Risk denial about smoking hazards and readiness to quit among French smokers: An exploratory study

Working Conditions, Job Dissatisfaction and Smoking Behaviours Among French Clerks and Manual Workers

“…42,43 Moreover, previous studies found that smokers are prone to endorse "risk denial beliefs" that minimize smoking hazards, and that such beliefs undermine the motivation to quit. 44,45 For example, some smokers consider that air pollution and petrol or diesel fumes cause more cancer than smoking, and then deem that "smoking is not so risky." Similarly, workers exposed to unhealthy working conditions may put smoking hazards into perspective (as an example, an ethnographic study conducted among manual workers daily exposed to a lethal risk of irradiation in an nuclear reprocessing plant were prone to compare this risk with those they took by driving, smoking or drinking alcohol 46 ).…”

Impact de la précarité et de la perspective temporelle sur le sevrage tabagique

“…Le tabagisme serait responsable de près de la moitié des décès dans la classe sociale la moins favorisée [6]. Les conséquences du tabagisme sont souvent mal comprises dans les populations précaires et associées à un déni du risque induit [7] avec une consommation de cigarettes plus élevée [5,[8][9][10]. L'usage du tabac pourrait relever d'un mécanisme de réponse au stress, à la peur ou à l'anxiété liés aux conditions de vie difficiles [11].…”

“…Lors Dimensions temporelles : Passé Positif (1,3,7,18,20,24,25), Passé Négatif (4, 6, 9, 10, 13), Présent Fataliste (5,17,19,22), Présent Hédoniste (2,16,21), Futur (8,11,12,14,15,23).…”

“…Les fumeurs en situation de précarité semblent moins disposés à interrompre leur consommation [7][8][9][10]. Le taux de réussite à trois mois est inférieur, ce qui reflète bien ces difficultés, qu'elles soient d'ordres motivationnelle ou psychologique.…”

Existential Threat or Dissociative Response? Examining Defensive Avoidance of Point-of-Care Testing Devices Through a Terror Management Theory Framework

“…Although such devices appear to have great potential utility, growing evidence suggests that people often minimize the importance and self-relevance of CVDs and their related symptoms (Huerta, Tormo, Egea-Caparrós, Ortolá-Devesa, & Navarro, 2009;Van Steenkiste et al, 2004). For instance, people often avoid fear-provoking stimuli that could remind them of their perceived vulnerability to CVD (Caldwell, Arthur, Natarajan, & Anand, 2007) and continually engage in behaviors known to lead to its development (Peretti-Watel, Halfen, & Grémy, 2007). Patterns of denial and self-exemption may even persist after major heart-related events like myocardial infarction (Ketterer et al, 2004).…”