↓ Skip to main content

Debunking Myths About Self-Quitting

Overview of attention for article published in American Psychologist, January 1989
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Debunking Myths About Self-Quitting
Published in
American Psychologist, January 1989
DOI 10.1037/0003-066x.44.11.1355
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This article examines data from 10 longterm prospective studies (N greater than 5,000) in relation to key issues about the self-quitting of smoking, especially those discussed by Schachter. When a single attempt to quit was evaluated, self-quitters' success rates were no better than those reported for formal treatment programs. Light smokers (20 or less cigarettes per day) were 2.2 times more likely to quit than heavy smokers. The cyclical nature of quitting was also examined. There was a moderate rate (mdn = 2.7%) of long-term quitting initiated after the early months (expected quitting window) of these studies, but also a high rate (mdn = 24%) of relapsing for persons abstinent for six months. The number of previous unsuccessful quit attempts was unrelated to success in quitting. Finally, there were few occasional smokers (slips) among successful long-term quitters. We argue that quitting smoking is a dynamic process, not a discrete event.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Unknown 62 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Other 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Professor 5 8%
Other 16 25%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 27%
Psychology 10 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 9%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Chemistry 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 19 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 December 2014.
All research outputs
#10,917,355
of 31,959,560 outputs
Outputs from American Psychologist
#1,731
of 3,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,841
of 71,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Psychologist
#30
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,959,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 65th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 71,415 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.