The Impact of Social Influences in the Context of Attitude, Self‐Efficacy, Intention, and Previous Behavior as Predictors of Smoking Onset¹

Abstract

Three different constructs for measuring social influence were utilized in the present study to explain adolescents' present and future smoking behavior at 6 (T2), 12 (T3), and 18 months (T4) after the first test. Social influence was assessed by measuring the social norms, perceived smoking behavior, and direct pressure. The impact of the social influence constructs was also assessed in the context of broader models, including attitudes and self‐efficacy expectations, intention, and previous behavior. The three social influence measures correlated significantly with intention and behavior. Stepwise regression analyses showed that perceived behavior and pressure made significant contributions, after entering social norms, in explaining actual and future adolescent smoking behavior. Adding attitudes and self‐efficacy increased the predictive power of the model significantly. In agreement with the theory of Fishbein & Ajzen (1975), intention was the most powerful predictor in explaining present and future smoking behavior. Attitudes, self‐efficacy, and the social influences also made small unique contributions improving the explanatory power by approximately 5%. Previous behavior, however, had a substantial unique contribution in predicting future behavior after attitudes, social influences, self‐efficacy, and intention were entered in the equations. Since social influences may exert their impact via different routes, it is recommended that smoking prevention programs discuss not only overt pressures such as direct pressure from peers, parents, and media, but also address the more covert social pressures such as modeling and the adolescents' ability to cope with these covert influences. Furthermore, norms on nonsmoking should be made explicit.

Making healthy choices easy choices: the role of empowerment

“…Several studies show that higher levels of perceived efficacy lead to better compliance to treatment and to choices for healthier behaviours than lower levels of perceived self-efficacy (cf. De Vries et al, 1995;Schaalma, 1995;Hausenblas et al, 1998;Oei et al, 1998).…”

Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of nutrition guidance by primary care physicians

“…(d)`Early behaviour longitudinal approach' (with incorporation of the factor`time' and the factor`earlier behaviour'). It is well-known from the literature (De Vries et al, 1995) that earlier behaviour has a high predictive value for that behaviour to be carried out. Therefore, we now added in the hypothesis the variablè noticing patients' overweight and guidance of treatment' of 1992 as a driving force and hypothesized that the dependent variable as measured in 1997 for our respondents in practice for between 10 and 20 y (N 283) is determined by the predisposing factors of 1992, the change in predisposing factors between 1997 and 1992 (D predisposing factors), and`noticing patients' overweight and guidance of treatment' of 1992; the intermediary factors of 1992 and 1997 may act as intermediary variables (see Figure 2).…”

Motives of Belgian Adolescents for Using Sunscreen: The Role of Action Plans

“…The second model included the variables of model 1 as well as cognitive factors, such as knowledge, response efficacy, risk perception, attitude toward tanning, attitude toward sunscreen use, perceived social influence from parents and friends, and self-efficacy beliefs about sunscreen use. The assumption is that the effect of most demographic variables is mediated through the cognitive factors (52,71). Model 3 included the variables from model 2 and the intention to use sunscreen because it is assumed that most of the variance of the preceding factors is mediated through intention.…”