the e ect of anti-smoking ads (second-hand vs. rst-hand) on the … · 2018. 9. 29. · lung...

The Effect of Anti-smoking Ads(second-hand vs. first-hand) on theAttitude toward Ads and Smoking:

Moderating effect of Altruism &Collectivism

Jin-Sun Park1 and Gwi-Gon Kim∗2

1Dept. of Consulting,Kumoh National Institute of Technology,

+82, [email protected]

∗2Dept. of Business Administration,Kumoh National Institute of Technology,

+82, [email protected]

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Effectiveness of second-handsmoking advertisement was identified including 1) advertise-ment attitude toward smoking type, 2) Altruism, moderat-ing effects of individual value propensity and 3) smokingattitude changes toward advertisement attitude.

Methods/Statistical Analysis: The experimental de-sign was conducted as 2(smoking type: second-hand vs.first-hand) × 2(altruism: low vs. high) × 2(personal valuepropensity: individualism vs. collectivism). Actual anti-smoking advertisements were referenced to produce stimuliexpressing first-hand and second-hand damages from smok-ing using male and female models, and surveys were con-ducted on 480 undergraduate students, graduate students,

International Journal of Pure and Applied MathematicsVolume 120 No. 6 2018, 5959-5985ISSN: 1314-3395 (on-line version)url: http://www.acadpubl.eu/hub/Special Issue http://www.acadpubl.eu/hub/

5959

office workers and housewives in Gyeongsangbuk-do. A to-tal of 406 questionnaires were used for the final analysis.

Findings: As a result, there was no difference in at-titude toward advertising according to second-hand smok-ing and first-hand smoking. Moderating effect accordingto altruism level was confirmed. In second-hand smoking,attitude toward advertising was better when altruism washigher. In the case of first-hand smoking, attitude towardadvertising was good when the altruism level was low. Themoderating effect by personal value propensity was also con-firmed. In second-hand smoking, attitude toward advertis-ing was better in collectivism. In the case of first-handsmoking, attitude toward advertising was better in individ-ualism. Finally, attitudes toward anti-smoking advertise-ments by smoking type were found to have a negative effectwith attitude toward smoking.

Improvements/Applications: From social cost per-spectives, anti-smoking advertisement implies that second-hand advertisement is more effective than first-hand adver-tisement. Future studies are required about second-handanti-smoking advertisements by smoker type.

Key Words : Attitude toward Smoking, Anti-SmokingAdvertisement, Altruism, Individualism, Collectivism, Ex-ternal diseconomy.

1 Introduction

First-hand smoking means that smokers inhale their own cigarettesmoke and second-hand smoking is a case in which non-smokersinhale cigarette smoke emitted by smokers regardless of their ownwill. Second-hand smoking includes both the mainstream smokethat come out of smokers when they smoke and the side streamsmoke that is the smoke from the end of the cigarette. In compar-ison with the mainstream smoke, the side stream smoke that doesnot pass through the filter contains more harmful substances, andthe damage of the second-hand smoking mainly occurs in the sidestream smoke [1].

Since the 1970s, studies have been undertaken to elucidate thecorrelation between second-hand smoking and the risk of death from

International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

5960

lung cancer, and Second-hand smoking has also been found to be amajor cause of premature death [2-4]. More than 6 million peopleworldwide die each year from smoking, of which more than 600,000die from second-hand smoking [5]. The risk of second-hand smok-ing is serious, as the proportion of patients with lung cancer whodo not have a history of lung cancer is 87.8%. Second-hand smok-ing has the same hazard as first-hand smoking, regardless of oneswill. Therefore, the only way to reduce the damage to second-hand smoking is smoking cessation. However, smoking cessation isnot easy. Therefore, government should protect non-smokers fromsmokers by showing their commitment to more first-hand smok-ing cessation policies. However, prior to strongly enforcing legalmeasures against smoking cessation, the socio-cultural approach tomotivate and opportunity for smoking cessation should be moreemphasized. Second-hand smoking is a bad influence on the healthof others. Information on second-hand smoking damage may bean incentive to quit smoking for the health of others. For exam-ple, parents who smoke show abstaining from smoking in front oftheir children. Young children / infants and children whose par-ents smoke cigarettes are said to have a higher incidence of acuterespiratory disease or lung cancer than non-smoking families. Chil-dren exposed to parental tobacco smoke are four times more likelyto smoke, and second-hand smoking is associated with a higherrisk of developing symptoms of asthma, otitis media, pneumonia,and sudden infant death syndrome, and is associated with a higherrisk of developing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)[7]. Smokers who are exposed to this information will abstain fromsmoking to protect their children from second-hand smoking. Thisis why the adult second-hand smoking rate (Male; 26.9%, Female;19.4%) in public places is different from the second-hand smokingrate in the home (4%, Female; 7.9%) in 2015. It means that onecan give up one’s own joy for their children. Thus, the degree ofinfluence of second-hand smoking ads will be different dependingon the altruism tendency to consider others than one’s own conve-nience. Furthermore, if altruism is strong, attitude toward smokingfor second-hand smoking can be made even more negative. On theother hand, according to Hofstede Koreans have a collectivist ten-dency that considers groups more than individuals [8]. At present,Korea’s individualism index is 18 points in terms of 100 points in


5961

2018. Compared to the US (91), it is leaning much more towardscollectivism [Figure 1].

Figure 1: Comparison of cultural dimension between Korea andUSASource: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/ (Search date: March22, 2018) [9]

The viewpoint of the advertisement may be different dependingon whether individual tendency is individualism or collectivism.This effect can be expected to be greater in the collectivism ten-dency than in the altruism tendency. In the meantime, there aremany studies dealing with the effects of anti-smoking advertise-ments. However, studies on the difference in attitude toward ad-vertising between first-hand smoking and second-hand smoking arerare. There are also few studies on the effects of anti-smoking ad-vertisements by smoking type, attitude toward advertising and atti-tude toward smoking according to individualism / collectivism andaltruism levels. In this study, the attitude toward each advertise-ment and the attitude on the smoking will be compared through thecomparison of anti-smoking advertisement for the first-hand smok-ing and the second-hand smoking, through which it was intended toverify that the smoking prevention effect of the second-hand smok-ing advertisement is no less than that of first-hand smoking adver-tisement. That is, it was intended to demonstrate that the anti-smoking advertisement on the second-hand smoking damage couldbe as same or higher that on the first-hand smoking advertisementdamage differently from existing research results. And whether theeffect of the second-hand smoking advertisement is mediated by the


5962

altruism, inclination of personal value (the individualism and thecollectivism) is examined.

2 Theoretical background and Hypothe-

ses

2.1 Anti-Smoking Advertisements

The United States uses PSA (Public Service Advertising) as a wordfor public service advertising. It is the concept that prioritizes thepurpose of the publicity which notifies the public line and the norm,rather than a simple advertisement. In a previous study on thepurpose of public service advertising, the focus was on social issuesand that the purpose was behavioral habits change and improve-ments of attitudes for public interest[10]. It represents a commu-nication pathway for solving social problems based on public goodand profit. Because anti-smoking advertisements effectively inducesmoking cessation by informing the harm of smoking, many priorstudies have addressed cigarette smoking as an important commu-nication tool for smoking cessation and prevention of smoking [11].Inserting a warning phrase or image into anti-smoking advertise-ments is an effective way to pass information about smoking tosmokers as well as non-smokers. Therefore, anti-smoking advertise-ments aim to increase the intention of smoking cessation to smok-ers, and to prevent smoking in nonsmokers. The reason why anti-smoking advertisements are public service ads is because smokingcosts the society as a whole. According to personal preferences,smoking is a social problem that is transferred to actual behaviorbecause of health problems caused by second-hand smoking. Forexample, second-hand smoking increases the incidence of lung can-cer without smoking. IARC’s report states that ’there is ampleevidence that second-hand smoking causes lung cancer in humans’[12]. This is because it is not something that can be hidden athome or at work, nor is it able to distinguish between vulnerablesubjects or groups, whether children or elderly people or studentsor workers. Numerous studies have reported that smoking affectsnot only individuals but also the health of others, and smoking isnow a social issue that threatens the health of the smoker as well as


5963

the health of others and should be addressed from a national pol-icy perspective that excludes individual responsibility. Therefore,it is necessary to develop various anti-smoking advertisements toinform smoking cessation and to aid smoking cessation and preventsmoking.

2.2 External Effect and Second-Hand Smoking

External effect represents that the economic activity of a produceror consumer affects the economic activity or life of a third partydirectly or indirectly, not by market transactions. External effectscan occur between producers or between consumers and producers.External effects may have external diseconomy, where one actiongenerates costs to the other, and there may be an external econ-omy where one action generates profit on the other. Applying thisexternal effect to second-hand smoking, external diseconomy oc-curs in the consumption side because smokers’ smoking behaviorcauses second-hand smoking to non-smokers. In this case, it isnecessary to distinguish the marginal cost of smoking from the pri-vate marginal cost (PMC) and social marginal cost (SMC). Privatemarginal cost (PMC) indicates how much the actual cost of eachsmoker increases when the amount of smoking increases by one unit,and social marginal cost (SMC) shows how much the cost of socialassessment increases when the amount of smoking increases by so-ciety as a whole. Private marginal cost and social marginal cost(SMC) do not match if there is an external effect. Therefore, thehigher the smoking rate, the higher the socially payable costs, andsocial marginal cost (SMC) increases more than private marginalcost (PMC). The inefficiency of the external effect can be solvedby government regulation, by negotiation between the parties in-volved, or by legally suing someone who has suffered damage by theexternal effect. For example, there is a lot of disagreement with theneighboring secondhand smoke problem as well as the current in-terlayer noise. Tobacco smoke in the neighborhood comes into thehouse through the ventilator, veranda, or open doorway. If smokersinsist on the right to smoke, nonsmokers also have a fundamentalright to a healthy environment without second-hand smoke. Sincethe amendment of the Apartment Housing Management Act, it hasbeen regulating smoking within the home since February 2018. The


5964

government has shown a tendency to expand the scope of publicplaces that regulate smoking as a way to address external disecon-omy and to strengthen the regulation of smoking. However, legalregulation alone has a limit to reducing the secondhand smoke rate.Interest in second-hand smoking, which is emerging in recent years,and the resulting interest on increase in social costs are increasing.That is, the tobacco consumption by smoker threaten the healthof nonsmoker but direct recompense is not been made. Rather,the country is paying most of the medical expenses by the dete-rioration in health not only for the non-smoker but also for thesmoker. It is necessary to actively reflect these contents and inter-ests in anti-smoking advertisements, thus leading to national andsocial recognition shifts, and promote the voluntary motivation ofsmokers. In other words, the smoking cessation intention of thesmoker is important. It is therefore necessary to allow smokers todiscourage individual benefits and to be aware of their responsibil-ity for increasing social costs. In order to change the perceptionof smokers, the government should actively promote the positiveeffects of smoking cessation, social risks, and economic costs, aswell as risks of secondhand smoke through advertising. The declinein the smoking rate is very important not only in terms of publicwelfare but also in economic terms.

2.3 Smoking Type and Attitude Toward Adver-tising

It is possible to divide smoking stages into 1st degree smoking (first-hand smoking), 2nd degree smoking (second-hand smoking)and 3rd degree smoking (exposure to tobacco particles without be-ing exposed to smoke). In this study, the aim is to compare 1stdegree first-hand smoking and 2nd degree second-hand smoking.According to data from the Ministry of Health and Welfare, second-hand smoking refers not to direct smoking but to ‘forced smoke’ or‘forced smoking’ [6]. On the other hand, first-hand smoking meansthat smokers are directly exposed to tobacco smoke. Exposure totobacco smoke increases the risk of many diseases and prematuredeaths, causing serious social and economic damage. First-handsmoking means that you are exposed to various illnesses and socialand economic risks through your own smoking, and second-hand


5965

smoking is exposure to a negative risk due to other people whosmoke. Smoking cessation of smokers is the best way to reducethe harm of smoking. Therefore, the government is trying to de-velop various smoking cessation advertisements in order to informsmoking cessation and to prevent smoking. Most anti-smoking ad-vertisements use ’vivid and disgusting images’ of cigarette damagethat the warning picture shows to try to increase the effectivenessof advertising by making fear of smokers or nonsmokers exposedto advertising. This is due to the vividness effect. Vivid informa-tion is emotionally interesting and specific, reminiscent of images,and close to sensuous, temporal, and spatial. Information that at-tracts attention or stimulates image associations and has a greaterimpact on reasoning and judgment than abstract or pallid infor-mation [13]. However, since the attribute of the smoking is relatedto the personal preference, the smoker is aware of the negative riskof the first-hand smoking and although the level of fear would beraised, the fear appeal may not be effective in case of heavy smoker.In this case, if the level of fear is same, rather the smoker’s atti-tude toward the advertisement would be more effective. Since inthe attitude toward the smoking, the preference and the belief areincluded, it is not changed easily. Since the smoking has adverseimpact on the national health and is leaded to increase of medicalexpenses, the role of anti-smoking is important. However, althoughthe anti-smoking advertisement is viewed, the first-hand smokingadvertisement may not be effective if the smoker may recognize thatthe personal benefit is greater than the expenses by the smoking.This is expanded not only to the individual economic and phys-ical loss for the smoker but also to the deterioration of nationalcompetitiveness and the damage to the non-smoker by the second-hand smoking. To prevent this, it needs to change the smoker’srecognition from around individual benefit to around the damageto the others. Therefore, it is important to diffuse the damageand the risk of the second-hand smoking effectively through theanti-smoking advertisement. If the smokers read the informationthat the cause of the external diseconomy is the smoking, they willanalyze the cost and the benefit whether it is consciously or un-consciously. They will see the anti-smoking advertisement not onlyin the perspective of personal cost and benefit but also in the per-spective of social cost and benefits. Since while the social cost is


5966

increased by the damage of the second-hand smoking, the benefitis remained as personal benefit, there is no change in the benefit.Then, the smoker understand that the social cost is greater than thepersonal benefit and can change the attitude toward the smokingas negative. Therefore, exposing the smoker to the information onthe damage to the others caused by their smoking through the anti-smoking advertisement on the second-hand anti-smoking would beeffective to change the attitude. In the meantime, as in the posi-tion of non-smoker, the smoking of others does not have any benefitfor him/her and it increases not only his/her physical damage butalso the social cost, the attitude toward the advertisement on thesecond-hand smoking will be high. Therefore, the anti-smokingadvertisement on the second-hand smoking can be more effectivefor both the smoker and non-smoker than the anti-smoking adver-tisement on the first-hand smoking. Therefore, according to thisrationale, it was hypothesized as follows:

H1. Attitude towards advertising for second-hand smoking willbe higher than for first-hand smoking.

2.4 Moderating Effect of Altruism

Altruism is the act of sacrificing oneself and being interested in thehappiness of others, or being synchronized according to such in-terests, and it is voluntary and intentional action to benefit otherswithout seeking external compensation [14, 15]. It is a voluntaryact that is intended to provide benefits to others without the needfor other external compensation. The higher the altruism tendency,the more the behavior that considers the interests of others thanthe interests of oneself. Altruistic propensity has a positive effecton altruistic behavior[16]. In other words, the person with highaltruism level has a higher attitude and intention to care for oth-ers even if the return to self is low. On the other hand, recipientswith low altruism levels may behave differently depending on thesituation. Taken together, altruism is a voluntary, behavioral goalthat is for others and does not want reward, helping others, or do-ing prosocial behavior that is a socially desirable behavior. Thus,altruism can be a very powerful antecedent to predicting pro-socialbehavior and the higher the altruism level, the greater the likeli-hood of pro-social behavior [17,18]. Therefore, he sacrifices himself


5967

or herself for others’ satisfaction or compensation rather than satis-faction or compensation. It emphasizes the interests of others andexpresses their perceptions of rational values and responsibilitiesfor others. If one applies it to anti-smoking advertisements, it canbe said that you are thinking of others through advertising, lookingat the emotional pain or physical harm caused by smoking fromthe point of view of the family or people around you, not your-self. In addition, it is expected that attitude towards advertisingwill be higher as the altruism tendency of advertisement recipientis higher than that of self-interest. In other words, when exposedto an advertisement that poses a threat to the health of others bytheir own smoking, attitude toward advertising will differ accordingto the level of altruism of the smoker. According to this rationale,it was hypothesized as follows.

H2. The effect of smoking type on attitude toward advertisingwill be adjusted according to altruism level.

H2a. In the case of second-hand smoking, attitude toward ad-vertising will be higher when the altruism level is higher.

H2b. In the case of first-hand smoking, the attitude towardadvertising will be higher when the altruism level is lower.

2.5 Moderating Effect of Individualism and Col-lectivism

Individualism and collectivism are representative factors that dis-tinguish the culture of a particular group. Individualism and col-lectivism are based on distinguishing the roles and identities ofindividuals and groups in society[19]. Individualism means “thedegree to which people in one country prefer to act as individualsrather than as members of a group”. It also emphasizes individ-ual independence, desire, and individual emotional independence.Therefore, it gives preference to individual interests rather thancollective interests and thinks oneself is ‘I’. The concept that is onthe other side is collectivism. A collectivist society prefers collec-tive interests to personal interests. One thinks of oneself as partof a group called ‘we’. Collectivism represents low individualism,and individualism is low collectivism[20]. Individualism tendencyis concerned with individual responsibility and freedom of choice,personal individual attitude and opinion, autonomous behavior in-


5968

dependent of the group, personal success, ascension and compet-itiveness[21,22,23] . On the other hand, the collectivist tendencyis an important determinant of social behavior, giving value to thenorm, high interdependence among the members of the organiza-tion and high tendency to sacrifice their interests for the organi-zation[24,25,26]. These factors of classifying the culture can beapplied to the individual level. According to Triandis a personwith a strong individualism view sees an independent individual asthe basic unit of society [27]. In addition, since individual goalshave priority over those of ‘my’ group, individuals need to achievetheir goals and obtain autonomy through fair competition. There-fore, all cognition and emotion are centered on oneself. On theother hand, those with a strong collectivism tend to view the basicunits of social cognition as a group. Since a group’s goal is prior-itized over an individual’s goal, the individual is in harmony withthe group’s goals and wants to cooperate with the members of thegroup. Finally, they have more cognitive and emotional types cen-tered on others than oneself. Looking at attitude toward purchasingproducts based on cultural variables, individualist people purchasesproducts based on individual taste and values[28]. It is less likelyto be affected by others. If it is applied to anti-smoking advertise-ments, one may expect that attitude towards first-hand smokingtoward attitude toward you are high because you are physicallyharmed by smoking. Collectivism, on the other hand, is influencedby people around when buying a product and does not purchaseproducts based on individual preferences and values. Collectivismis also relevant to social norms. Therefore, a person with a highcollectivism tendency is judged on a group basis rather than him-self / herself, and more attention is paid to the damage sufferedby others, so attitude towards advertising for second-hand smok-ing will be higher. Because of the importance of relationship withothers, harmony, and sense of belonging, it will be more influencedby indirect smoking. Therefore, the second-hand smoking damage,which gives damages from smoking to others, is more effective incollectivism than individualism. According to this rationale, it washypothesized as follows.

H3. The effect of smoking type on attitude toward advertisingwill be moderated by personal value propensity.

H3a.In the case of second-hand smoking, attitude toward adver-


5969

tising will be higher in collectivism than individualism.H3b. In the case of first-hand smoking, attitude toward adver-

tising will be higher in individualism than collectivism

2.6 Attitude Toward Advertising and AttitudeToward Smoking

Attitude toward advertising is a benign or asymmetrical emotionalresponse to the entire ad [29]. In previous studies, as a variableexplaining the effect of the advertisement, the attitude is formedbased on the feeling of the consumer towards the advertisement.When consumers are exposed to advertising, they will perceive theclues. Perceived cues lead to a positive, neutral or negative at-titude toward the product or brand in the ad. Generally, pos-itive feelings about advertising make product more positive. Inother words, the ad recipient will have an influence on attitudetoward smoking through the various feelings and thoughts that ithas through anti-smoking advertisements. Attitude toward smok-ing is composed of beliefs and values about smoking and also has animportant relationship with smoking behavior. Recently, the recog-nition of tobacco as a consumable has created a social atmosphereto accept smoking. Attitude toward smoking is a combination of at-titude toward smoking and self-perceived subjective norms, leadingto changes in smoking intent and behavior. By expanding thinkingthrough various information and improve individual ability, atti-tude toward smoking will be able to change. So far, anti-smokingadvertisements have revealed the danger of smoking. The ultimategoal of anti-smoking PSA is to make smokers fully aware of thehazards of smoking, thereby affecting their attitude toward smok-ing. Therefore, if the attitude toward advertising is high, a changein attitude toward smoking may be expected. According to thisrationale, it was hypothesized as follows.

H4. Higher attitude toward advertising will have a negativeimpact on attitude toward smoking.


5970

3 Materials and Methods

3.1 Study Subjects and Study Design

Four types of questionnaires (for two types of smoking and twotypes of gender) were distributed to undergraduate and graduatestudents of four year universities, office workers and housewives inDaegu, Gyeongbuk, Of the total of 480 copies that were collectedonline and offline, 406 copies in the end were analyzed after ex-cluding those with insufficient responses. As such, this study wasdesigned as a 2(smoking type: first-hand vs. second-hand) * 2(Al-truism level: high vs. low) * 2(personal value tendencies: Individ-ualism vs. Collectivism) study.

3.2 Development of Stimuli and ManipulationCheck

As a measure with the greatest appeal in warning the dangers ofsmoking, lung cancer which has the highest incidence rate was se-lected [27]. The categorization of first-hand smoking and second-hand smoking was done by producing an ad that combined a photowith the warning phrases and images. The final stimuli selectedwere as seen in [Figure 2].

Figure 2: Stimuli

In this study, the harms caused by first-hand smoking and second-hand smoking will be compared, as used in anti-smoking ads. Thestimuli consisted of warning phrases and images, and defined cases


5971

where my smoking caused harm to others as second-hand smok-ing harm, while cases where my smoking caused harm to myselfwas defined as first-hand smoking harm. That is, ads were pro-duced so that the harms by second-hand smoking and first-handsmoking would be easily perceived. No manipulation check wasconducted. To remove external variables according to gender, bothgender models were used.

3.3 Measurement of Variables

For altruism, the 20 question scale with responses measured ona 7 point Likert scale from ‘not at all’ scoring 1 point to ‘verymuch so’ scoring 7 points[30]. With a reference point of overallmean, MAltruisim−high > 5.4 was defined as high altruism, whileMAltruisim−high > 4.0 was defined as low altruism. Individualismand Collectivism were measured using the 16 questions developedby Triandis and Gelfand (8 questions on Individualism 8 and 8 ques-tions on Collectivism ) using a 7 point Likert scale from ‘not at all’scoring 1 point to ‘very much so’ scoring 7 points[31]. With a ref-erence point of overall mean, MCollectivism>.75 was defined as Collec-tivism and MCollectivism>.25 was defined as Individualism. Advertise-ment attitude was measured using the 10 items in Naveen Donthu’sMeasure Attitude Toward Advertisements (appeal, impression, re-liability, attraction, information, clarification, attention-drawing,positive, persuasive, overall feel)[32]. A 7 point Likert scale wasused, with ‘not at all’ scoring 1 point and ‘very much so’ scoring 7points. Smoking attitude was measured using ‘Attitudes TowardsSmoking Scale’(ATS-18)[33]. On a total of 18 questions (10 ques-tions on negative attitude, disadvantages of smoking, 4 questionson positive attitude and psychological benefits of smoking and 4questions on smoking evaluation), a 7 point Likert scale was usedwith ‘not at all’ scoring 1 point and ‘very much so’ scoring 7 points.A higher score indicates a higher smoking attitude. The variance insmoking attitude before and after exposure to stimuli was measuredfor an analysis on change.


5972

4 Results and Discussion

4.1 Socio-Demographic Characteristics and Smok-ing Status of the Sample

There were 308 male subjects (75.9%) and 98 female subjects (24.1%)in this study. Among them, a total of 161 people (39.7%) weresmokers. Details can be found in [Table 1].

4.2 Validity of the Scales and Reliability Test

Before verifying the hypotheses of the study, first a factor analysiswas conducted to see if variables that are highly correlated wouldbe bundled into the same factor. Among the 20 items for altruism,three (I changed myself for a stranger, I gave a stranger a ride in mycar, I took care of a neighbor’s pet or child without compensation)were excluded as they were found to be different factors. Individu-alism and Collectivism each consisted of 8 items and 2 factors. Ofthe 10 items for advertisement attitude, 3 items (attractive, favor-able, and good) were measured and reverse-coded with the sameconcept, leading to a final single factor being verified. For smokingattitude, 10 negative attitude items and 8 positive attitude items (4items for psychological benefit and 4 items for smoking evaluation)and 3 factors were identified. The 2 factors for positive attitudewere integrated into a single concept, and reverse-coded into a finalsingle concept. Factor loading was found to be higher than 0.5,indicating that all factors were verified as significant variables. Tosecure internal consistency for each variable, a reliability test was


5973

conducted based on the extracted factors. The test results showedall of them to have Cornbrash’s α >.7, indicating sufficient relia-bility. Details were as seen in Table 3. The reliability coefficientfor altruism was a very high 0.935, with the detailed factors scor-ing as follows: Individualism (Cornbrash’s α = .904), Collectivism(Cranach’s α=.930), advertisement attitude (Cornbrash’s α =.967),smoking attitude before ad (Cranach’s α =.934), Smoking attitudeafter ad (Cranach’s α =.904).

4.3 Verification of Hypotheses

4.3.1 Verification of H1

H1 concerns the verification of preference in advertisement attitudein accordance with smoking type. That is, whether the preferencefor a first-hand smoking ad or a second-hand smoking ad was pre-ferred was reviewed. Therefore, a stimulus where two types weremanipulated to be independent variables was set and a t-test wasconducted with the measured advertisement attitude as the depen-dent variable. The results were as seen in Table 2.

The analysis showed that the advertisement attitude was higherfor first-hand smoking (Msecond=4.21, p>.05, Mfirst=4.14, p>.05).Therefore, H1 was not significant, it was dismissed level of .05.


H2 concerns the verification of the moderating effect of altruismin the effect of smoking type on advertisement attitude. That is,it reviews how the advertisement attitude to two types of publicads differ depending on the level of altruism tendencies (high vs.low). To that end, the two types of ads were set as independentvariables and the advertisement attitude was set as a dependentvariable. Altruism tendencies was set as a moderating variable forthe ANOVA analysis. The results were as seen in Table 3.


5974

The main effects of smoking type, as in hypothesis 1, was signif-icant with F=363.16, p<.05. The main effect of altruism, too, wassignificant with F=48.53, p<.05. The correlation between smokingtype and the effect of altruism on advertisement attitude, too, wassignificant with F=2872.81, p<.05. The verification of H2a andH2b concerns the verification of advertisement attitudes accordingto the level of altruism (high vs. low). When altruism was high,the two types of ads were set as independent variables and the ad-vertisement attitude was set as a dependent variable. The samevariables were used for when altruism was low to conduct a t-test.The results were as seen in Table 4, Figure 3.

Figure 3: Advertisement attitudes according to altruism tendencies(t-test)


5975

When Altruism tendency was high, the advertisement attitudewas higher to second-hand smoking than to first-hand smoking(Msecond=5.77, Mfirst=3.66, p<.05). Meanwhile, when altruismtendency was low, the advertisement attitude was higher towardsfirst-hand smoking than to second-hand smoking (Msecond=2.07,Mfirst=6.51, p<.05). As such, H2a and H2b were both adopted ata significance level of .05.


H3 concerns the verification of the moderating effects that indi-vidual value tendencies have on effect of smoking type on attitudetype. That is, it reviews how the advertisement attitude towardstwo types of smoking varies according to Individualism and Collec-tivism tendencies. To that end, two types of warnings were set asindependent variables and Individualism and Collectivism were setas moderating variables to conduct an ANOVA. The results wereas seen in Table 5.

The main effects of smoking type, as in H1, was significant withF=138.10, p<.05. The main effects of individual value tenden-cies (Individualism vs. Collectivism), too, were significant withF=17.61, p<.05. The verification of Hypothesis 3a and Hypothesis3b verifies the advertisement attitude according to Individualismtendencies vs. Collectivism tendencies. In the case of Individual-ism tendency, two types of advertisements were set as independent


5976

variables and the attitude to advertisements was set as the depen-dent variable. For Collectivism tendency, too, the same variableswere used to conduct a t-test. The results were as seen in Table 6,Figure 4.

Figure 4: Advertisement attitudes according to Individualism andCollectivism tendencies (t-test)

For Individualism tendency, as anticipated the advertisementattitude was higher towards first-hand smoking than to second-hand smoking (Msecond=2.16, Mfirst=6.28, p<.05). For Collec-tivism tendency, the advertisement attitude towards second-handsmoking was higher than towards first-hand smoking (Msecond=5.55,Mfirst=3.87, p<.05). As such, both Hypotheses 3a and 3b wereadopted at a significance level of .05.


H4 concerns the verification of smoking attitude according to ad-vertisement attitude. Advertisement attitude was set as an inde-pendent variable and the measured smoking attitude was set as a


5977

dependent variable to conduct a regression analysis. The resultswere as seen in Table 7.

5 Conclusion

In this study, each attitude toward the advertisement was comparedby classifying the smoking into first-hand smoking and the second-hand smoking according to the anti-smoking advertisement type.The attitude toward the smoking type was compared according tothe high altruism and low altruism and the inclination to collec-tivism and individualism. The effect of attitude toward advertisingon attitude toward smoking was also examined. And the attitudetoward the smoking on the first-hand smoking and the second-handsmoking was compared. The results of this study are summarizedas follows. First, there was no difference in attitude toward adver-tising between second-hand smoking and first-hand smoking (H1).Second, recipients with a high altruism tendency showed a higherresponse to second-hand smoking, where one’s own smoking threat-ens the health of others (H2a). Recipients with low altruism showedhigher attitude toward advertising in first-hand smoking (H2b). Itmatches the results of a previous study reporting that recipientwith a low altruism tendency focuses more on himself than on oth-ers. Third, individualism tendency was high for attitude towardadvertising on first-hand smoking damages (H3a). Collectivist ten-dency showed higher attitude toward advertising for second-handsmoking (H3b). If the collectivist tendency is high, the advertise-ment for second-hand smoking is effective. If the individualismtendency is high, the advertisement for first-hand smoking is ef-fective. Fourth, better attitude toward advertising had a negativeeffect on attitude toward smoking. As a result, better attitude to-


5978

ward advertising had a negative effect on attitude toward smoking(H4). Therefore, summing up the results of H1, H2, H3, and H4, inKorea, anti-smoking advertisements that actively inform smokersabout second-hand smoking are expected to have a positive effecton reduction of smoking rate, guarantee of smoking cessation rightsof non-smokers, and prevention of smoking. There is already socialawareness of the negative physical harm of smoking. Effective anti-smoking PSAs depend on the social and economic environment andemotions of the people. Therefore, in order to lower the smokingrate, it is necessary to change the social and public awareness. Itshows that both government regulations and anti-smoking adver-tisements should be concurrently addressed in solving second-handsmoking problems. In addition, the results of the study will beuseful data for the development of anti-smoking advertisements,the change of attitude toward smoking and ultimately the develop-ment of realistic advertisement that lowers the smoking rate of Ko-rea. This study has significance in that it verified that secondhandsmoke advertisement has positive effect on forming negative atti-tude toward smoking in a smoker. In addition, these study resultsprovide the following theoretical and practical implications. First,it examine the effect of anti-smoking advertisement of the second-hand smoking as the effect of external diseconomy in the aspect ofconsumption, differently from existing researches. Second, it sug-gested the theoretical basis that the policy to change the attitudetoward the smoking should be changed through the anti-smokingadvertisement of the second-hand smoking. It suggested the needsof policy to change the attitude toward the smoking through thechange of national recognition theoretically together with the reg-ulation by law and that the second-hand smoking advertisementcan be effective for the change of recognition. Third, it analyzedand applied the individualism and collectivism in the individuallevel. Particularly, it showed that the second-hand smoking ad-vertisement can be more effective than the first-hand smoking ad-vertisement in the country having higher collectivism like Korea.This study has several limitations in spite of the theoretical andpractical implication indicated above. First, the difference in theattitude toward the advertisement between the first-hand smokingand the second-hand smoking did not appear significantly differentfrom the expectation. The reason was examined through addition


5979

analysis. In the additional analysis results of H1, the attitude to-ward the advertisement in the non-smoker was slightly higher thanthe smoker but was not significant. In the second-hand smoking,no difference was found in the attitude toward the advertisementbetween the smoker and the non-smoker. Although the smokershowed slightly higher attitude toward the advertisement of thesecond-hand smoking than the first-hand smoking, it was not sig-nificant. The non-smoker showed slightly higher attitude towardthe advertisement of the second-hand smoking than the first-handsmoking, it was not significant. For this reason, although the at-titude toward the advertisement of the second-hand smoking washigher than that of the first-hand smoking, since it was not signifi-cant, it was dismissed. The results of the study showed that boththe smoker and non-smoker can received the greater impact fromthe second-hand smoking advertisement. In future, the research,which directly compared the two conditions is required not by an-alyzing them additionally like this study. Second, the additionalresearch is needed on the change of attitude by specific situationby classifying the smoker and non-smoker and by segmenting thesmoking level (heavy vs. light) of the smoker. Third, anti-smokingadvertisements are shown in media such as TV, radio, cigarettecases, posters, billboards, newspapers and magazines. This studyonly focused on paper advertisement. Therefore, it is not enoughto obtain generalized results. Finally, this study excluded the ef-fects of third-hand smoke. Secondhand smoke also includes theeffects of third-hand smoke. Further studies involving damage dueto third-hand smoke are needed. It is also necessary to study a va-riety of anti-smoking advertisements for second-hand smoking thatconsiders the health of others using altruism, individualism, andcollectivism.

References

[1] Sohn, H., Oh, A., Kim, O., & Lee, K.(2010). Secondhandsmoke exposure in commercial personal computer rooms. Jour-nal of Environmental Science and Health, 36(4), 288-293.

[2] The Health Consequences of Smoking50 Years of Progress:A Report of the Surgeon General (2014). Retrieved from


5980

https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/full-report.pdf

[3] Hirayama, T. (1984). Cancer mortality in nonsmoking womenwith smoking husbands based on a large-scale cohort study inJapan. Prev Med, 13(6), 680-690.

[4] Hackshaw, A. K. L., Malcolm R., & Wald, Nicholas J. (1997).The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmentaltobacco smoke. BMJ, 315(7114), 980-988.

[5] Oberg, M., Jaakkola, M. S., Woodward, A., Pe-ruga, A., & Prss-Ustn, A. (2011). Worldwide bur-den of disease from exposure to second-hand smoke:a retrospective analysis of data from 192 coun-tries. The Lancet, 377(9760), 139-146. Retrieved fromhttps://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(10)61388-8.pdf

[6] Ministry of Health, Welfare and Family Af-fairs. (2015). Cancer Registration Statistics(Retrieved January, 26, 2016).Retrieved fromhttp://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=117&tblId=DT-117N A0024&conn path=I3

[7] Okah, F. A., Choi, W. S., Okuyemi, K. S., & Ahluwalia, J.S. (2002). Effect of children on home smoking restriction byinner-city smokers. Pediatrics, 109(2), 244-249.

[8] Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and Orga-nizations: Software of the Mind (Rev. 2nd ed.). New York:McGraw-Hill.

[9] Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2013). Values Survey Mod-ule 2013 Manual. Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/ (Search date: March 22, 2018)

[10] Bovee, C. L. & Arens, W. F. (1989). Contemporary Advertis-ing(4th). Homewood, IL: Irwin.

[11] Hammond, D. (2011). Health warning messages on to-bacco products: a review. Tobacco Control, 20(5), 327-337.doi:10.1136/tc.2010.037630


5981

[12] International Agency for Research on Cancer (2004). IARCMonographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks toHumans: Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking: In-ternational Agency for Research on Cancer. Retrieved fromhttps://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/mono83-.pdf.

[13] Nisbett, R., & Ross, L.(1980). Human inference: Strategiesand shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

[14] Blum, L. A.(1980). Friendship, Altruism and Morality (Rout-ledge Revivals).London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

[15] Batson, C. D.(1991), The Altruism Question. Toward a Social-Psychological Answer. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum As-sociate, Inc.

[16] Loureiro, M. L., & Lotade, J. (2005). Do fair trade and eco-labels in coffee wake up the consumer conscience?. EcologicalEconomics, 53(1), 129-138. doi: 10.1016.

[17] Kopfman, J. E., & Smith, S. W. (1996). Understanding the au-diences of a health communication campaign: A discriminantanalysis of potential organ-donors bases on intent to donate.Journal of Applied Communication Research, 24, 22-49.

[18] Morgan, S. E. & Miller, J. K. (2001). Beyond the organdonor card: The effect of knowledge, attitudes, and val-ues on willingness to communicate about organ donation tofamily members. Health Communication, 14(1), 121-134. doi:10.1207/S15327027HC1401 6

[19] Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures Consequences: International dif-ferences in work-related values. London and Beverly Hills.

[20] Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural Constraints in Management The-ories. Academy of Management Executive, 7(1): 81-94.

[21] Waterman, A. S. (1984). The psychology of individualism. NewYork: Praeger


5982

[22] Oyserman, D., Markus, H. R.(1993). The sociocultural self.In social perspective. Psychological perspectives on the self, 4,187-220.

[23] Chiou, J. S. (2001). Horizontal and vertical individualism andcollectivism among college students in the United States, Tai-wan, and Argentina. Journal of Social Psychology, 141(5), 667-679.

[24] Triandis, H. C. (1996.) The Psychological Measurement of Cul-tural Syndromes. American Psychologist, 51(4), 407-415.

[25] Morling, B., Fiske, S. T. (1999). Defining and measuring har-mony control. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(4), 379-414.

[26] Singelis, T.M.(1994). The measurement of independent and in-terdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychol-ogy Bulletin, 20,580-591.

[27] Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Betancourt, H., Bond, M.,Leung, K., Brenes, A., & Montmollin, G. D.(1986). The mea-surement of the etic aspects of individualism and collectivismacross cultures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38(3), 257-267.

[28] Hofstede, G. (1983). National Cultures in Four Dimensions: AResearch Based Theory of Cultural Differences among Nations.International Studies of Man and Organization, 13(1-2), 46-74.

[29] Lutz, R. J., Mckenzie, S. B., & Belch, G. E. (1983). Attitudetoward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: deter-minants and consequences. Advances in Consumer Research,10(1), 197-208.

[30] Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., and Fekken, G. C. (1981).The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale,Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1192-1198.

[31] Triandis, Harry C., & Gelfand, Michele J.(1998). Convergingmeasurement of vertical individualism and collectivism. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118-128.


5983

[32] Naveen Donthu(1992). Comparative Advertising Intensity.Journal of Advertising Research, 32, 53-58.

[33] Etter, J. F., Humair, J. P., Bergman, M. M., & Perneger, T.V.(2000). Development and validation of the attitudes towardssmoking scale (ATS-18). Addiction, 95(4), 613-625.

[34] U. S. Department of Health and Hu-man Services (2006), (2014). Retrieved fromhttps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf.


5984

the e ect of anti-smoking ads (second-hand vs. rst-hand) on the … · 2018. 9. 29. · lung...

Documents