Examining the impact of perceived psychological distances of quitting and continuing tobacco smoking on antismoking intention: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To date, little research has been conducted to understand the role of psychological distances on smoking behaviour. Construal Level Theory posits that individuals mentally construe events, objects, or ideas based on their perceived distance in terms of spatial, temporal, social, and hypothetical dimensions, influencing their judgments and decision-making processes. The aim of the current study was (1) to provide a comprehensive exploration of psychological distances of costs and benefits of tobacco smoking and antismoking intention and (2) to examine whether smoking can be attributed to rational behaviour based on the psychological distance weighted balance of perceived costs and benefits of quitting and continuing smoking. Mediation models delineating the relationships among temporal and hypothetical psychological distances, personal relevance and antismoking intention were tested on cross-sectional survey data of 1486 smokers (880 men, Mage = 39.9 years, SD = 13.36). Psychological distances were shown to be important factors in the cognitive evaluation process of smoking behaviour. Perceived temporal distance to smoking continuation/cessation was related to personal importance and hypothetical psychological distances, which were associated with anti-smoking intention. Furthermore, antismoking intention was related to the psychological distance-weighted gain-cost balance of quitting and continuing smoking. The current findings enhance our knowledge of the cognitive evaluation of the outcomes of smoking, indicating that the choice of not quitting smoking may be partially based on a biased rational decision-making process.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".