Elsevier

Preventive Medicine

Volume 41, Issue 2, August 2005, Pages 349-356
Preventive Medicine

Household smoking bans and adolescents' perceived prevalence of smoking and social acceptability of smoking

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.12.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Objectives

Household smoking bans might decrease the visibility of cigarette smoking and communicate nonsmoking social norms and parental attitudes to youths, which may serve as mediators to reduce smoking initiation. Whether they have these effects even if parents smoke or do not otherwise communicate strong disapproval of smoking to their children is not clear. We tested these hypotheses in multi-level analyses.

Methods

A telephone survey of a random sample of 3831 Massachusetts adolescents (12–17 years) assessed respondents' perceptions of smoking prevalence and attitudes about the social acceptability of smoking in their community. The association of these outcomes with the presence of a smoking ban in the youths' home was tested in multivariate analyses that adjusted for town-level clustering and individual and environmental characteristics.

Results

A household smoking ban was reported by 71% of all youths and 49% of youths who lived with smokers. In multivariate models, youths who had a household smoking ban were more likely to perceive a lower adult smoking prevalence (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.7–2.5; P < 0.001), greater adult disapproval of adult smoking (OR 2.0; 1.5–2.6; P < 0.001) and of teen smoking (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.9; P = 0.001).

Conclusions

Among adolescents, a household smoking ban was associated with a lower perceived prevalence of adult smoking in their communities and more negative attitudes about the social acceptability of smoking, two factors that affect the likelihood of smoking initiation. Household smoking bans had these effects even in the presence of two parental factors known to encourage adolescent smoking initiation (parental smoking and lack of perceived parental disapproval of youth tobacco use). This provides an additional rationale for promoting household smoking bans to parents.

Introduction

Household smoking bans are recommended to reduce children's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], but may have other benefits. They might discourage smoking initiation by decreasing the visibility of smoking and fostering antismoking attitudes and norms among youth. Evidence derived mainly from cross-sectional studies links household smoking bans with a lower smoking prevalence and less tobacco consumption among youths [2], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Others have outlined important socioeconomic and demographic predictors of having a household smoking ban, such as higher income and education levels, two-parent households, non-white ethnicity, and parents who do not smoke [1], [2], [7], [13]. None of these studies assess whether changes in perceptions of the prevalence of smoking and social acceptability of smoking are mediating variables in these relationships, and no study adjusted for town-level anti-smoking sentiment.

Measures of tobacco-related social norms such as perceived smoking prevalence [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] and the perceived social acceptability of smoking [18], [20], [24] have been shown to be strong predictors of adolescent smoking or smoking initiation. There are several levels of tobacco control programs and policies that may affect these outcomes, including media campaigns, clean indoor air laws, and household policies. This paper assesses the association of household smoking bans on adolescents' perceived prevalence of adult and youth smoking, as well as their perception of adult disapproval of adult and youth smoking. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to examine these associations, as well as to adjust for town-level anti-smoking sentiment. The evidence for an effect of household smoking bans on youth smoking behavior would be greatly strengthened if it were shown that these policies produce changes in youth attitudes that are known to influence smoking initiation.

Additionally, prior research has demonstrated that peer and parental smoking [12], [25], [26], [27] as well as parental antismoking norms and disapproval of smoking [7], [28], [29] are related to adolescent smoking behavior. We hypothesized that a household smoking ban might blunt the pro-smoking impacts of (1) parental smoking and (2) weak or absent parental disapproval of smoking. If so, it would provide an additional rationale for promoting household smoking bans to all parents.

Section snippets

Sample selection and data collection

We analyzed baseline data from an ongoing longitudinal study designed to examine the impact of community-based tobacco control interventions on adult and youth smoking behavior. Data are derived from a telephone survey of Massachusetts residents. Between January 2001 and June 2002, professional interviewers from the Center for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts-Boston, obtained a statewide random sample of Massachusetts households by random-digit-dialing. Initially, a household

Characteristics of the youth sample and household smoking bans

Table 1 displays the characteristics of the 3831 youths in the sample. Eighty-eight percent reported that their parents would disapprove a lot if they smoked. Fifty-seven percent of adolescents thought that less than half of adults in their town smoked and reported that less than half of youths in their school smoked. Seventeen percent of adolescents perceived that adults in their town disapproved a lot of other adults' smoking, whereas 69% perceived that adults in their town disapproved a lot

Discussion

This study provides strong evidence that the presence of a household smoking ban is associated with youths' perceptions that fewer adults smoke and that adults in their community disapprove more strongly of smoking by both adults and teenagers. These findings were significant in multi-level adjusted models that controlled for important confounders, including parental disapproval of smoking and parental smoking, as well as town-level antismoking sentiment. Perceived parental disapproval of

Conclusions

Youths living in households with a smoking ban were more likely to believe that fewer adults smoked in their community and to perceive more adult disapproval of smoking by either adults or youths. These perceptions have been previously linked to smoking outcomes, and this work provides an important connection between an intervention (implementation of a household smoking ban) and these perceptions, which may mediate the effect on smoking initiation. These findings remained after controlling for

Acknowledgments

This work was made possible through the National Cancer Institute grant CA 86257 and the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute.

References (33)

  • R.J. Preoescholdbell et al.

    Home smoking restrictions and adolescent smoking

    Nicotine Tob. Res.

    (2000)
  • M.A. Wakefield et al.

    Effect of restrictions on smoking at home, at school, and in public places on teenage smoking: cross sectional study

    Br. Med. J.

    (2000)
  • A.J. Farkas et al.

    Association between HH and workplace smoking restrictions and adolescent smoking

    J. Am. Med. Assoc.

    (2000)
  • C. Jackson et al.

    Can parents who smoke socialize their children against smoking. Results from the smoke-free kids intervention trial

    Tob. Control

    (2003)
  • E.A. Gilpin et al.

    Home smoking restrictions: which smokers have them and how they are associated with smoking behavior

    Nicotine Tob. Res.

    (1999)
  • D.B. Kandel et al.

    The contributions of mothers and fathers to the intergenerational transmission of cigarette smoking in adolescence

    J. Res. Adolesc.

    (1995)
  • Cited by (63)

    • Individual and contextual determinants of perceived peer smoking prevalence among adolescents in six European cities

      2016, Preventive Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Within the same school, the perceived smoking prevalence can vary to a large extent between groups of students (Brown et al., 2010; Conley Thomson et al., 2005; Javier et al., 2013; Pedersen et al., 2013; Unger and Rohrbach, 2002). For example, perceived smoking prevalence rates have been found to be higher in adolescents of lower socioeconomic position (SEP) than in their high SEP counterparts (Doku et al., 2010; Pförtner et al., 2014; Richter and Leppin, 2007), in females than in males (Javier et al., 2013; Pedersen et al., 2013; Unger and Rohrbach, 2002) and in adolescents who have more friends who are smokers (Conley Thomson et al., 2005; Unger and Rohrbach, 2002). However, subgroup variations have hitherto only been studied in the USA, and not in the European context.

    • Perceptions of social norms surrounding digital piracy: The effect of social projection and communication exposure on injunctive and descriptive social norms

      2015, Computers in Human Behavior
      Citation Excerpt :

      Second, this study utilized single-item scales to assess estimates of injunctive and descriptive norms. Though previous studies have used single-item scales to assess social norms perceptions (Thomson et al., 2005; Zhang & Reid, 2013), single-item scales are prone to higher measurement errors. In addition, their use made it difficult for us to examine the measurement validity (e.g., convergent and discriminant validity) of injunctive and descriptive norms.

    • Young adult perceptions of smoking in outdoor park areas

      2012, Health and Place
      Citation Excerpt :

      Outdoor policies restricting smoking are a more recent tobacco control avenue; this report provides a novel exploration of this relationship in a region with a higher prevalence of policies in place. These findings are consistent with other studies of young adults demonstrating that the presence of a smoke-free policy was associated with high perceived difficulty in finding a place to smoke in certain settings (Albers et al., 2004; Bernat et al., 2010; Conley Thomson et al., 2005; Hamilton et al., 2008; Siegel et al., 1999). It stands to reason that smokers may be more likely to be aware of smoke-free park policies due to the direct effect on their behaviors.

    • Contemporary options for longitudinal follow-up: Lessons learned from a cohort of urban adolescents

      2011, Evaluation and Program Planning
      Citation Excerpt :

      We considered three survey methods for our primary data collection strategy: (1) school based, (2) telephone, and (3) mail and Internet-based. A mail and Internet-based strategy was selected for several important reasons: (1) a school-based survey was not practical, as the majority of the study cohort had spread out to over 130 high schools in Chicago and beyond; (2) school-based surveys suffer from nonresponse bias due to exclusion of school dropouts, absent students, and schools that refuse to participate (Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 2002) and racial/ethnic minority youth have higher dropout rates (NCES, 2005); (3) typical response rates of telephone interviews with adolescents range from 49% to 65%, (Klein, Havens, & Carlson, 2005; Klein et al., 2001; Lee, Arheart, Trapido, Soza-Vento, & Rodriguez, 2005; Sly, Hopkins, Trapido, & Ray, 2001; Sly, Trapido, & Ray, 2002; Thomson, Siegel, Winickoff, Biener, & Rigotti, 2005) and low-income households are less likely to have consistent telephone service (Frankel et al., 2003; Rosston & Wimmer, 2000; Tarasuk, 2001); (4) there is a higher level of underreporting of drug use among adolescents and adults with telephone surveys compared with self-administered surveys (Aquilino, 1994; Gfroerer & Hughes, 1991; Moskowitz & Pepe, 2004), especially among ethnic minority youth (Aquilino, 1994; Aquilino & Losciuto, 1990); (5) several studies of pre-adolescents to young adults have found that reporting of sensitive behaviors does not appear to differ by Internet or paper survey mode (Mangunkusumo et al., 2005; McCabe, 2004; McCabe, Boyd, Couper, Crawford, & D’Arcy, 2002; McCabe, Couper, Cranford, & Boyd, 2006); and (6) health questionnaires via Internet were positively evaluated by adolescents ages 13–17 (Mangunkusumo et al., 2005). Given the practical limitations of recruiting more than 130 schools (and the inevitable loss of numerous schools due to principal decision) and complications and threats of nonresponse bias, low response rates and underreporting with school-based and telephone surveys, we selected a mail- and Internet-based survey as our primary data collection strategy.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text