Persuasive campaign : Design feature (Third question)

For this question, please write a sample of the design features section of the persuasive campaign paper(anti-vaping).  It should contain the following: (a) title page, (b) body, and (c) reference list. Try to use your work from the Final persuasive Campaign  Background rather than start all over. (I will also provide feedback on the background that you worked on earlier for revision, and it’s in the attached file called “Background (Question 1). I will also attached samples.

The body of this paper should have the following sections:

Background: Provide a bulleted list of your (a) problem, (b) paper topic importance (i.e., who can use the paper and how), (c) target audience (no more than 1), (d) attitudes (no more than 2) and behavior (no more than 1), and (e) setting (no more than 2).? Do not provide any theory- or research-based justification (although you will have to provide this information in your final paper).? This section merely shows your instructor how your thinking has evolved over time.

Design Features: Identify and justify at least 3 persuasive design features that you will use.? Justify why you have chosen these design features and also how these design features will work together ethically and cohesively to increase the impact of your campaign. Address how your campaign features work together to create content that reflects integration of diversity and inclusion in a way that is organic for the campaign sponsor. Support your claims with literature when possible.

Anti-Vape Communication Campaign
Health communication campaigns are important in promoting public health through
convincing the target populations to adopt healthy behaviors. The target problem for the
proposed communication campaign is vaping among high school students. The campaign topic is
crucial in reducing the rates of vaping in teenagers and consequently minimizing the public
health effects of vaping. E-cigarettes are a trend especially among high school students in the
US. A possible sponsor for this campaign is the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a
federal agency focusing on public safety of drugs, medical products, and food supply. The
potential target are high school students, and the campaign seeks to reduce vaping rates. The
mission of the FDA to protect the public can be achieved through fewer adverse effects of vaping
on youth. This paper analyzes the characteristics of the target audience for the communication
campaign, attitudes and behavior, and the settings and channels for the anti-vape communication
campaign.
Target Audience
The target audience for the communication campaign are high school students. High
school students are typically aged between 14 and 18 years and can be generally labelled as
teenagers. In the United States, around 49% are female and 51% male, with the racial majority
being White (US Census Bureau, 2022). The vast majority, 86%, of teenagers lives in urban
areas and almost all attend school (US Census Bureau, 2022). The current teenage population
belongs to generation Z, which has been described a digital natives and shrewd consumers.
Therefore, the Internet and consumerisms are two ubiquitous characteristics of most of the target
population.
The psychographics of teenagers further could help in targeting the population. Gen Z
combines both traditional and conventional values although they are more likely to value
adventure, creativity, and uniqueness over compliance with social norms. Additionally,
smartphone use is a commonality in this group with social media being a common area of access
using smartphones. The most popular social media platforms for the audience are Snapchat and
Instagram (Stalgaitis et al., 2020). Despite these commonalities, the target audience has many
diversities. For instance, the topics of interest in the target population are diverse from
environmental conservation to corporate social responsibility (CSR), entertainment, and sport.
Therefore, they cannot be defined by a single interest area. Additionally, the racial and
socioeconomic status of the target population are also as diverse as the general population in the
United States.
Attitudes and Behavior
Attitudes determine behavior and hence should be the target of the communication
campaign. One of the attitudes identified in the target population is lower risk perception of ecigarettes compared to other drugs. According to Gorukanti et al. (2017), one of the entry factors
identified was that vaping was safer than cigarettes, marijuana, and other drugs. This attitude
encouraged choice of vaping as a relatively safe drug option for young people. In reality, vaping
is safer than smoking conventional cigarettes but it still has many chemical substances and
nicotine which cause significant harm to lungs, brain, and other body systems (Gorukanti et al.,
2017). The attitude and perception of e-cigarettes as a safe option, therefore, minimize the
dangers associated with the drug. It is also crucial to identify that compared to cigarettes, vaping
has a relatively shorter history and less-detailed research and hence may have unknown longterm effects.
Another attitude identified with the target population is the appeal that vaping has on
teenagers. Marketing for vaping products has included a lot of visual appeal and aesthetics
including attractive packaging and colors. Research by Alpert et al. (2022) showed that most of
the teenagers who have been involved in vaping feel that the process is ‘cool’ mainly due to the
attractive imagery and colors involved. Therefore, one of the attitudes of teenagers attracted to
the commodity is that it is a fun and cool activity to be involved in. The anti-vape marketing
campaign would benefit from messages that deconstruct the appeal involved in vape packaging
and imagery.
A behavior that is relevant to the campaign is vape use in peer groups and activities. The
attitude created by the colorful imagery and aesthetics of vaping is associated with peer group
activities involved with vaping. According to Stalgaitis et al. (2020), young people were likely to
engage in vaping if they were involved in hip-hop identity and popular peer crowds. Therefore,
vaping has been tied to group identity and the identified behavior is habitual vaping in peer
groups. Although teenagers may vape on their own, they are more at risk of vaping when they
belong to certain popular peer crowds which seemingly promote the imagery and aesthetic
appeal of vaping.
Setting and Channels
The first appropriate setting for the communication campaign is the Internet. Computer
mediated communication using the Internet has been a stronghold for young people and is thus
preferred for teenagers. Since the target population are digital natives, social media channel is a
great approach to communicating the message with this target population. Social media
communication campaigns can be tailored to different target audiences by selecting the specific
social media platforms and form of the message developed for the specific target audience and
campaign communication. Using social media is a form of mass communication because the
message is transmitted to the public, a large population in an electronic format. Mass
communication can be either print or electronic and social media is one of the channels.
The second context for the communication campaign is high schools where the target
audience study. As earlier identified, majority of teenagers are in high school and hence this is an
appropriate setting for the communication campaign. An appropriate channel for the message is
class and group discussions and meetings. Research by Park et al. (2019) showed that teenager
inclusion in the health campaign can promote the readiness for behavioral change. Therefore, it
is recommended that the channel to be used be discussions with students. This is an example of
group communication. Discussions have been selected as they are feasible in the school
environment and also promote student participation in the campaign.
References
Alpert, J., Bradshaw, A., Riddell, H., Chen, H., & Chen, X. (2022). Young adults’ attitudes
towards vaping content on Instagram: Qualitative interviews utilizing the associative
imagery technique. Qualitative Health Communication, 1(2), 22-34.
https://doi.org/10.7146/qhc.v1i2.126310
Gorukanti, A., Delucchi, K., Ling, P., Fisher-Travis, R., & Halpern-Felsher, B. (2017).
Adolescents’ attitudes towards e-cigarette ingredients, safety, addictive properties, social
norms, and regulation. Preventive Medicine, 94, 65-71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.10.019
Park, E., Kwon, M., Gaughan, M. R., Livingston, J. A., & Chang, Y. P. (2019). Listening to
adolescents: Their perceptions and information sources about e-cigarettes. Journal of
Pediatric Nursing, 48, 82-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2019.07.010
Stalgaitis, C. A., Djakaria, M., & Jordan, J. W. (2020). The Vaping Teenager: Understanding the
psychographics and interests of adolescent vape users to inform health communication
campaigns. Tobacco Use Insights, 13, 1179173X20945695.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1179173X20945695
U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). National Population by Characteristics: 2020-2021. Annual
Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for the United
States: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021.
census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-national-d
etail.html
Feedback:
Introduction:
A start but a bit incomplete. This graph should focus and define the problem of vaping as well as
provide the thesis and what the paper will cover. Can you add data to show the breadth and depth
and impact of the problem? Technically, you should use in-text citations for FDA and its mission
Target Audience:
A very very good start. For a national campaign, you will want to know more about this
audience. Keep going – be thorough. Are there pressures of teenage experience? Developmental
occurrences – sociologically, brain development, physical development. Dig deeper. KNOW the
audience in every way. 🙂 I will expect to see this more developed. 🙂 I like the focus on the
digital native – BUT – there are digital deserts in the US. Demonstrate that you are thinking and
researching inclusively and understand the diverse nature of this target audience – go beyond the
obvious.
Attitudes and behaviors:
Can you separate this three sub-point with level 2 headers? Attitude 1, Attitude 2, Behavior
Change….just an idea. Good job here. Current information is critical. Do you have any info on
the color visual appeals specifically that you mentioned? This is really interesting.
Setting and channels:
You have a good start here – please continue to think through your What about students who are
homeschooled? Or drop out? Intellectual disabilities? Non-English speaking? Different home
cultures? Also – in the next step- your campaign theory ( i.e. social cognitive theory or whatever
you decide to frame this campaign with) will help you think more about this section. You have
the right idea but are not considering other bad behaviors that occur in this developmental stage.
Could you fix one problem and create another ? online bullying? back channel undertows that
could be harmful to the sponsor and the target audience? Privacy protections? So much to think
about here.
Design Features: Messages
1. Accessibility: Attitudes with greater accessibility more readily come to mind
(Stiff & Mongeau, 2003, p. 73)
2. Counterattitudinal advocacy (CAA): Procedure in which people argue for a
position counter to their current position (Stiff & Mongeau, 2003, p. 79)
3. Involvement: People with higher involvement pay better attention to the
message (Stiff & Mongeau, 2003, p. 131)
4. Value-relevant involvement: People with higher value-relevant involvement
become more concerned about an issue tied to their values (Stiff & Mongeau,
2003, p. 182)
5. Outcome-relevant involvement: People with higher outcome-relevant
involvement become more concerned about an issue tied to positive outcomes
(Stiff & Mongeau, 2003, p. 183)
6. Impression-relevant involvement: People with higher impression-relevant
involvement become more concerned about an issue tied to social
consequences (Stiff & Mongeau, 2003, p. 184)
7. Rational appeals: Messages use logic to persuade (Stiff & Mongeau, 2003, p.
129)
8. Emotional appeals: Messages use emotion to persuade (Stiff & Mongeau,
2003, p. 145)
9. Distractors: Focus is shifted away from the message (Stiff & Mongeau, 2003, p.
194)
10. Personal relevance: People are more motivated to think about more personally
relevant messages (Stiff & Mongeau, 2003, p. 219)
11. Ability: People are more motivated to think about messages that they are more
able to process, and messages are more likely to be processed when they have
less message difficulty (Stiff & Mongeau, 2003, p. 219)
12. Foot-in-the-door (FITD): Process of making a smaller and then larger request
(Stiff & Mongeau, 2003, p. 246)
13. Door-in-the-face (DITF): Process of making a larger and then smaller request
(Stiff & Mongeau, 2003, p. 250)
14. Low-balling: Process of gaining compliance and then increasing the costs of
being compliant (Stiff & Mongeau, 2003, p. 255)
15. Contrast principle: If two things differ, people perceive the difference as bigger
than reality (Cialdini, 2009, p. 12)
16. Reciprocation: If people receive a favor, they feel obligated to return the favor
(Cialdini, 2009, p. 19)
17. Social proof: We look to others to determine what is correct (Cialdini, 2009,
p.99)
18. Scarcity: A rare item is valuable (Cialdini, 2009, p. 199)
19. Representativeness: If two objects are similar, the first object acts like the
second object (Aronson, 2008, p. 132)
20. Halo effect: Impression of a person affects subsequent judgment about a person
(Aronson, 2008, p. 137)
21. False-consensus effect: Overestimation of agreement with our opinion
(Aronson, 2008, p. 138)
22. Confirmation bias: Tendency to give greater weight to evidence that supports a
point of view (Lockton, 2012, p. 3)
23. Anchoring: Setting reference points (Lockton, 2012, p. 4)
24. Recognition: People will choose something similar to what they already know
(Lockton, 2012, p. 13)
Design features: Dissemination
1. Credibility: Perception of a source as trustworthy and expert (Stiff & Mongeau,
2003, p. 106)
2. Similarity: Perception of source as similar to oneself (Stiff & Mongeau, 2003, p.
119)
3. Physical attractiveness: Perception of source as good looking (Stiff &
Mongeau, 2003, p. 122)
4. Likeability: Perception of source of likeable (Cialdini, 2009, p. 142)
5. Authority: Perception of course as authoritative (Cialdini, 2009, p. 175)