Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication (KSJCS)
[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 64, No. 6, pp.319-352
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Dec 2020
Received 06 Aug 2020 Revised 13 Nov 2020 Accepted 30 Nov 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2020.64.6.009

지각된 메시지 효과성은 실제 메시지 효과를 얼마나 반영하는가? : 설득 캠페인 메시지의 지각된 효과와 실제 효과

이병현* ; 정성은**
*성균관대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션학과 연구원 zkfldb@gmail.com
**성균관대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션학과 교수 chseun@gmail.com
To What Degree Does Perceived Message Effectiveness Reflect Actual Message Effect?: Perceived vs. Actual Message Effect in Persuasive Campaigns
Byeong-Hyeon Lee* ; Sungeun Chung**
*Researcher, Department of Media and Communication, Sungkyunkwan University zkfldb@gmail.com
**Professor, Department of Media and Communication, Sungkyunkwan University chseun@gmail.com

초록

설득캠페인 메시지의 효과를 사전에 예측하기 위해 캠페인 실무자들은 주로 지각된 메시지 효과성(perceived message effectiveness, PME)을 활용한다. 하지만 PME로 실제 효과(actual message effect, AME)를 예측할 수 있는지에 대한 논쟁은 지속적으로 진행되고 있다. 이 논쟁의 해결을 위해 본 연구는 기존 연구들이 사용한 세 가지 방법, 즉 PME와 AME 간의 상관관계를 이용하는 방법, 두 메시지 간 PME와 AME의 순위일치 여부를 이용하는 방법, 그리고 메시지 노출로 인한 실제 태도변화의 정도와 지각된 태도변화의 정도를 직접 비교하는 방법들을 체계적으로 검토 보완하였다. PME와 AME의 다양한 측정 방식을 검토하여 이를 유형화하였다. 본 연구는 각 검증 방법과 관련된 연구 문제들을 제시하고 세 가지 검증 방법을 동시 적용하여 PME와 AME의 관계를 종합적으로 검증하였다. 연구 문제의 검증을 위해, 공공기관이 원자력 발전소 안정성을 홍보하기 위해 제작 배포했던 네 개의 동영상 메시지를 사용하였다. 두 차례에 걸친 패널 조사(N = 475)의 일차 조사에서 응답자들의 초기 태도를 측정하였으며, 일주일 후 이차 조사에서 네 개의 메시지를 서로 다른 집단에게 무선할당하여 제시한 후, PME를 유형 별로 측정하였고, 메시지 노출 전후 사안에 관한 태도의 차이로 AME를 측정하였다. 연구 결과, PME-AME 상관관계는 전체 메시지의 경우와 개별 메시지의 경우 모두 정(+)적으로 나타났으며, 전체 메시지 상관관계는 평균 .40, 개별 메시지에 관한 상관관계는 최소 .34에서 최대 .47로 비교적 높게 나타났다. 오키프(O’Keefe, 2018)의 방법을 보완하여 두 메시지 간 PME과 AME의 순위 일치를 분석한 결과, PME의 진단능력 인정률은 100%(30/30)으로 나타났다. 사안에 관한 초기태도가 메시지의 입장과 반대일 경우, 응답자들은 메시지 노출로 인한 자신의 태도 변화 정도를 실제 태도 변화의 43.2%로 축소하여 보고함을 발견하였다. 초기 태도가 중립일 경우에는 실제 태도의 76.3%를 지각된 태도 변화로 보고하였다. 이러한 결과는 설득캠페인 메시지 제작에서 PME를 활용하여 AME를 진단할 수 있지만, 실무자들은 PME가 포함하고 있는 체계적 편향을 인지할 필요가 있음을 시사한다.

Abstract

To predict the effectiveness of persuasive campaign messages in advance, campaign practitioners utilize perceived message effectiveness (PME). However, it has been debated whether actual message effect (AME) can be predicted with PME. Based on correlational data, some researchers argued that PME is a causal antecedent of AME and can be used in place of AME in formative campaign research. O’Keefe criticized the use of correlations to test the diagnosticity of PME and proposed a new method, comparing the direction of difference in PME and that of AME for message pairs. In a meta-analysis, O’Keefe found that the direction of difference between PME and AME were matched in only 58% of message pairs. To resolve this debate, we critically examined existing testing methods and improved those methods to more rigorously test the PME-AME relationship. Also, applying the method used in the study of perceived polling effect on individuals’ attitudes, we suggested to directly compare PME with AME to find the proportion that PME reflects AME. We also classified various types of PME measures into perceived argument quality, estimated message impact on self (or others), and perceived change in attitude of oneself (or others) due to message exposure. We conducted a two-wave panel survey and measured perceived and actual effect of four campaign messages that were created by public agencies to promote the safety of nuclear power plants in South Korea (N = 475). Initial attitudes of respondents were measured in the first survey, and a week later, four messages were randomly presented to different groups, then various measures of PME and AME were measured. We found that both across-message and message-specific PME-AME correlations was positive and relatively high. With a modified method of O’Keefe the direction of the difference in PME matched with that of AME in all message paires (30/30) showing high level of diagnosticity. Respondents with negative initial attitudes underestimated the message effect, reporting their attitude change due to message exposure as 43.2% of the actual attitude change. Those with neutral attitudes reported their attitude change as 76.3% of the actual attitude change. These results suggest that while PME can be used for campaign message design, practitioners need to be aware of the systematic bias it contains.

Keywords:

perceived message effectiveness, actual message effect, persuasive campaign, estimated message impact, perceived attitude change

키워드:

지각된 메시지 효과성, 실제 메시지 효과, 설득캠페인, 메시지 영향력 추정, 지각된 태도변화 정도

References

  • Atkin, C. K., & Freimuth, V. (2001). Formative evaluation research in campaign design. In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (pp. 125-145). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. [https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452233260.n7]
  • Atkin, C. K., & Rice, R. E. (2013). Advances in public communication campaigns. In E. Scharrer (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of media studies: Media effects/media psychology (pp. 526-551). London, UK: Wiley-Blackwell [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444361506.wbiems129]
  • Bigsby, E., Cappella, J. N., & Seitz, H. H. (2013). Efficiently and effectively evaluating public service announcements: Additional evidence for the utility of perceived effectiveness. Communication Monographs, 80, 1-23. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2012.739706]
  • Byrne, S., Katz, S. J., Mathios, A., & Niederdeppe, J. (2015). Do the ends justify the means? A test of alternatives to the FDA proposed cigarette warning labels. Health Communication, 30, 680-693. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.895282]
  • Cappella, J. N. (2018). Perceived message effectiveness meets the requirements of a reliable, valid, and efficient measure of persuasiveness. Journal of Communication, 68, 994-997. [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy044]
  • Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit from persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 388-404. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.388]
  • Chung, S., Heo, Y.-J., & Moon, J.-H. (2018). Perceived versus actual polling effects: Biases in perceptions of election poll effects on candidate evaluations. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 30, 420-442. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edx004]
  • Chung, S., & Lee, W. (2012). Reconstructing of the third-person perception hypothesis: Focusing on the effect of preexisting attitudes, the level of knowledge, and message strength. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 56(5), 322-349.
  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155]
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Cohen, J., Mutz, D., Price, V., & Gunther, A. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation: An experiment on third-person effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 161-173. [https://doi.org/10.1086/269092]
  • Collins, R. L., Taylor, S. E., Wood, J. V., & Thompson, S. C. (1988). The vividness effect: Elusive or illusory? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 1-18. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(88)90041-8]
  • Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15. [https://doi.org/10.1086/268763]
  • Davis, K. C., & Duke, J. C. (2018). Evidence of the real-world effectiveness of public health media campaigns reinforces the value of perceived message effectiveness in campaign planning. Journal of Communication, 68, 998-1000. [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy045]
  • Dillard, J. P., & Peck, E. (2000). Affect and persuasion: Emotional responses to public service announcements. Communication Research, 27, 461-495. [https://doi.org/10.1177/009365000027004003]
  • Dillard, J. P., Shen, L., & Vail, R. G. (2007). Does perceived message effectiveness cause persuasion or vice versa? 17 consistent answers. Human Communication Research, 33, 467-488. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00308.x]
  • Dillard, J. P., Weber, K. M., & Vail, R. G. (2007). The relationship between the perceived and actual effectiveness of persuasive messages: A meta-analysis with implications for formative campaign research. Journal of Communication, 57, 613-631. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00360.x]
  • Dillard, J. P., & Witte, K. (1993). Possessions theory of persuasion: An examination of its basis and range. Communication Studies, 44, 188-199. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979309368394]
  • Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2004). Right about others, wrong about ourselves? Actual and perceived self‐other differences in resistance to persuasion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 585-603. [https://doi.org/10.1348/0144666042565416]
  • Duke, J. C., Alexander, T. N., Zhao, X., Delahanty, J. C., Allen, J. A., MacMonegle, A. J., & Farrelly, M. C. (2015). Youth’s awareness of and reactions to the real cost national tobacco public education campaign. PloS One, 10. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144827]
  • Hale, J. L., Mongeau, P. A., & Randi, M. T. (1991). Cognitive processing of one- and two-sided persuasive messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 380-389. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319109374394]
  • Hullett, C. R. (2002). Charting the process underlying the change of value-expressive attitudes: The importance of value-relevance in predicting the matching effect. Communication Monographs, 69, 158-178. [https://doi.org/10.1080/714041711]
  • Hullett, C. R. (2004). Using functional theory to promote sexually transmitted disease (STD) testing: The impact of value-expressive messages and guilt. Communication Research, 31, 363-396. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650204266103]
  • Hullett, C. R., & Boster, F. J. (2001). Matching messages to values underlying value-expressive and social-adjustive attitudes: Reconciling an old theory with a contemporary measurement approach. Communication Monographs, 68, 133-153. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750128057]
  • Kim, S. H. (2017, 7, 23). The controversy over nuclear power plants, this is the fact. The Hankyoreh. Retrieved from http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/economy/marketing/803903.html
  • Lavine, H., & Snyder, M. (1996). Cognitive processing and the functional matching effect in persuasion: The mediating role of subjective perceptions of message quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 580-604. [https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1996.0026]
  • McGuire, W. J., & Millman, S. (1965). Anticipatory belief lowering following forewarning of a persuasive attack. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 471-479, [https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022486]
  • Meirick, P. C. (2004). Topic-relevant reference groups and dimensions of distance: Political advertising and first-and third-person effects. Communication Research, 31, 234-255. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203261514]
  • Meyer, B. D. (1995). Natural and quasi-experiments in economics. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 13, 151-161. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1392369]
  • Miller, G. R. (1980). On being persuaded: Some basic distinctions. Persuasion: New Directions in Theory and Research, 1, 1-28.
  • Mitchell, M. (2000). Able but not motivated? The relative effects of happy and sad mood on persuasive message processing. Communication Monographs, 67, 215-226. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750009376505]
  • Mitchell, M., Brown, K., Morris-Villagran, M., & Villagran, P. (2001). The effects of anger, sadness and happiness on persuasive message processing: a test of the negative state relief Model. Communication Monographs, 68, 347-359. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750128070]
  • Noar, S. M., Barker, J., & Yzer, M. (2018). Measurement and design heterogeneity in perceived message effectiveness studies: A call for research. Journal of Communication, 68, 990-993. [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy047]
  • Noar, S. M., Bell, T., Kelley, D., Barker, J., & Yzer, M. (2018). Perceived message effectiveness measures in tobacco education campaigns: A systematic review. Communication Methods and Measures, 12, 295-313. [https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1483017]
  • O’Keefe, D. J. (1993). Understanding social influence: Relations between lay and technical perspectives. Communication Studies, 44, 228-238. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979309368397]
  • O’Keefe, D. J. (2018). Message pretesting using assessments of expected or perceived persuasiveness: Evidence about diagnosticity of relative actual persuasiveness. Journal of Communication, 68, 120-142. [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx009]
  • O’Keefe, D. J., & Reid, K. (1990). The uses and effects of public service advertising. In L. A. Grunig & J. E. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research annual (Vol. 2, pp. 67-91). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr0201-4_3]
  • Perloff, R. M. (2009). Mass media, social perception and the third-person effect. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.). Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 252-268). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Pfau, M., & Parrott, R. (1993). Persuasive communication campaigns. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Reid, S. A., Gunter, H. N., & Smith, J. R. (2005). Aboriginal self-determination in Australia. Human Communication Research, 31, 189-211. [https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/31.2.189]
  • Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole
  • Schoenbach, K., & Becker, L. B. (1995). Origins and consequences of mediated public opinion. In T. L. Glasser & C. T. Salmon (Eds.,), Public opinion and the communication of consent (pp. 323-347). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  • Shen, L., Sun, Y., & Pan, Z. (2018). Not all perceptual gaps were created equal: Explicating the third-person perception (TPP) as a cognitive fallacy. Mass Communication and Society, 21, 399-424. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2017.1420194]
  • Tal-Or, N., & Drukman, D. (2010). Third-person perception as an impression management tactic. Media Psychology, 13, 301-322. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2010.503516]
  • Wagner, C. H. (1982). Simpson's paradox in real life. The American Statistician, 36, 46-48. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1982.10482778]
  • Yzer, M., LoRusso, S., & Nagler, R. H. (2015). On the conceptual ambiguity surrounding perceived message effectiveness. Health Communication, 30, 125-134. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.974131]

Appendix

부록

  • 김성환 (2017, 7, 23). 탈원전 논란, 이것이 팩트다. <한겨례>. URL:http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/economy/marketing/803903.html
  • 정성은·이원지 (2012). 제삼자 지각 가설의 재구성: 메시지 강도, 관련 지식 보유 정도, 기존 태도를 중심으로. <한국언론학보>, 56권 5호, 323-349.