Rural Youth and Smokeless Tobacco Expectancies

1
Rural Youth and Smokeless Tobacco Expectancies
2

• Ian M. Newman, Ph.D.
• Duane F. Shell, Ph.D.
• Nebraska Prevention Center for
• Alcohol and Drug Abuse
• Brett Foley, M.S.
• Nebraska Evaluation Research Center
• College of Education Human Sciences
• University of Nebraska-Lincoln

3

• Presenter
• Judy Martin, M.S.
• Program Administrator
• Tobacco-Free Nebraska
• Nebraska Health Human Services System

4
The Problem

• Smokeless tobacco (ST) overlooked in research to
  understand tobacco use
• Pressure to reduce cigarette smoking may
  inadvertently encourage ST use
• Expectancies play a role in decisions about ST
  use
• What are rural adolescents expectancies about ST
  use?

5
Smokeless Tobacco Uselast 30 days

• Low priority on the national tobacco scene
• Gender differences a male behavior
• Regional differences

MA7.4
MT 25.2 WY 28.6
SD 24.3 NE 16.8
IA 20
2001 YRBS
6
Smokeless Tobacco Use

• Efforts to discourage cigarette smoking may
  inadvertently encourage ST use
• From the users perspective ST has advantages
  over cigarette use
• Private behavior
• Considerate behavior
• Employers prefer it

• Saves time
• Safer
• No bad PR

7
(No Transcript)
8
Expectancies

• Expectancies are the outcomes a person learns to
  anticipate from a particular behavior. They can
  be learned from
• Observing experiences of other people
• Messages implicit in policies, regulations, TV,
  movies, magazines, school, church
• Personal experience

9
Expectancies, continued

• A person learns to anticipate the outcome of a
  behavior long before he/she tries the behavior
• Because expectancies are learned, education can
  modify expectancies

10
Expectancies, continued

• Expectancies are measured with Ifthen
  statements, for example
• If I chew, my boss will be happier than if I
  smoke.
• If I chew it will taste good

11
Developing ST Expectancy Measures

• Interviews and Focus Groups
• Rural high school students in four different
  regions of Nebraska
• Yielded 100 different statements about the
  anticipated outcomes from ST use (expectancy
  statements)
• 38 expectancy statements developed from the
  interview and focus group results

12
Questionnaire

• 38 expectancy statements answered on a 7-point
  scale from strongly agree to strongly
  disagree
• 12-month and 30-day ST and cigarette use
  questions from 1999 YRBS
• Basic demographic questions

13
Study Population

• 10 rural high schools
• 30.3 freshmen
• 24.8 sophomores
• 27.3 juniors
• 13.4 seniors
• used ST in last 30 days
• 31.5 males
• 6 females

• 46.8 males
• 53.0 females 18

14
Factor Analysis

• Sample split into two
• 1st half analyzed with factor analysis with
  Varimax rotation. Result 5 factors 18 items
  eliminated
• A confirmatory analysis done using 2nd half of
  sample verified the adequacy of the 5-factor
  solution.

15
Five Factors

1. Safety-Convenience (a .84, 5 items)If I chew
   when I am working on my job I will be safe than
   if I smoke.
2. Physical pleasure (a .78, 3 items)If I chew it
   will relieve stress in my life.
3. Effects of peers (a .73, 4 items)If I chew it
   will not harm other people like smoking does.

16
Five Factors, continued

1. Image (a .77, 4 items)If I do not chew tobacco
   my friends will make fun of me.
2. Negative consequences (a .54, 4 items)If I
   chew it will cost a lot of money.

17
Results

• ST users had significantly more positive and less
  negative expectancies than non-users

Expectancies factor Cohens d
Physical pleasure 1.38
Effect on peers 1.08
Safety convenience .94
Image .89
Negative consequences .62
18
Expectancies predicted current ST use
Odds Ratio
Gender 4.5
Ever smoked 3.6
Friends chew 2.3
Physical pleasure 1.9
Friends smoke 1.8
Effects on peers 1.4
Image 1.0
Safety convenience 0.9
Negative consequences 0.8

• Expectancies

19
Expectancies also predicted intentions to use ST

• Gender
• Personal smoking history
• Physical pleasure
• Effect on peers
• expectancies

20
Influences on the development of expectancies
More positive expectancies Less negative
expectancies

• Gender
• Students smoking history
• Family member chews
• Friends chew
• Friends smoke

? ? ?
21
Implications for educators

• Expectancies are learned therefore they can be
  modified through education
• Focus ST education on ST expectancies
• Expectancies are learned before the behavior is
  ever tried
• Teach ST education before ST use

22
Implications, continued

• Gender differences raises questions about
  marketing to females
• ST use is part of rural culture
• ST use is an acceptable alternative to cigarette
  smoking
• ST sanctions are less visible than sanctions on
  smoking

23
Implications, continued

• ST may be a gateway to cigarettes and other
  substances
• Family influence is less significant than peer
  influence
• Health consequences of ST use are not yet
  significant

24
So

• ST users and ST nonusers differed significantly
  in their expectancies
• Expectancies predicted current ST use
• Expectancies are influenced more by peers than
  family
• Expectancies about long-term health consequences
  of ST use were not detected in this study

25
Limitations

• Rural convenience sample
• One of only a few studies looking at adolescent
  ST use

26
Contact authors

• Detailed report available (downloadable PDF file)
  atwww.ajhb.org/2005/29-2.htm
• Ian M. Newman, University of Nebraska
• Tel. [phone]
• Email. inewman1_at_unl.edu
• Mail. 114 TEAC Box 880345 Lincoln, NE
  68588-0345
• Website. http//cehs.unl.edu/npcada