Mood and ad processing: Examining the impact of program-induced moods on subsequent processing of an antismoking public service advertisement

Communication Studies

Volumn 59, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 402-414

  Wong, Norman C H ^a   Householder, Brian ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Antismoking Ads; Hedonic Contingency Model; Message Processing; Mood State

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876340164     PISSN: 10510974     EISSN: 17451035     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10510970802473658     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Bauer, U. E., Johnson, T. M., Hopkins, R. S., & Brooks, R., (2000). Changes in youth cigarette use and intentions following implementation of a tobacco control program: Findings from the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey, 1998–2000. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 723–728.
2. Biener, L., (2000). Adult and youth response to the Massachusetts anti-tobacco television campaign. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 6, 40–44.
3. Biener, L., McCallum-Keeler, G., & Nyman, A., (2000). Adults' response to Massachusetts anti-tobacco television advertisement: Impact of viewer ad characteristics. Tobacco Control, 9, 401–407.
4. Bohner, G., Crow, K., Erb, H., & Schwartz, N., (1992). Affect and persuasion Mood effects on the processing of message content and context cues and on subsequent behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 511–530.
5. Bohner, G., & Schwarz, N., (1993). Mood states influence the production of persuasive arguments. Communication Research, 20 (5), 696–722.
6. Booth-Butterfield, S., & Welbourne, J., (2002). The elaboration likelihood model: Its impact on persuasion theory and research. In J., Dillard & M., Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook Developments in theory and practice (pp. 155–173). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H., (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S., Uleman & J. A., Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York: Guilford Press.
8. Dillard, J. P., & Peck, E., (2000). Affect and persuasion: Emotional responses to public service announcements. Communication Research, 27 (4), 461–495.
9. Dillard, J. P., Plotnick, C. A., Godbold, L. C., Freimuth, V. S., & Edgar, T., (1996). The multiple affective outcomes of AIDS PSAs: Fear appeals do more than scare people. Communication Research, 23, 44–72.
10. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S., (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
11. Friend, K., & Levy, D. T., (2002). Reductions in smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption associated with mass-media campaigns. Health Education Research, 17, 85–98.
12. Goldman, L. K., & Glantz, S. A., (1998). Evaluation of antismoking advertising campaigns. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 772–777.
13. Hullett, C. R., (2005). The impact of mood on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 32, 423–442.
14. Isen, A. M., (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 203–253.
15. National Cancer Institute. (2005). Cancer trends progress report–2005 Update. National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS, Bethesda, MD. Retrieved December 2005, from http//progressreport.cancer.gov
16. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T., (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L., Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press.
17. Schwarz, N., (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of affective states. In E. T., Higgins & R. M., Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 527–561). New York: Guilford Press.
18. Schwarz, N., Bless, H., & Bohner, G., (1991). Mood and persuasion: Affective states influence the processing of persuasive communications. In M. P., Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 161–199). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
19. Siegel, M., (1998). Mass media antismoking campaigns: A powerful tool for health promotion. Annual of Internal Medicine, 129, 128–132.
20. Siegel, M., & Biener, L., (2000). The impact of anti-smoking media campaigns on progression to established smoking Results of a longitudinal youth study in Massachusetts. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 380–386.
21. Sly, D. F., Trapido, E., & Ray, S., (2002). Evidence of the dose effects of an anti-tobacco counter-advertising campaign. Preventive Medicine, 35, 511–518.
22. Stephenson, M. T., & Palmgreen, P., (2001). Sensation-seeking, perceived message sensation value, personal involvement, and processing of anti-marijuana PSAs. Communication Monographs, 68 (1), 49–71.
23. Stiff, J. B., (1986). Cognitive processing of persuasive message cues: A meta-analytic review of the effects of supporting information on attitudes. Communication Monographs, 53 (1), 75–89.
24. Todorov, A., Chaiken, S., & Henderson, M. D., (2002). The heuristic-systematic model of social information processing. In J., Dillard & M., Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook Developments in theory and practice (pp. 195–211). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25. Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E., (1994). Mood management across affective states: The hedonic contingency hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1034–1038.
26. Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Smith, S. M., (1995). Positive mood can increase or decrease message scrutiny: The hedonic contingency view of mood and message processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 5–15.