X hits on this document

34 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

4 / 7

S.R. Battista et al. / Addictive Behaviors 33 (2008) 14021408

1405

1.3. Procedure

Individuals were rst notied of the study during an initial information session regarding a tobacco intervention program that was being provided by their employer. The intervention was offered to all employees who were considering smoking cessation at a time when the organization was adopting a smoke-freepolicy. All those enrolled in the program were invited to take part in the study. During the rst session of the group program, participants completed an informed consent procedure and then completed the study measures. Participants received a $10 gift certicate as compensation.

  • 2.

    Results

    • 2.1.

      Factor analysis of RFS

A PCA was conducted to examine the factor structure of the RFS items. Due to previous research indicating that RFS factors are inter-correlated (Ikard et al., 1969), an oblique rotation (i.e., Oblimin) was performed to permit inter-correlations among factors. As solutions derived using Kaiser's (1960) eigenvalues N1 criterion can result in factor over-extraction (Hubbard & Allen, 1987), a more stringent criterion, namely parallel analysis, was used to determine the number of factors to be retained in the present study. The parallel analysis was conducted twice: once using the mean eigenvalues and once using the 95th percentile eigenvalues (see Longman et al., 1989).

Parallel analyses using mean and using 95th percentile eigenvalues both supported a 2-factor solution. Table 1 depicts the rotated factor loadings for the 2-factor solution, the corresponding RFS item, communality value, and the original intended subscale for each item (Ikard et al., 1969). The 2-factor solution accounted for 41.8% of the variance in RFS item scores. The communality values indicated that the two factors accounted for 13% to 62% of the variance in RFS item scores. The 2-factor solution had good simple structure (Thurstone, 1947).

Factor 1 included items from four of the original RFS scales (Ikard et al., 1969): negative affect reduction, addiction, habitual, and sensorimotor manipulation. Given the strong loadings from negative affect reduction and addiction items, Factor 1 was labeled negative reinforcement motives. Factor 2 included items from the other two original RFS scales (Ikard et al., 1969), pleasurable relaxation and stimulation, and was thus labeled positive reinforcement motives. The two factors were moderately inter- correlated, r=.36, pb.001.

2.2. Relationship between anxiety sensitivity and smoking motives

Table 2 summarizes the bivariate correlations between total ASI scores and each of the three ASI subscales with both the negative reinforcement factor (NRF) scores and positive reinforcement factor (PRF) scores that were obtained from the PCA described above.

Table 1 Principal components analysis on the Reasons For Smoking (RFS) scale: obliquely rotated factor loadings (pattern matrix) for the two extracted factors and communality values for each scale item

8. I smoke cigarettes automatically without even being aware of it (habit) 2. I've found a cigarette in my mouth and didn't remember putting it there (habit) 15. I light up a cigarette without realizing I still have one burning in the ashtray (habit) 20. I smoke cigarettes just from habit, without even really wanting the one I'm smoking (habit) 22. I do not feel contented for long unless I am smoking a cigarette (addiction) 3. When I'm trying to solve a problem, I light up a cigarette (negative affect reduction) 11. When I feel uncomfortable or upset about something, I light up a cigarette (negative affect reduction) 17. When I feel ashamed or embarrassed about something, I light up a cigarette (negative affect reduction) 19. Few things help better than cigarettes when I'm feeling upset (negative affect reduction) 18. When I have run out of cigarettes, I nd it almost unbearable until I get them (addiction) 14. I light up a cigarette when I feel angry about something (negative affect reduction) 10. I get a real gnawing hunger for a cigarette when I haven't smoked in a while (addiction) 13. Between cigarettes, I get a craving that only a cigarette can satisfy (addiction) 12. Handling a cigarette is part of the enjoyment of smoking it (sensorimotor manipulation) 6. Part of the enjoyment of smoking comes from the steps I take to light up (sensorimotor manipulation)

.80.76.65.65.63.62.60.59.59.57.56.54.53.38.35

7. When I feel blueor want to take my mind off cares and worries, I smoke cigarettes (negative affect reduction) 5. I am very much aware of the fact that I am not smoking a cigarette (addiction) 4. When I smoke a cigarette, part of the enjoyment is watching the smoke as I exhale it (sensorimotor manipulation)

.34.33.17

21. Smoking cigarettes is pleasant and relaxing (pleasurable relaxation) 16. I nd cigarettes pleasurable (pleasurable relaxation) 1. I smoke cigarettes to stimulate me, to perk myself up (stimulation) 23. I smoke cigarettes to give me a lift(stimulation) 9. I smoke cigarettes in order to keep myself from slowing down (stimulation)

.00 .00 .00 .19 .34

.20

.56

.28

.50

.00

.39

.35

.38

.13

.48

.00

.43

.12

.43

.21

.49

.00

.39

.26

.50

.17

.41

.32

.53

.24

.43

.30

.32

.19

.20

.45

.43

.14

.16

.27

.13

.81

.62

.73

.49

.64

.47

.62

.51

.42

.39

Item (original RFS scale)

Extracted communalities

Factor

1

2

Notes: salient loadings (N.30) indicated with an asterisk (). Factor one accounted for 33.1% of the variance in smoking motives and Factor the variance in smoking motives, prior to rotation.

two accounted for 8.7% of

Document info
Document views34
Page views34
Page last viewedThu Dec 08 05:03:35 UTC 2016
Pages7
Paragraphs225
Words6515

Comments