Effects of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign on youths

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 98, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 2229-2236

  Hornik, Robert ^a   Jacobsohn, Lela ^a   Orwin, Robert ^b   Piesse, Andrea ^b   Kalton, Graham ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b WESTAT   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANNABIS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; DRUG ABUSE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MASS MEDIUM; SCHOOL CHILD; SELF REPORT;

ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR; ADOLESCENT PSYCHOLOGY; ADVERTISING AS TOPIC; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHILD; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; INTENTION; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MARIJUANA SMOKING; MASS MEDIA; PEER GROUP; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; SELF EFFICACY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 57149102281     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: 15410048     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.125849     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign communication strategy statement. Available at: http://www.mediacampaign.org. Accessed May 10, 2007.
2. The Partnership for a Drug-Free America. Available at: http://www.drugfreeamerica.org. Accessed July 21, 2006.
3. Statement of John P. Walters, director of national drug control policy, before the US House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on TransportationTreasury and Related Agencies: The Office of National Drug Control Policy's FY 2004 budget request for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Available at: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/testimony03/ 040903/tmny4.html#major. Accessed August 8, 2007.
4. Orwin R, Cadell D, Chu A, et al. Evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: 2004 Report of Findings. Washington, DC: Westat; 2006.
5. Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG. Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Adolescent Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings, 2001. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 2002.
6. Southwell B, Barmada C, Hornik R, Maklan D. Can we measure encoded exposure? Validation evidence from a national campaign. J Health Commun. 2002;7:445-453.
7. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975.
8. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.
9. Joffe MM, Rosenbaum PR. Propensity scores. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;150:327-333.
10. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41-55.
11. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984;79:516-524.
12. Lu B, Zanutto E, Hornik R, Rosenbaum PR. Matching with doses in an observational study of a media campaign against drug abuse. J Am Stat Assoc. 2001;96:1245-1253.
13. Imbens GW. The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika. 2000;87:706-710.
14. Hornik R, Maklan D, Cadell D, et al. Evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: Fifth Semi-Annual Report of Findings. Washington, DC: Westat; 2002.
15. US Bureau of the Census. Census 2000. Available at: http://www.census. gov/main/www/cen2000.html. Accessed July 18, 2008.
16. Palmgreen P, Donohew L, Lorch EP, Hoyle RH, Stephenson MT. Television campaigns and sensation seeking targeting of adolescent marijuana use: a controlled time series approach. In: Hornik RC, ed. Public Communication Campaigns: Evidence for Behavior Change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002: 35-56.
17. Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. New York, NY: Wiley; 1990.
18. Hornik R, Maklan D, Cadell D, et al. Evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: 2003 Report of Findings. Washington, DC: Westat; 2003.
19. Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE. Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2003. Volume I: Secondary School Students. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 2004:545.
20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthy Youth! Youth Online: comprehensive results. Available at: http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/yrbss. Accessed May 10, 2007.
21. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results From the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Office of Applied Studies; 2004.
22. Sly DF, Hopkins RS, Trapido E, Ray S. Influence of a counteradvertising media campaign on initiation of smoking: the Florida "truth" campaign. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:233-238.
23. Sly DF, Trapido E, Ray S. Evidence of the dose effects of an antitobacco counteradvertising campaign. Prev Med. 2002;35:511-518.
24. Siegel M, Biener L. The impact of an antismoking media campaign on progression to established smoking: results of a longitudinal youth study. Am J Public Health. 2000;90:380-386.
25. Siegel M. The effectiveness of state-level tobacco control interventions: a review of program implementation and behavioral outcomes. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:45-71.
26. Flynn BS, Worden JK, Secker-Walker RH, et al. Mass media and school interventions for cigarette smoking prevention: effects 2 years after completion. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:1148-1150.
27. Worden JK, Flynn BS. Using mass media to prevent cigarette smoking. In: Hornik RC, ed. Public Communication Campaigns: Evidence for Behavior Change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002:23-33.
28. Farrelly MC, Davis KC, Haviland ML, Messeri P, Healton CG. Evidence of a dose-response relationship between "truth" antismoking ads and youth smoking. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:425-431.
29. Palmgreen P, Donohew L, Lorch EP, Hoyle RH, Stephenson MT. Television campaigns and adolescent marijuana use: tests of sensation seeking targeting. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:292-296.
30. Block LG, Morwitz VG, Putsis WP Jr, Sen SK. Assessing the impact of antidrug advertising on adolescent drug consumption: results from a behavioral economic model. Am J Public Health. 2002;92:1346-1351.
31. Flewelling RL, Austin D, Hale K, et al. Implementing research-based substance abuse prevention in communities: effects of a coalition-based prevention initiative in Vermont. J Community Psychol. 2005;33:333-353.
32. Winsten JA. Promoting designated drivers: The Harvard Alcohol Project. Am J Prev Med. 1994;10(suppl. 3):11-14.
33. DeJong W, Hingson R. Strategies to reduce driving under the influence of alcohol. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:359-378.
34. Snyder LB, Hamilton MA. A meta-analysis of US health campaign effects on behavior: emphasize enforcement, exposure and new information, and beware the secular trend. In: Hornik RC, ed. Public Communication Campaigns: Evidence for Behavior Change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002:357-384.
35. Hornik RC, ed. Public Communication Campaigns: Evidence for Behavior Change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002.
36. Bushman BJ, Stack AD. Forbidden fruit versus tainted fruit: effects of warning labels on attraction to television violence. J Exp Psychol Appl. 1996;2:207-226.
37. Brehm JW. A Theory of Psychological Reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1966.
38. Brehm SS, Brehm JW. Psychological Reactance. New York, NY: Wiley; 1981.
39. Jacobsohn LS. Psychological reactance and audience evaluation of anti-drug advertisements: explaining unanticipated communication effects. Paper presented at: Annual Conference of the National Communication Association; November 12, 2004; Chicago, IL.
40. Jacobsohn LS. Explaining the Boomerang Effect of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign [dissertation]. Philadelphia: Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania; 2007.
41. Palmgreen P, Lorch EP, Stephenson MT, Hoyle RH, Donohew L. Effects of the Office of National Drug Control Policy's Marijuana Initiative Campaign on high-sensation-seeking adolescents. Am J Public Health. 2007;97:1644-1649.