalities in the

messages may have produced unintended results. Future message framing studies should create

same messages across experimental groups.

In addition to the message framing valence, involvement scales employed in this study

may have produced unexpected results. The Zaichkowsky's scale (1985) measures an issue

involvement. The stimuli in this study focused on cessation of smoking. Even though this study

intended to measure an issue involvement, participants might think of smoking cessation issue

rather than smoking issue. Future studies should use an appropriate scale to measure involvement

level .





































Figure 3-1. Positively Framed PSA





































Figure 3-2. Negatively Framed PSA









APPENDIX A
INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Protocol Title: College Students' Ideas About Smoking
Please read this consent statement carefully before you decide to participate in this study
Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this research is to study college students' ideas
about smoking. The participants will be asked questions about their beliefs and personal
experiences about smoking.
What you will be asked to do in this study: You will be invited to a laboratory. After the
investigator' s instruction, print your name and student ID on the attached name sheet, sign the
consent form, and complete the questionnaire adequately apart from others. When your instructor
requests the survey, detach the name sheet and this consent form from the main survey. Then
submit the consent form, name sheet, and the envelope separately.
Time required: About 15 minutes
Risks and Benefits: We do not anticipate there will be any risks or direct benefits to you as a
consequence of your decision to complete the survey.
Confidentiality: Your name or student ID will not appear on the questionnaire itself. Your
identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your instructor will need your
student ID to give you extra credit, but will not receive your name before the final exam. Your
responses are completely confidential and no reference will be made in any oral or written report
that would link you individually to the study. Further, the principal investigator works
independently of your instructor.
Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary.
Right to withdraw from the study: You have the full right to withdraw from the study at
anytime without consequence.
Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Wan Seop Jung, Master' s student,
College of Communications, University of Florida, address: 2018 Weimer Hall, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611-8400. phone: 352.870.2077 email: wanseop9@ufl.edu. Jorge
Villegas, Assistant Professor, College of Communications, University of Florida, address: 2084
Weimer Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611-8400. phone: 352.392.5059. email:
jvillegas@j ou.ufl.edu
Whom to contact about your right as a research participant in this study:
UFIRB, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0433
Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the
procedure and I have received a copy of this description.

Participant: Date:

Principal Investigator: Date:









APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions: Please review the following advertisement and then answer the questions that
correspond with a particular advertisement.

Directions: The following questionnaire asks you to indicate your opinion about the anti-
smoking, ad. The scales in some of the questions are meant to measure your opinions on each of
the ad. There is no right or wrong answers.









Please read each set of adj ectives carefully, and decide where your opinion would be the most
accurately reflected on the continuum. Then, mark on the square that most closely reflects your
opinion. You may refuse to answer any questions. Remember, there are no right or wrong
answers.

1) Do you age httea sfcsn npstive effect of smoking cessation?
Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
agree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 disagee

2) Do you agree that the ad is focusing on negative effect of smoking?
Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
agre 0 0 0 0 0 0 disagee

Please check the scale that best reflects your agreement with each of the following items.
3) In general, smoking is.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Important Unimportant
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Irrelevant Relevant
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Valuable Invaluable
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Useful Useless
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O

1 23 45 6 7Not
Interesting
O O O O O O O interesting









4) Do you Eind the advertisement is (EAUATION OF THE ADVERTISEMEN:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unpleasant Pleasant
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unlikable Likable
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not irritating Irritating
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O

Not 12 34 56 7
Interesting
interesting O O O O O O O

5) Please check your smoking behavior on the square.
(If you are not a smoker, g~o to the next page)
1. How soon after you wake up do you smoke your first cigarette?
O 0-5 min 0 6-30 min 0 31-60 min 0 After 60 min

2. Do you Eind it difficult to refrain from smoking in places where
it is forbidden (e.g., church library, cinema)?
O Yes O No

3. Which cigarette would you be the most unwilling to give up?
O First in the morning 0 Any of the others

4. How many cigarettes per day do you smoke?
O 10 or less O 11 to 20 0 21 to 30 0 31 or more

5. Do you smoke more frequently during the first hours after waking than during
the rest of the day?
O Yes O No

6. Do you smoke if you are so ill that you are in bed most of the day?
O Yes O No










Demographics
1) What is your gender? Female _Male
2) How old are you? years old
3) What is your ethnic background?
White, not Hispanic Hispanic, of any race
African American, not Hispanic _Asian or Pacific Islander
Native American Other
4) Please check your smoking experience.
Never smoked I used to smoke, do not smoke currently
I smoke currently


Thank you for your participation.





















Debriefing Statement
The messages in the ads were fictional. Although those ads were created for this study, the
messages in the ads were based on facts.












LIST OF REFERENCES


American Cancer Society. (2008, February 20). Cancer facts and figures 1996: Tobacco use.
Retrived March 13, 2008, from http ://www.cancer.org/statistics/96cff/tobaccohm

American Psychiatric Association. ( 1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders,
(3rd ed.), Washington, D.C.

Badura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer behavior as risk taking. In Hancock R. (Ed.), Dynamic
Marketing for a Changing World, American Marketing Assoication, p3 89-398, Chicago, IL.

Bauer, U. E., Johnson, T. M., Hopkins, R. S., & Brooks, R. G. (2000). Changes in youth
cigarette use and intentions following implementation of a tobacco control program.
Journal of the American M~edical Association, 284(6), 723 -728.

Botvin, G. J., & Eng, A. (1980). A comprehensive school-based smoking prevention program.
Journal of School Health, 50, 209-213.

Braun, K. A., Gaeth, G. J., & Levin, I. P. (1997). Framing effects with differential impact: the
role of attribute salience. Advances in Consumer Research, 27, 405-41 1.

Beaudoin, C. E. (2002). Exploring antismoking ads: appeals, themes, and consequences. Journal
ofHealth Conanunication, 7, 123-137.

Blum, A. (1980). Medicine vs. Madison avenue: fighting smoke with smoke. Journal of the
American M~edical Association, 243(8), 739-740.

Buto, C. P. (1987). The framing of buying decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 301-
315.

Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: the effects of perceived
efficacy and message framing on intention to perform a health-related behavior, Journal of
Marketing Research 32, 192-203.

Bock, B. C., Becker, B., Niaura, R., & Partridge, R. (2000). Smoking among emergency chest
pain patients: motivation to quit, risk perception and physician intervention. Nicotine &
Tobacco Research, 2, 93-96.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty R. E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive
response, recall, and persuasion. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 97-
109.










Centers for Disease Control (CDC). (1991). Selected tobacco-use behaviors and dietary patterns
among high school students-United States, 1991. M~orbidity an2dMortality Weekly Report,
41(24), 417-421.

Chandy, R. K., Tellis, G. J., Macinnis, D. J., & Thaivanich, P. (2001). What to say when:
advertising appeals in evolving markets. Journal of2arketing Research, 3 8(4), 3 99-414.

Cunningham, S. M. (1967). The maj or dimensions of perceived risk. In Cox, D.F.(Ed.), Risk
takitt~~~~tttt~~~~ng and information handling in consumer behavior (pp. 82-108). Boston, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Edwards, K. (1990). The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change.
Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 202-216.

Gainer, B. (1993). An empirical investigation of the role of involvement with a gendered product.
Psychology & Marketing, 10(4), 265-283.

Ganzach, Y., & Karsahi, N. (1995). Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment.
Journal of Business Research, 32, 11-17.

Goldman, L. K., & Glantz, S. A. (1998). Evaluation of antismoking advertising campaigns.
Journal of the American M~edical Association, 279(10), 772-777.

Grandpre, J., Alvaro, E. M., Burgoon, M., Miller, C. H., & Hall, J. R. (2003). Adolescent
reactance and anti-smoking campaigns: a theoretical approach. Health Conanunication,
15(3), 349-366.

Greenwald, A., & Leavitt, C. (1984). Audience involvement in advertising: Four levels. Journal
of Consumer Research, 1 1(June), 58 1 -592.

Hale, J. L., & Dillard, J. P. (1995). Fear appeals in health promotion campaigns: Too much, too
little, or just right? Designing health messages. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hamilton, J. L. (1972). The demand for cigarettes: advertising, the health scare, and the cigarette
advertising ban. Review of Econontics & Statistics, 54(4), 401-411.

Hennrikus, D. J., Jeffery, R. W., & Lando, H. A. (1995). The smoking cessation process:
longitudinal observation in a working population. Preventive M~edicine, 24, 235-244.

Heatherton, T. F., Kozlowski, L. T., Frecker, R. C., & Fagerstriim, K. O. (1991). The Fagerstriim
Test for Nicotine Dependence: A revision of the Fagerstriim Tolerance Questionnaire.
British Journal of Addiction, 86, 1 119-1 127.

Houston, M. J. & Rothschild, M. L. (1978). Conceptual and methodological perspectives on
involvement. In S. C. Jain (Ed.), 1978 Educator 's Proceedings (pp. 184-187). Chicago:
American Marketing Assoication.











Hu, T., Sung, J., & Keeler, T. E. (1995). Reducing cigarette consumption in California: tobacco
taxes vs. an anti-smoking media campaign. American Journal of Public Health, 85(9),
1218-1222.

John, U., Meyer, C., Rumpf, H. J., & Hapke, U. (2003). Relation among stage of change,
demographic characteristics, smoking history, and nicotine dependence in an adult German
population, Preventive M~edicine, 37, 368-374.

Kanouse, D. E. (1984). Explaining negativity biases in evaluation and choice behavior: Theory
and research. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 703-708.

Kardes, F. R. (1988). Spontaneous inference processes in advertising: The effects of conclusion
omission and involvement persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(September), 225-
233.

Kithberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: a meta-analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 23-55.

Lau, R. R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. American
Journal of Political Science, 29(1), 119-138.

Levin, I. P. (1987) Associative effects of information framing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic
Society, 25, 85-86.

Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All framed are not created equal: a critical
review of differences in valence framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 76, 149-188.

MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. (1986). The role of attitude toward ad as a mediator
of advertising effectiveness: a test of comparing explanations. Journal of2arketing
Research. 23(May), 130-143.

MacInnis, D. J., Moorman, C., & Jaworski, B. J. (1991). Enhancing and measuring consumers'
motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. Journal of
Marketing, 55(4), 32-53.

Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue
involvement. Journal of2arketing Research, 27(3), 361-367.

Manfredi, C., Lacey, L., Warnercke, R., & Buis, M. (1992). Smoking-related behavior, beliefs,
and social environment of young black women in subsidized public housing in Chicago.
American Journal of Public Health, 82(2), 267-272.

MayoClinic. (2006, October 26). Nicotine dependence. Retrieved March 20, 2008, from
http ://www.mayoclinic.com/health/nicotine-depedne/S007.











Meyerowitz, B. E., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-
examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal ofPersonality and Social
Psychology, 52 (March), 500-510.

Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of
advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of2arketing Research, 18(August), 3 18-332.

Oei, T. P. (1987). Smoking prevention program for children: A review. Journal of Drug
Education, 17, 11-42.

O'Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory & Research, (2nd ed.). 137-167, Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications

O'Keefe, T. (1971). The anti-smoking commercials: a study of television' s impact on behavior.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 35(2), 240-248.

Olney, T. J., Holbrook, M. B., & Batra, R. (1991). Consumer responses to advertising: the effects
of ad content, emotions, and attitude toward the ad on viewing time. Journal of Consumer
Research, 17(March), 440-453.

Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of
Psychology, 44, 117-154.

Pechmann, C., Zhao, G.., Goldberg, M. E., & Reibling, E. T. (2003). What to convey in
antismoking advertisements for adolescents: the use of protection motivation theory to
identify effective message themes. Journal of2arketing, 67(2), 1-18.

Pechmann, C., & Reibling, E. T. (2000). Planning an effective anti-smoking mass media
campaign targeting adolescents. Public Health Management Practice, 6(3), 80-94.

Pechman, C. & Stewart, D. W. (1988). Advertising repetition: a critical review of wearing and
wearout. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 1 1(2), 285-329.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Conanunication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral
Routes to Attitude Change. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to
advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer
Research, 10(September), 135-146.

Pierce, J. P., Gilpin, E. A., & Emery, S. L. (1998). Has the California tobacco control program
reduced smoking? Journal of the American M~edical Association, 280( 10), 893 -899.

Pratto, F., & John, O. P. (1991) Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative
social information, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 3 80-391 .











Popham, W. J., & Potter, L. D. (1993). Do anti-smoking media campaigns help smokers quit?
Public Health Reports, 108(4), 510-513.

Ratneshwar, S., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Comprehension's role in persuasion: the case of its
moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues. Journal of Consumer Research,
18(1), 52-62.

Rindfleisch, A, & Crockett, D. X. (1999). Cigarette smoking and perceived risk: a
multidimensional investigation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18(2), 159-171.

Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perception to motivate healthy behavior: the role
of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3-19.

Rothschild, M. L. (1979). Advertising strategies for high and low involvement situations. In J.
Maloney, & B. Silverman (Eds.), Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes (pp. 74-93).
Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Schneider, L., Klein, B., & Murphy, K. M. (1981). Governmental regulation of cigarette health
information. Journal ofLaw & Economics, 24(3), 575-612.

Shimp, T. A. (1981). Attitude toward ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice. Journal of
Advertising, 10(2), 9-15.

Shiv, B., Edell, J. A., & Payne, J. W. (1997). Factors affecting the impact of negatively and
positively framed ad messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 285-294.

Siegel, M. (2002). Antismoking advertising: figuring out what works. Journal of Health
Conanunication, 7, 157-162.

Siegel, M., & Biener, L. (2000). The impact of an antismoking media campaign on progression
to established smoking: results of a longitudinal youth study. American Journal of Public
Health, 90(3), 380-386.

Sly, D. F., Heald, G. R., & Ray, S. (2001). The Florida "truth" anti-tobacco media evaluation:
design, first year results, and implications for planning future state media evaluations.
Tobacco Control, 10(1), 9-15.

Sly, D. F., Trapido, E., & Ray, S. (2002). Evidence of the dose effects of an antitobacco
counteradvertising campaign. Preventive M~edicine, 35(5), 51 1-518.

Smith, G. E. (1996). Framing in advertising and the moderating impact of consumer education.
Journal of Advertising Research, 36(5), 49-64.










Stone, R. N., & Winter, F. W. (1987). Risk: is it still uncertainty times consequences? In Belk,
R.W. et al. (Ed.), Proceedings of the American Ma'~rketing Association (pp. 26 1-265).
Chicago, 1L: Winter Educators Conference.

Stuart, A. E., & Blanton, H. (2003). The effects of message framing on behavioral prevalence
assumptions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 93-102.

Umphrey, L. R. (2003). The effects of message framing and message processing on testicular
self-examination attitudes and perceived susceptibility. Conanunication Research Reports,
20(2), 97-105.

U.S. Public Health Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and
Health. (1994, July). Preventing tobacco use among young people: A report of the Surgeon
General. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wakefield, M., Flay, B., Nichter, M., & Giovino, G. (2002). Effects of anti-smoking advertising
on youth smoking: a review. Journal of Health Conanunication, 8, 229-247.

Wallack, L. M. (1983). Mass media campaigns in a hostile environment: Advertising as anti-
health education. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 28(2), 5 1-63.

Wallack, L. M., & Corbett, K. (1987). Alcohol, tobacco and marijuana use among youth: An
overview of epidemiological, program and policy trends. Health Education Quarterly, 14(2),
223-249.

Warner, K. E. (1977). The Effects of the anti-smoking campaign on cigarette consumption.
American Journal of Public Health, 67(7), 645-650.

Weinberger, M. G., Allen, C. T., & Dillon, W. R. (1981). Negative information: Perspectives and
research directions. Advances in Consumer Research, 8(1), 398-404.

Witte, K. (1995). Fishing for success: using the persuasive health message fianework to
generate effective campaign messages, Designing health messages. 145-166, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Wong, C. O., & McMurray, N. E. (2002) Framing communication: Communicating the
antismoking message effectively to all smokers. Journal of Conanunity Psychology, 30(4),
433-447.

Wright, P. (1974). The harassed decision maker: Time pressures, distractions, and the use of
evidence. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 59(5), 555-561.

Zhang, Y., & Buda, R. (1999). Moderating effects of need for cognition on responses to
positively versus negatively framed advertising message. Journal ofAdvertising, 28(2), pl-
15.










Zhang, Y., & Neelankavil, J. P. (1997). The influence of culture on advertising effectiveness in
China and the USA. European Journal of2arketing, 31(1/2), 134-149.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Wan Seop Jung was born in Busan, Korea. He earned his Bachelor of Advertising and

Public Relations from Chung-Ang University in Seoul, Korea. He came to the University of

Florida in August 2006 to pursue a Master of Advertising. He is received his Master of

Advertising degree in August of 2008. He continues with his doctoral studies at the University of

Florida.





PAGE 1

INFLUENCE OF MESSAGE FRAMING, INVOLVEMENT, AND NICOTINE DEPENDENCE ON EFFECTIVENESS OF ANTI-SMOKING PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS By WAN SEOP JUNG A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ADVERTISING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Wan Seop Jung 2

PAGE 3

To my wife and parents 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work is an accomplishment of all who he lped me directly and indirectly. It is especially dedicated to my beloved wife, Soo, w ho has encouraged and supported me. It is also dedicated to my parents, Dong Kun Jung and Bok Sook Seo; without their helping hands, it would have been impossible to complete this thesis. I extend my sincere gratitude to my advisor and chair, Dr. Jorge Villegas, who has guided, encouraged, and supported me with the warmes t heart and has given me tremendous guidance and support. I also want to express my thanks to my wonderful committee members, Dr. ChangHoan Cho and Dr. Hyojin Kim, for their invaluable advice and encouragement. I appreciate all the time and efforts they put into helping me w ith my thesis, and challenging me to learn more. Although I first assumed that graduate schools are not fun, my adorable friends at UF proved my assumption to be wrong. I express my thanks to my classmates. I will never forget those wonderful moments spent with them. I es pecially appreciate Korean gators, Jay, Hyung Seok, Jun Seong, Jun, Sang Won, Chang Dea, Mihyun, Yeuseung, Hyunji, Minji, Hyunmin, Seonmi, Sooyeon and all other sist ers and brothers, for helping me to go through all of those hard tasks. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..........................................................................................................9 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .11 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................15 Message Framing ....................................................................................................................15 Involvement ............................................................................................................................17 Connection of Involvement with Message Framing ...............................................................19 Nicotine Dependence ..............................................................................................................21 Connection of Nicotine Dependenc e Level with Message Framing ......................................22 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................2 4 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... .........29 Hypothesis 1 ...........................................................................................................................29 Manipulation Check ................................................................................................................29 Involvement ............................................................................................................................30 Test of Hypothesis 1 ...............................................................................................................30 Hypothesis 2 ...........................................................................................................................31 Manipulation Check ................................................................................................................32 Nicotine Dependence ..............................................................................................................32 Test of Hypothesis 2 ...............................................................................................................33 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION....................................................................................38 Discussion ...............................................................................................................................38 Implications ............................................................................................................................39 Limitations and Future Research ............................................................................................40 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT FORM............................................................................................44 5

PAGE 6

B QUESTIONNAIRE................................................................................................................ 45 LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................49 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................56 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Manipulation Check of Positively Framed Message for Item 1 in H1 Testing ....................35 4-2 Manipulation Check of Negatively Framed Message for Item 2 in H1 Testing...................35 4-3 Descriptive Statistics of H1............................................................................................... ...35 4-4 Model Statistics of H1..........................................................................................................35 4-5 Regression of H1........................................................................................................... ........35 4-6 Follow-up Analyses for Interaction in H1............................................................................36 4-7 Manipulation Check of Positively Framed Message for Item 1 in H2 Testing....................36 4-8 Manipulation Check of Negatively Framed Message for Item 2 in H2 Testing...................36 4-9 Descriptive Statistics of H2............................................................................................... ...36 4-10 Model Statistics of H2..........................................................................................................36 4-11 Regression of H2.......................................................................................................... .........37 4-12 Follow-up Analyses for Interaction in H2............................................................................37 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1. Positively Framed PSA ...........................................................................................................42 3-2. Negatively Framed PSA .........................................................................................................43 8

PAGE 9

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CDC Centers for Disease Control FCC Federal Communications Commission PSA Public Service Announcement USDHHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Service 9

PAGE 10

Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Advertising INFLUENCE OF MESSAGE FRAMING, INVOLVEMENT, AND NICOTINE DEPENDENCE ON EFFECTIVENESS OF ANTI-SMOKING PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS By Wan Seop Jung August 2008 Chair: Jorge Villegas Major: Advertising Studies examining message fr aming effects have yielde d conflicting findings. Some studies find that positively framed messages ar e more persuasive than negatively framed messages. Other studies report reverse outcomes. This study tried to find the reasons for the conflicting results in message framing researc h, and found that the eff ects of message framing was varied depending on the involvement level and smoking addiction leve l. The study suggests that subjects who are more involved with smoking issue prefer negative messages, while subjects who are less involved with smoking issu e prefer positive messages. The second finding is that the more dependent on cigarette smoking s ubjects are, the more favorable attitude toward negatively framed PSAs they tend to have. The c ontrary is true when anti-smoking PSAs are framed positively. Other findings an d implications are discussed. 10

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Cigarette smoking has great societal and clin ical importance (American Cancer Society, 2001). According to the American Cancer Society (2008), smoking was responsible for approximately 559,312 U.S. premature deaths in 2005. Moreover, a number of non-smokers suffered from second-hand smoking. A sizable percentage of youth (20%-30%) begin smoking as early as middle school (Centers for Dis ease Control [CDC], 1998). A large number of smokers initiate cigarette smoking during youth-88% by age 18 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Service [USDHHS], 1994), w ith approximately fifty per cent becoming addicted (CDC, 1991). Smoking behavior in middle school has a tendency to last for a long time due to the smoking addiction (Oei, 1987). Anti-smoking PSAs are useful due to its preventive effects (USDHHS, 1994). In addition to the health-related damages, other economical and environmental damages are caused by smoking. Th e following are examples of the damages: productivity decrease due to ci garette breaks, dirtiness from cigarette butts, and budgetary allocations for anti-smoking. Therefore, much research of anti-smoking Public Service Announcements (PSAs) tried to ab ate the prevalence of smoking. Schneider et al. (1981) estimated the effect s of the Fairness Doctrine, which was a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) re gulation regarding broadcasting license acquisition. Tobacco companies were subjected to re striction on inserting th eir advertisements in radio or TV because of the Fairness Doctrine. After the Fairness Doctrine, cigarette consumption decreased from 1967 to 1970. Researchers have experienced that the rest riction of tobacco advertisements had an influen ce on decrease of cigarette cons umption. However, in 1984, the Supreme Court recommended the FCC to abolish the Fairness Doctrine because it harmed the public interest and violated the First Amendment. Then, there had been an emerging interest in 11

PAGE 12

attempting to find other devices to abate the pr evalence of smoking instead of restriction of tobacco advertising. Therefore, researchers began to study anti-smoking PSAs. A substantial number of studies have supported the efficacy of anti-smoking PSAs empirically and practically. Goldman and Glantz (1998) found that anti-smoking PSAs had an influence on decline in ciga rette consumption in Californi a, Massachusetts, and Arizona. Popham and Potter (1993) did a research to te st whether stateor government-sponsored PSAs were effective by using the California Departme nt of Health Service sponsored anti-smoking PSAs, conducted from 1990 to 1991. They conc luded that the government-sponsored PSAs helped smokers to quit significantly. In recent years, researchers tried to test anti-smoking PSAs using different target groups (e.g., youth, adolescent, and adult) instead of general population. For instance, Seigel and Biener (2000) reported that anti-smoking PSAs played a role in decrease of cigarette consumption among youth in Massachusetts. Other studies found th at anti-smoking PSAs were persuasive to reduce tobacco consumption both for adults and for youth in California (Hu, Sung, & Keeler, 1995; Pierce et al., 1998). Bauer et al. (2000) suggested that anti-smoking PSAs have reduced and prevented youth cigarette smoking. A result showed that anti-smoking PSAs could have an effect both on adolescents and on young adults in Florida (Sly, Trapido, & Ray, 2002). There has been an attempt to understand th e persuasion processes that occur when smokers are exposed to anti-smoking PSAs. For ex ample, a Florida baseline research revealed that anti-smoking PSAs were effective to change attitude and beliefs toward cigarette smoking and smoking behavior among youth, and helped reduce the prevalence of smoking among youth (Sly, Heald, & Ray, 2001). The study was the evid ence that anti-smoking PSAs had an influence on not only changing attitude and belief towa rd smoking behavior but smoking cessation. 12

PAGE 13

A large amount of studies have supported the positive effect of anti-smoking PSAs in terms of decrease of cigarette consumption or smoking cessation. Many researchers, however, suggested different results. For instance, OKeef e (1971) reported that PSAs produced an effect on smoking behavior in a limited way. He found that the effectiveness of PSAs depended on recipients inclination to give up smoking. In other words, anti-smoking PSAs were effective only for the smokers who were determined to give up smoking. Wallack and Corbett (1987) tested how a variety of PSAs such as anti-dr ug, anti-drinking, and anti-s moking diminished the rate of smoking, drinking, and drug-taking. The study showed that the contribution of PSAs was minor in the context of lowering of the ra tes of smoking, drinking, and drug-taking because addictive behaviors were unwilling to be change d. Wallack (1981) reported the minor effects of PSAs on smoking cessation as well Traditional anti-smoking PSA research rath er related to the efficacy of anti-smoking PSA in terms of whether persuasion occurs. Recen tly, researchers have ex panded research topics of anti-smoking PSAs to understand how and why the effect of PSAs varied; further, they tried to optimize the effectiveness of PSAs. For example, Goldman and Glantz (1998) have examined a variety of message themes of anti-smoking PS As such as industry manipulation, addiction, health issue and second-hand smoke to find the re lative effectiveness of each message theme, and revealed that the industry deception theme wa s the most effective. A number of studies have tested the relative effectiveness of ad appeal types among fear, humor, di rtiness (e.g., bad breath and odor), sports, and sociability because those we re frequently used ad appeals in anti-smoking PSAs (Blum, 1980; Millstein. 1986; Hale & Dilla rd, 1995; Witte, 1995). The studies found that fear and humor were the most effective appeals in their appeal type res earch, and other appeal types failed to reduce the prevalence of smoking. 13

PAGE 14

In recent years there have been numerous attempts to apply message framing effects (effects of negatively framing message versus e ffects of positively framed message) to antismoking PSAs. This is because a substantial amount of health-related studies have tested the effectiveness of message framing, and yielded inconsistent results. Some studies reported positively framed messages to be more effective than negatively framed messages. Reverse results have been obtained in other studies. An ti-smoking researchers al so tried to test the relative effectiveness between di fferently framed messages how the effects of message framing differ from other health-relat ed research. Anti-smoking studie s that have studied message framing effects have produced c onflicting finding as well. The pur pose of this study is to find the reason of the conflicting results in message framing research, and to explore how message recipients react to two types of anti-smoking messages. Specifically, it will be tested how the involvement and nicotine dependence level moderate the relative effectiveness of two different messages. The next chapters will cover previous literatures about message framing, involvement, and nicotine dependence and me thodology used to test hypotheses. The findings of this study will be helpful to create effective PSAs in terms of lowering smoking rate or smoking cessation. 14

PAGE 15

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW In this study, it will be investigated how to create more effectiv e anti-smoking PSAs by identifying the role of involvement and nico tine dependence in message framing effects. Message Framing Message framing effects can be conceptualized as the perspective that individuals process and respond differently to dissimilar but objectively equivalent messages (Khberger, 1998). The analogy of gambling being labeled as % of probability of losing money or % of probability of earning money is an exampl e of message framing. As stated by Khberger (1998), same message tone, manner, and value should be applied to different messages. That is, different messages should contain a factua lly equal value. Message framing can be operationalized either by stressing on benefits gained, namely positively framed message, or by stressing on benefit lost, name ly negatively framed message. Inspired by the message framing effects, a substantial stream of literature has investigated the effect of message framing on individual decisions (Puto, 1987). Pu tos study revealed that people tend to be risk averse when they process a positively framed message, but they tend to be risk seeki ng when they receive a negatively framed message. There has been little research addressing how and why people response differently to different messages (Levin, Schneider & Gaeth, 1998; Meyerowitz & Chaiken, 1987; Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990; Stuart & Blanton, 2002; Um phrey, 2003). Moreover, those studies failed to yield consistent results. For instances, in Levin and Gaeths research (1988; Levin, 1987), people have more favorable attitude toward positively framed messages than negatively framed ones when they are exposed to messa ges, stressing either pe rcentage of lean in total meat or percentage of fat (e.g. containing 75 % of lean vs. containing 25% of fat). However, 15

PAGE 16

Meyerowitz and Chaiken (1987) found opposing results about messa ge framing effect. In the Meyerowitz and Chaikens study (1987), a negatively framed breast self-examination (BSE) message was more effective than positively framed one when women were exposed to both negatively and positively framed BSE messages. They have observed that the negatively framed message attracts more attention than the positivel y framed one. Since people are more responsive and emotional towards negative messages, the res earchers have supported th e effect of negative framing (Pratto and John, 1991). Recent message framing studies tried to fi nd reasons for the conflicting findings. The studies found that the effectiveness of me ssage framing would differ depending on various factors. For instance, Ganzach and Karsahi (1995 ) reported that a study setting can moderate the effectiveness of the message framing on buying behavior in terms of credit card uses. Specifically, when the experiment was conducted in the laboratory, a positive message was more persuasive in terms of increase of card use, whereas a negative one was more effective when the experiment was conducted in the natural market environment. They f ound that individuals perceived importance level varied in situations, i.e., laboratory setting versus natural market environment setting. That is because message recipi ents regarded the issue as more important so they are motivated to process the ad informa tion in the natural market environment than laboratory setting. Smith (1996) revealed that a consumer e ducation level has a moderating effect on the message framing effects. The study assumed that the education level is highly related to information processing ability which determines the dominant information processing route (central vs. peripheral). The cen tral route to persuasion refers to the persuasion processes involved with elaboration is relatively high, wher eas the peripheral route to persuasion refers to 16

PAGE 17

the persuasion processes involved when elabor ation is relatively low (OKeefe, 2002, p. 139). Elaboration is meant engaging in issue-rele vant thinking (OKeefe, 2002, p. 138). Since the education level plays a key part in cognitive abil ity to process information, he concluded that positively framed messages are more effective for the more-educated persons than for the lesseducated. The contrary is true when messages are framed negatively. Zhang and Buda (1999) reported that there is the moderating effect of ones need for cognition (NFC) on the processing of framed adve rtising messages. Since NFC is an indicator for the motivation of information processing, it pl ays an important moderating role in message framing effects. When individuals NFC level is high, they devote more attention to advertising messages. On the other hand, when individuals NFC level is low, they tend to avoid paying attention to advertising messages. As a result, positively framed messages were more effective when ones NFC was high. The contrary was true when ones NFC was low. A number of studies suggeste d that peoples involvement le vel can influence how they react to and process information (Greenwald & Leavitt, 1984; Kardes, 1988). This study begins by exploring role of involvement and nico tine dependence, and relevant theory. Involvement Since Krugman (1965) presented the construct of involvement as personal relevance, this topic has played a vital ro le in the understanding of persua sion. There is general agreement that involvement plays a key role in explaining consumer beha vior and information processing procedure. However, the effect of involveme nt is debatable due to different ideas for conceptualization and operationalization. The fo llowing two issues are barriers for obtaining general agreement about involvement: type of i nvolvement and intensity of involvement. Those two are in the midst of involvement issue. The type of involvement is the first issue for the disagreement. Some researchers proposed two ty pes of involvement to explain the construct 17

PAGE 18

better, namely, enduring involvement and situational involvement (Houston & Rothschild, 1978; Rothschild, 1979). The categorizatio n of involvement helped rese archers begin to propose the reasons for the disagreement. The second issue for the disagreement is the intensity of involvement, namely, high involvement and low involvement (Gainer, 1993). Involvement is also debatable due to the measuring the invol vement construct (Celsi and Olson, 1988). While researchers have defined the construct of invol vement differently (Gainer, 1993), the general agreement of involvement is the persons percei ved relevance of a product or situation on the basis of personal goals, values, and interests (Zaichkowsky, 1985). Enduring involvement can be defined as enduring personally relevant knowledge structures or ongoing concern (Martin & Marchall, 1999, p. 208). The struct ures are stored in the relatively long-term memory and obtained fr om prior experiences. Situational involvement can be defined as situation-spec ific, involving the cues and stimuli that consumers perceive as personally relevant (Martin & Marchall, 1999, p. 208). Situational involvement occurs only in specific situations. The analogy of situations being labele d as being interested in cars or purchasing a car is an exam ple of two involvement types The level of enduring involvement is concluded by how well the issue is pertained to personally relevant value, whereas the level of situational involvement is concluded by how well the situation arouses pe rsonal goals and values. The level of situational involvement is dramatically dropped when the personal goals and values are fulfilled. Since situational involvement rath er relates to characteristics of the decision situation, it is inapposite to the purpose of this study which tries to explain how enduring or longterm involvement moderates the effectiveness of the message framing. Therefore, this study employed enduring involvement as a moderator of message framing effects. 18

PAGE 19

There has been a substantial amount of res earch about message fr aming and involvement, respectively. However, the research about how involvement interacts with message framing has considerably been neglected. Since both involve ment and framing have been considered as important factors to predict advertising effectiveness, this disr egard is amazing. In this study, it will be investigated how message framing effects will be moderated by intensity of involvement. Connection of Involvement with Message Framing Petty and Cacioppos elaboration likelihood model (ELM) (1986) is helpful to understand how involvement affect s message framing effects. The model is composed of a central route and a peripheral r oute. When individuals are more involved with an issue or a product, they use the central route to process messa ges, whereas they use th e peripheral route to process messages when they are less involved w ith an issue or a product. The model also suggests that those who are more involved with an issue or product are more motivated to process relevant messages thoroughly, whereas t hose who are less involved with an issue or a product are less motivated to process messages. Motivation in the model is defined as inner arousal for goal achievement. The level of messa ge processing motivation has an effect on how much individuals pay more attention to and devo te to process information (Celsi & Olson, 1988). According to the model, the level of message processing motivation determines whether message claims predominate in persuasion because individuals employ either a central route or a peripheral route in persua sion process. That is, the motivation level determines the use of one of processing routes. Under conditions of low message processing mo tivation, individuals are more likely to form an attitude by relying on periphe ral cues, such as message tone, wording, and message attractiveness instead of scrutinizi ng message claims thoroughly and integrating relevant thoughts and beliefs to form an overall attitude. Hence, the pos itively framed PSA You are saving $1,000 every year by being a non-smoker may be interpreted as Non-smokers cash 19

PAGE 20

in without any efforts. Similarly, the negati vely framed PSA You are burning $1,000 every year by smoking cigarettes may be interpreted as Smoking costs a lot. If so, positively framed PSAs should be more effective under low involvement conditions. Under conditions of high messa ge processing motivation, indi viduals are more inclined to process all information in the ad to arrive at a decision. Thus, they process messages in detail with prior knowledge to judge the validity of messages (M aheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990), and integrate relevant thoughts and beliefs to form an overall attit ude (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). Wright (1981) sugge sted that negative messages r eceived more considerable weight and influence than positive messages wh en individuals integrate message-relevant information. That is because overweighting ma y only occur when an audience member is sufficiently concerned over the message content to bother generating reactions and integrating those into an overall impression, and to worry about making errors in this (Wright, 1981, p. 279-280). A variety of studies have supported th e overweighting to high involvement conditions (Kanouse, 1984; Weinberger, Allen, & Dillon, 1981). The implication of those studies is that messages should be processed thoroughly and ne gative messages should be more persuasive under high involvement conditions. Based on th e previous theoretical background, following hypotheses can be predicted: H1 : The relationship between message framing effects and attitude toward anti-smoking PSAs is moderated by involvement. H1.1: For those who are highl y involved in smoking, an anti-smoking PSA is more persuasive when it is framed negatively. H1.2: For those who are le ss involved in smoking, an anti-smoking PSA is more persuasive when it is framed positively. 20

PAGE 21

Nicotine Dependence In the first hypothesis, it is suggested that involvement moderates the effectiveness of message framing by using general subjects including both smokers and non-smokers. This is because the message framing effects depend on the motivation of message recipients to process information. The second hypothesis is inspired by the Petty and Cacioppos model (1983) as well. In their model, motivation influences the way to process information by using either peripheral route or central one. In the sec ond hypothesis, it is suggested that the nicotine dependence level moderates the effectiveness of message frami ng by using smoker samples instead of general subjects. A number of anti-smoking researcher s revealed the relationship between nicotine dependence and motivation. Reflecting the relati onship among nicotine dependence, motivation and the way of information processes, the second hypothesis examines how the cigarette addiction level affect attitudes toward anti -smoking PSAs differently depending on the message framing. Dependence is conceptualized as compulsive physiological need for a habit-forming substance. The Diagnostic and Statistical Ma nual of Mental disorders (APA, 1994) provides several criteria for dependence wh ich are (1) tolerance; (2) wit hdrawal; (3) using larger amounts or longer than intended; (4) unsuccessful efforts to cut down; (5) much time spent to obtain substance; (6) negative social and/or occupational consequences; (7) persistent physical and/or psychological problems. The manual recommends th at an individual must meet at least three criteria to be diagnosed with dependence. Nicotine dependence refers to the physical vulnerability of our body to the chemical nicotine, which is possibly addicting when carried by various cigarette products (MayoClinic.com, 2006). 21

PAGE 22

Connection of Nicotine Dependence Level with Message Framing Bauer (1960) presented the c onstruct of perceived risk. And it was introduced to the marketing literature. Perceived risk is conceptualized as the pers pective that the amount that would be lost if the consequences of an act were not favorable, and th e individuals subjective feeling of certainty that the consequences will be unfavorable (Cunningham, 1967, p.37). Similarly, Stone and Winter (1987) considered risk as an expecta tion of loss. In connection with this study, perceived risk regard ing smoking can be re-conceptual ized as the perspective how well individuals understand the risk of smoking. The second hypothesis focuses on the nicotine dependence level as a moderator of message framing effects by using a sample of smokers. In Wong and McMurray (2002) study, the nicotine dependence level was related to ones perceived hea lth risk level. In addition, Rindfleisch and Crockett (1999) tested the relationship be tween nicotine dependence and perceived risk by using a college student samp le. Specifically, the less dependent on cigarette smoking subjects are, the lower level of perceive d risk they tend to have. Conversely the more dependent on cigarette smoking subj ects are, the higher level of per ceived risk they tend to have. A number studies proposed that a perceived health risk level be strongly related to ones motivation to process health-related informa tion (Block & Keller, 1995; Rothman & Salovey, 1997; Umphrey, 2003). In addition, Bock et al. (2000) revealed th e relationship between risk perception and motivation. They found that subjec ts who had higher risk perceptions were more motivated to process smoking cessation informa tion and consult doctors to discuss smoking issues than those who had lowe r risk perceptions. The sum of the relationship among nicotine dependence, perceived risk and motivation is that highly addicted subjects are more motivated to process information than less addicted subjects, while less addicted subject s are less motivated to process information than highly addicted subjects. 22

PAGE 23

As for the relationship between motivation and message framing, the causality that individuals motivation to process information af fects the effectiveness of message framing was supported (Kanouse, 1984; Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990; Weinberger, Allen, & Dillon, 1981). The more motivated individuals are, the more favorable attitude toward negatively framed PSAs formed, while the less motivated individuals are, the more favorable attitude toward positively framed PSAs. Therefore, nicotine de pendence has an impact on perceived risk, perceived risk relates to motivation. In a ddition, the motivation would moderate message framing effects. Finally, such relationships affect attitude toward anti-smoking PSAs. H2 : The relationship between message framing effects and attitude toward anti-smoking PSAs is moderated by nicotine dependence. H2.1: For smokers who are highly dependent on smoking, an anti-smoking PSA is more persuasive when it is framed negatively. H2.2: For smokers who are less dependent on smoking, an anti-smoking PSA is more persuasive when it is framed positively. 23

PAGE 24

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study is to investigat e how involvement and nicotine dependence moderate the message framing effects. The e xperiment was conducted to test two hypotheses from March 3rd to March 11th. at the same period. In the H1, the study was conducted to test the moderating effects of involvement on message framing with general samples, including both smokers and non-smokers. In the H2, the study was conducted to test the moderating effects of nicotine dependence on message framing with only smoker samples among collected data. Study design. To test H1, two independent variables were involvement and message framing with attitudes toward an ti-smoking PSAs as a dependent variable. The involvement level as one of independent variables was continuous (from 0: low to 7: high), and message framing was categorical variable manipulated (positiv e versus negative). Th e dependent variable, attitudes toward anti-sm oking PSAs, was measured from 1 (unfa vorable) to 7 (favorable). To test H2, two independent variables were nicotine dependence and message framing with attitudes toward anti-smoking PSAs as a dependent variable. The nicotine depende nce level as one of independent variables was continuous (from 0: low to 10: high), and message framing was categorical variable manipulated (positive versus negative). The dependent variable, attitudes toward anti-smoking PSAs, was measured fr om 1 (unfavorable) to 7 (favorable). Participants. In the H1 testing, the total number of participants was one hundred and eighty eight. They were recruited from undergraduate-level classe s and a street on the campus in the area of a southeastern American university. Du e to relatively small number of participants who currently smoke, more subjects were additiona lly recruited from a st reet on the campus. The courses where students were recru ited did not include smoking topics that might have sensitized 24

PAGE 25

subjects to the purpose of the study. Female pa rticipants made up 51.1 % of the sample, and 18.1% were smokers. The dominant percentage of ethnicity was Caucasians (54.9%), and followed by Hispanics (20.7%), Asian-American s (19.0%), and African-Americans (3.8%). In the H2 testing, a sample of smokers among collect data was used. Out of original participant, forty six were smokers. Female participants ma de up 42.2% of the sample, and all experiment participants were smokers. The dominant percenta ge of ethnicity was Caucasians (55.6%), and followed by Hispanics (15.6%), Asian-Ameri cans (26.7%), and Afri can-Americans (2.2%). Stimuli. Two versions of a print anti-smoki ng public service announcements were created to test both hypotheses. As shown Figure 1 and 2, visuals and layout were equal across experimental groups. Two advertisements cont ained either a positively framed message or a negatively framed message. Both advertisements presented the argument that stopping or continuing with cigarette consumption can lead to a financial gain or loss equivalent to two iPhones which is one of the most appealing and familiar products among college students. Thus, experiment participants can recogn ize the value of financial gain or loss easily that is caused by stopping or continuing with ci garette consumption. The manipulation of message framing occurred in the body copy. For the negatively framed message, the following message was used: You are burning $1,000 every year by smoking cigarettes. You can buy 2 iPhones with $1,000. For the positively framed message, the follo wing message was used: You are saving $1,000 every year by being a non-smoker. You can buy 2 iPhones with $1,000. Procedure. Sessions were conducted in small classroom settings and on a street on the campus. Participants were instructed that the purpose of the study was to understand consumers ideas about smoking message. After the informed consent was secured, participants were randomly assigned into one of the two experiment al conditions. In the H1 testing, ninety one 25

PAGE 26

participants (48.4%) were assigned into Group 1 a nd shown the negatively framed PSA. Ninety seven participants (51.6%) were assigned into Group 2 and shown the positively framed PSA. In the H2 testing, twenty four pa rticipants (52.2%) were assigned into Group 1 and shown the negatively framed PSA. Twenty two participants (47.7%) were assigned into Group 2 and shown the positively framed PSA. After reading the anti-smoking PSA, they completed the scales designed to check manipulation, involvement, and measure of dependent variable. For the duration of each session, the expe rimenter ensured that particip ants completed the instrument independently and did not turn back to the page s they had already read. Upon completion of the instrument, subjects were thanked and debr iefed. Each session took about ten minutes. Independent Variables Message framing (positive vs. negative). Message framing was employed as an independent variable to test both hypotheses. The positively-framed PSA illustrated the positive effect of quitting smoking by stating You are sa ving $1,000 every year by being a non-smoker. You can buy 2 iPhones with $1,000, while the ne gatively framed PSA emphasized the adverse effects of smoking by stating You are burning $1,000 every year by smoking cigarettes. You can buy 2 iPhones with $1,000. The partic ipants reported on a two-item, seven-point (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) Likert scale how much they agreed with the following two statements: The ad is focusing on the positive effect of smoking cessation, and The ad is focusing on the negative effect of smoking. Involvement. Involvement was used as a measured va riable in the H1. Participants were asked to answer smoking involvement items. Five seven-point semantic differential items were used to measure involvement level (1 = important irrelevant, valuable, useful, and interesting, 7 26

PAGE 27

= unimportant, relevant, invaluable useless, and not interesting). The scales were adapted from Zaichkowsky (1985). The scale was internally consistent ( = .89). Nicotine dependence. The nicotine dependence level was measured using the Fagerstrm Nicotine Dependence Scale (Heatherton, 1991) in the H2. Smokers were asked to answer the following questions: 1. How soon after you wake up do you smoke your first cigarette? a. Within 5 minutes (3 points) b. Within 6-30 minutes (2 points) c. Within 31-60 minutes (1 point) d. After 60 minutes (0 points) 2. Do you find it difficult to refrain from sm oking in places where it is forbidden (e.g., in church, at the library, in cinema, etc)? a. Yes (1 point) b. No (0 points) 3. Which cigarette would you hate most to give up? a. The first one in the morning (1 point) b. Any other (0 points) 4. How many cigarettes per day do you smoke? a. 10 or less (0 points) b. 10-20 (1 point) c. 21-30 (2 points) d. 31 or more (3 points) 5. Do you smoke more during the first hours af ter waking than during the rest of the day? a. Yes (1 point) b. No (0 points) 6. Do you smoke even when you are ill enough to be in bed most of the day? a. Yes (1 point) b. No (0 points) All points were added up on the basis of subj ects responses and the assigned points. For example, if someone smokes his or her first ci garette after waking up within 5 minutes, finds it difficult to refrain from smoking-fr ee places, hates to give up the first morning cigarette, smokes 27

PAGE 28

31 or more cigarette per day, smokes more ci garette during the firs t hour after waking, and smokes even when he or she is ill enough to be in bed most of the day, the nicotine dependence level indicates 10. The nicotine dependence leve l was measured being continuous. The range of the nicotine dependence level is from 0 (low) to 10 (high). He atherton et al. (1991) suggested that a score of 5 or more indi cates a significant smoking dependen ce, while a score of 4 or less shows a low to moderate dependence. Dependent variable. Attitude toward Ad. One dependent variable was me asured to test both hypotheses: Attitudes toward Ad. The dependent variable was measured using a four-item, seven-point semantic differential scale (1 = unpleasant, un likable, not irritating, and not interesting, 7 = pleasant, likable, irritating, and interesting) (Olney, Holbrook, and Ba tra, 1991). The third item for measuring involvement level (i .e., not irritating vs. irritati ng) was reverse coded. The scale was internally consistent ( = .85), and the responses were averag ed to represent the construct for the H1 ( M = 4.32, SD = 1.34). For the H2, the scale was internally consistent ( = .93), and the responses were averaged to represent the construct ( M = 4.26, SD = 1.63). 28

PAGE 29

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Hypothesis 1 Multiple regressions were conducted to test H1, with two independent variables, involvement and message framing, and one dependent variable, attitude toward ad. A sample of smokers and non-smokers was used to test how i nvolvement moderates message framing effects. Manipulation Check Before testing H1, a manipulation check was conducted. As expected, the message that You are saving $1,000 every year by being a non-smoker, You can buy 2 iPhones with $1,000 was perceived as the positive anti-smoking message, whereas the message that You are burning $1,000 every year by smoking cigarettes. You can buy 2 iPhones with $1,000 was perceived as the negative message. Participants reported on a two-item, seven point (1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree) Likert scale how much they agreed with the following two statements: The ad is focusing on the positive effect of smoking cessation, and The ad is focusing on the negative effect of smoking. As shown Table 1, difference between observed value for positively framed message and test value (= 4) was significant on item one, t = -4.96, p < .001 M PositiveMessage = 3.06, SD = 1.86. As shown Table 2, difference between observed value for negatively framed message and test va lue (=4) was significant on item two, t = -6.07, p < .001 M NegativeMessage = 2.88, SD = 1.76. Subjects felt that the anti -smoking PSA was more negative when it was negatively framed rather than positiv ely framed, and they felt that the anti-smoking PSA was more positive when it was positively frame d rather than negatively framed. Therefore, these manipulation check measures suggest th at the intended factors were manipulated successfully. 29

PAGE 30

Involvement In the H1 testing, the study was conducted to investigate how involvement moderates the message framing effects. And the message fram ing was manipulated. Invol vement was measured as a continuous variable on the basis upon Zaichkowsky (1985). The scale measuring involvement level was internally consistent ( = .89). Test of Hypothesis 1 Influence of Involvement and Message Framing This study investigated how involvement moderates the effectiveness of message framing. Specifically, Subjects who are more i nvolved with smoking issue would have more favorable attitude toward nega tively framed PSAs, while subjec ts who are less involved with smoking issue would have more favorable attitude toward positively framed PSA. A multiple regression was conducted to test H1, with attitude toward the ad as a dependent variable, with the involvement level and message framing as independent variables. The descriptive statistics are presented in Table 3. The mean of involvement was 2.67 (SD = 1.62), .52 (SD = .50) for message framing, and 4.31 (SD = 1.33) for attitude toward ad, respectively. The model with two independent variables, the involvement level and the message framing, and the joint effect of these tw o variables was statis tically significant, F (3, 184) = 7.75, p < .001 Message framing was employed as a dummy variable where a negatively framed PSA was 0, and a positively framed PSA was 1. The results are presented in Table 4 and 5. Initially, a multiple regression was conducted with only tw o independent variables, involvement and message framing. Its F-value was 1.86. Adding the in teraction, then, contributed to 9.3% of the model with only two independent variables. F-value change was 19.18. The effect of the interaction between the addiction leve l and message framing was b = -.50, t = -4.38, p < .001 30

PAGE 31

The interaction term was again explored by re-computing the regression analyses separately for groups of subjects exposed to negative message or positive message in terms of message framing. Results from follow-up analyses revealed that involvement was positively associated with attitude to ward anti-smoking PSA among subjects who were exposed to the negative message (F (1, 89) = 2.34, = .16, t = 1.53, p > .05), whereas involvement was negatively associated with attitude toward an ti-smoking PSA among subjects who were exposed to positive message ( F (1, 95) = 24.40, = -.45, t = -4.94, p < .001 ). Results of the interaction tests are presented in Table 6. Thus, the more involved in smoking, the more favorable attitude to ward negatively framed PSAs individuals tend to have, while the less invo lved in smoking, the more favorable attitude toward positively framed PSAs individuals tend to have. These results support overall assumption of H1. However, when regression analyses were conducted separately by selecting cases (e.g., subjects who were exposed to the negatively framed PSA vs. subjects who were exposed to the positively framed PSA), H1 was partially supported. That is, H1.1 was supported whereas H1.2 was not supported. The main effect of the involvement level was b = .13, t = 1.65, p > .05. The main effect of message framing was b = 1.32, t = 3.71, p < .001 Since this result is irrelevant to this study, no interpretations are provided for main effects. Hypothesis 2 Multiple regressions were conducted to test H 1, with two independent variables, nicotine dependence and message framing, and one dependent variable, attitude toward ad. A sample of smokers among collected data was used to te st how nicotine dependence moderates message framing effects. 31

PAGE 32

Manipulation Check Before testing H2, manipulation check was c onducted. As expected, the message that You are saving $1,000 every year by being a non-sm oker, You can buy 2 iPhones with $1,000 was perceived as the positive anti-smoking message whereas the message that You are burning $1,000 every year by smoking cigarettes. You can buy 2 iPhones with $1,000 was perceived as the negative message. Participants reported on a two-item, seven point (1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree) Likert scale how much they agreed with the following two statements: The ad is focusing on the positive effect of smoking cessation, and The ad is focusing on the negative effect of smoking. As shown Table 7, difference between observed value for positively framed message and test value (= 4) was significant on item one, t = -5.89, p < .001 M PositiveMessage = 2.05, SD = 1.56. As shown Table 8, difference between observed value for negatively framed message and test va lue (=4) was significant on item two, t = -3.09, p < .01 M NegativeMessage = 2.92, SD = 1.72. Subjects felt that the anti -smoking PSA was more negative when it was negatively framed rather than positiv ely framed, and they felt that the anti-smoking PSA was more positive when it was positively frame d rather than negatively framed. Therefore, these manipulation check measures suggest th at the intended factors were manipulated successfully. Nicotine Dependence In the H2 testing, the study was conducted to investigate how nicotine dependence moderates the message framing effects. And the message framing was manipulated. Nicotine dependence was measured as a continuous vari able on the basis upon Heatherton et al. (1991). 32

PAGE 33

Test of Hypothesis 2 Influence of Nicotine dependence and Message Framing This study investigated how a ddiction level affects attit ude toward anti-smoking PSA when it is framed either positively or negatively. Specifically, Subjects who are more addicted to smoking would have more favorab le attitude toward negativel y framed PSAs, while subjects who are less addicted to smoking would have more favorable attitude to ward positively framed PSA. A multiple regression was conducted to test H2, with attitude toward the ad as the dependent variable, and with the addiction level and message fram ing as independent variables. The descriptive statistics were presented in Table 9. The mean of smoking addiction was 3.11 (SD = 2.27), .48 (SD = .51) for message framing, and 4.26 (SD = 1.63) for attitude toward ad, respectively. The model with two independent variables, the addiction level and the message framing, and the joint effect of these two vari ables was statistically significant, F (3, 42) = 6.72, p < .001 Message framing was employed as a dummy variab le where a negatively framed PSA was 0, and a positively framed PSA was 1. The results are pr esented in Table 10 and 11. Initially, a multiple regression was conducted with only two independent variables, nicotine dependence and message framing. Its F-value was 7.46. Adding the in teraction, then, contributed to 6.7% of the model with only two independent variables. F-value change was 4.15. The effect of the interaction between the nicotine dependen ce level and message framing was b = -.38, t = -2.04, p < .05. Interaction was again explored by re -computing the regression analyses separately for groups of subjects exposed to negative message or positive message in terms of message framing. Results from follow-up analyses revealed that nicotine dependence was positively associated 33

PAGE 34

with attitude toward anti-smoking PSA among subjects who were exposed to the negative message ( F (1, 22) = .02, = .03, t = .13, p > .05), whereas nicotine dependence was negatively associated with attitude towa rd anti-smoking PSA among subjects who were exposed to positive message ( F (1, 20) =9.63, = -.57, t = -3.10, p < .01 ). The results of interaction tests are presented in Table 12. Thus, t he more dependent on cigarette smoking, the more favorable attitude toward negatively framed PSAs individuals tend to have while the less dependent on cigarette smoking, the more favorable attitude toward positively framed PSAs individuals tend to have. These results support overall assumption of H1. Howe ver, when regression analyses were conducted separately by selecting cases (e.g., subjects who were exposed to the negatively framed PSA vs. subjects who were exposed to the positively fram ed PSA), H1 was partially supported. That is, H1.1 was supported whereas H1.2 was not supported. The main effect of the addiction level was b = .02, t = .14, p > .05. The main effect of message framing was b = -.16, t = -.23, p > .05. Thus, both main effects were not statistically significant. 34

PAGE 35

Table 4-1. Manipulation Check of Positively Framed Message for Item 1 in H1 Testing N Mean SD t df Sig. Mean Difference Positively Framed Message (Item 1) 97 3.06 1.86 -4.96 96 .000 -.94 Test value = 4 Table 4-2. Manipulation Check of Negatively Framed Message for Item 2 in H1 Testing N Mean SD t df Sig. Mean Difference Negatively Framed Message (Item 2) 91 2.88 1.76 -6.07 90 .000 -1.12 Test value = 4 Table 4-3. Descriptive Statistics of H1 M SD Attitude toward Ad 4.31 1.33 Involvement 2.67 1.62 Message Framing .52 .50 Table 4-4. Model Statistics of H1 Model Source SS df MS F Sig. R R Square R Adj Involvement Regression 6.55 2 3.27 Framing Residual 325.93 185 1.76 Model 1 Total 332.48 187 1.86 .159 .14 .02 .01 Involvement Regression 37.32 3 12.44 Framing Residual 295.17 184 1.60 Model 2 Interaction Total 332.48 187 7.75 .000 .34 .11 .10 Table 4-5. Regression of H1 Source B SE t Sig. (Constant) 3.96 .25 15.68 .000 Involvement* .13 .08 .16 1.65 .100 Framing** 1.32 .36 .50 3.71 .000 Interaction -.50 .11 -.66 -4.38 .000 *Involvement: 1 (low) to 7 (high) **Message Framing: 0 (negatively framed me ssage), 1 (positively framed message) 35

PAGE 36

Table 4-6. Follow-up Analyses for Interaction in H1 Message Framing IV B SE t Sig. Negative Involvement .133 .087 .160 1.529 .130 R = .160, R 2 = .026, R 2 Adj = .015 Positive Involvement -.367 .074 -.452 -4.939 .000 R = .452, R 2 = .204, R 2 Adj = .196 Table 4-7. Manipulation Check of Positively Framed Message for Item 1 in H2 Testing N Mean SD t df Sig. Mean Difference Positively Framed Message (Item 1) 22 2.05 1.56 -5.89 21 .000 -1.96 Test value = 4 Table 4-8. Manipulation Check of Negatively Framed Message for Item 2 in H2 Testing N Mean SD t df Sig. Mean Difference Negatively Framed Message (Item 1) 24 2.92 1.72 -3.09 23 .005 -1.08 Test value = 4 Table 4-9. Descriptive Statistics of H2 M SD Attitude toward Ad 4.26 1.63 Addiction Level 3.11 2.27 Message Framing 0.48 0.51 Table 4-10. Model Statistics of H2 Model Source SS df MS F Sig. R R Square R Adj Addiction Regression 30.90 2 15.45 Framing Residual 89.03 43 2.07 Model 1 Total 119.94 45 7.46 0.002 0.51 0.26 0.22 Addiction Regression 38.91 3 12.97 Framing Residual 81.02 42 1.93 Model 2 Interaction Total 119.94 45 6.72 0.001 0.57 0.32 0.28 36

PAGE 37

Table 4-11. Regression of H2 Source B SE t Sig. (Constant) 4.85 0.52 9.36 0.000 Addiction* 0.02 0.14 0.03 0.14 0.892 Framing** -0.16 0.71 -0.05 -0.23 0.820 Interaction -0.38 0.19 -0.55 -2.04 0.048 *Nicotine Addiction: 1 (low) to 10 (high) **Message Framing: 0 (negatively framed me ssage), 1 (positively framed message) Table 4-12. Follow-up Analyses for Interaction in H2 Message Framing IV B SE t Sig. Negative Nicotine Dependence .019 .146 .028 .133 .895 R = .028, R 2 = .001, R 2 Adj = -.045 Positive Nicotine Dependence -.358 .115 -.570 -3.104 .006 R = .570, R 2 = .325, R 2 Adj = .291 37

PAGE 38

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Discussion This study was designed to resolve the conf licting findings of message framing effects and identify the variables that have an impact on the effectiveness of message framing. Overall, the results are compatible with this studys grand assumption that involvement level and cigarette addiction level moderate message framing effects. In the H1, the contention of this study is that involvement level moderates the effectiveness of either positively or negatively framed anti-smoking PSAs. This contention is based on Petty and Cacioppos model and previous research about overweighting of negative and positive messages (Kanouse, 1984; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Weinberger, Allen, & Dillon, 1981; Wright, 1981). Consistent with th e H1, the involvement level indi cates favorability of either a positively framed PSA or a negatively framed one. These results are consistent with previous research dealing with involvement and messa ge framing (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990) that proposed the moderating role of involvement. However, after conducting separate analyses by selecting cases whether subjects were exposed to either negatively or positively framed message, H1 was partially supported. Specifically, in the H1.1, the following was pr edicted: Under high involvement conditions, an anti-smoking PSA is more persuasive when it is framed negatively. Although an intended direction was found, it was not statis tically significant. Therefore, H1.1 was not supported. In the H1.2, the following was predicted: Under low in volvement conditions, an anti-smoking PSA is more persuasive when it is framed negativel y. Intended significant re sults were found. Thus, H1.2 was supported. 38

PAGE 39

In the H2, the contention of this study is that smoker s nicotine dependence level moderates the effectiveness of either positivel y or negatively framed anti-smoking PSAs. This contention is based on the relationship among nico tine dependence, perceived risk, motivation, and message framing. The causalities are that nicotine dependence has an impact on perceived risk (Rindfleisch & Crocke tt, 1999; Wong & McMurray, 2002), perceived risk relates to motivation (Block & Keller, 1995; Rothman & Salovey, 1997; Bock et al., 2000; Umphrey, 2003). In addition, the motivation would modera te message framing effects (Kanouse, 1984; Weinberger, Allen, and Dillon, 1981). Consistent with the H2, the nicotine dependence level indicates favorability of either a positively framed PSA or a negatively framed one. However, after conducting separate analyses by selecting cases whether subjects were exposed to either negatively or positively framed message, H2 was partially supported. Specifically, in the H2.1, the following wa s predicted: Under high nicotine dependence conditions, an anti-smoking PSA is more persua sive when it is framed negatively. Although an intended direction was found, it was not statisti cally significant. Therefore, H2.1 was not supported. In the H2.2, the following was predic ted: Under low nicotine dependence conditions, an anti-smoking PSA is more persuasive when it is framed negatively. Intended significant results were found. Thus, H2.2 was supported. Implications This study improves our understanding how individuals process and respond differently to dissimilar but objectively equivalent messages. In the practice, anti-smoking clinic consultants might be advised to use either negatively or positively framed message depending on clients nicotine dependence level. For example, the c onsultants can measure their clients nicotine dependence level. When they consult with cl ients with low nicotine dependence, positive message will be more effective in terms of lowering cigarette consumption or smoking cessation. 39

PAGE 40

In other words, negative message will be more effective when they consult with clients with high nicotine dependence. Anti-smoking PSA executioners might be advised to employ either negatively or positively framed message depending on message recipients involvement level. Moreover, it is also helpful to choose appropriate place and time for implementing anti-smoking PSAs. For instance, when PSA executioners pla ce anti-smoking PSAs in magazines, the message framing will depend on magazine types. More specifically, when a positively framed PSA is placed in a teen magazine, we can predict better effects because teens involvement level might be low. Therefore, anti-smoking consultants a nd PSA executioners can create either negative or positive message by categorizing target groups into either smoker or non-smoker group. Limitations and Future Research There are a few limitations in the study. Th is project is based the use of student participants as a sample. Although the use of student participants is more acceptable in experimental studies than in survey, homogeneit y of the sample may have produced results that are not typically found in the popul ation. Findings of this project need to be replicated using more a heterogeneous, adult sample to achieve external validity. This study tested anti-smoking PSAs impact on attitude towa rd messages, not intention to quit smoking or attitude toward smoking behavior Attitude toward ad has been posited to be a mediator of advertising effec tiveness which includes brand atti tudes and future intentions (Mitchell & Olson, 1981; Shimp, 1981). This study measured one dependent variable: attitude toward ad. This study found significant interaction effects by measuring attitude toward ad as a dependent variable in both experiments. Howeve r, it might have different results if different dependent variables such as att itude toward smoking behavior or intention to quit were employed. This is because the majority of smokers do not ha ve an intention to give up smoking in the near future (Hennrikus, Jeffery & Lando, 1995; John, Meyer, Rumpf, & Hapke, 2003). Therefore, 40

PAGE 41

future research should employ othe r dependent variables, and test whether attitude toward ad can predict future intentions in anti-smoking PSA research. In the message framing studies, different messages should contain a factually equal value. The two versions of stimuli used in this study should be equal across experimental groups except message framing (e.g., saving money vs. burning money). Except for the framing, causalities of messages are different. For example, in the positively framed message, the message posits that non-smoking can save $1,000 every year, whereas, in the negatively framed message, the message posits that smoking can burn $1,000 ev ery year. The different causalities in the messages may have produced unint ended results. Future message framing studies should create same messages across experimental groups. In addition to the message framing valence, involvement scales employed in this study may have produced unexpected results. The Zaic hkowskys scale (1985) measures an issue involvement. The stimuli in this study focu sed on cessation of smoking. Even though this study intended to measure an issue involvement, partic ipants might think of smoking cessation issue rather than smoking issue. Future studies should use an appropriate scale to measure involvement level. 41

PAGE 42

Figure 3-1. Positively Framed PSA 42

PAGE 43

Figure 3-2. Negatively Framed PSA 43

PAGE 44

APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT FORM Protocol Title: College St udents Ideas About Smoking Please read this consent statement carefully be fore you decide to par ticipate in this study Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this research is to study college students ideas about smoking. The participants will be asked questions about their beliefs and personal experiences about smoking. What you will be asked to do in this study: You will be invited to a laboratory. After the investigators instruction, print your name and student ID on the attached name sheet, sign the consent form, and complete the que stionnaire adequately apart from others. When your instructor requests the survey, detach the name sheet and th is consent form from the main survey. Then submit the consent form, name sheet, and the envelope separately. Time required: About 15 minutes Risks and Benefits: We do not anticipate there will be any risks or direct benefits to you as a consequence of your decision to complete the survey. Confidentiality: Your name or student ID will not appear on the questionnaire itself. Your identity will be kept confidenti al to the extent provided by law. Your instructor will need your student ID to give you extra credit, but will not receive your name before the final exam. Your responses are completely confidential and no refere nce will be made in any oral or written report that would link you individually to the study. Fu rther, the principal investigator works independently of your instructor. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the full right to w ithdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Wan Seop Jung, Masters student, College of Communications, University of Florid a, address: 2018 Weimer Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611-8400. phone: 352.870.2077 email: wanseop9@ufl.edu. Jorge Villegas, Assistant Professor, College of Commu nications, University of Florida, address: 2084 Weimer Hall, University of Florid a, Gainesville, FL, 32611-8400. phone: 352.392.5059. email: jvillegas@jou.ufl.edu Whom to contact about your right as a research participant in this study: UFIRB, Box 112250, University of Florid a, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0433 Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: __________________________________ Date: ______________________ Principal Investigator : __________________________ Date: ______________________ 44

PAGE 45

APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE Instructions : Please review the following advertisement and then answer the questions that correspond with a partic ular advertisement. Directions : The following questionnaire asks you to indicate your opinion about the antismoking ad The scales in some of the questions are meant to measure your opinions on each of the ad. There is no right or wrong answers. 45

PAGE 46

Please read each set of adjectives carefully, and decide where your opinion would be the most accurately reflected on the continuum. Then, mark on the square that most closely reflects your opinion. You may refuse to answer any questio ns. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers. 1) Do you agree that the ad is focusing on positive effect of smoking cessation? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree Strongly disagree 2) Do you agree that the ad is focusing on negative effect of smoking? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree Strongly disagree Please check the scale that best reflects your agreement with each of the following items. 3) In general, smoking is. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Important Unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Irrelevant Relevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Valuable Invaluable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Useful Useless 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting Not interesting 46

PAGE 47

4) Do you find the advertisement is (EVALUATION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT) : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unpleasant Pleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unlikable Likable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not irritating Irritating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not interesting Interesting 5) Please check your smoking behavior on the square. ( If you are not a smoker go to the next page ) 1. How soon after you wake up do you smoke your first cigarette? 0-5 min 6-30 min 31-60 min After 60 min 2. Do you find it difficult to refrai n from smoking in places where it is forbidden (e.g., church library, cinema)? Yes No 3. Which cigarette would you be th e most unwilling to give up? First in the morning Any of the others 4. How many cigarettes per day do you smoke? 10 or less 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 or more 5. Do you smoke more frequently during th e first hours after waking than during the rest of the day? Yes No 6. Do you smoke if you are so ill that you are in bed most of the day? Yes No 47

PAGE 48

Demographics 1) What is your gender? Female ____ Male ____ 2) How old are you? _______ years old 3) What is your ethnic background? White, not Hispanic ____ Hispanic, of any race ____ African American, not Hispanic ____ Asian or Pacific Islander ____ Native American ____ Other ____ 4) Please check your smoking experience. Never smoked _____ I used to smoke, do not smoke currently _____ I smoke currently _____ Thank you for your participation. Debriefing Statement The messages in the ads were fictional. Although those ads were created for this study, the messages in the ads were based on facts. 48

PAGE 49

LIST OF REFERENCES American Cancer Society. (2008, February 20). Cancer facts and figures 1996: Tobacco use. Retrived March 13, 2008, from http://www.cancer.org/statistics/96cff/tobacco.html American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3 rd ed.), Washington, D.C. Badura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84(2), 191-215. Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer behavior as risk taking. In Hancock R. (Ed.), Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World, American Marketing Assoication p389-398, Chicago, IL. Bauer, U. E., Johnson, T. M., Hopkins, R. S., & Brooks, R. G. (2000). Changes in youth cigarette use and intentions following implementation of a tobacco control program. Journal of the American Medical Association 284(6), 723-728. Botvin, G. J., & Eng, A. (1980). A comprehe nsive school-based smoking prevention program. Journal of School Health 50, 209. Braun, K. A., Gaeth, G. J., & Levin, I. P. (1997). Framing effects with differential impact: the role of attribute salience. Advances in Consumer Research 27, 405-411. Beaudoin, C. E. (2002). Exploring antismoking ads: appeals, themes, and consequences. Journal of Health Communication 7, 123-137. Blum, A. (1980). Medicine vs. Madison avenue: fighting smoke with smoke. Journal of the American Medical Association 243(8), 739-740. Buto, C. P. (1987). The framing of buying decisions. Journal of Consumer Research 14(3), 301315. Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to acc entuate the negative: th e effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intention to perform a health-related behavior, Journal of Marketing Research 32, 192-203. Bock, B. C., Becker, B., Niaura, R., & Partridge, R. (2000). Smoking among emergency chest pain patients: motivation to quit, risk perception and physic ian intervention. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2, 93-96. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty R. E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(1), 97109. 49

PAGE 50

Centers for Disease Control (CDC). (1991). Select ed tobacco-use behaviors and dietary patterns among high school students-United States, 1991. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 41(24), 417-421. Chandy, R. K., Tellis, G. J., Macinnis, D. J., & Thaivanich, P. (2001). What to say when: advertising appeals in evolving markets. Journal of Marketing Research 38(4), 399-414. Cunningham, S. M. (1967). The major dimensio ns of perceived risk. In Cox, D.F.(Ed.), Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior (pp. 82-108). Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Edwards, K. (1990). The interplay of affect a nd cognition in attitude formation and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59(2), 202-216. Gainer, B. (1993). An empirical investigation of the role of involvement w ith a gendered product. Psychology & Marketing 10(4), 265-283. Ganzach, Y., & Karsahi, N. (1995). Message fram ing and buying behavior: A field experiment. Journal of Business Research 32, 11-17. Goldman, L. K., & Glantz, S. A. (1998). Eval uation of antismoking advertising campaigns. Journal of the American Medical Association 279(10), 772-777. Grandpre, J., Alvaro, E. M., Burgoon, M., Mill er, C. H., & Hall, J. R. (2003). Adolescent reactance and anti-smoking campa igns: a theoretical approach. Health Communication 15(3), 349-366. Greenwald, A., & Leavitt, C. (1984). Audience involvement in advertising: Four levels. Journal of Consumer Research 11(June), 581-592. Hale, J. L., & Dillard, J. P. (1995). Fear appeals in health promo tion campaigns: Too much, too little, or just right? Designing health messages Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hamilton, J. L. (1972). The demand for cigarettes: advertising, the health s care, and the cigarette advertising ban. Review of Econom ics & Statistics 54(4), 401-411. Hennrikus, D. J., Jeffery, R. W., & Lando, H. A. (1995). Th e smoking cessation process: longitudinal observation in a working population. Preventive Medicine 24, 235-244. Heatherton, T. F., Kozlowski, L. T., Frecker, R. C., & Fagerstrm, K. O. (1991). The Fagerstrm Test for Nicotine Dependence: A revision of the Fagerstrm Tolerance Questionnaire. British Journal of Addiction, 86, 1119-1127. Houston, M. J. & Rothschild, M. L. (1978). Conceptual and methodological perspectives on involvement. In S. C. Jain (Ed.), 1978 Educators Proceedings (pp. 184-187). Chicago: American Marketing Assoication. 50

PAGE 51

Hu, T., Sung, J., & Keeler, T. E. (1995). Reduci ng cigarette consumption in California: tobacco taxes vs. an anti-smoking media campaign. American Journal of Public Health 85(9), 1218-1222. John, U., Meyer, C., Rumpf, H. J., & Hapke U. (2003). Relation among stage of change, demographic characteristics, smoking history, an d nicotine dependence in an adult German population, Preventive Medicine 37, 368-374. Kanouse, D. E. (1984). Explaining negativity bias es in evaluation and choice behavior: Theory and research. Advances in Consumer Research 11(1), 703-708. Kardes, F. R. (1988). Spontaneous inference processes in advertising: The effects of conclusion omission and involvement persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research 15(September), 225233. Khberger, A. (1998). The influence of fram ing on risky decisions: a meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 75(1), 23-55. Lau, R. R. (1985). Two explanations for ne gativity effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science 29(1), 119-138. Levin, I. P. (1987) Associative effects of information framing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 25, 85-86. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. ( 1998). All framed are not cr eated equal: a critical review of differences in valence framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76, 149-188. MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. (1986). The role of attitude toward ad as a mediator of advertising effectiv eness: a test of co mparing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research 23(May), 130-143. MacInnis, D. J., Moorman, C., & Jaworski, B. J. (1991). Enhancing and measuring consumers' motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. Journal of Marketing 55(4), 32-53. Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). Th e influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research 27(3), 361-367. Manfredi, C., Lacey, L., Warnercke, R., & Buis, M. (1992). Smoking-related behavior, beliefs, and social environment of young black women in subsidized public housing in Chicago American Journal of Public Health 82(2), 267-272. MayoClinic. (2006, October 26). Nicotine dependence. Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/nicotine-dependence/DS00307 51

PAGE 52

Meyerowitz, B. E., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast selfexamination attitudes, in tentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (March), 500-510. Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are produ ct attribute beliefs th e only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research 18(August), 318-332. Oei, T. P. (1987). Smoking prevention program for children: A review. Journal of Drug Education 17, 11. OKeefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory & Research (2 nd ed.). 137-167, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications O'Keefe, T. (1971). The anti-smoking commercials : a study of televisions impact on behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 35(2), 240-248. Olney, T. J., Holbrook, M. B., & Batra, R. (1991). Consumer responses to advertising: the effects of ad content, emotions, and attit ude toward the ad on viewing time. Journal of Consumer Research 17(March), 440-453. Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 117-154. Pechmann, C., Zhao, G.., Goldberg, M. E., & Reibling, E. T. (2003). What to convey in antismoking advertisements for adolescents: th e use of protection motivation theory to identify effective message themes. Journal of Marketing 67(2), 1-18. Pechmann, C., & Reibling, E. T. (2000). Planni ng an effective anti-smoking mass media campaign targeting adolescents. Public Health Management Practice 6(3), 80-94. Pechman, C. & Stewart, D. W. (1988). Advertisin g repetition: a critical review of wearin and wearout. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 11(2), 285-329. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peri pheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research 10(September), 135-146. Pierce, J. P., Gilpin, E. A., & Emery, S. L. (1998). Has the California tobacco control program reduced smoking? Journal of the American Medical Association 280(10), 893-899. Pratto, F., & John, O. P. (1991) Automatic vigila nce: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61(3), 380-391. 52

PAGE 53

Popham, W. J., & Potter, L. D. (1993). Do an ti-smoking media campaigns help smokers quit? Public Health Reports 108(4), 510-513. Ratneshwar, S., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Comprehens ion's role in persuasion: the case of its moderating effect on the persua sive impact of source cues. Journal of Consumer Research 18(1), 52-62. Rindfleisch, A, & Crockett, D. X. (1999) Cigarette smoking and perceived risk: a multidimensional investigation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 18(2), 159-171. Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perception to motivate healt hy behavior: the role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin 121(1), 3-19. Rothschild, M. L. (1979). Advertis ing strategies for high and low involvement situations. In J. Maloney, & B. Silverman (Eds.), Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes (pp. 74-93). Chicago: American Marketing Association. Schneider, L., Klein, B., & Murphy, K. M. (1981). Governmental regulation of cigarette health information. Journal of Law & Economics 24(3), 575-612. Shimp, T. A. (1981). Attitude toward ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice. Journal of Advertising, 10(2), 9-15. Shiv, B., Edell, J. A., & Payne, J. W. (1997). Factors affecting the impact of negatively and positively framed ad messages. Journal of Consumer Research 24, 285-294. Siegel, M. (2002). Antismoking advert ising: figuring out what works. Journal of Health Communication, 7, 157-162. Siegel, M., & Biener, L. (2000). The impact of an antismoking media campaign on progression to established smoking: results of a longitudinal youth study. American Journal of Public Health 90(3), 380-386. Sly, D. F., Heald, G. R., & Ray, S. (2001). The Florida "truth" anti-tobacco media evaluation: design, first year results, and implications for planning future state media evaluations. Tobacco Control 10(1), 9-15. Sly, D. F., Trapido, E., & Ray, S. (2002). Evid ence of the dose effects of an antitobacco counteradvertising campaign. Preventive Medicine 35(5), 511-518. Smith, G. E. (1996). Framing in advertising and the moderating impact of consumer education. Journal of Advertising Research 36(5), 49-64. 53

PAGE 54

Stone, R. N., & Winter, F. W. (1987). Risk: is it still uncertainty times consequences? In Belk, R.W. et al. (Ed.), Proceedings of the American Marketing Association (pp. 261-265). Chicago, IL: Winter Educators Conference. Stuart, A. E., & Blanton, H. (2003). The effect s of message framing on behavioral prevalence assumptions. European Journal of Social Psychology 33, 93-102. Umphrey, L. R. (2003). The effects of message framing and message processing on testicular self-examination attitudes a nd perceived susceptibility. Communication Research Reports 20(2), 97-105. U.S. Public Health Services Centers for Dis ease Control and Preventi on, Office on Smoking and Health. (1994, July). Preventing tobacco use among young pe ople: A report of the Surgeon General Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Wakefield, M., Flay, B., Nichter, M., & Giovino, G. (2002). Effects of anti-smoking advertising on youth smoking: a review. Journal of Health Communication 8, 229-247. Wallack, L. M. (1983). Mass media campaigns in a hostile environment: Advertising as antihealth education. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 28(2), 51-63. Wallack, L. M., & Corbett, K. (1987). Alcohol tobacco and marijuana use among youth: An overview of epidemiological, program and policy trends. Health Education Quarterly 14(2), 223-249. Warner, K. E. (1977). The Effects of the anti-smoking campaign on cigarette consumption. American Journal of Public Health 67(7), 645-650. Weinberger, M. G., Allen, C. T., & Dillon, W. R. (1981). Negative information: Perspectives and research directions. Advances in Consumer Research 8(1), 398-404. Witte, K. (1995). Fishing for success: using the persuas ive health message framework to generate effective campaign messages, Designing health messages. 145-166, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Wong, C. O., & McMurray, N. E. (2002) Fr aming communication: Communicating the antismoking message effectively to all smokers. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(4), 433-447. Wright, P. (1974). The harassed decision maker: Ti me pressures, distractions, and the use of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology 59(5), 555-561. Zhang, Y., & Buda, R. (1999). Moderating effect s of need for cognition on responses to positively versus negatively framed advertising message. Journal of Advertising 28(2), p115. 54

PAGE 55

Zhang, Y., & Neelankavil, J. P. (1997). The infl uence of culture on adver tising effectiveness in China and the USA. European Journal of Marketing 31(1/2), 134-149. 55

PAGE 56

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Wan Seop Jung was born in Busan, Korea. He earned his Bachelor of Advertising and Public Relations from Chung-Ang University in Seoul, Korea. He came to the University of Florida in August 2006 to pursue a Master of A dvertising. He is received his Master of Advertising degree in August of 2008. He continues with his doctoral studies at the University of Florida. 56