rss
Tob Control 2009;18:127-131 doi:10.1136/tc.2008.025841
  • Research paper

Predicting smokers’ non-compliance with smoking restrictions in public places

  1. L Lazuras1,
  2. J R Eiser2,
  3. A Rodafinos3
  1. 1
    South-East European Research Centre (SEERC), Thessaloniki, Greece
  2. 2
    University of Sheffield, Psychology Department, Sheffield, UK
  3. 3
    City College International Faculty of the University of Sheffield, Thessaloniki, Greece
  1. Dr L Lazuras, SEERC, 24 Prox. Koromila Street, 546 24, Thessaloniki, Greece; llazuras{at}seerc.org
  • Received 14 April 2008
  • Revised 12 December 2008
  • Published Online First 8 January 2009

Abstract

Objective: The present study aimed to identify the predictors of non-compliance with smoking restrictions among Greek college student smokers. Differences in attitudes to smoking bans and tobacco control policies between current smokers and non-smokers were also examined.

Methods: Data were collected from college students (n = 229, mean (SD) age 21.27 (3.15) years). Measures included tobacco dependence, attitudes to tobacco control policies, outcome expectancy and normative beliefs.

Results: The majority of current smokers reported non-compliance with existing restrictions. Logistic regression analysis showed that non-compliance was significantly predicted by (less) anticipated regret from tobacco-related health harm, tobacco dependence and perceived prevalence and social acceptability of smoking. Analysis of variance indicated that current non-smokers held significantly more positive attitudes to smoking bans and tobacco control policies than current smokers.

Conclusions: Smoking was highly prevalent, and more than half of current smokers reported not complying with existing regulations in public places. Smokers’ attitudes to smoking bans and tobacco control policies did not have an effect on compliance behaviour. Future policies to promote compliance with smoking restrictions in Greece should target health-related anticipated regret, and perceived social norms.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None.

  • Funding: This study was financially supported by a Cancer Research UK grant, no. C3841/A8924.

  • Ethics approval: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Psychology Department, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register hereto access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alertsso you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.