The impact of social norm change strategies on smokers' quitting behaviours

Objective Using a social norm change paradigm model that reflects the California Tobacco Control Program's (CTCP) priorities, we compare the strength of the relationship of the social norm constructs to key smoking behavioural outcomes. Methods Social norm constructs that correspond to CTCP's priority areas were created from selected California Adult Tobacco Survey knowledge, attitude and belief questions using confirmatory factor analysis. We then examined the relationship between these constructs and quitting behaviours using logistic regression. Results The secondhand smoke (SHS) and countering pro-tobacco influences'(CPTI) constructs followed a dose-response curve with quitting behaviours. Respondents who rated high on the SHS construct were about 70% more likely to have made a recent quit attempt in the last 12 months and about 100% more likely to intend to quit in the next 6 months than respondents who rated low on the SHS construct. For CPTI, respondents who rated high on this construct were 67% more likely to have made a recent quit attempt in the last 12 months and 62% more likely to have intentions to quit in the next 6 months than respondents who rated low on the CPTI construct. Conclusion Social norm change constructs represent CTCP's priorities and are strongly related to desired individual behaviour outcomes. This analysis provides strong support for the framework underlying CTCP—namely, that changing social norms affects behaviour change at the individual level through changing population-level smoking-related behaviours.

[1]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[2]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[3]  E. Trapido,et al.  Assessing the reliability and validity of anti-tobacco attitudes/beliefs in the context of a campaign strategy. , 2004, Preventive medicine.

[4]  D. Stokols Translating Social Ecological Theory into Guidelines for Community Health Promotion , 1996, American journal of health promotion : AJHP.

[5]  R. Brownson,et al.  Environmental and Policy Interventions to Control Tobacco Use and Prevent Cardiovascular Disease , 1995, Health education quarterly.

[6]  E. Trapido,et al.  Evidence of the dose effects of an antitobacco counteradvertising campaign. , 2002, Preventive medicine.

[7]  D. Cowling,et al.  Changes of knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and preference of bar owner and staff in response to a smoke-free bar law , 2004, Tobacco Control.

[8]  G. Starr,et al.  Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs, August 1999 , 1999 .

[9]  Declines in lung cancer rates--California, 1988-1997. , 2000, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

[10]  S. Glantz,et al.  Association of the California Tobacco Control Program with declines in cigarette consumption and mortality from heart disease. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  S Chapman,et al.  Tobacco Control , 1992, Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London.

[12]  W. Scott Dictionary of sociology , 2005 .

[13]  A. Roeseler,et al.  California as a model. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  S. Price,et al.  Evaluating the truth® Brand , 2005, Journal of health communication.

[15]  T. Hu,et al.  Reducing cigarette consumption in California: tobacco taxes vs an anti-smoking media campaign. , 1995, American journal of public health.

[16]  E. Gilpin,et al.  Has the California tobacco control program reduced smoking? , 1998, JAMA.

[17]  J. Stoker,et al.  The Department of Health and Human Services. , 1999, Home healthcare nurse.

[18]  N. Jamison,et al.  Key outcome indicators for evaluating comprehensive tobacco control programs , 2005 .

[19]  K. Glanz,et al.  An Ecological Perspective on Health Promotion Programs , 1988, Health education quarterly.