You are on page 1of 33

Research Methods Final Project

Presented By

Ahmed Adnan
Kashan Khawaja Muhammad Khan Yaqoob Khan

(12L - 5219)
(12L - 5271) (12L - 5257) (12L - 5299)

Presentation Aims:
To provide a overview of the Research Title and its Background. To state the Problem statement of the Research. To give the Research Paradigm and Research Question of the Study. To list the Research Objectives of the Study. To give a brief view of the Literature Review done. To show the Conceptual Framework of the research. To provide the information regarding the data gathering. To elaborate the analysis of the data performed in the research. To present the results/findings of the analysis performed. To list any limitations/constraints of the research. To summarize/conclude research presentation. To answer any Questions of the Audience.

Research Title:

The effects of Graphical Warning Labels on Smoking Perceptions in relation with the Level of Education and Age of Participants.

Graphical Warning Labels:


Graphical Warning Labels (GWLs):
Pictures depicting dangers regarding product. First GWLs against smoking were seen in 1938 in US. Pakistan Govt. GWL Laws: Statutory Order 1219(I)/2008 (25 September 2008) New Warnings implemented on May 31, 2010.

Sample GWLs:

Sample GWLs (Cont.)

Problem Statement:

How do Graphical Warning Labels affect the perceptions of smoking in regard to the various demographic factors in a developing economy like Pakistan?

Research Paradigm:
Quantitative: i. Data is Quantified and used to measure Variables.

Deductive:
i. Research is driven by Hypotheses. Non-Experimental: i. Responses from participants are in natural environment.

Research Question:

Does the viewing of Graphical Health warnings against smoking cause a relationship to exist between peoples perceptions of smoking in regard to their age or education in a developing economy like Pakistan?

Research Objectives:
1. To discover and identify the relationship (if any) between the nominal variable of level of education and the perceptions of smoking in regards to graphical warning labels.
Ho: There is no relationship between the level of education of the participants and the perceptions of smoking with regard to graphical warning labels. H1 : There is a relationship between the level of education of the participants and the perceptions of smoking with regard to graphical warning labels.

Research Objectives (Cont.)


2. To discover and identify the relationship (if any) between the nominal variable of age and the perceptions of smoking in regards to graphical warning labels. Ho : There is no relationship between the age of the participants and the perceptions of smoking with regard to graphical warning labels. H1 : There is a relationship between the age of the participants and the perceptions of smoking with regard to graphical warning labels.

Literature Review:
1. Title: The impact of graphic cigarette warning labels and smoke-free law on health awareness and thoughts of quitting in Taiwan. Source: Fong-ching Chang, Chi-hui Chung, Po-tswen Yu and Kun-yu Chao, Health Education Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, Pages 179-191.

Publication Year: November, 17,2010

2. Title: Health warning messages on tobacco products: a review.

Source: David Hammond , Tobacco Control, Vol. 20, No. 5, Pages 327337. Publication year: May 23, 2011

Literature Review(Cont.)
3. Title: Are Deterrent Pictures Effective? The Impact of Warning Labels on Cognitive Dissonance. Source: Sabine Glock, Julia Kaneer, Applied Psychology: Health and Well - Being, Vol. 1, No. 3, Pages 356-373. Publication Year: September, 2009

4. Title: Does Exposure to Cigarette Health Warnings Elicit Psychological

Reactance in Smokers?
Source: David M. Erceg-Hurn, Lyndall G. Steed, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 41, No. 1, Pages 219-237. Publication year: January, 2011

Literature Review(Cont.)
5. Title: Graphic tobacco health warnings: which genre to choose? Source: Z. Sobani, S. Nizami, E. Raza, N. ul Ain Baloch, J. A. Khan, The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, Vol. 14, No. 3, Pages 356-361. Publication Year: March, 2010

6. Title: Smokers' reactions to cigarette package warnings with graphic imagery and with only text: a comparison between Mexico and Canada. Source: Thrasher, J. F., Hammond, D., Fong, G. T., & Arillo-Santilln, E, salud pblica de mxico, Vol. 49, Pages 233-240. Publication year: April, 2007

Conceptual Framework:
Age

Perceptions of Smoking in regards to GWLs.

Level of Education

Data Gathering/Identification:
Sampling Methodology:
Non-Probabilistic Sampling. Quota and Convenience Sampling. 50 Participants.

Questionnaire Survey:

Respondent completed Street/ Quota/ Intercept Survey Section based division Responses from Johar town and Faisal town.
Informed Consent. Anonymity. Free Choice. Minimal Risk.

Ethical Requirements:

Data Analysis:
The tool used for data analysis is IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences)Statistics 20. Out of 50 respondents, 45 valid questionnaires

gathered.
Two Nominal Variables used to create criteria. Four Section based variables depending on criteria. One Variable for overall measurement.

Data Analysis(Cont.)
Participant's Frequency (Age)

7, 15%
10 - 25 Years 26 - 40 Years 41 - 60 Years

21, 47% 17, 38%

Data Analysis(Cont.)
Participant's Frequency (Education)
2, 4%

10, 22%

8, 18%

Lesser than Matric Matriculation Intermediate/Bachelors Masters/Ph.D

25, 56%

Data Analysis(Cont.)
Participants Age - Smoking Status Cross Tabulation
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 10 - 25 Years 26 - 40 Years Age of Participants 41 - 60 Years 11 10 8 Yes No 3 4

Data Analysis(Cont.)
Participant's Education Level - Graphical Warning Knowledge Cross Tabulation
30 25 20

15 25
10 5 0 2 0
Lesser than Matric

Yes No 9

1 Education Level

0
Intermediate/Bachelors

1
Masters/Ph.D

Matriculation

Data Analysis(Cont.)
Participant's Age - Graphical Warning Knowledge Crosstabulation
100% 1 95% 1 90% 17 85% 20 No Yes 0

80%

75%
10 - 25 Years 26 - 40 Years Age of Participents 41 - 60 Years

Data Analysis(Cont.)
Participant's Level of Education - Smoking Status Cross Tabulation
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 17 5 2 8 No Yes 8 5

0%

0 Lesser than Matric

0 Matriculation Intermediate/Bachelors Education Level

Masters/Ph.D

Data Analysis(Cont.)
Correlations Age of Overall_Percep Participant tion 1.000 0.000 1.000 45 0.000 1.000 45 45 45 1.000

Kendall's tau_b

Age of Participant Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Overall_Perceptio Correlation n Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N

Data Analysis(Cont.)
Correlations Participant's Level of Overall_Perc Education eption 1.000 -.016 .895 45 -.016 .895 45 45 45 1.000

Kendall's tau_b Participant's Level of Education

Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N

Overall_Percep Correlation tion Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N

Data Analysis(Cont.)
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha 0.194

Number of Items 3

Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected ItemItem Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

Participants Thoughts regarding Smoking 6.167 2.191 0.387 -.719a Effect of Graphical Warning 6.119 1.912 0.235 -.333a Participants Usage of Smoking 5.667 5.886 -0.304 0.611 a. The value is negative due to a negative average covariance among items. This violates reliability model assumptions. You may want to check item codings.

Findings:
The majority of smokers and non smokers can be found from the participants age group of 10 to 25 Years.

Majority of the participants have knowledge of graphical warning labels have an education level of Intermediate, Bachelors or above. Minority of the participants that have graphical warning label knowledge have lesser than Matric education.

Findings(Cont.)
The relationship between age and perception of smoking in regards to GWLs is not significant, therefore does not exist. (p> : 1.000> 0.05) The relationship between level of education and perception of smoking in regards to GWLs is not significant, therefore does not exist. (p> : 0.895> 0.05) The testing tool used to undertake the research is not very reliable (Cronbachs Alpha = 0.194).

Limitations:
Non probabilistic sampling; therefore no proper representation of sample. Quota Sampling error in section B therefore low reliability of measuring instrument. Time constraint causing low geographic dispersion thereby causing Quota Sampling Error.

Conclusion