Behaviors, Vol. 15, pp. 81-88, Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
1990
Addictive
Copyright
0306-4603/90 $3.00 + .OO 0 1990 Pergamon Press plc
BRIEF REPORT ADOLESCENTS’
VALUE IMAGES OF SMOKERS, NONSMOKERS
EX-SMOKERS,
AND
JOEL W. GRUBE Prevention
Research Center, Berkeley,
CA
MILTON ROKEACH University
of Southern California,
Los Angeles
SHELLY B. GETZLAF Oregon State Hospital,
Salem
Abstract - Adolescents’ value images of smokers, ex-smokers, and nonsmokers were investigated in a study of high school graduates. Overall, smokers were seen as being concerned with values related to personal enjoyment and autonomy. In contrast, nonsmokers were perceived as being more conventional, and more concerned with religious, interpersonal, and family values. Images of ex-smokers usually were intermediate, but resembled those of nonsmokers somewhat more than those of smokers. Interestingly, ex-smokers were perceived to place more importance on values relating to accomplishment and self-control than were either smokers or nonsmokers. In general, the value images were consistent among respondents who themselves were smokers, potential smokers, or nonsmokers. However, for a few values smokers and potential smokers had a more favorable image of smokers than did nonsmokers. Interestingly, males and females generally did not differ in their images of smokers, ex-smokers, and nonsmokers. Suggestions for prevention of adolescent smoking based on the value images are discussed.
It has been shown that the images young people have of smokers and nonsmokers play an important role in the initiation and maintenance of adolescent smoking behaviors (Chassin, Presson, Sherman, Corty, & Olshavsky, 1981; Grube, Weir, Getzlaf, & Rokeach, 1984). However, only a few studies have compared and contrasted these images (Barton, Chassin, Presson, & Sherman, 1982; Bewley & Bland, 1978; McKennel & Bynner, 1969). In particular, no research has investigated the values that are attributed to smokers and nonsmokers. To provide such information, data are presented here concerning the value images of smokers, ex-smokers, and nonsmokers. The content of these images is described and they are compared with one another. In addition, the extent to which these images are shared by adolescents who themselves are smokers, potential smokers, or nonsmokers is investigated. It seems reasonable to expect that adolescents will have distinct and socially shared beliefs about the values of smokers and nonsmokers. Such images may arise as a result of common experiences such as exposure to portrayals of smokers in print, on television, and in film (cf. Leventhal & Cleary, 1980). Cigarette advertising is perhaps the most obvious means by which shared images of smokers are cultivated or reinforced (Altman, Slater, Albright, &
This research was funded by grant DA02556 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Support for the first author during the preparation of this manuscript was provided by National Institute on Alcoholism grant AA06282 to the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. The authors thank Ivan Weir for his help in collecting these data. We also thank an unknown reviewer for making helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Joel W. Grube, Prevention Research Center, 2532 Durant Ave., Berkeley, CA 94704, USA. 81
82
J.W. GRUBE,
M. ROKEACH,
and S.B. GETZLAF
Maccoby, 1987; Warner, 1986). In many advertisements smokers are portrayed as seeking pleasure, relaxation, and enjoyment. Similarly, the juxtaposition of smoking with activities such as skiing, water sports, mountaineering, or motor car racing may foster images of smokers as being adventurous, healthful, and active. The use of specific types of models and social situations in advertising may further suggest that smokers are sophisticated, independent, or individualistic. Although common experiences might lead to shared images of smokers and nonsmokers, there also is evidence that young smokers have more favorable perceptions of smokers than do nonsmokers (e.g., Barton et al., 1982; Bewley & Bland, 1978). Thus, it is important to consider the extent to which value images are socially shared or differ according to the smoking status of the perceiver. Similarly, males and females may differ in their perceptions of smokers and nonsmokers. These differences also should be considered. These issues were addressed using the Rokeach Value Survey (Rokeach, 1984) to explore the value images of smokers, ex-smokers, and nonsmokers held by recent high school graduates. The terminal value scale on this survey measures the relative importance of goals or ideal end-states toward which individuals strive (e.g., having a comfortable life or wisdom), and the instrumental value scale measures the relative importance of different modes of behavior for attaining these goals (e.g., being ambitious or self-controlled). The Rokeach Value Survey has been used previously to ascertain images of political figures (Rokeach, 1973), social institutions (Regan, Rokeach, & Grube, 1982; Rokeach, 1979), and ethnic groups (Feather, 1975). METHOD
Participants The initial sample consisted of all graduates for the previous two years (n = 1040) from 14 high schools in eastern Washington State. They were surveyed by mail in the fall of 1980 using three follow-up solicitations similar to those described by Dillman (1978). A total of 664 completed questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 63.9%. This response rate compares very favorably with those obtained in similar mail surveys. However, because of missing data on individual items, the analyses that follow are based on 587 and 570 graduates for the terminal and instrumental value images, respectively. The respondents ranged from 17 to 22 years old and the median age was 19. There were somewhat more females (57%) than males (43%) in the sample and the respondents were 97% Caucasian. Procedure The graduates were first asked to complete the Rokeach Value Survey (Rokeach, 1984), ranking the 18 terminal and 18 instrumental values in order of importance to themselves (1 = most important, 18 = least important). After ranking the values, the respondents were presented with a series of questions about their own smoking behaviors and intentions and were then asked, on a random basis, to rank the values a second time according to one of three instructions: (a) as they believed people who now smoke cigarettes would rank them, (b) as they believed people who never smoked would rank them, or (c) as they believed people who had quit smoking would rank them. Smoking groups On the basis of their responses to the questions concerning smoking behavior and intentions, the 664 graduates were assigned to one of three groups. Current smokers (n = 89) were defined as those who presently smoked more than just occasionally, or had done so
Value images
83
within the past six months. Potential or experimental smokers (n = 108) were defined as either those who experimented occasionally with smoking, but were not regular smokers, or else did not smoke, but indicated that they intended to try smoking. Nonsmokers (n = 423) comprised those who reported that they did not currently smoke and had no intention of smoking. Ex-smokers (n = 23) were too few in number to consider separately, and were included among the nonsmokers for the image analyses. Finally, the remaining graduates (n = 21) could not be classified as to their smoking status because of missing data. l RESULTS
The value images of smokers, ex-smokers, and nonsmokers were investigated with a series of 3 (image condition) by 3 (own smoking) by 2 (gender) analyses of variance.* However, because there were so few female smokers, a full factorial design was not possible and the three-way interaction was suppressed (preliminary analyses indicated that this interaction was not significant for any of the 36 value images). The mean terminal and instrumental value images of the three target groups are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Significant (p < .05) main effects for image were found for 17 of the 18 terminal values and 16 of the 18 instrumental values. Smokers, compared with ex-smokers or nonsmokers were routinely seen as placing more importance on values relating to personal enjoyment such as having a comfortable life, an exciting life, and pleasure. They were also seen to care more for values relating to self-direction and personal autonomy such as having freedom and being independent, imaginative, courageous, and broadminded. In contrast to smokers, nonsmokers were seen as more concerned with conventional values such as being obedient and polite. They also were perceived as placing more importance on family, religious, and interpersonal values such as having family security and salvation and being cheerful, helpful, and honest. Interestingly, nonsmokers also were seen to place a higher value on self-respect and a lower value on social recognition than were smokers. For the most part, ex-smokers were intermediate to the other smoking groups. For some values, they were perceived as being similar to smokers and for other values as being similar to nonsmokers.3 However, they were seen to place more importance than either smokers or nonsmokers on values relating to personal achievement and internal control such as a sense of accomplishment, inner harmony, and self-controlled. Although the images were relatively consistent among respondents who were themselves smokers, potential smokers, or nonsmokers, significant interactions between image condition and own smoking behavior were found for three of the terminal values and six of the instrumental values (Table 3). For the most part, these interactions are attributable to the fact that smokers and nonsmokers had mirror images of one another. Thus, for example, smokers perceived smokers as placing a relatively high value and nonsmokers as placing a relatively ‘The numbers of smokers, potential smokers, and nonsmokers were 71, 98, and 418 in the portion of the sample with complete terminal value image data and 67, 93, and 410 in the portion with complete instrumental value data. These distributions did not differ significantly from that for the entire sample (p > .30, in both cases). ‘Because the Rokeach Value Survey yields ipsative data, questions can be raised about the appropriateness of making intergroup comparisons with this instrument and about using parametric statistics such as analysis of variance. However, research indicates that meaningful comparisons can be made among groups using the Rokeach Value Survey (e.g., Rokeach, 1973) and that parametric and nonparametric tests give very similar results with it (Rankin & Grube, 1980). In the present case, because of the interest in examining the interactions between own smoking status and image condition, ANOVA was considered to be the most appropriate statistical procedure. 30verall, the image of ex-smokers was more similar to that of nonsmokers than to that of smokers. The correlations between the average (composite) value rankings for ex-smokers and nonsmokers were .74 and .73 for the terminal and instrumental scales, respectively. In contrast, the correlations between the average images of ex-smokers and smokers were only .40 and .55.
84
J.W. GRUBE,
M. ROKEACH,
and S.B. GETZLAF
Table 1. Mean terminal value images of smokers,
ex-smokers
and nonsmokers
Image Smoker (N= 192)
Value A comfortable life An exciting life A sense of accomplishment A world at peace A world of beauty Equality Family security Freedom Happiness Inner harmony Mature love National security Pleasure Salvation Self-respect Social recognition True friendship Wisdom
7.36 6.98 10.98 9.84 13.36 10.37 9.90 5.03 6.31 10.24 9.08 11.81 6.73 12.95 9.99 8.95 8.80 12.31
(5) (4) (14) (9) (18) (13) (10) (1) (2) (12) (8) (15) (3) (17) (11) (7) (6) (16)
Ex-smoker (N= 196)
Nonsmoker (N= 199)
9.21 10.52 5.94 10.92 12.18 12.58 7.48 7.25 6.79 7.45 10.41 13.42 9.91 10.40 6.01 10.24 9.74 10.55
9.03 11.28 8.97 9.11 11.34 11.53 6.23 7.92 7.01 9.08 10.15 12.01 11.57 8.86 6.62 11.56 8.55 10.18
(7) (13) (1) (IS) (16) (17) (6) (4) (3) (5) (12) (18) (9) (11) (2) (IO) (8) (14)
(8) (13) (7) (10) (14) (15) (1) (4) (3) (9) (11) (18) (17) (6) (2) (16) (5) (12)
F (2.573) 8.27*** 37.78*** 55.79x** 6.47** 9.21*** 11.30*** 33.00*** 23.75*** 1.35 16.56*** 5.17** 7.55*** 50.64*** 25.41*** 41.47*** 11 S6*** 4.22* 11.44***
Note: Composite value rankings are shown in parentheses. *p < .05. **p < .Ol. ***, < ,001.
low value on being honest, loving, and responsible. Conversely, nonsmokers saw nonsmokers as being relatively more concerned with these values than smokers. Overall, males and females in this sample had very similar images of smokers, ex-smokers, and nonsmokers. Significant gender-by-image interactions were found for only Table 2. Mean instrumental
Value Ambitious Broadminded Capable Cheerful Clean Courageous Forgiving Helpful Honest Imaginative Independent Intellectual Logical Loving Obedient Polite Responsible Self-controlled
Smoker (N= 184) 7.55 7.64 8.24 13.23 8.71 6.86 9.92 10.63 7.49 8.51 5.83 10.38 11.17 7.92 13.32 12.48 9.14 11.97
(4) (5) (7) (17) (9) (2) (11) (13) (3) (8) (I) (12) (14) (6) (18) (16) (10) (15)
value images of smokers,
ex-smokers
and nonsmokers
Image Ex-smoker (N= 193)
Nonsmoker (N= 193)
7.18 9.35 7.98 9.96 10.22 7.94 10.29 10.39 7.27 13.17 7.12 12.07 10.69 9.25 12.53 11.74 7.93 5.95
6.67 10.21 10.24 8.72 9.75 9.61 9.52 8.99 5.32 13.55 9.47 11.52 11.96 8.26 11.57 9.94 6.98 8.72
Note. Composite value rankings are shown in parentheses. *p < .05. **p < .Ol. ***p < ,001.
(3) (9) (7) (10) (11) (6) (12) (13) (4) (18) (2) (16) (14) (8) (17) (15) (5) (1)
(2) (13) (14) (5) (11) (10) (9) (7) (1) (18) (8) (15) (17) (4) (16) (12) (3) (6)
F
(2,556) 1.66 12.10*** 14.84*** 37.52*** 5.11** 14.68*** 1.68 7.83*** 13.54*** 71.80*** 24.96*** 5.99** 2.99 3.67* 7.05*** 15.13*** 10.36*** 55.55***
85
Value images
Table 3. Mean value images for significant Own smoking
Smoker
interactions
between image condition
Image condition Ex-smoker
and own smoking
Nonsmoker
Interaction F
A ComfortableLife Smokers Potential smokers Nonsmokers
9.17 8.83 6.83
Smokers Potential smokers Nonsmokers
12.50 9.43 8.41
9.00 10.65 8.89
7.17 8.88 9.38
2.55*
9.33 11.47 11.96
3.92**
11.79 10.74 9.77
2.42*
5.39 7.39 9.56
2.80*
11.56 9.06 9.40
3.12*
5.74 6.52 4.98
2.58*
10.74 11.03 11.76
2.82*
Social Recognition 11.14 10.44 9.99 Wisdom Smokers Potential smokers Nonsmokers
10.94 12.40 12.47
10.00 10.00 10.80
Smokers Potential smokers Nonsmokers
10.31 13.50 13.51
10.18 10.74 9.72
Smokers Potential smokers Nonsmokers
11.25 7.71 6.19
Cheerful
Courageous 7.50 7.71 8.09 Honest Smokers Potential smokers Nonsmokers
4.44 6.75 7.99
6.86 7.18 7.39 Intellectual
Smokers Potential smokers Nonsmokers
13.06 11.04 9.94
10.75 12.62 12.21
Smokers Potential smokers Nonsmokers
5.63 7.35 8.30
10.71 8.24 9.21
9.96 8.84 7.86
3.21*
Smokers Potential smokers Nonsmokers
6.44 8.00 9.67
8.36 6.74 8.15
7.52 8.68 6.52
4.70***
Loving
*p < .05. **p < .Ol. ***p < ,001
two terminal and two instrumental values. These interactions are shown in Table compared with males, tended to see nonsmokers as being more concerned with being obedient and ex-smokers as being more concerned with inner harmony. males perceived smokers as placing a higher value on being capable than did
4. Females, wisdom and Conversely, females.
DISCUSSION
Images of smokers and nonsmokers are clearly defined and distinct from one another. Generally, nonsmokers are perceived as more conventional and religious than smokers,
86
J.W. GRUBE,
M. ROKEACH.
and S.B. GETZLAF
Table 4. Mean value images for significant interactions condition and gender
Gender
Smoker
Image condition hx-smoker
Nonsmoker
between image
Interaction F
Inner harmony Male Female
9.92 10.45
Male Female
12.22 12.37
Male Female
6.92 9.09
Male Female
12.71 13.71
8.13 6.87
10.22 8.28
3.49*
10.79 9.75
4.95**
9.37 10.85
3.21*
12.49 10.93
3.40*
Wisdom 9.69 11.27 Capable 8.24 1.76 Obedient
*p i
.05. **p
1990
Addictive
Copyright
0306-4603/90 $3.00 + .OO 0 1990 Pergamon Press plc
BRIEF REPORT ADOLESCENTS’
VALUE IMAGES OF SMOKERS, NONSMOKERS
EX-SMOKERS,
AND
JOEL W. GRUBE Prevention
Research Center, Berkeley,
CA
MILTON ROKEACH University
of Southern California,
Los Angeles
SHELLY B. GETZLAF Oregon State Hospital,
Salem
Abstract - Adolescents’ value images of smokers, ex-smokers, and nonsmokers were investigated in a study of high school graduates. Overall, smokers were seen as being concerned with values related to personal enjoyment and autonomy. In contrast, nonsmokers were perceived as being more conventional, and more concerned with religious, interpersonal, and family values. Images of ex-smokers usually were intermediate, but resembled those of nonsmokers somewhat more than those of smokers. Interestingly, ex-smokers were perceived to place more importance on values relating to accomplishment and self-control than were either smokers or nonsmokers. In general, the value images were consistent among respondents who themselves were smokers, potential smokers, or nonsmokers. However, for a few values smokers and potential smokers had a more favorable image of smokers than did nonsmokers. Interestingly, males and females generally did not differ in their images of smokers, ex-smokers, and nonsmokers. Suggestions for prevention of adolescent smoking based on the value images are discussed.
It has been shown that the images young people have of smokers and nonsmokers play an important role in the initiation and maintenance of adolescent smoking behaviors (Chassin, Presson, Sherman, Corty, & Olshavsky, 1981; Grube, Weir, Getzlaf, & Rokeach, 1984). However, only a few studies have compared and contrasted these images (Barton, Chassin, Presson, & Sherman, 1982; Bewley & Bland, 1978; McKennel & Bynner, 1969). In particular, no research has investigated the values that are attributed to smokers and nonsmokers. To provide such information, data are presented here concerning the value images of smokers, ex-smokers, and nonsmokers. The content of these images is described and they are compared with one another. In addition, the extent to which these images are shared by adolescents who themselves are smokers, potential smokers, or nonsmokers is investigated. It seems reasonable to expect that adolescents will have distinct and socially shared beliefs about the values of smokers and nonsmokers. Such images may arise as a result of common experiences such as exposure to portrayals of smokers in print, on television, and in film (cf. Leventhal & Cleary, 1980). Cigarette advertising is perhaps the most obvious means by which shared images of smokers are cultivated or reinforced (Altman, Slater, Albright, &
This research was funded by grant DA02556 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Support for the first author during the preparation of this manuscript was provided by National Institute on Alcoholism grant AA06282 to the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. The authors thank Ivan Weir for his help in collecting these data. We also thank an unknown reviewer for making helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Joel W. Grube, Prevention Research Center, 2532 Durant Ave., Berkeley, CA 94704, USA. 81
82
J.W. GRUBE,
M. ROKEACH,
and S.B. GETZLAF
Maccoby, 1987; Warner, 1986). In many advertisements smokers are portrayed as seeking pleasure, relaxation, and enjoyment. Similarly, the juxtaposition of smoking with activities such as skiing, water sports, mountaineering, or motor car racing may foster images of smokers as being adventurous, healthful, and active. The use of specific types of models and social situations in advertising may further suggest that smokers are sophisticated, independent, or individualistic. Although common experiences might lead to shared images of smokers and nonsmokers, there also is evidence that young smokers have more favorable perceptions of smokers than do nonsmokers (e.g., Barton et al., 1982; Bewley & Bland, 1978). Thus, it is important to consider the extent to which value images are socially shared or differ according to the smoking status of the perceiver. Similarly, males and females may differ in their perceptions of smokers and nonsmokers. These differences also should be considered. These issues were addressed using the Rokeach Value Survey (Rokeach, 1984) to explore the value images of smokers, ex-smokers, and nonsmokers held by recent high school graduates. The terminal value scale on this survey measures the relative importance of goals or ideal end-states toward which individuals strive (e.g., having a comfortable life or wisdom), and the instrumental value scale measures the relative importance of different modes of behavior for attaining these goals (e.g., being ambitious or self-controlled). The Rokeach Value Survey has been used previously to ascertain images of political figures (Rokeach, 1973), social institutions (Regan, Rokeach, & Grube, 1982; Rokeach, 1979), and ethnic groups (Feather, 1975). METHOD
Participants The initial sample consisted of all graduates for the previous two years (n = 1040) from 14 high schools in eastern Washington State. They were surveyed by mail in the fall of 1980 using three follow-up solicitations similar to those described by Dillman (1978). A total of 664 completed questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 63.9%. This response rate compares very favorably with those obtained in similar mail surveys. However, because of missing data on individual items, the analyses that follow are based on 587 and 570 graduates for the terminal and instrumental value images, respectively. The respondents ranged from 17 to 22 years old and the median age was 19. There were somewhat more females (57%) than males (43%) in the sample and the respondents were 97% Caucasian. Procedure The graduates were first asked to complete the Rokeach Value Survey (Rokeach, 1984), ranking the 18 terminal and 18 instrumental values in order of importance to themselves (1 = most important, 18 = least important). After ranking the values, the respondents were presented with a series of questions about their own smoking behaviors and intentions and were then asked, on a random basis, to rank the values a second time according to one of three instructions: (a) as they believed people who now smoke cigarettes would rank them, (b) as they believed people who never smoked would rank them, or (c) as they believed people who had quit smoking would rank them. Smoking groups On the basis of their responses to the questions concerning smoking behavior and intentions, the 664 graduates were assigned to one of three groups. Current smokers (n = 89) were defined as those who presently smoked more than just occasionally, or had done so
Value images
83
within the past six months. Potential or experimental smokers (n = 108) were defined as either those who experimented occasionally with smoking, but were not regular smokers, or else did not smoke, but indicated that they intended to try smoking. Nonsmokers (n = 423) comprised those who reported that they did not currently smoke and had no intention of smoking. Ex-smokers (n = 23) were too few in number to consider separately, and were included among the nonsmokers for the image analyses. Finally, the remaining graduates (n = 21) could not be classified as to their smoking status because of missing data. l RESULTS
The value images of smokers, ex-smokers, and nonsmokers were investigated with a series of 3 (image condition) by 3 (own smoking) by 2 (gender) analyses of variance.* However, because there were so few female smokers, a full factorial design was not possible and the three-way interaction was suppressed (preliminary analyses indicated that this interaction was not significant for any of the 36 value images). The mean terminal and instrumental value images of the three target groups are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Significant (p < .05) main effects for image were found for 17 of the 18 terminal values and 16 of the 18 instrumental values. Smokers, compared with ex-smokers or nonsmokers were routinely seen as placing more importance on values relating to personal enjoyment such as having a comfortable life, an exciting life, and pleasure. They were also seen to care more for values relating to self-direction and personal autonomy such as having freedom and being independent, imaginative, courageous, and broadminded. In contrast to smokers, nonsmokers were seen as more concerned with conventional values such as being obedient and polite. They also were perceived as placing more importance on family, religious, and interpersonal values such as having family security and salvation and being cheerful, helpful, and honest. Interestingly, nonsmokers also were seen to place a higher value on self-respect and a lower value on social recognition than were smokers. For the most part, ex-smokers were intermediate to the other smoking groups. For some values, they were perceived as being similar to smokers and for other values as being similar to nonsmokers.3 However, they were seen to place more importance than either smokers or nonsmokers on values relating to personal achievement and internal control such as a sense of accomplishment, inner harmony, and self-controlled. Although the images were relatively consistent among respondents who were themselves smokers, potential smokers, or nonsmokers, significant interactions between image condition and own smoking behavior were found for three of the terminal values and six of the instrumental values (Table 3). For the most part, these interactions are attributable to the fact that smokers and nonsmokers had mirror images of one another. Thus, for example, smokers perceived smokers as placing a relatively high value and nonsmokers as placing a relatively ‘The numbers of smokers, potential smokers, and nonsmokers were 71, 98, and 418 in the portion of the sample with complete terminal value image data and 67, 93, and 410 in the portion with complete instrumental value data. These distributions did not differ significantly from that for the entire sample (p > .30, in both cases). ‘Because the Rokeach Value Survey yields ipsative data, questions can be raised about the appropriateness of making intergroup comparisons with this instrument and about using parametric statistics such as analysis of variance. However, research indicates that meaningful comparisons can be made among groups using the Rokeach Value Survey (e.g., Rokeach, 1973) and that parametric and nonparametric tests give very similar results with it (Rankin & Grube, 1980). In the present case, because of the interest in examining the interactions between own smoking status and image condition, ANOVA was considered to be the most appropriate statistical procedure. 30verall, the image of ex-smokers was more similar to that of nonsmokers than to that of smokers. The correlations between the average (composite) value rankings for ex-smokers and nonsmokers were .74 and .73 for the terminal and instrumental scales, respectively. In contrast, the correlations between the average images of ex-smokers and smokers were only .40 and .55.
84
J.W. GRUBE,
M. ROKEACH,
and S.B. GETZLAF
Table 1. Mean terminal value images of smokers,
ex-smokers
and nonsmokers
Image Smoker (N= 192)
Value A comfortable life An exciting life A sense of accomplishment A world at peace A world of beauty Equality Family security Freedom Happiness Inner harmony Mature love National security Pleasure Salvation Self-respect Social recognition True friendship Wisdom
7.36 6.98 10.98 9.84 13.36 10.37 9.90 5.03 6.31 10.24 9.08 11.81 6.73 12.95 9.99 8.95 8.80 12.31
(5) (4) (14) (9) (18) (13) (10) (1) (2) (12) (8) (15) (3) (17) (11) (7) (6) (16)
Ex-smoker (N= 196)
Nonsmoker (N= 199)
9.21 10.52 5.94 10.92 12.18 12.58 7.48 7.25 6.79 7.45 10.41 13.42 9.91 10.40 6.01 10.24 9.74 10.55
9.03 11.28 8.97 9.11 11.34 11.53 6.23 7.92 7.01 9.08 10.15 12.01 11.57 8.86 6.62 11.56 8.55 10.18
(7) (13) (1) (IS) (16) (17) (6) (4) (3) (5) (12) (18) (9) (11) (2) (IO) (8) (14)
(8) (13) (7) (10) (14) (15) (1) (4) (3) (9) (11) (18) (17) (6) (2) (16) (5) (12)
F (2.573) 8.27*** 37.78*** 55.79x** 6.47** 9.21*** 11.30*** 33.00*** 23.75*** 1.35 16.56*** 5.17** 7.55*** 50.64*** 25.41*** 41.47*** 11 S6*** 4.22* 11.44***
Note: Composite value rankings are shown in parentheses. *p < .05. **p < .Ol. ***, < ,001.
low value on being honest, loving, and responsible. Conversely, nonsmokers saw nonsmokers as being relatively more concerned with these values than smokers. Overall, males and females in this sample had very similar images of smokers, ex-smokers, and nonsmokers. Significant gender-by-image interactions were found for only Table 2. Mean instrumental
Value Ambitious Broadminded Capable Cheerful Clean Courageous Forgiving Helpful Honest Imaginative Independent Intellectual Logical Loving Obedient Polite Responsible Self-controlled
Smoker (N= 184) 7.55 7.64 8.24 13.23 8.71 6.86 9.92 10.63 7.49 8.51 5.83 10.38 11.17 7.92 13.32 12.48 9.14 11.97
(4) (5) (7) (17) (9) (2) (11) (13) (3) (8) (I) (12) (14) (6) (18) (16) (10) (15)
value images of smokers,
ex-smokers
and nonsmokers
Image Ex-smoker (N= 193)
Nonsmoker (N= 193)
7.18 9.35 7.98 9.96 10.22 7.94 10.29 10.39 7.27 13.17 7.12 12.07 10.69 9.25 12.53 11.74 7.93 5.95
6.67 10.21 10.24 8.72 9.75 9.61 9.52 8.99 5.32 13.55 9.47 11.52 11.96 8.26 11.57 9.94 6.98 8.72
Note. Composite value rankings are shown in parentheses. *p < .05. **p < .Ol. ***p < ,001.
(3) (9) (7) (10) (11) (6) (12) (13) (4) (18) (2) (16) (14) (8) (17) (15) (5) (1)
(2) (13) (14) (5) (11) (10) (9) (7) (1) (18) (8) (15) (17) (4) (16) (12) (3) (6)
F
(2,556) 1.66 12.10*** 14.84*** 37.52*** 5.11** 14.68*** 1.68 7.83*** 13.54*** 71.80*** 24.96*** 5.99** 2.99 3.67* 7.05*** 15.13*** 10.36*** 55.55***
85
Value images
Table 3. Mean value images for significant Own smoking
Smoker
interactions
between image condition
Image condition Ex-smoker
and own smoking
Nonsmoker
Interaction F
A ComfortableLife Smokers Potential smokers Nonsmokers
9.17 8.83 6.83
Smokers Potential smokers Nonsmokers
12.50 9.43 8.41
9.00 10.65 8.89
7.17 8.88 9.38
2.55*
9.33 11.47 11.96
3.92**
11.79 10.74 9.77
2.42*
5.39 7.39 9.56
2.80*
11.56 9.06 9.40
3.12*
5.74 6.52 4.98
2.58*
10.74 11.03 11.76
2.82*
Social Recognition 11.14 10.44 9.99 Wisdom Smokers Potential smokers Nonsmokers
10.94 12.40 12.47
10.00 10.00 10.80
Smokers Potential smokers Nonsmokers
10.31 13.50 13.51
10.18 10.74 9.72
Smokers Potential smokers Nonsmokers
11.25 7.71 6.19
Cheerful
Courageous 7.50 7.71 8.09 Honest Smokers Potential smokers Nonsmokers
4.44 6.75 7.99
6.86 7.18 7.39 Intellectual
Smokers Potential smokers Nonsmokers
13.06 11.04 9.94
10.75 12.62 12.21
Smokers Potential smokers Nonsmokers
5.63 7.35 8.30
10.71 8.24 9.21
9.96 8.84 7.86
3.21*
Smokers Potential smokers Nonsmokers
6.44 8.00 9.67
8.36 6.74 8.15
7.52 8.68 6.52
4.70***
Loving
*p < .05. **p < .Ol. ***p < ,001
two terminal and two instrumental values. These interactions are shown in Table compared with males, tended to see nonsmokers as being more concerned with being obedient and ex-smokers as being more concerned with inner harmony. males perceived smokers as placing a higher value on being capable than did
4. Females, wisdom and Conversely, females.
DISCUSSION
Images of smokers and nonsmokers are clearly defined and distinct from one another. Generally, nonsmokers are perceived as more conventional and religious than smokers,
86
J.W. GRUBE,
M. ROKEACH.
and S.B. GETZLAF
Table 4. Mean value images for significant interactions condition and gender
Gender
Smoker
Image condition hx-smoker
Nonsmoker
between image
Interaction F
Inner harmony Male Female
9.92 10.45
Male Female
12.22 12.37
Male Female
6.92 9.09
Male Female
12.71 13.71
8.13 6.87
10.22 8.28
3.49*
10.79 9.75
4.95**
9.37 10.85
3.21*
12.49 10.93
3.40*
Wisdom 9.69 11.27 Capable 8.24 1.76 Obedient
*p i
.05. **p
