Evaluating Social-Cognitive Mechanisms That Regulate Self-Efficacy in Response to Provocative Smoking Cues

An Experimental Investigation

Published in: Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, v. 20, no. 1, Mar. 2006, p. 91-96

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 2006

by William G. Shadel, Daniel Cervone

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.apa.org

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Smokers' self-efficacy appraisals strongly predict smoking outcomes. However, the cognitive structures that regulate smokers' self-efficacy appraisals have not yet been identified. Knowledge of such structures could assist in designing treatments that target self-efficacy appraisals to improve smoking outcomes. This study evaluated whether 2 abstinence-related self-schemas, the abstainer ideal- and abstainer ought-possible selves, regulated self-efficacy to resist smoking when smokers were exposed to provocative smoking cues. Craving responses to the cues were a secondary outcome. Cognitively priming both of these abstainer selves increased self-efficacy and decreased craving compared with when a smoking-related self-schema was cognitively primed under the same provocative cue conditions. Higher levels of self-efficacy were consistently associated with decreased craving. These results have both theoretical and clinical implications for smoking cessation.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.