Smoking Differentials Across Social Classes

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Kaitanen (2010) sought to find out justifications for smoking with regard to the social status of the participants. The author analysed this through a qualitative study of fifty-five smokers. Subjects represented various social classes, and were asked to give an account of their behaviour. It was found that working class smokers were less likely to justify their habits than middle class smokers. Conversely, non manual workers had ample explanations for their habits. They differentiated themselves from other people’s smoking habits by affirming that their behaviour was controlled and only done for specific purposes.

The author formulated a relationship between smoking prevalence and justifications for smoking amongst various social classes. It is my position that she clearly achieved this aim through the deductions from the interviews. The author inferred her affirmations from the participant’s words and therefore came to the right conclusion; that low income workers had the least justification for smoking and therefore took on a passive approach to their smoking behavior. Manual workers did not contemplate about their smoking and thus continued to do it. This explains why more of them continue to smoke. On the other hand, upper class or middle class workers actively engaged with their habits. They carefully deliberated upon the positive and negative aspects of the habits and then went on to select their preferred behavior. This category of smokers had greater will power when it came to this habit.

Layte and Whelan (2008) seem to support the same premise by looking at a number of hypotheses for smoking differentials across social classes. In one of the hypotheses, they argue that differences in education about the risks associated with smoking are reflected by social inequalities. Consequently, if manual workers were more informed about the problems of smoking, then their smoking habits would reduce (Siahpush et al., 2006). This implies that fewer working class smokers actively engage in smoking decisions. Cavelaars et al (2000) also supported these findings. In the analysis, they asserted that smoking rates were higher in non educated groups than the educated ones. Other authors such as Reid et al. (2010), Cummins et al. (1981), Baha and Le Faou (2010), Menvielle et al. (2009), Landman (1973), Dorset and Marsh (1998), ASH (2004) and finally Gruer et. al (2009) also support these findings

Krieger et al. (1997) further explain that social class has a great influence on health inequities. It was affirmed that education had a large role to play in determination of a person’s social economic status. This may have implications on the findings made by Kaitanen (2011) because manual workers are less concerned hence less educated about health conditions (including health related habits like smoking). Barbeau et al. (2004) further support these findings by illustrating that marketers in the tobacco industry tend to target working class adults as a key demographic market.

Older adult males from lower social classes do not think of the smoking habit as a means of social capital thus causing them to exercise less control over it (Heines et al., 2009). Another way of understanding Kaitanen’s assertions is through the diffusion theory as explained by Ferrence (1996). The diffusion theory refers to the spread of ideas and behaviours amongst populations. Ideas take on an s-shaped curve and will usually start with the most privileged people in society to the lowest classes (this was the case with tobacco use). High status males are likely to have smoked the longest, so they are also likely to have been more informed about the ills of smoking. They are more educated about it, and will also be more likely to quit (Ference, 1996).

In the article, the author elucidated that having justifications for smoking was indicative of the degree of engagement in smoking by various classes of smokers. She supported these findings by collecting data from personal interviews, and found that low income smokers were passive about their reasons for smoking while non manual smokers were not. Consequently, the article illustrated that failure to weigh one’s reasons for smoking immensely contributed to maintenance of the habit. Similar assertions on awareness of the smoking process among middle class or upper class smokers further supports the affirmations made in the article under analysis. This has implications for health promotion and intervention: lower classes can be educated and exposed more to the dangers of tobacco use and this may cause them to quit the habit.

References

ASH (2004). Smoking: a pleasure or a killer? Smoking and social class. Web.

Baha, M. & Le Faou, A. (2004). Smokers’ reasons for quitting in an anti-smoking social context. Public health,124(4), 225-231.

Barneau, E., Leavy Sperounis, A. & Balbach, E. (2004). Smoking, social class, and gender: what can public health learn from the tobacco industry about disparities in smoking? Tobacco control, 13(2), 115-120.

Cavelaars, J., Kust, J., Geurts, M., et. al (2000). Educational differences in smoking: International comparison, BMJ, 320, 1102-1107.

Cummings, R., Shaper, A., Walker, M. & Wale, C. (1981). Smoking and drinking by middle aged British men: effects of social class and town of residence. British medical journal, 283, 1497-1501.

Dorset, R. & Marsh, A. (1998). The health trap: poverty, smoking and lone parenthood. London: Policy studies institute.

Ferrence, R. (1996). Using diffusion theory in health promotion: the case of tobacco. Canadian journal of public health, 87(2), 24-27.

Gruer, L., Hart, L., Gordon, D., Watt, G. (2009). Effect of tobacco smoking on survival of men and women by social position: a 28 year cohort study. BMJ 3(3338), 480.

Haines, R., Poland, B. & Johnson, J. (2009). Becoming a real smoker: cultural capital in young women’s accounts of smoking and other substance use. Sociology of health and illness, 31(1), 66-80.

Kaitainen, A. (2010). Social class differences in the accounts of smoking-striving for distinction? Sociology of health and illness, 32(7), 1087-1101.

Krieger, N., Williams, D. & Moss, N. (1997). Measuring social class in US publish health research. Annual public health review, 18, 341-378.

Landman, A. (1973). Smoker psychology and socio economic status. Phillip Morris USA research centre, 7(73-080), 1-15.

Layte, R. & Whelan, C. (2009). Explaining social class inequalities in smoking: the role of education, self efficacy, and deprivation. European sociological review, 25(4), 399-410.

Menvielle, G., Kunst, A. & Boshuizen, H. (2009). The role of smoking and diet in explaining education inequalities in lung cancer incidence. National cancer institute, 101(5), 321-330.

Reid, J., Hammond, D., Boudreau, C. et al. (2010). Social economic disparities in quit intentions, quit attempts, and smoking abstinence among smokers in four westerns countries. Nicotine and tobacco research, 12(1), s20-s33.

Siahpush, M., McNeill, A., Hammond, D. & Fong, G. (2006). Socioeconomic and country variations in the knowledge of health risks of tobacco smoking and toxic constituents of smoke. Tobacco control, 15, 65-70.

Click Here To Order Now!

Smoking Differentials Across Social Classes

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)