cigarette play

7/27/2019 Cigarette Play

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cigarette-play 1/19

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Smoking in the lived world: How young peoplemake sense of the social role cigarettes playin their lives

Gary Fry1*, Sarah Grogan2, Brendan Gough1 and Mark Conner1

1Institute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK2Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK

This qualitative study explored how young people (16- to 24-year olds), both smokers

and non-smokers, talk about the social role of smoking in their everyday lives. In 22

focus group interviews, 47 high school children and 40 university undergraduates

participated. On the basis of analyses, it is proposed that the perceived need to smoke

cannot be reduced to addiction; cigarettes appear to play a complex social role in young

people’s lives. In order to resist smoking, participants highlighted the need to provide an

excuse to peers, and some reasons (e.g. an interest in sport for boys) were considered

more legitimate than others. Cigarettes (certain brands) were also claimed to be used

as a way of controlling other people’s perception of smokers, and also to serve as a

social tool (for instance, to fill in awkward gaps in conversation). Additionally, smoking

was argued to be subject to context (e.g. some schools possess a pro-smoking ethic,

while others and universities are anti-smoking). Finally, it was claimed that stopping

smoking is difficult since all of the foregoing social factors cannot easily be avoided. The

findings of this study compliment and enrich existing social psychological approaches to

smoking in young people, and lay the basis for anti-smoking campaigns which take into

account the complex social role cigarettes play in the lives of young people.

The health consequences of smoking are well documented. Additionally, the earlier anindividual starts smoking, the greater the risk of lung cancer (Doll & Peto, 1981). Youngsmokers also have more respiratory infections, more coughs, more stress on their hearts, are less fit, have a higher risk of strokes, and the younger they are when they startsmoking the younger they are in developing heart disease (Department of Health, 2005).

Previous research with adolescent participants has identified a number of factorsassociated with smoking, including self-efficacy (Conrad, Flay, & Hill, 1992; Ogden& Nicoll, 1997; Stacy, Sussman, Dent, Burton, & Flay, 1992), attitudes (Goddard, 1990),intentions (Norman & Tedeschi, 1989), self-esteem (Pfau & Van Bockern, 1994),and subjective norms (Aloise-Young, Graham, & Hansen, 1994). Other research has

* Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Gary Fry, School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds, Leeds, WestYorkshire LS2 9JT, UK (e-mail: [email protected]).

The

British

Psychological

Society

763

British Journal of Social Psychology (2008), 47, 763–780

q 2008 The British Psychological Society

www.bpsjournals.co.uk




particularly identified behavioural risk factors (Kremers, Mudde, & De Vries, 2004) andsocio-demographic risk factors such as parental, sibling, and peer smoking (Ogden& Nicoll, 1997), being a girl (Goddard,1992),socio-economic status(Conrad etal., 1992),parental attitudes (MacDonald & Wright, 2002), quality of significant relationships (vanden Bree, Whitmer, & Pickworth, 2004), media influence (McCool et al., 2003), schoolculture (Aveyard, Markham, & Cheng, 2003), concerns about weight (Potter, Pederson,Chan, Aubut, & Koval, 2004), and mood ( Whalen, Jamner, Henker, & Delfino, 2001).

Much recent research on smoking has employed the theory of planned behaviour

(TPB – Ajzen, 1991) as a heuristic with which to understand adolescents’ motivations for taking up or resisting smoking. The TPB is an extension of the theory of reasoned action(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), which suggests that the proximal determinants of behaviour are intentions to engage in the behaviour and perceived behavioural control over thebehaviour. Intentions are determined by attitudes (what one thinks about a behaviour),subjective norms (what significant others would think about the behaviour), andperceived behavioural control.

In smoking research with adolescents, the TPB has shown that intentions to smoke were most consistently predicted by attitudes and perceived behavioural control(McMillan, Conner, & Higgins, 2005). Smokers are significantly more likely than non-smokers to endorse positive smoking-related beliefs at all ages (11–18 years of age), inaddition to being less likely to agree with negative beliefs (Conner, Sandberg, McMillan, & Higgins, 2006). Smokers were also significantly more likely than non-smokers to perceive

support from significant others for their smoking. These findings differed, however,according to gender. For girls, social influence was the most salient factor in determining who took up smoking, endorsing work by Saronson, Mankowski, Peterson, and Dinh (1992). This research supports suggestions that girls may be more likely to conceptualizesmoking as ‘cool’ (Shadel, Niaura, & Abrams, 2004), and to initiate smoking to gainindicators of power and status in school (see Plumridge, Fitzgerald, & Abel, 2002).

In-depth qualitative work has also led to the suggestion that young people start

smoking because they wish to look ‘cool’ within the context of their peer groups. Many qualitative studies have shown that smoking is taken up by young people principally as amethod by which they might integrate themselves within existing communities atschool and in their neighbourhoods ( Frohlich, Potvin, Chabot, & Corin, 2002;Plumridge et al., 2002; Rugkasa et al., 2001).

Young people claim that although adults smoke because they are addicted and

cannot control smoking, they themselves are more likely to smoke for social reasons(Rugkasa et al., 2001). Social identity theory (SIT) has been employed as a heuristic with which to make sense of these findings. Stewart-Knox etal . (2005) argue that adolescentsmay not believe that the decision to start smoking is born of direct persuasion; rather, young smokers suggest that they are striving to conform to the normative behaviours of peer groups with which they identify. Smoking therefore provides a means by which similarity within groups, and differences between groups, might be managed in order toestablish a collective social identity. SIT suggests that individual smokers feel affiliated topeer groups, and define themselves as set against non-smoking groups or other smokinggroups (Stewart-Knox et al., 2005).

As stated above, patterns of smoking do differ between males and females. Although boys tend to start smoking at a younger age than girls (Owen & Bolling, 1995)and smoke more cigarettes (Goddard & Higgins, 1999), girls are less likely to be

successful when trying to give up smoking (Muffat & Johnson, 2001). Indeed, atthe age of 16, rates of smoking in girls are considerably higher than those in boys(Conner et al., 2006).

764 Gary Fry et al.




One reason for this gender difference might be the fact that girls have fewer opportunities than boys to develop alternative ‘cool’ identities. Plumridge et al. (2002)

claim that while boys might practice sport and therefore smoke less (since tobaccoinhibits performance), girls tend to focus on ‘decoration’ (for instance, fashion) as a way of managing self-presentation, and this includes smoking cigarettes.

The importance of developing a ‘cool’ identity has been highlighted by many qualitative studies of smoking in young people. Nevertheless, young people perceive thatthere are other social factors involved. For instance, Johnson, Boles, Vaughan, and Kleber

(2000) show that smoking in young people is related to drinking alcohol, and that heavy drinkers are more likely to smoke. Aveyard et al. (2003) claim that an institution’s ‘ethos’(for instance, a school in which smoking is prevalent) has an impact on smoking patternsof young people. Bancroft, Wiltshire, Amos, and Parry (2002) argue that smoking is

related to daily routines, such as occupying restrictive areas and smoking at set times of the day. And Collins, Maguire, and O’Dell (2002) claim that cigarettes are used as a ‘socialtool’, the better to facilitate the interrelations enjoyed by young people on a daily basis.

Smoking is therefore perceived by young people to be a complex phenomenon,involving many factors. One problem with many existing approaches to understandingsmoking in adolescents may be the theory-driven nature of the approaches (e.g. TPB andSIT); these approaches certainly illuminate significant aspects of smoking inadolescents, yet their methodological approach, which predetermines which factorsare salient, may preclude the emergence of other significant factors.

One alternative to theory-driven approaches is to adopt a phenomenologically oriented methodological approach. Phenomenological approaches concern themselves with the ‘lived world’ of individuals and the meaning they ascribe to their behaviours

(Moran, 2000). Participants in a phenomenologically oriented study are encouraged todefine their own understanding of an experience.

This phenomenological focus on the role of smoking in young people’s lives is usefulin terms of developing successful anti-smoking campaigns. Rather than looking for only causal factors or overarching social processes which predispose young people tosmoking, phenomenological approaches illuminate the meaning that young peopleascribe to their smoking habits; they also allow for the complex nuances of everyday lifeto be detailed. Therefore, if young people’s perceptions of the role of smoking in their lives can be changed, then smoking cessation may be more likely. In order to make

recommendations for such change, it is important first to understand what youngpeople believe the factors involved in this role are.

What we wished to do in this study was to explore the reasons why smoking andnon-smoking individuals (16 to 24-year olds) believe young people smoke. We wanted tofocus particularly on how and why they believe they start, why they believe they continue to smoke, and the problems they perceive in stopping smoking. By focusingexclusively on the many varying components of smoking as perceived by youngsmokers themselves, we hoped to make an original contribution to the literature onsmoking in young people.

The study was a unique opportunity to investigate the views of young men and young women, smokers and non-smokers, as well as high school pupils and university students. One of the motivations behind this was to understand how anti-smokingcampaigns might be more effectively targeted. Certain ways of talking about smoking

may differ significantly between groups varying in age, gender, smoking status, andsocial location, and it is essential to develop intervention strategies tailored for specifictarget groups which take these differences into account.

Social role of smoking in everyday lives 765




Method

Design

This study employed a focus group methodology, and a ‘framework’ analysis based onthe guidelines detailed in Krueger (1994). The underlying assumption of the study wasfundamentally phenomenological – that is, we took seriously individuals’ accounts of their lived experience, the meaning they ascribe to their everyday lives. Individual

factors (e.g. smoking as a method of establishing a desired identity, smoking as a socialtool, etc.) should not separated from all others, and the material that emerges takes the

form of a complex, non-divisible understanding of any particular phenomenon asperceived ‘through the eyes’ of participants.

The focus group design involved between three and seven participants in each group. Focus group interviews allow people to articulate their understanding of anexperience in an informal manner, interacting with peers to reach appropriateconclusions (see Heary & Hennessey, 2002). We believed that simulated peer groups would allow our young participants to elucidate their thoughts about smoking in a

natural group setting. This is an effective way for individuals to articulate their ownunderstanding of their experience.

The interview schedule was designed on the basis of a literature review on smokingin young people. Many factors were included and grouped under the headings: routes tosmoking; reasons for smoking; health issues; appearance issues; and stopping smoking.However, the interview schedule was sufficiently flexible to allow participants togenerate their own understandings. This approach produced a great deal of material,allowing participants to explore in detail what smoking meant to them.

Sample

Ethical approval for this study was obtained through the University Ethics Committee.

The sample in this study included 87 males and females, aged between 16 and 24 years,both smokers and non-smokers, from high schools and a university in Yorkshire. Thisnumber of participants is usual in qualitative research; the potential limitations in

relation to generalizability associated with relatively small samples are balanced by thedepth of material elicited. Table 1 shows the distribution of the sample.

The high school pupils were recruited by contacting relevant members of high school staff, while the university undergraduates were enlisted by e-mail and flyers oncampus. All participants were paid £10 for participation. Informed consent wasobtained from each participant prior to the interviews. The focus group interviews took place, respectively in the high schools and in the Psychology department of theUniversity, and were facilitated by the first author.

Table 1. Smoking status of participants by gender and academic institution.

SourceHigh school pupils University undergraduates

Smoking status Smokers Non-smokers Smokers Non-smokers

Male 16 6 12 5

Female 17 8 15 8

766 Gary Fry et al.




We tried to vary the composition of the groups, including all smokers groups, all non-smokers, all male, all female, and variations of these dimensions. Table 2 table shows

how the groups were composed.

The sessions began with the interviewer revealing that he was a smoker; this wasdone for the purposes of providing background to the study (the impact that this may have had on the dynamics of the interviews will be discussed below). Participants werethen given a number of prompts about their views on smoking, such as ‘Please tell me

why you believe you started smoking/resisted smoking : : : ’ and ‘Please tell me what role you believe smoking/not smoking plays in your life

: : :

’ Participants were encouragedto discuss these views among themselves, with minimal input from the facilitator.The interviews each lasted around an hour and were then transcribed verbatim.

Analysis

Framework analysis (Krueger, 1994) involves extracting quotations relevant to theresearch topic; checking for contextual elements and internal consistency; addressingthe frequency, extensiveness, specificity, and intensity of comments; identifying ‘bigideas’; and finally arranging this material in terms of emerging themes. This approach allows the researcher to maintain the phenomenological focus on meaning ininterviews (represented here by themes) while being sensitive to the interactional

nature of focus group interviews.The original analyses carried out by the first author were verified by the co-authorsinvolved in the project. In total, 11 themes captured the great majority of the data.

Table 2. Composition of focus groups by gender, academic institution and smoking status.

Interview Composition

1 All female, university, smokers, and non-smokers

2 All female, university, non-smokers

3 All male, university, smoker, and non-smokers

4 Male and female, university, smokers

5 All male, university, smokers, and non-smokers


7 All male, university, non-smokers

8 All female, school, smokers

9 All female, school, smokers, and non-smokers

10 All female, university, non-smokers

11 All female, school, smokers

12 All male, school, smokers

13 All female, university, smokers

14 All female, school, non-smokers

15 All male, school, non-smokers

16 All male, school, smokers


18 All female, university, smokers


20 Male and female, school, non-smokers

21 Male and female, school, smokers

22 Male and female, school, smokers





An analysis of the interrelations of these themes allowed us to generate a psychologicalunderstanding of smoking in young people.

We were particularly mindful of the differences between male and female accountsof smoking, and also those between smokers and non-smokers, as well as those betweenhigh school pupils and university undergraduates. This attempt to ‘maximize variation’ was intended to provide us with a range of perspectives on the social role of smoking for young people.

Reflection on the principal researcher’s role Any study which adopts a phenomenological approach should include personal detailsabout the researcher. The first author of the present paper both facilitated theinterviews and carried out the analysis. He was 34 years old at the time, a casual smoker,

and interested in applications of phenomenological ideas to social psychology.Nevertheless, as he conducted the research, he strove to set aside any pre-existingassumptions about the issue of smoking in young people.

Although revealing that he was a smoker may have made it less likely thatparticipants with strong anti-smoking views would have expressed these in fear of offending him, the decision was made to reveal this information for the purposes of encouraging disclosure, especially of smokers. It was hoped that revealing this personalinformation would enable participants who smoked to feel comfortable discussing their smoking experiences, while the fact that he smoked only casually might not perturb

non-smokers from saying what they genuinely believed.

Results

Although many themes were generated by the data collection and analysis stages, we

have chosen to focus on those aspects which relate directly to the social role smokingplays in young people’s lives because we feel that this approach is fruitful in allowing young people to directly modify their smoking habits. The following six issues werederived from elements present in all 11 emergent phenomenological themes.

Starting smoking and gendered social identity

There are many reasons why young people believe they start smoking. The smokers inour sample frequently cited being bored or curious. Indeed, the notion of peer pressure was rejected as a significant factor in their smoking behaviour. Although young peoplein our sample admitted that peers can be a significant influence in their decision to try smoking, they also claimed that it is a choice they make:

MELANIE: Well I have tried smoking before but I wasn’t – that was just my choice, I wasn’t

thinking, ‘All my friends are doing it so I should.’ That was just – I was about sixteen and I thought,

‘Well I might as well try one time.’ (female, school, smoker).

This emphasis on choice over compliance may well reflect the privilege in westernculture of agency over group conformity. Nevertheless, male and female non-smokersfrom both schools and university claimed that smokers have either weak personalities or big egos; in the former case, they conform to the group, and in the latter, they tend to be

the leaders of groups.The notion of choice, however, is complicated by the fact that the decision to startsmoking may be linked to social context. For instance, a number of our male

768 Gary Fry et al.




participants argued that young women are subject to more pressure than young men,since young women:

KEVIN: : : : tend to have these, like, little, really small friendship groups, if they, if one of them

suddenly stopped smoking, they would be out of that little sort of group, and then I think there’d

be more concern about the social reprisals [sic] of being rejected out of that group more than,

like, guys would, because there’s, girls tend to more sort of like typically bitchy or whatever.

DUNCAN: Yeah, like guys would consider stopping smoking for health reasons, but girls would

consider, oh, how would, would I still have friends intact?INTERVIEWER: Ah, right, I get you. [To Luke] Is that, do you think that’s true?

LUKE: Yeah. I agree with that.

INTERVIEWER: Yeah, yeah. So for girls, their social support network seems to be tighter than it

is for boys? Boys can – is it, is it that a boy –

DUNCAN: I think it relies on a fag, girls’ friendships relies on maybe that cigarette.

In other words, young women may be encouraged to smoke in order to fit in with established groups, and if they do not, they may be criticized by other young women. We are aware that this material may have been specific to the context of theseinterviews. The quotation above emerged during an all male discussion at university in which young men might be enhancing masculine identity (as rational, relaxed, etc.) by

pathologizing women. However, some young women in our sample agreed with thispoint, though others claimed that it is in fact young men who need to smoke in order to

‘look macho’ (female, school, smoker) and to avoid being teased by male peers.Therefore, the decision to start smoking is generally regarded by young people as a

choice which is subject to context. Additionally, young women, who are perceived topractice less sport than males (though by no means did this apply to all women in our sample), may have fewer social opportunities to develop a satisfactory identity. A number of both young men and young women from schools and the university in thepresent study agreed that this was the case. For instance, one of our female non-smokingschool pupils claimed that ‘boys can just drop their coats and play football anywhere,but girls can’t’.

Gendered identities in relation to sport were found to include a further dimension.

A number of our participants argued that while males will visit a gym and lift weights,enjoying ‘pumping [and] sweating’ (male, university, non-smoker), young womentended to go the gym and ‘look their best, [wearing] makeup and designer outfits’ (male,university, smoker). One of our male university smoking undergraduates claimed that young women believe they are ‘too posh to sweat’, and a number of our femaleparticipants agreed with this, though only with regard to other young women andnot themselves.

This issue was also related to gendered identities, in the sense that young womenclaimed to exercise invariably to lose weight (for instance, in order to get a ‘bikini body

for a holiday’ – female, university, smoker), whereas young men claimed to exercise tobuild muscle. It was suggested by several of our participants, both male and female, thata girl will not be attractive to a boy if she is muscular and sporty, whereas a boy will beattractive to a girl if he is. In short, it was claimed by both male and female participants

that young women tend to either to sit and chat while watching young men play sport(for instance, commenting on ‘their [attractive] legs’ – female, school, smoker) or willexercise with the potential scrutiny of males in mind. However, there were a number of





exceptions in the female university non-smoking undergraduates involved in theinterviews, who were interested in sport and who claimed to exercise for fitness and

personal enjoyment.

The use of excuses in resisting smoking

Another important issue relating to gender and smoking emerged from our interviews. Itconcerns young people’s use of excuses when offered a cigarette by peers. Some

excuses used to refuse smoking were regarded as ostensibly more legitimate thanothers, in the sense that peers advocating smoking tend to take them seriously as good

reasons not to smoke. For instance, one of our male university non-smokers claimed:

JAMES: Sport was good for you and smoking was bad – there didn’t seem to be any benefits of

smoking. But I think that it gave a lot of us a good excuse [not to smoke]. Maybe when we’re

talking about getting through the years, I think it gave a very good excuse and you could hold you

head up high when you used that excuse.

According to our participants, therefore, an interest in sport is respected as a reason notto smoke, since it is well known that smoking impacts upon physical performance. Thisrelates to the foregoing observation that young women practice less sport than youngmen, and in many cases they find it impossible to claim this as a legitimate excuse not tosmoke. In fact a young women’s excuses seem limited to claiming that she has ‘asthma’(female, school, non-smoker) or that a relative has died or has been seriously ill through smoking; it was claimed by many of our participants that although such recourse tohealth issues are generally accepted, not everyone is in this position.

In short, young menappear to have in sport not only an alternative wayof establishinga social identity, but also a way of refusing cigarettes which is respected by smokingpeers. Indeed, this can confer a benefit upon young men in relation to young women:

KEITH: Especially at that age when you’re going out to impress girls a lot of the time and if it’s a

fourteen year oldgirlaskinga fourteen year old lad ifhe wants a cigaretteand thelad says noand it’s

deemed ‘cos you’re sporty it almost looks good upon you [sic]. (male, university, non-smoker).

Many of our participants claimed that young women lack such recourse to an alternativeexcuse not to smoke which is respected by peers.

Smoking and the situationally variable management of social identity A cigarette may be used by many young people to manage their social identitiesaccording to the demands of the situation in which they find themselves. For instance,in the present study, a female smoking university undergraduate claimed that she feelsuncomfortable in a ‘male-dominated environment’ such as a pub, and that on such occasions she will smoke a cigarette in order not to look as if she has been ‘stood up’ ona date. Many other female participants reported similar experiences, though this way of managing one’s ongoing identity was not restricted to young women.

Both young men and young women claimed that even while waiting for a train or standing around in the street alone, they will invariably seek to ‘control’ other people’sattention by either smoking or doing something else. For instance, non-smokers fromboth schools and universities claimed that they would play with their mobile phones for the same reasons as those detailed above:

JAMES: People use mobile phones as soon as you get introduced to someone; you’re waiting

around, and you grab your mobile – if there’s a pause you grab the mobile: you know, if you’re

770 Gary Fry et al.




waiting for a train and you don’t smoke, so many people grab their phone. It’s just something to

do isn’t it? It’s like a tool.

INTERVIEWER: Why do people need a tool?

MIKE: Boredom I guess. You need something to do. It’s like there’s a vacuum all of a sudden that

needs to be filled.

JAMES: When you say ‘psychologically goes out for a cigarette’ I know a lot of people if their

phone is in their pocket and there’s a pause they grab for their phone. You know it’s almost like a

craving for something. If it was maybe say fifty years ago it might have been the Times Crosswordif you were stood at a train platform.

INTERVIEWER: Do you feel yourself doing anything?

RICHARD: Me, yeah, I can’t stand it when I have free time and don’t do anything so like you say I

just doing something with my mobile phone to pass some time. If I have my laptop I will use my

laptop. I think my friend in my accommodation I ask him, ‘Why do you smoke?’ he say, ‘Cos I don’t

know what shall I do?’ He just smokes.

(all male, university, non-smokers)

Similarly, young men might ‘crack [their] finger knuckles’ or ‘bite [their] nails’ (male,university, non-smoker), while young women might bite their nails or ‘fiddle with [their]hair’ (female, school, non-smoker). In all cases, the intention was to convince others

that he or she is preoccupied, rather than simply stood there ‘like a saddo’ (female,university, non-smoker).

It can be argued, therefore, that young people are generally mindful of the visualscrutiny of others during public engagement. This notion was developed further by material elicited from smokers. For instance, the issue of different brands of cigarette

revealed how smokers choose a brand to match the idea they have about their socialidentity. The association of different brands with different ‘types’ of people seems to beknowledge shared by the smoking community. For instance:

KATHERINE: : : : the cheaper the cigarette – you know, all the cleaners where we work all

smoke like Lambert & Butler and then kind of your office staff, you know, you smoke roll-ups,

or like, Marlborough Lights.

TONY: Yes there’s those 25 packs you can get isn’t there?

JACKIE: Royals

KATHERINE: That’s the thing though that we’re saying about cigarettes because my aunt was

saying that she smoked B & H and we were saying, ‘Oh they’re really not good cigarettes – they

used to be cool’ – it’s a joke like with some family around the table and she says, ‘what do you

mean, what do you mean?’ and we say, ‘Yeah you should smoke Marlborough Lights really.’ That

was a joke but I do look at someone differently if they have a packet of cigarettes I know vaguely

what the price is – so you sort of like ‘Well, you obviously want to smoke cos I think

Marlborough Lights taste better,’ and I think people generally think that.

MARTIN: Yes, I think you see people smoking like the really heavier tar cigarettes and you tend to

assume that they are you know just like a chronic smoker and they need nicotine that much.

(male and female university smokers)

Marlborough Lights were perceived as ‘trendy [and] associated with students’ (female,university, smoker), while brands such as Benson and Hedges and Lambert and Butler





were associated with ‘heavy smokers [and] older people’ (female, school, smoker). Our participants appeared to wish to distance themselves from the idea that other people

might consider them heavily dependent on smoking, and alternatively strive to manage asocial identity that involves only the fashionable connotations of smoking.

This notion was developed further when we considered the social identity conferredby ‘roll-ups’ (cigarettes hand-rolled from tobacco). Both school pupils and university undergraduates claimed that roll-ups are linked to socially dysfunctional individuals such as tramps and prisoners (although in the case of undergraduates, it was conceded that in

certain intellectual circles, roll-ups might be recoded as fashionable). Indeed, whilemany of our participants found roll-ups ‘difficult to roll [and] smelly’ (female, school,smoker), a number would smoke them alone at home when short of money, yet rarely when out socializing:

NORMAN: It depends where I am – if I’m in like a Student Bar then I really don’t mind smoking

roll-ups, but if I’m in, like, a smart bar I wouldn’t want to be seen rolling-up. (male, university,

smoker)

Again, it can be argued that young people are mindful of the tacit opinion of other peoplein such social settings, and that this involves projecting a desirable image.

Image is an issue that recurred in a consideration of how the media depict smokers,particularly with regard to gender. It was generally agreed by many participants that infilms, men who smoke invariably look ‘cool’. Nevertheless, there were different

attitudes expressed about women. For instance, one female university smokingundergraduate claimed women look ‘slutty’ when smoking in the media, although another argued that they can appear ‘sexy and sultry’.

When we explored how smokers were generally perceived in terms of gender, we found that both young men and young women think women look less goodsmoking than men. For instance, one of our female university smoking undergraduatesclaimed, ‘I think guys look the part, but girls don’t.’

Smoking as a social tool

As an extension of negotiating an identity in specific situations, smoking may serve as asocial tool. By this we mean a device that facilitates the engagement between smokers

during public events. For instance, many young people in our sample talked about thenecessity of having something to do with their hands. Hands were described by many of our participants as being ‘demonstrative’ (female, university, smoker), and in thecompany of peers, it seemed to be crucial to control them. While drinking, youngpeople will hold their glass, yet this could only be managed for so long withoutbecoming conspicuous. Therefore, smokers found themselves ‘subconsciously lightingup cigarette after cigarette’ (female, university, smoker), while those few who smokeroll-ups in public would generally roll another cigarette as a matter of habit:

STELLA: I can’t even remember rolling them, it’s just completely automatic. (female, university,

smoker)

Non-smokers tended to perform other acts with their hands (such as those proposedin the previous section – playing with their hair, fiddling with mobile phones, etc.).

Another similar practical reason why young people smoke was found to involve the vicissitudes of discussion among themselves and peers. For instance, smokers claimedto smoke in order to avoid ‘awkward pauses’ (male, university, smoker) in

772 Gary Fry et al.




conversation. Smokers claimed that they light up a cigarette in order to provide alegitimate reason for the break, which the non-smokers in our sample conceded are

generally embarrassing.Smoking may also alleviate boredom during such discussions. All conversations, even

with friends, involve inevitable longeurs or topics relevant only to a few speakers;smoking may provide a focus of interest while these periods of discussion are endured.

Another important reason why the great majority of our sample claimed to smokeinvolves the way cigarettes seem to ‘bond groups’ (male, university, smoker). Our

participants had difficulty articulating just what they meant by ‘bonding’:

GARETH: Yeah, yeah, I can say, I can say, I don’t know, I get a feeling that although like everyone’s

smoking and like, it’s almost like a strength from that, if you know what I mean.

INTERVIEWER: Oh, right.

GARETH: It’s almost a sort of like, them and us sort of thing, if you know what I mean.

INTERVIEWER: Right. Oh, so there’s a kind of like –

GARETH: If you, if you know what I mean, like, not quite that strong, but I think it might be like

increasing that sort of bond thing. (male, university, smoker)

Nevertheless, smokers were very clear on related issues, such as the fact that when they start work at a new place of employment or change schools or attend university for the

first time, being a smoker is a ‘good way of meeting new people’ (female, university,smoker). It was claimed that smokers tend to gather together, and the fact that they share cigarettes allows individuals to begin chatting in a way which a lack of pretext(no cigarette) might preclude. Non-smokers also endorsed this observation andsuggested how this was experienced without cigarettes:

PETER: I just always have something in my hand to distract me – it could be a pen or anything like

that [ : : : ]. I guess to sort of break the ice barrier I just ask about a million questions which I

never remember the answer for, or I crack nervous jokes just to sort of break the ice.

(male, university, non-smoker)

Additionally, smoking was regarded by our participants as an activity tied to routines which were related to both socializing and working (in an academic and an occupationalcontext, since many high school pupils and university undergraduates have part-time

jobs). Such public engagement involves drinking and talking, as well as an attempt toalleviate stress from work. Many smokers in our sample talked about an ‘Ah!’ factor. This was predominantly experienced after a long break from smoking, such as during breaksat school or between lectures at university or at the end of a long day at a place of employment. A cigarette served, therefore, as a way of ‘letting off steam’ (female, school,smoker), and this was frequently practiced in public venues with other people. Theparticipants in the present study claimed that since interacting with others involvessitting together in a fixed location, smoking is the most likely method by which youngpeople manage this.

Smoking and social context

On the basis of observations detailed above, we can claim that young people believe that

smoking is about rather more than addiction. Indeed, a considerable number of our participants claimed to be social smokers only, and that they rarely, if ever, smokeoutside of situations which involve peers smoking. Such individuals were therefore





somewhat perplexed by why they smoke at all, though many appreciated that thecontext in which they smoke must act as a significant factor.

Our sample provided some pertinent material with regard to this issue, since wedrew from both high school pupil and university undergraduate pools. The high schools were selected on the basis of economic status: two were of a lower socio-economicstatus and two of an upper status. We learned that in the lower status high schools, young people claimed that there was an expectation among pupils to smoke and that itis difficult to avoid either becoming a smoker or being encouraged to be one:

INTERVIEWER: Are you saying it’s down to environment – is it in different environments, in a

different school maybe or a different neighbourhood. Would that make it different?

MATT: Most probably yes because we most of us smoke and most of us have been to the same

schools and we’ve all turned out pretty much the same so I’m sure people from say [mentions

high economic school] are totally different to [sic] us.

JIM: We’ve basically done just about everything each other has done in their past.

(male, school, smokers)

The higher status schools resembled universities in the sense that there was an anti -smoking ethos, and that – as one male university smoking undergraduate phrased it –‘the expectation among people is not to smoke.’

According to young people, therefore, the role of social context cannot bedivorced from issues of personal choice. As we have seen above, young smokers seemto represent their habit as a choice they have made, while arguably underestimatingthe impact of the broader social mores in which they smoke. As a consequence,smokers in institutions who possess a decidedly anti-smoking ethos seek to justify their smoking habit by configuring it as a social tool and as an essential element in their

everyday negotiation of identity. We are not claiming that this is all these accountsmean. Indeed, on the basis of a phenomenological orientation, we take seriously individuals’ reflections on their everyday life, and believe that all talk has real-worldreferents. However, we concede that in all such accounts, there is an element of constructing a justifiable identity within an anti-smoking social climate (as we shallargue in another paper).

Nevertheless, the impact of social context was acknowledged by young people

when we considered the issue of a smoking ban in all public places (which, at the timeof writing, has just come into force in the UK; the study was conducted prior to the ban).

Indeed, this issue linked notions of context with those of the social functions of smoking. Both young smokers and non-smokers claimed that although young smokersare eager to gather outside during breaks at workplaces or between daily academicsessions (classes at school/lectures at university), young smokers would be reluctant toleave a social event (involving drinking alcohol and chatting with peers):

JENNY: : : : if it’s just the one person in a group and they’re going outside by themselves while

everybody else is having a good time inside and they come back and they’ve missed everything.

It’s like at work [ : : : ] people go outside but they’re not in sort of an enjoyable environment are

they? (female, university, smoker)

In other words, according to young people, the advantages conferred by smokingoutside at work or at school/university (meeting new people, establishingfriendships, etc.) may in fact be part of the appeal of social events conducted

inside a public venue.

774 Gary Fry et al.




There seems therefore to be a paradox for young people with regard to smokingduring social events. Although our participants claimed that cigarettes facilitate public

engagement, they nevertheless seem to prioritize this engagement above smoking.Indeed, young people in the present study claimed that a smoking ban in public places would be a good thing, while one smoker went so far as to say that in order to quitsmoking, he would seriously consider moving to another city where smoking was passe!

Stopping smoking: Social factorsEverybody knows that stopping smoking is difficult. Some people, including a number

of our participants, claim that will power is essential (many of our non-smokers wereparticularly vehement in this claim). However, a consideration of the social dimensionsinvolved in smoking revealed that young smokers believe stopping smoking involvessignificant social components, to such a degree that will power is generally not evenmentioned by them.

One of the major aspects of social life that our young participants identified as beingan obstacle to stopping smoking was the fact that so much of everyday life is conducted with peers. One of our female smoking school pupils claimed that ‘it’s hard notsmoking when others are smoking around you.’ Indeed, in order to eliminate this

obstacle, it was thought to be necessary to ‘chain yourself to the house’ (female, school,smoker). High school pupils seem to be particularly vulnerable to peer-influenced

smoking recidivism while trying to stop. For instance, several of our participants, both young men and women, claimed that peers would tease them to start again. Additionally, the practice of smoking in ‘twos’ (i.e. sharing a cigarette with a peer inorder to save money) only exacerbates the difficulty of stopping among high schoolsmokers, since this social routine, to some degree, dictates their smoking patterns:if one is smoking, so will the other.

Young smokers at university tended to cite stress as their principal reason for findingit difficult to stop smoking. With essay deadlines and financial commitments (which invariably require some form of part-time employment in addition to their studies) they claimed that a cigarette is essential to relieve the natural anxieties of sustained

concentration and hard work (this relates to the ‘Ah!’ factor we discussed above).Nevertheless, non-smokers provided a number of alternatives that serve as their methodof alleviating stress, among them ‘chilling out by listening to music’ (male, university,non-smoker), and engaging in hobbies such as DJ-ing, eating, talking to friends, playingon a computer, and exercising.

Other social factors involved in stopping smoking include the following. It wasgenerally acknowledged by both school pupils and university undergraduates that beingpreoccupied with some other task is a good way of resisting smoking. Indeed, whenengaged in a stimulating event (for instance, young people mentioned a watching a goodfilm, playing sport, etc.), the craving for a cigarette may not even arise:

DAVE: I mean, I’ve asked smokers what they feel when they have a fag, and it’s similar to when,

like I say, when I’m DJ-ing or something, playing and scoring a goal – it’s the same sort of feeling

that you find.

INTERVIEWER: So are we saying that we all need some kind of buzz?

CRAIG: I think so. Also, with exercise, you’ve also got the physical thing of, erm, like if you’rerunning and stuff, if you’ve just been running, you don’t want a cigarette, you just don’t want it,

like when I started training, I didn’t, my drinking seriously cut down, not because I deliberately,





consciously tried to cut it down, just because if you don’t feel like a drink, you’re not going to

have a drink, are you?

(males, university, non-smokers)

Therefore, being preoccupied with some task means deriving a ‘buzz’ (male, university,smoker) from the activity in question. For instance, many of our smokers who playedsport claimed that after exercising for a while, the ‘last thing [they] want is a cigarette’(female, university, smoker). This was claimed to be a result of the ‘buzz’ generated by

exercise eliminating the craving normally engendered by a lack of nicotine. A number of both male and female smokers in our sample suggested that this was the case, though several female university undergraduates claimed that the first thing they do after leaving a gym is ‘light up a cigarette’.

Finally, school pupils claimed that stopping smoking is difficult because there was

nothing to do in their recreational time:

JONATHAN: If they gave us something to do, we wouldn’t so bored all the time. There’s

nowhere to go to do anything. So we just end up smoking. (male, school, smoker)

They claimed that if they had somewhere to go – say, to play football, or if they hadenough money to visit such places as the cinema regularly – they would not smoke asmuch as they do. In short, they felt that the ‘government [was] letting them down’

(male, school, smoker), and that smoking was, as we stated at the beginning of this

analysis, an attempt to alleviate the boredom of their everyday lives.

Discussion

The foregoing themes provide a complex account of how young people make sense of

the social role cigarettes play in their everyday lives. It is clear that they do not consider smoking to be as straightforward as a biological addiction. They recognize that the habithas profound social dimensions which contribute to the persistence of smoking at least

as much as a craving for nicotine does.Our participants have provided an understanding of smoking involving many factors.

This frequently proved surprising to both themselves and the researchers. Indeed, theparticipants enjoyed taking part in these interviews, claiming that they had never realized how complex their relationship with smoking was. With these encouraging

comments in mind, we have adapted our findings in a way which we hope will be of benefit to young people in relation to smoking.

Implications for social psychological theory

We believe that many of our findings on smoking in young people enrich and

supplement work in this field. We will now show how our findings fit in with existingpsychological approaches.

Research drawing upon SIT argues that young people start smoking and continue tosmoke to develop desired social identities among significant peer groups (Stewart-Knoxet al., 2005). Our own findings endorse this observation in the sense that young peoplebelieved the decision to start smoking was a choice they made within the context of specific social groups. According to our participants, many young women seem

particularly vulnerable to the influence of same-sex peers, though young men may alsoexperience social identity as being subject to the pressure others can exert by summoning such notions as being ‘cool’ and ‘macho’.

776 Gary Fry et al.




The difference in smoking patterns between young men and women has been notedby several existing studies. Research drawing upon the TPB has shown that young

women are more mindful of their social image than young men, and that smoking plays alarge part in this quest for a desirable identity (Grogan, Conner, Fry, Gough, & Higgins, inpress). Gender differences in smoking: a longitudinal study of beliefs predictingsmoking in 11- to 15-year olds (Psychology and Health). Our findings support the in-depth qualitative work of Plumridge et al. (2002), who argue that young females lack sufficient opportunities to develop a desired identity which does not involve smoking.

For example, in sport, young men appear to have an alternative source of ‘coolness’, while young women seem might be reluctant to develop their bodies in this way.

Another finding from the present study has not been considered in existingliterature: the use of excuses. Young women in our sample claimed to lack legitimate

reasons for saying ‘no’ when offered cigarettes, whereas young men were able to draw upon alternative sources of desired social identities, such as taking sport seriously. (Thisfinding should be treated with caution, however, since a number of our femaleuniversity undergraduates suggested that sport was something they were able to claimas a good reason not to smoke.)

We have also shown that the social identity of young people may be negotiatedaccording to the demands of any situation. Both young men and women at high schoolsand universities believed that smoking allows them to present themselves to others in adesirable way. In contrast to observations derived from SIT, we argue that cigarettes

serve as more than a visible indication of a desired identity; they can also be used when asmoker is alone. Additionally, non-smokers seek alternative methods of controllingonlookers’ perceptions. Therefore, the act of smoking cannot be wholly reduced to an

aspect of group affiliation, as SIT might suggest. We have also shown that smoking might be used more generally as a ‘social tool’ by

young people. Cigarettes were used by smokers in our sample at both high schools anduniversity as a way of facilitating the engagement between themselves and others,particularly when meeting people for the first time. This practical dimension to smokingalso enriches the peer group proposition of SIT, showing how cigarettes can functionnot only as a marker of collective identity, but also as a device employed to render socialinteractions more manageable.

We have also shown how the context in which young people smoke can be a

powerful influence on smoking behaviours. In contrast, typical applications of the TPBto smoking tend to focus on smoking in general and not on how smoking varies acrosssituations or contexts (Conner et al., 2006). Many of our participants rarely, if ever,smoked outside of an environment involving other people smoking. Therefore, trying tounderstand smoking while ignoring the context can never fully capture this situation-specific behaviour.

Finally, our study has revealed that the difficulties experienced by young people instopping smoking may involve social factors to a significant degree. The smokers in our study claimed that the reason they cannot stop smoking was due to the fact that

everyday life renders this difficult: there is too much stress involved; smoking becomespart of an everyday routine which is hard to escape; there are few stimulatingalternatives to smoking; and there is invariably the presence of other young smokers who may tease them to start again.

In conclusion, theories which reduce the decision to smoke to intra-psychic or socialfactors tend to overlook these other social dimensions involving the flux of everyday life. Additionally, studies which have focused on some of these social factors have frequently





done so to the exclusion of other significant elements. We hope that our phenomenologically oriented investigation has gone some way towards drawing these

latter elements together. We also hope that future studies might build upon some of these insights in order to determine whether they are generalizable from the relatively small sample involved in this study. Future work could also investigate whether thesefindings generalize to non-British participants.

Implications for interventionOn the basis of the foregoing analysis, we believe it is possible to make anumber of recommendations to help young people either to avoid starting or to stopsmoking.

One way young people of both genders might combat pressure from smoking peersis by seeking out an alternative source of ‘coolness’. In the case of young men, this mightinvolve taking an interest in sport, just as it might in the case of young women. However, we appreciate that not everyone is inclined to be sporty, and that young womenespecially possess fewer opportunities to develop such social identities. Nevertheless,an awareness of these mores might allow young people to think about the way they

might justify choosing not to smoke. We have shown that excuses used by young people when offered cigarettes vary in terms of their legitimacy. Young people might benefitfrom a consideration of how they should marshal their excuses in a way which is

regarded by peers as an acceptable reason not to smoke. Young people might also benefit from an awareness of the degree to which the

choice to start smoking is governed by their desired image. We have revealed that evennon-smokers experienced negative scrutiny from other people in social settings, andthat reaching for a cigarette is not the only method by which this ‘gaze’ of others mightbe placated. Such simple strategies as playing with a mobile phone can serve the same

function as lighting up a cigarette: in both cases, there is an attempt to communicate amessage to onlookers, one involving being preoccupied and not a ‘loner’. For youngsmokers wishing to stop, an awareness of the fact that even minor issues such as the

brand of cigarette they choose is involved in this process of establishing a suitable imagemight facilitate their resistance.

A focus on the function of cigarettes as a social tool might also illuminate the rolesmoking plays in everyday life. Smokers might be encouraged to become reflexively aware of the fact that they often ‘subconsciously’ light up cigarette after cigarette duringpublic engagement, and that alternatives are available, such as cracking jokes or perhapslearning to tolerate the silences during junctures in discussions. Additionally, alternativemethods of establishing a ‘bond’ with one’s peer group might be addressed; sharedinterests – music, books, etc. – could be focused on as an explicit way of establishing

bonds which do not involve the tacit sense of togetherness engendered by cigarettes.Finally, alternative methods of stress relief might be promoted, such as listening to musicor engaging in a hobby or simply eating.

A greater awareness of the social context in which smoking is practiced – that is, inorganizations with either a pro- or anti-smoking ‘ethos’ – might furnish individuals with a repertoire with which to resist smoking or to help them stop. Indeed, encouraging young people to reflect upon the impact of the recent smoking ban in public venues,

particularly with regard to the paradox we noted earlier concerning smoking inside andoutside, might convince young people that smoking is less a choice they are makingthan a decision governed by their social locations and their attendant rules.

778 Gary Fry et al.




Finally, we recommend that young people should be made fully aware of the fact thatsmoking is not merely a biological craving, but is rather powerfully motivated by social

factors such as peer groups, everyday routines, and a lack of anything more stimulatingto do. The present study has shown that young people already have a tacit awareness of this issue, but encouraging them to reflect in more detail about the context of their smoking may help them either to resist or to stop smoking. We appreciate of course that young people have limited funds and opportunities, but we are convinced that putting young people in reflexive control of their relationship with smoking will have a

significant impact on their capacity to alter their decision to smoke, not to smoke, or tostop once they have started. The findings reported above will, we argue, be a stepforward in offering young people agency with regard to cigarettes: then and only thendo we feel that the decision to start smoking or to resist the habit or to stop once they

have started, will be a choice they are making.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 50, 179–211.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior .

Englewood-Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Aloise-Young, P., Graham, J., & Hansen, W. (1994). Peer influence on smoking initiation duringearly adolescence: A comparison of group members and group outsiders. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 79, 281–287.

Aveyard, P., Markham, W. A., & Cheng, K. K. (2003). A methodological and substantive review of

the evidence that schools cause pupils to smoke. Social Science and Medicine, 58 (11),

2253–2265.

Bancroft, A., Wiltshire, S., Amos, A., & Parry, O. (2003). ‘It’s like an addiction first thing- afterwards

it’s like a habit’: Daily smoking behaviour among people living in areas of deprivation. Social

Science and Medicine, 56 (6), 1261–1267.

Collins, P., Maguire, M., & O’Dell, L. (2002). Smokers’ representations of their own smoking:

A Q-methodological study. Journal of Health Psychology, 7 , 641–652.

Conner, M., Sandberg, T., McMillan, B., & Higgins, A. (2006). Role of anticipated regret in

adolescent smoking initiation. British Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 85–101.

Conrad, K. M., Flay, B. R., & Hill, D. (1992). Why children start smoking cigarettes: Predictors of

onset. British Journal of Addiction, 87 , 1711–1724.

Department of Health (2005). Action on smoking and health (ASH). Fact sheet number 3: Young

people and smoking.

Doll, R., & Peto, R. (1981). The causes of cancer . New York: Oxford University Press.

Frohlich, K. L., Potvin, L., Chabot, P., & Corin, E. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of

context: Neighbourhoods, smoking and youth. Social Science and Medicine, 54 (9),

1401–1417.

Goddard, E. (1990). Why children start smoking. An enquiry carried out by social survey

division of OPCS on behalf of the department of health . London: HMSO.

Goddard, E. (1992). Why children start smoking. British Journal of Addiction, 87 , 17–18.

Goddard, E., & Higgins, V. (1999). Smoking, drinking and drug use among young teenagers in

1998 ( Vol. 1). London: Stationery Office.

Grogan, S., Conner, M., Fry, G., Gough, B., & Higgins, A. (in press). Gender differences in smoking:

A longitudinal study of beliefs predicting smoking in 11–15 year olds. Psychology and Health.Heary, C. M., & Hennessey, E. (2002). The use of focus group interviews in pediatric health care

research. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27 (1), 47–57.





Johnson, P. B., Boles, S. M., Vaughan, R., & Kleber, H. D. (2000). The co-occurrence of smoking and

binge drinking in adolescence. Addictive Behaviours, 25(5), 779–783.

Kremers, S. P. J., Mudde, A. N., & De Vries, H. (2004). Model of unplanned smoking initiation of

children and adolescents: An integrated stage model of smoking behaviour. Preventive

Medicine, 38 (5), 643–651.

Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide to applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

MacDonald, M., & Wright, N. E. (2002). Cigarette smoking and the disenfranchisement of

adolescent girls: A discourse of resistance. Health Care for Women International , 23,

281–305.McCool, J. P., Cameron, L. D., & Petrie, K. J. (2003). Interpretations of smoking in film by older

teenagers. Social Science and Medicine, 56 (5), 1023–1032.

McMillan, B., Conner, M., & Higgins, A. (2005). Using an extended theory of planned behaviour to

understand smoking amongst schoolchildren. Addiction Research and Theory, 13, 293–306.

Moran, D. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. Oxford: Routledge.

Muffat, B. M., & Johnson, J. L. (2001). Through the haze of cigarettes: Teenage girls’ stories about

cigarette addiction. Qualitative Health Research, 11(5), 668–681.

Norman, N., & Tedeschi, J. (1989). Self-presentation, reasoned action, and adolescents’ decision to

smoke cigarettes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 543–558.

Ogden, J., & Nicoll, M. (1997). Risk and protective factors: An integration of the epidemiological

and psychological approaches to adolescent smoking. Addiction Research, 5, 367–378.

Owen, L., & Bolling, K. (1995). Tracking teenage smoking. London: Health Education Authority.

Pfau, M., & Van Bockern, S. (1994). The persistence of inoculation in conferring resistance to

smoking initiation among adolescents. Human Communication Research, 20, 413–430.Plumridge, E. W., Fitzgerald, L. J., & Abel, G. M. (2002). Performing coolness: Smoking refusal and

adolescent identities. Health Action Research, 17 , 167–179.

Potter, B. K., Pederson, L. L., Chan, S. S. H., Aubut, J. A. L., & Koval, J. J. (2004). Does a relationship

exist between body weight, concerns about weight, and smoking among adolescents? An

integration of the literature with an emphasis on gender. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 6 ,

397–425.

Rugkasa, J., Knox, B., Sittlington, J., Kennedy, O., Tracy, M., & Santos-Abaunza, P. (2001). Anxious

adults vs. cool children: Children’s views on smoking and addiction. Social Science and

Medicine, 53, 593–602.

Saronson, I. G., Mankowski, E. S., Peterson, A. V., & Dinh, K. T. (1992). Adolescents reasons for

smoking. Journal of School Health, 62, 185–190.

Shadel, W. G., Niaura, R., & Abrams, D. B. (2004). Adolescents’ responses to the gender valence of

cigarette advertising imagery: The role of affect and self concept. Addictive Behaviours, 29,

1735–1744.

Stacy, A., Sussman, S., Dent, C., Burton, D., & Flay, B. (1992). Moderators of peer social influence in

adolescent smoking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18 , 163–172.

Stewart-Knox, B. J., Sittlington, J., Rugkasa, J., Harrisson, S., Treacy, M., & Santos Abaunza, P.

(2005). Smoking and peer groups: Results from a longitudinal study of young people in

Northern Ireland. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44 , 397–414.

van den Bree, M. B. M., Whitmer, M. A., & Pickworth, W. B. (2004). Predictors of smoking

development in a population-based sample of adolescents: A prospective study. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 35, 172–181.

Whalen, C. K., Jamner, L. D., Henker, B., & Delfino, R. (2001). Smoking, and moods in adolescents

with depressive and aggressive dispositions: Evidence from surveys and electronic diaries.

Health Psychology, 20, 99–111.

Received 10 November 2006; revised version received 4 December 2007

780 Gary Fry et al.

cigarette play

Documents