Effects of Humorous Anti-tobacco Videos in Social Media--The Medium Difference and the Influence of Context

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Effects of Humorous Anti-tobacco Videos in Social Media--The Medium Difference and the Influence of Context
Physical Description:
1 online resource (99 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Chen, Fannin
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.A.M.C.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Mass Communication, Journalism and Communications
Committee Chair:
Lee, Moon
Committee Members:
Sorel, Timothy
Ferguson, Mary Ann

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
communication -- context -- counterargue -- discounting -- facebook -- health -- humor -- interactivity -- media -- medium -- smoking -- social -- tobacco -- viral -- youtube
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Mass Communication thesis, M.A.M.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
This study was designed to examine the effect of humorous anti-tobacco videos in social media from the aspects of medium difference and the influence of context. A 2 (Facebook vs. YouTube) x 2 (humor-related context vs. health-related context) factorial design with a control group experiment was used in this study. The result found several medium differences between Facebook and YouTube. In general, individuals perceived more interactivity,more risk of smoking, and more negative attitude towards smokers on Facebook than those on YouTube. In terms of intention to avoid smoking, only individual who was in the health-related context revealed a significant medium difference.Consistent with the findings, Facebook generated more intention to avoid smoking than YouTube.  Moreover, the results also suggested that, in general, the humor appeal is more effective in Facebook than YouTube. When comparing with the control group, Facebook could generate more risk perception about smoking and more negative attitude towards smokers than the control group. In addition, this study proposed that the perceived interactivity was the cue to the medium difference. Correlations were found. The engaging and control factor was consistently correlated with three smoking related attitudes. On the other hand, while comparing different contexts, no difference was found from counterargument, argument scrutiny, and message discounting. Implications for future social media research and suggestions for health practitioners are discussed.
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 Fannin Chen.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.M.C.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local:
Adviser: Lee, Moon.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID:
UFE0044683:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EFFECTS OF HUMOROUS ANTI TOBACCO VIDEOS IN S OCIAL MEDIA THE MEDIUM DIFFERENCE AND THE INFLUENCE OF CONTEXT BY FANNIN CHEN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF TH E REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS CO MMUNICATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Fannin Chen

PAGE 3

3 To Eumin Chen and Rosie Liu

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to convey my appreciation to several professors and frien ds, this study could not have been completed without their help. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to my chair, Dr. Moon J. Lee. Dr. Lee always provides me insightful advice s and guidance to my research. She encourages me to push myself to the limit and her wisdom inspires me in many ways. Further thanks go out to my committee members, Dr. Mary Ann T. Ferguson, David H. Ostroff, and Tim Sorel. They provided many essential suggestions to enhance the quality of my thesis. Second thanks go ou t to Dr. Johanna Cleary, Dr. James D. Leary, Dr. Ed Kellerman, Jennifer Braddock, Jessica Mahone, and Dennis DiPasquale They encouraged their students to participate in this study so that I can collect sufficient amount of samples for analysis In additio n, I would like express my appreciation to Yi Chun Lee and Yu Fen Lin. They assisted me to design the artificial Facebook and YouTube website s and created a computer programming allowing participants to log in. Their c reativity and expertise made my experi ment concept come true. This study could not be achieved without their help. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my friends Hsiao Ying Liu, Ta Chen Lo, Chen Ting Chen, Yu Shan Tseng Mu Han Wu and Jei Fu Gu for their encouragement in my m lif e. I would like to express my sincere thanks to them for supporting my personal life and sharing many joyful moment s with me for the past two years. Last, I would like to convey my foremost gratitude and love to my parents. Without their support I can not f ulfill my m aster degree.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 11 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 14 Health Communication on Web2.0 and Social Media ................................ ........................... 14 Humorous Messages ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 15 Medium Diff erences Generate Distinct Effects ................................ ................................ ...... 19 Interactivity ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 20 Interactivity and Attitudes ................................ ................................ ............................... 21 Just a Joke? Humor Reduces the Argument Scrutiny and Counterargument. ........................ 26 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 31 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 31 Stimuli ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 31 Sample and Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 33 Dependent Variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 34 Perceived Interactivity ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 34 Engaging and control ................................ ................................ ............................... 34 Attention ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 35 Two way and simulated interpersonal communication ................................ ........... 35 Attitude towards the Health Promotion Videos ................................ ............................... 36 Attitudes toward Smoking ................................ ................................ ............................... 36 Counterarguing and Argument Scrutiny ................................ ................................ ......... 37 Message Discounting ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 38 Potential of Viral Marketing Effects ................................ ................................ ............... 38 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 42 Analysis Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 42 Profile of Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 42 Manipulation Checks ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 43 Research Questions and Hypothesis Testing ................................ ................................ .......... 44

PAGE 6

6 Effects of Medium Type on Perceived Interactivity, Attitude towards the Health Promotion Videos, Attitude towards the Health Message, and Viral Marketing Effects in Different Contexts ................................ ................................ ....................... 44 Relationship between Perceived Interactivity and Attitude towards the Health Promotion Video, Attitude towards Health Message, and Viral marketing Effects .... 46 Effects of Humor Appe al Health Messages and the Medium Differences ..................... 48 Risk perception towards smoking ................................ ................................ ............ 48 Positive attitude towards smokers ................................ ................................ ............ 48 Intention to avoid smoking in the future ................................ ................................ .. 49 Effect of Context Differences (Health related vs. Humor related) on Argument Scrutiny, Counterarguing, and Message Discounting ................................ .................. 49 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ .................... 53 Limitation and Future Research ................................ ................................ .............................. 59 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 60 APPENDIX A LAYOUT OF THE ARTIFICIAL WEBPAGES ................................ ................................ ... 62 B INSTRUCTION TO PARTICIPANTS ................................ ................................ .................. 78 C QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EXPERIMENT GROUPS ................................ ............................ 81 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 92 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 99

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Experiment conditions. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 39 3 2 Engaging and control items from pre vious studies. ................................ ........................... 39 3 3 Two way and simulated interpersonal communication items from previous studies. ....... 40 3 4 Factor Loading of Perceive d Interactivity. ................................ ................................ ........ 41 4 1 Random assignment of participants in five conditions. ................................ ..................... 50 4 2 Valid samples in five conditions. ................................ ................................ ....................... 50 4 3 Effects of context & medium on attitude towards the videos. ................................ ........... 50 4 4 Effects of context & medium on risk perception towards smoking. ................................ .. 50 4 5 Risk perception towards smoking by medium. ................................ ................................ .. 50 4 6 Risk perception towards smoking by context. ................................ ................................ ... 50 4 7 Effects of context & medium on positive attitude towards smokers. ................................ 51 4 8 Positive towards smokers by medium. ................................ ................................ ............... 51 4 9 Effects of context & medium on intention to avoid smoking in the future. ...................... 51 4 10 Effects of context & medium on viral marketing actions. ................................ ................. 51

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURE S Figure page 4 1 Interaction plots between 4 conditions and intention to avoid smoking in the future. ...... 52 A 1 The layout of Facebook log in page. ................................ ................................ .................. 62 A 2 The layout of the video summary page on Facebook. ................................ ....................... 63 A 3 The layout of health related context with video 1 on Facebook. ................................ ....... 64 A 4 The layout of health related context with video 2 on Facebook. ................................ ....... 65 A 5 The layout of health related context with video 3 on Facebook. ................................ ....... 66 A 6 The layout of humor related context with video 1 on Facebook. ................................ ...... 67 A 7 The layout of humor related context w ith video 2 on Facebook. ................................ ...... 68 A 8 The layout of humor related context with video 3 on Facebook. ................................ ...... 69 A 9 The layout of YouTube log in page ................................ ................................ .................. 70 A 10 The layout of the video summary page on YouTube. ................................ ........................ 71 A 11 The layout of health related context with video 1 on YouTube. ................................ ....... 72 A 12 The layout of health related context with video 2 on YouTube. ................................ ....... 73 A 13 The layout of health related context with video 3 on YouTube. ................................ ....... 74 A 14 The layout of humor related context with video 1 on YouTube. ................................ ...... 75 A 15 The layout of humor related context with video 2 on YouT ube. ................................ ...... 76 A 16 The layout of humor related context with video 3 on YouTube. ................................ ...... 77

PAGE 9

9 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 Arts in Mass Communication EFFECTS OF HUMOROUS ANTI TOBACCO VIDEOS IN SOCIAL MEDIA THE MEDIUM DIFFERENCE AND THE INFLUENCE OF CONTEXT By FANNIN CHEN August 2012 Chair: Moon J Lee Major: Mass Communication This study was designed to examine the effect of humorous anti to bacco videos in social media from the aspect s of medium difference and the influence of context A 2 (Facebook vs. YouTube) x 2 (humor related context vs. health related context ) factorial design with a control group experiment was used in this study. The result found several medium differences between Facebook and YouTube. In general, individual s perceived more interactivity, more risk of smoking, and m ore negative attitude towards smokers on Facebook than those o n YouTube In terms of intention to avoid smoking, only individual who was in the health related context revealed a sig nificant medium difference. C onsistent with the findings, Facebook generate d m ore intention to avoid smoking than YouTube. Moreover, the result s also suggested that, in general, the humor appeal is more effective in Facebook than YouTube. W hen comparing with the control group, Facebook could generate more risk perception about s moking and more negative attitude towards smokers than the control group. In addition, this study proposed that the perceived interactivity was the cue to the medium difference. Correlations were found. The engaging and control factor was consistently cor related with three smoking related attitude s

PAGE 10

10 On the other hand, while comparing different context s no difference was found from counterargument, argument scrutiny, and message discounting. Implication s for future social media research and suggestion s fo r health practitioners are discussed.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION With the emergence of the Internet, Web2.0, and social media, health communication begins to st ep into the new media world and increase its influence on the public, especially young adults (Eysenbach, 20 08; 2011; Robinson, Patrick, & Eng, 1998) The characteristics of interactive communication and tailored messages on the Internet a re powerful advantages compared to traditional health campaign s (Catford, 2011; Hawn, 2009) For example, s tudies show that health directed social networking sites such as Inspire, PatientLikeMe, and CureTogether, which provide users concentrative discussion venues for their diseases and avenues to learn health information (Haynes, 2009) can improve communication quality via online interactions and user content (Thackeray, Ne iger, Hanson, & McKenzie, 2008) Furthermore, r ecent studies show that more people are looking for health information or are joining health related groups on not health directed social networking sites such as Facebook and YouTube (Fox, 2011a; The Nielsen C ompany, 2011c) However, the effectiveness of health communication on not health direct ed social networking sites has not been fully studied yet. Facebook and YouT ube are two of the top five web brands in the United States (The Nielsen Company, 2011a) Online users are spending an increasing time on social netw orks and t he prevalence of social media has contributed to raising online video consumption (Purcell, 2010) Approximately 164 .4 million unique v iewers watch ed online video in September 20 11, and the majority of them were watching clips on YouTube (The Nielsen Company, 2011b) Furthermore a study shows that more than 50% of online users are watching comedy or humorous videos (Purcell, 2 010) Media uses for e ntertainment purpose s such as social

PAGE 12

12 networking, online games, and funny videos occupy most of the time users spend online. Using humor as a tool to reach the public on the Internet could be a new approach for health promot ion Humo rous messages are not only popular on the Internet, but are also used as effective tool s in the ad vertising and marketing industries In advertising, humor can enhance au attention and lessen counterargument (Sternthal & Craig, 1973) ; furthermore, humor trigger s people to be more willing to disseminate the message compared to other emotion al appeals (Dobele, Lindgreen, Beverland, Vanhamme, & van Wijk, 2007; Eisend, 2009) Since humor has become a popular me ssage type on the I nter net (Purcell, 2010) and social media provide a user frie ndly environment for user s to share the video links quickly and easily, online humorous health messages seem to have the potential to become effective viral tools to promote health information via social networks In addition to the effectiveness of humor ous message s and their viral effects through social media, there is another facet this study will explore the different health attitude s and viral effects generated by different medium context s in Facebook and YouTube. A ccording to the t he med (1964) media context and characteristic s should be considered as variables to determine the effectiveness of the message. Though Fa cebook and YouTube are both categorized as social me dia because they provide different online interact ion features for users the ir interactive functions are distinct from each other (e.g. the layout of their video content the way users share the videos [ links] ) Whether Facebook and YouTube c an generate different persuasive and viral effect s still remains unknown Although some studies found that the level of perceived interactivity has a positive influence on the attitude towards ads and produ ct s in the a dvertising field ( Sundar and Kim, 2005 ),

PAGE 13

13 few studies have focus ed perceived interactivity and other medium effects. Though perceived interactivity might affect an another trait of s oc ial media is the way it present s the message. On social networking sites, the humorous health message is comprised by the whole conte xt presented by different media layout and features (for example, commenting ), which might generate un intended effects on t he original health message. Moreover, humorous messages could create distractions and lose the focus of the original message (Fugate, 1998) I n social media humor might create an issue irrelevant discussion stream under the ori ginal health message, which can possibly interfere with the intended persuasion process. Whether an unintended (humor related) context of humorous health messages can influence health persuasion awaits investigation. Therefore, in t his study the effect s o f online humorous health messages a re examined b y using a tobacco control message as a means of testing its viral marketing effects and persuasiveness Humorous anti tobacco campaign messages are chosen because tobacco is still ividuals in the United States and worldwide (Centers for Di sease Control and Prevention, 2011; World Health Organization, 2011) While social networking sites lead Internet communications today, u nderstanding medi a differences in t e rms of interactivity and also the influence of using humor in social networking co ntext is crucial in order to d esign effective health messages In addition, understanding the unintended effect while applying humorous health messages in social media is important to health practitioners as well.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Health Commu nication on Web2.0 and Social M edia Researchers have studied the potential benefit of health communication in the new media world (Eysenbach, 2008; Ratzan, 2011; Robinson et al., 1998) The technology of Web 2.0 pr ovides users the opportunity to produce and absorb multiple sources of online information at the same time, and this experience sharing could be very promising concerning health care issues (Kamel Boulo s & Wheeler, 2007) This many to many communication system could be a powerful communication tool for health care professions because it not only allows participants to discuss syndromes and solutions more freely but also improves the quality of communica tion (Hawn, 2009) Through these tailored messages, users are able to interact with others about health topics that are crucial to them (Catford, 2011) In addit ion, users are taking control over the content online, and they are actively engaging in the creative process (Thacke ray et al., 2008) Because utilizing social media could contribute to health promotion, practitioners have already started to use social media to conduct health intervention and provide health information. Online social media are categorized into two dif ferent dimensions health directed and not health directed. Health directed social media sites such as Inspire, PatientLikeMe, CureTogether, and WiserTogether provide a discussion venue for online users to share experiences while sitting in front of their screens instead of in the hospital waiting room (Haynes, 2009) Not health directed social networking sites such as Twitter, YouTube and Facebook, were not established for exchanging health information but to interact with friends, share videos, and create relationships. Despite that, not health directed social networks have gradually become a platform for users to seek health information (Dolan, 2011)

PAGE 15

15 These social networking sites not only have become a source of health information, but also a platform for users to connect with those who share the same disease or symptom. Studies show that 23% of not health related posts (Fox, 2011a, 2011b) Concerning the high portion (80%) of general online users who search health information (Fox, 2011b) the percentage of following/searching health information on not health directed social networking sites is relatively low. However, health organizations, such as the World He alt h Organization and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention are setting up Facebook pages and YouTube channels to disseminate health messages to the public T hough the statistic shows that not much (9% of not health directed social media users) ha ve joined health related groups (Fox, 2011b) t his statistic implies that this trend is just the beginning of tapping into so cial networking sites. Therefore it is important for researchers to study ahead in order to learn the effectiveness of using not health directed social networking sites as a tool for health promotion. Humorous M essages Studies show that American online users are increasingly using the Internet for entertainment (Madden, 2003) They watch online videos, surf the Internet for fun, play video games etc. Driven by these entertainment purposes, the viewership of online video has increased year after year. Now, 71% of online users hav e viewed video sharing websites such as YouTube (Moore, 2011) Moreover, funny video consumption has increased in the past three years. According to a percentage of comedy or humorous video viewer ship has risen from 31% to 50% (Purcell, 2010) These statistics indicate that viewing funny videos has become a prevalent entertainment purpose while surfing online.

PAGE 16

16 The humorous message not only serves a major online entertainment purpose, but is also a crucial factor in facilitating the of encouraging individuals to pass along favourable or compelling marketing information they receive in a hypermedia environment: information th at is favourable or compelling either by (Dobele, Toleman, & Beverland, 2005, p. 144) and it is an emerging tool to disseminate m essages on the Internet (Porter, 2006, p. 33) Marketers encourage consumers to pass on information about the product at a comparatively low marketing cost (Dobele, Beverland, van Wijk, & Lindgreen, 2006; Leskovec, 2007) In order to distribute viral messages efficiently and widely, researchers have been studying the relationships between emotional appeals and the viral marketing effect. Dobele a nd h er colleague s (2006) betw (p. 2 92) and they to forwarding messages (Dobele et al., 2007) Highlighting surprise, according to Lefcourt and Mar tin (1986) humor is a communication (p. 9) Shurcliff (1968) from the perspective of the incongruity theory. This definition infers that a humorous message can generate surprise, which is one of t he major emotions enhancing the viral marketing effect

PAGE 17

17 (Dobele et al., 2007) It is assumed that online campaign messages containing humor appeal s will achieve a greater viral market ing effect. While humor is now such a popular entertainment group on the Internet, the advertising industry has already been applying it as an essential element for advertisement (Beard, 2005; Weinberger & Spotts, 1989; Weingarten, 1967) Researchers in advertising and persuasion have been studying the effectiveness of humorous messages for decades (Markiewicz, 1974; Sternthal & Craig, 1973) Sternthal and Craig (1973) attention, distract the audience to reduce counterargume ntation and increase persuasion effect, create positive mood to increase persuasion effect, and be treated as a positive reinforcer in a (2000) identified the four roles of humor in message: the identification function, humor decreases the tension in the communication, and thus, builds up the group identity between the message provider and receivers. Second, while the message is comprised of humorous phrases or anecdotes, it makes the concept of the message clearer to the audience. In addition, humor increases recall ability and tends to generate more exposure in the mass media. Third, social norms can be enforced and instructed through humorous messages; function of humor in messages is differentiation, which is utilized to distinguish the desired message from opposite opinions, attitudes, and behaviors ; in other words, by using humor, the message disseminator forms its own social group which is distinct from others (Me yer, 2000) However, some researchers question the methodology of analyzing the effectiveness of humorous messages on attitude change and, consequently, have objected to the influence of humor on persuasion (Markiewicz, 1974)

PAGE 18

18 in the advert ising industry. Beard (2005) conducted a qualitative content analysis to present the historical evolution of humor in the advertising industry for the past hundred years in the United States. He found that in the 1900s 1910s, the public was most interested in serious information dvertisement (p. 62) However, Beard also pointed out that since 1990, ad vertising has become more entertaining. The laughter and the mirth catch attention, which is what the advertiser desires (Valencia, 2001) Anoth (2009) conducted a meta analysis of humorous versus non humorous advertising studies. After reviewing a nd analyzing related literature from 1960 to 2006, he concludes that using humor appeals in advertising purchase intention (Eisend, 2009, p. 198) In addition to utilizing humor as an effective tool in viral marketing and advertising, humor is also a vital element in the field of health care such as the communication between health care provider and patients, families of patients, and health care pro viders (Wanzer, Booth Butterfield, & Booth Butterfield, 2005) S tudies show that physicians more easily build rapport with patients by applying humor in their interactions with patients (Levinson, Roter, Mullooly, Dull, & Frankel, 1997) Humor also facilitates the relationship between patients and health care (Scholl, 2007, p. 169) Meanwhile, researchers are seeking positive emotional appeals other than fe ar appeal in health messages Lewis a nd her colleague s (2007) conducted a qualitative research to look for potential effective positive emotion appeal s in road safety advertising. The y suggest that implementin g positive emotions such as humor in the road safety advertising can be effective, especially in young drivers.

PAGE 19

19 Scholars also seek positive emotions to promote health messages among rebellious young study (2002) found that young risk takers do not yield to fear appea l messages easily, thus suggesting that humor as an alternative emotional appeal, might decrease A further study done by Lee an d S hin (2011) shows that although fear appeal anti alcohol abuse messages are reported more effective between participants than humor appeal messages in general high sensation seekers are more interested in humor appeal messages than fear appeal messages. While humor might decrease counterargumentation, its persuasive effect in onlin e health promotion still remains unknown. Medium Differences Generate Distinct E ffects time in the communication process as the content itself. Indeed, when speaking of health communication, the medium plays an influential role in persuading audiences. Lev enthal and Cameron (1994) claimed that the characteristics of the medium are as important as message content regarding health persuasion. They contended that the one to one int eraction is more effective tha n mass media communic 237). However, Leventhal and Cameron (1994) argued that individuals are more likely to miss other impor tant health messages once they are too immersed in this one to one communication, and thus be concerned only with their own health issues and neglect other important information Traditional mass media may be able to fill in the gap of one to one health co mmunications to bring up particular health awareness or health risks which need public attention (Leventhal & Cameron, 1994) However

PAGE 20

20 serves as an effective medium for health communication, integrating the characteristics from both mass media and interpersonal communication (Cassell, Jackson, & Cheuvront, 1998, p. 74) .They argue d that on the Internet, health interventions are highly persuasive because of the to one interactions of the instant feedback, tailored and continuous responses as well as the broad reach of the World Wide Web. Following this speculation, traditional media are restrained by their natural format which fails to disseminate tailored messages and distribute the message widely at the same time (McQuail, 1987) .Thus, the Internet serves as a more effective channel to health interve ntion s compared to traditional media. H owever, because medium differences may generate different persuasive effects, there are more details that need to be distinguish ed Studies which relate to medium differences on the Internet are still in the beginning stage. Schultz a nd her colleagues (2011 ) conducted experiment al research to compare the crisis communications among twitter, blogs, and traditional media and found that the medium effect on reputation, secondary crisis communication, and reactions is significant. The result shows that twitter users are more likely to share comments than people who use blog and also more tend to comment than blog users (Schultz et al., 2011) Their study indicates the possibility of different media being able to generate different user even though twitter and blog are both in the regime of the Internet or social media Interactivity D ue to the growth and popularity of the Internet, there are many studies that probe into the ortin & Dhol a kia, 2005). Researchers argue that the interactivity plays a dominant role in distinguishing the Internet fr om other traditional media (Ha & James, 1998) However, a systematic definition and conceptualization of interactivity is still lacking ( Fortin & Dhol a kia, 2005; Heeter, 1989). According to Williams, Rice, and Rogers (1988) interactivity

PAGE 21

21 d on their interpretation, role of receiver and sender being exchangeable implies that conv ersations are responding to each other. A brief glance at the Internet medium, shows that it seems to acquire the interactive ability of immediate exchangeable feedback and response (Cassell et al., 1998). H owever, Heeter ( 1989 ) suggest that one medium ca n present many functions with different levels of interactivity and thus present s varying interactivity Rafaeli (1990) also support this notion that different levels of interactivity could possibly occur due to varying quality of communication context wit hin a single medium. T hat is, even though web pages and social media a re presented on the same medium of the Internet, the interactivity could vary under different website settings. However, not many studies examine the varying interactivity of different s ocial media; therefore, this study wil l investigate possible differing levels of interactivity and then look into potential effects generated by varying levels of interactivity. Interactivity and A ttitudes user attitudes in the persuasion process The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) proposes that the persuasive effect is process ed Priester, 1994). When the message is relevant to the audience, it will process through the cognitively and the audience will respond to the message actively. On the other hand, when the information prese nted is not issue relevant to the audience, message receivers are passive. The persuasive effect can be induc ed by peripheral cues (such as the source of the me attitude. Some scholars bring s in the persuasion process.

PAGE 22

22 Base d on the ELM, Sundar and Kim (2005) conducted an experiment to examine the interactivity level of online advertisement s and the relation ship between the user attitude and the advertisement. The result was significant. They found that with a higher level of interactivity the attitude toward the advertisement and the product were more positive suggest ing that the interactivity might be a potential cue to increase the persuasive effect in an Internet environment. Some scholar s conceptualize interactivity as a function (Heeter, 1989; Jensen, 1998) and some scholars see interactivity as depending on the perceptions of message receivers (Wu, 1999; McMillan and Downes, 2000). While YouTube obtains more interactive video viewing fu nctions than Facebook, the perceived interactive level of these two media has not been identified yet. McMillan (2000) examined websites with different levels of interactivity and found that attitudes toward the website. The result also shows that there is no positive correlation between actual interactive features and the perceived interactivity, nor do actual interactive features correlate to the attitude towards the website. This result sho ws that despite the website having more interactive functions, if the message receiver perceives little interactivity, the website will still remain in low interactivity ,and thus may not produce a positive attitude towards the website. This current study will examine two popular social media sites, Facebook and YouTube, which provide video viewing and other interactive features online. The reason for choosing video as a health message channel is because studies show that video is the most preferred medium in the persuasion task (Schliemann, Asting, Flstad, & Heim, 2002) ; moreover, online video viewership is significantly high nowadays (Purcell, 2010) Comparing the effectiveness of message on Facebook and YouTube, which are in the Top 5 U.S. web brands (The Nielsen Company, 2011a) is even m ore significant for researchers to understand the influence driven by

PAGE 23

23 these prevalent media. Though Facebook and YouTube are both categorized as online social media, their characteristics still vary in their interactive features and sharing abilities. T hes e specific characteristics of thus, enhancing the interaction of online advertising and marketing (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Trusov, Bucklin, & Pauwels, 2009) YouTube pr ovides not only a video sharing stage but also obtains social extent (Cheng, Liu, & Dale, 2009; Paek, Kim, & Hove, 2010) Scholars identified several special characteristics of YouTube that are distinct from other media such as: categorizing ability, short video length, number o f views, user ratings, commenting, liking and so on (Cheng et al., 2009) Today, YouTube offers even more interactive features such as sharing videos via a quick link, disliking, adding to personal playlist or favorite playlist Similarly Facebook, another leading social media in the United States, also provides video vi ewing and sharing function. However, though links from other video sharing websites, and share the Facebook int personal page. Furthermore, Facebook also provides some similar functions to comment, like, and share video clips as YouTube does. However, the level of interactivity of Facebook and YouTube need s to be further identified in orde r to investigat e the different media effects on persuasion. Measurements of perceived interactivity have been used in many empirical studies; McMillan and Hwang (2002) developed a scale to mea Liu (2003) also develops an interactivity way communication,

PAGE 24

24 and s advertisement constructs six factors: user control, two way communication, synchronicity, connectedness, playfulness, and interpersonal communication (Gao, Rau, & Sa lvendy, 2010). The above measurements are limited in two aspects in this study. First, these measures focus on examining the entire website while this study only concentrates on the video page on Facebook and YouTube. Moreover, this study attempts to measur e how different functions (e.g. effective Second, due to technical limitations measured in this study. This study used artificial webpages to imitate Facebook and YouTube pages; hence viewers are watching the video on another server instead of the real Facebook and YouTube servers The processing time of these fake websites does not represent the sa me Hwang, 2002) and processing time (Liu, 2003) are discarded in this study. Therefore, three dimensions were adopted in this study: (1) Engaging and control, (2) Attent ion, and (3) Two way communication and interpersonal communication. Detailed items are discusse d in Chapter 3. Since Facebook and YouTube each have their own interactive features, how do these features a ffect the perceived interactivity of these two media? Understanding the perceived interactivity of both media can help health promoters to develop social media campaign. Because Facebook and YouTube are us ed for health promotion today (Paek et al., 2010; Park, 2011) utilizing social network ing sites to promote public health messages has been successful, as in the

PAGE 25

25 case of the promotion of condom use in Turkey (Purdy, 2011) and raising awareness of over crowded emergency rooms in Taiwan (Syed Abdul et al., 2011) However, the effectiveness of using online social media for health promotion is still at preliminary stage, and the comparison of Facebook and YouTube has received little attention to date. Though the perceived interactivity and persuasive effect s have proven to be positive ly related in advertising, the correlation between perceived interactivity and the effective ness of health messages need to be identified T he current study will investigate attitudes toward the humorous health related video, and attitudes toward health message s (attitude towards smoking) T hus, eight research question s are proposed. First, this study examine s whether Facebook and YouTube obtain different levels of perceived interactivity R1: Are there an y medium effects (Faceboo k v s. YouTube) on interactivity? Second, medium effects on viral marketing actions, the attitude toward humorous health promotion video, and attitude toward smoking are tested. R2: Are there any medium eff ects (Facebook v s. YouTube ) on towards the health promotion video? R3.1: Are there any medium effects (Facebook v perception towards smoking? R3.2: Are there any medium effects (Facebook v a ttitude towards smokers? R3.3: Are there any medium effects (Facebook v avoid smoking in the future?

PAGE 26

26 R4: Are there any medium effects (Facebook v towards viral marketing actions? In addition to medium effects, this study also explored how different levels of perceived interactivity impact upon the attitude towards humorous health promotion video, the attitude towards smoking, and viral marketing actions R5: Does perceived i ntera ctivity relate to attitude toward s humorous health related videos? R6 .1 : Do es perceived interactivity relate to risk perception towards smoking? smokers? future? R7: Do es perceived interactivity relate to ? Last, this study examine s the effect of humorous health promoti s attitude toward the health message towards the health message in social media environment (Facebook and YouTube)? Just a J oke? Humor Reduces the Arg ument S crutiny and C ounterargument abilities to counterargue and increase the persuasive effects by distracting audiences from the original underlying messages. In additio n to the positive effect humorous health messages might attribute to a successful persuasion practice, concerns of the negative effects of humorous messages still e xist, such as the distraction humor may cause by transferring the focus of the communication idea to the joke itself (Fugate, 1998) Scholars in the educ ation field have conducted studies to examine the positive and negative effects of humor in classrooms (Steele,

PAGE 27

27 1998; DeNune, 2005). According to Steele (1998) h umor can release the stress in the learning process but could also cause distraction s in class as well (Sullivan, 1992). DeNune ( 2005 ) indicates that applying humor in class could lead to unwanted distractions. He pointed out that once students tasted the joy o f humor, they started to request more j okes and class managemen t became difficult. would infl uence the audience perception of disorganized speech and the result was signifi cant Jones found that humor could interfere with the audience detect ion of disorganized messages His finding implies that humor does distract audience attention make s the audience neglect the original discourse and focus es on other attractive elements in the conversation. Moreover, other researchers have argue d that health message s distributed by applying humor appeals would possibly generate confusion as well. A qualitative study done by Campo, Akelson, Spies, and Losch (2010) used a humorous health pr omotion video with sarcasm and exaggerations as a stimuli and they found that though the majority of participants were able to recognize the main message in the health promotion video, some participants regarded the message a s contradictory and confusing to them. Scholars have also been studying how humor ous messages are processed cognitively. Young (2008) found that a significant argument scrutiny reduction occurs when humor is applied in the political context She indicates that humor can decrease the argument scrutiny thus reduc ing the ability of critically processing the original intended message cognitively. Nabi, Moyer Guse, & Byrne (2007) designed a study to examine the counterargument distraction and message discounting in the cont ext of political humor. Nab i and h er colleagues (2007) hypothesized

PAGE 28

28 information releva That is, individuals regard humorous information as just a joke so critical thoughts are n ot needed. Nabi s hypotheses were supported. The more the individual perceive the humor, the more message discounting occurs, and the l ess counterarguing processed by the individual. Could the backlash of using humor in health promotion happen i n th e social media context as well? On Facebook and YouTube, a video message includes interactions on the same web page. Especially for humorous messages, not only can the humor distract from the intended message, thus losing th e original persuasion purpose (Fugate, 1998), but also the related comments view, rating scores, numbers of liking, numbers of disliking assemble together as a whole message which might infl uence the message effect Moreover, in the aspect of viral market ing, the communication context also plays an (2003) research suggests that understanding the context of where the viral marketing takes place is important because inappropriate use of viral marketing can generate negative attitudes toward the product, or in this current study, the change of health attitudes or encouraging a healthier behavior They argue that the recipient will be affected by the sender s order to fit in the group (Subramani and Rajagopalan, 2003). While users are posting, reposting, and commenting on humorous videos on Facebook and YouTube, unintended messages may occur in the context of social networking sites. Users instead of the original message. For instance, if a hea lth message containing humor appeal is comments on the joke in the video instead of discussing the underlying health information

PAGE 29

29 Therefore, based on Nabi s (2007) a nd Young (2008) research findings humor could decrease the counterargu ing, argument scrutiny, and increase message discounting. I propose : H1 : Individuals who view humorous health messages presented in the humor related context will be assoc iated with less counterargument and less argument scrutiny than those who view the same message s in the health related context. H2 : Individuals who view the h umorous health messages presented in a humor related context are more likely to exhibit greater message disco unting tha n those who view the same messages in the health related context In this study, anti tobacco videos were used The reason for choosing tobacco as an important health issue i n the United States is because 20.6% of adults are smoking currently an d over 3,000 young adults aged 12 17 are lighting their first cigarette every day (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011) According to the global status report on noncommunicable diseas (World Health Organization, 2011) Therefore, controlling tobacco consumption is a major prevention to enhance public health nationally and internationally. Anti smoking advertising has l ong been used as a major approach to promote smoking cessation (Flay, 1987; Wakefield, Flay, Nichter, & Giovino, 2003) Studies show that at early adolescence ages, anti smoking advertising seems to produce more positive effects on inhibiting smoking (Flynn et al., 1997; Si egel & Biener, 2000; Vartiainen, Paavola, McAlister, & Puska, 1998; Wakefield et al., 2003) Hence, it is important to start smoking prevention as well as intervention at an early age. The Pew Research Center shows the demographic information in May 2011 that 95% of people aged 18 29 are using the Internet; thus, the Internet is a suitable

PAGE 30

30 medium to reach this group of young adults. In this current study, the anti tobacco campaign is applied to test message effectiveness to young adults on different medium

PAGE 31

31 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Overview A 2 x 2 factorial design is used in this study. The independent variables are two different media (YouTube and Facebook) and two different setting s of social media context (health related context and humor related contex t). This experiment includes four conditions: (1) a health related context on YouTube, (2) a humor related context on YouTube, (3) a health related context on Facebook, and (4) a humor related context on Facebook. A control group was also included This st udy examine d six dependent variables: (1) percei ved interactivity, (2) attitude toward s health promotion video s (3 ) attitude toward s the health message (4) counterarguing and argument scrutiny, (5) message discounting, and (6 ) potential of viral marking effects Details are further deployed in the lat t er part of this chapter. Stimuli In this study, the stimuli were three humorous online anti smoking video s posted on Facebook and YouTube. A pilot test was employed to select videos with the most moderate de gree of humor which had no significant relationship with gende r Participants were recruited from a graduate level class (n=22) including 5 males and 17 females, mean age 26.18. A set of items was asked to test the degree of humor (Lee and Ferguson, 2000). video I just saw is very funny, I found myself laughing when I watched the video, one of the things I liked about the video was how funny it was, I enjoyed the humor used in the video, the video is not all amusing, and I found m A fter the analysis, two videos were selected for showing the most moderate perceived humor and no gender differences. For perceived humor, video 1 showed a mean of 4.25 and video 2 showed a mean of 4.38 in a scale of 7. An independent samples t test was employed to

PAGE 32

32 examine the gender differences. Video1 showed a p value of .80 ( t [20] = .25) and video 2 show ed a p value of .24 ( t [20] = 1.2) n = 22 However, in order to reach a ce rtain amount o f stimulus to have an effect on The third video was also a humorous anti tobacco video circulated online with a similar sarcastic tone as the chosen videos. All of the videos were not produced in the United S tates (two in Europe, one in South Africa) and all of the videos were used in a real health campaign uploaded after 2000. These thr ee humorous anti smoking promotion video s were used during the experiment c onsistently The length of each video did not exc eed 1 minute The web page s of Facebook and YouTube were artificial ones. Websites were carefully designed to imitate the layout s of Facebook and YouTube. The same features on Facebook and YouTube were controlled to be the same (e.g. amount of like respons es comments). The accumulated viewing numbers sh ow ed the average number of the real online videos Participants were able to recognize their name on the artificial pages and view comments posted by other users; howe ver, these IDs and profile pictures were artificial so participants were not able to identify commenters Due to technical limitation, participants c ould not execute any functions on either site They c ould only report their intentions based on the functions they had viewed. As for context desig n, two type s of comments were employed in this study. One is health re lated comments and the other is humor related com ments. Health related context was the intended message which was designed to reflect a serious, issue relevant discourse. For instance: smoking makes my pores bigger, reducing the level of smoking can certainly reduce the level of cancer er hand, humor related context was the un intended message which was designed to depict a humorous, is sue irrelevant discourse.

PAGE 33

33 Sample and P rocedure This study recruited over 300 college students to participate. All participa nts voluntarily join ed this experiment. Students who participate d in this study obtain ed extra credit for their final grade as compensation. First, students who were willing to participate in this experiment provide d their email addresses, and these email addresses were randomly assigned to specific experiment conditions. Participants receive d an email with a link redirecting to the webpage of this experiment and a login ID and password in order to login to the designated social media. Different condition groups receive d different links. This study applied online software called Qualtrics to execute the experi ment. Participants received an email with a link to the Qualtrics software They were randomly assigned to 4 experiment conditions (see Table 3 1) and a control group Before the expe riment beg an participants sign ed the informed consent online. Afterwards, all participants viewed the same videos. They temporarily left the Qualtrics page and entered the simulated Facebook or YouTube pages. The simulated pages were pop out pages and did not interfere with participants going back to answer the questions. After being exposed to the humorous health promotion videos and the designated comments, participants were asked to answer a series of manipulation quest ions to ensure the intended experiment condition was received by them After answering the entire questionnaire, p articipants answer ed basic demographic questions and their tobacco use last Before they submitted the answers, they were asked to provide th eir UFID number in order to obtain extra credit s The data were used only for course grading purpose s identities remain ed anonymous.

PAGE 34

34 Dependent V ariables Perceived I nteractivity Several items were adopted and refined from previous perceived interactivity scales (McMillan & Hwang, 2002; Liu, 2003; Gao et al., 2010) and three factors were revealed after computing the principle axis factor analysis. The t hree dimensions are : (1) Engaging and control (2) A ttention, and (3 ) T wo way communicatio n and interpersonal communication Table3 4 shows factor loading. Engaging and c ontrol Cho & Leckenby (1999) argue d ssages and adve The original items adopted from McMillan & Hwang (2 002), Liu (2003), and Gao study (2010) are shown in Table 3 2 Several wordings regarding the entire website viewing experience have been modified to focus more on the interactiv e features (e.g. comment, share, like). Combination was also made to avoid repetitive items occurring Moreover, item s factor loading score s lower than 4 0 were excluded factor was created by calculating the average sc ore of the following items: (1) I feel this webpage and its features (e.g. comment, share, lik e) provide a variety of choices ; (2) This webpage and its features (e.g. commen t, share, like) are easy to use ; (3) While I was on the website, I could choose fr eely what I wanted to respond to ; (4) I can easily find my way through the webpage ; (5) While surfing this webpage, I had little control over what I can do on the site ; (6) I felt I had a lot of control over my view ing experiences on this webpage ; and (7) The website provides me the opportunity to respond in more than one way. This set of items revealed

PAGE 35

35 A ttention to the engaging dimension. However, in the current study, these two items were extracted from the engaging factor and formed a single factor. keeps attention doesn't keep my attention In order to clarify the statement and make it consistent with the previous items, questions were refined a s follows : (1 ) This webpage and its features (e.g. comment, share, like) keep my attention; (2 ) This webpage and its features (e.g. comment, share, like) do not keep my attention at all Because only two items were in this factor, Perarson correlation was used to calculate the correlation. The result revealed r = .54, n =24, p < .001. T wo way an d simulated i nterpersonal c ommunication Heeter (1989) argued that the interactivity level could be higher if the mediated communication well imitates interpersonal c ommunication. Liu (2003), Gao and his colleagues (2010) both cover a two way communication factor in their scales. The i nterpersonal factor was also covered in G ao s study. The original items are shown in Table 3 3 In this set of items, several modifications were m features (e.g. comment Second, items related to and other use After excluding the items scored lower than .40 in the factor analysis The the average score of the following items: (1) I think I was having an interpers onal communication with other users when recei ving feedbacks from the webpage ; (2) I can respond to these videos and get reply like I am communicat ing with a real person ; (3) I think I can have an interpersonal communication if I use these features (e.g. c ommen t, like, share) on this website ; (4 ) The features of this website (e.g. like, comment, and share) are effective in gathering my

PAGE 36

36 feedback ; ( 5 ) The features of this website (e.g. like, comment, and share) facilitate two way communication between me and other users ; and ( 6 ) The website makes me feel it w ants to listen to its visitors. =.83. Attitude towards the Health Promotion V ideo s Olney, Holbrook and Bartra (1991) develop ed a scale to measure the attitude towards the ads. They categorized attitudinal components into three aspects: hedonism utilitarian and interestingness. The following items were ado pted in this study: unpleasant/ pleasant not entertaining/ entertaining, en joyable/ not enjoyable ; important/ not i mportant, informative/ uninformative, help ful / not helpful, useful/ not useful; makes me curious/ does not make m e curious, not boring/ boring, interesting/ not interesting, keeps my attent ion/ does not keep my attention ( ) One item (fun to watch) was excluded from further analysis because of its low factor loading score (> .40). The final items were used to create a semantic differential seven point scale by adding the score of all the items and calculating an averag e score to represent the attitude towards the health promotion videos. Attitude s t oward S moking This study adopt ed Lee and Ferguson (200 2 ) instruments (2009) which were developed ntentions, and attitudes toward smoking Farrelly a nd his colleagues questions were especially used to evaluate the intention to smoke in the future. The adopted questions are: Risk perception s about smoking : igarette smoking is harmful to my health, moking in crease s the risk of lung cancer, moking makes people smell bad and moking increases the risk of hea rt diseases ( ) P ositive attitude towards smokers : (reverse coded) I like the kind of people who smoke, eople who smoke are fun to be around, ost of the

PAGE 37

37 smokers that I know are successful people, mokers makes people your age look cool or fit in, and mokers are relaxed, easy going people Intentions to avoid smoking (only for participants wh o are not current smokers): I can picture myself smoking at a future point in my life (reverse coded) efinitely will not or probably will not smoke a cigarette at any time during next year ( Lee & Ferguson, 2002, p.952 ; Farrelly et al., 2009 ), I woul d like to smoke a cigarette now (reverse coded), I will never smoke ( Questions used the five point Likert type scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Counterarguing and A rgument S crutiny Counterarguing is measured with five point Likert type items adapted from Nabi a nd her colleagues study (2007). Items are designed to examine whether the audience critically agree s or disagree s with the underlying health information in these videos. The following items are adopted: disagreeing with t The author in these statements refers to the one who posts these videos This set of items reveals In addition to examin ing how critical ly the audience could respond to health message s this study also assess es the argument quality. Items are designed to assess audience s o pinions and the degree of their comprehension of the underlying health messages in these videos. These heme of argument quality (2009) and reveal

PAGE 38

38 Message D iscounting The discounting cue will be assessed by four items designed by Nabi a nd her colleagues (2007). These items are designed to examine wh ether the audience regards a it The adopted items are This se Potential of Viral Marketing E ffect s Several questions were asked to evaluate the par the humorous health video With different experiment condition s (Facebook or YouTube), participants will receive different choices regarding the specific functions on the medium. Both condition group s receive d questions: with others, I would very much like to comment on this video, I would love to click the like button on this video, I am going to share this video right away via social networks, and by any means For those who view the video on YouTube, they will answer additional questions because YouTube has more functions: I would very much like to rate this video, I would very much like to add this video to one of my playlists, and These questions will be measure d by the five point Likert scale. This set of items reveals

PAGE 39

39 Table 3 1. Experiment conditions Humorous health promotion videos on Facebook Humorous health promotion videos on YouTube Health related comments Condition 1 Condition 3 Humor related comments Condition 2 Condit ion 4 Control group Condition5 Table 3 2. Engaging and control i tems from previous studies McMillan & Hwang (2002) Liu (2003) 1 Variety of content I felt that I had a lot control over my visiting experience at this website. I felt that I had a lot of control over my advertisement viewing experiences. 2 Easy to find my way through the site. While I was on the website, I could choose freely what I wanted to see. I can choose freely what I want to see. 3 Unmanageable. While surfing the website, I had absolutely no control over what I can do on the site. My actions decided the kind of experiences I get when viewing the advertisement. 4 Passive. While surfing the website, my actions decided the kind of experiences I got. The advertise ment gives me the opportunity to respond in more than one way 5 Immediate answers to questions. 6 Lacks content.

PAGE 40

4 0 Table 3 3. Two way and simulated interpersonal communication items from previous studies. Liu (2003) 1 The websit e is effective in gathering visitors' feedback. T he advertisement makes me feel the company wants to listen to its customers 2 This website facilitates two w ay communication between the visitors and the site. T he advertisement provides me an opportunity to give my feedback 3 It is difficult to offer feedback to the website The advertisement can create a conversation between the company and the customer. 4 The website makes me feel it wants to listen to its visitors. The advertisement information seems not interpersonal. 5 The website does not at all encourage visitors to talk back I feel like having an interpersonal communication when receiving the advertisement. 6 The website gives visitors the opportunity to talk back I can respond to the adverti sement and get a reply like I am communicating with a real person.

PAGE 41

41 Table 3 4. Factor Loading of Perceived Interactivity Items Factor Loading I felt I had a lot of control over my viewing experiences at this webpage .713 While I was on the website, I could choose freely what I wanted to respond. .686 I feel this webpage and its features (e.g. comment, share, like) provide a variety of choices. .677 This webpage and its features (e.g. comment, share, like) are easy to use. .648 The website pro vides me the opportunity to respond in more than one way. .578 While surfing this webpage, I had little control over what I can do on the site. (reversed coded) .490 I can easily find my way through the webpage .402 This webpage and its features (e.g. comment, share, like) keep my attention. .648 This webpage and its features (e.g. comment, share, like) do not keep my attention at all. (reversed coded) .421 The features of this website (e.g. like, comment, and share) are effective in gathe ring my feedback .696 I think I can have an interpersonal communication if I use these features (e.g. comment, like, share) on this website. .679 The features of this website (e.g. like, comment, and share) facilitate two way communication between me and other users. .674 I can respond to these videos and get reply like I am communicate with a real person. .623 The website makes me feel it wants to listen to its visitors. .566 I think I was having an interpersonal communication with other us ers when receiving feedbacks from the webpage. .491

PAGE 42

42 CHAPTER 4 RESULT S Analysis Summary Among all 318 responses collected from Qualtrics software, only 285 participants successful ly completed the questionnaire. SPSS 20.0 was employed for statistic al a nalysis. An independent samples t test was used to examine R1 ( medium effect on perceived interactivity ). The General Linear Model (GLM) was used to test R2 ( medium effect on attitude towards video), R3 .1 ( medium effect on risk perception towards smoking ) R3 .2 ( medium effect on positive attitude towards smokers), R3 .3 ( medium effect on intention to avoid smoking in the future), R4 ( medium effect on viral marketing actions), H1 ( context effect on argument scrutiny and counterarguing ), and H2 ( context effect on m essage discounting). Parson Correlation w as used to test the relationship between perceived interactivity and attitude towards the videos (R5), risk perception toward smoking (R6 .1 ), positive attitude towards smokers (R6.2), intention to avoid smokin g in the future (R6.3), and viral marketing actions (R7 ). The ANOVA test was conducted to examine the effectiveness of the humor appeal anti tobacco message in a social media environment (R8). Profile of Participants A total 285 samples were collected at the University of Florida in 2012 Participant s are comprised of 33% (n = 9 5 ) males and 6 7 % (n = 190 ) females age from 18 to 41 years old (M = 20.17 ). Among all the participants, 31. 2 % were freshman (n = 89) 30. 2 % were sophomore (n = 86) 2 1.1 % were juni or (n = 60) and 17.5% were senior or post baccalaureate (n = 50) In terms of their smoking habit, only 5.3% of the participants were current smokers (n = 12). Therefore, smokers were excluded from the examination of smoking attitude and beliefs.

PAGE 43

43 T he 285 participants were randomly assigned to four condition groups and one control group manually (Table 4 1). In terms of the group allocation, 53 of them were in the h ealth related context on Facebook site group 55 of them were in the humor related c ontext on Facebook site group 54 of them were in the health related co ntext on YouTube site group 55 of them were in the humor related context on YouTube site group 68 of them were in the control group. Manipulation Checks Three questions were designed to check the success o f the manipulation. In terms of the intended medium question W asked. A ll participants but two answer ed correctly abo ut what medium they just logged in As for the intended con text (health related context v s. humor related context ) that participants were assigned to, 47 participants did not answer correctly to the question In addition, 9 of the After careful ly examining the responses 2 samples were excluded from the data set due to many ide ntical answers in the questionnaire. Therefore, 60 sets of data were elimina ted and excluded from the following analysis leaving a total valid sample of 225 Among the valid sample, 3 5 participants were in the context of intended health related com ments on Facebook site group, 42 were in the context of unintended and humor relat ed comments on Facebook site group, 36 were in the context of intended health related co mments on YouTube site group, 44 were in the context of unintended humor related comments on YouTube site group, and 68 were in the control group (Table 4 2) In addit ion, to check whether humor was delivered successfully in the health promotion videos, a six item perceived humor scale developed by Lee and Ferguson (2000) was used in this

PAGE 44

44 study The results of the 7 point scale showed the participants perceived these vi deos as humorous M = 4.06, SD = 1.37. Reliability check revealed the = .92. Gender influence was checked as well. The result of the independent samples t test revealed t (154) = .97, p = .34. Therefore, these videos did not show significant gender differences. Moreover, to ensure a random distribution of gender, smokers, and age between the five condition groups a Chi square test was employed. The results showed a successf ul random assignment of gender, X 2 ( 4 N = 225) = 3.05, p = .55, smoker s, X 2 ( 4, N = 225) = 3.33 p = .50, and age, X 2 ( 48, N = 224) = 52.51, p = .30 Research Questions and Hypothesis Testing Effects of Medium Type on Perceived Interactivity, Attitude towards the Health Promotion Videos, Attitude towards the Health Message, and Viral Marketing Effects in Different Contexts interactivity? First, a n independent sample s t test was employed to examine the difference of perceived interactivity betwe en Facebook and YouTube. A significant difference was found, t (148) = 1.98, p < .05. P articipants who were in the Facebook condition revealed a higher level of perceived interactivity, M = 3.65 SD = .45, than participants who were in the YouTube condition M = 3.47 SD = .65. Second, the different perceived interactivity between Facebook and YouTube was examined by factors. Only the first factor engaging and control, revealed that Facebook participants perceived more interactivity ( M = 3.90, SD = .54) th an YouTube participants ( M = 3.66, SD = .64), t (152) = 2.48, p < .05. The a ttention factor and the two way and simulated interpersonal communication factor did not show any statistic significance difference between Facebook and YouTube

PAGE 45

45 R2: Are there any medium effects (Facebook v towards the health promotion video s ? The General Linear Model ( GLM ) test was performed to examine the mean difference between context and medium Neither interaction effect F ( 3, 1 47 ) = .004, p = .95, nor condition effect was found medium F ( 3, 1 47 ) = 2.07, p = .15; context F ( 3, 1 47 ) = .08, p = 78 (Table 4 3 ) R3 .1 : Are there any medium effects (Facebook v s. YouTube) on indivi risk perception toward s smoking? The GLM test revealed a smoking (Table 4 4) First of all, a significant risk perception difference was found between medium F (3 1 44 ) = 9.75 p < .005 As shown in Table 4 5 p articipants who were in the Facebook condition revealed more risk perception toward smoking ( M = 4.76, SD = .40 ) than those in the YouTube condition ( M = 4.50, SD = .64 ). Secondly, a context difference was found as well, F (3, 1 44 ) = 4.16, p < .05. The result showed participants who were exposed to a humor related context perceived more risk toward smoking ( M = 4. 71 SD = 47 ) than those who were in the health related context ( M = 4.53, SD = 62 ) (Table 4 6) No interaction was found, F (3, 144) = .75, p = .39. attitude towards smokers? The GLM test was employed to examine the main effect and interaction effect A medium effect was found F (3, 147 ) = 2.89 p < 05 (Table 4 7 ) The results showed participants who were in the Facebook condition revealed a more negative attitude toward smokers ( M = 1.92, SD

PAGE 46

46 = .66) than those who were in the YouTube condition ( M = 2.22 SD = 64 ) (Table 4 8) No intera ction effect was found F ( 3, 1 4 1 ) = 2.63 p = 11 R3. 3 : Are there any medium effects (Facebook v intention to avoid smoking in the future ? A GLM test results showed a near significant interaction effect F (3 143) = 3.42, p = 07 (Table 4 9 ) Among participants who were in the health related context, the one s who were in the Facebook condition expressed a higher intention to avoid smoking in the future M = 4.51, SD = .65 than participants in the YouTube condition M = 3.87, SD = .84. A post hoc comparison applying Turkey HSD indicated that the medium difference of intention to avoid smoking was significant only in the health related context ( p < .05) and not in the humor related conte xt (Figure 4 1) R4: Are there any medium ef fects (Facebook v actions? The GLM test was employed to examine the main effect and interaction effect regarding viral marketing actions. The result showed neither mai n effect medium F ( 3, 153) = 1.00 p = .32; context F (3, 153) = 1.44, p = .32 no r interaction effect F ( 3 153) = .05, p = .83 (Table 4 10) Relationship between Perceived Interac tivity and Attitude towards the Health Promotion Video, Attitude towards Health Message and V iral marketing E ffects T his set of questions were examine d by three dimensions of perceived interactivity, which was identified in the previous findings engaging and control attention, and two way and simulated interp ersonal communication. Pearson Correlation was used to test th e correlation between variables.

PAGE 47

47 related videos? Pearson correlation revealed that perceived interactivity factor, engaging and control, and ard s the health promotion videos was moderately correlated, r (139) = .34 p < .001 For the attention factor, a moderate co rrelation was revealed as well, r (141) = .40 p < .001 There was also a correlation between attitude towards the videos and two way and simulat ed interpersonal communication, r (138) = .36 p < .001 R6 .1 risk perception towards smoking ? The Pearson correlation showed that was positively cor related with perceived interactivity engaging and control r (145) = .45 p < .001 attention, r (147) = .20, p < .05 and two way and simulat ed interpersonal communication, r (144) = .22, p < .05 positive attitude toward s smokers? attitude toward s smokers and engaging and control r (142) = .27, p < .05 The attention factor and two way and simulated interpers onal communication did not correlate with attitude towards smokers ( p > .05). tention to avoid smoking in the future? There is a low correlation between perceived interactivity, engaging and cont rol, and o avoid smoking, r (144) = .17, p < .05 However, t he attention factor and two way and simulated interpersonal communication did not reveal correlations ( p > .05). al marketing actions?

PAGE 48

48 First, t here is no correlation between perceived interactivity, engaging and control, and viral marketing actions r (144) = .1 3 p = .12 Nevertheless, the attention factor was found to have a low correlati on with viral marketing ac tion, r (147) = .29, p < .001 as well as a moderate correlation with the two way and interpersonal communication factor r (144) = .33, p < .001 Effect s of Humor Appeal Health Messages and the M edium D ifferences R8 : What impact do humorous health promotion towards the health message in social media environment (Facebook and YouTube) ? Risk perception towards smoking The ANOVA test was employed to examine the difference between the control group and experiment groups. Firs t, a medium effect was found when comparing participants in the Facebook condition, the YouTube condition, and t hose who were in the control group, F (2, 210) = 4.69, p < .05 The post hoc comparison test applied Turkey HSD and indicated a near significant difference ( p = .08) between the Facebook group and the control group. As a result, participants who were in the Facebook condition revealed a higher risk perception towards smoking ( M = 4.77, SD = .40) than those who were in the control group ( M = 4.56, S D = .60). However, in terms of the difference between each experime nt group and the control group no significance was found ( p > .05). Positive attitude towards smokers First, a medium effect was found when comparing participants in the Facebook conditio n, the YouTube condition, and t hose who were in the control group, F ( 2 206) = 4.39, p < .05 The post hoc test revealed a near significant difference ( p = .08) between the Facebook group and the control group. That is, participants who were in the Faceboo k condition revealed a more negative attitude toward smokers ( M = 1.92, SD = .66) than those who were in the control group ( M = 2.16, SD = .60).

PAGE 49

49 Nevertheless in terms of the difference between each experiment group and the control group, no significance w as found ( p > .05). Intention to avoid smoking in the future The result of ANOVA test showed neither medium difference nor group difference between 5 groups regarding attention to avoid smoking in the future ( p > .05). Effect of Context D ifferences ( H ealt h related vs. H umor related ) on A rgument S crutiny C ounterarguing and Message Discounting H1 predicted that i ndividuals who view humorous health messages presented in the humor related context will be associated with less counterargument and less argument scrutiny than those who view the same messages in the health related context. The ANOVA test was employed to examine the main effect and interaction effect. There was no condition effect found among argument scrutiny, F ( 3, 142 ) = .68 p = .56 and conterar guing F (3, 144) = .89 p = .45 No context effect or interaction effect were found either. Therefore, hypothesis1 is not supported. H2 predicted that i ndividuals who view the humorous health messages presented in a humor related context are more likely t o exhibit greater message discounting than those who view the same messages in the health related context. The ANOVA test was used to examine the main effect and interaction effect. N o significance was found within condition s, F (3, 143 ) = .51 p = .68 and no significant interaction was presented, F (3, 1 43 ) = 1.08, p = .23 Furthermore, no context effect was found either. Therefore, h ypothesis 2 was not supported.

PAGE 50

50 Table 4 1 Random assignment of participants in five conditions Humorous health promotion videos on Facebook Humorous health promotion videos on YouTube Total Health related comments N=53 N=54 N=107 Humor related comments N=55 N=55 N=110 Subtotal N=108 N=109 Control group N=68 Total N=285 Table 4 2 Valid samples in five conditions Humorous health promotion video on Facebook Humorous health promotion video on YouTube Total Health related comments N= 35 N=36 N= 71 Humor related comments N= 42 N= 44 N= 86 Subtotal N=7 7 N= 80 Co ntrol group N= 68 Total N=2 25 Table 4 3 Effects of context & medium on attitude towards the videos. Source of variation Sum of squares df F Sig. (two tailed) Context .10 1 .08 .78 Medium 2.55 1 2.07 .15 Context*Medium .005 1 .004 .95 Table 4 4 Effects of context & medium on risk perception towards smoking. Source of variation Sum of squares df F Sig. (two tailed) Context 1.18 1 4.16 .04 Medium 2.75 1 9.75 .002 Context*Medium .005 1 .0 04 .39 Table 4 5 Risk perception towards smoking by medium M SD N Facebook 4.77 .40 71 YouTube 4.50 .64 77 Table 4 6 Risk perception towards smoking by context. M SD N Health related 4. 53 .62 68 Humor related 4.71 .47 80

PAGE 51

51 Table 4 7 Effects of context & medium on positive attitude towards smokers. Source of variation Sum of squares df F Sig. (two tailed) Context .02 1 .04 .85 Medium 3.5 1 8.35 004 Contex t*Medium 1.1 1 2.63 .11 Table 4 8 Positive towards smokers by medium. M SD N Facebook 1.92 .66 70 YouTube 2.23 .64 75 Table 4 9 Effects of context & medium on intention to avoid smoking in the future. Source of variation Sum of squares df F Sig. (two tailed) Context 7.81 1 .000 .99 Medium 5.87 1 9.60 .002 Context*Medium 2.09 1 3.42 .07 Table 4 10 Effects of context & medium on viral marketing actions. Sour ce of variation Sum of squares df F Sig. (two tailed) Context 1.27 1 1.44 .23 Medium .88 1 .88 .32 Context*Medium .04 1 .05 .83

PAGE 52

52 Figure 4 1 Interaction plots between 4 conditions and intention to avoid smoking in the future Health related context Humor related context Estimated Marginal Means of Intentions to Avoid Smoking

PAGE 53

53 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCL USION This study explores whether the context (i.e. health related vs. humor related) and medium (i.e. Facebook vs. YouTube) a ffect : (1) the persuasion of anti tobacco messages (2) attitude towar ds the videos, and (3) potential viral marketing effect In terms of medium effects, this study investigates further examines whether perceived interactivity is related to attitude towards the health messa ge, attitude towards videos, and viral marketing actions. The effect of medium difference was stated by McLuhan in 1964 ; however, in the present Internet era, the effects of different media have received little attention Previous research found different viral marketing effect s among twitter and blog users (Schultz et al., 2011) ; however, the finding lacks theoretical implications. This study suggests that different level s of perceived interactivity might be the main reason that produces different attitude s among the social media. In addition, t his research proposes that the health message on social media is not only the intended message, but is also assembled with the comments beneath the original message. Therefore, depending on the nature of co mments, the health message could lose its original intention to p ersuade and be regarded as an issue irrelevant joke Hence, a nother focus of this study is to understand how the characteristic of context influences the persuasion quality. Three elements, m essage discounting, argument scrutin y, and counterarguing, are assessed to test the persuasion quality. Scholars found that when the me ssage applies to political humor, more message discounting and less counterarguing and argument scrutiny occurs than in s erious messages ( Nabi et al., 2007 ; Young, 2008 ). This study compares the persua sion quality between the health rela ted (serious) context and the humor related context, and examines the differences of message discounting, argument scrutiny, and counterarg uing between the two contexts.

PAGE 54

54 A 2x2 factorial design with a control group was used where participants were ex posed to two media, Facebook and YouTube, with different nature of context, health related (serious) or humor related. This study employed artific ial websites with login pages in order to simulate the social media environment with user ID s appearing on the websi tes. 2 25 valid data items were used in the analysis. The results f ind some medium differences between Facebook and YouT ube. First, F s over all perceived interactivity i s significantly higher than YouT ube especially in the engaging and control dimension. In addition, the level of attention and two way and simulated interpersonal communication do not differ much between Facebook and Y ouTube. That is, participants who were in the Facebook condition report ed that they ha d more opportunities to respond to the video freely and easily than those who were in the YouTube condition. Interestingly, al though YouTube provides more interactive fun ctions than Facebook (such as adding playlist, and rating, disliking functions), participants in the Facebook condition still perceived themselves as being more engaged and having more control over the webpage than those in the YouTube condition. Overall, easier to use Second medium difference is found to affect attitude s toward the health message. Findings show that Facebook is a more effective medium to disseminate heal th message s than YouTube For risk perception towards smoking, t he finding indicate s that Facebook generate s more risk perception in participants than health messages presented on YouTube. For attitude toward smokers participants in the Facebook condition revealed a more negative attitude toward smokers than those in the YouTube condition. In terms of the intention to avoid smoking in the future, only when the health message is presented in a health related context participants who

PAGE 55

55 were in the Facebook condition revealed greater intention to avoid smoking than participants who viewed the heal th promotion videos on YouTube. the medium differences o related con The approach of social norm marketing is used in correcting false behaviors by promoting accurate norms to the target audience (Perkins, 2003) Perkins, Linkenbach, Lewis, and Neighbors (2010) conducted an experiment to reduce drunk driving and to i ncrease the practice of designated drivers among young adults, age 21 to 34. The result showed subjects exposed to the norm with correct drinking behavior did decrease driving after drinking behavior and increase the use of a designated driver as compared to the control g roup. Another research involving more than 7 000 college students also proved the social norm marketing approach (i.e. face to face and internet conversation) can effectively decrease the drinking amount in young adults (Moreira, Smith, an d Foxcroft 2009 ). According to the where users are having a uld have impacts on individual s attitude s and beliefs. Turning now to the current study, the health related context could be considered as the accurate norm which presents the correct attitude toward smoking. Thus, when the tobacco intervention message is presente d in a peer environment (Facebook) with the accurate norm (health related context), it is more effective in changing attitude than in disseminating tobacco intervention in a non peer environment (such as YouTube) and in the control group. Third, the medium difference is also found when compar ed to the control group. In terms of the effectiveness of humor appeal health messages on social media, the result shows that Facebook is a more influential social media than YouTube. The finding indicates that

PAGE 56

56 particip ants w ho were exposed to Facebook revealed a higher risk perception toward smoking and a more negative attitude toward smokers than those who did not receive any health messages In addition, th e finding comparing control group also shed light on applying humorous health message s online s ince many studies found the fear appeal is generally more effective than the humor appeal for a long time ( Mongeau 1998 ) In general, most of the Public Service Announcements rely on fear appeal ( Freimuth, Hammond Edgar, & Monahan ; Beaudoin 2002 ) to generate a greater effect on individuals However, previous research showed humor could be an alternative message appeal targeting young adults (Lee & Ferguson, 2002). It is true that in sm oking ads on television, he found that humor appeal is widely used to target the youth audience (2002). T he current study follows the notion of applying humor to target a younger generation and the results suggest s to health practitioners that Facebook wit h the humor appeal is more likely to produce a greater effect of health intervention. For the justification that perceived interactivity was the cue to generate medium differences in terms of attitudes difference correlations are found These findings are in line with previous research that the perceived interactivity has positive correlation to an attitude towards the website (McMillan, 2000) For the attitude towards videos, three factors of perceived interactivity are all positive ly correla ted. In addition, this study expands the realm of perceived interactivity to a behavior level viral marketing actions. The result indicates that the attention factor and two way and simulated interpersonal communication factor are positive ly correlated wit h viral marketing actions It might be inferred whether individual s rega rd the direction of communication to influence their intentions to forward the message to others.

PAGE 57

57 In terms of the relationship between attitude towards health message and three dimens ions consistently. One possible explanation to this finding is might be associate d with the perceived behavior control in th e planned behavioral theory (Ajzen, 1991 ) According to Ajzen, perceived behavior control is whether an individual consider s certain behavior s easy or difficult to prosecute (Ajzen, 1988) The perceived behavior control is also one of the main elements t ha t influence individual s behavior intention s The e seems to reveal a similar characteristic with perceived behavior control. That is, when p articipants reported having more c ontrol over the webpag e and felt the feature s on the webpage easier to use, they were more likely to feel that performing a certain behavior was easier than on a website which is less engag ed and less controllable This same notion might apply to self efficacy as well. Bandura proposed that self efficacy is the most important factor in changing an (1977) The more a person feels that one is capable of performing certain behavior, the more likely behavioral change happens In this study, it is likely that t he more indivi duals feel they are engaged and have control over the website, the more perceived behav ioral control and self efficacy they have t herefore, enhancing the intention of avoid ing smoking and smokers (i.e. perceived more risk perception towards smoking, more negative attitude towards smokers, intention to avoid smoking in the future) However, this speculation needs further research However, perceived interactivity was not manipulated in the experiment. Only the Pearson Correlation test was used to examine the correlation between variables in this study. Direct causation of perceived interactivity and attitude towards video, attitude towards health message, and viral marketing effect need further research to identify.

PAGE 58

58 In the case of differ en t con text characteristic s the results are not consiste nt with previous studies. First of all, in terms of risk perception about smoking, videos presented in a humor related context are more effective than those presented in a health related context. This findi ng is oddly distinct from previous research that show s serious health consequences are more effective than normative behavior and humorous message s (Biener, Ji, Gilpin, & Albers, 2004 ). Secondly, findings are not consist ent with Nabi (2007) findings either No significant differences of message discounting, argument scrutiny and the ability to counterargue were found within health related (serious) context and humor related context. Possible explanation s to the above findings could b e: first, although participants did review the comment underneath the video they were not affected by the context. The assumption that context would influ ence how the individual processes the main message is not supported. Whether the original video is po werful enough to dominate the context characteristic or the audiences view the comments as a decorator and neglect it in the context need further research to conclude Secondly, previous studies found significant message discounting, argument scrutiny, and counterarguing differences between humor message and non humor message (Nabi et al., 2007 Polk et al., 2009) c ount s the original message, and decrease s an argument scrutiny and the ability to counterargu e Ho wever, this current study combines the humor ous video with non humor comments (text) together to No comparison was made between this study. Therefore, no different counterargumentation, argument scrutiny, and message discounting were presented.

PAGE 59

59 Third, the sample of this study is basically composed of non smokers. Non smokers already ch o ose a life style of staying away from smoking and smokers; therefore, they are assumed to agree with the message in anti tobacco videos. T here is no reason for nonsmokers to counterargue with anti smoking message hence the level of counterarguing exhibited no major difference between contexts and bet ween conditions At this point, the results only indicate that the different characteristic s (humor v s. health) of comments do not influence audiences ing in terms of message discount ing, argument scrutiny and counterargumentation Limitat ion and Future Research This study has several limitations First, a relatively small sample size of participants were smokers. Thus, the finding of this study could only reflect the attitude and beliefs of non smokers. Future research should include more understanding of tobacco intervention strategies Second, in the manipulation check, many participants were excluded from the data due to mi sinterpret ing the context presented in the designated condition. For t h e health related context, 36 participants failed to perceive the designated context; for humor related context, 24 of them did not perceive the humor in the comments. This could be a potential p roblem indicating that the intended context (i.e. health rela ted and humor related) was not easily comprehend ed by everyone. Future studies should be cautious of designing contexts in order to gather the most efficient data. Third, t he interactive features on the artificial websites cannot function as they do in rea l life setting s Participants can only view the features instead of clicking and commenting on them That is, the perceived interactivity analyzed in this study is reported by participants rather than calculating the actual responses on the web sites. Future studies if capable, should

PAGE 60

60 apply computer program s to make the interactive function s active and count the real click to measure viral marketing effects. Last, this study measured only short term attitude change s after viewing videos on socia l media. Moreover, the attitudes are self reported which may have not transformed into real behavioral change s Therefore, future research should use a longitudinal method to observe the participants for a longer time to see whether behavioral changes occ ur. In addition, gather ing p sychophysiology data could rule out the under or over report of the attitude. For future study, more research should focus on identifying whether perceived interactivity is the cue to trigger medium difference. In addition, re search should examin e medium difference with three factors : engaging and control, attention, two way and simulated interpersonal communication. More evidence should be collected to see if engaging and control is a consistent variable influencing individual health attitude. Direct causation of whether perceived interactivity act s as an important cue to generate medium difference need s to be identified. In addition, other types of health messages (e.g. moderate drinking, seat belt safety ) should be applied in the social media environment to examine its effectiveness to the general public. Conclusion This study sheds lights upon the medium differences among social media indicating that although Facebook and YouTu be are both highly interactive I nternet media participant s still perceive interactivity differently. Moreover, the perceived interacti vity is reported regardless of the actual interactivity function. This finding not only suggests that Facebook is a more interactive medium than YouTube but also point s out that increasing the interactive feature on the website is not guaranteed with the website. Furthermore, several findings in this study are helpful for health agencies who design online health camp aign s First, the humor appeal of anti tobacco message s is effective on

PAGE 61

61 Facebook in general S howing humorous heal th promotion videos on Facebook to influence risk perception toward s smoking and attitude toward s smokers were both successful co mpared to the control group. Second agencies should avoid using YouTube as the only medium to spread the message. The findings suggest that YouTube cannot inflict such a powerful influence on attitude s as Facebook can Third the intended message should p referably be presented in the health related context. Th e finding indicates that in a health related context, Facebook is a more effective channel to persuade individuals to stay away from smokers and prevent individual s from smok ing in the future than You Tube. In addition, the perceived interactivity factor engaging and control is correlate d with health attitude s (i.e. risk perception towards smoking, positive attitude towards smokers, and intention to avoid smoking ) Interestingly, in terms of viral ma rketing actions, the attention factor and two way and simulated interpersonal communication factor are positively correlated. This finding implies th at perceived interactivity factors should be treated separately to examine the relationship with attitudes. T his study also suggests to health practitioners that enhancing a specific perceived interactivity factor will generate a desir ed attitude change. Last, the concern of the distraction caused by the humorous context to the original message is relieved. Tho ugh social media is an open space for every user to create free discourse, message s are not discounted regardless of the comment quality and the ability to counterargue are not affected either In conclusion, social med ia is a decent channel to disseminate health promotion messages to the public in a time ly and cost efficient way However the selection of the medium in the correct context is a crucial contributor to a successful health campaign.

PAGE 62

62 APPENDIX A LAYOUT OF T HE ARTIFICI AL WEBPAGES Figure A 1 The layout of Facebook log in page. http://www.babylimited.tw/tobaccofreetoge/index_fb.php

PAGE 63

63 Figure A 2 The layout of the video summary page on Facebook

PAGE 64

64 Figure A 3 The l ayout of health related context with video 1 on Facebook.

PAGE 65

65 Figure A 4 The l ayout of health related context with video 2 on Facebook.

PAGE 66

66 Figure A 5 The l ayout of health related context with video 3 on Facebook.

PAGE 67

67 Figure A 6 The l ayout of humor related context with video 1 on Facebook.

PAGE 68

68 Fig ure A 7 The l ayout of humor related context with video 2 on Facebook.

PAGE 69

69 Figure A 8 The l ayout of humor related context with video 3 on Facebook.

PAGE 70

70 Figure A 9 T he l ayout of YouTube log in page. http://www.babylimited.tw/tobaccofreetoge/index_youtube.php

PAGE 71

71 Figure A 10 The layout of the video summary page on You Tube.

PAGE 72

72 Figure A 11 The l ayout of health related context with video 1 on YouTube

PAGE 73

73 Figure A 12 The l ayout of health related context with video 2 on YouTube

PAGE 74

74 Figure A 13 The l ayout of health related context with video 3 on YouTube

PAGE 75

75 Figure A 14 The l ayout of humor related context with video 1 on YouTube

PAGE 76

76 Figure A 15 The l ayout of hum or related context with video 2 on YouTube.

PAGE 77

77 Figure A 16 The l ayout of humor related context with video 3 on YouTube.

PAGE 78

78 APPENDIX B INSTRUCTION TO PARTI CIPANTS T hank you for participating in this study! T his research is trying to understand what do individuals respond to the videos and the website. Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will view 3 online videos and then yo u will be asked to answer a series of questions based on these videos and the website. Please view the webpage carefully, including 3 videos, all comments, and all the features on the webpage. You can only check one choice which describe your feelings or t houghts best. Time required: Each video will not exceed 1 minute. Depends on the pace you answer the questions usually it takes 5 15 minutes to finish the questionnaire Risks and Benefits: There are no risks or benefits to you for participating in this s tudy. Compensation: You will receive extra credits for participating in this research. If you choose not to participate, alternative options for earning extra credits will be provided by your professor. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this s tudy is completely voluntary. T here is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from this study at anytime without consequence Confidentiality:

PAGE 79

79 Your answer and personal information (e.g. UFID) will only be used in research purpose and will remain strictly confidential. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: If you have any question, please email to fanninchen@ufl.edu or contact (352) 328 4200. W hom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 office, box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL32611 2250; phone 392 0433. This study is approved by the University of Florida, Institutional Review Board 02, Protoca l #2012 U 0373 for use through 03/26/2013. 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. (1) I agree to participate in this study. >> Proceed (2) ree to participate in this study. >> Quit I MPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS 1. Turn on your speaker or put on your headphone now. You are about the visit another website. 2. After clicking the link, please LOG IN with the ID/password in the invitation I emailed your earli er. Y ou MUST log in to proceed 3. Please view the webpage carefully including ALL 3 videos ALL comments and ALL features BEFORE you proceed to answer the following questions.

PAGE 80

80 4. Attention! Action unrelated to viewing these videos might lead you to another pag e or occur a connection error. Don t panic! Just go back to the previous page and you will be fine. You are ready to go now! Please come back to the questionnaire after you experience the website. Click here (hyper link to the stimulus) It will automatica lly open a new tab (or window). If not, please copy the url and paste it to another tab (or window). You will temporarily leave the survey but you can always come back to that webpage any time if you want to view it again. I f you have any problem logging in or viewing the page, please contact Fannin Chen ( fanninchen@ufl.edu ). ID/password will be resend to you. _____ I ve viewed ALL 3 videos, ALL the comments, and ALL the features on the webpage.

PAGE 81

81 APPENDIX C Q UEST IONNAIRE FOR EXPERIM ENT GROUPS WHAT ARE YOUR REACTIONS TO THESE VIDEOS? Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements. 1. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 2. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 3. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 4. I am going to share one/all of these vi deos right away via social networks. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 5. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree WHAT ARE YOUR REACTIONS TO THESE VIDEOS? Please indicate yo ur level of agreement with the following statements. 1. I think these videos I just saw are very funny. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Strongly Agree 2. I enjoyed the humor used in these videos. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Stron gly Agree 3. These videos are NOT amusing. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Strongly Agree 4. One of the things I liked about these videos was how funny they were. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Strongly Agree

PAGE 82

82 5. I found myself laughing when I watched these videos. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Strongly Agree 6. I found myself feeling very good after I watched these videos. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Strongly Agree WHAT ARE YOUR REACTIONS TO THESE VIDEOS? Please evaluate how you feel about the videos you just watched by selecting one number on each of the scales below. You can select number (4) if you would like to indicate your neutrality. 1. Unpleasant (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Pleasant 2. Fun to watch (1) ( 2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not fun to watch 3. Not entertaining (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Entertaining 4. Unenjoyable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Enjoyable 5. Unimportant (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Important 6. Uninformative (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Informative 7. Unh elpful (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Helpful 8. Not useful (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Useful 9. 10. Boring (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not boring 11. Not interesting (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Interest ing 12. WHAT ARE YOUR REACTIONS TO THESE VIDEOS? Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements. s these videos.

PAGE 83

83 1. These videos were telling people that they should not smoke. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 2. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 3. They are just funny videos to me. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 4. I have no opinion. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 5. It would be easy to dismiss these messages as simply a joke. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Ag ree 6. The author was serious about advancing his views in these messages. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 7. The messages were intended more to entertain than to persuade. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 8. and what these videos are talking about. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 9. I clearly understand the sarcasm used in these videos. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 10. The author of these messages was just joking. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 11. It was easy to agree the arguments made in the message. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 12. These videos use a ironic tone to present the negative effects of tobacco.

PAGE 84

84 Strongly Disagree (1) (2) ( 3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 13. I understand some negative effects of smoking. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 14. I found myself actively disagreeing with the author. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 15. I was looking for the fl aws in the author s argument. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree WHAT ARE YOUR REACTIONS TO THESE VIDEOS? Please answer the following questions based on your viewing experience and functions displayed on the website you just visited, and indicate your level of agreement with the following statement. 1. While I was on the website, I could choose freely what I wanted to respond. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 2. The features of this website (e.g. comment, share, like) facil itate two way communication between me and other users. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 3. I think this webpage and its interactive features (e.g. comment, share, like) provide a variety of choices. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) S trongly Agree 4. The website provides me the opp ortunity to respond in more than one way. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 5. It is difficult to offer feedback to the video. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree

PAGE 85

85 6. I think my reac tions (e.g. comment, share, like) might have influenced my overall viewing experience. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 7. The features of the website (e.g. comment, share, like) are effective in gathering my feedback. Strongly Disagree (1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 8. I think I was having an interpersonal communication with other users when receiving feedback from the webpage. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 9. This webpage and its interactive features (e.g. comment, sh are, like) do NOT keep my attention at all. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 10. I think I can have an interpersonal communication if I use these interactive features (e.g. comment, share, like) on this website. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3 ) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 11. I can easily find my way through the webpage. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 12. I think the interactive features (e.g. comment, share, like) on this website is NOT interpersonal. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 13. I felt I had a lot control over my viewing experiences at this webpage. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 14. This webpage and its interactive features (e.g. comment, share, like) keep my attention.

PAGE 86

86 Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 15. This webpage and its interactive features (e.g. comment, share, like) lack variety. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 16. This website makes me feel it wants to listen to its visitors. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 17. This webpage and its features (e.g. comment, share, like) are easy to use. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 18. I can respond to these videos and get replies like I am communicate with a real person. Strongly Dis agree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 19. While surfing this webpage, I had little control over what I can do on this site. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree Are you a current smoker? ___ Yes ___ No WHAT YOU THINK ? Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements. 1. Not smoking is a way to express independence. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 2. Smoking or secondhand smoke will have many health effects on me in the future. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 3. Smoking makes people smell bed. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 4. At least one of my friends considers smoking to be very offensive.

PAGE 87

87 Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 5. Most of the smokers that I know are successful people. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 6. People who smoke are fun to be around. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 7. Smoking makes people your age look cool or fit in. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 8. Smoking increases the risk of lung cancer. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 9. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 10. Smokers are relaxed, easy going people. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 11. Smoking increases the risk of heart diseases. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 12. I like the kind of people. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 13. Cigarette smoking is harmful to my health. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 14. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 15. I can stop smoking any time I want.

PAGE 88

88 Strongly Disag ree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 16. I smoke too much. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 17. I would like to smoke a cigarette now. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 18. All things considered, I would very much like to give up smoking. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 19. People I care about are upset I smoke. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 20. I am planning to quit smoking very soon. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 21. I wan t to involve in efforts to get rid of smoking. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree < Non s 14. I will never smoke. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 15. I would like to smoke a cigarette now. Strongly Disagree ( 1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 16. I can picture myself smoking at a future point in my life. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree 17. Definitely will not or probably will not smoke a cigarette at any time during the next year. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree

PAGE 89

89 18. I do not want to hang out with anyone smokes. Strongly Disagree (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly Agree MORE ABOUT YOU We should like to know more about the smoking behaviors of you and your family. Some questions mentions y our father or mother, if you did not live with that particular parents, them please give the answer for the in your home when you were growing up. We are interested in the adults influence in our home while you were growing up. 1. If yo u smoke, how many cigarettes would you say you smoke on the average each day? (1) Less than 10 (a half pack). (2) 11 20 (up to a pack). (3) 21 40 (up to 2 packs). (4) Over 40 (more than 2 packs). (5) (6) 2. Did you smoke regularly before you came to college ? (1) Yes (2) No 3. How long have/had you been smoking? (1) Less than a year (2) 1 year to 2 years (3) 2 years to 5 years (4) More than 5 years 4. Does your father (or primary make in your home when you grew up) currently smoke? (1) Yes (2) No

PAGE 90

90 5. Did your father smoke when you were a chil d? (1) Yes (2) No 6. Does your mother currently smoke? (1) Yes (2) No 7. Did your mother smoke cigarettes when you were a child? (1) Yes (2)No 8. Do any of your brothers or sisters, if any, currently smoke? (1) Yes (2) No 9. Does anyone living in the dorm room, apartment, or hou se you live in currently smoke? (1) Yes (2) No 10. How many of your close friends currently smoke (choose 9 if more than 9)? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 11. Gender (1) Male (2) Female 12. Age ______ 13. What is your current class standing? (1) Freshman (2) Sophomore (3) Juni or (4) Senior or Post baccalaureate (5) Graduate students or Doctoral students 14. Who is your instructor?

PAGE 91

91 (1) James D. Leary (2) Jennifer J. Braddock (3) Edmund A. Kellerman (4) Jessica A, Mahone (5) Dennis Dipasquale (6) Moon J. Lee (7) Johanna Cleary (8) None of above 15. Please provide your UFID if you join this experiment for extra credits (e.g. 1234 5678, no space). _____________________________

PAGE 92

92 LIST OF REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behaviour. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes 50 179 211. Bandura A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2) 191 215. DOI : 10.1037/0033 295X.84.2.191 Beard, F. K. (2005). One Hundred Years of Humor in American Advertising. Journal of Macromarketing, 25 (1), 54 65. B iener L., Ji M., G ilpin E. A., & A lbers, A. B. (2004). The Impact of Emotional Tone, Message, and Broad cast Parameters in Youth Anti smoking Advertisements Journal of Health Communication, 9(3) 259 274. Campo, S., Askelson, N. M., Spies, E. L., & Losch, M. (2010). American Journal of Sexuality Education, 5 201 216. Cassell, M. M., Jackson, C., & Cheuvron t, B. (1998). Health Communication on the Internet: An Effective Channel for Health Behavior Change? Journal of Health Communication, 3 (1), 71 79. Catford, J. (2011). The new social learning: connect better for better health. Health Promotion International 26 (2), 133 135. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011, March 21). Smoking & Tobacco Use fact sheet. Centers for Disease Control and Preventio n Retrieved Nov 14, 2011, from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm Cheng, X., Liu, J., & Dale, C. (2009). Understanding the Characteristics of Internet Short Video Sharing: A YouTube based Measurement Study. IEEE T ransaction s on multimedia Cho, C, & Leckenby, J. D. (1999). Interactivity as a Measure of Advertising Effectiveness. In M. S. Roberts (Ed.), Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 162 179). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, DeNune, S. G. (200 5). A look at the importance of humor in the classroom. Unpublished Dobele, A., Beverland, M., van Wijk, R., & Lindgreen, A. (2006). Forwarding viral messages: what part does emotion play? Journal Retrie ved from http://smib.vuw.ac.nz:8081/WWW/ANZMAC2006/documents/Dobele_Angela.pdf Dobele, A., Lindgreen, A., Beverland, M., Vanhamme, J., & van Wijk, R. (2007). Why pass on vi ral messages? Because they connect emotionally. Business Horizons, 50 (4), 291 304.

PAGE 93

93 Dobele, A., Toleman, D., & Beverland, M. (2005). Controlled infection! Spreading the brand message through viral marketing. Business Horizons, 48 (2), 143 149. Dolan, P. L. ( 2011, Mar 28). Patients social media use raises practical issues for doctors. American Medical Mews Retrieved Oct 18, 2011, from http://www.ama assn.org/amednews/2011/03/28/bil20328.ht m Eisend, M. (2009). A meta analysis of humor in advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37 (2), 191 203. Eysenbach, G. (2008). Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. J Med Internet Res, 10 (3), e22. tobacco attitudes and smoking intentions after 3 years of a national antismoking campaign. Health Education Research, 24 (1), 42 48. Flay, B. R. (1987). Mass media and smoking cessation: A critical review. American Journal of Public Health, 77 153 160. Flynn, B. S., Worden, J. K., Secker Walker, R. H., Pirie, P. L., Badger, G. J., & Carpenter, J. H. (1997). Long Term Responses of Higher and Lower Risk Youths to Smoking Prevention Interventions. Preventive Medicine, 26 (3), 389 394. Fortin D. R. & Dholakia R. R. Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web based advertisement, Journal of Business Research 58 ( 3 ) 387 396 Fox, S. (2011a, Feb 1). 80% of internet users look for health information online. Pew Research Center's Internet & american Life Project Retrieved Nov 11, 2011, from http:// pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/HealthTopics.aspx Fox, S. (2011b, Mar 12). The Social Life of Health Information, 2011. Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Retrieved Nov 14, 2011, from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Social Life of Health Info.aspx Fugate, D. L. (1998). The advertising of services: what is an appropriate role for humor? Journal of Services Marketing, 12 (6), 453 472. Gao, Q., Rau, P. P., & Salvendy, G. (2010). Measuring perceived interactivity of mobile advertisements, Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(1), 35 44. Hawn, C. (2009). Take two aspirin and tweet me in the morning: How twitter, Facebook, and other social media are reshaping health c are. H ealth Affairs 28 (2), 361 368. Haynes, D. (2009). Online health sites tap into social networking. Washingtonpost.com

PAGE 94

94 Heeter, C. (1989). Implications of new interactive technologies for conceptualizing communication. In J.L. Salvaggio and J. Bryant (Eds.), Media use in the information age: Emerging patterns of adoption and computer use (pp. 221 225). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jensen, J. F. (1998). Interactivity: Tracing a new concept in media and communication studies. Nord icom Review 19, 185 204. Jones, J. A. (2005). The masking effects of humor on audience perception of message organization. Humor, 18 (4), 405 417. Kamel Boulos, M. N., & Wheeler, S. (2007). The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociabl e technologies in health and health care education1. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 24 (1), 2 23. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53 (1), 59 68. Le e, M. J., & Ferguson, M. A. (2002). E ffects of anti tobacco advertisements based on risk taking tendencies: realistic fear vs. vulgar humor Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79 (4), 945 963. Lee, M. J., & Shin, M. (2011). Fear Versus Humor: The Im pact of Sensation Seeking on Physiological, Cognitive, and Emotional Responses to Antialcohol Abuse Messages. The Journal of Psychology, 145 (2), 73 92. Lefcourt, H. M., & Martin, R. A. (1986). Humor and Life Stress: Antidote to Adversity New York, NY: Spr inger Verlag. Leskovec, J., Adamic, L. A., Huberman, B. A. (2007). The dynamics of viral marketing. ACM Trans. Web, 1 (1), 5. Leventhal, H., & Cameron, L. (1994). P ersuasion and health attitude In S. Shavitt & T. C. Brock (Ed s .), PERSUASION: Psychological Insights and Perspectives Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Levinson, W., Roter, D. L., Mullooly, J. P., Dull, V. T., & Frankel, R. M. (1997). Physician Patient Communication. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 277 (7), 553 559. Lewis, I. M., Watson, B., White, K. M., & Tay, R. (2007). Promoting Public Health Messages: Should We Move Beyond Fear Evoking Appeals in Road Safety? Qualitative Health Research, 17 (1), 61 74. Liu, Y.P. (2003). Developing a scale to measure the i nteractivity of Web sites. Journal of Advertising Research, 43 (2), 207 216.

PAGE 95

95 Madden, M. (2003, Dec 22). America's Online Pursuits The changing picture of who's online and what they do. Pew Internet & American Life Project Retrieved Nov 8, 2011, from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2003/PIP_Online_Pursuits_Final.PDF. PDF Markiewicz, D. (1974). Effects of Humor on Persuasion. Sociometry, 3 7 (3), 407 422 McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: the extension of man (1st MIT Press ed.). New York: New American Library. McMillan, S. J. (2000). Interactivity Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Function, Perception, Involvement, and Attitude toward th e Web Site. In M. A. Shaver (Ed.), Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 71 78), East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. McMillan, S. J. & Downes, E. J. (2000). Defining interactivity: A qualitative identification of key dimensions. New Media and Society, 2 (2), 157 159. McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. S. (2002). Measures of Perceived Interactivity: An Exploration of the Role of Direction of Communication, User Control, and Time in Shaping Perceptions of Interactivity. Journal of Advertis ing, 31 (3), 29 42. McQuail, D. (1987). Communication New York: Longman Press. Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a Double Edged Sword: Four Functions of Humor in Communication. Communication Theory, 10 (3), 310 331. Moore, K. (2011). 71% of online adults now us e video sharing sites. Pew Internet Project Moreira M T Smith L A & Foxcroft D. (2009) Social norms interventions to reduce alcohol misuse in University or College students. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009 3 Art. No.: CD006748. DOI : 10.1002/14651858.CD006748.pub2. Nabi, R. L., Moyer Gus, E., & Byrne S. (2007). All Joking Aside: A Serious Investigation into the Persuasive Effect of Funny Social Issue Messages Communication Monographs 74 ( 1 ) 29 54. 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 (4), 440 453. Paek, H. J., Kim, K., & Hove, T. (2010). Content analysis of antismoking v ideos on YouTube: message sensation value, message appeals, and their relationships with viewer responses. Health Education Research, 25 (6), 1085 1099. Park, H., Rodgers, S., and Stemmle, Jon. (2011). H ealth organizations' use of Facebook for health advert ising and promotion Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12 (1), 62 77.

PAGE 96

96 Perkins, H. W (Ed). (2003). The social norms approach to preventing school and college age substance abuse: A handbook for educators, counselors, and clinicians. San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey Bass. Perkins, H. W., Linkenbach, J. W., Lewis, M. A., & Neighbors C. (2010). Effectiveness of social norms media marketing in reducing drinking and driving: A statewide campaign, Addictive Behaviors, 35(10) 866 874 Petty, R. E., & Priester, J. R. (1994). Mass Media Attitude Change: Implications of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In J. Bryant, & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 91 122), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Polk, J., Young, D. G., & Holber t R. L. (2009). Humor Complexity and Political Influence: An Elaboration Likelihood Approach to the Effects of Humor Type in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17( 4) 202 219. Porter, L., & Golan, G. J. (2006). From Sub servient Chickens to Brawny Men: A Comparison of Viral Advertising to Television Advertising. Journal Of Interactive Advertising, 6 (2), 30 38. Purcell, K. (2010, Jun 3). The State of Online Video. Pew Internet & American Life Project from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/State of Online Video.aspx Purdy, C. H. (2011). Using the Internet and social media to promote condom use in Turkey. Reproductive Health Matters, 19 (37 ), 157 165. Rafaeli, S. (1990). Interacting with media: para social interaction and real interaction. In: Ruben B & Lievrouw L (E d .), Mediation, information and communication. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers 125 81. Ratzan, S. C. (2011). Our New "Social" Communication Age in Health. Journal of Health Communication, 16 (8), 803 804. Robinson, T. N., Patrick, K., & & Eng, T. R. (1998). An evidence based approach to interactive health communication A challenge to medicine in the information age JAMA J o urnal of the American M edical A ssociation 280 (14), 1264 1269 Sullivan, R. L. (1992). Students learn more when they're having fun. Vocational Education Journal, 67 (3), 36 38. Sundar, S. S., & Kim, J. (2005). Interactivity and Persuasion: Infl uencing Attitudes with Information and Involvement. Journal of Interactive Advertising 5 (2), 5 18. Schliemann, T., Asting, T., Flstad, A., & Heim, J. (2002). Medium preference and medium effects in person person communication Paper presented at the CHI '02 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems.

PAGE 97

97 Scholl, J. C. (2007). The Use of Humor to Promote Patient centered Care. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35 (2), 156 176. Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Gritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and reactions to crisis communication via twitter, blogs and traditional media. Public Relations Review, 37 (1), 20 27. Schurcliff, A. (1968). Judged humor, arousal, and the relief theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8 360 363. 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), 3 80 386. Steele, K. E. (1998). The Positive and Negative Effects of the Use of Humor in the Classroom Setting Teikyo University. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED426929.pdf Sternthal, B., & Craig, C. S. (197 3). Humor in Advertising. The Journal of Marketing, 37 (4), 12 18. Subramani, M. R., & Rajagopalan, B. (2003). Knowledge sharing and influence in online social networks via viral marketing. Commun. ACM, 46 (12), 300 307. Syed Abdul, S., Lin, C. W., Scholl, J ., Fernandez Luque, L., Jian, W. S., Hsu, M. H., et al. (2011). Facebook use leads to health care reform in Taiwan. The Lancet, 377 (9783), 2083 2084. Thackeray, R., Neiger, B. L., Hanson, C. L., & & McKenzie, J. F. (2008). Enhancing Promotional Strategies Within Social Marketing Programs: Use of Web 2.0 Social Media. Health Promot Pract, 9 (4), 338 343. The Nielsen Company. (2011a). September 2011 Top US Web Brands. nieslenwire Retrieved Oct 20, 2011, from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/september 2011 top us web brands/ The Nielsen Company. (2011b, Nov 3). September 2011: Top U.S. Online Destinations for Video. nielsenwire Retrieved Nov 2 8, 2011, from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/september 2011 top u s online destinations for video/ The Nielsen Company. (2011c, Sep 11). Social Media Report: Q3 2011. nielsenwire Retrieved Oct 22, 2011, from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_m obile/social media report spending time money and going mobile/ Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E., & Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of Word of Mouth Versus Traditional Marketing: Findings from an Internet Social Networking Site. Journal of Marketing, 73 (5), 90 102.

PAGE 98

98 Valencia, A. (2001). Cutting sense of humor. Shoot, 42 (37), 4 5. Vartiainen, E., Paavola, M., McAlister, A., & Puska, P. (1998). Fifteen year follow up of smoking prevention effects in the North Karelia youth project. American Journal of Public Health, 88 (1), 81 85. Wakefield, M., Flay, B., Nichter, M., & Giovino, G. (2003). Effects of Anti Smoking Advertising on Youth Smoking: A Review. Journal of Health Communication, 8 (3), 229 247. Wanzer, M., Booth Butterfield, M., & Booth Butterfield, S. (2005). "If W e Didn't Use Humor, We'd Cry." Humorous Coping Communication in Health Care Settings. Journal of Health Communication, 10 (2), 105 125. Weinberger, M. G., & Spotts, H. E. (1989). Humor in U.S. Versus U.K. TV Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 18 (2), 39 44 Weingarten, J. (1967). "Is 'Far Out' Advertising Entertaining the Public More but Selling It Less?". Dun's Review, 90 27 28. Williams, F., Rice, R. E., & Rogers, E. M. (1988). Research methods and the new media New York: Free Press. World Health Organi zation. (2011). Tobacco Free Initiative (TFI). World Health Organization Retrieved Oct 18, 2011, from http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/index.html Wu, G. (1999). Perceived interactivity and attitude towa rd Website. Paper presented at the American Academy of Advertising annual conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Young D. G. (2008). The Privileged Role of the Late Night Joke: Exploring Humor's Role in Disrupting Argument Scrutiny Media Psychology, 11(1) 119 142. DOI: 10.1080/15213260701837073

PAGE 99

99 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Fannin Chen was born in Houston, Texas. She grew up in Taiwan and obtained her bachelor degree in radio and t elevision from National Cheng c hi University in 2008 National Cheng c hi Universi ty has the top communication program in the nation and has trained many students to become outstanding practitioners and scholars in communication field After graduating from National Cheng c hi University, she started to work as a project manager speciali zing marketing and advertising at the IPTV station (ELTA TV). After two years of working experience, she joined the graduate program in the University of Florida, College of Journalism and C ommunications, and major ed in t elecommunication. Her graduate stud ies focus on social media effect s and the application s of health communication s She received her m aster degree in August 2012 and will extend her academic interests to health communication practice in Taiwan.