SELF-CONTROL OF SMOKING-I. EFFECTS OF EXPERIENCE WITH IMPOSED, INCREASING,

DECREASING AND RANDOM DELAYS*

ALEXANDER NEWMAN? and ROBIN BLOOM

Department of Psychology. Hunter College of the City University of New York. 695 Park Avenue. NY 10021. U.S.A.

(Received 3 Scprr~mher 1978)

Summary-A test of a passive self-control training procedure suggested by Skinner was per- formed. After smoker’s tolerance for delay of smoking was assessed. they were exposed to either an increasing, decreasing or random sequence of imposed delay of smoking and were then tested for tolerance to delay. Increasing delay significantly improved subjects’ smoking inhibition while decreasing and random sequences had no significant effect. The results are attributed to either frustration extinction or rehearsal of coping responses to the aversiveness of delay.

SELF-CONTROL OF SMOKING: EFFECTS OF EXPERIENCE

WITH FIXED, DECREASING AND INCREASING DELAYS

Excessive smoking, according to many behavior theorists, is usually acquired through the observation of models reinforced for smoking and through social reinforcement for engaging in that behavior. Once acquired. smoking is maintained by avoiding with- drawal symptoms and is reinforced by physiological stimulation derived from nicotine. Direct application of behavior modification techniques derived from this conceptualiza- tion have produced equivocal results. In general, most investigators (cf Bernstein, 1969; Hunt and Matarazzo, 1973; Levenberg and Wagner, 1976; Mausner, 1969) have reported a failure to obtain significant therapeutic improvements when applying to smoking essen- tially the same techniques found successful in the treatment of other problem behaviors. In contrast to this view, smoking reduction may be seen as a problem in self-control because it usually involves self-initiated decrease in the probability of a response result- ing in the forfeit of immediate positive reinforcement in favor of delayed negative re- inforcement.

Kanfer (1976) and Mischel (1974) have proposed that self-control proceeds in two stages. The first stage. decisional self-control, consists of the need to choose from a number of possible alternatives. The primary characteristic of this situation is that only a single selection need be made and that once it has been made its consequences are no longer under the individual’s control. Thus, subjects’ forthcoming reinforcement is under external control. The second stage, protracted self-control. is characterized by a commit- ment to some future performance where conflicting behaviors and their execution are not fully dependent on environmental cues and monitors. Until the contract requirements are met. invocation of various self-generated techniques may be required to maintain the new behavior which must contend with strongly established alternatives. In such situations, the commitment sets the stage for the execution of a protracted series of new behaviors which vary in aversiveness and which are primarily subject to short term self-control.

While many life situations involve both stages, research and clinical efforts have focused on each phase individually, taking into account the possible influences of specific determinants. For example, the variables and programs which induce an individual to refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages by voluntary commitment to a detoxification ward may be different from those variables and programs which induce an individual to refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages while with companions in a tavern. In the

* This research was supported by a grant from the Research Foundation of the City University of New York. t To whom all requests for reprints should be addressed.

187

188 ALEXANDER NEWMAN and ROBIN BLOOM

former case, the task is to explain the variables most potent in affecting the desired choice while in the latter paradigm, the task is to determine what variables affect the moment-to-moment decision to wait for the expected terminal reinforcer.

While studies have recently begun to explore decisional self-control in smokers (e.g. Newman, 1977), the focus of attention has been on active training procedures for pro- tracted self-control: narrowing stimulus control, (Nolan, 1968: Roberts, 1969X self-moni- toring (McFall, 1970; McFall and Hammen, 1971) self-reinforcement (Gutman and Mar- ston. 1967), positive self-punishment (Axelrod et al., 1974), coverant control (Rutner. 1967; Keutzer, 1968; Lawson and May, 1920; Gordon and Sacks, 1971; Tooley and Pratt, 1967), thought stopping (Wisocki and Rooney, 19711, covert sensitization (Cautella, 1971, Wagner & Bragg, 1970), etc. The implicit assumption of this research approach is that the response repertoire of smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc., do not contain effective controlling responses. Alternatively, their problem may simply reflect a response deficit rather than a response absence. That is, effective controlling responses may be in their repertoires, but not adequately rehearsed. Therefore, self-control training should involve rehearsal in confrontation with actual self-control situations rather than the acquisition of new responses.

Skinner (1948) suggested that merely exposing subjects to increasing delays of reward intervals will facilitate self-control. Newman and Kanfer (1975) tested Skinner’s notion in young children. In a training (discrimination learning) phase, when the subject emmitted the correct response, a small candy reward was delivered after 0, 10, 20, 40 or 60 set fixed delay; or given after 60 set for the first block of four trials and the delay interval was decreased every four trials; or given immediately in the first block of four trials and every subsequent trial block was gradually increased. In a subsequent test the increasing delay group demonstrated resistance to temptation significantly superior to that of decreasing and fixed delay groups. No significant differences among the fixed delay groups and between the fixed and decreasing delay groups were found, indicating that the superiority of the increasing group was not due merely to variability of delay intervals.

It is postulated that smoking reduction is a self-control problem. It is hypothesized that Newman and Kanfer’s (1973) procedure of presenting subjects with gradually increasing delay of reward intervals not only facilitatesself-control in children but will be an effective treatment of clinical self-control problems (e.g. smoking, drinking, obesity etc.). The primary purpose of the present study is to demonstrate that reduction in smoking can be obtained by exposure to gradually increasing delays of reward.

Subjects

METHOD

Subjects for the proposed experiment were 30 male and 30 female undergraduate student volunteers at Hunter College. All subjects had smoked a minimum of one and a half packs a day for over a year.

Apparatus and ~ter~als

The experimenter monitored the latency of smoking using a hand-held stop watch. Galvanic Skin Responses (GSR) were recorded using Marietta Self-balancing GSR Model ??A-I2-lOOR.

Procedure

The experimenter approached students and asked them to volunteer for an experiment primarily concerned with physiological changes during smoking. They were immediately asked how many cigarettes they smoked a day and how long they had been smoking. If they met the criterion of 30 cigarettes per day for over a year they were told that they qualified for the study and that the study would simply involve having non-painful and non-dangerous electrodes placed on the second and fourth fingers of their non-dominant hands. They were assured that there would be no shock and no risk of physical danger

Self-control of smoking-1 189

from the apparatus. They were further instructed that they would be cued when to take a puff from their cigarettes so that the recordings could be accurate.

Each subject who agreed to participate was brought individually to the experimental room, was shown the equipment and was allowed to light a cigarette and asked to put it in the ashtray. After the lit cigarette was placed in the ashtray directly in front of the subject, he/she was given an informed consent form to sign and was then told that initial physiological recordings were being taken. The subject was told to take a puff of the cigarette whenever he/she wanted to but to wait as long as possible before taking the puff so that the experimenter could get as much physiological data as possible. The subject was given three such self-control trials. The experimenter recorded the subject’s latency unobtrusively. In contrast, the physiological recordings during the waiting period were made obtrusively.

Treatment

The subject was told that next phase of the experiment was concerned with assessing those physiological changes which occur when people inhibit their cigarette smoking and not with inducing subjects to stop smoking. The subject was informed that a lit cigarette would be placed in an ashtray and that after a certain amount of time had elapsed the experimenter would signal him/her to take a puff of the cigarette. The subject was further instructed to take only one puff of the cigarette when the experimenter signaled and then to place the cigarette back into the ashtray.

The experimental manipulation was the specific sequence of delays. In the increasing delay group. the subject was told to take a puff immediately. Delay increased 10 set every trial. Thus, after the thirtieth trial the waiting period was 300 sec. In the decreasing delay group the subject was first asked to wait 300sec before taking the first puff. The delay interval decreased every trial by 10 set so that after 30 trials the subject was asked to take a puff immediately. For the random delay group the delays varied randomly from 0 to 300 set with the constraint that a specific delay interval be presented only once. All subjects had 30 trials and had one trial with every waiting period between 0 and 300 set in 10 set intervals.

Post-test

The post-test involved the same procedure and recordings of unobtrusive measure of latency (amount of time between puffs) as the pre-test and obtrusive measures of GSR. Subjects were then given a post-experimental questionnaire which included rating scales assessing perceived effectiveness of the procedure to facilitate smoking reduction and aversiveness of waiting periods.

RESULTS

Although subjects were assigned to treatment conditions randomly, an analysis of variance was performed to assess the possibility of a sampling bias with respect to subjects’ smoking histories. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to either number of cigarettes smoked every day, F(2, 57) = 2.44, P > 0.05 or

number of years smoked, F(2, 57) = 0.135. To obtain a more sensitive method of change, one that takes into account each

subject’s initial response level and permits intercorrelations among the dependent vari- ables, residual change scores were used after testing for required assumptions (Benjamin. 1967; Tucker et al., 1966). Residual change scores consisted of the difference between the obtained post-test score and a post-test score predicted on the basis of linear regression from the appropriate pre-test score. This analysis assumes homogeneity of means and variances for pre-test scores and a significant correlation between pre-test and post-test scores.

In order to test the assumptions for a residual change score analysis, one way analysis of variance at pre-test was performed and indicated no significant effect, F(2, 57) = 0.01, P > 0.10. In addition. Bartlett’s Test for homogeneity of variance of waiting times

190 ALEXANDER NEWMAN and ROBIN BLOOM

Fig. 1. Mean changes in tolerance to duration of smoking inhibition as a function of exposure to increasing. decreasing or random delay of cigarette puff.

revealed no significant differences among the variances of the three groups (Corrected X2 = 1.83, P > 0.10). Finally, a significant correlation between pre-test and post-test was obtained r(58) = +0.32, P < 0.05.

An analysis of variance on the residual change scores arrayed in Fig. 1 indicated that groups changed differentially over trials. F(2. 57) = 27.09, P < 0.001. In order to locate these differences. a Duncan Multiple Range test was conducted and results revealed that increasing delay produced significantly longer waiting times (P < 0.001) than did either decreasing or random delay. Random did not differ significantly from decreasing.

To examine the overall change from pre-treatment to post-treatment, groups (3) x phase (2) x trials (3) analysis of variance was performed on the amount of time subjects waited before taking a puff. A significant groups effect, F (2, 144) = 10.41, P < 0.001. was obtained. Subjects improved significantly across phases, (1, 114), F = 44.34, P < 0.001. Finally the predicted groups x phase interaction effect was found, F(2. 114) = 19.40, P < 0.001. F-tests of simple effects revealed that subjects waited significantly longer in post-test in the increasing delay group, F(l, 114) = 25.63, P < 0.001. but not in the decreasing, F = 0.06, or random, F = 1.58, P > 0.10 groups, Finally, analysis of variance of the GSR data revealed no significant differences, (F -c 1).

Subjects in the increasing delay condition reported that this procedure would be beneficial in helping them stop smoking, (mean = 7.2) while subjects in the decreasing and random patterns did not find this training very beneficial in helping them to stop smoking (mean = 4.15 and 5.2, respectively). Analysis of variance indicated that this difference was reliable, F(2, 57) = 11.55, P < 0.001). Duncan Multiple Range test indi- cated that the increasing delay group was significantly different, P < 0.01, from the decreasing and random delay groups (which did not differ from each other). An analysis of variance of subjects’ ratings of aversiveness of waiting periods indicated no significant difference between groups, F < 1.

DISCUSSION

The major finding of the present study is that imposed exposure to increasing delay improved subjects’ tolerance to smoking inhibition. Various explanations of the superior- ity of the increasing delay training have been advanced (Newman and Kanfer, 1976). For example, in the training phase, subjects were first given immediate reward. When the

Self-control of smoking-l 191

delay was introduced, the delay interval was aversive because it was effectively a time out from positive reinforcement (e.g. Leitenberg, 1965). It is likely that subjects attempted to reduce the aversiveness by emmitting various coping (controlling) responses. When re- ward was delivered, it reinforced not only the correct response but also the coping response which more immediately preceeded the reward. As the delay increased, the frequency of coping responses also increased. It is hypothesized that these subjects in the self-control situation employed these coping responses to reduce the aversiveness of delay and, as a result, demonstrated resistance to temptation superior to that of subjects in’the decreasing or random delay groups.

An alternate explanation posits that the aversiveness of a delay of reward interval is due to a conditioned emotional response, called frustration (Amsel. 1967). Recent evi- dence has indicated that conditioned frustration is similar to conditioned fear in the sense that both can motivate, as well as disrupt, other behavior (e.g. McAllister and McAllister, 1971). Thus, delay of reward early in training has been found to produce larger galvanic skin responses than those produced by immediate reward (Ware and Terrell, 1961).

In general, graded exposure to aversive stimuli results in anxiety reduction (e.g. Herz- berg, 1941; Levine, 1942; Schubot. 1966). Therefore. if delay of reward is aversive, expos- ing subjects to gradually increasing delays of reward should extinguish the aversive effects of delay, thereby enhancing the potency of the delayed reward and facilitate self-control.

Training with increasing delays increased tolerance for delay but apparently did not decrease frustration (to the extent that GSR is an adequate measure of subject’s emotio- nality). The results thus suggest that rather than effecting extinction of frustration, increasing delay training facilitates acquisition of coping responses to the frustration during delay.

The apparent independence between tolerance for aversive stimulation and physiologi- cal indices of stress have also been found in other studies (e.g. Grimm and Kanfer, 1976). Rachman (1977) argues that desynchrony between behavioral and physiological indices of stress increases with demand. While the specific demands of waiting were equal across groups (i.e. all subjects waited all time intervals), the particular increasing delay sequence may have been construed as high demand and therefore it may have produced desynch- rony between measures, with marked improvements in behavior but negligible benefits in reducing the physiological measure of aversiveness and self-report indices of aversiveness during waiting. The self-report findings that increasing delay would facilitate smoking reduction although the waiting period was not rated as less aversive indicate that sub- jects may be aware of the discrepancy between behavioral and verbal reports or physio- logical indices of stress. Thus, colloquial conceptualizations of will-power or impulse control may reflect the perception of discrepancy between behavior, on the one hand and physiological and self-reported stress or frustration on the other hand. If this is a reliable finding, self-control training (especially with drug related addictions) should be presented with the qualification that although behavior may change, cravings (bodily reaction) and perceptions of frustrations may not.

While assessment of long term effects of exposure to increasing delay (with larger durations) is currently being evaluated. the present study suggests an alternative clinical approach. Those self-control programs which, based on the old adage. “Get thee behind me Satan.” seek to reduce immediate stress in self-control situations by avoiding tempta- tion (e.g. Mischel. 1961) and therefore employ verbal training procedures in the absence of the temptation are generally not successful. The present approach suggests that gener- alizability to actual self-control situations will be maximized by actual similarity between self-control training and testing situations employing the physical presence of the tempt- ing stimuli.

REFERENCES AMSEL A. (19671 Partial reinforcement effects on vigor and persistence. In The Psychology of Learning md

Moturatio~~ (Edited by SPENCE K. W. and SPENCE J. T.). Academic Press. New York.

192 ALEXANDER NEWMAN and ROBIN BLOOM

AXELROD S., HALL R. V., WEIS L. and ROHRER S. (1974) Use of self-imposed contingencies to reduce the frequency of smoking behavior. In Selfconrrol: Power to rhe Person (Edited by MAHONEY M. J. and THORESEN C. E.). Brooks-Cole, California U.S.A.

BENJAMIN L. S. (1967) Facts and artifacts in using analysis of covariance to ‘unds’ the law of initial values. Psychophysiology 4, 187-206.

BERNS~IN D. A. (1969) Modification of smoking behavior: an evaluative review. Psycho/. Bull. 71, 418-440. CAUTELA J. R. (1971) Covert conditioning. In A. Jacobs & L. B. Sachs (Eds.). The Psycholog!. of Prirare Erents:

Perspective on Couerr Response systems (Edited by JACOBS A. and SACHS L. B.). pp. 109-130. Academic Press, New York.

GORDON S. B. and SACKS L. B. (1971) Self-control with a covert aversive stimulus: modification of smoking. Unpublished manuscript, West Virginia University.

GRIMM L. and KANFER F. H. (1976) Tolerance of aversive stimulation. Behac. Ther. GUTMANN M. and MARSTON A. (1967) Problems of smokers motivation in behavioral program for reduction of

cigarette smoking. Psychol. Rep. 20, 1107-l 114. HERZBERG A. (1941) Short treatment of neuroses by graduated tasks. Br. J. med. Psycho/. 19. 19-36. HUNT W. A. and MATARAZZO J. D. (1973) Three years later: recent developments in the experimental modifica-

tion of smoking behavior. J. abnorm. Psychol. 81, 107-l 14. KANFER F. H. (1976) The many faces of self-control, or behavior modification changes its focus. Paper

presented at Eighth International Banff Conference, March, 1976. KEUTZER C. S. (1968) Behavior modification of smoking: the experimental investigation of diverse techniques.

Behav. Res. Ther. 6, 137-157. LAWSON D. M. and MAY R. B. (1970) Three procedures for the extinction of smoking behavior. Psycho/. Rec.

20, 151-1.57. LEITENBERG H. (1965) Is time-out from positive reinforcement an aversive event: A review of the experimental

evidence. Psychol. Bull. 64.42841. LEVENBERG S. T. and WAGNER M. K. (1976) Smoking cessation: long-term irrelevance of mode of treatment. J.

Behav. Ther. exp. Psychiat. 7, 93-95. LEVINE M. (1942) Psychotherapy in Medical Practice. MacMillan, New York. MAUSNER B. (1969) Some comments on failure of behavior therapy as a technique for modifying cigarette

smoking. J. counsel. c/in. Psychol. MCALLISTER W. B. and MCALLISTER D. B. (1971) Behavioral measurement of conditional fear. In Acersice

Conditioning and Learning (Edited by BRUSH F. R.). Academic Press, New York. MCFALL R. M. (1970) The effects of self-monitoring on normal smoking behavior. J. consulr c/in. Psycho/. 35.

135-142. MCFALL R. M. and HAMMEN C. L. (1972) Motivation, structure, and self-monitoring: the role of nonspecific

factors in smoking reduction. J. consult. c/in. Psychol. 37, 80-86. MISCHEL W. (1961) Preference for delayed reinforcement and social responsibility. J. abnorm. sot. Psycho/. 62,

l-7. M~~CHEL W. (1974) Processes in delay of gratification. Adv. exp. sot. Psycho/. 7. 249-292. NEWMAN A. and KANFER H. F. (1976) Delay of gratification in children: the effects of training under fixed,

decreasing and increasing delay of reward. J. exp. Child Psycho/. 21, 12-24. NOLAN J. D. (1968) Self-control procedures in the modification of smoking behavior. J. consu/t. c/in. Psych~l.

32.92-93. RACHMAN S. (1976) The passing of the two-stage theory of fear and avoidance: fresh possibilities. Behac. Res.

Ther. 14, 12.5-131. ROBERTS A. H. (1969) Self-control procedures in modification of smoking behavior: replication. Psychol. Rep.

24. 675-676. RUTNER I. T. (1967) The modification of smoking behavior through techniques of self-control. Unpublished

master’s thesis, Wichita State University. SCHUBOT E. E. (1966) The influence of hypnotic and muscular relaxation in systematic desensitization of

phobias. Dissert. Abstr. Zl, 3681-3682. SKINNER B. F. (1948) Walden Two. MacMillan, New York. TUCKER L. R., DAMARIN F., MESSICK S. (1966) A base-free measure of change. Psychomerrika 31. 457-473. TOOLEY J. T. and PRATT S. (1967) An experimental procedure for the extinction of smoking behavior. Psycho/.

Rec. 17, 209-218. ~:~GNER M. K. and BRAGG R. A. (1970) Comparing behavior modification approaches to habit decrement-

smoking J. consult. clin. Psychol. 34, 258-263. WARE R. and TERRELL G. (1961) Effects of delayed reinforcement on associative and incentive factors. Child

Devl. 32, 789-793. WtSOCKI P. and ROONEY E. J. (1971) A comparison of thought-stopping and covert sensitization techniques in

the treatment of smoking. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Association for the Ad- vancement of Behavior Therapy, Washington, DC, September, 1971.