Abstract
Two media-based interventions designed to reduce adolescent marijuana use ran concurrently from 2005 to 2009. Both interventions used similar message strategies, emphasizing marijuana’s inconsistency with personal aspirations and autonomy. “Be Under Your Own Influence” was a randomized community and school trial replicating and extending a successful earlier intervention of the same name (Slater et al. Health Education Research 21:157–167, 2006). “Above the Influence” is a continuing national television, radio, and print campaign sponsored by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). This study assessed the simultaneous impact of the interventions in the 20 U.S. communities. Results indicate that earlier effects of the “Be Under Your Own Influence” intervention replicated only in part and that the most plausible explanation of the weaker effects is high exposure to the similar but more extensive ONDCP “Above the Influence” national campaign. Self-reported exposure to the ONDCP campaign predicted reduced marijuana use, and analyses partially support indirect effects of the two campaigns via aspirations and autonomy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The “Be Under Your Own Influence” campaign messaging strategy and preliminary data from its successful randomized trial were presented in 2003 to ONDCP and PDFA senior staff (who provide research briefings to advertising creative staffs) at a meeting of the Behavior Change Expert Panel, a campaign advisory group then chaired by the first author. The recollection of draftfcb creative staff, according to Robert Denniston (personal communication, March 2006), who oversaw the ONDCP campaign, is that draftfcb subsequently but independently came up with the “Above the Influence” approach, launched nationally in 2005, and that while the research on “Be Under Your Own Influence” provided welcome support and direction for their similar approach, draftfcb believes the initial similarity of the campaign strategies was coincidental.
Slater and Kelly (2002) found a) “definitely seen” responses were far lower for foils than actual messages in treatment conditions, thus validating foils and b) that “might have seen” responses to foils and actual messages were nearly identical, indicating that a “might have seen” response to an actual message does not evidence exposure to it.
For the sake of brevity, we illustrate with a two-level model but the expansion to a four-level is straightforward:
$$ {\pi_{{ij}}} = {\left\{ {1 + \exp \left( { - \left[ {{\beta_0} + {\beta_1}{x_{{ij}}} + {u_{{0j}}}} \right]} \right)} \right\}^{{ - 1}}} $$$$ {\gamma_{{ij \sim }}}Bin({\pi_{{ij}}},{n_{{ij}}}) $$$$ {\rm var} (\left. {{y_{{ij}}}} \right|{\pi_{{ij}}}) = {\pi_{{ij}}}(1 - {\pi_{{ij}}})/{n_{{ij}}} $$$$ {y_{{ij}}} = {\pi_{{ij}}} + {e_{{ij}}}{z_{{ij}}},{z_{{ij}}} = \sqrt {{{\pi_{{ij}}}(1 - {\pi_{{ij}}})/{n_{{ij}}},\sigma_e^2 = 1}} $$where is the expected value for the ijth unit. Also, per recommendations of Agresti (2002) and Kleinbaum et al. (1998) we use the \( {\text{z - test}} \) for examining hypotheses about parameter estimates as those estimates use the maximum likelihood function.
References
Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structurals equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 243–277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
Eddy, M. (2006). War on drugs: The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Retrieved from http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RS21490.pdf.
Flay, B. R. (2000). Approaches to substance use prevention utilizing school curriculum plus social environment change. Addictive Behaviors, 25, 861–885.
Goldstein, H. A. (1990). Multilevel statistical models. New York: Oxford University Press.
Green, L. W. (1977). Evaluation and measurement: Some dilemmas for health education. American Journal of Public Health, 67, 155–161.
Hornik, R. C. (1988). Development communication. New York: Longman.
Hornik, R., Jacobsohn, L., Orwin, R., Piesse, A., & Kalton, G. (2008). Effects of the National Youth Anti-drug Media Campaign on youths. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 2229–2236.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2009). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2008. Volume I: Secondary school students (NIH Publication No. 09-7402). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Kelly, K. J., Comello, M. L. G., & Slater, M. D. (2006). Development of an aspirational campaign to prevent youth substance use: “Be Under Your Own Influence.” Social Marketing Quarterly, XII, 14–27.
Kelly, K. J., Stanley, L. R., & Edwards, R. W. (2000). The impact of a localized anti-alcohol and tobacco media campaign on adolescent females. Social Marketing Quarterly, 1, 39–43.
Kelly, K. J., Swaim, R. C., & Wayman, J. C. (1996). The impact of a localized antidrug media campaign on targeted variables associated with adolescent drug use. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15, 238–251.
Klein, J. D., Brown, J. D., Childers, K. W., Oliveri, J., Porter, C., & Dykers, C. (1993). Adolescents’ risky behavior and mass media use. Pediatrics, 92, 24–31.
Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., Muller, K. E., & Nizam, A. (1998). Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods (3rd ed.). London: Duxbury Press.
Kokkinaki, F., & Lunt, P. (1999). The effect of advertising message involvement on brand attitude accessibility. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 45–51.
Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 249–77.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (2010). Table 4.2B. Retrieved from http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2K8NSDUH/tabs/Sect4peTabs1to16.htm Accessed January 13, 2010.
Office of National Drug Control Policy. (1998). The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: Communication strategy statement [Brochure]. Washington, DC: Author.
Palmgreen, P., Lorch, E. P., Stephenson, M. T., Hoyle, R. H., & Donohew, L. (2007). Effects of the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s marijuana initiative campaign on high sensation-seeking adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 1644–1647.
Peterson, A. C. (1988). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 583–607.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Scheier, L. M., & Grenard, J. L. (2010). Influence of a nation-wide social marketing campaign on adolescent drug use. Journal of Health Communication, 15, 240–271.
Shapiro, M. A. (1994). Signal detection measures of recognition memory. In A. Lang (Ed.), Measuring psychological responses to the media (pp. 133–148). Mahwah, CA: Erlbaum.
Skrondal, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2004). Generalized latent variable modeling: Multilevel, longitudinal, and structural equation models. London: Chapman & Hall.
Slater, M. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory, 17, 281–303.
Slater, M. D., & Kelly, K. J. (2002). Testing alternative explanations for exposure effects in media campaigns: The case of a community-based, in-school media drug prevention project. Communication Research, 29, 367–389.
Slater, M., Edwards, R., Plested, B., Thurman, P., Kelly, K., & Comello, M. (2005). Using community readiness key informant assessments in a randomized group trial: Impact of a participatory community media intervention. Journal of Community Health, 30, 39–53.
Slater, M. D., Kelly, K. J., Edwards, R. W., Plested, B. A., Thurman, P. J., Keefe, T. J., et al. (2006). Combining in-school social marketing and participatory, community-based media efforts: Reducing marijuana and alcohol uptake among younger adolescents. Health Education Research, 21, 157–167.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Southwell, B., Barmada, C., Hornik, R., & Maklan, D. (2002). Can we measure encoded exposure? Validation evidence from a national campaign. Journal of Health Communication, 7, 445–453.
Tang, Z., & Orwin, R. G. (2009). Marijuana initiation among American youth and its risks as dynamic processes: Prospective findings from a national longitudinal study. Substance Use & Misuse, 44, 195–211.
White, T. (2008, May). Innovative analytic approaches to measure the impact of a drug prevention social marketing campaign. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, Health Communication Division, Montreal, Canada.
Wothke, W. (2000). Longitudinal and multi-group modeling with missing data. In T. D. Little, K. U. Schnabel, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multiple group data: Practical issues, applied approaches and specific examples (p. 219–240). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by grant DA12360 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) to the first author. The authors thank the Tri-Ethnic Center staff at Colorado State University and retired administrative director Ruth Edwards, project manager Linda Stapel, the schools, communities, and students whose cooperation made this research possible.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Slater, M.D., Kelly, K.J., Lawrence, F.R. et al. Assessing Media Campaigns Linking Marijuana Non-Use with Autonomy and Aspirations: “Be Under Your Own Influence” and ONDCP’s “Above the Influence”. Prev Sci 12, 12–22 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-010-0194-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-010-0194-1