| Literature DB >> 29202053 |
Yunan Xu1, Xinguang Chen1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is one of the greatest public health problems worldwide and the hazards of cigarette smoking to public health call for better recognition of cigarette smoking behaviors to guide evidence-based policy. Protection motivation theory (PMT) provides a conceptual framework to investigate tobacco use. Evidence from diverse sources implies that the dynamics of smoking behavior may be quantum in nature, consisting of an intuition and an analytical process, challenging the traditional linear continuous analytical approach. In this study, we used cusp catastrophe, a nonlinear analytical approach to test the dual-process hypothesis of cigarette smoking.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescents; Cigarette smoking; Cusp catastrophe modeling; Quantum change
Year: 2016 PMID: 29202053 PMCID: PMC5675066 DOI: 10.1186/s41256-016-0004-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Health Res Policy ISSN: 2397-0642
Fig. 1Two systems of the dual process theory. Behaviors are governed by two systems of cognitions, a nonlinear and discrete process and a linear and continuous process. System 1 works quick, for repeated daily events and emergency, less cognitive demanding while system 2 performs more slowly with a sequential thinking guided by logic and evidence
Fig. 2Proposed Cusp Model for Adolescent Cigarette Smoking. This figure presents the dynamic change among three variables along with the equilibrium plane of a cusp model. The argument x as asymmetry or normal control factor decides that the z changes asymmetrically from one mode to the other mode with x increases. The argument y as the bifurcation or splitting control factor causes the z to split and bifurcate from smooth changes to sudden jumps with y increases. When y is in any situation where y < O, there is a continuous and approximately linear relation between the asymmetry variable x and outcome z (see path A in Fig. 2). However, when the bifurcation variable y is sufficiently large to pass O, change in outcome z will be no longer continuous. Path B shows that when x increases to pass an ascending threshold line O-Q, z will suddenly leap from the lower stable region to upper stable region; Path C shows a sudden drop in outcome z as x decreases to reach and pass the descending threshold line O-R. In this study, x = Threat Appraisal, y = Copping Appraisal, and z = Cigarette Smoking
Promotive motivation theory scale for adolescent smoking
| Threat appraisal | |
| Perceived Threat | Severity |
| 1 The earlier a person starts smoking, the greater the harm | |
| 2 More smokers get sickness than nonsmokers | |
| 3 Smokers died earlier than nonsmokers | |
| Vulnerability | |
| 4 I would become addicted if I smoke | |
| 5 I would get sick if I smoke | |
| 6 If I smoke, I may die earlier | |
| Perceived Rewards | Extrinsic Rewards |
| 7 Smokers look cool and fashionable | |
| 8 Smoking is good for social networking | |
| 9 The life of a smoker is happier than a nonsmoker | |
| Intrinsic Rewards | |
| 10 Smoking makes people feel comfortable | |
| 11 Smoking helps people concentrate | |
| 12 Smoking enhances brainwork | |
| Copping appraisal | |
| Perceived Efficacy | Response Efficacy |
| 13 People will feel good by not smoking | |
| 14 People will be less likely to get disease if they do not smoke | |
| 15 Quitting smoking is good for disease recovery | |
| Self-Efficacy | |
| 16 No one could persuade me if I do not want to smoke | |
| 17 Even if all who are around me smoke, that does not mean I must smoke | |
| 18 I can refuse even if a relative or friend asks me to smoke | |
| Perceived Cost | Response Cost |
| 19 A person may be isolated if he or she does not smoke | |
| 20 Refusing a cigarette offer is very impolite | |
| 21 One will miss the enjoyment if he or she does not smoke | |
Cusp catastrophe modeling of reported days of smoking during the 30-day period prior to the survey, including the survey day
| Model variables | Asymmetry | Bifurcation | Days smoked |
|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated parameter | |||
| Intercept |
|
|
|
| Threat appraisal |
|
|
|
| Coping appraisal |
|
| |
| Model fit | Cusp | Logistic | Linear |
|
| 736 | 1318 | 1332 |
|
| 770 | 1348 | 1349 |
|
| 0.81 | 0.07 | 0.04 |
| Estimated parameter | |||
| Intercept |
|
|
|
| Threat appraisal |
|
|
|
| Coping appraisal |
|
| |
| Gender (if female) |
| ||
| Grade |
| ||
| Model fit | Cusp | Logistic | Linear |
|
| 622 | 1208 | 1233 |
|
| 665 | 1246 | 1258 |
|
| 0.82 | 0.25 | 0.21 |
Note:
*p < 0.05
**p < 0.001