Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 15, pp. 129-135, Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
ASSESSMENT
1990 Copyright
0306-4603/90 $3.00 + .OO e 1990 Pergamon Press plc
OF THE VALIDITY OF THE REASONS FOR SMOKING SCALE
JAMES C. TATE and ANNETTE
L. STANTON
Auburn University Abstract - To assess the convergent validity of the Reasons for Smoking scale (RFS) 30 male and 24 female smokers completed the RFS and then self-monitored their smoking motives over seven days. Significant validity coefficients, ranging from .39 to .51, were obtained for the stimulation, pleasure, habit, and psychological addiction motive scales. The stimulation, habit, and psychological addiction scales also demonstrated sound discriminant validity. Validity coefficients for the sensorimotor manipulation and negative affect reduction motive scales were nonsignificant. These results contrast sharply with the less positive findings of previous research. Sample and methodological differences between the studies may explain the dissimilarity in results.
The possibility that cigarette smoking is motivated by an identifiable number of specific factors has generated a large amount of research on smoking motivation. The practical consequences of finding specific smoking motives are alluring to those interested in developing smoking cessation programs. Knowledge of smoking motives could guide the development of efficient smoking cessation treatments aimed at these motives. The identification of smoking motives is also of theoretical importance, particularly given the assumption that smoking is stimulus bound and is not motivated solely by physiological addiction. One of the most thoroughly researched models of smoking motivation (Ton&ins, 1966a, 1966b, 1968) is based on the premise that smoking serves to manage positive and negative affects. Ton&ins proposed four styles of affect management: positive affect smoking, negative affect smoking, habit smoking, and psychological addiction smoking. The Reasons for Smoking scale (RFS) (Horn & Waingrow, 1966) was constructed rationally to measure these smoking motives. The several factor analytic studies (Bosse, Garvey, & Glynn, 1980; Coan, 1973; Costa, McCrae, & Bosse, 1980; Ikard, Green, & Horn, 1969; Ikard &Ton&ins, 1973; Leventhal & Avis, 1976; Mausner & Platt, 197 1; McKennell, 1970) of the RFS or its slightly modified versions in general have found a six-factor solution to be most appropriate. The six factors were given various names but were essentially identical in terms of item composition. Stimulation, pleasure, sensorimotor manipulation, habit, negative affect reduction, and psychological addiction are representative labels and will be used in this article. If stimulation, pleasure, and sensorimotor manipulation are considered subtypes of positive affect smoking, then the results of the factor analytic studies conform well to the Ton&ins model (Ikard et al., 1969). Although support for the validity of selected smoking motive scales has been found in analogue studies (Ikard & Ton&ins, 1973; Leventhal & Avis, 1976), the two investigations (Joffe, Lowe, & Fisher, 1981; Shiffman & Prange, 1988) requiring smokers to self-monitor their reasons for smoking in their natural environments have yielded less promising results. After completing the RFS, smokers in the Joffe et al. (1981) study were instructed to This study is based on a thesis submitted by the first author in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree. We gratefully acknowledge Samuel B. Green and E. Wayne Holden for their advice and comments. Requests for reprints should be sent to Annette L. Stanton, Department of Psychology, 426 Fraser Hall, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045. 129
130
JAMES C. TATE and ANNETTE
L. STANTON
self-monitor their reasons for smoking immediately prior to lighting up each cigarette during several self-monitoring periods, and the proportion of cigarettes smoked for each of six reasons was computed. When the scores on the RFS smoking motive factors were correlated with the proportions obtained through self-monitoring, only two correlation coefficients, those for sensorimotor manipulation and for negative affect reduction smoking, were significant. The authors concluded that their results provided meager support for the validity of the RFS. However, there is reason to doubt the sensitivity of their procedure in measuring the role of multiple smoking motives. In this procedure, subjects chose one of the six smoking motives as the main reason for smoking each cigarette. It may be the case that one or more motives may motivate each instance of smoking. If a process of multiple determinism operates in smoking behavior, it is possible that the self-monitoring procedure used by Joffe et al. (1981) ignores valuable data by constraining the subjects’ response options to one motive. In a recent study by Shiffman and Prange (1988), smoking cessation clinic participants completed the RFS and two other measures of smoking motives and then self-monitored their smoking patterns for a minimum of two days using a checklist of affects and activities. Although modest support for the validity of the RFS negative affect reduction scale was found, their results generally showed little correspondence between self-reported and self-monitored smoking patterns. Two limitations of the study were noted by the authors. First, the smoking pattern scales derived from the self-monitoring data bore little resemblance to the RFS smoking motive scales. This lack of equivalence between the RFS motive scales and the criterion scales could explain the poor relationship between these two measures of smoking motives. Second, the use of smoking cessation clinic samples may have biased the results since these subjects were trying to change their smoking behavior (Shiffman & Prange, 1988). The present study was designed to address the methodological limitations of the Joffe et al. (198 1) and the Shiffman and Prange (1988) studies in assessing the validity of the RFS. First, it was hypothesized that allowing subjects to endorse multiple smoking motives during self-monitoring, an option they have when completing the RFS, would increase the sensitivity of the procedure to the operation of multiple motives in their smoking behavior. Second, the use of a self-monitoring measure that is derived from the RFS represents a more appropriate criterion for assessing the convergent validity of the RFS. Third, subjects in the present study were not smoking cessation clinic participants and were not actively attempting to change their smoking behavior. METHOD
Subjects Subjects were 30 male and 24 female undergraduates who reported smoking five or more cigarettes per week for at least the last six months. Subjects received extra credit in their psychology classes for participation in the study. Originally, 61 subjects were to participate, but four males and three females failed to complete the procedure. The mean age of the 54 subjects was 20.33 years (SD = 2.34). Materials Reasons for Smoking scale (RFS). The RFS (Horn & Waingrow, 1966) is a 23-item questionnaire developed to measure the smoking motives postulated by Tot&ins (1966a, 1966b, 1968). Responses were made on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Always, 5 = Never). Six smoking motive scores were computed: stimulation smoking, pleasure smoking,
Validity of the Reasons for Smoking scale
131
sensorimotor manipulation smoking, habitual smoking, negative affect reduction smoking, and psychological addiction smoking. Relative scores for each motive were computed by dividing the mean item rating on each motive scale by the mean item rating for the entire 23-item RFS. Self-monitoring measure. In order to record the number of cigarettes smoked and the particular motives for smoking each cigarette, a self-monitoring procedure was used. Subjects recorded these data by marking a card before each cigarette smoked. In order to measure the involvement of each of the six smoking motives in the smoking of each cigarette, subjects noted on the self-monitoring card whether or not each motive was involved by placing a mark by the name of each relevant motive. Relative scores for each of the six smoking motives were derived by dividing the number of times each motive was endorsed by the total number of endorsements across all six smoking motives. In order to promote accurate recording, a bogus pipeline procedure was used. Prior to self-monitoring, subjects were told that a saliva sample would be collected from them at the end of the self-monitoring period and that it would be analyzed for saliva thiocyanate. They were also told that this chemical can very accurately estimate the number of cigarettes smoked during that period. At the end of the self-monitoring period, this deception was revealed to the subjects, and they were given the option to withdraw their data. No subjects chose to do so. Procedure Subjects were recruited from undergraduate psychology classes for a study of “smoking behavior.” Subjects met in groups of no more than 15 to complete a questionnaire packet which included a consent form, questions regarding smoking history, and the RFS. After completing these forms, subjects were given eight self-monitoring card booklets, each containing 20 cards, and a laminated card upon which was printed brief descriptions of the six RFS smoking motives (see Table 1) to be carried in their packs. The motive descriptions and self-monitoring procedure were discussed. Subjects were instructed to put their self-monitoring cards in a conveniently located drop box on each of seven days of self-monitoring. Midway during the self-monitoring period, all the subjects were contacted by telephone to determine whether any problems had arisen, to encourage them to continue self-monitoring, and to remind each subject to attend a final debriefing session. RESULTS
Demographic and smoking history variables As assessed by t tests and chi-square analyses, no significant sex differences were found on any of the demographic and smoking history variables. The mean length of time smoking in months was 46.62 (SD = 38.57). The mean reported daily smoking rate was 11.67 (SD = 8.15) cigarettes, and the mean self-monitored daily smoking rate was 10.19 (SD = 7.32) cigarettes. With respect to the desire to change smoking behavior, 65.6% of the sample reported having made at least one attempt at quitting (M (number of attempts) = 1.79, SD = 1.70), and 54.7% of the sample claimed a current desire to quit smoking. The average degree of motivation to quit, as assessed by a five-point Likert scale (1 = not motivated, 5 = extremely motivated), was 2.57 (n = 51, SD = 1.15). Smoking motive variables Table 2 presents descriptive data on the six smoking motive scales for the total sample. Scores for each motive represent mean item scores for each of the smoking motive scales
132
JAMES C. TATE and ANNETTE
Table 1. RFS motives and self-monitoring
L. STANTON
motive descriptions
Stimulation Stimulation: Stimulation smoking involves using smoking to give one a “lift” or to become more awake or to keep from slowing down. Pleasure Pleasure: Smoking is engaged in because it is a pleasurable and enjoyable activity. Smoking can be used to enhance an already pleasant mood, or it can be used to induce pleasure and enjoyment. Sensorimotor manipulation Fiddle: The sensory and motor aspects of smoking motivate smoking. Examples include blowing smoke rings, flicking ashes, the steps in lighting up a cigarette, and fiddling with a lit cigarette. Negative affect reduction Reduction of Negative Emotions: Smoking is used to sedate or calm the smoker so as to reduce negative emotions such as anger, anxiety, shame, and embarrassment. Habit: Here, there is no true reason for smoking except that it has become automatic or habitual. Indeed, the smoker may not even be aware of smoking and may even light one cigarette while another is still burning in an ashtray. Psychological addiction Psychological Addiction: Psychological addiction involves experiencing a craving (that is, a gnawing hunger) for a cigarette that can only be reduced if a cigarette is smoked. Also, in this type of smoking, actually smoking a cigarette satisfies the craving.
by the mean item rating for the entire 23-item RFS. A multivariate analysis of variance performed on motive scale scores revealed no significant effect for sex F(5, 48) = 1.10, p > .05.
divided
Analysis of the self-monitoring data It was predicted that RFS smoking motive scores would correlate significantly with their analogous self-monitoring counterparts. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 3. With regard to convergent validity, examination of the validity diagonal revealed four significant coefficients, those for the stimulation motive, the pleasure motive, the habit motive, and the psychological addiction motive. The magnitudes of these correlations ranged from .39 to ..51. With regard to discriminant validity, all six main diagonal correlations are the largest in their respective rows. Three of the significant validity coefficients were significantly larger than all the off-diagonal correlations in their rows. Specifically, the
Table 2. Smoking
motive scores for total sample of smokers (n = 54)
Smoking motive Stimulation Pleasure Sensorimotor manipulation Habit Psychological addiction Negative affect reduction
M
SD
.93 1.37 .82 .70 .99 1.21
.24 .21 .27 .17 .18 .15
Validity of the Reasons for Smoking scale
Table 3. RPS RPS motives 1 2 3 4 5 6
X
self-monitoring Self-monitored 3
1
2
.51*** - .09 -.16 - .05 - .21 - .22
.OO .39** .ll - .32 - .08 -.17
.19 .31* .19 -.40 -.30 - .05
correlation
133
matrix
motives 4
5
6
- .29 -.29 - .Ol .48*** .17 -.Ol
- .25 - .26 - .06 .I8 .42** .12
-.ll .08 - .03 .Ol - .08 .18
1 = Stimulation. 2 = Pleasure. 3 = Sensorimotor manipulation. 4 = Habit. 5 = Psychological addiction. 6 = Negative affect reduction. n = 54. *p < .05. **p -c .Ol. ***p < ,001.
stimulation, habit, and psychological addiction motive validity coefficients were significantly larger than the next largest correlations in their respective rows and, thus, the remaining four correlations (stimulation: t = 2.10, habit: t = 2.08, psychological addiction: t = 1.72, p < .OS). The pleasure motive validity coefficient was significantly larger than four of the other five correlations (t = 2.02, p < .OS). Also, the off-diagonal correlation between the RFS pleasure scores and the self-monitoring sensorimotor manipulation scores was significant. DISCUSSION
The results of the present study provide moderate support for the validity of the RFS smoking motive scales. All correlations between RFS motive scores and their selfmonitoring analogues represent the largest in their respective rows, and four of these correlations were significant. In addition, three scales (i.e., stimulation, habit, and psychological addiction) demonstrated particularly good discriminant validity as indicated by their validity coefficients’ being significantly larger than all other correlations in their rows. These results argue for the validity of at least four of the six RFS smoking motive scales: stimulation, pleasure, habit, and psychological addiction. This interpretation should, however, be tempered by the fact that none of the validity coefficients exceed a value of .5 1. The magnitudes of significant values obtained in the present study accord well with those reported by Joffe et al. (1981) for the sensorimotor manipulation and negative affect reduction smoking motives (.51 and .46, respectively), but they are larger than those reported by Shiffman and Prange (1988) for the negative affect reduction smoking motive (.19, .26, .30). Little correspondence was found between the present results and those of Joffe et al. (198 1) and Shiffman and Prange (1988). Interestingly, the two validity coefficients found to be significant in the Joffe et al. (1981) study (i.e., sensorimotor manipulation and negative affect reduction) and the one validity coefficient found to be significant in the Shiffman and Prange (1988) study (i.e., negative affect reduction) are the ones found not to be significant in the present study. Several factors related to sample differences may be helpful in explaining the different patterns of results. Subjects in the Joffe et al. (1981) and Shiffman and Prange (1988) studies were, on the average, several years older than the subjects who participated in the present
134
JAMES C. TATE and ANNETIX
L. STANTON
study (M(age) = 39.6 and 39.4 years versus 20.18 years, respectively). Moreover, the earlier studies’ subjects reported smoking at a higher average rate (M(rate) = 33.3 and 28.0 cigarettes/day versus 11.62 cigarettes/day). Also, subjects in the earlier studies had been smoking cigarettes for a longer period of time (M (years smoking) = 22.8 and 22.9 versus 3.7). Finally, unlike subjects in the earlier studies, subjects in the present study were not enrolled in a smoking cessation program and were not motivated to change their smoking behavior. Thus, their smoking behavior during self-monitoring is more likely to be representative of their natural smoking behavior. In addition to sample differences, several procedural differences exist between the present study and the Joffe et al. (1981) and Shiffman and Prange (1988) studies, particularly with respect to the self-monitoring procedures employed in each. In the Joffe et al. (1981) study, smokers enrolled in a smoking cessation program self-monitored all cigarettes smoked during a two-week time period and recorded smoking motives during one of six three-hour time periods each day. Subjects in the present study self-monitored smoking motives continuously for seven days, received an “encouragement” telephone call midway through this time period, and were under the impression that their recording would be independently verified (i.e., the bogus pipeline procedure). Unlike the Shiffman and Prange (1988) study, the present study utilized questionnaire and self-monitoring measures of smoking motives based upon the RFS and the conceptual framework of Ton&ins’ (1966a, 1966b, 1968) model of affect management. These two factors, appreciable sample and procedural differences, are plausible explanations for the results obtained in the present study. Subjects in the Joffe et al. (1981) and Shiffman and Prange (1988) studies were older, more experienced smokers. It is possible that smoking motives change the longer one smokes or that those with shorter smoking histories are more cognizant of their smoking motives in actual smoking situations. Alternatively, the fact that many of the subjects in the sample were unusually light smokers alone may account for the differences between the current findings and those of earlier studies. First, it is possible that people who have been smoking relatively few cigarettes for a short period of time exhibit more variability in their smoking. This would tend to maximize correlations. Second, it may simply be easier for such smokers to remember and characterize their smoking patterns when completing the RFS. Future research could answer these questions. With respect to procedure, instructing subjects to record as many smoking motives as they felt were operating in the smoking of each cigarette was designed to increase the sensitivity of the self-monitoring procedure to the action of multiple motives in each instance of smoking. By having subjects record multiple motives during the self-monitoring period, the procedure conforms more closely to the affect-management mechanism postulated by Ton&ins (1968) who stated that many smokers smoke for more than one reason. It is possible that increased sensitivity to this process of multiple determinism accounts for the differences between the Joffe et al. (1981) study results and those of the present study. Moreover, the use of a self-monitoring criterion measure based upon the same model of smoking motivation as the RFS represents a more sensitive test of the validity of the RFS. Finally, the results of the present study bear upon the subject of smoking cessation. The ultimate reason for studying smoking motivation is to gain some insight into the process which may prove useful in planning treatments which are tailored to an individual smoker’s motives for smoking. From a therapeutic standpoint, the most useful validity test will be the prediction of differential outcome in smoking cessation treatment. Research into this question represents the logical next step in the series of investigations utilizing the RFS.
Validity of the Reasons for Smoking
scale
135
REFERENCES BOSFX.R., Garvey, A.J., & Glynn, R.J. (1980). Age and addiction to smoking. Addicrive Behaviors, 5, 341-351. Coan, R.W. (1973). Personality variables associated with cigarette smoking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 86-104. Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R., & Bosse, R. (1980). Smoking motive factors: A review and a replication. The International Journal of the Addictions. 15, 537-549. Horn, D., & Waingrow, S. (1966). Behavior and attitudes. Questionnaire. Bard, F.F., Green, D.E., & Horn, D. (1969). A scale to differentiate between types of smoking as related to the management of affect. The International Journal of the Addictions, 4, 629-639. Ikard, F.F., & Ton&ins, S. (1973). The experience of affect as a determinant of smoking behavior: A series of validity studies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 81, 172-181. Joffe. R., Lowe, M.R., & Fisher, E.B. (1981). A validity test of the reasons for smoking scale. Addictive Behaviors, 6, 41-U. Leventhal, H., & Avis, N. (1976). Pleasure, addiction, and habit: Factors in verbal report or factors in smoking behavior? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 478488. Mausner, B., & Plan, ES. (1971). Smoking: A behavioral analysis. New York: Pergamon. McKennell, A.C. (1970). Smoking motivation factors. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 8-22. Shiffman, S., & Prange, M. (1988). Self-reported and self-monitored smoking patterns. Addictive Behaviors, 13, 201-204. Tomkins, S. (1966a). A psychological model for smoking behavior. American Journal of Public Health, 56, 17-20. Tomkins, S. (1966b). Theoretical implications and guidelines to future research. In B. Mausner & E. Platt (Eds.). Health education monographs (Supplement No., 2. pp. 3548). Oakland: Third Party Publishing. Ton&ins, S. (1968). A modified model of smoking behavior. In E.F. Borgatta & R.R. Evans (Eds.), Smoking, health, and behavior (pp. 165-186). Chicago: Aldine.
ASSESSMENT
1990 Copyright
0306-4603/90 $3.00 + .OO e 1990 Pergamon Press plc
OF THE VALIDITY OF THE REASONS FOR SMOKING SCALE
JAMES C. TATE and ANNETTE
L. STANTON
Auburn University Abstract - To assess the convergent validity of the Reasons for Smoking scale (RFS) 30 male and 24 female smokers completed the RFS and then self-monitored their smoking motives over seven days. Significant validity coefficients, ranging from .39 to .51, were obtained for the stimulation, pleasure, habit, and psychological addiction motive scales. The stimulation, habit, and psychological addiction scales also demonstrated sound discriminant validity. Validity coefficients for the sensorimotor manipulation and negative affect reduction motive scales were nonsignificant. These results contrast sharply with the less positive findings of previous research. Sample and methodological differences between the studies may explain the dissimilarity in results.
The possibility that cigarette smoking is motivated by an identifiable number of specific factors has generated a large amount of research on smoking motivation. The practical consequences of finding specific smoking motives are alluring to those interested in developing smoking cessation programs. Knowledge of smoking motives could guide the development of efficient smoking cessation treatments aimed at these motives. The identification of smoking motives is also of theoretical importance, particularly given the assumption that smoking is stimulus bound and is not motivated solely by physiological addiction. One of the most thoroughly researched models of smoking motivation (Ton&ins, 1966a, 1966b, 1968) is based on the premise that smoking serves to manage positive and negative affects. Ton&ins proposed four styles of affect management: positive affect smoking, negative affect smoking, habit smoking, and psychological addiction smoking. The Reasons for Smoking scale (RFS) (Horn & Waingrow, 1966) was constructed rationally to measure these smoking motives. The several factor analytic studies (Bosse, Garvey, & Glynn, 1980; Coan, 1973; Costa, McCrae, & Bosse, 1980; Ikard, Green, & Horn, 1969; Ikard &Ton&ins, 1973; Leventhal & Avis, 1976; Mausner & Platt, 197 1; McKennell, 1970) of the RFS or its slightly modified versions in general have found a six-factor solution to be most appropriate. The six factors were given various names but were essentially identical in terms of item composition. Stimulation, pleasure, sensorimotor manipulation, habit, negative affect reduction, and psychological addiction are representative labels and will be used in this article. If stimulation, pleasure, and sensorimotor manipulation are considered subtypes of positive affect smoking, then the results of the factor analytic studies conform well to the Ton&ins model (Ikard et al., 1969). Although support for the validity of selected smoking motive scales has been found in analogue studies (Ikard & Ton&ins, 1973; Leventhal & Avis, 1976), the two investigations (Joffe, Lowe, & Fisher, 1981; Shiffman & Prange, 1988) requiring smokers to self-monitor their reasons for smoking in their natural environments have yielded less promising results. After completing the RFS, smokers in the Joffe et al. (1981) study were instructed to This study is based on a thesis submitted by the first author in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree. We gratefully acknowledge Samuel B. Green and E. Wayne Holden for their advice and comments. Requests for reprints should be sent to Annette L. Stanton, Department of Psychology, 426 Fraser Hall, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045. 129
130
JAMES C. TATE and ANNETTE
L. STANTON
self-monitor their reasons for smoking immediately prior to lighting up each cigarette during several self-monitoring periods, and the proportion of cigarettes smoked for each of six reasons was computed. When the scores on the RFS smoking motive factors were correlated with the proportions obtained through self-monitoring, only two correlation coefficients, those for sensorimotor manipulation and for negative affect reduction smoking, were significant. The authors concluded that their results provided meager support for the validity of the RFS. However, there is reason to doubt the sensitivity of their procedure in measuring the role of multiple smoking motives. In this procedure, subjects chose one of the six smoking motives as the main reason for smoking each cigarette. It may be the case that one or more motives may motivate each instance of smoking. If a process of multiple determinism operates in smoking behavior, it is possible that the self-monitoring procedure used by Joffe et al. (1981) ignores valuable data by constraining the subjects’ response options to one motive. In a recent study by Shiffman and Prange (1988), smoking cessation clinic participants completed the RFS and two other measures of smoking motives and then self-monitored their smoking patterns for a minimum of two days using a checklist of affects and activities. Although modest support for the validity of the RFS negative affect reduction scale was found, their results generally showed little correspondence between self-reported and self-monitored smoking patterns. Two limitations of the study were noted by the authors. First, the smoking pattern scales derived from the self-monitoring data bore little resemblance to the RFS smoking motive scales. This lack of equivalence between the RFS motive scales and the criterion scales could explain the poor relationship between these two measures of smoking motives. Second, the use of smoking cessation clinic samples may have biased the results since these subjects were trying to change their smoking behavior (Shiffman & Prange, 1988). The present study was designed to address the methodological limitations of the Joffe et al. (198 1) and the Shiffman and Prange (1988) studies in assessing the validity of the RFS. First, it was hypothesized that allowing subjects to endorse multiple smoking motives during self-monitoring, an option they have when completing the RFS, would increase the sensitivity of the procedure to the operation of multiple motives in their smoking behavior. Second, the use of a self-monitoring measure that is derived from the RFS represents a more appropriate criterion for assessing the convergent validity of the RFS. Third, subjects in the present study were not smoking cessation clinic participants and were not actively attempting to change their smoking behavior. METHOD
Subjects Subjects were 30 male and 24 female undergraduates who reported smoking five or more cigarettes per week for at least the last six months. Subjects received extra credit in their psychology classes for participation in the study. Originally, 61 subjects were to participate, but four males and three females failed to complete the procedure. The mean age of the 54 subjects was 20.33 years (SD = 2.34). Materials Reasons for Smoking scale (RFS). The RFS (Horn & Waingrow, 1966) is a 23-item questionnaire developed to measure the smoking motives postulated by Tot&ins (1966a, 1966b, 1968). Responses were made on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Always, 5 = Never). Six smoking motive scores were computed: stimulation smoking, pleasure smoking,
Validity of the Reasons for Smoking scale
131
sensorimotor manipulation smoking, habitual smoking, negative affect reduction smoking, and psychological addiction smoking. Relative scores for each motive were computed by dividing the mean item rating on each motive scale by the mean item rating for the entire 23-item RFS. Self-monitoring measure. In order to record the number of cigarettes smoked and the particular motives for smoking each cigarette, a self-monitoring procedure was used. Subjects recorded these data by marking a card before each cigarette smoked. In order to measure the involvement of each of the six smoking motives in the smoking of each cigarette, subjects noted on the self-monitoring card whether or not each motive was involved by placing a mark by the name of each relevant motive. Relative scores for each of the six smoking motives were derived by dividing the number of times each motive was endorsed by the total number of endorsements across all six smoking motives. In order to promote accurate recording, a bogus pipeline procedure was used. Prior to self-monitoring, subjects were told that a saliva sample would be collected from them at the end of the self-monitoring period and that it would be analyzed for saliva thiocyanate. They were also told that this chemical can very accurately estimate the number of cigarettes smoked during that period. At the end of the self-monitoring period, this deception was revealed to the subjects, and they were given the option to withdraw their data. No subjects chose to do so. Procedure Subjects were recruited from undergraduate psychology classes for a study of “smoking behavior.” Subjects met in groups of no more than 15 to complete a questionnaire packet which included a consent form, questions regarding smoking history, and the RFS. After completing these forms, subjects were given eight self-monitoring card booklets, each containing 20 cards, and a laminated card upon which was printed brief descriptions of the six RFS smoking motives (see Table 1) to be carried in their packs. The motive descriptions and self-monitoring procedure were discussed. Subjects were instructed to put their self-monitoring cards in a conveniently located drop box on each of seven days of self-monitoring. Midway during the self-monitoring period, all the subjects were contacted by telephone to determine whether any problems had arisen, to encourage them to continue self-monitoring, and to remind each subject to attend a final debriefing session. RESULTS
Demographic and smoking history variables As assessed by t tests and chi-square analyses, no significant sex differences were found on any of the demographic and smoking history variables. The mean length of time smoking in months was 46.62 (SD = 38.57). The mean reported daily smoking rate was 11.67 (SD = 8.15) cigarettes, and the mean self-monitored daily smoking rate was 10.19 (SD = 7.32) cigarettes. With respect to the desire to change smoking behavior, 65.6% of the sample reported having made at least one attempt at quitting (M (number of attempts) = 1.79, SD = 1.70), and 54.7% of the sample claimed a current desire to quit smoking. The average degree of motivation to quit, as assessed by a five-point Likert scale (1 = not motivated, 5 = extremely motivated), was 2.57 (n = 51, SD = 1.15). Smoking motive variables Table 2 presents descriptive data on the six smoking motive scales for the total sample. Scores for each motive represent mean item scores for each of the smoking motive scales
132
JAMES C. TATE and ANNETTE
Table 1. RFS motives and self-monitoring
L. STANTON
motive descriptions
Stimulation Stimulation: Stimulation smoking involves using smoking to give one a “lift” or to become more awake or to keep from slowing down. Pleasure Pleasure: Smoking is engaged in because it is a pleasurable and enjoyable activity. Smoking can be used to enhance an already pleasant mood, or it can be used to induce pleasure and enjoyment. Sensorimotor manipulation Fiddle: The sensory and motor aspects of smoking motivate smoking. Examples include blowing smoke rings, flicking ashes, the steps in lighting up a cigarette, and fiddling with a lit cigarette. Negative affect reduction Reduction of Negative Emotions: Smoking is used to sedate or calm the smoker so as to reduce negative emotions such as anger, anxiety, shame, and embarrassment. Habit: Here, there is no true reason for smoking except that it has become automatic or habitual. Indeed, the smoker may not even be aware of smoking and may even light one cigarette while another is still burning in an ashtray. Psychological addiction Psychological Addiction: Psychological addiction involves experiencing a craving (that is, a gnawing hunger) for a cigarette that can only be reduced if a cigarette is smoked. Also, in this type of smoking, actually smoking a cigarette satisfies the craving.
by the mean item rating for the entire 23-item RFS. A multivariate analysis of variance performed on motive scale scores revealed no significant effect for sex F(5, 48) = 1.10, p > .05.
divided
Analysis of the self-monitoring data It was predicted that RFS smoking motive scores would correlate significantly with their analogous self-monitoring counterparts. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 3. With regard to convergent validity, examination of the validity diagonal revealed four significant coefficients, those for the stimulation motive, the pleasure motive, the habit motive, and the psychological addiction motive. The magnitudes of these correlations ranged from .39 to ..51. With regard to discriminant validity, all six main diagonal correlations are the largest in their respective rows. Three of the significant validity coefficients were significantly larger than all the off-diagonal correlations in their rows. Specifically, the
Table 2. Smoking
motive scores for total sample of smokers (n = 54)
Smoking motive Stimulation Pleasure Sensorimotor manipulation Habit Psychological addiction Negative affect reduction
M
SD
.93 1.37 .82 .70 .99 1.21
.24 .21 .27 .17 .18 .15
Validity of the Reasons for Smoking scale
Table 3. RPS RPS motives 1 2 3 4 5 6
X
self-monitoring Self-monitored 3
1
2
.51*** - .09 -.16 - .05 - .21 - .22
.OO .39** .ll - .32 - .08 -.17
.19 .31* .19 -.40 -.30 - .05
correlation
133
matrix
motives 4
5
6
- .29 -.29 - .Ol .48*** .17 -.Ol
- .25 - .26 - .06 .I8 .42** .12
-.ll .08 - .03 .Ol - .08 .18
1 = Stimulation. 2 = Pleasure. 3 = Sensorimotor manipulation. 4 = Habit. 5 = Psychological addiction. 6 = Negative affect reduction. n = 54. *p < .05. **p -c .Ol. ***p < ,001.
stimulation, habit, and psychological addiction motive validity coefficients were significantly larger than the next largest correlations in their respective rows and, thus, the remaining four correlations (stimulation: t = 2.10, habit: t = 2.08, psychological addiction: t = 1.72, p < .OS). The pleasure motive validity coefficient was significantly larger than four of the other five correlations (t = 2.02, p < .OS). Also, the off-diagonal correlation between the RFS pleasure scores and the self-monitoring sensorimotor manipulation scores was significant. DISCUSSION
The results of the present study provide moderate support for the validity of the RFS smoking motive scales. All correlations between RFS motive scores and their selfmonitoring analogues represent the largest in their respective rows, and four of these correlations were significant. In addition, three scales (i.e., stimulation, habit, and psychological addiction) demonstrated particularly good discriminant validity as indicated by their validity coefficients’ being significantly larger than all other correlations in their rows. These results argue for the validity of at least four of the six RFS smoking motive scales: stimulation, pleasure, habit, and psychological addiction. This interpretation should, however, be tempered by the fact that none of the validity coefficients exceed a value of .5 1. The magnitudes of significant values obtained in the present study accord well with those reported by Joffe et al. (1981) for the sensorimotor manipulation and negative affect reduction smoking motives (.51 and .46, respectively), but they are larger than those reported by Shiffman and Prange (1988) for the negative affect reduction smoking motive (.19, .26, .30). Little correspondence was found between the present results and those of Joffe et al. (198 1) and Shiffman and Prange (1988). Interestingly, the two validity coefficients found to be significant in the Joffe et al. (1981) study (i.e., sensorimotor manipulation and negative affect reduction) and the one validity coefficient found to be significant in the Shiffman and Prange (1988) study (i.e., negative affect reduction) are the ones found not to be significant in the present study. Several factors related to sample differences may be helpful in explaining the different patterns of results. Subjects in the Joffe et al. (1981) and Shiffman and Prange (1988) studies were, on the average, several years older than the subjects who participated in the present
134
JAMES C. TATE and ANNETIX
L. STANTON
study (M(age) = 39.6 and 39.4 years versus 20.18 years, respectively). Moreover, the earlier studies’ subjects reported smoking at a higher average rate (M(rate) = 33.3 and 28.0 cigarettes/day versus 11.62 cigarettes/day). Also, subjects in the earlier studies had been smoking cigarettes for a longer period of time (M (years smoking) = 22.8 and 22.9 versus 3.7). Finally, unlike subjects in the earlier studies, subjects in the present study were not enrolled in a smoking cessation program and were not motivated to change their smoking behavior. Thus, their smoking behavior during self-monitoring is more likely to be representative of their natural smoking behavior. In addition to sample differences, several procedural differences exist between the present study and the Joffe et al. (1981) and Shiffman and Prange (1988) studies, particularly with respect to the self-monitoring procedures employed in each. In the Joffe et al. (1981) study, smokers enrolled in a smoking cessation program self-monitored all cigarettes smoked during a two-week time period and recorded smoking motives during one of six three-hour time periods each day. Subjects in the present study self-monitored smoking motives continuously for seven days, received an “encouragement” telephone call midway through this time period, and were under the impression that their recording would be independently verified (i.e., the bogus pipeline procedure). Unlike the Shiffman and Prange (1988) study, the present study utilized questionnaire and self-monitoring measures of smoking motives based upon the RFS and the conceptual framework of Ton&ins’ (1966a, 1966b, 1968) model of affect management. These two factors, appreciable sample and procedural differences, are plausible explanations for the results obtained in the present study. Subjects in the Joffe et al. (1981) and Shiffman and Prange (1988) studies were older, more experienced smokers. It is possible that smoking motives change the longer one smokes or that those with shorter smoking histories are more cognizant of their smoking motives in actual smoking situations. Alternatively, the fact that many of the subjects in the sample were unusually light smokers alone may account for the differences between the current findings and those of earlier studies. First, it is possible that people who have been smoking relatively few cigarettes for a short period of time exhibit more variability in their smoking. This would tend to maximize correlations. Second, it may simply be easier for such smokers to remember and characterize their smoking patterns when completing the RFS. Future research could answer these questions. With respect to procedure, instructing subjects to record as many smoking motives as they felt were operating in the smoking of each cigarette was designed to increase the sensitivity of the self-monitoring procedure to the action of multiple motives in each instance of smoking. By having subjects record multiple motives during the self-monitoring period, the procedure conforms more closely to the affect-management mechanism postulated by Ton&ins (1968) who stated that many smokers smoke for more than one reason. It is possible that increased sensitivity to this process of multiple determinism accounts for the differences between the Joffe et al. (1981) study results and those of the present study. Moreover, the use of a self-monitoring criterion measure based upon the same model of smoking motivation as the RFS represents a more sensitive test of the validity of the RFS. Finally, the results of the present study bear upon the subject of smoking cessation. The ultimate reason for studying smoking motivation is to gain some insight into the process which may prove useful in planning treatments which are tailored to an individual smoker’s motives for smoking. From a therapeutic standpoint, the most useful validity test will be the prediction of differential outcome in smoking cessation treatment. Research into this question represents the logical next step in the series of investigations utilizing the RFS.
Validity of the Reasons for Smoking
scale
135
REFERENCES BOSFX.R., Garvey, A.J., & Glynn, R.J. (1980). Age and addiction to smoking. Addicrive Behaviors, 5, 341-351. Coan, R.W. (1973). Personality variables associated with cigarette smoking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 86-104. Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R., & Bosse, R. (1980). Smoking motive factors: A review and a replication. The International Journal of the Addictions. 15, 537-549. Horn, D., & Waingrow, S. (1966). Behavior and attitudes. Questionnaire. Bard, F.F., Green, D.E., & Horn, D. (1969). A scale to differentiate between types of smoking as related to the management of affect. The International Journal of the Addictions, 4, 629-639. Ikard, F.F., & Ton&ins, S. (1973). The experience of affect as a determinant of smoking behavior: A series of validity studies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 81, 172-181. Joffe. R., Lowe, M.R., & Fisher, E.B. (1981). A validity test of the reasons for smoking scale. Addictive Behaviors, 6, 41-U. Leventhal, H., & Avis, N. (1976). Pleasure, addiction, and habit: Factors in verbal report or factors in smoking behavior? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 478488. Mausner, B., & Plan, ES. (1971). Smoking: A behavioral analysis. New York: Pergamon. McKennell, A.C. (1970). Smoking motivation factors. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 8-22. Shiffman, S., & Prange, M. (1988). Self-reported and self-monitored smoking patterns. Addictive Behaviors, 13, 201-204. Tomkins, S. (1966a). A psychological model for smoking behavior. American Journal of Public Health, 56, 17-20. Tomkins, S. (1966b). Theoretical implications and guidelines to future research. In B. Mausner & E. Platt (Eds.). Health education monographs (Supplement No., 2. pp. 3548). Oakland: Third Party Publishing. Ton&ins, S. (1968). A modified model of smoking behavior. In E.F. Borgatta & R.R. Evans (Eds.), Smoking, health, and behavior (pp. 165-186). Chicago: Aldine.
