• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

社会控制与吸烟:考察关系质量不同维度的调节作用

Social control and smoking: examining the moderating effects of different dimensions of relationship quality.

作者信息

Scholz Urte, Berli Corina, Goldammer Philippe, Lüscher Janina, Hornung Rainer, Knoll Nina

机构信息

Department of Psychology, Developmental & Health Psychology, University of Konstanz.

University of Bern.

出版信息

Fam Syst Health. 2013 Dec;31(4):354-65. doi: 10.1037/a0033063. Epub 2013 Aug 19.

DOI:10.1037/a0033063
PMID:23957876
Abstract

A common form of social regulation of an individual's health behavior is social control. The contextual model of social control assumes that higher relationship quality goes along with more beneficial effects of social control on health behavior. This study examined potential differential moderating effects of different dimensions of relationship quality on the associations between positive and negative social control and smoking behavior and hiding smoking. The sample consisted of 144 smokers (n = 72 women; mean age = 31.78, SD = 10.04) with a nonsmoking partner. Positive and negative social control, dimensions of relationship quality consensus, cohesion and satisfaction, numbers of cigarettes smoked (NCS), hiding smoking (HS), and control variables were assessed at baseline. Four weeks later NCS and HS were assessed again. Only for smokers with high consensus, but not cohesion and satisfaction, a negative association between positive control and NCS emerged. Moreover, smokers with high consensus tended to report more HS when being positively and negatively socially controlled. This also emerged for cohesion and positive control. Satisfaction with the relationship did not display any interaction effects. This study's results emphasize the importance of differentiating not only between positive and negative social control but also between different dimensions of relationship quality in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics in romantic dyads with regard to social regulation of behavioral change.

摘要

对个体健康行为进行社会调节的一种常见形式是社会控制。社会控制的情境模型假定,较高的关系质量与社会控制对健康行为产生的更有益影响相伴而生。本研究考察了关系质量的不同维度对积极和消极社会控制与吸烟行为及隐藏吸烟之间关联的潜在差异调节作用。样本由144名有非吸烟伴侣的吸烟者组成(n = 72名女性;平均年龄 = 31.78,标准差 = 10.04)。在基线时评估了积极和消极社会控制、关系质量的共识、凝聚力和满意度维度、吸烟支数(NCS)、隐藏吸烟(HS)以及控制变量。四周后再次评估NCS和HS。仅对于具有高共识但凝聚力和满意度不高的吸烟者,积极控制与NCS之间出现了负相关。此外,具有高共识的吸烟者在受到积极和消极社会控制时往往报告更多的隐藏吸烟行为。凝聚力与积极控制之间也出现了这种情况。对关系的满意度未显示出任何交互作用。本研究结果强调,不仅要区分积极和消极社会控制,还要区分关系质量的不同维度,以便全面理解浪漫伴侣关系中行为改变社会调节的动态过程。

相似文献

1
Social control and smoking: examining the moderating effects of different dimensions of relationship quality.社会控制与吸烟:考察关系质量不同维度的调节作用
Fam Syst Health. 2013 Dec;31(4):354-65. doi: 10.1037/a0033063. Epub 2013 Aug 19.
2
Examining gender differences in received, provided, and invisible social control: an application of the dual-effects model.审视在接受、给予和无形社会控制方面的性别差异:双重效应模型的应用。
Anxiety Stress Coping. 2014;27(6):678-94. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2014.892585. Epub 2014 Mar 19.
3
Invisible Support: Effects on the Provider's Positive and Negative Affect.隐形支持:对提供者积极和消极情绪的影响。
Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2016 Jul;8(2):172-91. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12067. Epub 2016 Apr 28.
4
Similarity in cigarette smoking attracts: a prospective study of romantic partner selection by own smoking and smoker prototypes.吸烟习惯相似性导致情侣选择趋同:自身吸烟与烟民原型对浪漫伴侣选择的前瞻性研究。
Psychol Addict Behav. 2009 Dec;23(4):632-43. doi: 10.1037/a0017370.
5
A randomized experiment to examine unintended consequences of dietary supplement use among daily smokers: taking supplements reduces self-regulation of smoking.一项随机实验研究了日常吸烟者使用膳食补充剂的意外后果:服用补充剂会降低对吸烟的自我调节。
Addiction. 2011 Dec;106(12):2221-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03545.x. Epub 2011 Aug 2.
6
Adolescent romantic relationships and change in smoking status.青少年恋爱关系与吸烟状态变化。
Addict Behav. 2011 Apr;36(4):320-6. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.11.014. Epub 2010 Dec 8.
7
Social influences on smoking cessation: a comparison of the effect of six social influence variables.社会因素对戒烟的影响:六个社会影响变量效果的比较
Prev Med. 2005 Jul;41(1):186-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.09.040. Epub 2004 Dec 9.
8
Daily hassles and uplifts: a diary study on understanding relationship quality.日常琐事与愉悦时刻:关于理解关系质量的日记研究。
J Fam Psychol. 2012 Oct;26(5):719-28. doi: 10.1037/a0029628. Epub 2012 Aug 20.
9
Smoking concordance during pregnancy: Are there relationship benefits?孕期吸烟一致性:是否存在关系益处?
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Nov;192:30-35. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.09.027. Epub 2017 Sep 21.
10
Smokers with multiple behavioral risk factors: how are they different?具有多种行为风险因素的吸烟者:他们有何不同?
Prev Med. 2000 Oct;31(4):299-307. doi: 10.1006/pmed.2000.0710.

引用本文的文献

1
Marital Quality-A Neglected Player in the Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Studies.婚姻质量——预防心血管疾病的被忽视因素:一项纵向研究的系统评价。
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2024 Aug;26(8):821-831. doi: 10.1007/s11886-024-02082-x. Epub 2024 Jul 4.
2
How Do People Experience and Respond to Social Control From Their Partner? Three Daily Diary Studies.人们如何体验并回应来自伴侣的社会控制?三项日常日记研究。
Front Psychol. 2021 Jan 13;11:613546. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.613546. eCollection 2020.
3
Comparison of internet and mailing methods to recruit couples into research on unaided smoking cessation.
比较互联网和邮寄两种方法招募夫妇参与非援助戒烟研究。
Addict Behav. 2017 Dec;75:12-16. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.06.012. Epub 2017 Jun 21.
4
The Influence of Social Network Characteristics on Peer Clustering in Smoking: A Two-Wave Panel Study of 19- and 23-Year-Old Swedes.社交网络特征对吸烟同伴聚集的影响:一项针对19岁和23岁瑞典人的两波面板研究
PLoS One. 2016 Oct 11;11(10):e0164611. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164611. eCollection 2016.
5
Cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption among Chinese older adults: do living arrangements matter?中国老年人的吸烟与饮酒情况:居住安排有影响吗?
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Feb 23;12(3):2411-36. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120302411.