4.5 Article

Perceived Partner Responsiveness Predicts Decreases in Smoking During the First Nine Years of Marriage

Journal

NICOTINE & TOBACCO RESEARCH
Volume 15, Issue 9, Pages 1528-1536

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntt011

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [R37 AA09922]
  2. National Institute on Drug Abuse [R21 DA034068]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Support for quitting is associated with smoking cessation, but few studies have examined the influence of more general social support on smoking outcomes. The current research examines perceptions of the partner's willingness and ability to provide general social support (i.e., perceived partner responsiveness) as a longitudinal predictor of smoking trajectories. Methods: Data are from a sample of newlywed couples assessed at six timepoints over 9 years. The current analyses focus on both partners in 333 ever-smoker couples. Participants completed measures of partner responsiveness, smoking, and demographics through the mail at each timepoint. Results: Both husbands and wives who initially reported greater partner responsiveness showed a decrease over the following 9 years in the likelihood of being a smoker and in cigarette quantity. This decrease was not apparent for husbands and wives who initially reported lower partner responsiveness. These effects were mediated by several time-varying characteristics. Conclusions: Previous research has shown that support for quitting is an important predictor of smoking cessation. The current research demonstrates that more general perceived social support, unrelated to smoking behavior, also predicts decreases in smoking over time in both men and women. In fact, reports of partner responsiveness at baseline predicted smoking over 9 years, demonstrating the potency of this particular relationship perception for smoking outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available