Effect of the Written and Combined Warnings on the Cigarette Pockets on University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".