2004
Volume 41, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236

Abstract

Abstract

Based on an experiment with young Dutch smokers, Mollen, Engelen, Kessels, and Van den Putte (2017) advise the European Commission to reconsider the use of warning labels on cigarette packages. Participants in their study were students at institutes for higher education ( = 132). Their attitudes and behavioral intentions were found to be affected both by message framing and temporal discounting in the verbal anti-smoking messages they were presented with. Gain frames were more persuasive than loss frames, and short-term consequences were more persuasive than long-term consequences.

We performed a conceptual replication study in which we employed the same experimental design, followed the same procedure, and used similar anti-smoking messages. Other than in Mollen et al., however, both smokers ( = 129) and non-smokers ( = 173) participated, and the verbal messages were accompanied with matching visuals. Furthermore, participants were younger ( = 18.0 years) than in the original study ( = 22.4 years), and they were students at a lower educational level. We found none of the effects reported in the original study, neither for smokers nor for non-smokers. Therefore, our study does not support the advice from Mollen et al. (2017).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.022.WIJK
2019-04-01
2022-08-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15739775/41/1/22_TVT2019.1_WIJK.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.022.WIJK&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Burgers, C., & Veldhuis, J.(2013). Tailoring fear appeals to lower-educated adolescents: The influence of modality and type of threat. Information Design Journal, 20(1), 32-46.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cauberge, V., De Pelsmacker, P., Janssens, W., & Dens, N.(2009). Fear, threat and efficacy in threat appeals: Message involvement as a key mediator to message acceptance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 41(2), 276-285.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. DeCastellarnau, A.(2018). A classification of response scale characteristics that affect data quality: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 52, 1523-1559.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Eerland, A., & Van den Bergh, H.(2016). Empirische basis van conclusies: Handvatten voor de empirische taalonderzoeker. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 38(2), 139-146.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A.(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Field, A. P.(2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. (3rd, rev. ed.). London: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Gallagher, K. M., & Updegraff, J. A.(2012). Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43(1), 101-116.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Green, L., & Myerson, J.(2004). A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological Bulletin, 130(5), 769-92.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hayes, A. F.(2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408-420.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hayes, A. F.(2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hertgers, S., & Jansen, C. J. M.(2006). Wel vet, niet cool! De rol van consequentiebetrokkenheid bij de verwerking en het resultaat van fear appeal boodschappen in de obesitasvoorlichting. In B.Hendriks, H.Hoeken & P.J.Schellens (Red.), Studies in taalbeheersing 2 (pp. 85-97). Assen: Van Gorcum.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hoeken, H., Hornikx, J., & Hustinx, L.(2012). Overtuigende teksten: Onderzoek en ontwerp (2e, herz. dr.). Bussum: Coutinho.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kantar TNS(2017). Rapport kennis, norm en gedrag rondom de schadelijkheid van roken en meeroken. Zie https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/roken/documenten/rapporten/2017/05/03/rapport-kennis-norm-en-gedrag-rondom-de-schadelijkheid-van-meeroken
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Mollen, S., Engelen, S., Kessels, L. T. E., & Putte, B. van den(2017). Short and sweet: The persuasive effects of message framing and temporal context in antismoking warning labels, Journal of Health Communication, 22(1), 20-28.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Nationaal Expertisecentrum Tabaksontmoediging, Onderdeel van het Trimbos-instituut(2017). Factsheet roken onder volwassenen. Zie https://assets.trimbos.nl/docs/a264fcf9-a3e5-44c2-9ba6-e73cebd5d2ae.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Noar, S. M., Hall, M. G., Francis, D. B., Ribisl, K. M., Pepper, J. K., & Brewer, N. T.(2016). Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Tobacco Control, 25(3): 341-54.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. O’Keefe, D. J.(2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13(3), 251-274.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. O’Keefe, D. J.(2016). Persuasion: Theory and Research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D.(2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives, 12(7), 623-644.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D.(2009). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed loss-framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 59(7), 296-316.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Roken ontmoedigen door nieuwe regels (z.j.). Deel van website van de rijksoverheid onder verantwoordelijkheid van het Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport. Zie https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/roken/roken-ontmoedigen
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Smith, K. H., & Stutts, M. A.(2003). Effects of short-term cosmetic versus long-term health fear appeals in anti-smoking advertisements on the smoking behaviour of adolescents. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(2), 155-177.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Tao, C-C., & Bucy, E. P.(2007). Conceptualizing media stimuli in experimental research: Psychological versus attribute-based definitions. Human Communication Research, 33(4), 397-426.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Volksgezondheidenzorg.info(2018). Website gemaakt door het RIVM in opdracht van het Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport. Zie https://www.volksgezondheidenzorg.info/onderwerp/roken/cijfers-context/huidige-situatie-volwassenen#node-roken-naar-opleiding
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Zhao, X., & Peterson, E.(2017). Effects of temporal framing on response to antismoking messages: the mediating role of perceived relevance. Journal of Health Communication, 22(1), 37-44.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.022.WIJK
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.022.WIJK
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): anti-smoking messages; message framing; non-smokers; replication; smokers; temporal context
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error