Psychopharmacology

, Volume 229, Issue 1, pp 187–197 | Cite as

Automatic approach bias towards smoking cues is present in smokers but not in ex-smokers

  • Corinde E. Wiers
  • Simone Kühn
  • Amir Homayoun Javadi
  • Ozlem Korucuoglu
  • Reinout W. Wiers
  • Henrik Walter
  • Jürgen Gallinat
  • Felix Bermpohl
Original Investigation

Abstract

Rationale

Drug-addicted individuals show automatic approach tendencies towards drug-related cues, i.e., an approach bias (ApB). Nevertheless, little is known about ApB in tobacco smokers and about the presence of ApB after smoking abstinence.

Objectives

We investigated ApB to smoking cues in heavy tobacco smokers versus never-smokers and studied its relation to smoking characteristics and craving. Second, we compared ApBs of heavy smokers with biases of abstinent heavy smokers.

Method

A group of current heavy smokers (n = 24), ex-smokers who were abstinent for at least 5 years (n = 20), and never-smokers (n = 20) took part in the experiment. An indirect smoking approach avoidance task was performed, in which participants were required to respond to pictures of smoking and neutral cues by pulling (approach) or pushing (avoid) on a joystick, according to the content-irrelevant format of the picture (landscape or portrait). Craving scores were examined using the Questionnaire of Smoking Urges.

Results

Heavy smokers showed an ApB for smoking cues compared to ex-smokers and never-smokers, which correlated positively to craving scores. There were no group differences in ApB scores for ex-smokers and never-smokers.

Conclusion

These results suggest that ApBs for smoking cues are present in heavy smokers and decrease after long-term successful smoking cessation.

Keywords

Addiction Smoking Smoking cessation Implicit cognition Approach bias Approach avoidance task 

Abbreviations

ApB

Approach bias

AAT

Approach avoidance task

QSU

Questionnaire of smoking urges

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research: NGFN: 01GS08159 (Gallinat). The authors thank Georgina Torbet, Noah Gabriel Martin, and James Harwood for proofreading.

Conflict of interest

None

References

  1. Attwood AS, O’Sullivan H, Leonards U, Mackintosh B, Munafo MR (2008) Attentional bias training and cue reactivity in cigarette smokers. Addiction 103:1875–1882PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baler RD, Volkow ND (2006) Drug addiction: the neurobiology of disrupted self-control. Trends Mol Med 12:559–566PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bechara A (2005) Decision making, impulse control and loss of willpower to resist drugs: a neurocognitive perspective. Nat Neurosci 8:1458–1463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck AT, Steer RA, Ball R, Ranieri W (1996) Comparison of Beck Depression Inventories -IA and -II in psychiatric outpatients. J Pers Assess 67:588–597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley B, Field M, Mogg K, De Houwer J (2004) Attentional and evaluative biases for smoking cues in nicotine dependence: component processes of biases in visual orienting. Behav Pharmacol 15:29–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradley BP, Field M, Healy H, Mogg K (2008) Do the affective properties of smoking-related cues influence attentional and approach biases in cigarette smokers? J Psychopharmacol 22:737–745PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brainard DH (1997) The psychophysics toolbox. Spat Vis 10:433–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chanon VW, Sours CR, Boettiger CA (2010) Attentional bias toward cigarette cues in active smokers. Psychopharmacology 212:309–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cousijn J, Goudriaan AE, Wiers RW (2011) Reaching out towards cannabis: approach-bias in heavy cannabis users predicts changes in cannabis use. Addiction 106:1667–1674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox LS, Tiffany ST, Christen AG (2001) Evaluation of the brief questionnaire of smoking urges (QSU-brief) in laboratory and clinical settings. Nicotine Tob Res 3:7–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawe S, Gullo MJ, Loxton NJ (2004) Reward drive and rash impulsiveness as dimensions of impulsivity: implications for substance misuse. Addict Behav 29:1389–1405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Houwer J (2003) A structural analysis of indirect measures of attitudes. In: Musch J, Klauer KC (eds) The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 219–244Google Scholar
  13. De Houwer J (2006) What are implicit measures and why are we using them. In: Wiers RW, Stacy AW (eds) The handbook of implicit cognition and addiction. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drobes DJ, Elibero A, Evans DE (2006) Attentional bias for smoking and affective stimuli: a Stroop task study. Psychol Addict Behav J Soc Psychol Addict Behav 20:490–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eberl C, Wiers RW, Pawelczack S, Rinck M, Becker ES, Lindenmeyer J (2013) Approach bias modification in alcohol dependence: do clinical effects replicate and for whom does it work best? Dev Cogn Neurosci 4:38–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ernst LH, Plichta MM, Dresler T, Zesewitz AK, Tupak SV, Haeussinger FB, Fischer M, Polak T, Fallgatter AJ, Ehlis AC (2012) Prefrontal correlates of approach preferences for alcohol stimuli in alcohol dependence. Addict Biol. doi:10.1111/adb.12005 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Everitt BJ, Belin D, Economidou D, Pelloux Y, Dalley JW, Robbins TW (2008) Review. Neural mechanisms underlying the vulnerability to develop compulsive drug-seeking habits and addiction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B. Biol Sci 363:3125–3135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferguson SG, Shiffman S (2009) The relevance and treatment of cue-induced cravings in tobacco dependence. J Subst Abus Treat 36:235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerstrom KO (1991) The Fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict 86:1119–1127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hogarth LC, Mogg K, Bradley BP, Duka T, Dickinson A (2003) Attentional orienting towards smoking-related stimuli. Behav Pharmacol 14:153–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hughes JR, Peters EN, Naud S (2008) Relapse to smoking after 1 year of abstinence: a meta-analysis. Addict Behav 33:1516–1520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huijding J, de Jong PJ (2006) Specific predictive power of automatic spider-related affective associations for controllable and uncontrollable fear responses toward spiders. Behav Res Ther 44:161–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Janes AC, Pizzagalli DA, Richardt S, deB Frederick B, Chuzi S, Pachas G, Culhane MA, Holmes AJ, Fava M, Evins AE, Kaufman MJ (2010) Brain reactivity to smoking cues prior to smoking cessation predicts ability to maintain tobacco abstinence. Biol Psychiatry 67:722–729PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kamboj SK, Joye A, Das RK, Gibson AJ, Morgan CJ, Curran HV (2012) Cue exposure and response prevention with heavy smokers: a laboratory-based randomised placebo-controlled trial examining the effects of D-cycloserine on cue reactivity and attentional bias. Psychopharmacology 221:273–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krieglmeyer R, Deutsch R (2010) Comparing measures of approach-avoidance behaviour: the manikin task vs. two versions of the joystick task. Cogn Emot 24:810–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Littel M, Franken IH (2011) Intentional modulation of the late positive potential in response to smoking cues by cognitive strategies in smokers. PLoS One 6:e27519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lussier JP, Higgins ST, Badger GJ (2005) Influence of the duration of abstinence on the relative reinforcing effects of cigarette smoking. Psychopharmacology 181:486–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mead AN, Stephens DN (1998) AMPA-receptors are involved in the expression of amphetamine-induced behavioural sensitisation, but not in the expression of amphetamine-induced conditioned activity in mice. Neuropharmacology 37:1131–1138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mogg K, Bradley BP, Field M, De Houwer J (2003) Eye movements to smoking-related pictures in smokers: relationship between attentional biases and implicit and explicit measures of stimulus valence. Addiction 98:825–836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mogg K, Field M, Bradley BP (2005) Attentional and approach biases for smoking cues in smokers: an investigation of competing theoretical views of addiction. Psychopharmacology 180:333–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Munafo MR, Johnstone EC (2008) Smoking status moderates the association of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene VNTR polymorphism with selective processing of smoking-related cues. Addict Biol 13:435–439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Munafo M, Mogg K, Roberts S, Bradley BP, Murphy M (2003) Selective processing of smoking-related cues in current smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers on the modified Stroop task. J Psychopharmacol 17:310–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Munafo MR, Johnstone EC, Mackintosh B (2005) Association of serotonin transporter genotype with selective processing of smoking-related stimuli in current smokers and ex-smokers. Nicotine Tob Res 7:773–778PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nestor L, McCabe E, Jones J, Clancy L, Garavan H (2011) Differences in “bottom-up” and “top-down” neural activity in current and former cigarette smokers: evidence for neural substrates which may promote nicotine abstinence through increased cognitive control. Neuroimage 56:2258–2275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Patton JH, Stanford MS, Barratt ES (1995) Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. J Clin Psychol 51:768–774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rinck M, Becker ES (2007) Approach and avoidance in fear of spiders. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 38:105–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robbins TW, Everitt BJ (1999) Drug addiction: bad habits add up. Nature 398:567–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robinson TE, Berridge KC (1993) The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Res Brain Res Rev 18:247–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robinson TE, Berridge KC (2003) Addiction. Annu Rev Psychol 54:25–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Grant M (1993) Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption–II. Addiction 88:791–804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, Amorim P, Janavs J, Weiller E, Hergueta T, Baker R, Dunbar GC (1998) The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry 59(Suppl 20):22–33, quiz 34–57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Stacy AW, Wiers RW (2010) Implicit cognition and addiction: a tool for explaining paradoxical behavior. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 6:551–575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thewissen R, Havermans RC, Geschwind N, van den Hout M, Jansen A (2007) Pavlovian conditioning of an approach bias in low-dependent smokers. Psychopharmacology 194:33–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tiffany ST (1990) A cognitive model of drug urges and drug-use behavior: role of automatic and nonautomatic processes. Psychol Rev 97:147–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Velicer WF, DiClemente CC, Prochaska JO, Brandenburg N (1985) Decisional balance measure for assessing and predicting smoking status. J Pers Soc Psychol 48:1279–1289Google Scholar
  47. Verdejo-Garcia A, Perez-Garcia M (2007) Ecological assessment of executive functions in substance dependent individuals. Drug Alcohol Depend 90:48–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wagner DD, Dal Cin S, Sargent JD, Kelley WM, Heatherton TF (2011) Spontaneous action representation in smokers when watching movie characters smoke. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 31:894–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Waters AJ, Feyerabend C (2000) Determinants and effects of attentional bias in smokers. Psychol Addict Behav J Soc Psychol Addict Behav 14:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Waters AJ, Shiffman S, Bradley BP, Mogg K (2003a) Attentional shifts to smoking cues in smokers. Addiction 98:1409–1417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Waters AJ, Shiffman S, Sayette MA, Paty JA, Gwaltney CJ, Balabanis MH (2003b) Attentional bias predicts outcome in smoking cessation. Health Psychol 22:378–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Watson P, de Wit S, Hommel B, Wiers RW (2012) Motivational mechanisms and outcome expectancies underlying the approach bias toward addictive substances. Front Psychol 3:440PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Watson P, de Wit S, Cousijn J, Hommel B, Wiers RW (2013) Motivational mechanisms underlying the approach bias to cigarettes. Experimental Psychopathology (in press)Google Scholar
  54. Wiers RW, Bartholow BD, van den Wildenberg E, Thush C, Engels RC, Sher KJ, Grenard J, Ames SL, Stacy AW (2007) Automatic and controlled processes and the development of addictive behaviors in adolescents: a review and a model. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 86:263–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wiers RW, Rinck M, Dictus M, van den Wildenberg E (2009) Relatively strong automatic appetitive action-tendencies in male carriers of the OPRM1 G-allele. Genes Brain Behav 8:101–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wiers RW, Rinck M, Kordts R, Houben K, Strack F (2010) Retraining automatic action-tendencies to approach alcohol in hazardous drinkers. Addiction 105:279–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wiers RW, Eberl C, Rinck M, Becker ES, Lindenmeyer J (2011) Retraining automatic action tendencies changes alcoholic patients’ approach bias for alcohol and improves treatment outcome. Psychol Sci 22:490–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wiers RW, Gladwin TE, Hofmann W, Salemink E, Ridderinkhof KR (2013) Cognitive bias modification and cognitive control training in addiction and related psychopathology: mechanisms, clinical perspectives, and ways forward. Clin Psychol Sci 1:192–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Willenbockel V, Sadr J, Fiset D, Horne GO, Gosselin F, Tanaka JW (2010) Controlling low-level image properties: the SHINE toolbox. Behav Res Methods 42:671–684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yoon JH, Higgins ST, Bradstreet MP, Badger GJ, Thomas CS (2009) Changes in the relative reinforcing effects of cigarette smoking as a function of initial abstinence. Psychopharmacology 205:305–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhou Y, Li X, Zhang M, Zhang F, Zhu C, Shen M (2012) Behavioural approach tendencies to heroin-related stimuli in abstinent heroin abusers. Psychopharmacology 221:171–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Corinde E. Wiers
    • 1
    • 2
  • Simone Kühn
    • 3
  • Amir Homayoun Javadi
    • 4
  • Ozlem Korucuoglu
    • 5
  • Reinout W. Wiers
    • 5
  • Henrik Walter
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jürgen Gallinat
    • 1
  • Felix Bermpohl
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry and PsychotherapyCharité - Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Berlin School of Mind and BrainHumboldt Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Max Planck Institute for Human DevelopmentCenter for Lifespan PsychologyBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Institute of Behavioural Neuroscience, Department of Cognitive, Perceptual and Brain SciencesUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  5. 5.Addiction, Development and Psychopathology (ADAPT) Lab, Department of PsychologyUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations