Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:46:59.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Roles of Temptation Strength and Self-efficacy in Predicting Smoking Cessation Attempts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

Lucila Zentner  and
Ron Borland
Lucila Zentner
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Ron Borland*
Affiliation:
Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria
*
Ron Borland, Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria, 1 Rathdowne Street, Carlton South VIC 3053, Australia
Get access

Abstract

This paper examines the predictive value of self-efficacy and strength of temptations in determining whether a person will try to give up smoking, and successfully do so for at least one day. Participants were 62 smokers calling a quit-smoking telephone service. They were assessed by self-report questionnaires by telephone. Fifty-six per cent had made an attempt to stop smoking within 3 weeks. Measures of self-efficacy to quit smoking and strength of temptations to smoke were not closely related. Multivariate analyses revealed that after intention to quit entered the equation, self-efficacy was inversely related to making a quit attempt, as was temptation strength and extent of addiction. This study extends previous work that showed self-efficacy has a complex relationship with making quit attempts by showing that self-efficacy operates quite differently from strength of temptations. This may be because measures of self-efficacy, when made in the context of intention to act, contain a motivational component as well as an assessment of skills to resist temptations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 1995 , pp. 191 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, J.S., Holt, C.S., & Lichtenstein, E. (1986). Self-efficacy and smoking re-examined: Construct validity and clinical utility. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 842–852.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behaviour change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Borland, R., Owen, N., Hill, D., & Schofield, P. (1991). Predicting attempts and sustained cessation of smoking after the introduction of workplace smoking bans. Health Psychology, 10, 336–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, V., Hill, D., Murphy, M., & Borland, R. (1993). Factors affecting the efficacy of a community-based quit smoking program. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 8, 537–546.Google Scholar
Condiotte, M.M., & Lichtenstein, E. (1981). Self efficacy and relapse in smoking cessation programs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 648–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, R.J. (1985). A primer of multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, L.T., & Heatherton, T.F. (1990). Self-report issues in cigarette smoking: State of the art and future directions. Behavioral Assessment, 12, 53–75.Google Scholar
Lee, C. (1989). Theoretical weaknesses lead to practical problems: The example of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Behaviour Therapy and Experimental Psychology, 20, 115–123.Google Scholar
Lee, C. (1992). On cognitive theories of causation in human behaviour. Journal of Behaviour Therapy and Experimental Psychology, 23, 257–268.Google Scholar
Prochaska, J.O., & DiClemente, C.C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 390–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, R.W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In Cacippo, J.T. & Petty, R.E. (Eds.), Social Psychophysiology: A source book. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Rosenstock, I.M., Strecher, V.J., & Becker, M.H. (1988). Social learning theory and the health beliefs model. Health Education Quarterly, 15, 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silagy, C., Mant, D., Fowler, G., & Lodge, M. (1994). Meta-analysis on efficacy of nicotine replacement therapies in smoking cessation. Lancet, 343, 139–142.Google Scholar
Stuart, K., Borland, R., & McMurray, N. (1994). Self efficacy, health locus of control and smoking cessation. Addictive Behaviors, 19, 1–12.Google Scholar
Velicer, W.F., DiClemente, C.C., Rossi, J.S., & Prochaska, J.O. (1990). Relapse situations and self efficacy: An integrative model. Addictive Behaviors, 15, 271–283.Google Scholar
Velicer, W.F., Prochaska, J.O., Bellis, J.M., DiClemente, C.C., Rossi, J.S., Fava, J.L., & Steiger, J.H. (1993). An expert system intervention for smoking cessation. Addictive Behaviors, 18, 269–290.Google Scholar