In this article we examine alleged conceptual and psychometric deficiencies of the Restraint Scale, an instrument intended to identify chronic dieters. These deficiencies include the confounding of restraint with disinhibition, the inapplicability of the scale to obese samples, problems with the factor structure of the scale, and difficulties in completing the scale. We argue that these alleged deficiencies are in most cases chimerical and that the Restraint Scale remains the most useful tool for examining behavioral and other dieter/nondieter differences. Proposed alternatives to the Restraint Scale are examined and found to be inadequate as replacements, although they may be useful for certain purposes. Closer attention to the intended purpose of such instruments may serve to dispel controversy and confusion. Research on the dynamics of eating has gradually expanded from the examination of behavioral differences as a function of body weight (e.g., Schachter & Rodin's, 1974, survey of obese/ normal differences) to include the investigation of parallel differences as a function of attempted weight suppression (relative to initial weight or relative to presumptive biologically defended levels). The Restraint Scale was initially proposed (Herman & Mack, 1975) as a simple and relatively straightforward self-report device for identifying chronic dieters. At the time it was assumed that because chronic dieters were likely to be maintaining a body weight below "set point," identification of such dieters would therefore permit tests-in normal-weight people as well as the obese-of hypotheses derived from Nisbett's (1972) seminal article on the effects of long-term hunger. Almost since its inception, the Restraint Scale has been subjected to criticism, both psychometric and conceptual. In this article, we review and discuss some of these criticisms of the Restraint Scale, and then consider the alternative scales that have been proposed recently as improvements. The major problems that have been identified are (a) the Restraint Scale's confounding of dietary restriction with disinhibited eating, (b) its apparent inadequacy when applied to the overweight, and (c) its factor structure. These major issues are not entirely separable from one another, but we shall attempt to distill them into their essentials and address them sequentially, along with a number of lesser problems. Restraint and Disinhibition Early on, it became clear that the dieters identified by the Restraint Scale were as notable for their lapses of restraint as We thank the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada for their support.

This paper considers three potentially important modifications to the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein, 1980). It was hypothesized that behavioural norms, or beliefs about the behaviours of others, are important influences above and beyond subjective norms; the effects of attitudes and normative beliefs on intentions and behaviours are interdependent and interactive rather than additive; and the beliefs underlying subjective and behavioural norms are multidimensional rather than unidimensional. These hypotheses were tested in two surveys of smoking intentions and behaviour. The respondents in the first study were primary school children and those in the second study were college students. In both cases behavioural norms and the attitude-normative belief interactions led to significant increases in the prediction of smoking intentions and behaviour. Exploratory factor analyses also suggested that the beliefs underlying subjective norms may be multidimensional rather than unidimensional. These results thus support the hypotheses and suggest that the theory of reasoned action should be modified accordingly.

Beliefs related to cigarette smoking were investigated in a college student sample. Regular smokers, compared with nonsmokers and occasional smokers, perceived more approval for their smoking and believed that their peers smoked more frequently. They perceived positive social and physiological consequences of smoking (e.g., feel more relaxed) to be more likely, and negative consequences (e.g., feel sick) to be less likely. While they did not see long-term health consequences (e.g., increasing chances of cancer) as less likely, they evaluated them less negatively. Finally, smokers placed less importance on the value health than did nonsmokers or occasional smokers. These findings suggest that intervention programs aimed at discouraging smoking by young people should be multifaceted.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Canadian Journal of Irish Studies and Canadian Association of Irish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Canadian Journal of Irish Studies.

No abstract