Smoking, addiction and decision‐making

Abstract

There can be few, if any, forms of behavior both as widespread and as damaging to health as is cigarette smoking, yet behavioral medicine research has so far produced only very partial improvements in our understanding of such behavior or of techniques for its modification. When one considers the contributions which psychologists have made, one is by and large looking at specific applications of specific approaches, and the goal of an integration of behavioral and biomedical science knowledge (cf. Gentry, 1981) still seems a long way off. In short, the field still lacks a coherent conceptual framework, and as a result there is a multiplicity of views on which research questions should be given the highest priority. This multiplicity is not in itself a matter for regret, but it makes it difficult for any single paper to represent fairly all current areas of research activity. This paper claims no such representativeness. I shall not consider directly the potential applications of techniques of behavior modification in smokers' clinics and similar person-to-person encounters between therapists and individual smokers (cf. Raw, 1978). Nor shall I deal here with the extremely important area of prevention of smoking among adolescents (cf. Evans, 1981). The immediate effects of nicotine or deprivation on attention, mood and task performance likewise will not be described specifically.Instead, I shall concentrate on what seems to me to be one of the most critical conceptual contrasts in current research. This contrast is that which arises from two divergent approaches. The first approach, with a strong reliance on physiological evidence concerning smokers' attempts to regulate their intake of nicotine, emphasizes

An empirical study of the decision to use condoms among Norwegian adolescents using the theory of reasoned action

“…the probability that one will be pregnant or catch a sexually transmitted disease at a particular instance of unprotected intercourse. However, psychological rationality has been heavily influenced by economic thinking in terms of the principle of maximization, defining rationality in terms of subjective probabilities and evaluations of behavioural outcomes (Eiser, 1983). Subjective probability estimates are to a large extent coloured by the immediacy of the costs of using condoms and the distance of the anticipated costs and benefits associated with pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (Morrison, 1985).…”

Assessing motivation for change: Preliminary development and evaluation of a scale measuring the costs and benefits of changing alcohol or drug use.

“…Other studies have also related the costs and benefits of change to alterations in health risk behaviors. Sutton's research used subjective expected utility theory (Eiser, 1983;Sutton, 1986Sutton, , 1987. When smokers' ratings of the perceived benefits of stopping smoking relative to those of continuing to smoke were combined with their self-efficacy ratings of the likelihood of success at quitting, the model predicted intentions and attempts to quit smoking at a 6-month follow-up.…”