- Email: [email protected]
A validity test of the reasons for smoking scale
0306-4603/81/010041-05$02.00/0 Copyright © 1981 Pergamon Press Ltd
Addictive Behaviors, VoL 6, pp. 41-45, 1981 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
A VALIDITY TEST OF THE REASONS FOR SMOKING SCALE RAND! JOFFE, MICHAEL R. LOWE, and E. B. FISHER, JR. * Washington University
Abstract-The Reasons for Smoking (RFS) scale classifies the strength ofrespondents' smoking motives along 6 motivational dimensions. The concurrent validity of the RFS scale was evaluated by having smokers who joined a quit clinic complete the RFS and then self-monitor, using the same 6 motives measured by the RFS, their reason for smoking approximately half their cigarettes during a two week period. The reactive effects of self-monitoring reasons for smoking in addition to smoking frequency was negligible. Of the correlations calculated between the six reasons for smoking as measured by the RFS and by self-monitoring, only two were significant. The self-monitored scores for the "manipulation" motive were the only ones which predicted smoking status at a 3 month follow-up . Discriminant function analyses indicated that the addition of other subscale scores failed to enhance the prediction of smoking status.
Tomkins (1 %6; 1968) originally proposed a four-fold typology of smoking behavior, including positive affect, negative affect, addictive, and habitual smoking. Horn and Waingrow (l966) developed a scale to reflect this typology, a factor analysis of which found evidence for two addi tional motives for smoking, stimulation and sensory motor manipulation (Ikard et al., 1969). The purpose of this Reasons for Smoking Scale (RFS) is to identify the predominant motives that different individuals have for smoking. As suggested by Ikard et al., if smokers could be reliably and validly classified according to their motive or motives for smoking, it might be possible to design more effective smoking cessation programs by tailoring cessation procedures to smokers' underlying motives for smoking. Some evidence supporting the validity of the RFS has been demonstrated in several studies Ikard and Tomkins (1973) found that those who describe themselves as positive affect smokers on the RFS scale smoke more while watching a humorous movie, whereas those who describe themselves as negative affect smokers smoke more while watching a tragic movie. These authors also found the addictive subscale of the RFS useful for predicting smokers' reactions to a program in which they were asked to schedule their cigarette consumption. Leventhal and Avis (l976) found evidence supporting the validity of the pleasure-taste and habit subscales of the RFS. In the study on the validity of the habit subscale, level of awareness of smoking was varied in three groups. Higher smoking awareness levels were produced by asking subjects to record the reason they smoked each cigarette using the seven specific reasons for smoking categories found in Leventhal and Avis' factor analysis of the RFS. By giving subjects the RFS scale before and after they self-monitored their reason for smoking Leventhal and Avis were able to determine that the self-monitoring of reasons for smoking altered perceived reasons for smoking on the posttest RFS. Specifically, 11 of 14 subjects who self-monitored their reasons for smoking described themselves as habit smokers on the posHest, whereas only two of the 14 subjects who did not self-monitor their reasons for smoking described themselves as habit smokers. In discussing these results, Leventhal and Avis state that it is "Possible that careful self-observation is an analytic task that disrupts internal feeling states. Thus, under self-observation, smoking might seem habitual rather than affective ; in the absence of selfobservation this might not be so" (p.487). The validity of the RFS scale is based, however, on the assumption that smokers are capable of reflecting on their reasons for smoking and, *Requests for reprints should be sent to E. B. Fisher, Jr., Department of Psychology, Washington University, st. Louis, Missouri 63130. 41
42
RANDI JOFFE, MICHAEL R. LOWE and E. B. FISHER, JR.
summing over a variety of situations, classifying themselves according to the motives repre· sented in the RFS scale. If smokers are indeed incapable of recognizing the source of their smoking at the time they are engaged in smoking, then there is little reason to believe that they would be able to identify their motives for smoking retrospectively on a scale such as the RFS. The purpose of the current study is to evaluate the concurrent validity of the RFS by asking smokers to complete this scale and to self-monitor their reason for smoking certain cigarettes just prior to smoking them. As noted above, Leventhal and Avis (1976) used self-monitoring of reasons for smoking as a means of increasing awareness of smoking, but did not report correia· tions between self-monitored reasons for smoking and scores on the RFS scale. One potential problem with using self-monitored reasons for smoking as a validational criterion for the RFS is that monitoring reasons for smoking might alter the frequency of smoking. While there is evidence that self-monitoring number of cigarettes smoked may have a reactive effect in decreasing the frequency of smoking (McFall & Hammen, 1971), it appears that this effect is temporary and does not occur if subjects are instructed not to alter their natural smoking frequency (Epstein & Collins, 1977; Lipinski, Black, Nelson & Ciminero, 1975). Data on the possible reactive effects of self-monitoring reasons for smoking also indicate that there is no reactive effect on frequency of smoking when subjects are asked to self-monitor reasons for smoking in addition to frequency of smoking (Leventhal & Avis, 1976). Nonetheless, as a precaution the effect of self-monitoring on smoking frequency was evaluated with the present sample of smokers. The ultimate purpose of any method of measuring motives for smoking is to develop smoking cessation procedures tailored to the individual needs of prospective quitters. It is possible that the RFS and/or the self-monitoring of reasons for smoking might be useful for predicting smoker's success with particular cessation programs. The RFS validity data described herein were collected at the beginning of a smoking cessation study (Lowe et at., Note 1). This study, which compared the effectiveness of a comprehensive self-control package with and without covert sensitization in smoking cessation, provided the opportunity to evaluate both the paper and pencil and self-monitoring reasons for smoking measures as predictors of success of quitting. METHOD
Subjects The subjects were 33 smokers (10 males, 23 females) who joined a smoking cessation clinic. The 33 subjects represent half of those who made phone calls requesting information about the program after reading about it in local newspapers. The mean age of the 33 participants was 39.6 years (SD = 11) with an average daily smoking rate of 33.3 cigarettes (SD = 14.56) and average years of smoking of 22.8 years (SD = 13.5).
Procedure Subjects were asked to self-monitor their smoking continuously in order to make them more aware of the situations in which they smoke and as a check to ensure that they were not gradually reducing the amount smoked prior to their quit date. The subjects were explicitly told to smoke normally and not to change their smoking habits prior to their individualized quit dates. Each participant received a packet containing self-monitoring forms with space allotted to make tally strokes for every cigarette smoked. These forms were cut to fit inside the cellophane wrapper of a cigarette package. Subjects were to make their recordings prior to each cigarette smoked. Recordings for approximately two weeks were obtained from 31 of the subjects. Two su bjects (one male and one female) failed to submit the requested data. In addition to recording the frequency of smoking, subjects were asked to record the reason for smoking each cigarette during one of six, three-hour time periods each day. These time periods were assigned across days. The six time periods were: 6:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m.12:00 p.m., 12:00 p.m.-3.00 p.m., 3:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m., 6:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m., 9:00 p.m.-12:00 a.m. The six possible choices of reasons for smoking were carefully described to match the six categories comprising the RFS scale. The follOwing written instructions were given to each ·subject:
Validity of RFS scale
43
Until the day on which you will quit smoking, we are asking you to tally the number of cigarettes you smoke. In addition, you will notice on each daily sheet there is a three hour period blocked out in red ink. For those three hours each day, we would like you to note not only the number of cigarettes you smoke, but, in addition, the reason you think you are smoking. We believe that this information will help us to determine more about how to help people quit smoking. There are six major reasons for smoking and we would like you to categorize the reasons for your cigarette smoking in the following way. Note that on the reverse side of each daily tally sheet, six symbols appear across the page. These symbols denote the following categories: S = Stimulation, M = Manipulation, N = Negative Affect Reduction, PR = Pleasurable Relaxation, A = Addiction, H = Habit. On the following page is a detailed explanation of these categories to which you may refer for further clarification. For each one hour block of designated time, place a tally mark in the appropriate space on the front side and then place a mark in the appropriate column for your reason for smoking on the reverse side. It is most important that you record your reasons at the time you reach for a cigarette, as retrospection is often inaccurate. Note that for each of the next seven days, different three hour periods are marked off. Please record your reasons on these occasions only.! The 23 item Horn and Waingrow (1966) version of the RFS Scale was completed by all participants at the first session of the smoking cessation program. RESULTS
Six t tests for independent groups were carried out to evaluate whether there was a significant difference in the mean number of cigarettes smoked during time periods when the reason for smoking was recorded versus time periods when it was not. There were no significant differences found for five of six time periods, indicating that self-monitoring of reasons for smoking has little or no influence on smoking frequency relative to monitoring of frequency alone. Subjects reported smoking fewer cigarettes when they self-monitored reasons for smoking during the 6:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. period than when they monitored frequency only (t = 2.23, P < .05). Since subjects also smoked fewest cigarettes during this time period, the relatively low smoking base rate may have enhanced reactivity effects. The relationship between the self-recorded reasons for smoking data and the questionnaire data was established by computing Pearson product-moment correlations. The number of cigarettes smoked for each of the six reasons was divided by the total number smoked during the reasons for smoking self-monitoring and these proportions were correlated with comparable proportions formed by dividing each of the six separate RFS scores by the RFS total score. The resulting correlations, presented in Table l, indicate that two of the RFS subscales-negative Table 1. Pearson Correlations Between Six Reasons for Smoking as Measured by the RFS and Self-Monitoring. Stimulation Manipulation .07
Negative affect reduction
.51 *
.46*
Pleasurable relaxation
-.11
Addiction
.11
Habit .29
Note: N = 25 for all correlations. *p < .01 I The reasons for smoking were defined as follows: Stimulation-Smoking gives you a feeling of stimulation; helps you wake up; it organizes your energies; it keeps you going. Manipulation-the act of handling a cigarette or the steps involved in the process of lighting a cigarette are gratifying; watching smoke curl upward or exhaling the smoke brings you satisfaction. Negative Affect Reduction-smoking serves as a kind of crutch to reduce feelings of distress, anger, or pressure; smoking is specific to situations in which negative feelings are evoked; it is used in moments of distress to have a tranquilizing effect and help you handle personal problems. Pleasurable Relaxation-one smokes under pleasant circumstances which are relaxing such as at the end of a meal, in the midst of a pleasant conversation, etc.; smoking enhances pleasure. Addiction-one experiences a strong "craving" for a cigarette; you feel you must have a cigarette or the craving will become intolerable; you've been aware of needing a cigarette since you smoked your last one. Habit-the act of smoking involves a minimal degree of awareness; you do not get much reward or satisfaction from a cigarette; you light up automatically.
44
RAND! JOFFE, MICHAEL R. LOWE and E. B. FISHER, JR.
affect reduction and manipulation - were moderately correlated with the comparable selfmonitoring scores. The extent to which both measures of reasons for smoking were predictive of cessation three months after quitting was evaluated by means of t-tests for independent groups (the abstinence rate for the two treatment groups did not differ significantly; collapsing across groups the overall three month abstinence rate was 30%). T-tests comparing abstainers (N = 9) and nonabstainers (N = 21) were conducted on each of the six reasons for smoking as measured by the RFS and by self-monitoring. Abstainers at three months , compared to nonabstainers, recorded smoking relatively more cigarettes because of the enjoyment derived from manipulation. However, the possibility that this outcome resulted from capitalizing on chance by running 12 ttests cannot be discounted. To see if the prediction of 3-month smoking status could be improved by considering a combination of the six RFS and six self-monitored scores, two discriminant function analyses were conducted. In the first, subjects' self-monitored manipulation score was the sole independent variable. The percent of cases correctly classified as to smoking status using this variable alone was 77.4. When the other 11 scores were included in a second discriminant analysis as potential predictors of smoking status, four were entered into the analysis (the Habit, Addiction, Relaxation, and Negative Affect Reduction RFS sUbscales), but the accuracy of the resulting prediction increased only slightly to 84.6%. DISCUSSION
The results of the present study offer rather meager support for the validity of the RFS. This outcome is especially noteworthy since the self-monitoring of reasons for smoking would appear to be such an obvious correlate of the reasons for smoking descriptions contained in the RFS. As Leventhal and Avis (1976) note, the RFS is worded to reflect smoker's experience while smoking. The question addressed in this study is whether smokers would describe their experience the same way when asked to do so retrospectively (on the RFS) and contemporaneously (when self-monitOring). The answer appears to be "no" with the possible exception of the negative affect reduction and manipulation subscales. Even in the case of these two subscales, the moderate size of the validity coefficients suggests that predictions of smoking behavior made on the basis of scores on these subscales would be rather tenuous. Recall that the RFS was given prior to subjects' self-monitoring. This should have sensitized subjects to their expressed reasons for smoking. Consistency tendencies might have been expected to constitute a bias toward association between RFS scores and self-monitoring. This might have been aided by the transparent relation between RFS items and self-monitoring codes. The low correlations obtained are thereby even more striking. While some support has been found for the validity of several of the RFS subscales (Ikard & Tomkins, 1976; Leventhal & Avis, 1976) the evidence has been based on contrived manipulations in the laboratory. It is possible that some of the relationships found were due to subjects mling out the RFS and then responding to experimental conditions (e.g., induction of fear) to keep their smoking behavior consistent with their RFS responses. A second problem with creating certain conditions in the laboratory to test the validity of the RFS is that the results may not be generalizable to people's motives for smoking in the natural environment. The self-monitoring of reasons for smoking was found to be nonreactive in terms of smoking frequency, corroborating Leventhal's and Avis' (1976) results. While only the manipulation subscale from the self-monitoring data predicted abstinence at three months, both the RFS and self-monitoring of reasons for smoking should be evaluated as predictors of cessation in studies using other interventions. Acknowledgement- This research was supported by Grant No. HL22472 from the Lung Division of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Validity of RFS scale
45
REFERENCE NOTE 1. Lowe, M.R., Fisher, E.B., Jr., Green, L., Kurtz, S. & Ashenberg, Z. Self-control with and without covert sensitization in smoking cessation. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York, September, 1979.
REFERENCES Epstein, L.H. & Collins, F.L. The measurement of situational influences of smoking. Addictive Behaviors, 1977,2,47-53. Horn, D. & Waingrow, S. Behavior & Attitudes. Questionnaire, April, 1966. Ikard, F.F., Green, D. & Horn, D. A scale to differentiate between types of smoking as related to the management of affect. International Journal of Addictions, 1969, 4, 649-659. Ikard, F.F. & Tomkins, S. The experience of affect as a determinant of smoking behavior: A series of validity studies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973,81, 172-181. Leventhal, H. & Avis, N. Pleasure, addiction, and habit: factors in verbal report or factors in smoking behavior? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976,85,478-488. McFall, R.M. & Hammen, c.L. Motivation, structure and self-monitoring: Role of nonspecific factors in smoking reduction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 1971, 37, 80-86. Tomkins, S. Psychological model for smoking behavior. American Journal of Public Health, 1966, 56 , 17-20. Tomkins, S. A modified model of smoking behavior. In E.F. Borgatta & R.R. Evans (Eds.). Smoking, Health and Behavior. Chicago: Aldine, 1968.
Addictive Behaviors, VoL 6, pp. 41-45, 1981 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
A VALIDITY TEST OF THE REASONS FOR SMOKING SCALE RAND! JOFFE, MICHAEL R. LOWE, and E. B. FISHER, JR. * Washington University
Abstract-The Reasons for Smoking (RFS) scale classifies the strength ofrespondents' smoking motives along 6 motivational dimensions. The concurrent validity of the RFS scale was evaluated by having smokers who joined a quit clinic complete the RFS and then self-monitor, using the same 6 motives measured by the RFS, their reason for smoking approximately half their cigarettes during a two week period. The reactive effects of self-monitoring reasons for smoking in addition to smoking frequency was negligible. Of the correlations calculated between the six reasons for smoking as measured by the RFS and by self-monitoring, only two were significant. The self-monitored scores for the "manipulation" motive were the only ones which predicted smoking status at a 3 month follow-up . Discriminant function analyses indicated that the addition of other subscale scores failed to enhance the prediction of smoking status.
Tomkins (1 %6; 1968) originally proposed a four-fold typology of smoking behavior, including positive affect, negative affect, addictive, and habitual smoking. Horn and Waingrow (l966) developed a scale to reflect this typology, a factor analysis of which found evidence for two addi tional motives for smoking, stimulation and sensory motor manipulation (Ikard et al., 1969). The purpose of this Reasons for Smoking Scale (RFS) is to identify the predominant motives that different individuals have for smoking. As suggested by Ikard et al., if smokers could be reliably and validly classified according to their motive or motives for smoking, it might be possible to design more effective smoking cessation programs by tailoring cessation procedures to smokers' underlying motives for smoking. Some evidence supporting the validity of the RFS has been demonstrated in several studies Ikard and Tomkins (1973) found that those who describe themselves as positive affect smokers on the RFS scale smoke more while watching a humorous movie, whereas those who describe themselves as negative affect smokers smoke more while watching a tragic movie. These authors also found the addictive subscale of the RFS useful for predicting smokers' reactions to a program in which they were asked to schedule their cigarette consumption. Leventhal and Avis (l976) found evidence supporting the validity of the pleasure-taste and habit subscales of the RFS. In the study on the validity of the habit subscale, level of awareness of smoking was varied in three groups. Higher smoking awareness levels were produced by asking subjects to record the reason they smoked each cigarette using the seven specific reasons for smoking categories found in Leventhal and Avis' factor analysis of the RFS. By giving subjects the RFS scale before and after they self-monitored their reason for smoking Leventhal and Avis were able to determine that the self-monitoring of reasons for smoking altered perceived reasons for smoking on the posttest RFS. Specifically, 11 of 14 subjects who self-monitored their reasons for smoking described themselves as habit smokers on the posHest, whereas only two of the 14 subjects who did not self-monitor their reasons for smoking described themselves as habit smokers. In discussing these results, Leventhal and Avis state that it is "Possible that careful self-observation is an analytic task that disrupts internal feeling states. Thus, under self-observation, smoking might seem habitual rather than affective ; in the absence of selfobservation this might not be so" (p.487). The validity of the RFS scale is based, however, on the assumption that smokers are capable of reflecting on their reasons for smoking and, *Requests for reprints should be sent to E. B. Fisher, Jr., Department of Psychology, Washington University, st. Louis, Missouri 63130. 41
42
RANDI JOFFE, MICHAEL R. LOWE and E. B. FISHER, JR.
summing over a variety of situations, classifying themselves according to the motives repre· sented in the RFS scale. If smokers are indeed incapable of recognizing the source of their smoking at the time they are engaged in smoking, then there is little reason to believe that they would be able to identify their motives for smoking retrospectively on a scale such as the RFS. The purpose of the current study is to evaluate the concurrent validity of the RFS by asking smokers to complete this scale and to self-monitor their reason for smoking certain cigarettes just prior to smoking them. As noted above, Leventhal and Avis (1976) used self-monitoring of reasons for smoking as a means of increasing awareness of smoking, but did not report correia· tions between self-monitored reasons for smoking and scores on the RFS scale. One potential problem with using self-monitored reasons for smoking as a validational criterion for the RFS is that monitoring reasons for smoking might alter the frequency of smoking. While there is evidence that self-monitoring number of cigarettes smoked may have a reactive effect in decreasing the frequency of smoking (McFall & Hammen, 1971), it appears that this effect is temporary and does not occur if subjects are instructed not to alter their natural smoking frequency (Epstein & Collins, 1977; Lipinski, Black, Nelson & Ciminero, 1975). Data on the possible reactive effects of self-monitoring reasons for smoking also indicate that there is no reactive effect on frequency of smoking when subjects are asked to self-monitor reasons for smoking in addition to frequency of smoking (Leventhal & Avis, 1976). Nonetheless, as a precaution the effect of self-monitoring on smoking frequency was evaluated with the present sample of smokers. The ultimate purpose of any method of measuring motives for smoking is to develop smoking cessation procedures tailored to the individual needs of prospective quitters. It is possible that the RFS and/or the self-monitoring of reasons for smoking might be useful for predicting smoker's success with particular cessation programs. The RFS validity data described herein were collected at the beginning of a smoking cessation study (Lowe et at., Note 1). This study, which compared the effectiveness of a comprehensive self-control package with and without covert sensitization in smoking cessation, provided the opportunity to evaluate both the paper and pencil and self-monitoring reasons for smoking measures as predictors of success of quitting. METHOD
Subjects The subjects were 33 smokers (10 males, 23 females) who joined a smoking cessation clinic. The 33 subjects represent half of those who made phone calls requesting information about the program after reading about it in local newspapers. The mean age of the 33 participants was 39.6 years (SD = 11) with an average daily smoking rate of 33.3 cigarettes (SD = 14.56) and average years of smoking of 22.8 years (SD = 13.5).
Procedure Subjects were asked to self-monitor their smoking continuously in order to make them more aware of the situations in which they smoke and as a check to ensure that they were not gradually reducing the amount smoked prior to their quit date. The subjects were explicitly told to smoke normally and not to change their smoking habits prior to their individualized quit dates. Each participant received a packet containing self-monitoring forms with space allotted to make tally strokes for every cigarette smoked. These forms were cut to fit inside the cellophane wrapper of a cigarette package. Subjects were to make their recordings prior to each cigarette smoked. Recordings for approximately two weeks were obtained from 31 of the subjects. Two su bjects (one male and one female) failed to submit the requested data. In addition to recording the frequency of smoking, subjects were asked to record the reason for smoking each cigarette during one of six, three-hour time periods each day. These time periods were assigned across days. The six time periods were: 6:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m.12:00 p.m., 12:00 p.m.-3.00 p.m., 3:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m., 6:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m., 9:00 p.m.-12:00 a.m. The six possible choices of reasons for smoking were carefully described to match the six categories comprising the RFS scale. The follOwing written instructions were given to each ·subject:
Validity of RFS scale
43
Until the day on which you will quit smoking, we are asking you to tally the number of cigarettes you smoke. In addition, you will notice on each daily sheet there is a three hour period blocked out in red ink. For those three hours each day, we would like you to note not only the number of cigarettes you smoke, but, in addition, the reason you think you are smoking. We believe that this information will help us to determine more about how to help people quit smoking. There are six major reasons for smoking and we would like you to categorize the reasons for your cigarette smoking in the following way. Note that on the reverse side of each daily tally sheet, six symbols appear across the page. These symbols denote the following categories: S = Stimulation, M = Manipulation, N = Negative Affect Reduction, PR = Pleasurable Relaxation, A = Addiction, H = Habit. On the following page is a detailed explanation of these categories to which you may refer for further clarification. For each one hour block of designated time, place a tally mark in the appropriate space on the front side and then place a mark in the appropriate column for your reason for smoking on the reverse side. It is most important that you record your reasons at the time you reach for a cigarette, as retrospection is often inaccurate. Note that for each of the next seven days, different three hour periods are marked off. Please record your reasons on these occasions only.! The 23 item Horn and Waingrow (1966) version of the RFS Scale was completed by all participants at the first session of the smoking cessation program. RESULTS
Six t tests for independent groups were carried out to evaluate whether there was a significant difference in the mean number of cigarettes smoked during time periods when the reason for smoking was recorded versus time periods when it was not. There were no significant differences found for five of six time periods, indicating that self-monitoring of reasons for smoking has little or no influence on smoking frequency relative to monitoring of frequency alone. Subjects reported smoking fewer cigarettes when they self-monitored reasons for smoking during the 6:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. period than when they monitored frequency only (t = 2.23, P < .05). Since subjects also smoked fewest cigarettes during this time period, the relatively low smoking base rate may have enhanced reactivity effects. The relationship between the self-recorded reasons for smoking data and the questionnaire data was established by computing Pearson product-moment correlations. The number of cigarettes smoked for each of the six reasons was divided by the total number smoked during the reasons for smoking self-monitoring and these proportions were correlated with comparable proportions formed by dividing each of the six separate RFS scores by the RFS total score. The resulting correlations, presented in Table l, indicate that two of the RFS subscales-negative Table 1. Pearson Correlations Between Six Reasons for Smoking as Measured by the RFS and Self-Monitoring. Stimulation Manipulation .07
Negative affect reduction
.51 *
.46*
Pleasurable relaxation
-.11
Addiction
.11
Habit .29
Note: N = 25 for all correlations. *p < .01 I The reasons for smoking were defined as follows: Stimulation-Smoking gives you a feeling of stimulation; helps you wake up; it organizes your energies; it keeps you going. Manipulation-the act of handling a cigarette or the steps involved in the process of lighting a cigarette are gratifying; watching smoke curl upward or exhaling the smoke brings you satisfaction. Negative Affect Reduction-smoking serves as a kind of crutch to reduce feelings of distress, anger, or pressure; smoking is specific to situations in which negative feelings are evoked; it is used in moments of distress to have a tranquilizing effect and help you handle personal problems. Pleasurable Relaxation-one smokes under pleasant circumstances which are relaxing such as at the end of a meal, in the midst of a pleasant conversation, etc.; smoking enhances pleasure. Addiction-one experiences a strong "craving" for a cigarette; you feel you must have a cigarette or the craving will become intolerable; you've been aware of needing a cigarette since you smoked your last one. Habit-the act of smoking involves a minimal degree of awareness; you do not get much reward or satisfaction from a cigarette; you light up automatically.
44
RAND! JOFFE, MICHAEL R. LOWE and E. B. FISHER, JR.
affect reduction and manipulation - were moderately correlated with the comparable selfmonitoring scores. The extent to which both measures of reasons for smoking were predictive of cessation three months after quitting was evaluated by means of t-tests for independent groups (the abstinence rate for the two treatment groups did not differ significantly; collapsing across groups the overall three month abstinence rate was 30%). T-tests comparing abstainers (N = 9) and nonabstainers (N = 21) were conducted on each of the six reasons for smoking as measured by the RFS and by self-monitoring. Abstainers at three months , compared to nonabstainers, recorded smoking relatively more cigarettes because of the enjoyment derived from manipulation. However, the possibility that this outcome resulted from capitalizing on chance by running 12 ttests cannot be discounted. To see if the prediction of 3-month smoking status could be improved by considering a combination of the six RFS and six self-monitored scores, two discriminant function analyses were conducted. In the first, subjects' self-monitored manipulation score was the sole independent variable. The percent of cases correctly classified as to smoking status using this variable alone was 77.4. When the other 11 scores were included in a second discriminant analysis as potential predictors of smoking status, four were entered into the analysis (the Habit, Addiction, Relaxation, and Negative Affect Reduction RFS sUbscales), but the accuracy of the resulting prediction increased only slightly to 84.6%. DISCUSSION
The results of the present study offer rather meager support for the validity of the RFS. This outcome is especially noteworthy since the self-monitoring of reasons for smoking would appear to be such an obvious correlate of the reasons for smoking descriptions contained in the RFS. As Leventhal and Avis (1976) note, the RFS is worded to reflect smoker's experience while smoking. The question addressed in this study is whether smokers would describe their experience the same way when asked to do so retrospectively (on the RFS) and contemporaneously (when self-monitOring). The answer appears to be "no" with the possible exception of the negative affect reduction and manipulation subscales. Even in the case of these two subscales, the moderate size of the validity coefficients suggests that predictions of smoking behavior made on the basis of scores on these subscales would be rather tenuous. Recall that the RFS was given prior to subjects' self-monitoring. This should have sensitized subjects to their expressed reasons for smoking. Consistency tendencies might have been expected to constitute a bias toward association between RFS scores and self-monitoring. This might have been aided by the transparent relation between RFS items and self-monitoring codes. The low correlations obtained are thereby even more striking. While some support has been found for the validity of several of the RFS subscales (Ikard & Tomkins, 1976; Leventhal & Avis, 1976) the evidence has been based on contrived manipulations in the laboratory. It is possible that some of the relationships found were due to subjects mling out the RFS and then responding to experimental conditions (e.g., induction of fear) to keep their smoking behavior consistent with their RFS responses. A second problem with creating certain conditions in the laboratory to test the validity of the RFS is that the results may not be generalizable to people's motives for smoking in the natural environment. The self-monitoring of reasons for smoking was found to be nonreactive in terms of smoking frequency, corroborating Leventhal's and Avis' (1976) results. While only the manipulation subscale from the self-monitoring data predicted abstinence at three months, both the RFS and self-monitoring of reasons for smoking should be evaluated as predictors of cessation in studies using other interventions. Acknowledgement- This research was supported by Grant No. HL22472 from the Lung Division of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Validity of RFS scale
45
REFERENCE NOTE 1. Lowe, M.R., Fisher, E.B., Jr., Green, L., Kurtz, S. & Ashenberg, Z. Self-control with and without covert sensitization in smoking cessation. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York, September, 1979.
REFERENCES Epstein, L.H. & Collins, F.L. The measurement of situational influences of smoking. Addictive Behaviors, 1977,2,47-53. Horn, D. & Waingrow, S. Behavior & Attitudes. Questionnaire, April, 1966. Ikard, F.F., Green, D. & Horn, D. A scale to differentiate between types of smoking as related to the management of affect. International Journal of Addictions, 1969, 4, 649-659. Ikard, F.F. & Tomkins, S. The experience of affect as a determinant of smoking behavior: A series of validity studies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973,81, 172-181. Leventhal, H. & Avis, N. Pleasure, addiction, and habit: factors in verbal report or factors in smoking behavior? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976,85,478-488. McFall, R.M. & Hammen, c.L. Motivation, structure and self-monitoring: Role of nonspecific factors in smoking reduction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 1971, 37, 80-86. Tomkins, S. Psychological model for smoking behavior. American Journal of Public Health, 1966, 56 , 17-20. Tomkins, S. A modified model of smoking behavior. In E.F. Borgatta & R.R. Evans (Eds.). Smoking, Health and Behavior. Chicago: Aldine, 1968.