, 2004). This variable was dichotomized as ��social smoking�� (i.e., smoking mainly when with others) versus other responses. Social Aspects of Smoking Participants were asked ��Did either of your parents smoke when you lived with them?�� (Berg et al., 2011) and ��Out of your five closest friends, how many of them nevertheless smoke cigarettes?�� (Maibach, Maxfield, Ladin, & Slater, 1996) to determine their social experiences with smoking. To assess perceived smoking prevalence, we asked ��What percent of students at your school do you think have smoked at least one cigarette in the past 30 days? (State your best estimate.)�� (Choi, Ahluwalia, Harris, & Okuyemi, 2002).

Perceived Harm Participants were asked ��Do you believe there is any harm in having an occasional cigarette?�� with response options of ��yes�� or ��no�� (Minnesota Department of Health, 2008) and ��At what point does smoking become harmful to one’s health? Smoking 1 day per week; smoking 3 days per week; smoking 1 cigarette per day; smoking 3 cigarettes per day; smoking 5 cigarettes per day; smoking 10 cigarettes per day; smoking 20 cigarettes per day.�� Smoking Attitudes The Smoking Attitudes Scale (Shore et al., 2000) is a 17-item questionnaire assessing attitudes toward smoking. The Smoking Attitudes Scale asked participants to rate on a 7-point scale how strongly they agree (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) with 17 smoking-related statements across four dimensions��interpersonal relationships with smokers, laws and societal restrictions on smoking in public places, health concerns, and the marketing and sale of cigarettes (Shore et al.

, 2000). Sample questions include ��second-hand smoke is a legitimate health risk�� and ��nonsmokers should be more tolerant of smokers.�� Higher scores indicate more negative attitudes regarding smoking (i.e., more negative thoughts regarding relationships with smokers, more positive attitudes toward smoking restrictions, more negative attitudes regarding smoking-related health risks, and more negative attitudes regarding the marketing and sale of cigarettes). The scale produces significantly different scores for smokers and nonsmokers, with smokers possessing consistently more favorable attitudes toward smoking-related topics (Shore et al., 2000). The scale has good construct validity and subscale alphas ranging from .69 to .88 (Shore et al.

, 2000). Data Analysis Participant characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. In order to obtain internal consistency reliabilities for the Classifying a Smoker Scale, we calculated Cronbach��s alpha. Factor Cilengitide analyses were conducted to determine the underlying factor structure of the scale. Scale scores were examined in relation to sociodemographic and smoking-related characteristics using t tests for categorical variables and correlations for continuous variables.