Table of Contents
Nutrition knowledge of individual influences their capacity to process labels of food (Gjin, 2012). There has been mounting concerns about the veracity has been growing fears about the reliability of nutrition assertions and consumer capacity to assess these assertions has become prevalent (Dgin, 2012). As these dues raises, research on how consumer processes this information has become more vital. There has been contradicting information which has influenced consumer choice of food labels. Some consumers especially women have been buying food products under the influence of these food labels (Walter, 2012).
The capacity to process nutrition info is influenced by extent in which know leg can be retrieved as well as knowledge. Research has shown that individuals who have more knowledge in nutrition are more likely to read and use food labels while purchasing food unlike those who have no such knowledge (Dgin, 2012). Other studies have shown that one is likely to make right choices as far as food is concerned. A person can process nutrition information if he is more conversant with the topic. This will enable him /her develop what is referred to as central route process. Lack of knowledge and experience needed for information evaluation is commonly called peripheral route processing (Dgin, 2012). Under it, responses of a person are based on inferences which are simple, cues which are peripheral. There are two types of cues: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic cones are those ones which have to do with products and include ingredients (Walter, 2012). Manipulation of such cues alters the product’s physical properties. On the other hand, extrinsic cues have to do with information which is product related (Walter, 2012). They include nutrition label claims as well as health. Both media as well as consumer awareness groups have been involved in enlightening the consumer on the food labels (Dgin, 2012).
Smokers also have what motivates them to continue smoking (Glock, 2012). Some perceive smoking as means of improving concentration. Others sees it as a way of relaxing. Their expectations are however illusory. Labels too influence the smoker’s perception about smoking. According to WHO, the leading cause of preventable deaths is tobacco use? Though the government has put measure of preventing smoking of cigarettes, a lot still need to be done (Glock, 2012). The use of labels to discourage cigarette smoking is meant to create awareness about the risk associate with cigarette smoking. This is aimed at changing people’s perception about smoking. Despite people’s knowledge about the risks associated with cigarette smoking, they still do smoke. This leaves us with the question why they do so. Warning labels can influence individual’s behavior about smoking (Glock, 2012).
Labels which are health related acts as an important avenue of giving people info about implications of smoking. However, these implications are long term. In order to prevent young generation from smoking, warning labels that are contradicting are critical. Warning labels have several advantages. They use non-threatening techniques to convey the message. When used together with warning labels which are health related, the warning labels which are contradicting play a great role in smoking prevention. The focus of warning labels is positive outcome. They are valuable in steering other health linked behavior for example alcohol consumption as well as poor eating habits.
Labeling can be useful in influencing taste perception of people (Walter, 2012). Labels which indicate health implications of consuming high amount of sodium will help the consumer from using too much salt (Djin, 2012 ). Health logos have been known to influence individual taste and health. Research suggests that food labels at the cover of the food influences the choice of food. Food labels are important in enabling consumer take caution on which food to take. Food labels are this critical tool in educating the population on good eating habit (Dgin, 2012).
Source 1: Are deterrent pictures effective?
The impact of warning labels on cognitive dissonance in smokers
Source 2: The effectiveness of cigarette warning label threats on non-smoking adolescents
Warnings on the cigarette packets, to some large extent, do not have a bearing on the attitude and behavioral changes between smokers and non-smokers. The warnings can be in the form of text messages alone or text messages accompanied by visual objects or pictures. The warnings are believed to be mere threats that are meant to create excessive fear among the targeted group or audience. The warning signs are merely simplistic statements that have no comprehensive meaning that can be deduced from them. Either, little research and studies have been carried out in an attempt to relate the reasons of some smokers quitting the act altogether and the label warnings on the cigarette packets. The little research carried out has merely concentrated on the impact the warning signs have had on the people they were intended to reach. Either, the inability of the advertising agencies to carry out valid research on the non-smoking population so as to provide a basis upon which the impact of these advertisements has on the two sets of population advances the claim that the warnings are meant to create fear among the smokers.
In Europe, for instance, there were a series of advertisements that did not go down well with the smoking population. The most notable warning was the one that read “Tomorrow, you could be hit by a bus”. Most smokers found no connection between smoking and being hit by a vehicle the following day. There was no concrete evidence in terms of a research study showing that if one smoked a cigarette he/she would most likely be hit by a vehicle the day that follows. They therefore found this warning baseless and ill intended to cause excessive fear among smokers. They reacted to such warnings by placing stickers over them. Such events demonstrate that the warning labels on the cigarette packets have no meaning and therefore just meant to cause fears among smokers.
Either, people have a tendency of sticking to the brands they are familiar with. A study in the US and Canada was carried out to determine whether there was an effect of the warning signs and the general attitude and behavior showed by the people. There was hardly any significance of the warning sign on the intended population. The results further showed that statement warnings that were accompanied by pictorial representations to a greater extent increased peoples’ intentions to smoke in the US. They failed to fulfill their intended purpose of changing peoples’ mentality on smoking. Majority claimed that the health warnings were mere simple statements of health related issues that carried no meaning thus could not have any effect on their perception. They perceived them as instruments that were meant to distract their peace by creating discomforts in the form of extreme threats.
The messages that are attributed to these warnings could have been more persuasive and convincing had they been structured in a rational manner that presented a clear message that is wide and inclusive of other aspects. They are supposed to promote positive attitudes that are desired by a majority of the respondents. Most warnings have not been able to satisfy these demands. Peoples’ attitude on smoking has also not been an opposite of their stance on quitting smoking. One could believe that smoking is bad to their health but still have a very negative attitude on quitting smoking. Thus, they will continue to smoke irrespective of the warnings on the cigarette packets.
The questions relating to the effects and effectiveness of smoking have never been met with satisfactory answers. The arguments of having the warning sings too have never had a clear explanation advocating for their inclusion on the cigarette packets. The best the advocates of such warnings have done is to refer questioners to study references that in most cases do not exist. The warnings, either, do not encourage in-depth communication among the people involved in the discussions on smoking. Therefore they tend not to bring any significance smoking have on peoples’ attitudes and behaviors.
It can be concluded that the warning signs on the cigarette packets do not have any meaning or significance on them. Whenever they are used, they carry no rational meaning that can be attached or related to the attitudinal and behavioral changes in most of the smokers. Therefore, it can concretely be stated that the cigarette warnings carry no meaning with them.
Are deterrent pictures effective?
According to the advertisements and labels on cigarettes, it is well known that smoking might cause many diseases, further; it is a fact that it is a health damaging behavior. in 2003, the government of Germany decided to follow an EU directive of introducing a textual tobacco and warned the cigarette companies from labeling packets and then went ahead to inform the smokers of harmful consequences when a person smokes (Cooper & Fazio , 1984). The government advocated for labels like “when smoking, it causes lung cancer”. This is considered as the most effective and arousing fear to the smokers, therefore, people are prevented from smoking through the threat. Thereafter, it introduced the labels to on the packets.
When a person smokes cigarettes, he or she simultaneously knows smoking might cause different types of diseases. As Festinger (1957) asserts, a cognitive dissonance will arise after a person simultaneously have two mental or cognitions representations that are inconsistent. Therefore, to a person who smokes and is more threatened of diseases that the cigarette has in their body end up experiencing a cognitive dissonance that should be reduced. To reduce cognitive dissonance, some strategies must be put in place. A smoker will quit smoking and these perhaps may be very efficient and the advised strategy that restores consistency Aronson (1968). An individual might deny how harmful smoking might be and the results by continuous ignorance and belittling relationship between smoking and disease. Furthermore, smokers emphasizes on the other cognitions, for example, “When smoking, I feel calm”. “Or when doing sports, it cancels all negative effects. “
The impact of warning labels on cognitive dissonance in smokers
According to Aronson, cognitive dissonance is always likely in the situations whereby individuals share the same self concept or the other firms and the nearly universal expectations. In the approach of cognitive dissonance, smoker’s dilemma becomes an ideal way of investigation of the cognitive dissonance process. According to unhealthy aspects of smoking also indicate that the behavior is foolish, thus threatening the smokers self integrity and self concept.
The smoking related health will risk information and it is not important and personally relevant for the non-smokers. The Cognitive dissonance is reflected in the higher risk perceptions of the contracting smoking related diseases amongst smokers. The cognitive dissonance theories will predict the information and avoidance strategies of the smokers when possible. Therefore, we also assessed the risk perception of the smoking and non-smoking diseases twice, before presentation and after warning labels.
In conclusion, labels important role play an important role in giving instruction to consumers. They are important ensuring that consumers are making right choices when it comes cigarette smoking and the food they consume.