Effect of the Written and Combined Warnings on the Cigarette Pockets on University Students
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AbstractThe general aim of this study is to analyze the effects of the written and combined (written and pictures) warning statements on the cigarette pockets on university students. The sample of the study includes a total of 231 undergraduate students. The participants were divided into two groups: the first group was presented only written warnings, while the second group was presented combined warning statements. In order to analyze the effects of these warning statements, the protection motivation model developed by Arthur and Quester was employed. The study has relational model. It is found that the variable of of harm has effects on the category of both in the written warning statements and in the combined warning statements.Key WordsProtection Motivation Model, Cigarette, Cigarette Pack, Written and Combined Warnings, Fear Appeals, Biology Education.Turkey is one of the leading producers and consumers of tobacco. It may be because of this reason the Turkish identity has become identified with smoking over time and then, smoking in Turkish society has become a traditional consumption item. For instance, some research findings indicate that nearly 750 thousand children and youngsters in each year begin to smoke in Turkey (Beelmann & Thomas, 2006; Bilir, Ozcebe, Aslan, & Erguder, 2008; Kersch, 1998; Leppin, Hurrelmann, & Petermann, 2000; Schill, Staeck, & Teutloff, 2004; Wrede, 1996).In various parts of the world, public institutions and NGOs attempt to take steps to reduce the rate of smoking. One of these steps is the use warning statements about the hazards of smoking on cigarette pockets. It is certain that such warning statements are significant stps to eliminate the rate of smoking. Those who smokes frequently come across these warning statements. For instance, a person who smokes a pocket of cigarette per day comes across such warning statements at least 7000 times annually. Therefore, smokers may develop a resistance to avoid smoking whenever they see such warning statements (Bilir et al., 2008; Currie et al., 2004; Celik & Esen, 2000; Geistl, 2004; Hurrelmann, 1998; Hollederer & Bolcskei, 2002; Leppin et al., 2000; Ogel, Tamar, Evren, & Cakmak, 2001; Sezer, 1984).In recent times, such warning statements become a combined form including visual and written warnings (Baran et al., 2010; Christiansen, Stander, & Toppich, 2004; Hammond, Fong, Mcdonald, Cameron, & Rown, 2003; Johnston & Warkentin, 2010; Zillman & Gan, 1996). WHO reported that such a combined way of warning has influences on quitting smoking. Combined warning statements are firstly used in Canada, Poland and Thailand. The use of combined warning statements became legally obligatory in Turkey by 01.01.2011.Protection Motivation Theory assumes that warning statements on cigarette pockets are fear appeals. A fear appeal is a message designed to elicit fear in an attempt to persuade an individual to pursue some predefined course of action against factors threading health and therefore, individuals' life. Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) was developed by Rogers (1975) and it was reevaluated and redeveloped by Arthur and Quester (2004). The version of PMT developed by Arthur and Quester (2004), as in the version developed by Maddux and Rogers (1983), considers self-efficacy and the efficacy of response. The basic constituent of these stimulants is fear (Floyds, Prentice-Dunn, & Rogers, 2000; Milne, Sheeren, & Orbell, 2000; Ruiter, Abraham, & Kok, 2001; Tanner, Hunt, & Eppright, 1991).The theory developed by Arthur and Quester (2004) states that fear occurs based on the effects of fear stimulants. Fear affects individuals both through the severity of damage and through as a mediator variable between the probability of damage and behavior. As stated earlier, PMT developed by Arthur and Quester considers self-efficacy and the efficacy of response and as a result of this consideration; it is assumed that threat appraisal will lead to related behavior. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle