↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of Tobacco-Related Approach and Attentional Biases in Smokers, Cravers, Ex-Smokers, and Non-Smokers

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessment of Tobacco-Related Approach and Attentional Biases in Smokers, Cravers, Ex-Smokers, and Non-Smokers
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00172
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcella L. Woud, Joyce Maas, Reinout W. Wiers, Eni S. Becker, Mike Rinck

Abstract

According to theories of addictive behaviors, approach and attentional biases toward smoking-related cues play a crucial role in tobacco dependence. Several studies have investigated these biases by using various paradigms in different sample types. However, this heterogeneity makes it difficult to compare and evaluate the results. The present study aimed to address this problem, via (i) a structural comparison of different measures of approach-avoidance and a measure of smoking-related attentional biases, and (ii) using within one study different representative samples in the context of tobacco dependence. Three measures of approach-avoidance were employed: an Approach Avoidance Task (AAT), a Stimulus Response Compatibility Task (SRC), and a Single Target Implicit Association Test (ST-IAT). To assess attentional biases, a modified Stroop task including smoking-related words was administered. The study included four groups: n = 58 smokers, n = 57 non-smokers, n = 52 cravers, and n = 54 ex-smokers. We expected to find strong tobacco-related approach biases and attentional biases in smokers and cravers. However, the general pattern of results did not confirm these expectations. Approach responses assessed during the AAT and SRC did not differ between groups. Moreover, the Stroop did not show the expected interference effect. For the ST-IAT, cravers had stronger approach associations toward smoking-related cues, whereas non-smokers showed stronger avoidance associations. However, no such differences in approach-avoidance associations were found in smokers and ex-smokers. To conclude, these data do not provide evidence for a strong role of implicit approach and attentional biases toward smoking-related cues in tobacco dependency.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 2%
Unknown 42 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Professor 3 7%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 58%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Unknown 14 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,311,744
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,158
of 29,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,532
of 297,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#433
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,874 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 297,860 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.