This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication in Toronto, Canada, August 2004.
        If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
[log in to unmask] For an explanation of the subject line, send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Oct 2004)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
************************************************************************

The Public's Need to Know: Public Service Advertising and the Effects of
Using the
Actor Portrayal Label

Abstract
This study examines a new facet of advertising credibility: identification
or lack of identification of an actor in a public service advertisement.
The question under examination is: Do individuals feel that public service
announcements are less credible and/or effective if they use actors instead
of everyday people? Using a between-subjects experiment, this research
examines audience responses regarding credibility, emotionality,
organization credibility, and attitude toward a public service
advertisement which used an actor instead of an everyday person. Results
suggest that use of the "actor portrayal" label reduces the effectiveness
of the advertisement.


Jensen Moore
University of Missouri-Columbia
School of Journalism
116 Walter Williams
Columbia, Missouri 65211-1200
Phone: 660-263-7256
E-mail: [log in to unmask]



Submitted to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication
Mass Communication and Society Division
Leslie J. Moeller Competition
March 25, 2004


© Jensen Moore 2004
All Rights Reserved

The Public's Need to Know: Public Service Advertising and the Effects of
Using the
Actor Portrayal Label






Jensen Moore
University of Missouri-Columbia
School of Journalism
116 Walter Williams
Columbia, Missouri 65211-1200
Phone: 660-263-7256
E-mail: [log in to unmask]



Manuscript submitted to the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication
Mass Communication and Society Division
Leslie J. Moeller Competition
March 25, 2004




© Jensen Moore 2004
All Rights Reserved
 The Public's Need to Know: Public Service Advertising and the Effects of
Using the
Actor Portrayal Label

Abstract
This study examines a new facet of advertising credibility: identification
or lack of identification of an actor in a public service advertisement.
The question under examination is: Do individuals feel that public service
announcements are less credible and/or effective if they use actors instead
of everyday people? Using a between-subjects experiment, this research
examines audience responses regarding credibility, emotionality,
organization credibility, and attitude toward a public service
advertisement which used an actor instead of an everyday person. Results
suggest that use of the "actor portrayal" label reduces the effectiveness
of the advertisement.
 The Public's Need to Know: Public Service Advertising and the Effects of
Using the
Actor Portrayal Label

Abstract
This study examines a new facet of advertising credibility: identification
or lack of identification of an actor in a public service advertisement.
The question under examination is: Do individuals feel that public service
announcements are less credible and/or effective if they use actors instead
of everyday people? Using a between-subjects experiment, this research
examines audience responses regarding credibility, emotionality,
organization credibility, and attitude toward a public service
advertisement which used an actor instead of an everyday person. Results
suggest that use of the "actor portrayal" label reduces the effectiveness
of the advertisement.
 The Public Need to Know: Credibility of Public Service Advertising and the
Effects of Using the Actor Portrayal Label

Never before has there been the need to identify who is or is not an actor
in advertisements. In the past, audiences assumed that the people they saw
on television – in both programs and advertisements – were actors. However,
many audience members take for granted that people depicted in public
service announcements (PSA) for drugs, alcohol, or tobacco, which use
either testimonial or "slice of life" advertisements, are speaking from
experience. The audience believes that these individuals are not actors,
but everyday people who are using their experiences to prevent others from
their fate (Kotler, Roberto & Lee, 2002). Thus, this type of
advertisement's effectiveness rests on the fact that the person in the PSA
is personally familiar with the topic.
This research focuses on two new phenomena in advertising – the
effectiveness of an actor portrayal and credibility of a testimonial public
service announcement. Public service announcements are part of
issue/advocacy or social marketing campaigns. These campaigns are
organizational attempts to change an aspect of society that is seen as
detrimental in some way (Straubhaar & LaRose, 2002). Social marketing
campaigns try to catch the attention of the public and the media
gatekeepers by using public relations and advertising techniques to "sell"
people on pro-social (positive qualities that we want to encourage in
society) behaviors (Straubhaar & LaRose, 2002; Flay & Cook, 1981). These
campaigns merge marketing, advertising, and public relations to disseminate
information about an organization (or an organization's cause) that the
organization hopes will inevitably create changes in society (Solomon,
1981). Thus, social marketing has an underlying ethical and moral position
inherent in the message.
Because of the fact that public service announcements are grounded in moral
and ethical positions, they are subject to stronger criticisms regarding
truthfulness - specifically regarding the presentation and intent of their
message (Kotler, Roberto & Lee, 2002). While the public knows that the
motive behind traditional advertising is to influence consumers to buy a
product or service, this same public assumes that public service
advertisements have no ulterior motives. Thus, what is acceptable as
omissions, misrepresentations, and claims made by traditional
advertisements is not acceptable in public service advertisements. Public
service announcements are viewed as strictly beneficial – not misleading,
not dishonest, and certainly not deceptive (Kotler, Roberto & Lee, 2002).
The public takes for granted that people in testimonial public service
announcements are not playing roles – they are speaking from experience – a
fact which makes them more credible and effective in reaching their
intended audience. Thus, a misrepresentation in a public service
advertisement may be cause for public alarm. The present study is of
importance because it examines credibility of using actors in public
service announcements as well as several aspects of advertising
effectiveness: emotional response to the advertisement, credibility of
organization, and attitude toward the advertisement based on the version
(actor identified or original) of advertisement viewed. To examine this,
the current study uses a between-subjects experimental method to
investigate credibility differences involving a PSA that claims to be a
testimonial and one that states that it is an actor portrayal.

Background
In 2002, the non-profit organization Minnesota Partnership for Action
Against Tobacco (MPAAT) provoked intense public reaction to a television
advertisement which depicted a mother who was dying from cancer preparing a
final home video for her infant while singing "You Are My Sunshine"
(Associated Press, 2003; Rybak, 2003). The advertisement's emotional appeal
was extremely effective leading more than 5,000 people (up from 500 the
previous month) in Minnesota to call in to the organization's tobacco
helpline (MPAAT Press Release, 2002). In addition, the public service
announcement, produced by Clarity Cloverdale Fury, won an award for being
one of the best commercials of 2002 from industry trade magazine Adweek
(Rybak, 2003). However, the advertisement's effectiveness was not the cause
of public reaction – instead the public was upset to discover that the
woman in the advertisement was not dying of cancer.
Public outcry regarding the advertisement began shortly after it was
discovered that the woman in the Sunshine advertisement was an actor
(Associated Press, 2003; Rybak, 2003). While MPAAT argued that the
advertisement was provocative, realistic, and effective, the public thought
it was deceptive (Rybak, 2003) to use someone who did not have cancer as a
spokesperson or endorser. Many – including some in the advertising industry
- suggested that the advertisement would have been acceptable if the
organization had only put a label such as "dramatization" or "actor
portrayal" on the advertisement instead of making audiences believe the
woman was someone dying of cancer (Rybak, 2003). MPAAT refused, stating
that 1) they should not have to label the woman as an actor, and 2) the
advertisement would not have been as effective if they used such a label.[1]
Consequently, the current study is of importance due to the fact that it
will address the arguments made by MPAAT regarding the effectiveness of an
advertisement with the label of "actor portrayal." This study will use a
between-subjects experiment wherein participants will view either an
advertisement with the "actor portrayal" label or one without to examine
the effects of non-celebrity spokespersons on credibility, emotion, and
attitude regarding the advertisement. This research will also address the
issue of credibility of the organization presenting the advertisement.

Literature Review
        Due to the fact that there is no literature in either social marketing or
public service announcement research regarding this topic, this study
relies mainly on actor/spokesperson literature. Actors are an important
part of an advertisement's effectiveness. Spokesperson, endorsers,
celebrities, actors, or everyday people are not chosen for advertisements
in an unplanned or arbitrary fashion. The selection of an appropriate
endorser for an advertising message is particularly significant to the
effectiveness of the advertisement. Consequently, many decisions go into
choosing the appropriate person for each different advertising message. Not
only do advertisers rely on the personal and physical attributes of the
individual, but also on the perceptions that person will create in the mind
of the audience as well as credibility regarding their assigned role in the
advertisement.  Understanding the effectiveness "role" of individuals in
advertisements is essential to the present study. Actors are believed to
have significant effects on the persuasiveness and effectiveness of
advertising messages and are expected to be credible as well as influential
(Griffin, 1967).
Message Credibility. Scholars have used varying definitions of the concept
of credibility. Those studying content credibility have primarily used
believability, fairness, completeness, and trustworthiness of the message.
However, research into source credibility has examined expertise, bias,
trustworthiness, and accuracy (Gaziano & McGrath 1986; Rimmer & Weaver
1994; Shaw 1994; Flanagin & Metzger 2000) in terms of characteristics of
the message sender or "speaker" – most often an actor or spokesperson. The
landmark social psychology study by Hovland and Weiss (1951) suggested that
message effectiveness depends on the credibility of the source. Likewise,
research by Kelman (1961) and McGuire (1969) suggests that the more
credible the source, the more effective the appeal, and the more likely
attitude change – or in this case behavior change. Thus, while most of the
literature on credibility deals with source - individual, organization, or
media - throughout credibility studies, there is an emphasis on experience
with or of, perceived trustworthiness, or attitude toward the message
provider (Hovland et. al. 1953; McCrosky 1969; Freidman & Freidman 1979;
Freiden 1982; Freiden 1984; McCracken 1989; Kamins 1990; Ohanian 1990;
Kamins & Gupta 1994; Lynch 1994; Lafferty & Goldsmith 1999; Goldsmith et.
al. 2000; and Newell & Goldsmith 2001).
                In comparison, most advertising effects research examines the effects of
a celebrity endorser on advertising effectiveness (Kamins, 1990; Ohanian,
1990; Goldsmith et. al. 2000; Freiden, 1984; Freidman & Freidman, 1979;
McCracken, 1989; Freiden, 1982; Kamins & Gupta, 1994; and Lynch, 1994).
This body of research suggests that characteristics of a celebrity endorser
such as attractiveness, expertise, and trustworthiness can increase
communication effectiveness if the celebrity "fits" the product/brand
advertised. Furthermore, Kamins (1990), Kamins and Gupta (1994), and Lynch
and Schuler (1994) connect the match-up hypothesis to the constructs of
source credibility and attitude toward the advertisement. Based on this
research, it is expected that the credibility of the PSA will be affected
by whether or not the audience believes the individual in the advertisement
"fits" the message. Thus, indicating that the individual is an actor, and
not someone delivering a testimonial, should decrease the trustworthiness
of the message.
        Organization Credibility. However, when dealing with public service
announcements the credibility of the organization or corporation sponsoring
the message is also an issue (MacKenzie & Lutz 1989).  Corporate
credibility was identified by Goldsmith, Lafferty and Newell (2000) as
another type of source credibility which also utilizes measures of
expertise or truthfulness in regard to messages. In this context, the
research suggests that message effectiveness in terms of consumer response
and attitude can be influenced by corporate credibility (Goldsmith et. al.
2000).  Furthermore, research by Newell (1993), Lafferty and Goldsmith
(1999), and Newell and Goldsmith (2001) posited that corporate credibility
has direct effects on attitude toward the advertisement. It is therefore
assumed that if the audience feels that the organization presenting the PSA
is credible or has a positive attitude toward the organization, then they
will feel the PSA is more credible in general. Furthermore, the use of the
"actor portrayal" label should signify to audiences that the organization
has manipulated the message in some way, thereby reducing the
organization's credibility.
Emotion. Moreover, the role of emotion in persuasion (especially in PSAs)
is to influence a particular attitude toward the message (Dillard & Peck,
2000). Thus, emotional responses to advertising also affect the attitude
toward the advertisement. The effects of emotion-inducing appeals,
(specifically humor and fear appeals), has led to many studies regarding
influence and attitude formation (Wood, 2000). Most notably, studies by
Rogers & Prentice–Dunn (1997), Dillard, Plotnik, Godbold, Freimuth, and
Edgar (1996), Millar and Millar (1996) have examined personal involvement
and information processing differences resulting from exposure to emotional
appeals. These studies assert that emotional appeals often provide the
psychological the basis for attitude formation and behavior. Consequently,
this study suggests that experiencing emotional responses to a PSA will not
only affect attitudes toward the advertisement, but may also affect
credibility of the advertisement. This study also proposes that an
advertisement with an "actor portrayal" label will reduce the emotional
response to the PSA as it will indicate that the person has no direct
experience with this issue (testimonial).
Attitude Toward the Advertisement. As posited by Burton and Lictenstein
(1988) attitude toward the ad reflects an individual's assessment – either
positive or negative – in response to advertising stimuli.  Thus, an
individual's evaluation of an advertisement is directly related to their
attitude toward the advertisement and can usually predict a person's
behavioral response. These perceptions or attitudes toward the
advertisement may also be influenced by involvement with the stimuli.
Involvement is the stimulation of the individual evoked by the
advertisement which often motivates individual's to form attitudes toward
the advertisement (Mitchell, 1981; Andrews et. al. 1990). It is also
suggested that "issues, situations, or messages can have significant
consequences on, or be personally relevant to" an individual (Apsler &
Sears, 1968) and can influence attitudes. Thus, studies using the
involvement construct to measure attitude toward the ad have been abundant
(Lutz, 1985; Mitchell & Olsen, 1981), and have noted direct relationships
between the two variables. Thus, the link between emotional response to an
advertisement, the evaluation of the credibility of the advertisement, and
the overall involvement of the audience with the advertisement should
result in differing attitudes toward the PSA. In this case, it is predicted
that overall involvement with the "actor portrayal" labeled advertisement
will not be as great simply due to the fact that the audience will
automatically identify the individual in the PSA as an actor instead of an
actual sufferer/victim, resulting in less positive attitudes toward the
advertisement.
Taken together, the research suggests that the persuasion process
(attitude/behavior formation or change) is impacted by the ability of the
message to acquire the audience's trust, elicit emotion, affect positive
attitudes, and obtain positive organization credibility. (Sterthal et. al.
1978; Kamins, 1990; Ohanian, 1990). Thus, credibility of the actor,
credibility of the organization, emotional response elicited by the actor,
and positive attitudes toward the advertisement formed through involvement
are all important components that enhance the effectiveness of advertising.
While the literature develops differences between celebrity endorsers,
experts, and everyday spokespersons in regard to effectiveness of product
advertisements, it fails to address actors in different types of persuasive
advertisements such as public service announcements.
However, extending these theories to the current research is an accepted
application. Because many spokesperson and endorser studies have identified
associations between actor and attitude, credibility, and emotional
response to the advertisement these dimensions were used in the present
study to determine how identification of the actor would affect audience
perception of the advertisement in regard to effectiveness and
deceptiveness. Due to the lack of research on the specific topics of study,
the following research question was posed:

RQ1: Are public service announcements are less effective if they use actors
instead of everyday people (testimonials)?

The general assumption of MPAAT was that the advertisement would be less
effective if the public knew that the person in the advertisement did not
have cancer and was simply an actor. Furthermore, MPAAT did not feel they
needed to identify the actor as such – thereby omitting what the public may
see as an important piece of information. The implications of the studies
mentioned in the literature review suggest that celebrity or expert
endorsers often elicit differences in credibility, emotional response, and
attitude toward the advertisement. However, identification of the actor in
this case would result in the person not being an "expert" or "victim" (no
direct experience with the issue) and be possibly less convincing. Drawing
on these arguments, four hypotheses will be tested. The advertisement with
the "actor portrayal" label will:

H1: Not affect as strong of feelings of message credibility compared to the
advertisement with no label.
H2: Not affect as strong of emotional response compared to the
advertisement with no label.
H3: Not affect as positive an attitude compared to the advertisement with
no label.
H4: Not affect as strong of feelings of organization credibility as
compared to the advertisement with no label.

The present study will thus examine several aspects of advertising
effectiveness: emotional response to the advertisement, credibility of
message and organization, and attitude toward the advertisement based on
the version (actor identified or original) of advertisement viewed.

Method
In order to examine the research question regarding effectiveness of an
advertisement that does not address whether the person in the advertisement
is an actor and one that labels the person as an actor, this study used a
between-subjects experimental method wherein participants were exposed to
one of two different manipulations of the same "Sunshine" advertisement.
The experimental method allows researchers to examine the affective
responses of participants to media stimuli. In addition, this type of
quantitative method allows researchers the ability to control conditions,
manipulate stimuli, and repeat experiments. This often results in
investigations of the relationships between dependent and independent
variables. In this study, the relationship between the label of actor and
the effectiveness of the advertisement in terms of emotionality,
organizational credibility, attitude toward the advertisement, and overall
credibility are examined.

Participants
A convenience sample of 82 (14 males and 68 females) undergraduate
students, who were enrolled in journalism classes at the University of
Missouri-Columbia, participated in the study. Participants were recruited
and asked to participate on a volunteer basis. No monetary incentives were
provided, however some students did receive extra credit points for
participation.
Of the 82 total participants, all were between the ages of 17 and 22, with
over half (N=49) in their third or fourth year of college. The majority
were Caucasian, with only 16 percent minority students. Most were
non-smokers, with a total of only 10 participants being current smokers,
and 17 more having smoked cigarettes in the past five years. Of these past
or current smokers, only eight reported smoking on a daily basis and stated
that they had between one and four packs per week.

Procedure
        The experiment was conducted in a small lecture room which had one large
table in the middle of the room with 16 chairs surrounding. A 36-inch,
color television with VCR was placed on a 4-foot high stand in the front
corner of the room. A total of 10 sessions were held (five viewings of each
stimuli), with 10-16 students in each session. Participants randomly
assigned themselves to one of the two stimuli groups (N= 38 in actor
identified group, N= 44 in original group) based on the session time they
had signed up for.
Following some introductory comments, participants were asked to sign a
consent form. Participants were then shown one of the two 30-second
advertising stimuli and asked to fill out a 7-page questionnaire following.
The entire procedure generally took approximately 15 minutes.

Stimuli
The original "Sunshine" advertisement was used as one of the stimuli. The
ad shows an emaciated young mother (presumably from chemotherapy) sitting
on a couch with little to no hair, wearing a knitted cap on her head. She
is holding an infant dressed in pink. The grainy quality of the video
suggests that this is a film she made of herself. The woman looks directly
into the camera and says "Emma, Mommy is really sick. So, I just wanted to
make this so you know how much I love you." The woman then proceeds to sing
the song "You are my sunshine" to the infant. This portion comprises 20
seconds of the video. The following 5 seconds are a black screen which
contains the tag line "Be there tomorrow. Stop smoking today" in white
lettering. The final 5 seconds is the same black screen with the 1-800
number and MPAAT logo in white lettering. The woman's voice is faded, but
can be heard continuing the song throughout the final 10 seconds of the video.
A copy of the "Sunshine" advertisement was manipulated using Media100 so
that the words "actor portrayal" would appear across the bottom of the
screen during the period when the actor was onscreen (approximately 20
seconds). The "actor portrayal" label was done in the same font as the
final section of the advertisement and used 10-point, white lettering,
centered on the screen.

Measurement of Dependent Variables
The questionnaire addressed the effectiveness of the advertisement through
the aspects of message credibility, organization credibility, emotion, and
attitude toward the advertisement. Each question was analyzed using a
principle components factor analysis with Varimax rotation. A factor
loading of .60 was used as a general rule of thumb for determining whether
an item qualified for inclusion to either factor, and items which had
loadings of less than .60 were considered problematic. Each used an
Eigenvalue of 1.00 as a minimum for defining a factor (See Appendix A for
Survey).
Message Credibility. Credibility of the advertisement was measured using a
variation of the source credibility scale developed by Lichtenstein and
Bearden (1989). Participants were asked to respond to 13 items regarding
trustworthiness. The measure was worded as follows: "In general, I felt
that the Sunshine advertisement was….?" Participants rated the 13 items
using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very).[2]  The 13
items were factor analyzed and produced three factors.
The first factor was honesty, or truthfulness of the advertisement, and
consisted of: truthful, dishonest (reverse-coded), suspicious
(reverse-coded), and biased (reverse-coded). The honesty factor accounted
for 8 percent of the variance. The second factor was genuineness, or
believability of the advertisement, and consisted of: believable, sincere,
convincing, and realistic. The genuineness factor accounted for 12 percent
of the variance. The third factor was credibility, or reliability of the
advertisement, and consisted of: reliable, credible, dependable,
trustworthy, and reputable. The credibility factor accounted for 55 percent
of the variance. Together, the three factors explained two-thirds of the
variance in the experiment.  Lichtenstein and Beard (1989) reported
internal consistency reliability coefficients of .78 on the original scale.
However, subsequent variations from Tripp, Jensen, and Carlson (1994);
Moore, Mowen, and Reardon (1994); and Bobinski, Cox, and Cox (1996),
reported reliabilities of .88, .80, and .91 respectively. For this study,
the honesty scale had an alpha of .77, the genuineness scale had an alpha
of .85, and the credibility scale had an alpha of .93.
Organization Credibility. Credibility of the organization was measured
using the corporate credibility scale developed by Newell and Goldsmith
(2001). Participants were asked to respond to 8 statements regarding MPAAT.
Participants rated the 8 statements using a 5-point scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The 8 statements were factor
analyzed and produced two factors. Although part of the original scale, the
statement "The MPAAT organization is honest" did not load correctly and was
dropped.
The first factor was expertise, or capability of the organization, and
consisted of statements regarding the experience, skill, and expertise of
MPAAT. The expertise factor accounted for 53 percent of the variance. The
second factor was truthfulness, or believability of the organization, and
consisted of statements regarding the truthfulness and honesty of MPAAT.
The truthfulness factor accounted for 16 percent of the variance. Together,
the two factors explained over half of the variance in the experiment. For
this study, the expertise scale had an alpha of .85 while the truthfulness
scale had an alpha of .83.
Emotion. Using the emotion scales developed by Moore, Harris, & Chen (1995)
as a guide, participants were asked to respond to 14 items regarding
emotions. The measure was worded as follows: "While exposed to the Sunshine
advertisement, how strongly did you feel…?" Participants rated the 14 items
using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very). The 14 items
were factor analyzed and produced two factors. Although part of the
original scales, the items alarmed, empathetic, understanding, joyous,
concerned, angry, and amused did not load correctly and were dropped.
        The first factor was negative emotion, or negative emotional reaction to
the emotional advertising appeal used in the advertisement, and consisted
of frightened, worried, and sad. The negative emotion factor accounted for
34 percent of the variance. The second factor was positive emotion, or
positive emotional reaction to the emotional advertising appeal used in the
advertisement, and consisted of compassionate, warm, sympathetic, and
sentimental. The positive emotion factor accounted for 13 percent of the
variance. Together, the two factors explained almost half of the variance
in the experiment. While Moore, Harris, & Chen (1995) reported internal
consistency reliability coefficients of .75 to .93, .89, and .90 for the
positive, negative, and empathy scales respectively. However, for this
study, the negative emotion scale had an alpha of .79 while the positive
emotion scale had an alpha of .75.
Attitude Toward the Advertisement. Attitude toward the advertisement was
measured using both an enduring involvement scale (Zaichowsky, 1985) and an
attitude toward the ad scale (Kamp & MacInnis, 1995). The involvement
scale, also known as the personal involvement inventory, required
participants to respond to 20 items regarding the advertisement.
Participants rated the 20 items using a 7-point semantic differential
scale. The 20 items were factor analyzed and produced three factors.
Although part of the original scale, the items of irrelevant, beneficial,
matters to me, uninteresting, appealing, undesirable, wanted, of no
concern, means a lot to me, and not needed did not load correctly and were
dropped.
The first factor was necessity of the advertisement, and consisted of:
important, useless (reverse-coded), and valuable. The necessity factor
accounted for 7 percent of the variance. The second factor was relevance
the advertisement, and consisted of: trivial (reverse-coded), significant,
and vital. The relevance factor accounted for 46 percent of the variance.
The third factor was appeal of the advertisement, and consisted of: boring
(reverse-coded), unexciting (reverse-coded), and mundane (reverse-coded).
The appeal factor accounted for 8 percent of the variance. Together, the
three factors explained over half of the variance in the experiment. For
this study, the necessity scale had an alpha of .80, the relevance scale
had an alpha of .83, and the appeal scale had an alpha of .79.
In determining overall attitude toward the advertisement participants were
asked to respond to 3 statements regarding the "Sunshine" advertisement.
Participants rated the 3 statements using a 7-point semantic differential
scale for each.  The 3 statements were factor analyzed and produced one
factor. The overall attitude factor measured the liking, positive feelings,
and impression of the advertisement and accounted for 80 percent of the
variance.  Kamp and MacInnis (1995) reported an internal consistency
reliability coefficient of .90 for this scale. However, for this study, the
attitude toward the ad scale had an alpha of .87.
Demographics. The participant demographics section included the basic
male/female, education, race, and age information questions. However,
certain questions related to cigarette use were included (e.g. Are you
currently a smoker?) to determine if these factors influenced perception of
the advertisements. Since this advertisement is about smoking cessation it
was possible that smokers would react differently to the advertisement than
non-smokers.

Measurement of Independent Variables
As a manipulation check, participants in both groups were first asked
whether the advertisement they had just viewed as one with or without an
actor portraying the cancer victim. Two statements addressed this issue.
The first statement was "The woman in the "Sunshine" ad is an actor." The
second statement was "The woman in the "Sunshine" ad has cancer. Both were
measured using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
7 (strongly agree). Results of the manipulation check showed that the
difference between groups was statistically significant. Table 1 shows a
comparison of the two groups.
______________________
Insert Table 1 About Here
______________________

Results
The research was guided by the question: 1) Do individuals feel that public
service announcements are less effective if they use actors instead of
everyday people? This study was conducted using four hypotheses: 1) The
advertisement with the "actor portrayal" label will not affect as strong of
feelings of message credibility compared to the advertisement with no
label, 2) The advertisement with the "actor portrayal" label will not
affect as strong of emotional response compared to the advertisement with
no label, 3) The advertisement with the "actor portrayal" label will not
affect as positive an attitude compared to the advertisement with no label,
and 4) The advertisement with the "actor portrayal" label will not affect
as strong of feelings of organization credibility as compared to the
advertisement with no label.
        The statistical software package SPSS 10.0 was used for analysis of the
collected data. This study examines whether there is a difference in
effectiveness between two advertisements – one labeled "actor portrayal"
and one with no label. Thus, independent samples t tests were run to make
comparisons of the two conditions regarding credibility, emotion,
organization credibility, and attitude. A significance criterion of p = .05
(two-tailed) was adopted for each hypothesis in order to rule out Type I
error. With this criterion, the total number of subjects in each
experimental group was such that the experiment had sufficient power (.80)
to detect a medium to large effect size (Cohen, 1992).
        Overall, results of the t tests indicated that message credibility was
strongly affected by using the label "actor portrayal." In addition, only
positive emotional response and organization truthfulness was affected by
the stimuli, while negative emotional response, organization expertise, and
attitude toward the advertisement were unaffected. The results of testing
each hypothesis follow.

H1: Message Credibility
The data supported the first hypothesis, which stated that the
advertisement with the "actor portrayal" label would not affect as strong
of feelings of message credibility compared to the advertisement with no
label. Those participants who viewed the PSA without a label displayed
significantly t (80) = -4.14; p < .001, stronger feelings of credibility
regarding the advertisement than the "actor portrayal" participants.
Participants who viewed the advertisement without the label also thought
the labeled advertisement was significantly t (80) = -2.63; p < .01 less
honest. In addition, participants who viewed the advertisement labeled
"actor portrayal" did not feel the advertisement was as genuine t (80) =
-3.89; p < .001 as the original advertisement. Table 2 shows the comparison
of the two groups in regard to message credibility in response to viewing
the advertisements.
______________________
Insert Table 2 About Here
______________________
H2: Emotional Response
        The data partially supported the second hypothesis which stated that the
advertisement with the "actor portrayal" label would not affect as strong
of emotional response compared to the advertisement with no label. Those
participants who viewed the PSA without a label displayed a significantly,
t (80) = -2.60; p < .01, stronger positive (compassionate, warm,
sympathetic, and sentimental) emotional response to the advertisement than
the "actor portrayal" participants. However, while not significant, t (80)
= -.08; p = .9, participants who viewed the advertisement labeled "actor
portrayal" displayed somewhat stronger negative (frightened, worried, and
sad) emotional responses to the advertisement. Table 3 shows the
comparisons of the two groups in regard to positive and negative emotions
in response to viewing the advertisements.
______________________
Insert Table 3 About Here
______________________
H3: Attitude Toward The Advertisement
The data did not support the third hypothesis which stated that the
advertisement with the "actor portrayal" label would not affect as positive
an attitude compared to the advertisement with no label. While those
participants who viewed the advertisement without a label displayed
somewhat more positive attitudes in regard to necessity, relevance, appeal,
and overall attitude toward the advertisement, none of these differences
were statistically significant. Table 4 shows the comparison of the two
groups in regard to attitude toward the advertisement in response to
viewing the advertisements.
______________________
Insert Table 4 About Here
______________________
H4: Organization Credibility
        The data partially supported the fourth hypothesis which stated that the
advertisement with the "actor portrayal" label would not affect as strong
of feelings of organization credibility compared to the advertisement with
no label. Those participants who viewed the advertisement without a label
reported no significant differences, t (80) = -.27; p = .8, for
organization expertise, but did report significant differences, t (80) =
-2.34; p < .05, for organization truthfulness as opposed to the
advertisement with the "actor portrayal" label. Table 5 shows the
comparison of the two groups in regard to organization credibility in
response to viewing the advertisements.
______________________
Insert Table 5 About Here
______________________

Discussion
This study tested the argument presented by MPAAT – that the "Sunshine"
advertisement would not have been as effective if the organization had used
the label "actor portrayal" – by examining the effects of the labels' use
on message credibility, emotional response, organization credibility, and
attitude toward the advertisement. The answer to the research question of
how this advertisement would be perceived if the label of "actor portrayal"
was used, adds to the understanding of advertising in a number of ways.
The research question was posed to examine the difference in effectiveness
of an advertisement which identifies the actor and one which does not.
Results indicated that while there were not significant differences between
the two different advertisements in respect to attitudes regarding the
"Sunshine" advertisement (or organization credibility), the original
advertisement was more effective in regard to emotion and advertisement
credibility. Thus, the arguments that MPAAT made about reducing the
effectiveness of the advertisement by adding the words "actor portrayal"
are partially justified.
Our results suggest that a PSA's message may not be as effective in terms
of credibility, genuineness, and honesty if the audience is notified that
the person in the advertisement is merely an actor. Moreover, the
truthfulness of the organization as a measure of credibility may be called
into question when using an "actor portrayal" labeled advertisement,
although the expertise of the organization is not. Our findings also imply
that while the attitudes toward the advertisement are not significantly
affected, the use of the "actor portrayal" label decreases the emotionality
of the PSA.
The results of this study suggest practical applications that public
service announcement advertisements will be more effective if they either
1) use everyday people's testimonials in their advertisements, or 2) do not
identify the person as an actor – thus letting the public believe they are
an everyday person who has experience with the topic. In sum, this research
provides support for the argument that advertisements (specifically PSAs)
will not be as effective, in terms of, organization truthfulness, emotional
response, and message credibility, if the persons in them are identified as
actors. However, this research does not suggest that advertisers should or
should not use the label of "actor portrayal" in their advertisements.
While this study provided many valuable insights, it did have its
limitations. For example, one potential limitation was that some of the
undergraduate students used in this study may have prior knowledge about
this advertisement and the controversy surrounding it – thus were aware
that they were watching an actor dramatization. In addition, participants
viewed the advertisement through forced exposure. Using forced exposure
means that no other content (e.g. programs, other commercials) is seen,
creating an unrealistic viewing experience as most people do not simply
watch a 30-second advertisement and nothing else. Furthermore, the fact
that a convenience sample of undergraduate students was used, limits the
ability to generalize the findings to a larger population. Future research
should examine effectiveness using the target market for this type of PSA -
current smokers.
However, this research added to the body of literature on actors in
advertising by examining two very important factors in advertising research
– emotionality and credibility. Research currently addresses the link
between credibility and attitude, but not emotional reaction to
advertising. The results of this research however, while not finding
comparable increases between emotional response and attitude (though
supported by prior research), did show that both emotional response and
credibility increased similarly.
It is important to note that this research does not suggest that these
effects would apply to a product advertisement using the "actor portrayal"
label. Whereas no studies currently examine the effects of using actor
identification, the need for this research does exist as some advertisers
are using this approach. For example, a recent VISA business card
advertisement depicting two women as business owners identifies the women
as actors in the first five seconds of the advertisement using the "actor
portrayal" label. Based on the lack of research regarding other types of
advertisements, this research should be considered preliminary until
extensions can be applied to other advertisement types.
Furthermore, it should be stated that this research is not advocating the
deception of audiences. One argument for the need of MPAAT to identify that
this person was an actor was the gravity of the subject matter of the
advertisement. As some advertising professionals argued, advertisers
dealing with "challenging situations" such as these have, "a responsibility
to let people know whether or not it's an actor" (Rybak 2003, p. 1).

 References
Andrews, C.J., Srinivas, D., & Syed H. A. (1990). "A Frameworks for
Conceptualizing and Measuring Involvement Construct in Advertising
Research," Journal of Advertising, 19 (14), 27-40.

Apsler, R. & Sears, D.O. (1968). "Warning Labels, Personal Involvement, and
Attitude Change," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 162-166.

Bobinski, G.S., Jr., Cox, D. & Cox, A. (1996). "Retail 'Sale' Advertising,
Perceived Retailer Credibility, and Price Rationale," Journal of
Advertising Research, 72 (3), 291-306.

Bruner, G.C., James, K.E. & Hensel, P. J. (2001). "A Compilation of
Multi-Item Measures," Marketing Scales Handbook: Volume III, American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.

Burton, S. &  Lichtenstein, D.R. (1988). "The Effect of Ad Claims and Ad
Context on Attitude Toward the Advertisement," Journal of Advertising,
17(1), 3-11.

Cohen, J. (1992). "A power primer," Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.

Dillard, J.P. & Peck, E. (2000). "Affect and Persuasion: Emotional
Responses to Public Service Announcements," Communication Research, 27
(August), 461-495.

Dillard, J.P., Plotnik, 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.

Flay, BR. & Cook, T.D. (1981). "Evaluation of Mass Media Prevention
Campaigns," from Public Communication Campaigns. London: Sage Publications,
Inc.

Freiden, J. (1982). "An Evaluation of Spokesperson and Vehicle source
Effects in Advertising," Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 77-87.

Freiden J.B. (1984)."Advertising Spokesperson Effects: An Examination of
Endorser Type and Gender of Two Audiences," Journal of Advertising
Research, 24 (5), 22-24.

Freidman, H. & Freidman, L. (1979). "Endorser Effectiveness by Product
Type," Journal of Advertising Research, 19 (5), 63-71.

Goldsmith, R., Lafferty, B. & Newell, S. (2000). "The Impact of Corporate
Credibility and Celebrity Credibility on Consumer Reaction to
Advertisements and Brands," Journal of Advertising, 29 (3), 43-54.
Griffin, K. (1967). "The Contribution of Studies of Source Credibility to a
Theory of Interpersonal Trust in the Communication Process," Psychological
Bulletin, 68 (2), 104-119.

Hovland, C. & Weiss, W. (1951). "The Influence of Source Credibility on
Communication Effectiveness," Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.

Holbrook, M.B. (1987). "Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall, What's Unfair About
Advertising," Journal of Marketing, 51 (July), 95-103.

Kamins, M.A. (1990). "An Investigation into the 'Match-Up' Hypothesis in
Celebrity Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 19 (1), 4-13.

Kamins, M.A. & Gupta, K. (1994). "Congruence Between Spokesperson and
Product Type: A Match up Hypothesis Perspective," Psychology and Marketing,
11 (6), 569-586.
Kamp, E. & MacInnis, D.J. (1995). "Characteristics of Portrayed Emotions in
Commercials: When Does What is Shown in Ads Affect viewers?" Journal of
Advertising Research, 35 (November/December), 19-28.

Kelman, H.C. (1961). "Processes of opinion change," Public Opinion
Quarterly, 33 (Spring), 57-78.

Lafferty, B. & Goldsmith, R.E. (1999). "Corporate Credibility's Role in
Consumers' Attitudes and Purchase Intention When a High Versus a Low
Credibility Endorser is Used in the Ad," Journal of Business Research, 44
(February), 109-116.

Licthenstein, D.R. & Bearden, W.O. (1989). "Contextual Influences on
Perceptions of Merchant- Supplied Reference Prices," Journal of Consumer
Research, 16 (June), 55-66.

Lutz, R.J. (1985). "Affective and Cognitive Antecedents of Attitude Toward
the Ad: A conceptual Framework," Psychological Processes and Advertising
Effects: Theory, Research, and Applications, Alwitt, L.F. & Mitchell, A.A.
eds., Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 45-63.

Lynch, J. & Schuler, D. (1994). "The Matchup Effect of Spokesperson and
Product Congruency: A Schema Theory Interpretation," Psychology and
Marketing, 11 (5), 417-445.

McCracken, G. (1989). "Who is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations
of the Endorsement Process," Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (2), 121-138.

McGuire, W. (1969). "The Nature of Attitudes and Attitude Change," Handbook
of Social Psychology, In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson eds, Chicago: Rand
McNally, 136-314.

Millar, M.G. & Millar, K.U. (1996). "Effects of Message Anxiety on Disease
Detection and Health Promotion Behaviors," Basic Applications of Social
Psychology, 18:61-74.

Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco, 'Sunshine' Ad Captures
Personal Tragedy of Smoking; MPAAT Promotes Assistance to Smokers Wishing
to Quit," http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/021112/mntu008_1.html.

Mitchell, A.A. & Olson, J.C. (1981). "Are Product Attribute Beliefs the
Only Mediators of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitudes?" Journal of
Marketing Research, 18 (August), 318-332.

Mitchell, A.A. (1981). "Dimensions of Advertising Involvement," Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 8, Kent B. Monroe, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association
for Consumer Research, 25-30.

Moore, D.J., Harris, W.D. & Chen, H.C. (1995). "Affect Intensity: An
Individual Difference Response to Advertising Appeals," Journal of
Communication Research, 22 (September), 154-64.

Moore, D.J, Mowen, J.C. & Reardon, R. (1994). "Multiple Sources in
Advertising Appeals: When Product Endorsers are Paid by the Advertising
Sponsor," Journal of Advertising, 22 (Summer), 234-43.

Newell, S.J. & Goldsmith, R.E. (2001). "The Development of a Scale to
Measure Perceived Corporate Credibility," Journal of Business Research, 52,
235-247.

Ohanian, R. (1990)."Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure
Celebrity Endorsers' Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and
Attractiveness," Journal of Advertising, 19 (3), 39-52.

Pillar, R.W. (1986). "The Distorted Mirror: Reflections on the Unintended
Consequences of Advertising," Journal of Marketing, 50 (April), 18-36.

Rogers R.W. & Prentice-Dunn S. (1997). "Protection motivation
theory,"  Handbook of Health Behavior Research, ed. Gochman, D. 1:113-132.
New York: Plenum.

Rybak, D.C. (2003). The Star Tribune. "Sunshine" Ad: Saving Lives or Smoke
and Mirrors? January 19.

Solomon, D.S. (1981). "A Social Marketing Perspective on Campaigns," from
Public Communication Campaigns. London: Sage Publications, Inc.

Straubhaar, J. & LaRose, R. (2002). Media Now: Communications Media in the
Information Age, 3rd Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning.

Sternthal, B., Phillips, L.W., & Dholakia, R. (1978). "The Persuasive
Effect of Source Credibility: A Situational Analysis," Public Opinion
Quarterly, 42, 285-314.

Tripp, C., Jensen, T.D. & Carlson, L. (1994). "The Effects of Multiple
Product Endorsements by Celebrities on Consumers' Attitudes and
Intentions," Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (March), 535-47.

Wimmer, R.D. & Dominick, J.R. (7th Edition). (2003). Mass Media Research:
An Introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

Wood, W. (2000). "Attitude Change: Persuasion and Social Influence," Annual
Review of Psychology, 2000, p. 539.

Ziachowsky, J.L. (1985). "Measuring the Involvement Construct," Journal of
Communication Research, 12 (December), 341-352.



 Appendix A: Questionnaire for Experiment
Part 1: Please place an "X" in the space which most closely corresponds to
the following questions regarding the advertisement you just saw.

A. The woman in the "Sunshine" ad is an actor.
Strongly Disagree : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ :
Strongly Agree
                        1       2        3         4        5         6       7

B. The woman in the "Sunshine" ad has cancer.
Strongly Disagree : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ :
Strongly Agree
                        1       2        3         4        5         6       7

C. The woman in the "Sunshine" ad is holding a baby girl.
Strongly Disagree : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ :
Strongly Agree
                        1       2        3         4        5         6       7

D. The woman in the "Sunshine" ad is videotaping herself.
Strongly Disagree : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ :
Strongly Agree
                        1       2        3         4        5         6       7


Part 2: Please place an "X" in the space which most closely corresponds to
the following questions regarding the advertisement you just saw.

While exposed to the "Sunshine" advertisement, how strongly did you feel
_________?

A. Concerned
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
B. Compassionate
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
1       2       3       4        5        6        7
C. Warm
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
1       2       3       4        5        6        7
D. Sympathetic
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
E. Sentimental
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
F. Alarmed
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
G. Empathetic
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
H. Angry
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
I. Amused
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
J. Frightened
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
K. Worried
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
L. Understanding
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
M. Sad
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
N. Joyous
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7


Part 3:  Please place an "X" in the space that most closely corresponds to
your feelings regarding the "Sunshine" advertisement.

I felt that the Sunshine advertisement was:

A. Truthful
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
B. Believable
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
C. Sincere
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
D. Dishonest
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
E. Convincing
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
F. Suspicious
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
G. Realistic
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
H. Reliable
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
I. Credible
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
J. Dependable
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
K. Trustworthy
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
L. Biased
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7
M. Reputable
Not at all : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Very
                        1       2       3       4        5        6        7


Part 4: Please place an "X" in the space that most closely corresponds to
your feelings regarding Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco
(MPAAT) the organization that produced this advertisement.

A.      The MPAAT organization has a great amount of experience.
Strongly Disagree : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Strongly Agree
                        1       2        3         4        5

B. The MPAAT organization is skilled in what they do.
Strongly Disagree : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Strongly Agree
                        1       2        3         4        5

C. The MPAAT organization has great expertise.
Strongly Disagree : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Strongly Agree
                        1       2        3         4        5

D. The MPAAT organization does not have much experience.
Strongly Disagree : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Strongly Agree
                        1       2        3         4        5

E. I trust the MPAAT organization.
Strongly Disagree : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Strongly Agree
                        1       2        3         4        5

F. The MPAAT organization makes truthful claims.
Strongly Disagree : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Strongly Agree
                        1       2        3         4        5

G. The MPAAT organization is honest.
Strongly Disagree : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Strongly Agree
                        1       2        3         4        5

H. I do not believe what the MPAAT organization tells me.
Strongly Disagree : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : _____ : Strongly Agree
                        1       2        3         4        5


Part 5:  Please place an "X" in the space that most closely corresponds to
your feelings regarding the "Sunshine" advertisement.

A. Important            : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : Unimportant
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
B. Of no concern        : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : Of
concern to me
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
C. Irrelevant           : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : Relevant
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
D. Means a lot to me     : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ :
Means nothing to me
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
E. Useless              : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : Useful
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
F. Valuable             : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : Worthless
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
G. Trivial              : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : Fundamental
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
H. Beneficial           : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : Not
Beneficial
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
I. Matters to me                : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ :
Doesn't matter
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
J. Uninteresting                : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ :
Interesting
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
K. Significant          : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ :
Insignificant
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
L. Vital                        : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : Superfluous
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
M. Boring               : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : Not Boring
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
N. Unexciting           : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : Exciting
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
O. Appealing            : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : Unappealing
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
P. Mundane              : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : Fascinating
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
Q. Essential            : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : Nonessential
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
R. Undesirable          : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : Desirable
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
S. Wanted               : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : Unwanted
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7
T. Not needed           : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : Needed
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7


Please place an "X" in the space which most closely corresponds to your
feelings regarding the "Sunshine" advertisement.

A. Overall, what is your impression of the "Sunshine" ad?

Disliked it very much   : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ :
Liked it very much
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7

B. To what degree did you feel positively toward the "Sunshine" ad?

Not at all positive     : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ :
Very positive
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7

C. Overall, how well did you like the "Sunshine" ad?

Did not like it at all   : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ :
Liked it very much
                            1       2       3     4      5      6       7


Part 6 - Please check only one response for each of the following questions.

What is your gender?
•       Male
•       Female

What is your age group?
•       17-19
•       20-22
•       23-25
•       26-28
•       29 +

Are you currently a smoker?
•       Yes
•       No


Have you smoked cigarettes in the past?
•       Yes
•       No

If you answered yes to either of the previous two questions, what type of
smoker would you classify yourself as?
•       I tried it once and didn't like it.
•       I had a couple of cigarettes when I was younger.
•       I am a "social smoker" meaning I'll have some when partying or drinking.
•       I am a "stress smoker" meaning I'll have some when under pressure, tense,
or anxious.
•       I am a "group smoker" meaning I'll have one when I am around others who
are smoking.
•       I smoke on a daily basis.
•       Other ____________________(please explain).

What is your last year of education completed?
•       High School Graduate
•       Vocational/Trade School
•       First year college
•       Second year college
•       Third year college
•       Fourth year college
•       Other ____________________(please explain).

What is your race?
•       White/Anglo/Caucasian
•       Spanish/Hispanic/Latino
•       Black/African American
•       Asian/Pacific Islander
•       American Indian
•       Other __________________(please specify).


When you have finished the survey, please take it to the front of the room.
If you are receiving extra credit for participating, please note the
instructor and class you will be receiving credit in legibly on the sign-in
sheet at the front of the room.

Again, thank you for participating in this experiment.
 Appendix B: Results

Table 1:  Means and t Test for Manipulation Checks
Measure
Group
Mean
Mean
Difference
T value
df
Woman is an actor
Original Ad
Labeled Ad
3.39***
6.47
3.09
7.82
80
Woman has cancer
Original Ad
Labeled Ad
2.57***
4.10
1.54
3.57
80
N=82
*p<.05
**p<.01
***p<.001


Table 2: Means and t Test for Message Credibility Factors
Measure
Group
Mean
Mean
Difference
T value
df
Message
Credibility
Original Ad
Labeled Ad
24.11***
18.89
-5.22
-4.14
80
Message
Genuineness
Original Ad
Labeled Ad
22.91***
18.74
-4.17
-3.89
80
Message
Honesty
Original Ad
Labeled Ad
22.45**
19.68
-2.77
-2.63
80
N=82
**p<.01
***p<.001


Table 3:  Means and t Test for Emotion Factors
Measure
Group
Mean
Mean
Difference
T value
df
Positive Emotion
Original Ad
Labeled Ad
21.77**
19.32
-2.46
-2.60
80
Negative Emotion
Original Ad
Labeled Ad
11.98
11.89
-8.25E-02
-.08
80
N=82
*p<.05
**p<.01
***p<.001

Table 4: Means and t Test for Attitude Toward the Advertisement Factors
Measure
Group
Mean
Mean
Difference
T value
df
Necessity
Original Ad
Labeled Ad
17.60
16.79
-.80
-.96
80
Relevance
Original Ad
Labeled Ad
22.82
21.42
-1.40
-1.52
80
Appeal
Original Ad
Labeled Ad
14.30
13.68
-.61
-.84
80
Overall
Attitude
Original Ad
Labeled Ad
14.25
13.42
-.83
-.96
80
N=82
*p<.05
**p<.01
***p<.001


Table 5: Means and t Test for Organization Credibility Factors
Measure
Group
Mean
Mean
Difference
T value
df
Organization Expertise
Original Ad
Labeled Ad
13.95
13.79
-.16
-.27
80
Organization Truthfulness
Original Ad
Labeled Ad
10.89*
9.74
-1.40
-2.34
80
N=82
*p<.05



[1]  An additional argument proposed by MPAAT was that due to the rigorous
shooting schedule they would have been unable to use an actual cancer
victim as it would have been too strenuous. This aspect is not addressed in
this study.
[2]  The original scale was a 7-point semantic differential.