Policy Support Between Groups

Table 3 presents the results of one-way ANOVA tests for differences in mean POS support between experimental groups and sample characteristics, without controlling for covariates. No significant main effects of frame (F (3, 696) = 0.511, p = 0.675), or level of localization (F (1, 696) = 0.394, p = 0.530) were identified meaning that neither the frame presented nor the article level of localization (local versus not) showed any relationship with the respondents’ support for policy. However, significant between-groups differences in mean POS support were found by age, gender, race/ethnicity, current tobacco use, political affiliation, and trust in government. Stronger support for policy options were seen for: females as compared to males; individuals age 18-34 as compared to older individuals; non- whites as compared to whites; non-tobacco users as compared to tobacco users; those identifying as Democrat or Democrat-leaning as compared to other political affiliations; and those who have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the government.

Table 6.3 Between-Groups Support for POS Policies by News Article Manipulation, Respondent and Household Characteristics, Without Controlling for Covariates.

Mean+

(SD)

Between-groups Analysis of Variance

df F p R2

News Article Manipulation

Frame 3 0.968 0.407 0.004 Health 13.47 (6.79) Economic 12.39 (6.76) Regulation 12.57 (6.80) Rights 13.08 (6.27) Level of localization 1 0.141 0.707 0.000

Local (to respondent state) 12.97 (6.60) Not local (US nation) 12.78 (6.75) Respondent Gender 1 11.61 0.001** 0.016 Female 13.81 (6.59) Male 12.10 (6.63) Age 1 6.17 0.013** 0.009 18-34 13.42 (6.52) ≥35 12.15 (6.79) Race/Ethnicity 1 6.552 0.011* 0.009 White 12.56 (6.73) Non-White 14.15 (6.27)

Any current tobacco use 1 72.35 0.000*** 0.094

No 14.35

(6.51)

Yes 10.05

(6.05)

Political party or affiliation 2 18.28 0.000*** 0.050

Republican or Republican- leaning

11.96 (7.54)

(6.62) Democrat or Democrat-leaning 14.09 (6.03)

Trust in government, in general 2 17.97 0.000*** 0.049

A great deal or a fair amount 14.75 (5.69) Not very much or none at all 11.74 (6.92) No opinion 11.00 (9.88) Household Annual HH Income 2 1.74 0.176 0.005 <$50,000 12.61 (6.55) $50,000-$99,999 13.53 (6.65) ≥$100,000 12.23 (7.30) *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05

+_{Mean POS support, measured as an index with range of 0 to 22 where 0 = opposed all}

policies tested, and 22 = support all policies tested.

Table 4 presents the results of a single Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model using a general linear model (GLM), which adjusts for individual-level factors, message factors (frame and level of localization), and the interaction between them. In the full model, no significant effects of frame (F (3, 680) = 0.79, p = 0.50), or level of localization (F (1, 680) = 0.03, p = 0.86) were identified. The interaction between frame and level of localization was not significant (F (3, 680) = 1.04, p = 0.37). Rather, differences in POS support by gender, age, tobacco use status, political affiliation and trust in government remained significant. Differences in POS support by race/ethnicity were no longer

significant. Additional analyses to test for significant main or interactive effects of frame and localization on non-smokers with high trust in government also produced null results.

Table 6.4 Between-Groups Support for POS Policies, Adjusted for Covariates. Between-groups Analysis of Covariance df F Sig. Corrected Model 13 12.10 0.000*** Intercept 1 123.92 0.000*** Gender 1 9.28 0.002** Age 1 4.06 0.044* Race/Ethnicity 1 3.090 0.079

Any current tobacco use 1 72.21 0.000***

Political party or affiliation 1 9.95 0.002**

Trust in government 1 29.59 0.000***

Frame 3 1.42 0.237

Local 1 0.02 0.899

Frame*Local 3 1.40 0.241

Error 680

R Squared = 0.188 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.172)

*** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05 6.4 Discussion

This is the first study to examine the relationship between POS-tobacco-related news content and public support for POS tobacco control policy interventions. Our findings indicate that exposure to a single news message was not related to POS policy support. Rather, underlying characteristics of individuals were much more likely to predict support for policy. In the full ANCOVA model, adjusting for all measured variables in the study, gender, age, any current tobacco use, political party and trust in government were the factors

significantly associated with POS policy support.

Our findings are a contrast to decades of media effects research on the impact of message frames.[146] Several explanations exist for this difference. First, exposure mediates the relationship between news media content and what the public is thinking about,[12] and the exposure here was both minimal and artificial. It may have been unreasonable to expect significant changes in policy support based on a one-shot exposure to a typical news

message. The influence of the mass media is not likely experienced through a single exposure to a message but rather through a cumulative effect over time; indeed, volume of coverage serves as another mediator between the media agenda and the public agenda.[147] Given the current splintered media environment with mass, social, and other targeted channels (e.g., cable television or internet blogs), choice of media may be based on

individual-level factors such as political party or trust in government, in which case media exposure may simply reinforce existing attitudes and opinions.

Another explanation is that the distilled news frames used in this experiment – health, economics, regulation and rights – and levels of localization are simply not compelling when presented in a fair and balanced (neutral slant) message. It is important to note that the purpose of this study was to examine levels of POS support following exposure to news messages that were manipulated to reflect the current nature of POS-related content; it was not our aim to craft messages that compel POS support. Future research should manipulate news articles or other mass communication messages such as letters to the editor or opinion pieces in additional ways, for example, 1) to test the impact of pro- versus anti-tobacco control slants, rather than neutral slants, or 2) by revisiting harder-hitting anti-tobacco industry frames such as killer/corporate liability or deceit/manipulation that were present during passage of the Master Settlement Agreement.[23] Caution must be taken, though, because hard-hitting messages such as graphic warning labels on cigarette packages that are used to prompt individual-level behavior change among smokers, may not be analogue to prompting support for broad reaching societal-level policies among members of the general public. We must continue to learn more about communication strategies that have the potential to prompt policy, systems and environmental change.

Our study may be limited because of the study sample and the one-shot experimental design. Our sample was a convenience sample from an online source, MTurk. Recent studies have indicated that MTurk workers, “Turkers”, are more liberal and more educated than the general US population.[148] This may explain why, across all eight news manipulations, support for many POS policies was already quite high (see Table 2). Also, the mock articles may not have represented the media’s effect accurately- this was an manipulation experiment and respondents might not have reacted the same way as they would have if they had been actually reading an article from their favorite media source. Laboratory experiments involving exposure to a message are challenging and can yield little effect.[149] Future research should test for news message effects on policy support among other samples, or longitudinally in more real-world settings where market-level and individual-level differences can be isolated.[20]

Some strengths of the study are worth nothing. This research is a first test of the potential, prospective impact of news article framing and level of localization on public support for POS policies. Research to test messages that could produce policy change has been extremely limited,[24] and this research offers a test of the effects of POS-specific media on POS-specific policy support. Our findings of no relationship between frame or level of localization on POS support offer a reminder that support for tobacco control policies stems from the static intrapersonal characteristics (e.g., age, gender, political identity, trust in government) and personal experiences (e.g., tobacco use status) of the people with whom we seek to partner.