S.R. Battista et al. / Addictive Behaviors 33 (2008) 1402–1408
Table 2 Bivariate and partial correlations among anxiety sensitivity scales,
negative reinforcement smoking motives, and positive reinforcement smoking motives
Mean (SD) range
ASI — total score
ASI — physical concerns
ASI — psychological concerns
ASI — social concerns
Negative reinforcement motives-factor scores
Positive reinforcement motives-factor scores
– .937** .847** .567**
.416** (.352)** .275** (.147)
– .143 (.150) .007 (.049)
Notes. *pb.05, **pb.01; partial correlation coefcients are shown in the effect of the other smoking motives factor).
parentheses (i.e., correlation of AS scale score with given smoking motive factor, controlling for
The expected signicant positive relationship was found between total ASI and NRF scores. Similarly, a signicant positive relationship was found between both AS physical concerns, and AS psychological concerns, with NRF scores. No relationship was found between AS social concerns and NRF scores. Unexpectedly, a signicant positive relationship was found between total ASI and PRF scores, and between both AS physical and psychological concerns, with PRF scores. No relationship was found between AS social concerns and PRF scores. A series of t-tests for dependent correlations using William's formula (Steiger, 1980) was conducted to determine if any of the ASI subscales were more strongly related than the others to NRF or PRF scores. Both AS physical, t(116)=2.42, pb.05 and AS psychological concerns, t(116)=13.02, pb.01, were more strongly correlated than AS social concerns with NRF scores. Similarly, both AS physical, t(116)=2.19, pb.05, and AS psychological concerns, t(116)=3.97, pb.01, were more strongly correlated than AS social concerns with PRF scores. However, the correlation between AS physical concerns and NRF scores did not differ signicantly from the correlation between AS psychological concerns and NRF scores. Similarly, the correlation between AS physical concerns and PRF scores did not differ signicantly from the correlation between AS psychological concerns and PRF scores. Further t-tests for dependent correlations were then conducted to investigate if NRF scores were more strongly related than PRF scores to any of the ASI scales. No differences were found between the correlation of the ASI total with NRF scores and the correlation of the ASI total with PRF scores, or between the correlation of AS psychological concerns with NRF scores and the correlation of AS psychological concerns with PRF scores. However, when comparing the correlation between AS physical concerns and NRF scores to that between ASI physical concerns and PRF scores, the relation with NRF scores proved stronger, t(116)=5.79, pb.01.
Due to the earlier reported inter-correlation between the NRF and the PRF scores that emerged in the PCA of the RFS, partial correlations were conducted to examine the specicity of the relation of AS to NRF scores (see Table 2). First, the partial correlation between total ASI and NRF scores remained signicant, when controlling for PRF scores. Similarly, the partial correlation between AS psychological concerns and NRF scores remained signicant, when controlling for PRF scores. Finally, the partial correlation between AS physical concerns and NRF scores remained signicant, when controlling for PRF scores. Conversely, when examining the partial correlations between the various ASI scales with PRF scores when controlling NRF scores, only AS psychological concerns continued to have a signicant relation with PRF scores.
The primary goal of this study was to further examine the relationship between AS and smoking motives by examining the specicity of the relationship between AS and negative reinforcement smoking motives. As a rst step in achieving this goal, we investigated the factor structure of the RFS using PCA to determine if the measure tapped higher-order dimensions of positive and negative reinforcement motives. We used a more stringent factor extraction rule (parallel analysis) to extract a smaller number of factors than the six or seven factors previously found in many studies using more liberal factor extraction rules (e.g., Russell et al.,1974; Tate et al., 1994). An interpretable 2-factor solution was supported. An examination of item loadings indicated that the rst factor described “negative reinforcement smoking motives” and contained salient loadings from 18 items that related to using cigarettes as a means of coping with negative affect and avoiding withdrawal. However, this factor was slightly broader than simply negative reinforcement in that it included loadings from items tapping into automatic/habitual cigarette use and sensorimotor manipulation motives. The second factor described “positive reinforcement smoking motives” and contained salient loadings from eight items that described smoking for stimulation and for emotional pleasure. The observed 2-factor conceptualization is thus partially consistent with the ndings of Pomerleau et al. (2003) who obtained a 3-factor solution using EFA. The third factor found by Pomerleau et al. (2003) described automaticity/smoking patterns. This was not found in the current study as RFS items related to automatic/habitual motives for smoking loaded onto our negative reinforcement factor, and since items on smoking patterns are not included in the RFS.
Given our support for the hypothesized higher-order structure of the RFS, we were able to examine relations of each higher- order smoking motives factor to AS. Regarding relations of smoking motives to ASI total scores, the current ndings were largely consistent with theoretical predictions (Zvolensky et al., 2003) and with previous ndings linking AS with smoking to reduce negative affect and to relieve withdrawal states (e.g., Leyro et al., 2008). The fact that previous research has shown AS to be related also to smoking for habit reasons (Leyro et al., 2008) can now be better understood from the current factor analytic results since habitual motives seem to be part of the higher-order negative reinforcement smoking motives factor along with negative affect reduction and withdrawal relief reasons.