Pavlovian conditioning of an approach bias in low-dependent smokers

RationaleIn the present study, it was investigated whether smokers can acquire a behavioural approach bias through Pavlovian conditioning.ObjectivesMore specifically, it was tested whether pairing neutral stimuli with either smoking availability or unavailability would lead to both differential urge responding to these stimuli and a corresponding shift in approach bias.Materials and methodsThirty-nine low-dependent smokers performed a stimulus–response compatibility (SRC) task with which one can determine an approach bias. Next, participants received a conditioning session in which one cue (either a blue or yellow background screen colour) was paired with the opportunity to smoke (CS+) and another cue was paired with the absence of the opportunity to smoke (CS−). After conditioning, all participants again performed the SRC task.ResultsEvidence for the conditioning of an approach bias but not smoking urges was found. This effect, although, was only apparent when smokers had been prompted to determine the contingency between the cues and smoking outcome.ConclusionsIt is concluded that one can differentially condition an approach bias in low-dependent smokers.

[1]  L. Kozlowski,et al.  The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire. , 1991, British journal of addiction.

[2]  K. Berridge,et al.  The neural basis of drug craving: An incentive-sensitization theory of addiction , 1993, Brain Research Reviews.

[3]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Contingency knowledge is necessary for learned motivated behaviour in humans: relevance for addictive behaviour. , 2006, Addiction.

[4]  Matt Field,et al.  Eye movements to smoking-related pictures in smokers: relationship between attentional biases and implicit and explicit measures of stimulus valence. , 2003, Addiction.

[5]  T. Brandon,et al.  Classical conditions of environmental cues to cigarette smoking. , 1999, Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology.

[6]  G. Marlatt,et al.  Addictive behaviour: Cue exposure theory and practice. , 1995 .

[7]  Jan De Houwer,et al.  A structural analysis of indirect measures of attitudes , 2003 .

[8]  M. Kindt,et al.  The urge to smoke depends on the expectation of smoking. , 2002, Addiction.

[9]  L. Hogarth,et al.  Human nicotine conditioning requires explicit contingency knowledge: is addictive behaviour cognitively mediated? , 2006, Psychopharmacology.

[10]  K. Mogg,et al.  Attentional and evaluative biases for smoking cues in nicotine dependence: component processes of biases in visual orienting , 2004, Behavioural pharmacology.

[11]  K. C. Klauer,et al.  The Psychology of Evaluation : Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion , 2003 .

[12]  A. Jansen,et al.  Context-dependency of cue-elicited urge to smoke. , 2005, Addiction.

[13]  K. Mogg,et al.  Attentional and approach biases for smoking cues in smokers: an investigation of competing theoretical views of addiction , 2005, Psychopharmacology.

[14]  S. Tiffany,et al.  A cognitive model of drug urges and drug-use behavior: role of automatic and nonautomatic processes. , 1990, Psychological review.

[15]  S. Glautier,et al.  Alcohol as an unconditioned stimulus in human classical conditioning , 1994, Psychopharmacology.

[16]  A. Jansen,et al.  Renewal of cue-elicited urge to smoke: implications for cue exposure treatment. , 2006, Behaviour research and therapy.

[17]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Discriminative stimuli that control instrumental tobacco-seeking by human smokers also command selective attention , 2003, Psychopharmacology.

[18]  R. Ehrman,et al.  Designing studies of drug conditioning in humans , 2007, Psychopharmacology.

[19]  D. Drummond,et al.  What does cue-reactivity have to offer clinical research? , 2000, Addiction.

[20]  B. Carter,et al.  Meta-analysis of cue-reactivity in addiction research. , 1999, Addiction.

[21]  D. Drummond,et al.  Craving research: future directions. , 2000, Addiction.