مقررات خلق و خوی منفی واسطه ارتباط بین حواس پرتی و تعامل در فعالیت های لذت بخش در میان افراد سیگاری کالج
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|38774||2007||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 43, Issue 8, December 2007, Pages 1969–1979
Abstract Smoking for negative mood alleviation is a strong predictor of early smoking and early dependence among undergraduates. Little is known about whether adaptive cognitive coping processes (e.g., distraction) may help decrease the likelihood of student smoking for negative mood regulation. The present study tested the hypothesis that distraction would predict (a) greater engagement in adaptive pleasant pastimes and (b) lower rates of smoking behavior among undergraduates (n = 162, 41.9% female). We further assessed whether negative mood regulation expectations would explain both relationships. Results indicated that negative mood regulation fully mediated the relationship between distraction and engagement in pleasurable activities among college smokers. Although the relationships among distraction, negative mood regulation, and cigarette consumption were not significant, they were in the expected direction (negative). Results from the present study point to the importance of prevention efforts focused on enhancing cognitive coping skills in college smokers. Such a focus may lead to more frequent adaptive cognitive coping during negative mood states, presumably instead of smoking.
1. Introduction More than 430,000 Americans die each year from smoking-related illnesses, making smoking the leading cause of preventable death in the United States (Fiore et al., 2000). Alarmingly, college-aged adults represent the largest age group reporting current cigarette use (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2005). Specifically, 39.5% of the 18–25 year olds surveyed reported smoking cigarettes in the past month, as compared to 11.9% among those individuals aged 12–17 and 24.1% among those aged 26 or older (SAMHSA, 2005). Despite these estimates, results from existing cessation trials for college-aged smokers have been tenuous at best (O’Neill, Gillispie, & Slobin, 2000) and are comparable to the poor abstinence rates following treatment of late adolescent smokers (Moolchan, Ernst, & Henningfield, 2000). Prior research suggests that young adults report emotion regulation as one of the most important reasons for continued use of cigarettes (Spielberger, Foreyt, Reheiser, & Poston, 1998). For example, cross-sectional studies indicate that symptoms of depression predict initiation (Escobedo et al., 1998 and Patton et al., 1998), experimentation, (Patton et al., 1998 and Wang et al., 1997), and progression to regular cigarette smoking among young adults (Patton et al., 1996). Among college-aged male smokers, lower levels of positive affect and higher levels of negative affect also predict dependence on cigarettes (McChargue, Cohen, & Cook, 2004a). Similarly, college female smokers reporting elevated symptoms of depression have been shown to be more dependent on nicotine than their non-depressed peers (McChargue, Cohen, & Cook, 2004b). Finally, situations that have the ability to induce negative moods have been shown to be strongly associated with cigarette smoking (Spielberger & Jacobs, 1982). Despite evidence linking negative moods to increased smoking, little is known about adaptive processes that may serve to decrease mood regulating smoking behavior. One plausible adaptive coping process, primarily studied among depressed individuals, is the cognitive response style of distraction. According to response styles theory, distraction is defined as a process of deflecting attention from negative internal states (e.g., depressed mood) to more pleasant external stimuli (e.g., engaging in an enjoyable activity with friends) that may serve to divert an individual’s maladaptive pattern of responding to negative mood states (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991). Specifically, depressed and non-depressed individuals who use pleasant distracting activities to aid in alleviating negative mood states significantly reduce the duration (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991) and severity (Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1993) of their depressed moods. Furthermore, distraction has been positively associated with higher negative mood regulation expectations (Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski, 1996) and increased positive affect (Stone, Kennedy-Moore, & Neale, 1995). Although distraction has been shown to be an adaptive response to depression, little is known regarding whether such an adaptive response may act as a buffer to health compromising behaviors that are closely tied to mood regulation, such as cigarette smoking. Given that individuals dependent on nicotine have reported that cigarette smoking helps to regulate mood states (Hall, Muñoz, Reus, & Sees, 1993) and that negative affect plays a prominent role in relapse to smoking among those who wish to quit (Shiffman & Waters, 2004), it is plausible that smokers may become dependent on nicotine in part due to mood regulatory processes. To date, it is unclear whether adaptive coping responses to dysphoria can help buffer young smokers from becoming dependent on nicotine. The present study examines the association between adaptive coping and a lower risk of nicotine dependence (i.e., lower rates of smoking) among a sample of college-aged cigarette smokers. We expected that distraction response style scores would be associated with greater engagement in adaptive pleasurable events and lower levels of smoking behavior. We further tested whether negative mood regulation would explain (mediate) these relationships. Showing that negative mood regulation explains the effect of distraction on pleasurable activities would provide support for the assumption that distracting toward engagement in alternative rewarding behaviors may help prevent smokers from using cigarettes to regulate their moods. The added effect of negative mood regulation explaining distraction’s association with lower cigarette consumption would provide further evidence of reduced smoking for negative mood regulating behavior because of the adaptive coping of distraction.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
3. Results The preliminary bivariate correlations among level of distraction coping, total number of pleasant events, and negative mood regulation justified examination of negative mood regulation as a mediator of the relationship between level of distraction coping and number of pleasant events, but not cigarette use frequency. Specifically, these three variables demonstrated significant, positive relationships with each other (Table 2). Bivariate correlations also revealed that our hypothesized covariates were significantly correlated with our variables of primary interest. Finally, these correlations indicated no problems with multicollinearity among our predictor variables. Table 2. Intercorrelations among predictor variables, criterion variables, and covariates Variable 1 2 3 4a 5 6 7 1. Distraction coping – 2. Negative mood regulation 0.40⁎⁎ – 3. Pleasant events 0.20⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎ – 4. Gendera −0.16⁎ −0.04 0.02 – 5. Stage of change −0.08 0.03 0.07 −0.21⁎ – 6. Nicotine dependence 0.16 −0.18⁎ 0.25⁎⁎ −0.30⁎⁎ −0.31⁎⁎ – 7. Number of cigarettes per day −0.02 −0.09 −0.27⁎⁎ 0.18⁎⁎ 0.09 0.74⁎⁎ – a Point-biserial correlations. ⁎ p < .05, two-tailed. ⁎⁎ p < .01. Table options Mediational analyses, as described above, indicated that distraction coping significantly predicted both number of pleasant events (β = .19, p < .05; R2 = .06, p < .05) and negative mood regulation (β = .41, p < .001; R2 = .21, p < .001). Specifically, number of pleasant events and level of negative mood regulation increased as the degree of distraction coping increased. Negative mood regulation significantly predicted number of pleasant events (β = .20, p < .05; R2 = .07, p < .05), such that number of pleasant events increased with level of negative mood regulation. When both distraction coping and negative mood regulation were included in a model predicting number of pleasant events, the relationship between negative mood regulation and number of pleasant events was no longer significant (β = .15, p > .10), and the strength of the relationship between distraction coping and number of pleasant events decreased (β = .13, p > .10). This reduction was statistically significant (Sobel’s t = 2.17, p < .05), which indicates that negative mood regulation fully mediated the relationship between distraction coping and number of pleasant events ( Fig. 1). Full (sometimes also referred to as complete) mediation is said to occur when the direct effect of the independent variable on the criterion variable is significantly reduced (cf. Sobel’s t) when the mediator is included in the regression model, with the result that the direct effect is no longer statistically significant. In this case, full mediation suggests that, in the context of the present study, negative mood regulation is completely responsible for the effect that distraction coping had on number of pleasant events. Path diagram estimating the relations between distraction coping, negative mood ... Fig. 1. Path diagram estimating the relations between distraction coping, negative mood regulation, and number of pleasant events. Figure options Preliminary correlation analyses did not justify examining negative mood regulation as a mediator of the relationship between level of distraction coping and the number of cigarettes smoked per day. However, negative mood regulation was examined in an exploratory post-hoc fashion as a potential moderator of these relationships according to the rationale for moderation described above and using gender, stage of change, and nicotine dependence as covariates. Analyses indicated that negative mood regulation did not moderate the relationship between level of distraction coping and the number of cigarettes smoked per day/level of nicotine dependence. More specifically, the Negative Mood Regulation × Distraction Coping interaction term was not significant in the analysis predicting number of cigarettes smoked per day (β = .04, p > .05).