3.1.2.1 Youth Awareness of Anti-Drug Ads

Target site youth were keenly aware of increases in the number of times anti-drug ads were being shown in their cities and were cognizant of increases in the number of different anti-drug ads they had seen on television and on billboards. Radio, print media, and the Internet were rarely mentioned. Youth in each target site could name, on average, approximately 13 TV ads they had seen, while youth in comparison sites could name, on average, only 5. Memory of sponsorship was not a good indicator of awareness because of variation in the way sponsorship was "tagged." In some sites, for example, sponsorship was displayed in large letters, and in others, all that was shown was a small, difficult-to-read symbol at the bottom of the screen. Sometimes multiple sponsorships were displayed or telephone numbers were included for those interested in obtaining additional information. While youth's specific descriptions of advertisements were indicative of their seeing ads that were part of the ONDCP Media Campaign, many youth did not mention being aware of the "Partnership for a Drug-Free America/Office of National Drug Control Policy" tag.

Older youth could name more ads than younger youth, and they had a better understanding of the intended message. For example, San Diego 4th-6th graders could remember parts of (but could not name) only one cartoon ad. Urban 7th-9th graders mentioned a few ads-both anti-smoking and anti-drug; while both non-urban and inner city 10th-12th grade groups recalled six different TV anti-drugs ads. The non-urban high school students correctly recalled PDFA and ONDCP sponsorship; their inner-city counterparts did not recall the sponsors but remembered the ads in detail. As was the case at baseline, younger youth were at times confused by the ads and were as likely to discuss anti-smoking ads as they were to talk about the ONDCP ads. For example, while most Baltimore non-urban 4th-6th graders remembered the messages in the ads, they were sometimes confused about which drug the ads referred to. Portland urban 4th-6th graders had only limited recall of anti-drug ads, and several focus group members focused on the negative effects on cigarette smoking. In contrast, Portland's middle and high school focus groups recalled more ads, understood the messages, and were not confused about which ads referred to illicit drugs and which referred to cigarettes.

Youth who perceived that anti-drug television ads were "dumb" or "stupid" often were the same youth who had watched these ads most intently and had the strongest reaction to them. Research has shown that a strong negative reaction to these kinds of ads may be indicative of youth's awareness of the ads and the fact that they are paying attention to them (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993; Reeves, Newhagen, Maibach, Basil, and Kurtz, 1991).