The Korean Journal of Food & Health Convergence (식품보건융합연구)

Korea Food & Health Convergence Association (한국식품보건융합학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Differences in Preventive Activities among Smokers

  • KIM, Kapseon (Faculty of Liberal Arts, Jungwon University)
  • Received : 2021.02.09
  • Accepted : 2021.02.21
  • Published : 2021.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop strategies and policies for smoking prevention that are tailored to the characteristics of different groups of smokers. The structured survey was conducted with regular smokers. The results were as follows: It has been demonstrated that Risk Perception Attitude framework can be used as a major research framework to predict behavioral changes related to the prevention of smoking. The smokers were divided into four attitude groups based on perceived risks and self-efficacy: indifference, proactive, avoidance, and responsive. The smoker groups showed significant differences in information seeking, information avoidance, prevention behavior and addiction degree. Especially, the difference in prevention behavior depended on the self-efficacy when the perceived risk level was high. Information avoidance was the lowest when the perceived risk level was high and the self-efficacy was low. Information seeking was lowest when the perceived risk level was low. When the level of self-efficacy was high, if the perceived risk level was high, prevention behavior was actively performed. Therefore, the self-efficacy was related to preventive behavior, and the perceived low-risk played a role in hindering information seeking. Smoking prevention strategies are important to raise awareness of the risk of smoking and to improve the positive willingness of smokers to quit smoking through self-efficacy.

Keywords

References

  1. Abraham, C., and Sheeran, P. (2005). The health belief model. In: Conner, M. and Norman, P., (Eds). Predicting Health Behavior: Research and Practice with Social Cognition Models(2nd Edition). Open University Press, Maidenhead, 28-80.
  2. Alexander, F. (2003). Evaluation of the UK colorectal cancer screening pilot. Final report. http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/bowel/finalreport. pdf.
  3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundation of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
  4. Chan, Y. E., Culnan, M. J., Greenaway, K., Laden, G., Levin, T., & Smith, H. J. (2005). Information Privacy: Management, marketplace, and legal challenges. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 12.
  5. Chen, J., and Guo, C. (2006). Online detection and prevention of phishing attacks, 2006 First International Conference on Communications and Networking in China, (pp. 1-7), Beijing, China.
  6. Finney Rutten, L. J., Augustson, E. M., Doran, K. A., Moser, R. P., & Hesse, B. W. (2009). Health information seeking and media exposure among smokers: a comparison of light and intermittent tobacco users with heavy users. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 11(2), 190-196. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntn019
  7. Janz, N. K., and Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: a decade later. Health Education Behavior, 11(1), 1-47.
  8. Jo, E.J., and Kim, N.Y. (2015). The related factors of adolescent smoker's cancer preventive behaviors. Journal of Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society, 16(8), 5287-5295. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2015.16.8.5287
  9. Lemmens, J. S., Valkenburg, P. M., and Peter, J. (2009). Development and validation of a game addiction scale for adolescents. Media Psychology, 12(1). 77-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260802669458
  10. Rimal, R. N. (2001). Perceived risk and self-efficacy as motivators: understanding individuals' long-term use of health information. Journal of Communication, 51(4), 633-654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02900.x
  11. Rimal R. N., and Juon, H. S. (2010). Use of the risk perception attitude framework for promoting breast cancer prevention, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(2), 287-310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00574.x
  12. Rimal R. N., and Real, K. (2003). Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of change: use of the Risk Perception Attitude (RPA) framework to understand health behaviors. Human Communication Research, 29(3), 370-399. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/29.3.370
  13. Rimal R. N., Brown, J., Mkandawire, G., Folda, L., Bose, K., & Creel, A.H. (2009). Audience segmentation as a social marketing tool in health promotion: use of the risk perception attitude framework in HIV prevention in Malawi. American Journal of Public Health, 99(12), 2224-2229. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.155234
  14. Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education Behavior, 2(4), 328-335.
  15. Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. The Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803
  16. Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: a revised theory of protection motivation. In J. Racioppo and R. Petty (Eds). Social Psychophysiology. New York: Guilford, 153-76.
  17. Shin, T. S., and Cho, Y.C. (2017).Analysis of health behavioral factors affecting to the interest in smoking cessation among male smokers using the health belief model. Journal of Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society, 18(5), 456-466. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2017.18.5.456
  18. Van Beuningen, J., de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., & Streukens, S. (2009). Customer self-efficacy in technology-based self-service: assessing between-and within-person differences. Journal of Service Research, 11(4), 407-428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670509333237
  19. Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276
  20. Witte, K. (1994). Fear control and danger control: a test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM), Communication Monographs, 61(2), 113-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759409376328