Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 562

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Self-efficacy and the stages of self-change of smoking

Open access
DiClemente, Carlo C., Prochaska, James O., Gibertini, Michael·1985·Cognitive Therapy and Research
DOI 10.1007/bf01204849
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Efficacy expectations are postulated to mediate all behavior change. This study examined the construct of self-efficacy in the self-change of smoking behavior. A 31-item measure of self-efficacy was used that included ratings of both temptation (cue strength) and confidence (efficacy). The subjects were 957 volunteers representing five stages of self change: (1) immotives, (2) contemplators, (3) recent quitters, (4) long-term quitters, and (5) relapsers. Subjects were assessed initially and at a 3- to 5-month follow-up. The self-efficacy scale proved to be an extremely reliable and coherent instrument with identifiable but not clearly interpretable subcomponents. Groups of subjects demonstrated significant differences in total self-efficacy scores. Efficacy expectations demonstrated small but significant relationships with smoking history variables and the pros and cons of smoking, but not with demographic, life stress, or persistence measures. Subject's efficacy evaluations at the initial assessment were related to changes in status for recent quitters and contemplators at the follow-up. The relationship between temptation and efficacy ratings is complex and varies for subjects in the various stages of change. Correlations between total self-efficacy and temptation scores were largest for contemplators (r = −.65) and relapsers (r = −.67) and smallest for the recent quitters (r = −.18). Finally, the magnitude of the difference between temptation and efficacy increased with length of abstinence for subjects in maintenance.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf01204849

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
DiClemente, C. C., Prochaska, J. O., & Gibertini, M.
Venue
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1985-04
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
181-200
ISSN
  • 0147-5916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2819
DOI
10.1007/bf01204849
OpenAlex
W2010214743
Cited by
562
References
8
FWCI
6.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.