Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2002 Oct-Dec;7(5):445-53.
doi: 10.1080/10810730290001800.

Can we measure encoded exposure? Validation evidence from a national campaign

Brian G Southwell  1 , Carlin Henry Barmada, Robert C Hornik, David M Maklan
Affiliations

Can we measure encoded exposure? Validation evidence from a national campaign

Brian G Southwell et al. J Health Commun. 2002 Oct-Dec.

Abstract

Exposure is often cited as an explanation for campaign success or failure. A lack of validation evidence for typical exposure measures, however, suggests the possibility of either misdirected measurement or incomplete conceptualization of the idea. If whether people engage campaign content in a basic, rudimentary manner is what matters when we talk about exposure, a recognition-based task should provide a useful measure of exposure, or what we might call encoded exposure, that we can validate. Data from two independent sources, the National Survey of Parents and Youth (NSPY) and purchase data from a national antidrug campaign, offer such validation. Both youth and their parents were much more likely to recognize actual campaign advertisements than to claim recognition of bogus advertisements. Also, gross rating points (GRPs) for a campaign advertisement correlated strikingly with average encoded exposure for an advertisement among both youth (r = 0.82) and their parents (r = 0.53).

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Relationship of encoded exposure measure and gross rating points among youth.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Relationship of encoded exposure measure and gross rating points among parents.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Clarke P, Kline FG. Media effects reconsidered: Some new strategies for communication research. Communication Research. 1974;1:224–240.
    1. du Plessis E. Recognition versus recall. Journal of Advertising Research. 1994;34(3):75–91.
    1. Farris PW, Parry ME. Clarifying some ambiguities regarding GRP and average frequency. Journal of Advertising Research. 1991;31(6):75–77.
    1. Hornik R. Public health education and communication as policy instruments for bringing about changes in behavior. In: Goldberg ME, Fishbein M, Middlestadt SE, editors. Social marketing: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Mahwah, NJ: 1997. pp. 45–58.
    1. Hornik R, Maklan D, Cadell D, Judkins D, Sayeed S, Zador P, Southwell B, Appleyard J, Hennessy M, Morin C, Steele D. Evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: Campaign exposure and baseline measurement of correlates of illicit drug use from November 1999 through May 2000. National Institute on Drug Abuse; Bethesda, MD: 2000.

Publication types