Presenter: Joanne G. Patterson (1,2)
Co Authors: Alysha C. Ennis (1), Emma Jankowski (1), Grace Turk (1), Ashley Meadows (1), Caitlin Miller (1), Hayley Curran (2), Sydney Galusha (1)
- The Ohio State University College of Public Health
- Center for Tobacco Research, The Ohio State University James-Comprehensive Cancer Center
Introduction:
- Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer young adults (LGBTQ+ YA) report high rates of cigarette smoking and nicotine vaping (1-6).
- Mass-reach anti-tobacco communications can increase public knowledge of tobacco harms and decrease use, yet they may not engage LGBTQ+ YA (7-17).
- No studies describe effective anti-tobacco message framing for SGM and non-SGM YA engaged in dual use, though understanding these nuances is important for developing inclusive anti-tobacco communications.
- We conducted a formative evaluation to inform culturally targeted (CT) anti-tobacco communications.
Methods:
- We reviewed existing CT anti-tobacco campaigns before conducting in-depth focus groups of N=22 LGBTQ+ YA (18-35) ever dual users to assess best practices for message design (visuals, semantics).
- We applied findings to develop 9 CT and 9 non-targeted (NT) messages, which an expert panel (N=7) of LGBTQ+ community partners, scientists, and LGBTQ+ YA reviewed.
- Messages are being experimentally tested in a remote eye tracking study with LGBTQ+ YA.
Results:
- LGBTQ+ YA were skeptical of CT anti-tobacco campaigns featuring stereotypical representation of LGBTQ+ individuals and questioned the motive of cultural targeting,
- “Are you genuinely […] advertising to me, or are you advertising to some, like, monolithic LGBT group that you think exists?” (FG34, Queer, he/him).
- Communications featuring naturally posed models and a diversity of LGBTQ+ people engaged participants more than overly posed models and oversaturated colors:
- “If I was scrolling, [the natural ad] would actually make me stop… but the second I see those saturated blue, purple looks, I’m like “That’s an ad”, and I just scroll right past it.” (FG23, Bisexual, he/him/she/her).
- Personal stories were well received:
- “I also like the quotes, and that it has the people’s name there. It makes it feel more personal…they’re reaching out to you with their story.” (FG21, Bisexual, they/them).
- Unclear visuals and slogans were negatively received.
- We applied findings to develop CT anti-tobacco communications featuring naturalistic LGBTQ+ models of diverse races, ethnicities, and genders. We paired harms messaging with personal stories and subtle cultural cues (e.g., “our health”, pronouns). These are shown at the bottom of this post.
- The expert panel confirmed that messages were culturally and scientifically relevant.
| Theme | Code | Definition |
| Ad Design | ||
| Font | Participants discuss liking or disliking font choices/typography | |
| Layout | Participants discuss liking or disliking spacing, layout, or white space. | |
| Colors | Participants discuss liking or disliking colors | |
| Graphic type | Participants discuss liking or disliking the type of graphic (e.g. photograph vs. illustration/cartoon) | |
| Brand Identity | Discusses that the ad design matches or does not match the product being sold given what is known/presumed about a brand (e.g., of “not matching” brand identity: Kandy Pens ad image of women/men being intimate and product not featured; “I like that they used their brand name as kind of like a play on words”).
“This ad tells me nothing about what this company is or does, or anything.” |
|
| Creativity | Participants discuss whether an ad does or does not feel creative or clever with respect to its design (e.g., Bud Light ad where “L G B T” were highlighted). | |
| Aesthetically pleasing | Participants discuss whether an ad is overall aesthetically pleasing or not | |
| Ad Content: Imagery | ||
| Imagery – Representative | Participants discuss feeling though the images in ad represent them/people they know (i.e., looks like me, acts like me) or feature real representation of LGBTQ people generally. | |
| Imagery – Liking | General like code for imagery | |
| Imagery – Disliking | General dislike code for imagery | |
| Imagery – Subtle/Overt | Participants discuss the subtlety or overtness of the LGBTQ elements within an ad | |
| Imagery – Pride Flags and rainbows | Discusses the liking or disliking of LGBTQ flags and colors within ads | |
| Imagery – Who | Participants describe liking or disliking having posed (“fake”) vs. more natural looking (“real”) models in the ad. | |
| Ad Content: Language | ||
| Language – Word choice | Participants discuss liking or disliking word choice | |
| Language – Efficacy of absolute risk vs. self-efficacy messaging | Participants discuss liking or disliking absolute risk messages as compared to self-efficacy messages | |
| Language – Slang use | Participants discuss liking or disliking the use of slang in an ad (e.g. words like “slay”, “queen”) | |
| Language- Humor | Participants discuss liking or disliking the use of humor in advertisements | |
| Language- slogans or taglines | Participants discuss liking or disliking the use of slogans, taglines, or catch phrases in an advertisement (e.g., “Quitting isn’t a perfect process” or “Made with Pride”) | |
| Ad Content: Representativeness | ||
| Inclusivity | Participants discuss whether or not the ad is representative of LGBTQ identities
(L – G – B – T – Q – NB) |
|
| Stereotyping | Participants discuss feeling as though the ads represent stereotypes of the LGBTQ community, in imagery, language, content, etc. | |
| Intersectionality | Participants discuss whether or not ads are intersectional in terms of identities that are not within the LGBTQ umbrella such as racial identity or class status | |
| Authenticity | Participants discuss feeling as though ads are inauthentic/authentic; (e.g., feeling like ads have been created by those not within the LGBTQ community/ feeling as though ads have been created by those within the LGBTQ community
(authentic ads may take into consideration the feelings, wishes and traditions towards the LGBTQ community) |
|
| Fetishization of LGBTQ community | Participants discuss ads sexualizing or fetishizing the LGBTQ community | |
| Target Audience | Discusses whom they believe an ad was targeted towards | |
| Normalization/Visibility | Participants discuss ads being used to normalize or make visible LGBTQ people and relationships. Word “representative” might be used by participants. | |
| Context | ||
| Brand partnerships | Participants discuss liking or disliking the inclusion of brand partnerships with LGBTQ organizations (e.g. GLADD, Rainbow Railroad) | |
| Ad placement | Participants discuss where they see culturally-targeted ads (e.g. social media, malls, TV) | |
| Outdated/Current | Discusses whether the language, content, and/or design of ad feels outdated or current (e.g., compared to the current time period/context). | |
| Rainbow capitalism | Participants discuss only seeing culturally-targeted ads during Pride Month, or being performative/used just to make money | |
| Pandering | Participants discuss feeling as though companies are trying to please the LGBTQ community by acting in a way they believe the LGBTQ community would want them to act | |
| Corny/Trite | Participants discuss advertisements feeling “corny” or trying too hard. (e.g. describing things as “tumblr-core,” “white woman’s instagram,” “millennial”, “mom”) | |
| Necessity | Participants discuss whether or not they view LGBTQ+ advertising as necessary/needed for LGBTQ community | |
| General feelings | Participants discuss how they feel about LGBTQ culturally targeted advertising generally; whether like, dislike, or neutral | |
| Personal Experience | Discusses how their personal experience influences their perception of an ad | |
| Favorite | Participant discusses an ad as their favorite | |
| Purchasing | Discusses buying and purchasing product advertised in the ad shown |
Conclusions:
- LGBTQ+ YA were distrustful of CT communications that leveraged “stereotyped” LGBTQ+ imagery.
- As authenticity is important to LGBTQ+ YA, co-creating CT anti-tobacco communications may enhance acceptability, engagement, and effectiveness.
- Eye-tracking research will objectively assess the effect of CT (vs NT control) communications on engagement.
Funding/Acknowledgements:
- Thank you to all members of the Practice and Science for LGBTQ+ Health Equity Lab for their contributions.
- This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute and FDA Center for Tobacco Products (K99CA260718 and R00CA260718; PI: JGP), and supported by the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Ohio State University College of Public Health.
References:
- Ridner S, Ma J, Walker K, et al. Cigarette smoking, ENDS use and dual use among a nationalsample of lesbians, gays and bisexuals. Tob Prev Cessat. 2019;5(December). doi:10.18332/tpc/114229
- Delahanty J, Ganz O, Hoffman L, Guillory J, Crankshaw E, Farrelly M. Tobacco use among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young adults varies by sexual and gender identity. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;201:161-170. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.04.013
- Fallin-Bennett A, Lisha NE, Ling PM. Other Tobacco Product Use Among Sexual Minority Young Adult Bar Patrons. Am J Prev Med. 2017;53(3):327-334. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2017.03.006
- Nayak P, Salazar LF, Kota KK, Pechacek TF. Prevalence of use and perceptions of risk of novel and other alternative tobacco products among sexual minority adults: Results from an online national survey, 2014–2015. Prev Med. 2017;104:71-78. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.05.024
- Osibogun O, Taleb ZB, Bahelah R, Salloum RG, Maziak W. Correlates of poly-tobacco use among youth and young adults: Findings from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study, 2013–2014. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;187:160-164. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.02.024
- Stanton CA, Bansal-Travers M, Johnson AL, et al. Longitudinal e-Cigarette and Cigarette Use Among US Youth in the PATH Study (2013–2015). JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111(10):1088-1096. doi:10.1093/jnci/djz006
- Farrelly MC, Nonnemaker J, Davis KC, Hussin A. The Influence of the National truth® Campaign on Smoking Initiation. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(5):379-384. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.019
- Farrelly MC, Duke JC, Nonnemaker J, et al. Association Between The Real Cost Media Campaign and Smoking Initiation Among Youths — United States, 2014–2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(02):47-50. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6602a2
- Sly D, Hopkins R, Trapido E, Ray S. Influence of a counteradvertising media campaign on initiation of smoking: the Florida “truth” campaign. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(2):233-238. doi:10.2105/AJPH.91.2.233
- Weiss JW, Cen S, Schuster D, et al. Longitudinal effects of pro‐tobacco and anti‐tobacco messages on adolescent smoking susceptibility. Nicotine Tob Res. 2006;8(3):455-465. doi:10.1080/14622200600670454
- Siegel M. What the FDA Gets Wrong About E-Cigarettes. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-16/what-the-fda-gets-wrong-about-e-cigarettes?in_source=embedded-checkout-banner. Published March 16, 2017. Accessed July 25, 2023.
- Calabro KS, Khalil GE, Chen M, Perry CL, Prokhorov AV. Pilot study to inform young adults about the risks of electronic cigarettes through text messaging. Addict Behav Rep. 2019;10:100224. doi:10.1016/j.abrep.2019.100224
- U.S National Cancer Institute. A Socioecological Approach to Addressing Tobacco-Related Health Disparities | Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS). A Socioecological Approach to Addressing Tobacco-Related Health Disparities; 2017. Accessed July 25, 2023. https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/monograph-22
- Duke JC, Farrelly MC, Alexander TN, et al. Effect of a National Tobacco Public Education Campaign on Youth’s Risk Perceptions and Beliefs About Smoking. Am J Health Promot. 2018;32(5):1248-1256. doi:10.1177/0890117117720745
- Kranzler EC, Hornik RC. The Relationship Between Exogenous Exposure to “The Real Cost” Anti-Smoking Campaign and Campaign-Targeted Beliefs. J Health Commun. 2019;24(10):780-790. doi:10.1080/10810730.2019.1668887
- The Real Cost E-Cigarette Prevention Campaign. Published online July 21, 2023. Accessed July 31, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/real-cost-campaign/real-cost-e-cigarette-prevention-campaign#:~:text=Our%20Goal%3A%20Educate%20youth%20about,addiction%20from%20using%20e%2Dcigarettes
- This Free Life Campaign. Published online March 11, 2022. Accessed July 31, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/public-health-education-campaigns/free-life-campaign
Images Presented in Focus Groups:
Culturally Targeted Imagery for Eye-Tracking
Control Imagery for Eye-Tracking
** At this point, we are pre-publication. If you would like to see more images, please reach out to the Principal Investigator, Joanne Patterson (patterson.1191@osu.edu).