The Association Between Smokers’ Approach Bias and Heaviness of Use: A Focus on Light Smokers

Collabra Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1525/collabra.88926
Marine Rougier, Dominique Muller, Annique Smeding, Reinout W. Wiers, Lison Neyroud
{"title":"The Association Between Smokers’ Approach Bias and Heaviness of Use: A Focus on Light Smokers","authors":"Marine Rougier, Dominique Muller, Annique Smeding, Reinout W. Wiers, Lison Neyroud","doi":"10.1525/collabra.88926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The relationship between heaviness of use and the approach bias (i.e., stronger approach than avoidance tendencies) toward tobacco remains ambiguous at both theoretical and empirical levels. Indeed, some models of addition would formulate opposite predictions (i.e., positive vs. negative relationship) and, as it turns out, current evidence is mixed. In three studies, we investigated this relationship among smokers (relying on a continuous measure of heaviness) and compared approach/avoidance tendencies of light smokers and non-smokers (relying on group comparison). To measure approach/avoidance tendencies, we used the Visual Approach/Avoidance by the Self Task (VAAST) that visually simulates whole body movements. This task was used as irrelevant-feature version (i.e., instructions about another dimension). Heaviness of use was assessed continuously with daily cigarette use. Data were analyzed in two Integrative Data Analyses (IDAs; a kind of meta-analysis considering jointly the raw data of the three studies), thus taking into account both significant and non-significant effects (total N = 173). In our first integrative analysis (Studies 1-3), we observed an increase in the approach bias toward tobacco as a function of heaviness of use, as well as an avoidance bias among light smokers. In our second integrative analysis (Studies 2 and 3), we found that light smokers have a stronger avoidance bias than non-smokers. While the positive relationship between heaviness of use and approach tendencies toward tobacco is consistent with most addiction models, our finding on light smokers’ avoidance bias stands in sharp contrast. These findings, however, can be incorporated into general motivational models or single-process propositional models that consider the role of goal-oriented or propositional processes, respectively.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Collabra","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.88926","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The relationship between heaviness of use and the approach bias (i.e., stronger approach than avoidance tendencies) toward tobacco remains ambiguous at both theoretical and empirical levels. Indeed, some models of addition would formulate opposite predictions (i.e., positive vs. negative relationship) and, as it turns out, current evidence is mixed. In three studies, we investigated this relationship among smokers (relying on a continuous measure of heaviness) and compared approach/avoidance tendencies of light smokers and non-smokers (relying on group comparison). To measure approach/avoidance tendencies, we used the Visual Approach/Avoidance by the Self Task (VAAST) that visually simulates whole body movements. This task was used as irrelevant-feature version (i.e., instructions about another dimension). Heaviness of use was assessed continuously with daily cigarette use. Data were analyzed in two Integrative Data Analyses (IDAs; a kind of meta-analysis considering jointly the raw data of the three studies), thus taking into account both significant and non-significant effects (total N = 173). In our first integrative analysis (Studies 1-3), we observed an increase in the approach bias toward tobacco as a function of heaviness of use, as well as an avoidance bias among light smokers. In our second integrative analysis (Studies 2 and 3), we found that light smokers have a stronger avoidance bias than non-smokers. While the positive relationship between heaviness of use and approach tendencies toward tobacco is consistent with most addiction models, our finding on light smokers’ avoidance bias stands in sharp contrast. These findings, however, can be incorporated into general motivational models or single-process propositional models that consider the role of goal-oriented or propositional processes, respectively.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
吸烟者方法偏差与烟瘾的关系:以轻度吸烟者为研究对象
在理论和经验层面上,重度使用与烟草倾向偏差(即倾向倾向大于回避倾向)之间的关系仍然不明确。事实上,一些加法模型会形成相反的预测(即,积极与消极的关系),而事实证明,目前的证据是混合的。在三项研究中,我们调查了吸烟者之间的这种关系(依赖于连续的体重测量),并比较了轻度吸烟者和非吸烟者的接近/避免倾向(依赖于群体比较)。为了测量接近/回避倾向,我们使用了视觉上模拟全身运动的自我任务接近/回避(VAAST)。这个任务被用作不相关的特征版本(即,关于另一个维度的指令)。吸烟的严重程度通过每日吸烟情况进行持续评估。数据采用两种综合数据分析(IDAs;(一种综合考虑三项研究原始数据的荟萃分析),从而兼顾显著效应和非显著效应(总N = 173)。在我们的第一个综合分析(研究1-3)中,我们观察到,在轻度吸烟者中,对烟草的方法偏差随着使用程度的增加而增加,同时也出现了避免偏差。在我们的第二个综合分析(研究2和3)中,我们发现轻度吸烟者比不吸烟者有更强的回避偏见。虽然重度使用和接近烟草倾向之间的正相关关系与大多数成瘾模型一致,但我们对轻度吸烟者的回避偏见的研究结果与之形成鲜明对比。然而,这些发现可以分别纳入考虑目标导向或命题过程作用的一般动机模型或单过程命题模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Having a Positive Attitude or Doing Good Deeds? An Experimental Investigation of Poker Players’ Responses to the Gambling Fallacies Measure The Association Between Smokers’ Approach Bias and Heaviness of Use: A Focus on Light Smokers The Interplay of Time-of-day and Chronotype Results in No General and Robust Cognitive Boost Individual Difference Correlates of Being Sexually Unrestricted Yet Declining an HIV Test Explaining Why Headlines Are True or False Reduces Intentions to Share False Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1