Objectives. Health behaviour theories outline how cognitions predict behaviours, but rarely specify the temporal relation between cognitions and behaviours. It is not known whether these predictive relationships vary depending on temporal resolution or whether the relative influence of cognitions varies with measurement schedules.The current exploratory study therefore investigates whether the associations between behavioural cognitions (self-efficacy, intention, and risk perception) and smoking vary when measured momentarily, at day level, or using the more common baseline-follow-up design.Design. EMA study involving 36 continuing smokers over 17 days. Participants logged cigarettes and reported their cognitions at baseline, daily (evening), and in response to momentary surveys.Methods. Random-effects models were used to compare the effects of cognitions measured at different time points on (1) the number of cigarettes smoked daily and (2) the time interval until the next cigarette smoked.Results. Self-efficacy and risk perception measured at baseline significantly predicted cigarettes smoked each day, but this effect became non-significant when daily measurements of cognitions were included in the model. Momentary smoking behaviour was predicted by momentary measurements of risk perception, with no significant effects of social cognitions at baseline. Conclusions.Relationships between cognitions and behaviours vary according to the temporal resolution of the measurement schedule. Ensuring that the temporal resolution of assessment is appropriate for the temporal dynamics of the behaviour being assessed is important. Future research is needed to investigate the potential for leveraging specific cognitive processes depending on temporal importance in order to increase healthpromoting behaviours.
Background Smokers can respond defensively to health risk communication such as on-pack warning labels, potentially reducing their effectiveness. Theory suggests that risk perception together with self-efficacy reduces defensive responses and predicts target behaviours. Currently, tobacco warning labels globally predominantly target risk and do not explicitly consider efficacy. This study explores the effectiveness of combining Australian tobacco warning labels with efficacy content to increase quitting intentions. Methods RCT in 83 smokers over three weeks. After a seven-day baseline phase (smoking from usual tobacco packaging), participants were randomised to one of two adhesive labels groups for the remaining 14 days: standard health warning labels (HWLs) featuring enhanced efficacy messages (experimental group) or unmodified standard HWLs (control group). Participants attached these labels to their tobacco packaging and recorded their cognitions and smoking behaviour once daily using smartphones. Multi-level structural equation modelling was used to test theorised effects of the labels on self-efficacy, risk perception and intentions to quit. Results There was no effect of exposure to efficacy messages on either self-efficacy, risk perceptions or intentions to quit. However, self-efficacy and risk perceptions were positively associated with quitting intentions at the within-person level. Discussion The predictive relationships between self-efficacy, risk perception and intention to quit were supported, however, supplementing standard warning labels with efficacy messages had no effect on these cognitions. Whether this is due to conditioned avoidance of health warning labels, characteristics of the messages, or limitations imposed by format is unclear. Implications Self-efficacy and risk perception predict intentions to quit smoking. Adding efficacy content to tobacco health warnings may have potential to bolster these cognitions but more research is required to determine the contexts in which this would be effective and who would be likely to benefit. The time course by which exposure to efficacy content might influence cessation self-efficacy and downstream quitting intentions also needs to be investigated.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.