Theory and practice in the national youth anti-drug media Campaign

Social Marketing Quarterly

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 13-27

  Worden, John K ^a   Slater, Michael D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35148855349     PISSN: 15245004     EISSN: 15394093     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15245000490484464     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. BANDURA, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2. BROWN, S. P., & STAYMAN, D. M. (1992, June). Antecedents and consequences of attitudetowards-the-ad: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 34-51.
3. DISHION, T. C., & MCMAHON, R. J. (1998, March). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychological Review, 1(1), 61-75.
4. FARRELLY, M. C., HEALTON, C. G., DAVIS, K. C., MESSERI, P., HERSEY, J. C., & HAVILAND, M. L. (2002, June). Getting to the truth: Evaluating national tobacco countermarketing campaigns. American Journal of Public Health, 92(6), 901-907.
5. FAZIO, R. H., POWELL, M. C., & WILLIAMS, C. J. (1989). The role of attitude accessibility in the attitude-to-behavior process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 280-288.
6. FLYNN, B. S., WORDEN, J. K., SECKERWALKER, R. H., PIRIE, P. L., BADGER, G. J., CARPENTER, J. H., & GELLER, B. M. (1994, July). Mass media and school interventions for cigarette smoking prevention: Effects two years after completion. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 1148-1150.
7. HORNIK, R. C., BARMADA, C. G., ROMANTAN, A., HENDERSON, V. R., JACOBSOHN, L. S., CAPPELLA, J., & FISHBEIN, M. (2003, 25 May). Explaining the results of the campaign. In R. C. Hornik (Chair), Evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: Results After Three Years of Research. Annual conference of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
8. HORNIK, R., MAKLAN, D., CADELL, D., BARMADA, C. H., JACOBSOHN, L., PRADO, A., ROMANTAN, A., ORWIN, R., SRIDHARAN, S., ZANUTTO, E., BASKIN, R., CHU, A., MORIN, C., TAYLOR, K., & STEELE, D. (2002). Evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: Fifth Semi-Annual Report of Findings (National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH Publication No. N01DA-8-5063). Rockville, MD: Westat.
9. JOHNSTON, L., O'MALLEY, P., & BACHMAN, J. (2003). Monitoring the Future, National Results on Adolescent Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings, 2002 (NIH Publication No. 03-5374). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Available: http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/overview2002.pdf.
10. MONGEAU, P. A. (1998). Another look at feararousing persuasive appeals. In M. Allen & R. W. Preiss (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 53-68). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
11. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE (NIDA). (2004). NIDA info facts. Available: http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/marijuana.html. Accessed March 26, 2004.
12. OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY (ONDCP). (1997). National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign Communication Strategy Statement. Washington, DC: Author.
13. OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY (ONDCP). (1998). National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign Testing the Anti-Drug Message in 12 American Cities. Washington, DC: Author.
14. PALMGREEN, P., DONOHEW, L., LORCH, E. P., HOYLE, R. H., & STEPHENSON, M. T. (2001). Television campaigns and adolescent marijuana use: Tests of sensation-seeking targeting. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 292-296.
15. PALMGREEN, P., LORCH, E. P., DONOHEW, L., HARRINGTON, N. G., DSILVA, M., & HELM, D. (1995). Reaching at-risk populations in a mass media drug abuse prevention campaign: Sensation seeking as a targeting variable. Drugs & Society 8(3-4), 29-45.
16. PETTY, R. E., BAKER, S. M., & GLEICHER, F. (1991). Attitudes and drug abuse prevention: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Donohew, H. E. Sypher & W. J. Bukoski (Eds.), Persuasive communication and drug abuse prevention (pp. 71-92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. PETTY, R. E., & CACIAPPO, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
18. ROGERS, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
19. SHIMP, T. A. (1981). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice. Journal of Advertising, 10(2), 9-15.
20. SLATER, M. D., & KELLY, K. J. (2002). Testing alternative explanations for exposure effects in media campaigns: The case of a communitybased, in-school media drug prevention project. Communication Research, 29, 367-389.
21. SNYDER, L. B., & HAMILTON, M. A. (2002). A meta-analysis of U.S. health campaign effects on behavior: Emphasize enforcement, exposure, and new information, and beware the secular trend. In R. C. Hornik (Ed.), Public health communication: Evidence for behavior change (pp. 357-384). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. WITTE, K. (1995). Generating effective risk messages: How scary should your risk communication be? In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook/18 (pp. 229-254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.