Table 4.

Current Smoker Regressed on Source of Reprimand, Social Support for Smoking, Smoking Models, Education, Gender, Gender by Acculturation Interaction among Californians of Korean Descent, 2007.

“What percentage of smokers in California do you think will:	OR	95% CI	P<	ΔPR
Be reprimanded by a stranger.”	.92	0.87, 0.96	.001	−.06
Be reprimanded by their boss.”	.96	0.92, 1.01	.104	−.03
Be asked to leave a restaurant or bar.”	.94	0.90, 0.98	.002	−.04
Be reprimanded by a fellow friend.”	.92	0.88, 0.98	.003	−.06
Be looked down on by strangers.”	.91	0.86, 0.95	.001	−.07
Be reprimanded by a family member.”	.86	0.81, 0.90	.001	−.17
Be asked not to smoke in friend's house.”	.87	0.83, 0.97	.001	−.11
Be asked not to smoke in front of relatives.”	.86	0.82, 0.91	.001	−.12
Be asked not to smoke around children.”	.90	0.84, 0.95	.001	−.11
Be given ticket by a policeman.”	.98	0.91, 1.07	.707	−.01

^a Numbers in cells are adjusted odds ratios with calculated 95% confidence intervals, two tailed P values, and ΔPR defined as follows. ΔPR is the difference in predicted probabilities of being a current smoker when the 20^th and 80^th percentile scores are included in computations along with the means of other predictors. The discrepancy represents one estimate of the “effect” of differences in each predictor on smoking likelihood given the empirical estimates of the logistic regression. Each item represents a separate multiple logistic regression that included the specific item and the other predictors in table 3 (except for the total reprimand scale). CDC current smokers were coded 1, and others were coded 0. Reprimand items were worded as in table rescaled by dividing each item by 10 in order to facilitate interpretation. Nagelkerke R²s were between .18 and .19 in the logistic regressions and all models significantly reduced variation, P<.001.