The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Smokers’ unrealistic optimism about their risk
Open accessAbstract
Objective:Past studies have produced ambiguous or inconsistent results when testing whether smokers actually underestimate their own risks of experiencing tobacco related illness. Whereas smokers claim that they are less at risk than the average smoker on self administered questionnaires, this unrealistic optimism has not been found in telephone or face-to-face interviews. We avoided the measurement problems of past studies and examined responses to a number of new questions to assess different aspects of smokers’ perceptions. Methodology:A US national telephone survey (n = 6369; 1245 current smokers) posed a variety of questions designed to examine beliefs about the risks of smoking. For key questions, separate samples of smokers were asked either about their own risk or about the risk of the average smoker. Results:Smokers underestimated their relative risk compared to non-smokers and, contrary to previous interview surveys, believed they have a lower risk of developing lung cancer than the average smoker. Furthermore, their perceived risk of lung cancer and of cancer in general barely increases with the number of cigarettes smoked per day, and their estimates of their risk of cancer are actually slightly lower than their estimates of their risk of lung cancer. Substantial proportions of smokers and former smokers agree with several myths, more than half agreeing that exercise undoes most smoking effects. Conclusion:Smokers underestimate their risk of lung cancer both relative to other smokers and to non-smokers and demonstrate other misunderstandings of smoking risks. Smoking cannot be interpreted as a choice made in the presence of full information about the potential harm.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Self-Enhancement: Food for Thought
Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P. (2008) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00068.x · Cited by 880
Third wave positive psychology: broadening towards complexity
Lomas, T., Waters, L., Williams, P., Oades, L. G., & Kern, M. L. (2021) · The Journal of Positive Psychology · doi:10.1080/17439760.2020.1805501 · Cited by 380
Successes and failures of the teachable moment: Smoking cessation in cancer patients
Gritz, E. R., Fingeret, M. C., Vidrine, D. J., Lazev, A. B., Mehta, N. V., & Reece, G. P. (2006) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.21598 · Cited by 360
How to define and measure risk perceptions
Wolff, K., Larsen, S., & Øgaard, T. (2019) · Annals of Tourism Research · doi:10.1016/j.annals.2019.102759 · Cited by 253
Associations between optimism, tobacco smoking and substanceabuse among Iranian high school students
Marin, S., Heshmatian, E., Nadrian, H., Fakhari, A., & Mohammadpourasl, A. (2019) · Health Promotion Perspectives · doi:10.15171/hpp.2019.38 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Weinstein, N. D., Marcus, S. E., & Moser, R. P.
- Venue
- Tobacco Control
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2005-02
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 55-59
- ISSN
- 0964-4563 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3318
- OpenAlex
- W2121507569
- Cited by
- 468
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Smokers’ unrealistic optimism about their risk. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/tc.2004.008375
- The paper
- Weinstein, N. D., Marcus, S. E., & Moser, R. P. (2005). Smokers’ unrealistic optimism about their risk. Tobacco Control. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2004.008375
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.