Health Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association

2009, Vol. 28, No. 5, 529 –534 0278-6133/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0015198

The Role of Time Perspective in Smoking Cessation Amongst Older

English Adults

Jean Adams
Newcastle University

Objective: To study the longitudinal relationship between time perspective and smoking cessation over
4 years of follow-up among a cohort of older English adults and to determine whether the predictive
utility of time perspective in smoking cessation. Design: Analysis of data from core members of the
English Longitudinal Survey of Ageing who took part in face-to-face interviews in 2002, 2004, and 2006
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(n ⫽ 7,174). Main Outcome Measures: Time perspective was measured using a question on time period
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

for financial planning. Smoking at baseline and quitting over follow-up was determined through
self-report. Results: At baseline, planning for longer periods was associated with lower odds of being a
smoker, after controlling for age, gender, and education. Among those who were smokers at baseline,
planning for longer periods at baseline was associated with increased odds of quitting over 4 years, after
controlling for age, gender, and education. Conclusion: Including help to become more future orientated
in smoking cessation interventions may increase their effectiveness.

Keywords: time preference, cigarette, English Longitudinal Survey of Ageing, health promotion

In the United Kingdom, almost a quarter of individuals aged 16
or over are regular cigarette smokers (Goddard & Green, 2005).
The majority of smokers report both that they would like to quit
and that they have previously tried, but failed, to quit (Lader,
2007). Although it is certainly possible to quit smoking, even the
most intensive smoking cessation interventions do not achieve
more than a 20% quit rate at 1 year (Cahill, Stead, & Lancaster,
2007). Knowing what factors predict smoking cessation should
help in the development of more effective cessation interventions.
A number of, largely unmodifiable, factors are known to predict
successful smoking cessation, including older age, male gender,
socioeconomic affluence, lower level of addiction, and diagnosis
of a smoking related disease (Ward, Klesges, & Halpern, 1997). In
addition, potentially modifiable variables such as self-efficacy,
knowledge and beliefs about smoking related harm, and social
support are also important predictors of successful cessation (Ward
et al., 1997). However, these factors do not explain all of the
Jean Adams, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University.
Jean Adams is supported by a United Kingdom Medical Research
Council Special Training Fellowship in Health Services and Health of the
Public Research. The English Longitudinal Survey of Ageing (ELSA) is
funded by the National Institute of Aging in the United States and a
consortium of United Kingdom government departments co-ordinated by
the Office for National Statistics. The data used in this article were made
available through the United Kingdom Data Archive. The ELSA was
developed by a team of researchers based at University College London
and the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The data were collected by the National
Centre for Social Research. The developers and funders of ELSA and the
Archive do not bear any responsibility for the analyses or interpretations
presented here.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jean
Adams, Institute of Health and Society, William Leech Building, New-
castle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, NE2 4HH. E-mail:
j.m.adams@ncl.ac.uk
variation in successful smoking cessation and other factors are
likely to play a role.
The concept of “time perspective” refers to the influence that
considerations of past, present, and future events can have on
present day behavioral decisions. Related concepts that refer spe-
cifically to future time perspective include future orientation (Piko,
Luszczynska, Gibbons, & Tekozel, 2005), consideration of future
consequences (Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994),
delay of gratification (Cuskelly, Einam, & Jobling, 2001), and
impulsivity (Allen, Moeller, Rhoades, & Cherek, 1998) as well as
the economic concepts of time preference and delay discounting
(Mazur, 1987). These concepts all have in common the proposal
that considerations of the future outcomes of a present day behav-
ior are important in determining whether a present day behavior
will be performed.
Despite the theoretical multidimensionality of time perspective,
the majority of operationalizations of time perspective focus on the
unidimensional concept of future time perspective. These include
single questions concerning predicted longevity (Nagin & Pogar-
sky, 2004; Picone, Sloan, & Taylor, 2004; Wardle & Steptoe,
2003) and time period considered with making financial planning
decisions (Barsky, Juster, Kimball, & Shapiro, 1997; Komlos,
Smith, & Bogin, 2004; Picone et al., 2004); as well as multi-item
scales such as the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale
(Strathman et al., 1994) and Carstensen & Lang’s Future Time
Perspective Scale (Lang & Carstensen, 2002), which has been used
to determine individuals perceived remaining life span—from lim-
ited to expansive. Hypothetical money choice tasks, which are
used to determine an individual’s “discount rate”—an economic
marker of time perspective— have also been widely used to mea-
sure future time perspective (e.g., Baker, Johnson, & Bickel, 2003;
Ohmura, Takahashi, & Kitamura, 2005; Reynolds, Richards, Horn,
& Karraker, 2004; Yoon et al., 2007). Statistically significant
intercorrelations between most of these markers of future time

529
 530 ADAMS

perspective, both before and after controlling for age, gender, and full data on all variables included in the analyses. Individuals who
household income (Adams & Nettle, 2009), suggest that they provided data via a proxy respondent were not included as they
overlap at least to some degree and thus that there truly is an were not asked the question used to determine time perspective.
underlying phenomenon of future time perspective. How this phe-
nomenon should best be measured, and whether there are impor-
tant subdomains of the concept remain to be determined. Variables of Interest
There is good reason to believe that smoking cessation is asso-
As this was a secondary analysis of extant data, originally
ciated with time perspective. Quitting requires that the immediate
collected for other purposes, the measures available were, neces-
pleasures of smoking are foregone in favor of a short-term loss
sarily, limited by data availability. Using this data was a pragmatic
(e.g., withdrawal symptoms, weight gain, and loss of a coping
approach that allowed exploitation of a large and rich dataset.
strategy; Orleans, Jepson, Resch, & Rimer, 1994) and only longer
Smoking status at each wave was determined from answers to
term health related gains (Taylor, Hasselblad, Henley, Thun, &
the question “do you smoke cigarettes at all nowadays?” with
Sloan, 2002). Quitting is, therefore, more likely to be viewed
those answering yes being coded as current smokers. Individuals
positively if the long-, rather than short-, term consequences are
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

who answered “yes” to this question at Wave 1 but “no” at Wave

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

considered. Furthermore, in cross-sectional studies, time perspec-

2 or 3 were asked to confirm they had quit with those who
tive has been reported to vary between current and ex-smokers
confirmed quitting smoking between Wave 1 and 2 or between
with ex-smokers tending to value and consider the future conse-
Wave 2 and 3 identified as quitters.
quences of their actions more than current smokers (Bickel, Odum,
The ELSA included a question on planning of saving and
& Madden, 1999; Odum, Madden, & Bickel, 2002).
spending in Wave 1 that was used as the current measure of future
However, these cross-sectional findings are unable to provide
time perspective: “In planning your/your family’s saving and
evidence on the direction of causation between smoking cessation
spending, which of the following time periods is more important to
and future time perspective. It is possible both that those smokers
you and your husband/wife/partner?” Response options, provided
who consider future outcomes more are better able to quit and that
on a show card, were: the next few weeks, the next few months, the
those smokers who quit become more future orientated after they
next year, the next few years, the next 5–10 years, and longer than
have quit—perhaps as a reflection of their now longer life expect-
10 years. This question has previously been used as a marker of
ancy. Although these hypotheses are not necessarily mutually
time perspective (Picone et al., 2004) and responses are associated
exclusive, longitudinal data are required to test both of them. To
with a number of other measures of time perspective (Adams &
date, the only longitudinal data that has been published on this
Nettle, 2009). Respondents who spontaneously reported planning
topic found that a measure of future time perspective predicted
from day to day, or not planning, were grouped with those who
which, among a group of pregnant smokers who spontaneously
planned for the next few weeks. Those who reported planning for
quit in pregnancy, would relapse to smoking by 6 months after
the next 5 to 10 years and more than 10 years were grouped
delivery (Yoon et al., 2007). Although certainly of relevance, this
together. This resulted in five, ordered, time perspective groups:
data cannot necessarily be interpreted as indicating that time
those who planned for the next few weeks or less, the next few
perspective is also predictive of successful quitting (rather than
months, the next year, the next few years, and the next 5 years or
relapse after quitting) among nonpregnant smokers.
more.
If time perspective does predict successful smoking cessation
Age, gender, and socioeconomic position (SEP) at Wave 1 were
this could be exploited in smoking cessation interventions (Orbell
included as potential confounding variables as all are known to be
& Hagger, 2006; Orbell, Perugini, & Rakow, 2004). To provide
associated with quitting success and are likely also associated with
evidence on the longitudinal relationship between time perspective
time perspective (D’Alessio, Guarino, Pascalis, & Zimbardo,
and smoking cessation, data from Waves 1, 2, and 3 of the English
2003; Ward et al., 1997; Wardle & Steptoe, 2003). The three most
Longitudinal Survey of Ageing (ELSA) were analyzed.
commonly used markers of individual SEP are income, occupa-
Method tion, and education (Galobardes, Shaw, Lawlor, Lynch, & Davey
Smith, 2006). As income and occupation may not be an accurate
Data Source reflection of life circumstances in a cohort of older individuals, age
The ELSA is a longitudinal cohort study of the factors associ- at leaving full-time education was used as a marker of SEP. This
ated with quality of life as individuals age. It is designed to be was analyzed as a continuous variable ranging from age 14 (before
representative of individuals aged 50 years or older living in any public examinations are taken) to age 19 (postsecondary
private households in England (Marmot et al., 2008). The original school). The data in the ELSA datasets groups those who had not
ELSA sample was drawn from three waves of the annual Health attended formal education and those who left before the age of 14
Survey for England (1998, 1999, and 2001) with the first wave of with those who left at age 14, and those who left education after
data collection taking place via face to face interviews in 2002. the age of 19 with those who left at age 19.
The second and third waves of data collection took place in 2004
and 2006. Ethical approval for ELSA was granted from the U.K.
Analysis
Multicenter Research and Ethics Committee.
Univariate analyses (chi-square tests and t tests as appropriate)
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria were performed to compare those who were and were not current
Core members of the ELSA cohort were included if they took cigarette smokers at Wave 1 on the key variables of interest.
part in face-to-face interviews at Waves 1, 2, and 3 and provided Similar analyses were performed to compare smokers at Wave 1
 SMOKING CESSATION AND TIME PERSPECTIVE 531

who had and had not quit by Wave 3. Odds ratios and r values are
presented as measures of effect size as appropriate.
Logistic regression was used to determine if time period for
financial planning at Wave 1 was associated with smoking status
at Wave 1 after controlling for age, gender, and age at leaving
full-time education. Logistic regression was also used to assess
whether time period for financial planning at Wave 1 was longi-
tudinally associated with whether smokers at Wave 1 had quit by
Wave 3, after controlling for age, gender, and age at leaving full
time education. Regression coefficients are presented as odds
ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).
Survey weights, as provided and recommended in ELSA docu-
mentation, were used throughout to take account of selective
nonresponse across the different waves of the ELSA. All analyses
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
There was also a significant difference in the distribution of time
periods for financial planning between those who were and were
not smokers at Wave 1, ␹2(4, N ⫽ 7, 173) ⫽ 17.00, p ⬍ .001.
Compared to those who reported planning for the next few weeks
or less, individuals reporting all other time periods for financial
planning had lower odds of being a smoker at Wave 1. In univar-
iate analyses, there were no statistically significant differences
between those smokers at Wave 1 who did and did not quit by
Wave 3 in terms of age, gender, or age at leaving education.
Although the odds of quitting smoking among those who reported
planning their saving and spending for more than a few weeks was
higher than among those who planned for a few weeks or less,
there was not a significant difference in the distribution of time

period for financial planning between those smokers who did and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

were conducted in Stata v9.1 using the “svy” set of commands.
Adopting this weighting procedure means that it is more appro-
priate to present percentages and standard errors in summary
tables, rather than raw numbers and percentages, and this is done.
Results
Of 11,030 core respondents who took part in full interviews in
person at Wave 1, 7,448 (67.5%) also took part in full interviews
in person at Waves 2 and 3. Full data for the current analyses was
available for 7,173 (96.3%) of these individuals. Current cigarette
smokers made up 17.4% of respondents at Wave 1. By Wave 3,
26.8% of those coded as smokers at Wave 1 had quit.
The characteristics of all individuals included in the analysis,
current cigarette smokers at Wave 1, and quitters by Wave 3 are
summarized in Table 1. Comparisons of those who were and were
not current smokers at Wave 1, and those smokers at Wave 1 who
did and did not quit by Wave 3 are also presented in Table 1. At
Wave 1, cigarette smokers were significantly younger, t(7, 171) ⫽
13.75, r ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .001; and had left education at a significantly
earlier age than nonsmokers, t(7, 171) ⫽ 6.41, r ⫽ .08, p ⬍ .001.
did not quit by Wave 3.
The logistic regression model exploring the association between
time period for financial planning and smoking status at Wave 1 is
summarized in Table 2. After controlling for age, gender, and age
at leaving full time education, those who planned their saving and
spending for all time periods longer than a few weeks were
significantly less likely to be smokers at Wave 1 than those who
planned their saving and spending for a few weeks or less ( p ⬍ .01
in all cases). There was some indication of a trend in odds ratios
such that the odds of being a smoker progressively decreased
across successively longer time periods for financial planning. In
addition, the odds of being a current smoker were inversely asso-
ciated with age (OR ⫽ 0.94, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.95, p ⬍ .001) and
age at leaving full time education (OR ⫽ 0.81 95% CI 0.77 to 0.85,
p ⬍ .001).
Table 3 summarizes the logistic regression model exploring the
association between time period for financial planning at Wave 1
and quitting behavior between Waves 1 and 3. After controlling for
age, gender, and age at leaving full time education, those smokers
who planned their saving and spending for all periods longer than

Table 1
Characteristics of Sample by Smoking Status at Wave 1 and Quitting Status by Wave 3

Smokers at Smokers at Wave 1 who Smokers versus nonsmokers Quitters versus nonquitters
Full sample Wave 1 quit by Wave 3 at Wave 1a at Wave 3b

Male, % (SE) 45.4 (0.6) 46.1 (1.5) 46.9 (2.8) ␹2(1, N ⫽ 7, 173) ⫽ 0.07, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 1, 199) ⫽ 0.09,
OR ⫽ 1.09, p ⫽ .79 OR ⫽ 1.09, p ⫽ .76
Age, M (SE) 64.0 (0.1) 60.6 (0.3) 60.3 (0.4) t(7, 171) ⫽ 13.75, r ⫽ .16, t(1, 199) ⫽ 0.72, r ⫽ .01,
p ⬍ .001 p ⫽ .47
Age left education, M (SE) 15.9 (0.02) 15.6 (0.04) 15.7 (0.08) t(7, 171) ⫽ 6.41, r ⫽ .08, t(1, 199) ⫽ 0.84, r ⫽ .08,
p ⬍ .001 p ⫽ .40
Time period for financial
planning, % (SE)
Next few weeks or less 21.6 (0.5) 30.0 (1.4) 23.3 (2.4) ␹2(4, N ⫽ 7, 173) ⫽ 17.00, ␹2(4, N ⫽ 1, 199) ⫽ 2.21,
p ⬍ .001c p ⫽ .066d
Next few months 12.9 (0.4) 14.5 (1.1) 15.7 (2.1) OR ⫽ .78e OR ⫽ 1.55f
Next year 15.3 (0.4) 12.8 (1.0) 14.2 (2.0) OR ⫽ .54e OR ⫽ 1.61f
Next few years 23.4 (0.5) 19.4 (1.2) 21.1 (2.3) OR ⫽ .52e OR ⫽ 1.56f
Next 5 years or more 26.7 (0.5) 23.4 (1.3) 25.7 (2.5) OR ⫽ .56e OR ⫽ 1.59f

Note. OR ⫽ odds ratio.

a
Comparison of those who were and were not smokers at Wave 1. b Comparison of smokers at Wave 1 who had and had not quit smoking by
Wave 3. c Comparison of distribution of time periods for financial planning among those who were and were not smokers at Wave 1. d Comparison
of distribution of time periods for financial planning among smokers at Wave 1 who had and had not quite smoking by Wave 3. e Odds ratio of being
a smoker compared to those who planned for the next few weeks or less. f Odds ratio of quitting compared to those who planned for the next few weeks
or less.
 532 ADAMS

Table 2 planning—replicates previous findings (Adams & Nettle, in press).

Summary of Logistic Regression Model Exploring Association That this “dose-response” relationship was not replicated in rela-
Between Time Perspective and Smoking Status at Wave 1 tion to quitting may be a result of small numbers, or may indicate
a threshold level of future time perspective over which further
OR (95% CI) of increases are not important in terms of smoking cessation.
being a current
Variable (comparator level) B SE B smoker at Wave 1
As in previous work, cross-sectional associations between
smoking status and both age and the proxy measure of SEP used
Time period for financial planning were found (Lader, 2007). However, after taking the marker of
(compared to next few weeks time perspective into account, age, gender, and SEP were not
or less)
associated with quit behavior. Although relatively consistent, the
Next few months –0.29 0.11 0.75 (0.60 to 0.93)ⴱⴱ
Next year –0.65 0.11 0.52 (0.42 to 0.65)ⴱⴱⴱ reported relationships between these variables and quit behavior
Next few years –0.68 0.10 0.50 (0.41 to 0.62)ⴱⴱⴱ are not universal (Ward et al., 1997). The inability of age, gender,
Next 5 years or more –0.70 0.10 0.49 (0.41 to 0.60)ⴱⴱⴱ and SEP to predict quit behavior in the fully controlled model in
Age (per year change) –0.06 0.01 0.94 (0.93 to 0.95)ⴱⴱⴱ this study is likely due to the nature of the population studied. In
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Female gender (compared to male) 0.01 0.07 1.00 (0.88 to 1.15)

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Age at leaving education (per year particular, the current cohort focuses on older people (mean age 64
change) –0.21 0.03 0.81 (0.77 to 0.85)ⴱⴱⴱ years). As smoking cessation is concentrated in younger people
and older people are often excluded from epidemiological analy-
Note. OR ⫽ odds ratio; CI ⫽ confidence interval. ses, it is possible that previously reported predictors of smoking
ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
cessation among the population in general do not apply to older
quitters.
the next few weeks at Wave 1 were significantly more likely to The data used here are entirely self-reported and, as such, may
have quit smoking by Wave 3 than those who planned for a few be affected by social desirability bias—particularly that related to
weeks or less. Adjusting for the sociodemographic confounders smoking. However, given the variety of possible effects of social
strengthened the nonsignificant trend seen in the univariate anal- desirability of response, it is hard to speculate what specific effect
ysis to the extent that it became statistically significant. However, this may have had on the results—some individuals may have
there was little evidence of any trend in the odds of quitting across underreported smoking at Wave 1, others may have overreported
progressively longer time periods for financial planning. Age, cessation at Wave 3. In addition, self-reported smoking data com-
gender, and age at leaving full time education were not associated pares well to biochemical measures of smoking with a mean
with quitting smoking between Waves 1 and 3. sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 89% (Patrick et al., 1994).
A number of different definitions of time perspective exist and
these are accompanied by a variety of measurement instruments
Discussion
(Adams & White, in press). Although time perspective can be
This is the first longitudinal analysis of the ability of time measured using objective observations of behavior (Cairns & van
perspective to predict successful smoking cessation. Among the der Pol, 2000), this is rarely done in practice. The alternative is to
cohort of older adults studied, more future orientated time per- rely on self reported measures, but due to variations in definition
spective at baseline was associated with greater chance of quitting and conceptualization of time perspective, these are often quite
smoking over 4 years of follow up after age, gender, and age at full different from each other. The measure of future time perspective
time education were controlled for. This complements previous
findings that time perspective in early pregnancy predicted who
among a group of spontaneous quitters had relapsed by 6-months Table 3
postdelivery (Yoon et al., 2007). As previously, time perspective Summary of Logistic Regression Model Exploring Association
was also associated with smoking status at baseline (Adams & Between Time Perspective and Quitting Behavior of Smokers
Nettle, in press; Bickel et al., 1999; Keough, Zimbardo, & Boyd, Between Waves 1 and 3
1999; Mitchell, 1999; Odum et al., 2002; Ohmura et al., 2005; Piko OR (95% CI) of
et al., 2005; Reynolds et al., 2004). quitting smoking
Two possible, not necessarily mutually exclusive, explanations between Waves 1
of the cross-sectional association between future time perspective Variable (comparator level) B SE B and 3
and smoking behavior have been proposed. First, those smokers Time period for financial planning
with more future orientated time perspective are better able to quit (compared to next few weeks
smoking. Second, those smokers who quit smoking develop more or less
future orientated time perspective following quitting. The current Next few months 0.44 0.22 1.55 (1.01 to 2.39)ⴱ
findings provide evidence in favor of the former hypothesis. As Next year 0.49 0.23 1.63 (1.04 to 2.55)ⴱ
Next few years 0.48 0.20 1.61 (1.09 to 2.38)ⴱ
time perspective was not measured at follow-up, it was not pos- Next 5 years or more 0.45 0.20 1.57 (1.07 to 2.30)ⴱ
sible to confirm or refute the latter hypothesis, although previous Age (per year change) –0.01 0.01 0.99 (0.98 to 1.01)
findings do suggest that future time perspective is relatively stable Female gender (compared to male) –0.05 0.14 0.95 (0.73 to 1.24)
to changes in smoking behavior (Yoon et al., 2007). The finding of Age at leaving education (per year
change) 0.01 0.05 1.01 (0.92 to 1.10)
a “dose-response” relationship between time perspective and
smoking at baseline—such that the odds of smoking progressively Note. OR ⫽ odds ratio; CI ⫽ confidence interval.
ⴱ
decreased across progressively longer time periods for financial p ⬍ .05.
 SMOKING CESSATION AND TIME PERSPECTIVE
employed has been used previously (Picone et al., 2004) and is
associated with a number of other markers of time perspective,
including the future scale of the Zimbardo Time Perspective In-
ventory (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999; r ⫽ .14), the Consideration of
Future Consequences Scale (Strathan et al., 1994) (r ⫽ .33), and
delay discount rate (r ⫽ ⫺.19; Adams & Nettle, 2009). However,
although all these measures of time perspective overlap to some
degree, they are not necessarily interchangeable. In particular,
although delay discount rate and the measure used here focus on
financial aspects of time perspective, the future scale of the Zim-
bardo Time Perspective Inventory and the Consideration of Future
Consequences Scale take a broader view of future time perspective
across a number of different domains. There is some evidence that
future time perspective varies across different domains within
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
individuals (i.e., they may be very future orientated for financial
outcomes, but less so for health outcomes; Baker et al., 2003). It is,
therefore, possible that although the financial aspect of future time
perspective is important in smoking cessation (particularly given
the financial implications of a regular smoking habit), other as-
pects related to balancing the immediate and future consequences
of present day nonfinancial decisions are not. Further work should
be performed to explore the relationship between other measures
of time perspective and smoking cessation and to determine if the
relationship reported here is specific to the domain of time per-
spective studied.
The current analysis was restricted to individuals aged 50 and
over. The results are not, therefore, necessarily generalizable to
younger individuals. Time perspective and smoking prevalence are
both known to vary with age, with time perspective becoming less
future orientated and smoking prevalence decreasing in older peo-
ple (D’Alessio et al., 2003; Lader, 2007). Furthermore, other
important predictors of quit success, such as diagnosis of a smok-
ing related illness, are likely to increase with age. Quitting behav-
ior in older adults, who may have smoked for longer, is not
necessarily comparable to that in younger people. As such, the role
of time perspective in successful quitting may vary with age and
further work will be required to extend the current findings to other
population groups.
The multivariate analyses reported here took age, gender, and
age at leaving full time education into account as possible con-
founders. However, other uncontrolled confounders may be oper-
ating. In particular, other determinants of smoking cessation, such
as level of addiction, diagnosis of smoking related diseases, self-
efficacy, knowledge and beliefs about smoking related harm, and
social support (Ward et al., 1997) were not taken into account as
these were not measured in the ELSA cohort. Cross-sectional
studies of time perspective and smoking behavior have found that
the relationship is independent of the “Big-five” personality do-
mains of conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroti-
cism, and openness (Adams & Nettle, 2009) as well as a number
of other variables previously explored in relation to cigarette
smoking (including aggression, depression, ego control, impulse
control, novelty seeking, sensation seeking, and anxiety; Keough
et al., 1999). One other potentially important determinant of smok-
ing cessation in this context is the relative price of cigarettes.
Given the financial focus of the measure of time perspective used,
it is possible that the relative cost of maintaining a smoking habit
also plays a confounding role in the relationship between this
measure of time perspective and smoking behavior—those indi-
533
viduals most financially future orientated may also be those most
likely to quit smoking in response to cigarette price increases.
Further work is required to explore the comparative importance of
time perspective and other known predictors of cessation as well as
potential mediators and moderators of the relationship between
time perspective and smoking cessation.
As always, the findings reported here raise a number of further
questions that deserve ongoing research attention. In addition to
confirming the results in different populations and using different
measures of both time perspective and smoking cessation, it would
be interesting to explore whether time perspective predicts who
attempts to quit smoking, who is successful in maintaining a quit
attempt, or both. Unpicking the specifics of where in the pathway
of cessation time perspective is operating would help clarify where
time perspective focused cessation interventions should be tar-
geted. Further, although the results reported here suggest that
interventions to alter time perspective may be helpful in increasing
cessation rates, it is not clear how time perspective should best be
altered. Attempts to date to use time perspective as a focus of
intervention have been limited in scale and scope with intention to
change, rather than actual behavior change, the outcome of interest
(Orbell & Hagger, 2006; Orbell et al., 2004). Substantial further
work is required to develop this area.
The current results suggest that more future orientated time
perspective at baseline predicts which older adults will success-
fully quit over a 4-year period. These findings should be replicated
in other populations and using alternative measures of both smok-
ing cessation and time perspective before confirmed as conclusive.
However, they provide a good indication that helping individuals
to become more future orientated may be a beneficial addition to
existing smoking cessation interventions. These findings also raise
the possibility that time perspective is predictive of changes in
other health related behaviors that have been found to be associ-
ated cross-sectionally with time perspective—including safer sex-
ual practices (Agnew & Loving, 1998), fruit and vegetable intake,
and frequency of physical activity (Wardle & Steptoe, 2003).
References
Adams, J., & Nettle, D. (2009). Time perspective, personality and smok-
ing, body mass index and physical activity: An empirical study. British
Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 83–105.
Adams, J., & White, M. (in press). The role of time preference and
perspective in socio-economic inequalities in health related behaviours.
In S. Babones (Ed.), Social inequalities and the new public health: Four
pathways to understanding social determinants of health. Bristol, En-
gland: Policy.
Agnew, C. R., & Loving, T. J. (1998). Future time orientation and condom
use: Attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 13, 755–764.
Allen, T. J., Moeller, G., Rhoades, H. M., & Cherek, D. R. (1998).
Impulsivity and history of drug dependence. Drug and Alcohol Depen-
dence, 50, 137–145.
Baker, F., Johnson, M., & Bickel, W. (2003). Delay discounting in current
and never-before cigarette smokers: Similarities and differences across
commodity, sign, and magnitude. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112,
382–392.
Barsky, R., Juster, F., Kimball, M., & Shapiro, M. (1997). Preference
parameters and behavioural heterogeneity: An experimental approach in
the health and retirement study. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
112, 538 –578.
 534
Bickel, W. K., Odum, A. L., & Madden, G. J. (1999). Impulsivity and
cigarette smoking: Delay discounting in current, never, and ex-smokers.
Psychopharmacology, 146, 447– 454.
Cahill, K., Stead, L. F., & Lancaster, T. (2007). Nicotine receptor
partial agonists for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Sys-
tematic Reviews. Retrieved January 26, 2009, from http://www.mrw
.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD006103/frame.html
Cairns, J. A., & van der Pol, M. M. (2000). The estimation of marginal time
preference in a UK-wide sample (tempus) project. Health Technology
Assessment, 4, 1– 84.
Cuskelly, M., Einam, M., & Jobling, A. (2001). Delay of gratification in
young adults with down syndrome. Down Syndrome Research and
Practice, 7, 60 – 67.
D’Alessio, M., Guarino, A., Pascalis, V., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2003).
Testing Zimbardo’s Stanford Time Perspective Inventory (STPI) Short
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Form—An Italian study. Time & Society, 12, 333–347.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Galobardes, B., Shaw, M., Lawlor, D. A., Lynch, J. W., & Davey Smith,
G. (2006). Indicators of socioeconomic position (Pt. 1). Journal of
Epidemiology & Community Health, 60, 7–12.
Goddard, E., & Green, H. (2005). General household survey 2004: Smok-
ing and drinking among adults, 2004. London: National Statistics.
Keough, K. A., Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Who’s smoking,
drinking, and using drugs? Time perspective as a predictor of substance
use. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 149 –164.
Komlos, J., Smith, P., & Bogin, B. (2004). Obesity and the rate of time
preference: Is there a connection? Journal of Biosocial Science, 36,
209 –219.
Lader, D. (2007). Smoking-related behaviour and attitudes, 2006. London:
National Statistics.
Lang, F., & Carstensen, L. (2002). Time counts: Future time perspective,
goals, and social relationships. Psychology and Aging, 17, 125–139.
Marmot, M., Banks, J., Blundell, R., Erens, R., Lessof, C., & Nazroo, J.
(2008). English longitudinal study of ageing: Wave 0 (1998, 1999, and
2001) and waves 1–3 (2002–2007) [computer file]. 9th ed.
Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed rein-
forcement. In M. L. Commons, J. E. Mazur, J. A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin
(Eds.), Quantitative analysis of behaviour. The effect of delay and
intervening events on reinforcement value (Vol. 5). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Mitchell, S. H. (1999). Measures of impulsivity in cigarette smokers and
non-smokers. Psychopharmacology, 146, 455– 464.
Nagin, D., & Pogarsky, G. (2004). Time and punishment: Delayed conse-
quences and criminal behaviour. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
20, 295–317.
Odum, A. L., Madden, G. J., & Bickel, W. K. (2002). Discounting of
delayed health gains and losses by current, never- and ex-smokers of
cigarettes. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 4, 295–303.
ADAMS
Ohmura, Y., Takahashi, T., & Kitamura, N. (2005). Discounting delayed
and probabilistic monetary gains and losses by smokers of cigarettes.
Psychopharmacology, 182, 508 –515.
Orbell, S., & Hagger, M. (2006). Temporal framing and the decision to
take part in type 2 diabetes screening: Effects of individual differences
in consideration of future consequences on persuasion. Health Psychol-
ogy, 25, 537–548.
Orbell, S., Perugini, M., & Rakow, T. (2004). Individual differences in
sensitivity to health communications: Consideration of future conse-
quences. Health Psychology, 23, 388 –396.
Orleans, C. T., Jepson, C., Resch, N., & Rimer, B. K. (1994). Quitting
motives and barriers among older smokers. The 1986 adult use of
tobacco survey revisited. Cancer, 74, 2055–2061.
Patrick, D. L., Cheadle, A., Thompson, D. C., Diehr, P., Koepsell, T., &
Kinne, S. (1994). The validity of self-reported smoking: A review and
meta-analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 1083–1093.
Picone, G., Sloan, F. A., & Taylor, D. (2004). Effects of risk and time
preference and expected longevity on demand for medical tests. Journal
of Risk and Uncertainty, 28, 39 –53.
Piko, B. F., Luszczynska, A., Gibbons, F. X., & Tekozel, M. (2005). A
culture-based study of personal and social influences of adolescent
smoking. European Journal of Public Health, 15, 393–398.
Reynolds, B., Richards, J. B., Horn, K., & Karraker, K. (2004). Delay
discounting and probability discounting as related to cigarette smoking
status in adults. Behavioural Processes, 65, 35– 42.
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The
consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant
outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,
742–752.
Taylor, D. H., Hasselblad, V., Henley, S. J., Thun, M. J., & Sloan, F. A.
Benefits of smoking cessation for longevity American Journal of Public
Health, 92, 990 –996, 2002.
Ward, K. D., Klesges, R. C., & Halpern, M. T. (1997). Predictors of
smoking cessation and state-of-the-art smoking interventions. Journal of
Social Issues, 53, 129 –145.
Wardle, J., & Steptoe, A. (2003). Socioeconomic differences in attitudes
and beliefs about healthy lifestyles. Journal of Epidemiology and Com-
munity Health, 57, 440 – 443.
Yoon, J., Higgins, S., Heil, S., Sugarbaker, R., Thomas, C., & Badger, G.
(2007). Delay discounting predicts postpartum relapse to cigarette smok-
ing among pregnant women. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharma-
cology, 15, 176 –186.
Zimbardo, P. G. & Boyd, John N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A
valid, reliable, individual-differences scales. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77, 1271–1288.