“Do you think you’ll smoke in a year’s time?”, with answer categories ranging from “Certainly not” to “Absolutely yes” on a 5-point scale. To determine the predictive value of smoking expectancy, analyses were performed in smokers, former smokers, and never-smokers separately. Data of 2,987 adolescents and 4,911 adult twins were analyzed to estimate heritability. A dichotomous variable reflected the ability to predict future smoking status (“correct”/“incorrect”).
Results: Smoking expectancy significantly predicted future smoking status in former smokers and never-smokers.
But smokers are not mentioned? It continues puzzlingly -
"The ability to accurately
predict future smoking status was explained by
additive genetic factors for 59% in adolescents and 27% in adults, with
remainder being explained by unique
Conclusions: A single question on smoking expectancy helps predict future smoking status. Variation in how well subjects predict their future smoking behaviour is influenced by genetic factors, especially during adolescence.
Well, BIG DEAL! I wonder how much this study cost - and what WORTH does it have? Or am I missing the point of it?
If asked “Do you think you’ll vape in a year’s time?”, with answer categories ranging from “Certainly not” to “Absolutely yes”, I would answer “Absolutely yes” which would pretty accurately predict my future vaping status - how clever to actually work that out scientifically! But that is NOT what they were working out - they were working out smoking future status in former smokers and never-smokers. And especially adolescents - smoking behaviour is influenced by genetic factors, especially during adolescence. What "genetic factors" might those be? It doesn't say. And Im not subscribing to find out!
Don't you think science is amazing? Answer - “Certainly not” to “Absolutely yes”. What do you think?