| Title : | The effect of graphic cigarette warning labels on smoking behavior: a case of Nepal | | Material Type: | printed text | | Authors: | Alisha Tamang, Author | | Publication Date: | 2018 | | Pagination: | 94p. | | Size: | GRP/Thesis | | Accompanying material: | 11/B | | Languages : | English | | Descriptors: | Smoking-Psychological aspects
| | Class number: | 362.296 | | Abstract: | Graphic warning labels are those incredibly gross visuals displaying the worst possible effects. Graphic Warning labels are effective for attracting smokers’ attention and publicizing the harmfulness of tobacco.Graphic images on warning labels may be effective for attitude and behavior change. Cigarette packages are an important medium for communicating with smokers, both for the tobacco industry and for governments seeking to convey the health risks of smoking (Pillappa, 2012).The warning messages contribute to changing consumers’ attitudes towards tobacco use as well as changing consumers’ behavior.Witte & Allen (2000) concluded that the strongest predictor of message effectiveness was severity of the consequence depiction, and severity was speculated to include vivid or gruesome pictures. Hommandet al. (2004) found that graphic warning labels on tobacco products may well serve as an effective smoking-cessation and reduction intervention.
Ruiteret al. (2001) stated that messages intended to scare the recipient may have unintended or detrimental effects. Yurekli and Zhang, (2000) found significant negative effect of public smoking bans on states per capita cigarette consumption. Prior work on marital status, marital transitions, and health status suggests that health behaviors may mediate marital status or transition effects on health outcomes (Rogers et al., (2005). No significant differences were noted between groups with regard to sex, age, year of study/grades, and current living conditions (Teukuet al., 2013). Graphic warning labels also contribute to smoker’s knowledge of health risks.Smoking rates were higher for unmarried men and women compared to their married counterparts (Hong et al., 2008).
The study includes number of people from different places of Nepal. Total number of observation for the study consists of 250 respondents for analyzing the relationship between the graphic warning labels and smoking behavior. For the selection of the sample respondent, convenience sampling has been used. The sample of population from colleges, banks and financial institutions, job holder, recovery foundation, and some of the sample were taken individually etc.This study is based upon descriptive research design and causal comparative research design to deal with the issues associated with the effectiveness of graphic warning labels on smoking behavior in the context of Nepal.
The result reveals that the majority of respondents are males (77.60 percent) and the rest of the respondents is female i.e. (22.40 percent).In terms of marital status, respondents who are single (54.40 percent) followed by (24.40 percent) are married respondents.Out of total respondents, majority of the respondents (48 percent) belongs to age group 20 to 26 years, followed by (30.80 percent) of respondents belong to age group 27 to 33 years. In terms of education status, majority of respondents (35.20 percent) are bachelor followed by (32.80 percent) of the respondents who are intermediate, respondent who are master degree holder (19.20 percent), followed by (11.20 percent) of the respondent are school level. The results show that majority of the respondents (86 percent) agreed that graphic warning labels on cigarette packets are necessary.
The majority of respondents (62.8 percent) disagreed that smoking behavior of an individual is not affected by any forms of graphic warning labels on cigarette packets.Likewise, the majority of the respondent (54.8 percent) agreed that their age doesn’t matter for them to start or stop smoking. The result indicates that majority of the respondents (61.6 percent) agree that work pressure leads to smoke more in an individual smoking activity. The result also indicates that majority of the respondents (71.2 percent) agree that smoking bans on public places, care homes and hospital are affecting smoking behavior of an individual.Similarly, the result also indicates that majority of the respondents (64.8 percent) agree with the statement that once someone has started smoking, it would be difficult to stop.The majority of respondent agreed if a friend offered them a cigarette, they would think about smoking it whereas some (48.4 percent) of the respondent.The majority of the respondents (62 percent) agreed that they would plan to stop smoking in the very near future. The majority of the respondents (50.4 percent) agreed that if one of their friend offered them a cigarette, they would go for a smoke.
The result shows that there is positive relationship between graphic warning label, income status, education status, and smoking bans with quit intention. It indicates that increase in graphic warning labels, income status, education status, smoking bans leads to increase the quit intention. Likewise, there is positive relationship of gender with quit intention. It indicates that gender explains the smoking behavior in case of Nepal. However, the study shows that there is a negative relationship of graphic warning labels, age, employment status, smoking experience with smoking intention. It indicates that increase in graphic warning labels, age, employment status, smoking experience leads to decrease in smoking intention. Similarly, there is a negative relationship of marital status with smoking behavior. It indicates that change in marital status leads to decrease in smoking behavior. The regression result also shows that beta coefficients are positive for gender, education status, income status, smoking experience, and smoking bans with smoking intention. The regression result also shows that beta coefficients are negative for graphic warning labels, marital status, age, and employment status with smoking intention. However, the coefficients are significant only for smoking bans at 5 percent level of significance. The regression result also shows that beta coefficients are positive for graphic warning labels, gender, education status, income status, smoking bans with quit intention. The regression result also shows that beta coefficients are negative for marital status, age, smoking experience and employment status with quit intention. However, the coefficients are significant only for employment status at 1 percent level of significance.
|
The effect of graphic cigarette warning labels on smoking behavior: a case of Nepal [printed text] / Alisha Tamang, Author . - 2018 . - 94p. ; GRP/Thesis + 11/B. Languages : English | Descriptors: | Smoking-Psychological aspects
| | Class number: | 362.296 | | Abstract: | Graphic warning labels are those incredibly gross visuals displaying the worst possible effects. Graphic Warning labels are effective for attracting smokers’ attention and publicizing the harmfulness of tobacco.Graphic images on warning labels may be effective for attitude and behavior change. Cigarette packages are an important medium for communicating with smokers, both for the tobacco industry and for governments seeking to convey the health risks of smoking (Pillappa, 2012).The warning messages contribute to changing consumers’ attitudes towards tobacco use as well as changing consumers’ behavior.Witte & Allen (2000) concluded that the strongest predictor of message effectiveness was severity of the consequence depiction, and severity was speculated to include vivid or gruesome pictures. Hommandet al. (2004) found that graphic warning labels on tobacco products may well serve as an effective smoking-cessation and reduction intervention.
Ruiteret al. (2001) stated that messages intended to scare the recipient may have unintended or detrimental effects. Yurekli and Zhang, (2000) found significant negative effect of public smoking bans on states per capita cigarette consumption. Prior work on marital status, marital transitions, and health status suggests that health behaviors may mediate marital status or transition effects on health outcomes (Rogers et al., (2005). No significant differences were noted between groups with regard to sex, age, year of study/grades, and current living conditions (Teukuet al., 2013). Graphic warning labels also contribute to smoker’s knowledge of health risks.Smoking rates were higher for unmarried men and women compared to their married counterparts (Hong et al., 2008).
The study includes number of people from different places of Nepal. Total number of observation for the study consists of 250 respondents for analyzing the relationship between the graphic warning labels and smoking behavior. For the selection of the sample respondent, convenience sampling has been used. The sample of population from colleges, banks and financial institutions, job holder, recovery foundation, and some of the sample were taken individually etc.This study is based upon descriptive research design and causal comparative research design to deal with the issues associated with the effectiveness of graphic warning labels on smoking behavior in the context of Nepal.
The result reveals that the majority of respondents are males (77.60 percent) and the rest of the respondents is female i.e. (22.40 percent).In terms of marital status, respondents who are single (54.40 percent) followed by (24.40 percent) are married respondents.Out of total respondents, majority of the respondents (48 percent) belongs to age group 20 to 26 years, followed by (30.80 percent) of respondents belong to age group 27 to 33 years. In terms of education status, majority of respondents (35.20 percent) are bachelor followed by (32.80 percent) of the respondents who are intermediate, respondent who are master degree holder (19.20 percent), followed by (11.20 percent) of the respondent are school level. The results show that majority of the respondents (86 percent) agreed that graphic warning labels on cigarette packets are necessary.
The majority of respondents (62.8 percent) disagreed that smoking behavior of an individual is not affected by any forms of graphic warning labels on cigarette packets.Likewise, the majority of the respondent (54.8 percent) agreed that their age doesn’t matter for them to start or stop smoking. The result indicates that majority of the respondents (61.6 percent) agree that work pressure leads to smoke more in an individual smoking activity. The result also indicates that majority of the respondents (71.2 percent) agree that smoking bans on public places, care homes and hospital are affecting smoking behavior of an individual.Similarly, the result also indicates that majority of the respondents (64.8 percent) agree with the statement that once someone has started smoking, it would be difficult to stop.The majority of respondent agreed if a friend offered them a cigarette, they would think about smoking it whereas some (48.4 percent) of the respondent.The majority of the respondents (62 percent) agreed that they would plan to stop smoking in the very near future. The majority of the respondents (50.4 percent) agreed that if one of their friend offered them a cigarette, they would go for a smoke.
The result shows that there is positive relationship between graphic warning label, income status, education status, and smoking bans with quit intention. It indicates that increase in graphic warning labels, income status, education status, smoking bans leads to increase the quit intention. Likewise, there is positive relationship of gender with quit intention. It indicates that gender explains the smoking behavior in case of Nepal. However, the study shows that there is a negative relationship of graphic warning labels, age, employment status, smoking experience with smoking intention. It indicates that increase in graphic warning labels, age, employment status, smoking experience leads to decrease in smoking intention. Similarly, there is a negative relationship of marital status with smoking behavior. It indicates that change in marital status leads to decrease in smoking behavior. The regression result also shows that beta coefficients are positive for gender, education status, income status, smoking experience, and smoking bans with smoking intention. The regression result also shows that beta coefficients are negative for graphic warning labels, marital status, age, and employment status with smoking intention. However, the coefficients are significant only for smoking bans at 5 percent level of significance. The regression result also shows that beta coefficients are positive for graphic warning labels, gender, education status, income status, smoking bans with quit intention. The regression result also shows that beta coefficients are negative for marital status, age, smoking experience and employment status with quit intention. However, the coefficients are significant only for employment status at 1 percent level of significance.
|
|
Refine your search Apply to external sourcesThe effect of graphic cigarette warning labels on smoking behavior: a case of Nepal / Alisha Tamang
