Trends in Social Norms Towards Smoking Between 2002 and 2015 Among Daily Smokers: Findings From the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey (ITC 4C)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess trends in daily smokers' social norms and opinions of smoking between 2002 and 2015 in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. METHOD: Data were from wave 1 (2002) to wave 9 (2013-2015) of the longitudinal International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey (Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia), involving 23 831 adult daily smokers. Generalized estimating equation logistic regression models, adjusted for demographics and survey design effects, assessed associations of wave and country with outcomes: (A) over half of five closest friends smoke, (B) agreeing that people important to you believe you should not smoke, (C) agreeing that society disapproves of smoking, and (D) negative opinion of smoking. RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2015, adjusting for covariates, (A) over half of five closest friends smoke did not change (56% vs. 55%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.95 [95% Confidence Interval = 0.85-1.07]), (B) agreeing that people important to you believe you should not smoke generally decreased (89% vs. 82%; AOR = 0.54 [0.46-0.64]) despite an increase around 2006-2007, (C) agreeing that society disapproves of smoking increased between 2002 and 2006-2007 (83% vs. 87%; AOR = 1.38 [1.24-1.54]) then decreased until 2013-2015 (78%; AOR = 0.74 [0.63-0.88]), and (D) negative opinion of smoking decreased between 2002 and 2010-2011 (54% vs. 49%; AOR = 0.83 [0.75-0.91]) despite an increase around 2005-2006 and at the final wave (2013-2015). Except friend smoking, Canada had the greatest, and the United Kingdom the lowest, antismoking social norms and opinions. CONCLUSIONS: Except friend smoking and opinion of smoking, daily smokers' social norms became less antismoking between 2002 and 2015 despite increases around 2006-2007. Several potential explanations are discussed yet remain undetermined. IMPLICATIONS: Increasingly comprehensive tobacco control policies alongside decreasing smoking prevalence in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia have led to the assumption that smoking has become denormalized in these countries. Absent from the literature is any formal assessment of social norms towards smoking over time. Contrary to our hypotheses, this study found that the injunctive social norms of daily smokers became less antismoking between 2002 and 2015, despite increases around 2006-2007. There was no change over time in the proportion of daily smokers who report that over half of their five closest friends smoke.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".