MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4403537687 · doi:10.1177/15245004241290529

Using Theory and Practice to Develop Lottery Ticket Warning Messages as a Means of Promoting More Responsible Gambling

2024· article· en· W4403537687 sur OpenAlex
Magdalena Cismaru, Walter Wymer

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.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueSocial Marketing Quarterly · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueGambling Behavior and Treatments
Établissements canadiensUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of Regina
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLotteryTicketWarning signsPsychologyAdvertisingPublic relationsInternet privacyBusinessComputer securityComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringEconomicsTransport engineeringMicroeconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background Playing the lottery is considered a public health concern in many countries due to financial losses associated with it, but also due to other harmful health and social problems. Focus of the article Informed by both theory and practice, this article focuses on developing lottery ticket warning messages targeting players harmed by excessive spending to promote sustainable behavior change. Research Question What should be communicated in lottery ticket warning messages targeting people at risk to facilitate behavior change and maintain it? Approach We bridge the gap between theory and practice and illustrate how theoretical models and current communications can shape messages. Specifically, we identify and examine lottery ticket warning messages and analyze their relative congruence to prevailing theories to assess the potential effectiveness of the messages and to recommend warning labels for lottery tickets. In addition, we incorporate knowledge used by cognitive psychologists in counselling to create warnings more likely to motivate and sustain behavior change. Importance to the Social Marketing Field Merging academic theory with existent communications ensures better knowledge translation and potentially better outcomes. Introducing verified techniques from Cognitive Behavior Therapy into social marketing initiatives could be a step forward into triggering behavior change. Methods A literature review was conducted to identify and select theoretical models appropriate to guide communications for lottery tickets harmful consumption. Searches were conducted to identify initiatives aiming at persuading and helping at-risk individuals to change their behavior in a healthy manner. Social marketing campaign messages were then compared with theoretical paradigms to identify ways in which campaign messages could be improved. Results Results show campaign messages were relatively consistent with some aspects of the theoretical models. Warning messages provide information that is relevant to the target audience and describe the severity and vulnerability of irresponsible consumption. They also attempt to decrease perceived costs and increase perceived self-efficacy in a variety of ways. Some also attempt to modify cognitive distortions the audience has in respect to chances of winning. However, initiatives should also increase consumers’ perceptions of the response-efficacy by emphasizing their agency, and further enhance individuals’ perception of self-efficacy by incorporating strategies from the Cognitive Model. Recommendations for Research and Practice Academics and practitioners can build on each other’s knowledge on an ongoing basis. By making it default to always consider both theory and practice, initiatives are likely to become more effective. Managers responsible for developing warning messages and implementing social marketing campaigns can experiment with the various theoretical approaches to determine which are comparatively more effective for their situations. Limitations Future research is needed to test the comparative effectiveness of these theories as a basis of creating persuasive warning messages.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,320
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,101
Tête enseignante GPT0,453
Écart entre enseignants0,353 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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