The data collection method follows approaches used in previous threat appeal research (Insko, Arkoff and Insko 1965; Rippetoe and Rogers 1987; Schoenbachler and Whittler 1996; Chebat and Daoud 2003; Smith and Stutts 2003; Dickinson and Holmes 2008) and utilises web based data collection instruments (Madrigal and Bee 2005). A combination of ‘web-based experiment’ and hard copy questionnaires was administered in a school computer laboratory with a member of staff present (Slater and Kelly 2002; Ruiter and Kok 2005). The questionnaire was structured into sections with items adapted from previously developed scales and modified to be suitable for adolescents. Items were randomised to control for order bias. The questionnaire included an introduction statement about the research and the items collected through the commonly used self-reported behaviour scales (Holm, Kremers and de Vries 2003). Prior to participations all participants received a letter of consent to overcome ethical and legal issues and school reports presented post participation.
Ethics of threat appeals research
The ethics of investigating threat appeals is a constant issue being raised among researchers in the marketing field. A continuous debate exists about how marketing influences adolescents with concerns on unethical exposure and moral anxieties (Snipes, LaTour and Bliss 1999). Social marketing remains an ethical and controversial topic (Manyiwa and Brennan 2012); as marketing has been used to unfairly manipulate adolescents (Brucks, Armstrong and Goldberg 1988). The major
concern arises from unwillingly exposure to harmful and graphically upsetting images from unexpectedly witnessing a threat appeal (Hyman and Tansey 1990; Hastings et al. 2004). The unethical exposure of images prompted the ITC Advertising Standards to impose a code of conduct on the use of fear in television advertising (Hastings, Stead and Webb 2004). The research complied with the University of Kent ethics approval procedures and participants debriefed and letters of consent administered in conjunction with the school prior to participation provided in Appendix A.2.
Self-reported behaviour
Anti-smoking studies raise concern among adolescents who are underage to legally smoke with previous research highlighting that adolescents face pressures to misreport smoking behaviour due to possible reprisals (Dolcini, Adler and Ginsberg 1996) showing the need to ensure anonymity. Self-report tools are widely used in marketing research (Holm, Kremers and de Vries 2003), especially within behavioural decision making models (Armitage and Conner 2001) being the most common method for assessing adherence to behaviour in research (Stirratt et al. 2015). The reason for this is that they are easy to administer, unobtrusive and possess the ability to capture rich information regarding cognitive, emotional and behavioural responses (Hastak 1990; Stayman and Aaker 1993; Lucas and Baird, 2006). Although constantly debated (Dolcini, Adler and Ginsberg 1996), being frequently criticised since early psychological assessments (Allport 1927) to recent publications (Dunning, Heath, and Suls, 2005; Paulhus and Vazire 2009). Self-reports are regarded to be susceptible to faking (Day and Carroll 2008) and provide inaccurate information (Paulhus 1991;
Robins and John 1997). That being said, researchers frequently rely on self-report
measures to assess prevalence of behaviours and evaluate program effectiveness. To overcome the concern of under-reporting health-risk behaviours (Dolcini, Adler and Ginsberg 1996) some research uses technology or biological indicators to overcome the bias (Bauman, Koch and Bryan 1982; Bauman and Dent 1982; Murray et al. 1987;
Hansen 1992; Dolcini, Adler and Ginsberg 1996; Stirratt et al. 2015) that is frequently applied in research with adult smokers (Murray et al. 1987; Luepker et al. 1989).
Self-reports are employed due to the situation, budget, time restraint, sample and the reliability of self-reports for those of 10 years of age perceived to be more reliable than younger adolescents (Kuijpers et al. 2014). As Verplanken and Aarts (1999) described that single item self-reported behaviour scales are not the optimal measures in terms of reliability and validity, which provides the opportunity to alter or bias responses (Armitage and Conner 2001; Stayman and Aaker 1993) the research uses a number of multiple items scales to assess future self-reported behaviour responses.
Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire was created through an iterative approach, adapting previous scales, including new items and amending phrasing to suit the young adolescent segment. The questionnaire references are provided in Appendix A.3 which is followed by the advert stimuli iterations in Appendix A.4. The questionnaire iterations throughout the preliminary tests culminated to the questionnaire in Appendix A.5 which is structured in nine sections:
a) Introductory information
The opening questions are generic classification questions to establish gender and age, followed by questions adapted from EFSA baseline questionnaire (de Vries et al.
1995) about the school they attended and their school motivation to assess school engagement (Pyper et al. 1987; Abroms et al. 2005). School motivation has been highlighted in previous research (Hu, Lin and Keeler 1998; Simons-Morton 2004), with results showing that academic engagement decreased the likelihood of experimentation (Abroms et al. 2005).
b) Smoking intentions and attitudes
The second cluster obtains smoking intent and smoking attitude providing a baseline measure of prior behaviour to enable predictions of later actions (Ajzen 2002) that influence future smoking behaviours (Chassin et al. 1984; McNeill et al. 1989). This has been highlighted as an important aspect in previous research (Maddux and Rogers 1983; Pierce et al. 1989; Pechmann et al. 2003; Holm, Kremers and de Vries 2003;
Gilpin et al. 2007). Although intentions and expectations differ in behavioural responses, a compiled scale provides a reliable description of behavioural intentions than a singular scale (Sheeran 2002). The intent scale was influenced by existing research that uses scales from one to five items (Pierce et al. 1996; Anderson et al.
2002; Holm, Kremers and de Vries 2003; Tangari et al. 2007; Pechmann et al. 2003;
Gilpin et al. 2007; Pechmann et al. 2005; Carvajal et al. 2004; White, Webster and Wakefield 2008; Samu and Bhatnagar 2008). The statements are presented on a five point Likert scale regarding the likelihood of the statements.
Obtaining smoking attitude has been under researched in adolescents; the scale was influenced by Michaelidou et al.’s (2008) questioning tool. Adaptations are made to ensure the scale is relevant to adolescents alongside additional items influenced by Kremers et al. (2004) items on smoking related beliefs, aspects concerning social factors (Dinh et al. 1995; Chassin et al. 2003; Carvajal et al. 2004) and research concluding that adolescents’ think smokers are cool influencing stronger intentions to smoke (Norman and Tedeschi 1989; Pechmann and Ratneshwar 1994). The statements are presented on a five point Likert scale regarding the likelihood of each statement.
c) Susceptibility to peer pressure
The third section of questions obtained social influence and susceptibility to peer pressure. This was influenced by Abroms et al.’s (2005) scales to assess social outcome expectations from smoking. Further items obtained the presence of smokers in their social environment, initially the number of peers smoking influence was obtained through the number of closest friends that smoke (Abroms et al. 2005;
Chassin et al. 2000) and the influence of friends and family smoking rates (Conrad, Flay and Hill 1992; Alexander et al. 2001; Holm, Kremers and de Vries 2003; Smith and Stutts 2003; Kremers, Mudde and de Vries 2004). The statements were presented on a five point Likert scale regarding levels of agreement.
d) Smoking behaviour
The fourth section obtained smoking behaviour. Although Pierce et al. (1989) and Chassin et al. (2000) provide scales confirming smoking experience over a number of items improving self-reporting efficacy, prior research uses dichotomous question
about having ever tried smoking once (Smith and Stutts 2003; Chebat and Daoud 2003; Dickinson and Holmes 2008).
e) Parental view on smoking
The fifth section about parental view on smoking was obtained as advised by Chassin (1996) who raised the importance of obtaining parental smoking influence. Family smoking habits are one of the most influential factors (Conrad, Flay and Hill 1992) with adolescents being at a higher risk of smoking initiation when parents are less involved (Simons-Morton et al. 2001), as authoritative parental practices reduce smoking onset among adolescents (Krosnick et al. 2006). The items extended Pyper et al.’s (1987) instrument and included Abroms et al.’s (2005) suggestions to report perceived parental views on smoking statements. The scales were anchored on a 5 point Likert scale regarding level of agreement of the statements.
f) Threat appeal observation
Participants witnessed one of the threat appeal manipulations and reported which one witnessed. The classification of each threat appeal was assessed to ensure accurate manipulations. Preliminary manipulation tests checked the perceived classification of each threat appeal. Although previous studies did not check the classification of each threat, the perceived threat classification and the perceived level of threat was obtained through a 5 point Likert scale (Smith and Stutts 2003; Dickinson and Holmes 2008).
g) Emotional response
This section obtained the amount of emotion response felt from the watching the advert, although within the marketing discipline there exists a large array of emotional measures that are adapted from psychology (Machleit and Eroglu 2000) being highly challenging and subjective (Groppel-Klein 2014). The most frequently used methods are self-reported tools such as adjective checklists, thought listings and post exposure self-reports (Holbrook and Batra 1987 Stayman and Aaker 1988; Stayman and Aaker 1993; Groppel-Klein 2014). Like previous research this study assessed the negative emotions; sadness, fearful, disgust, anger and shame (Dickinson and Holmes 2008) and additionally embarrassment and guilt. In order to assess how the threat appeal influenced emotional moods from watching the stimuli, items used in previous research were employed (Holbrook and Batra 1987; Machleit and Eroglu 2000; Botti, Orfali and Iyengar 2009) obtaining how strongly each emotion as felt from watching the advert rated on a Likert scale anchored 1-5 (Agrawal, Menon and Aaker 2007).
Each emotion response was rated on a scale ranging from not at all to a lot as conducted by other emotion research (Plutchik 1980; King and Reid 1989;
Schoenbachler and Whittler 1996; Agrawal, Menon and Aaker 2007, Izard 2009).
Due to the emotional response being retrospective with the respondent recalling how they felt (Hazlett and Hazlett 1999) the response is asked immediately after witnessing the threat appeal.
h) Critical value coping response
Coping response scales are heavily used with adults to measure the ability to abstain from a previous behaviour, rather than adolescents not taking up behaviours and
provide a coping response classification (Rosenstock 1966; Lawrance 1988;
Prochaska et al. 1991; Nutbeam and Harris 1998; Weiss 1999; Etter, Bergman, Humair, and Perneger 2000; Dickinson and Holmes 2008; Bolger et al. 2010; Bello et al. 2011). The problems with assessing coping responses are widely recognised (Compas et al. 2001) and the 49 item maladjustment scale used to measure maladaptive behaviours (Weiss et al. 2006) is regarded unpractical for adolescents.
As was Dickinson and Homes’ (2008) scale that unreliable with young adolescents from preliminary tests. The scale is an amalgamation of previous items from health models and maladaptive coping response scales obtaining items for perceived threat and perceived efficacy that assessed how exposure to the anti-smoking message influenced behaviour (Bhatnagar and Samu 2009). Perceived-efficacy items were adapted the smoking self-efficacy measure (Prochaska et al. 1991) and self-efficacy questionnaire (Etter et al. 2000) by rating confidence and ability to abstain from smoking for each statements influenced from previous research (Holm, Kremers and de Vries 2003; Kremers, Mudde and de Vries 2004; Bolger et al. 2010; Bello et al.
2011). Perceived threat employed items that were influenced by Rogers (1975) and Witte’s (1990) research. The responses were captured on five point Likert scale monitoring levels of agreement for each statement.
i) Message processing responses
The message processing factors consisted of three items; attitude towards the advert, attention towards the advert and message derogation. The scales were developed using items recommended in the literature (Mitchell and Olson 1981; Gardner 1985;
Hill and Mazis 1986; MacKenzie, Lutz and Belch 1986; Holmes and Crocker 1987;
Madden, Allen and Twible 1988; Donthu 1992). The attitude towards the advert items
were influenced by Beltramini’s (1982) ‘advertising believability scale’ that consisted of semantic differentials which assumes that the more someone likes an advert the increased likelihood to accept the message (Marchand 2010). The final scale was influenced by Gardner, (1985), Mackenzie et al. (1986) Holmes and Crocker (1987) and Donthu (1992). The attention towards the advert was captured from Bhatnager and Samu (2009) single item that was developed into a multi-item scales from suggestions from the literature (Duncan and Nelson 1985; Block and Keller 1995;
Smith et al. 2007; Thompson et al. 2011). The message derogation was made from items phrased differently to the attitude towards the advert items previously used in pre-tests (Mitchell and Olson 1981; Madden, Allen and Twible 1988; Duncan and Nelson 1985).
j) Future smoking intentions and attitudes
The initial item obtaining self-reported behavioural expectations from exposure (Smith et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2008) was replaced with two scales depending on smoking behaviour; non-smokers’ completed a future smoking attitude and then future smoking intent scale, while smokers’ completed future smoking attitude scale and a future intent to quit smoking scale. All the scales were rated on a five point Likert scales obtaining likelihood of each statement. The future smoking attitude scale were influenced from the initial smoking attitude scale, to ensure comparability from base line and after exposure, with changes to the phrasing of the items used as recommended by Chassin et al. (2003); Carvajal et al. (2004); Michaelidou (2008) Samu and Bhatnagar (2008). The future smoking intent was about perceived future intent to smoke; the items were influenced by the initial smoking intent scale and previous research (Pechmann et al. 2003; Gilpin et al. 2007; White, Webster and
Wakefield 2008; Pierce and Gilpin 1996). The future intent to quit smoking questions was adapted from previous research with smokers (Tangari et al. 2007; Emery et al.
2000).