Content-Type: text/html

Effects of media coverage on drug trial











EFFECTS OF MEDIA COVERAGE ON ILLICIT DRUG TRIAL AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS: WHAT DOES CURIOSITY REALLY DO TO THE CAT?







by


Alyse R. Gotthoffer, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Communication
University of Miami
School of Communication
PO Box 248127
Coral Gables, FL  33124-0530
(305) 284-2843
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0101B%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3Dquoted-printable%26P%3D7791521%26B%3D--%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D_4648215%253D%253D_%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>









Submitted to the Mass Communication & Society Division 



Copyright (2000 by Alyse R. Gotthoffer

EFFECTS OF MEDIA COVERAGE ON ILLICIT DRUG TRIAL AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS: WHAT DOES CURIOSITY REALLY DO TO THE CAT?

Abstract
        This study examines the effects of media coverage on college students' intentions to try illicit drugs. An experiment was performed with 172 undergraduate students to determine whether awareness, interest, and product curiosity affected intention to try a fictitious drug, MCA. Students were asked to listen to one of six radio segments with drug messages embedded in them. The results suggest that among students predisposed to try illicit drugs, repeated exposure to drug messages heightens awareness, interest, and curiosity about drugs, which, in turn, leads to an intention to try new drugs.

















EFFECTS OF MEDIA COVERAGE ON ILLICIT DRUG TRIAL AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS: WHAT DOES CURIOSITY REALLY DO TO THE CAT?

Introduction
        Even though overall use of illicit drugs has been declining over the past 10 years, college-aged students represent the only demographic group in which use of certain illicit drugs is rising. Although there is a high prevalence of drug use among those aged 16 to17, those between the ages of 18 and 20 represent the age group most likely to have used drugs in the past month. Those aged 21 to 25 are relatively heavy users as well (NHSDA 1996) [Figure 1].  
FIGURE 1
Percent of past month users illicit drugs by age group


                        National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1996

The 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) showed that rates of lifetime illicit drug use among 18- to 25-year olds rose steadily for hallucinogens, whereas cocaine use rose from 1995-1996, then dropped from 1996-1997, but began to rise again from 1997-1998.  A similar pattern was found for marijuana. Cocaine and marijuana use also rose among monthly users. Only heroin use seems to be declining at a steady rate for members of this age group (NHSDA 1998) [Tables 1-3].

  Tables 1-3 about here

Presumably, there are a variety of factors that influence drug use and trial among college students.  Certainly, drug availability may play a role.  The NHSDA reports that youth find drugs such as marijuana and heroin easy to obtain. Many reported having been approached by someone selling drugs. In addition, rave parties (all-night dance parties) are common outlets for obtaining newer, designer drugs such as Ecstasy (MDMA), GHB, and Special K (Hedges, 1998; Concar, 1997; Rosenberg & Katel, 1997; Coumo, Dyment, & Gammino, 1994).  
        The cost of drugs may play in a role in use as well. A recent article in George magazine reported "the laws of supply and demand" have influenced the prices of illicit drugs (Ferguson, 1998). College students can purchase a small vial of GHB or a shot of heroin for $10. A hit of LSD costs as little as $5. Special K (Ketamine) is available at raves for about $20 a bag. An ounce of marijuana sells for about $40, as does one gram of cocaine and one pill of Ecstasy. The street value of most illicit drugs has dropped significantly since the 1980s, making it easier for young people such as college students to afford them. 
Yet economics is only one factor affecting drug use. Researchers also have examined the influences of gender (Campbell & Svenson, 1992), usage levels (Kouri et.al., 1995), social norms Wood et.al., 1992; Bachman et al., 1984; Shiner & Newburn, 1997; Beck & Treiman, 1996), group pressure (Bearden, Rose, & Teel, 1994; Rose, Bearden & Teel, 1992), social environment (Wechsler et al., 1997; Haberman, 1994; Lo & Globetti, 1995; Werch, Meers, & Farrell, 1993), sensation seeking (Wood et al., 1995; Hobfoll & Segal, 1983), and risk-taking behaviors (Canterbury et al., 1992; Duitsman & Colbry, 1995; Spigner, Hawkins, & Loren, 1993; Wiley et al., 1997) on drug use. All appear to influence drug trial among high school and college students.
Interestingly, no studies have been found that consider the role of media coverage (i.e., news stories, entertainment television, magazine articles, etc.) of illicit drugs and its effects on drug trial. The literature does suggest that media can have an influence on the public's perceptions of drug use and often exaggerate usage rates (Shoemaker, Wanta, & Leggett, 1989; Diamond, Acosta, & Thornton, 1987; Shaw & McCombs, 1989). As media coverage of drugs increases, so does the public's concerns about drug use (Shaw & McCombs, 1989; Lauderback & Waldorf, 1993). Critics suggest such concern is an overreaction to media hype, noting that coverage lags behind actual drug usage rates Danielsen & Reese, 1989; Reese & Danielsen, 1989). 
This was exemplified during the media hype about crack cocaine in the mid-80s. Studies show that in 1986, when media coverage of cocaine and crack use was at its peak, actual usage rates were declining (Shoemaker, Wanta, & Leggett, 1989; Johnston, 1989; Kerr, 1986). In other words, the media was reporting increased usage when, in fact, the number of people using these drugs was going down. However, media coverage led people to believe crack and cocaine use was rampant, and this led to a major drug scare. Clearly, such research indicates the media have the power to influence people's perceptions about illicit drug use.
However, only one study has attempted to determine whether or how media coverage might influence actual drug use. Gotthoffer considered the media's influence on students' self-reported drug trial (Gotthoffer, 1998). The results showed a significant, positive correlation between trial of illicit drugs and media coverage of drugs. The current study seeks to define this relationship even further by incorporating possible explanations offered by a marketing framework.  More specifically, a Model of Product Curiosity is used to test whether media coverage leads to curiosity and thus, trial among college students.
Background literature
Who uses illicit drugs? Recent statistics have shown that illicit drug use, while spanning many demographic populations, is most highly concentrated in the 18- to 25-year age group (NHSDA, 1996, 1998). This is not to say that all college students use drugs. Rather, the results of the NHSDA survey indicate this age group shows the largest overall increase in illicit drug use over the past several years. 
        Gotthoffer's survey showed that the most frequently used drug among college students was alcohol, followed by tobacco and marijuana Gotthoffer, 1998). Akers describes these as gateway drugs, because most users of "dangerous" illicit drugs first use alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana, before progressing to more hard-core drugs, such as cocaine or LSD Akers, 1992). Gotthoffer's study showed intention to try illicit drugs varies through a distinction between users of licit drugs, (i.e., alcohol and tobacco), those whose only illicit drug use was marijuana, and those who have used illicit drugs other than marijuana. In fact, all of the respondents who had used a hard-core illicit drug also had tried either alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana (Gotthoffer, 1998). 
The Cognitive-Response Model.  The cognitive-response model posits that consumers have existing knowledge structures and they compare this knowledge with incoming information (Wright, 1973; Wright, 1974; Wright, 1975; Smith & Swinyard, 1988). This produces a series of  "primary thoughts" that can be evoked by message exposure and can lead the consumer to respond to product-related information.  One type of primary thought is curiosity on the part of the consumer. Curiosity statements are those promoting interest in attaining additional information about a product (Wright, 1973). External factors, such as the media, lead to information gathering about a product and, in turn, can elicit statements of curiosity from the receiver. For example, an advertisement introducing a new product may not indicate how much this product costs. A consumer interested in purchasing this product may be curious about the price, inquire about the cost, (curiosity statement) and seek further information. 
The Model of Product Curiosity. Expanding on the cognitive response model, Smith and Swinyard focused on curiosity statements elicited by consumers and developed a model linking curiosity to product trial (1988). The authors began with Fishbein and Ajzen's expectancy-value (EV) model to provide an explanation for the link between beliefs and attitudes (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). More specifically, the EV model provides "a description of the way in which different beliefs (and the evaluations of the associated attributes) are combined or integrated to arrive at an evaluation of the object" (p. 222). Smith and Swinyard argue that these beliefs are important because as they grow stronger, so does the consumer's perception of what to expect from the product. This leads the consumer to evaluate the positive and negative attributes of the product, which are combined to produce an overall product evaluation.
From the EV framework, Smith and Swinyard next developed the Integrated Information-Response Model (Smith & Swinyard, 1982, 1983). This model predicts that when a consumer perceives an information source to have a vested interest in disseminating a message (such as the National Institute of Drug Abuse arguing against drug use), the source will be met with high cognitive resistance and low information acceptance.  This leads to lower-order beliefs about the product, limiting brand preference or purchase intention, particularly among uninterested consumers. Yet the model also predicts that among interested consumers, such lower-order beliefs may elicit curiosity about the product and may lead the consumer to try the product for direct evaluation.
        The Model of Product Curiosity integrates Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) EV model and Smith and Swinyard's (1988) Integrated Information-Response. They begin by defining curiosity within the context of Wright's (1973) cognitive-response model: curiosity statements are those "expressing interest in additional information about the product...If the intent is to honestly inquire about more information it is a curiosity statement" (p. 62).
        The EV model posits that in order for product curiosity to exist, three conditions must be met:  (1) awareness of the brand by the consumer, (2) inclusion of the brand in a product category relevant to the consumer, and (3) uncertainty about the brand's attributes. In the context of advertising, Smith and Swinyard state that a lack of uncertainty about a product (and thus, curiosity) can come from one of two sources. It can stem from missing information in an ad or story (such as the price of the product). It also can come from insufficient information about the product's attributes.  For example, an advertisement may state that a product makes you feel good, leading the consumer to question how the product makes him feel. Thus, for interested consumers, brand curiosity is elicited by ads creating lower-order beliefs.
        The Model of Product Curiosity states that antecedents, such as the media, lead to product awareness, product interest, and product uncertainty.  These factors lead to product curiosity, which then leads to acquisition of more product-related information [Figure 2].
FIGURE 2:
Descriptive Model of Product Curiosity 

      Antecedents               Internal state                   Overt behavior

     Product awareness
             +                                                                            Acquisition of
      Product interest                Product curiosity                   more product-
             +                                                                          related information
    Product uncertainty

Level of exposure to media messages. In order to generate product awareness, interest, and uncertainty through media messages, exposure to these messages is necessary. Much research has been done on repetition and its effects on brand awareness and recall (Haugtvedt et al., 1994; Schumann, Petty, & Clemons, 1990; Belch, 1982; Cacioppo & Petty, 1979; Crig, Sternthal, & Leavitt, 1976). Initial research showed that multiple exposures to the same message often led to negative reactions among consumers (Cacioppo & Petty, 1979; Calder & Sternthal, 1980; Appel, 1971). However, studies also have shown that when advertisements are varied, increased repetition stimulates awareness and recall (Belch, 1982; Cacioppo & Petty, 1979; Unnava & Burnrant, 1991) as well as product liking Mitchell & Olson, 1981; Gorn & Goldberg, 1980; McCollough & Ostrom, 1974). Essentially, positive, varied messages are believed to lead to awareness and interest.  This, then, can lead to product curiosity, as postulated by Smith and Swinyard (1988).
Message framing.  Framing plays an important role in one's interpretation of a message. Research in this area has differentiated between positive and negative wording in messages (Block & Keller, 1996; Homer & Yoon, 1992; Burke & Edell, 1989). Block and Keller (1996) found that for in-depth processing of messages, negative frames are more persuasive than positive frames. However, when subjects are not motivated to process a message, positive frames are more effective than negative ones (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990). This is relevant for health messages. Ray and Wilkie (1970) posit that in health-related contexts, there often is low motivation to process a message because people "typically engage in defensive tendencies to avoid the message" (p. 193). In other words, if a person engages in a potentially harmful health behavior, this person will not be motivated to process messages accentuating the negative consequences that can occur as a result of that behavior.  Rather, they will look to messages that do not focus as much on harmful outcomes.
The Model of Product Curiosity and Illicit Drug Use. Recall that in Smith and Swinyard's Integrated Information-Response Model, low-order beliefs are more likely to elicit product curiosity among involved subjects. Tying this in with message framing and exposure, one may conclude that because there is low motivation to process health-related messages (Ray & Wilke, 1970), repetition of varied, positive health messages may result in increased curiosity about the behavior in the message. This, in turn, may lead the receiver to engage in trial so as to satisfy his curiosity.
This process can be applied to drug use. Following the Model of Product Curiosity, this study suggests that positive media coverage of illicit drugs will lead to product awareness, product interest, and product uncertainty. Positive messages could be those promoting drug legalization or feature stories discussing positive sensations caused by illicit drugs. Among those predisposed to try drugs, this positive exposure to such messages, then, will lead to product curiosity. Potential users will want to see "what the big deal is." This will lead to the acquisition of more information. In this case, more information could mean a person wants to see how a drug will affect him personally. In order to obtain such information, trial of the drug would be necessary.
Hypotheses
The Model of Product Curiosity provides a useful framework for testing media effects on drug trial.  Curiosity about drugs stems from awareness, interest, and uncertainty about the product.  Previous drug use, message exposure, and message content all can be controlled for or manipulated to test these effects.  Based on the literature, the following hypotheses were generated about messages concerning a fictitious drug:
H1:  Subjects high in awareness, interest, and uncertainty will express greater 
curiosity about a new drug than subjects low in awareness, interest, and curiosity.
H2:  Subjects high in curiosity will express greater willingness to try the fictitious 
drug, MCA.
H3: There will be no direct effects of awareness, interest, and curiosity to 
intentions to try. Each of these three variables will work through curiosity.

Method
Pretest. A sample of 42 students was selected from an introductory writing class at a large southeastern university. During the pretest, subjects were asked to assess the positivity and specificity of three quotes about a fictitious drug, MCA. The purpose of the pretest was to select messages that were of equivalent positivity but varied in specificity. Those quotes selected for the posttest were based on pretest responses to these measures.
        In addition, the pretest asked subjects about previous drug use. They also were given open-ended questions about three factors: why they had ever tried an illicit drug, what sensations they were looking for when they tried a drug, and what kinds of influences would affect their intentions to ever try an illicit drug. The responses given were used to design posttest measures.
Subjects. Subjects for the posttest were recruited from introductory advertising and public relations classes at a large southeastern university. Students were asked to indicate their availability for participation in a one-hour session. For each available time slot, four conditions were run. Those students signed up for a particular time were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions during that period. Course credit was awarded for the students' participation.
Design. An experiment was designed to test the above hypotheses. The design was between-subjects and was implemented in a 2 (lifetime use or non-use of an illicit drug to assess interest) X 2 (one or three message exposures to assess awareness) X 2 (specific versus vague message to assess uncertainty) factorial.  Lifetime use of an illicit drug was determined based on subjects' responses on the questionnaire following the treatment, and therefore was not manipulated. Level of message exposure was manipulated to assess product awareness. Subjects were randomly assigned to either a low level of message exposure (one message) or a high level of message exposure (three messages). Message specificity was used to manipulate product uncertainty: Subjects either heard a vague message or a specific message about the fictitious drug.
Stimuli. Radio messages were used for the treatment. This medium allows for varied messages, and it also is conducive for instituting repetition measures. Subjects were told they would be evaluating a new radio format and that the session would last for one hour: 40 minutes of listening, and 20 minutes to fill out an evaluative questionnaire. The radio programming consisted largely of music, ads, and one of two three-minute news segments. Both versions of the news segment featured the same three stories: one about a new drug, MCA, one about a proposed on-line course, and one about a new financial aid plan. Three news stories seemed realistic, and it was believed this would not draw particular attention to the drug story of interest.
The only difference between the two segments used varied on message specificity. In one, a feature-type news story about MCA contained positive messages about the drug, and had sound bites from users that were very specific about the drug's effects. The second segment was like the first, except that the bites contained very vague references about the drug's effects on users [See Appendix A].
In addition to the version of the message, subjects differed in the number of times they heard the news segment. Low exposure subjects heard the message once over the 40-minute broadcast, whereas high exposure subjects heard the message three times.
The Questionnaire	
Dependent measures. To measure product awareness, subjects were asked to list everything they could recall about the story they heard about MCA. To measure product interest, subjects were asked whether they had ever tried an illicit drug. It was presumed, based on the literature, that those students who had ever tried an illicit drug in the past would be more interested in the possibility of trying a new drug. In addition, subjects were asked, How interesting was [the story on MCA] to you? The five-point response scale ranged from (1) very interesting to (5) not at all interesting. They also were asked, How much did this story lead you to wonder what effect(s) MCA would have on you? The five-point response scale ranged from (1) a lot to (5) not at all. These two questions served as manipulation checks for the interest variable [See Appendix B].
A manipulation check for uncertainty was assessed by having subjects respond to questions about how clearly the message on MCA was presented. They were asked to list any specific sensations they could recall hearing about in the story about MCA. Those who heard the vague message were not given any specific sensations in the story, whereas those who heard the specific message were asked to list the sensations they could recall.
 Product curiosity was measured using a single item. It asked subjects, How curious are you about the new drug, MCA? This was measured using a five-point scale ranging from (1) very curious to (5) very uncurious. Acquisition of more product-related information (intentions to try MCA) was measured by asking subjects: If MCA were available to you, how likely would you be to try it? The five-point response scale used to measure this ranged from (1) very likely to (5) very unlikely. The questionnaire also asked subjects: If someone were to offer you MCA, how likely would you be to try it? Subjects were asked to write in a probability (percentage) between zero and 100. Finally, subjects were given a series of questions that started, I have tried a drug... followed by eleven reasons. They were asked to rate how true each statement was on a five-point scale ranging from (1) very true to (5) very untrue.
        Other measures. Because the treatment (news segment) featured three news stories, subjects also were asked questions about the other two stories. The questions were almost identical to those asked about MCA. They addressed curiosity, clarity, and intentions and were written using the same scales and format. Again, this was incorporated to keep subjects from guessing the true nature of the study.
        The last part of the questionnaire told subjects they were to answer further questions relating to one of the news stories. Each respondent was told that he/she had been randomly selected to answer questions relating to one of the three news stories. In actuality, all subjects answered these questions about the drug story. The first set of questions addressed the frequency of illegal drug usage. In addition, there were scaled questions asking subjects to relate why they had tried illicit drugs and whether factors such as curiosity influence their decision to try a drug.
Results
Descriptive statistics.         Of the 172 subjects who participated, 73 subjects were male (42.4%) and 99 were female (57.6%).  Ninety-six subjects were between the ages of 18 and 20 (55.8%), 71 were between 21 and 24 (41.3%), and 5 were older than 24 (2.9%). None were under 18. Only five subjects were freshmen (2.9%). Sixty (34.9%) were sophomores, 79 (45.9%) were juniors, and 27 (15.7%) were seniors. One subject was a graduate student. Finally, 81.4% of the subjects were white, 3.5% were African American, 2.3% were Asian American, 10.5% were Hispanic/Latino, and 2.3% were of another race.
Manipulation checks. Manipulation checks were tested in a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial using all the independent variables. The message exposure (awareness) variable was measured with a single item in which subjects listed everything they could remember about the MCA story. There was a significant main effect for the awareness manipulation, F (1,164) = 4.22, p < .042. An unexpected main effect of uncertainty also was found, F (1, 164) = 6.90, p < .009. No other significant main effects or interactions were found.
Two questions addressed the interest variable: How interesting was this story to you? and How much did this story lead you to wonder what effect(s) MCA would have on you? Reliability analysis revealed a high inter-item correlation (r = .46). The manipulation check for interest proved to be significant, F (1, 164) = 14.95, p < .0001. Additional effects were found for the awareness [F (1, 164) = 8.18, p < .005], and for the uncertainty manipulations [F (1, 164) = 2.93, p < .089], although these effects were not as great as those found for the interest measure.
        Finally, a manipulation check was run on the uncertainty measure. Uncertainty was measured using one item in which subjects were asked to designate the specific sensations they could recall hearing about MCA in the news story.  The manipulation check on the uncertainty variable proved to be significant, F (1, 164) = 20.63, p < .0001. A significant effect also was found for awareness [F (1, 164) = 71.24, p < .0001. No other significant main effects or interactions were found.	
Primary analysis. The Model of Product Curiosity was tested through an ANOVA. Hypothesis one predicted that high levels of product awareness, product interest, and product uncertainty would lead to greater curiosity. Each dependent variable was analyzed on scales where 1 = high and 5 = low.
        A main effect of awareness was found [F (1, 164) = 8.64, p < .004]. As expected, those subjects high in awareness (M = 2.70, SD = .118) express greater curiosity than those low in awareness (M = 3.17, SD = .125). A main effect also was found for interest  [F (1,164) = 31.72, p < .0001]. Those subjects high in interest (M = 2.59, SD = .124) also were higher in curiosity (M = 3.29, SD = .12). Finally, a main effect was found for the uncertainty measure [F (1,164) = 7.38, p < .007].  As hypothesized, those subjects high in uncertainty express greater curiosity (M = 2.76, SD =  .12) than those low in uncertainty (M = 3.12, SD = .123).
        Hypothesis two stated that curiosity about MCA would predict intentions to try the drug. A Pearson correlation revealed a significant positive relationship, r = .52, 
p < .01, supporting the hypothesis. 
        The tests reveal that high levels of product interest, product awareness, and product uncertainty lead to greater curiosity, which leads to greater intentions to gather more product-related information. In this case, interest, awareness, and uncertainty generated by exposure to media messages about a fictitious drug, MCA, led to curiosity about the drug, which, in turn, led to intention to try the drug to satisfy that curiosity.
Path Analysis. Hypothesis three stated that product awareness, interest, and uncertainty would work through curiosity toward intentions to try the drug, as stipulated by the Model of Product Curiosity. Further analysis of the data showed additional relationships that contradict the original model. A path analysis revealed that awareness and interest have direct as well as indirect effects on intentions to try the fictitious drug. Figure 3 demonstrates the nature of this relationship.
FIGURE 3
  Path Analysis: Relationships Present After Message Exposure

.15**

.21***

Awareness of drug
.42****

.16*

             +                                                                                                                                                                  Likelihood of
Uncertainty about drug                  Curiosity about drug
.31****

  drug trial             +      	
.49****

                                                                        	
Interest in drug
_________________________________
* significant at .03            ***significant at .01
**significant at .02            ****significant at .0001

	
The model above shows that awareness, interest, and uncertainty about MCA lead to curiosity about the drug. In addition, the strength of the relationship between curiosity about MCA and the liklihood of MCA trial is very strong, as is the direct relationship between interest in the drug and liklihood of trial. Awareness also correlates directly with liklihood of trial, although not as strongly.
Discussion
        The purpose of this study was to determine whether media coverage of illegal drugs might cause college students to try such drugs. The Model of Product Curiosity was thought to provide a reasonable explanation for this phenomenon. It was hypothesized that media coverage of illicit drugs leads those predisposed to try such drugs to become curious about them. The results of this experiment indicate that this relationship does, indeed, exist, and that media coverage of illicit drugs plays an important role in drug usage among college students.
The model stipulates that media stories influence three factors related to curiosity and drug trial: awareness of the drug, stimulation of interest in the drug, and the creation of uncertainty about the drug's effects.  The more coverage a drug receives, the more aware people become of it. Among those who are predisposed to try new drugs, this awareness also generates interest in the drug. Those who are interested will want more information about the drug, and will first rely on news stories to give them the information they are looking for. If they do not get this information, they will be uncertain as to the drug's potential effects, leading to curiosity about the drug. In an attempt to satisfy their curiosity, they will try the drug to determine for themselves what the drug does and how it makes them feel.
 In this study, subjects high in exposure (awareness) to a drug message, high in uncertainty (through vague messages about the drug's effects) and high in interest (previously used illicit drugs other than marijuana) expressed greater curiosity toward the fictitious illicit drug, MCA, than those exposed to or experiencing low levels of these variables. Curiosity generated by high levels of these variables was strongly correlated with students' intentions to try MCA. This confirms hypotheses one and two.
However, it is important to note the necessity of the interest variable. The students who expressed intentions to try MCA were those who previously had tried an illicit drug other than marijuana. Those students who had never tried an illicit drug expressed less intention to try MCA. In other words, a person who is not predisposed to try an illicit drug will not be influenced by media messages about such drugs. It is those who are predisposed to try such drugs for whom media messages will be most relevant.
It also is important to note that the model did not work as hypothesized (H3). While product awareness, interest, and uncertainty do contribute to intentions to try a drug through curiosity, both interest and awareness also contribute to intentions directly. The path analysis revealed a direct relationship between interest and liklihood of product use (intentions). For those interested in trying new drugs, curiosity is not needed as a mediator, although there is a strong relationship between interest and curiosity.  Similarly, awareness created through media coverage leads directly toward intentions as well. In other words, the media may contribute to drug trial either directly or indirectly by generating curiosity about drugs receiving coverage.
This adds a new dimension to the agenda setting (McCombs & Shaw, 1972; Shaw & McCombs, 1977; Iyengar & Kinder, 1987; Iyengar, Peters, & Kinder 1982) function of the media with respect to drug consumption. Not only does the media affect people's perceptions about drug use, but this study reveals media coverage of drugs affects behavioral intentions. The media have the power to create curiosity about drugs by making people aware of the availability and benefits of new, designer drugs such as GHB and Ecstasy, as well as "traditional" drugs such as cocaine and marijuana. Media coverage also stimulates interest in those predisposed to try drugs. Potential users want to understand why the media is making such a "big deal" about the drug, and this, inevitably, leads to curiosity about the drug's effects. 
In covering stories about drugs, the media have control over what kind of information they disseminate, as well as how much information they disseminate. Depending on the presentation and depth of the stories, potential users may be uncertain about the drug's effects on them. Increased coverage of drugs will continue to stimulate this uncertainty until such people are curious enough to try the drug. Given this relationship, media practitioners may have a responsibility to carefully gauge the content and number of drug stories they print or run if they are to assist in curbing drug trial.
The Model of Product Curiosity provides a valuable framework for explaining how the media affects drug consumption and trial among college students. However, the current study looked only at drug messages presented in a positive light. Future research will examine how other types of messages (positively- neutrally-, and negatively framed messages) fit into this curiosity structure, and whether manipulation of this variable in terms of media coverage has any effect on drug trial.
Study limitations
        One of the problems encountered in this study was with the manipulation of the independent variables. Awareness and uncertainty were strongly related to one another, and the manipulation checks yielded unexpected results. The measures intended to gauge awareness also appeared to gauge uncertainty and vice versa. Granted, high levels of exposure also should decrease levels of uncertainty. However, replications of this study should generate cleaner measures of these variables.
        Since most actual news stories do not portray drugs in a positive light, it may be argued that the manipulation was not realistic. At the time of the study, it was assumed that if positive messages had no effect, neither, then, would negative messages. Future research should replicate this procedure using news stories that portray drugs in a negative light to see whether the effects on curiosity differ.
Appendix A
The Specific News Story
        WITH NEWS FROM AROUND THE WORLD AND YOUR BACKYARD EVERY 10 MINUTES, THIS IS THE GLOBE 102.5 CAMPUS NEWS. I'M _______.
        OUR TOP STORY...THERE'S A NEW DRUG ON THE BLOCK AND ITS MADE ITS WAY TO COLLEGES ACROSS THE NATION, INCLUDING [NAME OF SCHOOL]. IT'S CALLED MCA AND ITS SHOWING UP AT PARTIES MORE AND MORE FREQUENTLY. STUDENTS USING THE DRUG SAY THEY LIKE IT.

        "I've tried MCA a few times and the effects are awesome. It's like a full-body orgasm, I swear. You take it and after about 15 minutes, you start to feel really good all over...tingly and stuff. I've never felt anything like it. You never want the feeling to end."

        "MCA is amazing. No other drug has ever made me feel this good. The first time I tried it, my body got all warm and relaxed. It made me feel great all over. It was a very powerful experience. The sensations get better every time I use it."

        "The first time I tried MCA, I was amazed by how good it made me feel. Every part of my body felt god. It was like I could float, and every sensation I had felt wonderful. Now, whenever I want to escape from everyday pressures, I take MCA and just feel better all over."

        THE CAMPUS MONITORING ORGANIZATION, CAMPUS WATCH, SAYS MCA USE IS BEOCMING WIDESPREAD. IN OTHER NEWS...

The Vague News Story

[Begins with same introduction as specific news story]

        "MCA is great, I swear. When you take it, you get this feeling, I don't know, I can't explain it. I wish I could describe it to you, I really do. It's impossible to put the sensations into words, but all I can say is I love how it makes me feel."

        Oh, yeah, I've tried MCA, it's a great drug, it really is. It's hard to describe, I just know it feels good. Have you ever tried flashers [another fictitious drug]? Well, MCA makes you feel the same way flashers do, really, really good."

        Oh, man, this drug is like, awesome, Dude. I've never had anything like if before. My friends and I, we, like, do it all the time on weekends and at parties. It's some great stuff."

[Same transition as specific news story]
Appendix B

Posttest Survey

Directions:  We are interested in your evaluation of the segment you just heard.  Your input may help us in designing a new radio station on campus, so please answer the following questions as honestly as possible.

1.      How did you like the format of the radio segment you just heard?
                 1                     2                     3                    4                   5
        excellent            good             average              fair              poor

2.  What is your opinion of the music that was played during this segment?
                 1                     2                     3                    4                   5
        excellent            good             average              fair              poor

3.      Please list the songs (or artists) you remember that were played during the segment.

4.  What facts do you remember about the proposed new on-line class at X University?

5.  How interesting was this story?
             1                            2                      3                       4                             5
   very interesting         interesting           neutral           uninteresting      very uninteresting

7.  How curious are you about a new on-line class possibly being taught at X University?
                  1                           2                     3                      4                           5
          Very curious            curious             neutral           uncurious          very uncurious

8.  If an on-line class were taught, how likely would you be to take it?

                 1                      2                      3                        4                           5
          Very likely           likely               neutral               unlikely            very unlikely

9.      How clear are you about the way an on-line class would work?

                1                        2                      3                       4                         5
          Very clear             clear                neutral             unclear            very unclear

10.     What do you remember about the story on MCA?

11. How interesting was this story to you?
             1                            2                      3                       4                             5
   very interesting         interesting           neutral           uninteresting      very uninteresting

 12.  How curious are you about the new drug, MCA?
                  1                           2                     3                      4                           5
          Very curious            curious             neutral           uncurious          very uncurious

13.     How much did this story lead you to wonder what effect(s) MCA would have on you?             
               1                    2                     3                         4                         5
            a lot            a little bit           neutral            not too much         not at all                            

14.     How clear are you about the effects of MCA?
                1                        2                      3                      4                         5
          Very clear             clear                neutral             unclear            very unclear

15.     After hearing the students in the story talk about their experiences with MCA, how sure are you about the sensations caused by taking the drug?
    1                        2                      3                       4                         5
          Very sure             sure                neutral               unsure            very unsure

16.  How positive do you think the students in the story were toward MCA?
     1                        2                      3                       4                         5
          Very positive       positive             neutral               negative        very negative

17.  If MCA were available to you, how likely would you be to try it?
                 1                      2                      3                        4                           5
          Very likely           likely               neutral               unlikely            very unlikely

18.What do you remember about the story on President X's proposed financial aid 
      plan?

19. How interesting was this story to you?
             1                            2                      3                       4                             5
   very interesting         interesting           neutral           uninteresting      very uninteresting

20.  How curious are you about X's financial aid plan?
                  1                           2                     3                      4                           5
          Very curious            curious             neutral           uncurious          very uncurious

21.  Did this story lead you to wonder how X's plan might affect you?

        yes             no

22.  How clear are you about the details of X's plan?
                1                        2                      3                       4                         5
          Very clear             clear                neutral             unclear            very unclear

23. How relevant were the stories played during the radio segment?
                 1                        2                    3                        4                              5
       very relevant          relevant            neutral            unrelevant           very unrelevant

24. Do you currently receive financial aid?
	
        yes                      no

25. If yes, what kind of aid do you receive (circle all that apply)?

    scholarship             pell grant            fellowship               student loan               other

26. Have you ever taken a course taught on television (e.g., marketing, finance, etc.)?

           yes                       no


27. If yes, what is your opinion of these courses?

               1                      2                         3                          4                      5
         excellent             good             don't know              fair            poor

Each student in this study is being asked to answer additional questions related to one of the three news stories. You have been randomly asked to answer questions about illegal drugs in conjunction with the story on MCA.

28.  Have you ever tried an illegal drug?

          yes           no

29.  If yes, please circle those drugs which you have tried at least once.
marijuana                       Special K
                GHB                             cocaine
Ecstasy                         crack
amphetamines (speed, uppers)    heroin
Ice                             LSD
barbiturates (downers)          hallucinogen other than LSD or PCP
                Roofies                         PCP
microdots
other:  (please specify) ____________________
30.  How many times have you tried illicit drugs (any of the above)?
a.      never
b.      once or twice
c.      three or four times
d.      more than five times

31.  About how often do you use any of those drugs?
a.      more than once a week
b.      every weekend
c.      once or twice a month
d.      every six months
e.      less than once a year
f.      never anymore
g.      I have never used an illicit drug

32.  Do you have good friends who use any of the above drugs?

          yes                        no

For each of the following statements, please indicate how true you think they are.

33.     I have tried a drug in order to relieve stress.
    1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue
34. I have tried a drug to be more social or to have fun.
   1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

35.     I have tried a drug in order to satisfy my curiosity about it.
   1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

36.     I have used a drug so I could forget about my problems for a while.
    1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

37.     I have tried a drug just to get high or get into a special state.
    1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

38.     I have tried a drug just to see what the big deal is.
    1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

39.     I have used a drug just because it felt right at the time.
   1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

40.     I have used a drug so I could fit in with my friends or the people around me.
    1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

41.     I have used a drug just feel the experience.
    1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

42.     I have tried a drug just because I heard so much about it
    1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

43.  I have felt pressure to try drugs from my friends.
    1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

44. I might try a new drug if I thought it would relieve stress.
    1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

45. I might try a new drug if I thought it would make me more social or just to have fun.
   1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

46. I might try a new drug in order to satisfy my curiosity about it.
   1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

47. I might try a new drug so I could forget about my problems for a while.
    1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

48. I might try a new drug just to get high or get into a special state.
    1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

49. I might try a drug just because I heard so much about it
    1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

50. I night try a new drug just to see what the big deal is.
    1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

51. I might try a new drug if it felt right at the time.
   1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

52.     I might try a new drug if it would help me fit in with my friends or the people around  
      me.
    1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

53. I might try a drug just feel the experience.
    1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

54. I might try a drug if I felt pressure from my friends to try it. 
    1                         2                      3                       4                         5
          Very true               true                neutral             untrue            very untrue

55. What is your year in school?
a.      freshman
b.      sophomore
c.      junior
d.      senior
e.      graduate student

56.  How old are you?
a.      under 18
b.      18-20
c.      21-24
d.      older than 24
57.  What is your gender?

           male                           female


References

Akers, Ronald L. (1992). Drugs, Alcohol, & Society. Belmont, CA:  Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Appel, V. (1991). "On Advertising Wearout. Journal of Advertising Researc,h 11, 11-13.

Bachman, Jerald G., O'Malley, Partick M., and Johnston, Lloyd D. (1984). Drug Use among Young Adults:  The Impacts of Role Status and Social Environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 629-645.

Bearden, William O., Rose, Randall L., and Teel, Jesse E. (1994). Correlates of Conformity in the Consumption of Illicit Drugs and Alcohol. Journal of Business Research, 30, 25-31.

Beck, Kenneth H., and Treiman, Katherine A. (1996). The Relationship of Social Context of Drinking, Perceived Social Norms, and Parental Influence to Various Drinking Patterns of Adolescents.  Addictive Behaviors, 21, 633-644.

Belch, George E. (1982). The Effects of Television Commercial Repetition on Cognitive Response and Message Acceptance. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 56-66.

Block, Lauren G. and Keller, P.A. (1995). When to Accentuate the Negative: The Effects of Perceived Efficacy and Message Framing on Intentions to Perform A Health-Related Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 192.

Burke M.C., and Edell, J. (1989). The Impact of Feelings on Ad-Based Affect and Cognition. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 69-83.

Cacioppo, John T., and Petty, Richard E. (1979). The Effects of Message Repetition and Position on Cognitive Response, Recall, and Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 97-109.

Calder, B.J., and Sternthal, B. (1980). Television Commercial Wearout: An Information Processing View. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 173-186.

Campbell, Robert L. and Svenson, Lawrence W. (1992). Drug use among University Undergraduate Students. Psychological Reports, 70, 1039-1042.

Canterbury, R.J., Gressard, C.F., Vieweg, W.V.R., Grossman, S.J., KcKelway, R.B., and Westerman, P.S. (1992). Risk-Taking Behavior of College Students and Social Forces. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 18, 213-222.

Concar, D. (1997, June 21). After the Rave, the Ecstasy Hangover. New Scientist, 4.
Coumo, Michael J., Dyment, Paul G., and Gammino, Victoria M. (1994). Increasing Use of 'Ecstacy' (MDMA) and Other Hallucinogens on College Campuses. Journal of American College Health, 42, 271-274.

Craig, C.S., Sternthal, B., and Leavitt, C. (1976). Advertising Wearout: An Experimental Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 13, 365-372.

Danielian, L., and Reese, S. (1989). A Closer Look at Intermedia Influences on Agenda-Setting:  The Cocaine Issue of 1986.  In Pamela Shoemaker (Ed.), Communication 
Campaigns about Drugs (pp. 47-66), Hillsdale, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Diamond, Edwin , Accosta, F., and Thornton, L. (1987, February 7). Is TV News Hyping America's Cocaine Problem?  TV Guide, 4-10.

Duitsman, D.M., and Colbry, S.L. (1995). Perceived Risk and Use as Predictors of Substance Use among College Students. Health Values, 19, 44-52.

Ferguson, S. (1998, February). The Cost of Living High. George.

Fishbein, Martin, and Ajzen, Icek. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior.  Reading. MA:  Addison-Wesley.

Gorn, G.C., and Goldberg, M.E. (1980). Children's Response to Repetitive Television Commercials. Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 421-424.

Gotthoffer, Alyse R. (1998). Do Social Norms and Media Coverage Influence Illicit Drug Trial among College Students? Implications for Media Practitioners and Drug Educators. Paper presented at the 1998 conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore, MD.

Haberman, Shirley E. (1994). A Survey of Alcohol and Other Drug Use Practices among College Students. Journal of American Drug Education, 39, 85-100.

Haugtvedt, C.P., Schumann, D.W., Schneier, W.L., and Warren, W.L. (1994). Advertising Repetition and Variation Strategies: Implications for Understanding Attitude Strength. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 176.

Hedges, C. (1998, February 16). "Cheap 'Safe' High Is Costing Lives: Special K Animal Tranquilizer Is the Latest Rage on the Rave Scene. USA Today, 3A.

Hobfoll, S.E., and Segal, Bernard. (1983). A Factor Analytic Study of the Relationship of Experience Seeking and Trait Anxiety to Drug Use and Reasons for Drug Use. International Journal of the Addictions, 18, 539-549.

Homer, P.M., and Yoon, S. (1992). Message Framing and The Interrelationships among Ad-Based Feelings, Affect, and Cognition. Journal of Advertising, 21, 19.

Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D.R.  (1987).  News that Matters:  Agenda-Setting and Priming in a Television Age.  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press.

Iyengar, S., Peters, M.P., & Kinder, D.R.  (1982).  Experimental demonstrations of the "not-so-minimal" consequences of television news programs.  American Political Science Review, 76, pp. 848-858.

Johnston, Lloyd D. (1989). America's Drug Problem in the Media: Is It Real Or Is It Memorex? In Pamela Shoemaker (Ed.).  Communication Campaigns about Drugs (pp. 113-120), Hillsdale, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kerr, Peter. (1986, November 17). Anatomy of an Issue: Drugs, the Evidence, the Reaction. The New York Times, 1.

Kouri, Elena, Pope, Harrison G. Jr., Yurgelun-Todd, Deborah and Gruber, Staci. (1995). Attributes of Heavy vs. Occasional Marijuana Smokers in a College Population. Biological Psychology, 38, 475-481.

Lauderback, David, and Waldorf, Dan. (1993). Whatever Happened to Ice?  The Latest Drug Scare. Journal of Drug Issues, 23, 597-613.

Lo, Celia C. and Globetti, Gerald. (1995). The Effects of Internal and External Control factors on College Students' marijuana Use and Cessation of Use, Journal of Drug Education, 25, 357-377.

Maheswaran, D., and Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 361-367.

McCombs, M.E., & Shaw, D.L.  (1972).  The agenda-setting function of the mass media.  Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, pp. 176-187.

McCullough, J.L., and Ostrom, T.M. (1974). Repetition of Highly Similar Messages and Attitude Change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 395-397.

Mitchell, A.A., and Olson, J.C. (1981). Are Product Attribute Beliefs The Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 318-332.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1998). National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Findings. Rockville, MD:  National Institute on Drug Abuse. 

National Institute on Drug Abuse. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse:  Preliminary Findings (1996). Rockville, MD:  National Institute on Drug Abuse. 
Ray, M.L., and Wilke, W.W. (1970). Fear: The Potential of an Appeal Neglected By Marketing. Journal of Marketing ,34, 54-62.

Reese, S. and Danielian, L. (1989). Intermedia Influence and the Drug Issue: Converging on Cocaine. In Pamela Shoemaker (Ed.).  Communication Campaigns about Drugs (pp. 113-120).  Hillsdale, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rose, Randall L., Bearden, William O., and Teel, Jesse E. (1992). An Attributional Analysis of Resistance to Group Pressure Regarding Illicit Drug and Alcohol Consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 1-12.

Rosenberg, D. and Katel, P. (1997, October 27). Death of the Party. Newsweek, 55.

Schumann, D.W., Petty, R.E., and Clemons, D.S. (1990). Predicting the Effectiveness of Different Strategies Of Advertising Variation: A Test of the Repetition-Variation Hypotheses. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 192.

Shaw Donald L. and McCombs, Maxwell E. (1989). Dealing with Illicit Drugs:  The Power-and Limits-of Mass Media Agenda-Setting. In P. Shoemaker (Ed.).  Communication Campaigns about Drugs (pp. 113-120),  Hillsdale, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Shaw, D.L., & McCombs, M.E. (Eds.). (1977).  The Emergence of American Political Issues:  The Agenda-Setting Function of the Press.  St. Paul, MN:  West.

Shiner, Michael and Newburn, Tim. (1997). Definitely, Maybe Not? The Normalization of Recreational Drug Use amongst Young People. The Journal of the British Sociological Association, 31, 511-529.

Shoemaker, P.J., Wanta, W., and Leggett, D. (1989). Drug Coverage and Public Opinion, 1972-1986. In Pamela Shoemaker (Ed.).  Communication campaigns about drugs (pp. 113-120),  Hillsdale, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Smith, Robert E. and Swinyard, William R. (1982). Information-Response Models: An Integrated Approach. Journal of Marketing, 46, 81-93.

Smith, Robert E. and Swinyard, William R. (1983). Attitiude-Behavior Consistency:  The Impact of Product Trial Versus Advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 257-267.

Smith, Robert E. and Swinyard, William R. (1988). Cognitive Response To Advertising and Trial:  Belief Strength, Belief Confidence, and Product Curiosity. Journal of Advertising, 17, 3-14.

Spigner, Clarence, Hawkins, Wesley, and Loren, Wendy. (1993). Gender Differences in Perception of Risk Associated with Alcohol and Drug Use among College Students. Women & Health, 20, 87-97.

Unnava, H.R., and Burnkrant, R.E. (1991). Effects of Repeating Varied Ad Executions on Brand Name Memory. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 406.

Wechsler, Henry, Davenport, Andrea E., Dowdall, George W., Grossman, Susan J.,and Zanakos, Sophia I. (1997). Binge Drinking, Tobacco, and Illicit Drug Use and Involvement in College Athletics. Journal of American College Health, 45, 195-200.

Werch, C.E., Meers, B.W., and Farrell, J. (1993). Stages of Drug Use Acquisition among College Students:  Implications for the Prevention of Drug Abuse. Journal of Drug Education, 23, 375-386.

Wiley, David C., James, Gay, Furney, Steven, and Jordan-Belver, Carole. (1997). Using the Youth Risk Behavior Survey to Compare Risk Behaviors of Texas High School and College Students. Journal of School Health, 67, 45.

Wood, M.D., Nagoshi, C.T., and Dennis, D.A. (1992). Alcohol Norms and Expectations as Predictors of Alcohol Use and Problems in a College Student Population. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 18, 461-476.

Wood, Peter B., Cochran, John K., Pfefferbaum, Betty, and Arneklev, Bruce J. (1995). Sensation-Seeking and Delinquent Substance Use: An Extension of Learning Theory. Journal of Drug Issues, 25, 173-193.

Wright, P.L. (1973). The Cognitive Processes Mediating Acceptance of Advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 53-62.

Wright, P.L. (1974). Analyzing Media Effects on Advertising Responses," Public Opinion Quarterly, 38, 192-205.

Wright, P.L. (1975). Factors Affecting Cognitive Resistance to Advertising," Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 1-9.














TABLE 1 
Illicit Drug Use among 18- to 25-year olds in the U.S.

Lifetime use
Past year use
Past month use
1995
1996
change
1995
1996
change
1995
1996
change
Any Illicit Drug
45.8
48.0
+2.2
25.5
26.8
+1.3
14.2
15.6
+1.4
Marijuana (MJ)
41.4
44.0
+2.6*
21.8
23.8
+2.0
12.0
13.2
+1.2
Cocaine
9.8
10.2
+0.4
4.3
4.7
+0.4
1.3
2.0
+0.7*
Crack
2.9
3.0
+0.1
1.1
1.3
+0.2
0.3
0.6
+0.3
Hallucinogens
14.1
16.3
+2.2*
5.3
6.9
+1.6**
2.3
2.3
0
PCP
3.0
2.3
-0.7
0.4
0.5
+0.1
0.0
0.1
+0.1
LSD
12.0
13.9*
+1.9
3.8
4.6
+0.8
1.2
0.9
-0.3
Heroin
0.7
1.3
+0.6
0.3
0.9
+0.6*
0.1
0.4
+0.3
Stimulants
3.9
4.3
+0.4
2.0
2.0
0
1.0
0.6
-0.4
Illicit-Not MJ
23.5
26.6
+3.1
12.5
12.7
+0.2
5.7
6.3
+0.6
Taken from The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1996 preliminary data
* change significant at .05 level
**change significant at the .01 level