Skip to main content

The role of social support and self-control in tobacco consumption: a cross-sectional study among tobacco consumers and non-consumers



Tobacco use is recognized as one of the most important causes of preventable death due to non-communicable diseases and disability worldwide. The present study was conducted with the aim of comparing social support and self-control between tobacco consumers and non-consumers in Hormozgan Province.


The present cross-sectional study was conducted on the adult population above the age of 15 years living in Hormozgan province. A total number of 1,631 subjects were selected using a convenient sampling method. An online questionnaire was used to collect the data, which consisted of three sections: demographic information, Zimet’s perceived social support and Tangney’s self-control questionnaires. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of social support and self-control questionnaires were 0.886 and 0.721, respectively. Data were analyzed using chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and logistic regression analysis with SPSS software (v. 25).


Among the participants, 842 (51.6%) reported to be tobacco non-consumers, and 789 (48.4%) reported to be consumers. The mean scores of perceived social support among the consumers and non-consumers were 4.6 ± 1.012 and 4.93 ± 0.518, respectively. The mean scores of self-control among the consumers and non-consumers were 2.74 ± 0.356 and 2.75 ± 0.354, respectively. There was a significant difference among tobacco consumers and non-consumers in gender, age, education level and job status (p < 0.001). The results showed that the mean scores of social support, support received from family and others were significantly higher in non-consumers than in consumers (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean scores of self-control, self-discipline, and impulse control in consumers and non-consumers (p > 0.05).


According to our findings, tobacco consumers received more social support from family and others compared to non-consumers. Considering the important role of perceived support in tobacco consumption, this variable should receive copious attention in developing interventions and trainings, especially family education workshops.

Peer Review reports


Tobacco consumption is the first preventable risk factor for chronic diseases, premature death and disability worldwide [1]. More than 8 million people died in 2019 due to tobacco-related diseases [2]. As anticipated, the mortality rate induced by smoking will increase to 8.3 million by 2030, which is the largest growth in low- and middle-income countries [3]. Diseases attributed to smoking include lung and heart diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, cancers, diabetes, autoimmune diseases and osteoporosis [4]. In addition to health outcomes, economic damages due to lowered productivity and increased health care costs are also known as the negative effects of tobacco consumption [5].

The number of smokers worldwide is approximately 1.3 billion, and over 80% of the world’s 1.3 billion tobacco users live in low-and middle-income countries. In 2020, 22.3% of the global population used tobacco, 36.7% of all men and 7.8% of the world’s women [6, 7]. The prevalence of current tobacco use in Iran was 25.2% (24.4–25.9) in men versus 4% (3.7–4.3) in women and this rate was higher in rural areas among second wealth group [8]. The results of a study conducted by Varmaghani et al. [9] in 2016 showed that more than 15% of the Iranian population were currently smokers for all types of tobacco and a little less than one of ten Iranians were current cigarette smokers. The prevalence of current tobacco smoking among adult men and women at the time of study was 24.4% and 3.8%, respectively. In this survey, the highest prevalence rates of current cigarette smoking were observed in West Azerbaijan with 14%, 13.7% in Markazi, and the lowest prevalence rates were found to be 4.7% in North Khorasan and 5% in Golestan.

Studies showed that several factors such as personal inefficiency, family inefficiency, a vulnerable social environment, the context of consumption, the need for effective supervision, beliefs of being useful physically and psychologically are important causes of smoking and smokeless tobacco initiation and continuation [10,11,12]. Moreover, misconceptions about the safe use, the availability and low cost of hookah are among the reasons for the high prevalence of hookah consumption [13].

Review literature showed that the perceived social support plays an important role as a coping mechanism against high-risk behaviors such as smoking, alcohol/drug abuse, and high-risk sexual behaviors [14]. Social support refers to supportive behaviors and sources of social bonds that include emotional support, intimacy, positive interaction, and financial support [15]. Social support as an emotional coping strategy can protect people by preventing the occurrence of stressful conditions and can help them to evaluate stressful events in a less threatening way [16]. Social support can be examined at three levels: family, friends and important others [17].

Among the other variables that can affect the tendency towards tobacco consumption is self-control. Self-control was defined by Mayer and Salovey (2003) as the correct use of emotions. They believed that the ability to regulate emotions increases one’s ability to relieve oneself, understand anxiety, depression or common cases of boredom. Those enjoying an intrinsic self-control believe that success or failure depends on their own efforts or abilities, but people with extrinsic self-control believe that other factors such as luck or task difficulty are translated into success or failure [18]. According to the general theory of crime, individual differences in self-control are related to some behaviors such as alcohol consumption, smoking in young people, marital instability and accidents in adulthood. This theory highlights the relationship between low self-control and the ability to commit criminal and risky behaviors [19]. Daly et al. [20] pointed out the relationship between self-control and smoking and showed that participants with high self-control showed lower rates of smoking across the seven year period of the study.

According to what was mentioned above, it can be said that personality traits and perceived social support may interact in predicting tobacco consumption. In Iran, these predictive factors have been studied rarely. Furthermore, due to the growing rate of cigarette smoking and hookah consumption and their negative consequences, recognizing the factors and motivators that contribute to tobacco consumption will play a key role in decision making and planning to prevent it. Thus, in the present study we will compare social support and self-control among tobacco consumers and non-consumers in Hormozgan Province.

Materials and methods

Study Design

This study was based on a descriptive-correlational design. The statistical population of this study consisted of the general population over 15 years old in Hormozgan Province (in southern Iran).

Sample size and sampling procedure

According to the previous study [21] the prevalence of smoking in Hormozgan province was 20%.Sample size was calculated using Cochran’s formula:

$$n=\frac{\left(Z_{1-{\displaystyle\frac a2}}\right)^2\times\;pq}{d^2}$$

N = the minimum required sample size, z = level of confidence (1.96), p = parameter for sample calculation, d = margin of error (0.05).

Based on this formula, a sample size of 1536 anticipated for the study. Considering that in this study, a convenient sampling was used, the sample size was increased to 1600.

The inclusion criteria for the sample selection included: access to the Internet to answer questions, literacy, willingness to participate in the study, and the minimum age of 15 years. Exclusion criteria were unwillingness to participate in the study and incomplete answers to the main questions of the questionnaires.

Online questionnaires were used to collect data. We made the link of the questionnaire available to the participants through health care providers and health center assistant nurses in the cities in the relevant channels (Telegram, WhatsApp, Instagram, E-Gap). If someone was interested to participate in the study, they needed to complete an informed consent form and then answer to the questions. The samples that received the link were asked to send it to other people they know. On the first page of the questionnaire, the objectives of the study were clearly explained to the participants and they were reminded that mentioning their first and last names would not be necessary and their information would be kept confidential.

Data collection tools

Data were collected using the demographic information questionnaire, self-control questionnaire and perceived social support scale.

Demographic information questionnaire

This questionnaire was developed for this study. The assessed demographic characteristics were gender, age, education level, job status and marital status.

Self-control questionnaire

This questionnaire is an 13-item self-report scale, which developed by Tangney et al. [22] and measure the level of respondents’ control over themselves. The responses are scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 were reversely scored. Overall scores ranged from 13 to 65 points whereby the higher score indicated a higher self-control. The validity and reliability of this questionnaire were estimated and confirmed in a study conducted by Mousavimoghadam et al. [23]. Tangney et al. [22] confirmed its validity through estimating its correlation with scales of academic achievement, adaptability, positive relationships, and interpersonal skills. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for this scale in two statistical populations were 0.83 and 0.85. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.721.

Perceived social support scale

This scale was developed by Zimet et al. [17] with 12 items to measure the level of perceived social support from three sources: family, friends and important others. Each question is scored on a 7-point Likert scale (1: completely disagree to 7: completely agree). A higher score would indicate a higher perceived social support. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this scale was reported 0.89 [17]. Rostami et al. [24] reported the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each of the subscales between 0.76 and 0.89. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.886.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25 statistical software. Mean, standard deviation (SD), minimum and maximum scores were used to report interval variables and frequency and percentage were reported to categorical variables. The Chi-squared test was used for testing the difference between consumers and non-consumers in terms of demographic variables. Mann-Whitney U-test (due to the non-normality of the data) was used to test the difference between the mean scores of the two groups according to social support and self-control variables. Logistic regression analysis was run to test the relationship between demographic variables and tobacco consumption status, as well as the relationship between social support and self-control with tobacco consumption status. The level of significance was considered to be 95% (p < 0.05).

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences (#IR.HUMS.REC.1401.232). Participants were assured that their information would remain confidential. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants and from legal guardians for the participants who were below 16 years of old.


Participants’ characteristics

A total number of 1631 questionnaires were completed and returned. Among them, 842 participants (51.6%) were tobacco non-consumers and 789 (48.4%) were consumers. The participants’ demographic information is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Participants’ demographic information in consuming vs. non-consuming groups and in general

Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values) of research variables are reported in Table 2.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of research variables

As the results showed, the mean and standard deviation scores of research variables for tobacco consumers and tobacco non-consumers were as follows: social support (4.60 ± 1.012, 4.93 ± 0.518), family support (5.10 ± 1.223, 5.59 ± 0.606), friends support (3.77 ± 1.213, 3.71 ± 0.981), others support (4.94 ± 1.252, 5.48 ± 0.633), self-control (2.74 ± 0.356, 2.75 ± 0.354), self-discipline (3.28 ± 0.422, 3.29 ± 0.439) and impulse control (1.67 ± 0.645, 1.67 ± 0.616).

Chi-squared test results

Table 3 showed the results of the chi-squared test to investigate the differences between consumers and non-consumers according to demographic variables (gender, age, education level, job status and marital status). The results showed that in terms of gender, the number of female non-consumers was significantly higher than female consumers and vice versa. The number of male consumers was significantly higher than the number of male non-consumers (p < 0.001). As for age, the results showed that in the 15-28-year age group, the number of consumers and non-consumers was the same; thus, there was no statistically significant difference between these groups (p > 0.05). In the 29-39-year age group, the number of non- consumers was significantly more than consumers. Yet, in the 40-49-year age group (p < 0.05) and 50-80-year age group (p < 0.001), the number of consumers was significantly higher than non-consumers. As for the education level, in the subcategory “under diploma”, the number of consumers was significantly higher than the number of non-consumers (p < 0.001). In the subcategory “Associate degree”, the number of consumers and non- consumers was the same and, thus, there was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). In the “Bachelor’s degree” and “Master’s degree and higher” subcategories, the number of non-consumers was significantly higher than consumers (p < 0.001). Concerning the job status, in the unemployed and self-employed, the number of consumers was significantly higher than the number of non- consumers (p < 0.001). In students, housewives and employees, the number of non- consumers was significantly higher than consumers (p < 0.001). And finally, in relation to the marital status, in the single and married participants, the number of consumers and non- consumers was the same and no statistically significant difference was found (p > 0.05).

Table 3 Differences between tobacco consumers and non-consumers in terms of demographic variables

Mann-Whitney U-test results

Table 4 showed the results of Mann-Whitney U-test to investigate the differences between tobacco consumers and non-consumers in terms of perceived social support and self-control and their subscales. According to the results, the mean scores of social support, the support by family and important others in the non- consumers group were significantly higher than the consumers group (p < 0.001). but the mean score of support received by friends did not differ significantly between consumers and non- consumers (p > 0.05). Concerning self-control and its subscales, the results revealed no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of self-control, self-discipline and impulse control in consumers and non- consumers (p > 0.05).

Table 4 Social support, self-control and their subscales in tobacco consumers and non-consumers

Correlation between demographic variables and tobacco consumption status

Hypothesis 1. There is a statistically significant relationship between demographic variables and tobacco consumption status

Logistic regression analysis was used to test this research hypothesis as the variable was bimodal (tobacco consuming vs. non-consuming). The findings summarized in Table 5 showed that when the demographic variables (age, gender, education, job status, marital status) are added to the model, out of 842 non-consumers, 681 were appropriately classified as non- consumers and 161 as consumers. Therefore, 80.9% of the predictive power of the model was accurate (identification). Out of 789 consumers, 206 were appropriately classified as non- consumers and 583 as consumers. In other words, 73.9% was accurately predicted (sensitivity), and the overall accuracy of the model was 77.5%.

Table 5 Classification table

As shown in Table 6, in block 1, the significance level of the fixed effect variable is greater than 0.05 and the rest of the variables (demographic variables) need to be present in the model. As the non-consuming code is 0 and the consuming code is 1, the prediction rate of education level and marital status variables is lower than 1. Therefore, the variables of education level and marital status are effective.

Table 6 Variables in the equation

Correlation between self-control and social support with tobacco consumption status

Hypothesis 2. There is a statistically significant relationship between self-control and social support with tobacco consumption status

The results of Table 7 indicated that when self-control and social support variables were included in the model, out of 842 participants who did not consumed tobacco, 627 were accurately classified as non-smokers and 215 were assigned to the non-smokers class. They belong to the consumer class. Therefore, 74.5% of the model prediction is accurate (identification). Out of 789 participants who consumed, 447 were in the non-consumer group and 342 in the consumer group, assuming that they consumed tobacco. 43.3% was accurately predicted (sensitivity) and the total accuracy of the model was 59.4%.

Table 7 Classification table

As indicated in Table 8, in block 1, the significance level of social support and the fixed effect is lower than 0.05, and they need to be present in the model. Considering that the non-consuming code is 0 and the consuming code is 1, the probability of predicting social support is less than 1, so the social support variable is deemed effective.

Table 8 Variables in the equation


The present study aimed to compare social support and self-control among tobacco consumers and non-consumers in Hormozgan province. Results revealed that there is significant difference between tobacco consumers and non- consumers in terms of gender, education level, age, marital status and job status. This finding is consistent with findings reported by Hosseini et al. [25], Shuabi et al. [26], Yang et al. [27], Oura et al. [28], Tran et al. [29], Jamil et al. [30] and Amalia et al. [31]. The findings reported by Hosseini et al. [25] among the general population of Hormozgan province showed that there was a significant relationship between smoking status and gender, marital status, education and job status. Thus, the male, the married, the low literacy, the unemployed and the self-employed significantly consumed more tobacco than others. However, the female, those holding a diploma or a higher degree, employees or students were more non-consumers than others. The findings of a study conducted by Shuabi et al. [26] showed that women were less likely to smoke than men. Compared to the employed, those who were unemployed or retired were found to smoke more. The results of Yang et al.‘s study [27] showed that participants’ age, marital status, ethnicity, education, occupation, and average personal annual income were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of smoking among rural Chinese male residents. In a study conducted by Jamil et al. [30] significant risk indicators for smoking hookah were being younger than 22 years and living with a family member who used tobacco. The results of Amalia et al.‘s [31] study regarding changes in smoking patterns among Indonesian adults between 2007 and 2014 showed that in 2014, males, individuals under 55 years old and those with lower levels of education had a higher likelihood of being smokers. Those with a lower level of education and those under 26 years of age had higher odds of initiating smoking during the study period. Similarly, quitting smoking between 2007 and 2014 was more likely among respondents with a higher level of education and age above 40 years.

The results showed that the mean scores of social support, the support received from the family and important others in non-consumers was significantly higher than consumers. This finding was consistent with previous studies conducted by Poghosyan et al. [32], Romano et al. [33], Meijer et al. [34], TaraghiJah et al. [35], Marvizadeh et al. [36], Zaddahesh & Babakhani [37]. The results of Poghosyan et al.‘s [32] study in cancer survivors showed that survivors who received higher levels of social support were less likely to be current smokers than those who received the lowest level of social support they needed. The results of Romano et al.‘s [33] study among African-American adults in San Francisco and Oakland revealed that women with poor social networks smoked more than women with optimal networks. However, this relationship did not hold among men. Indeed, men lacking emotional support from friends or family were less likely to smoke than peers who received such support. In a study conducted by TaraghiJah et al. [35], they found that family emotional support was a strong predictor of hookah consumption and cigarette smoking among college students. Marvizadeh et al. [36] found that from the components of the relationship quality, only social support could predict students’ motivations (incremental, coping, and social) of cigarette and hookah smoking. In Meijer et al.‘s study [34], smokers from all socioeconomic levels were willing to receive positive social support if they would quit smoking. In Zaddahesh and Babakhani’s [37] study, the family support component was the strongest predictor of high-risk behaviors including drugs, smoking, and violence factors in adolescents. In explaining this finding, it can be stated that a lacking proper perception of social support from the family creates a feeling of emptiness and weakness, so individuals might show risky behaviors to fill the existing gap. Moreover, family challenges can lead to risky behaviors and insufficient individual and personal support [38]. In many cases, proper emotional relationships in the family can be considered as a major factor in preventing the occurrence of risky behaviors. Increasing the presence of parents at home and strengthening the emotional connections among family members not only ensures the family members’ psychological security, but also can be considered as an important factor in preventing addiction and its consequences [39].

And finally, the results revealed no significant difference between the mean scores of self-control, self-discipline and impulse control in consumers and non-consumers. This finding is inconsistent with findings of studies conducted by Bashirian et al. [40], Bazazian et al. [41], Ghadampour et al. [42], Agbaria et al. [43], Delalatgar et al. [44], Franken et al. [45], Allahverdipour et al. [46] and Daly et al. [20]. The results of the studies showed a significant relationship between self-control and high-risk behaviors [44], tendency to drug addiction [42, 43], tendency to cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption [40, 41, 43]. In Daly et al.‘s [20] study among Dutch adults, those with low self-control showed a large reduction in heavy smoking, while those with high self-control did not. The results of Franken et al.‘s study [45] showed that personal low self-control predicted an increase in externalizing behaviors (behaviors including antisocial behavior, alcohol consumption, and tobacco consumption) among adolescents. In the study of Allahverdipour et al. [46], students with poor self-control reported that they significantly consumed drugs and smoked cigarettes and were forced by their peers into consuming drugs and cigarettes. The inconsistency in findings can be attributed to different research populations and data collection methods (online, where some participants may have difficulty understanding some questions).

The first limitation of this study is that online surveys can be only used by some people, and those who do not have access to online surveys (e.g., the elderly, rural), people who do not have access to the Internet and people with low literacy, entered the study less than others. Second, the current research design was correlational and it did not seek to establish cause and effect, drawing any casual conclusions from the results is not possible. Third, since the present study only investigated adults, its result may not have been generalizable to other age groups. Therefore, it was suggested that future studies should be conducted to explore different age groups. It is recommended that future studies should be carried out to investigate other potential factors (such as personality traits, parenting styles, etc.) and more indicators of risky behaviors (such as drug abuse, alcohol consumption, risky sexual behaviors, violence, etc.).


The present findings showed that tobacco consumers received less support from family and others compared to non-consumers. Based on these findings, designing and implementing psychological interventions and training useful skills to families, in order to increase social support from their children, can help to prevent and reduce the tendency to tobacco consumption. Theses interventions and trainings include: teaching appropriate communication patterns in family, teaching correct parenting or educational styles, creating an environment for a moral and logical discourse among family members, giving autonomy to a reasonable extent and correct control, unconditional acceptance of parents, etc.).

Policy implications

It is recommended that the honorable officials of the health departments in universities of medical sciences plan for holding educational workshops and psychological interventions in health centers. Theses trainings should be planned and implemented with the aim of reducing the underlying factors of the tendency to tobacco consumption, including increasing the perceived social support.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to confidentiality and privacy related issues but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.



Standard Deviation


  1. World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2021: Addressing new and emerging products: World Health Organization; 2021.

  2. Collaborators G, Ärnlöv J. Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1223–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mathers CD, Loncar D. Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med. 2006;3(11):e442.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Wang R, Jiang Y, Yao C, Zhu M, Zhao Q, Huang L, et al. Prevalence of tobacco related chronic diseases and its role in smoking cessation among smokers in a rural area of Shanghai, China: a cross sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ekpu VU, Brown AK. The economic impact of smoking and of reducing smoking prevalence: review of evidence. Tob use insights. 2015;8:TUI.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. World Health Organization. Prevalence of tobacco smoking. Geneva: World Health Organization. ; 2015. Available from URL:

  7. Organization WH, Tobacco. 2022. Available from URL:

  8. Riazi-Isfahani S, Abdi Z, Sheidaei A, Ahmadnezhad E. Prevalence of tobacco use in adults; 2016 nationally representative household survey in Iran. Int J Prev Med. 2022;13:1–7.

  9. Varmaghani M, Sharifi F, Mehdipour P, Sheidaei A, Djalalinia S, Gohari K, et al. Prevalence of smoking among iranian adults: findings of the national STEPs survey 2016. Arch Iran Med. 2020;23(6):369–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ebrahimi H, Sahebihagh MH, Ghofranipour F, Tabrizi JS. Initiation and continuation of smoking in Iran: a qualitative content analysis. Int J community based Nurs midwifery. 2014;2(4):220.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Solhi M, Mehrabian F, Nazari SSH, Fattahi E, Barati H, Zareban I, et al. Investigating the reasons for using Smokeless Tobacco among adults: a qualitative study based on the grounded theory Approach. Int J High Risk Behav Addict. 2022;11(3):1–11.

  12. Fattahi E, Solhi M, Manzari ZS, Afkar A, Lebni JY, Rastegar A. Students’ beliefs about smokeless tobacco use in Chabahar city: a qualitative study using focus groups. J Educ Health Promotion. 2021;10:1–6.

  13. Pirdehghan A, Aghakoochak A, Vakili M, Poorrezaee M. Determination of predicting factors of Hookah smoking among pre-university students in Yazd in 2015. Pajouhan Sci J. 2016;15(1):28–36.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nayak MB, Korcha RA, Benegal V. Alcohol use, mental health, and HIV-related risk behaviors among adult men in Karnataka. AIDS Behav. 2010;14(1):61–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Harris CR. Cardiovascular responses of embarrassment and effects of emotional suppression in a social setting. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2001;81(5):886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sayyah Sayyari N, Hosseinshahi HR, Ranjgar B. The relationship between parental identity and social support among adolescents. Journal of Thought & Behavior in Clinical Psychology. 2010;4(16):67–74.

  17. Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J Pers Assess. 1988;52(1):30–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Janfza M, Shirazi M. The predictive role of emotion regulation difficulties and self-control in addicted individuals. J Subst Abuse. 2015;9(33):69–58.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T. A general theory of crime. A General Theory of Crime: Stanford University Press; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Daly M, Delaney L, Baumeister RF. Self-control, future orientation, smoking, and the impact of dutch tobacco control measures. Addict Behav Rep. 2015;1:89–96.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Farshidi H, Aghamolaei T, Soleimani Ahmadi M, Madani AH. Epidemiological study of cigarette smoking among over 15 years old population of Hormozgan in 2014. J Prev Med. 2016;3(2):29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tangney JP, Boone AL, Baumeister RF. High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Self-regulation and self-control: Routledge; 2018. pp. 173–212.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mousavimoghadam SR, Houri S, Omidi A, Zahirikhah N. Evaluation of relationship between intellectual intelligence and self-control, and defense mechanisms in the third year of secondary school girls. Med Sci J Islamic Azad Univesity-Tehran Med Branch. 2015;25(1):59–64.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rostami R, Shahmohamadi K, Ghaedi G, Besharat MA, Akbari Zardkhaneh S, Nosratabadi M. Relations among self-efficacy, emotional intelligence and perceived social support in university students. The Horizon of Medical Sciences. 2010;16(3):46–54.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hosseini Z, Jafari M, Homayuni A, Rafati S, Nikparvar M. Differences between smokers and non-smokers in personality traits: the role of sensation seeking and core self-evaluations. J Subst Use. 2022;27:1–6.

  26. Shuaib F, Foushee H, Ehiri J, Bagchi S, Baumann A, Kohler C. Smoking, sociodemographic determinants, and stress in the Alabama Black Belt. J Rural Health. 2011;27(1):50–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yang T, Li F, Yang X, Wu Z, Feng X, Wang Y, et al. Smoking patterns and sociodemographic factors associated with tobacco use among chinese rural male residents: a descriptive analysis. BMC Public Health. 2008;8(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Oura P, Rissanen I, Junno J-A, Harju T, Paananen M. Lifelong smoking trajectories of Northern Finns are characterized by sociodemographic and lifestyle differences in a 46-year follow-up. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tran P, Tran L, Tran L. Smoking levels and associations between sociodemographic factors and smoking continuation in US stroke survivors. Ann Epidemiol. 2020;43:66–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Jamil H, Elsouhag D, Hiller S, Arnetz JE, Arnetz BB. Sociodemographic risk indicators of hookah smoking among White Americans: a pilot study. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010;12(5):525–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Amalia B, Cadogan SL, Prabandari YS, Filippidis FT. Socio-demographic inequalities in cigarette smoking in Indonesia, 2007 to 2014. Prev Med. 2019;123:27–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Poghosyan H, Darwish SA, Kim SS, Cooley ME. The association between social support and smoking status in cancer survivors with frequent and infrequent mental distress: results from 10 US states, 2010. J Cancer Surviv. 2016;10(6):1078–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Romano PS, Bloom J, Syme SL. Smoking, social support, and hassles in an urban african-american community. Am J Public Health. 1991;81(11):1415–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Meijer E, Gebhardt WA, Van Laar C, Kawous R, Beijk SC. Socio-economic status in relation to smoking: the role of (expected and desired) social support and quitter identity. Soc Sci Med. 2016;162:41–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Taraghi Jah SHM, Yaghoubi N. Factors predicting cigarette and hookah consumption in public university students. Res Med. 2011;34(4):249–56.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Marvizadeh MNR, Moghaddasin M. Examining the relationship between motivations for smoking and hookah with depression, quality of relationships and social support of students. Stud Psychol Educational Sci. 2017;3(1):1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Zaddahesh B, Babakhani V. The canonical analysis of the relationship between Perceived Social Support and High Risk Behaviors in adolescents. Rooyesh-e-Ravanshenasi J (RRJ). 2020;9(5):173–80.

    Google Scholar 

  38. RAHMATI NKF, NIKNAMI S, AMIN SF, FARMANBAR R, AHMADI F. Family System and its Effect’s on HIV/AIDS High Risk Behaviors: a qualitative study. J Guil Uni Med Sci. 2011;20(77):69–80.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lin C, Wu Z, Detels R. Family support, quality of life and concurrent substance use among methadone maintenance therapy clients in China. Public Health. 2011;125(5):269–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bashirian S, Heidarnia A, Allahverdipour H. The relationship between self-control and intention to substance abuse in adolescents. Avicenna J Nurs Midwifery Care. 2012;20(1):45–55.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Bazazian SRY, Afsari L. The role of self-control in the relationship between peers’ consumption and students’ tendency to consume cigarettes and alcoholic beverages. Q J Behav Sci. 2015;22:25–40.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ghadampour E, Amirian L, Dehnavi H. Predicting Drug Addiction based on self-control, tolerance of confusion and feelings of loneliness in addicted women visiting addiction treatment centers. Women and Family Studies. 2021;14(51):49–62.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Agbaria Q, Mahamid F, Ziya Berte D. Social support, self-control, religiousness and engagement in high risk-behaviors among adolescents. Int J Indian Psychol. 2017;4(4):13–33.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Delalatgar Langroude K, Hosseinkhanzadeh AA, Taher M, Mojarrad A. The role of emotionality and self-control ability in explaining risk behaviors in students. Q J Child Mental Health. 2018;5(1):25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Franken A, Moffitt TE, Steglich CE, Dijkstra JK, Harakeh Z, Vollebergh WA. The role of self-control and early adolescents’ friendships in the development of externalizing behavior: the SNARE study. J Youth Adolesc. 2016;45(9):1800–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Allahverdipour H, Hidarnia A, Kazamnegad A, Shafii F, Fallah PA, Emami A. The status of self-control and its relation to drug abuse–related behaviors among iranian male high school students. Social Behav Personality: Int J. 2006;34(4):413–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors are grateful to the all participants for their patience, integrity and collaboration.


This project is funded by a research grant from the Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences. The funding body (HUMS) didn’t have any role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



AH and ZH provided research proposal and final report. AH has done the data collection, analysis, and manuscript provision, ZH participated in manuscript provision and reviewed and edited the manuscript. AH and ZH read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zahra Hosseini.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

was received for this study from the Ethics Committee of the Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences (#IR.HUMS.REC.1401.232). The participants were informed that participation in the study was voluntary and they had the right to withdraw at any time during the data collection process. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants and from legal guardians for the participants who were below 16 years of age. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations by including a statement in the declarations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Homayuni, A., Hosseini, Z. The role of social support and self-control in tobacco consumption: a cross-sectional study among tobacco consumers and non-consumers. BMC Psychol 11, 192 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: