Table 3.
Predictors of Compliance With Lapse Reporting
| Quitter | Partner | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
| Intercept | 34.05*** | [6.12 to 189.44] | 484.85*** | [39.44 to 5960.54] |
| Level 1 (momentary) predictors | ||||
| Hour (GMC) | 0.95* | [0.90 to 1.00] | 0.91* | [0.84 to 0.98] |
| Compliant at t−1 (0 = no, 1 = yes) | 1.77 | [0.76 to 4.15] | 3.09*** | [1.64 to 5.85] |
| Fatigue (PMC) | 0.98 | [0.67 to 1.42] | 0.97 | [0.59 to 1.62] |
| Mood (PMC)a | 0.84 | [0.56 to 1.25] | 0.81 | [0.46 to 1.42] |
| Partner interaction (0 = no, 1 = yes) | 0.71 | [0.46 to 1.10] | 0.28** | [0.11 to 0.72] |
| Quitter smoked at t−1 (0 = no, 1 = yes)b | 1.21 | [0.65 to 2.22] | 0.73 | [0.37 to 1.46] |
| Confidence (PMC)c | 1.57*** | [1.20 to 2.06] | 1.17 | [0.69 to 1.99] |
| Urge (PMC) | 0.98 | [0.79 to 1.21] | — | — |
| Restraint (PMC) | 1.24 | [0.95 to 1.63] | — | — |
| Level 2 (daily) predictors | ||||
| Day of the study (GMC) | 0.96+ | [0.91 to 1.00] | 0.97 | [0.91 to 1.03] |
| Weekend (GMC) | 1.22 | [0.81 to 1.83] | 1.21 | [0.73 to 2.01] |
| Today’s self-control (PMC) | 1.20 | [0.79 to 1.84] | 1.18 | [0.77 to 1.82] |
| Today’s relationship satisfaction (PMC) | 0.72* | [0.52 to 0.99] | 0.90 | [0.66 to 1.23] |
| Level 3 (person) predictors | ||||
| Sex (0 = men, 1 = women) | 0.87 | [0.23 to 3.38] | 0.60 | [0.14 to 2.66] |
| Age (GMC) | 0.94+ | [0.88 to 1.00] | 0.87** | [0.78 to 0.96] |
| Race (0 = White, 1 = non-White) | 2.75 | [0.52 to 14.48] | 12.48* | [1.29 to 120.29] |
| Education (GMC) | 0.67* | [0.46 to 0.97] | 1.20 | [0.77 to 1.86] |
| Unemployed (0 = no, 1 = yes) | 1.08 | [0.31 to 3.78] | 5.15 | [0.59 to 45.12] |
| Marital status (0 = married, 1 = cohabiting) | 0.25* | [0.07 to 0.81] | 0.09* | [0.01 to 0.58] |
| Relationship length (GMC) | 0.99 | [0.91 to 1.08] | 1.09 | [0.98 to 1.21] |
| Children (0 = no, 1 = yes) | 0.47 | [0.16 to 1.38] | 0.20+ | [0.04 to 1.13] |
| Conscientiousness (GMC)d | 1.34 | [0.55 to 3.26] | 1.21 | [0.48 to 3.09] |
| Neuroticism (GMC)e | 0.67 | [0.36 to 1.26] | 0.97 | [0.44 to 2.17] |
| Relationship satisfaction (GMC) | 0.61 | [0.27 to 1.42] | 0.77 | [0.38 to 1.54] |
| Support for quitting (GMC)f | 1.18 | [0.49 to 2.82] | 3.25* | [1.10 to 9.66] |
| Motivation to quit (GMC) | 1.35 | [0.84 to 2.16] | — | — |
| Nicotine dependence (GMC) | 0.65** | [0.49 to 0.86] | — | — |
| Partner smoking status (0 = never, 1 = former) | 4.33** | [1.55 to 12.08] | 0.68 | [0.16 to 2.79] |
ORs less than one reflect negative associations and greater than one reflect positive associations between the predictor and the likelihood of being compliant. Uncentered hour ranged from 5 (5 am that day, opening of the morning report) to 28 (4 am the next day, close of the evening report). Compliant at t−1 refers to compliance in the previous entry. Day of the study ranged from 1 (first evening of the study) to 22 (last morning of the study). Uncentered weekend was coded 0 (Monday to Friday) or 1 (Saturday/Sunday).Today’s relationship satisfaction and self-control were reported in the evening report. The intercept represents the likelihood of being compliant after previously being noncompliant, at a “typical” hour, on a “typical” day of the study, on a “typical” day of the week, at each person’s average level of momentary and daily predictors, for married, White, employed men with no children, and a never-smoker partner at sample average levels of all other predictors. OR = odds ratio; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio; GMC = grand mean centered; PMC = person mean centered.
aResults were comparable when separate indices of positive and negative mood were included rather than one composite.
bQuitters reported whether they lapsed. Partners reported whether the quitter lapsed.
cQuitters reported confidence that they could quit. Partners reported confidence that the quitter could quit.
dResults were similar when measures of impulsivity (Lynam DR, Smith GT, Whiteside SP, Cyders MA. The UPPS-P: Assessing five personality pathways to impulsive behavior (Technical Report). 2006, West Lafayette: Purdue University.) or self-control (Tangney JP, Baumeister RF, Boone AL. High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. J Pers. 2004; 72: 271–324.) were substituted for conscientiousness.
eResults were similar when measures of emotion regulation (Gratz KL, Roemer L. Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. J Psychopathol Behav. 2004; 26: 41–54.) or emotional reactivity (Nock MK, Wedig MM, Holmberg EB, Hooley JM. The emotion reactivity scale: development, evaluation, and relation to self-injurious thoughts and behaviors. Behav Ther. 2008; 39: 107–116.) were substituted for neuroticism.
fQuitters reported the extent to which they expected their partner to provide support for quitting during the study. Partners reported the extent to which they planned to provide support for quitting.
+ p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.