Literature DB >> 27505211

Attentional bias to negative affect moderates negative affect's relationship with smoking abstinence.

Paul E Etcheverry1, Andrew J Waters2, Cho Lam3, Virmarie Correa-Fernandez4, Jennifer Irvin Vidrine5, Paul M Cinciripini6, David W Wetter3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether initial orienting (IO) and inability to disengage (ITD) attention from negative affective stimuli moderate the association of negative affect with smoking abstinence during a quit attempt.
METHOD: Data were from a longitudinal cohort study of smoking cessation (N = 424). A negative affect modified Stroop task was administered 1 week before and on quit day to measure IO and ITD. Ecological Momentary Assessments were used to create negative affect intercepts and linear slopes for the week before quitting and on quit day. Quit day and long-term abstinence measures were collected.
RESULTS: Continuation ratio logit model analyses found significant interactions for prequit negative affect slope with prequit ITD, odds ratio (OR) = 0.738 (0.57, 0.96), p = .02, and for quit day negative affect intercept with quit day ITD, OR = 0.62 (0.41, 950), p = .03, predicting abstinence. The Prequit Negative Affect Intercept × Prequit IO interaction predicting quit day abstinence was significant, OR = 1.42 (1.06, 1.90), p = .02, as was the Quit Day Negative Affect Slope × Quit Day IO interaction predicting long-term abstinence, OR = 1.45 (1.02, 2.08), p = .04.
CONCLUSION: The hypothesis that the association of negative affect with smoking abstinence would be moderated by ITD was generally supported. Among individuals with high ITD, negative affect was inversely related to abstinence, but unrelated to abstinence among individuals with lower levels of ITD. Unexpectedly, among individuals with low IO, negative affect was inversely related to abstinence, but unrelated to abstinence among individuals with higher levels of ITD. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27505211      PMCID: PMC4979563          DOI: 10.1037/hea0000338

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Psychol        ISSN: 0278-6133            Impact factor:   4.267


  44 in total

1.  Selective attention and emotional vulnerability: assessing the causal basis of their association through the experimental manipulation of attentional bias.

Authors:  Colin MacLeod; Elizabeth Rutherford; Lyn Campbell; Greg Ebsworthy; Lin Holker
Journal:  J Abnorm Psychol       Date:  2002-02

Review 2.  Addiction motivation reformulated: an affective processing model of negative reinforcement.

Authors:  Timothy B Baker; Megan E Piper; Danielle E McCarthy; Matthew R Majeskie; Michael C Fiore
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  Reversing the emotional Stroop effect reveals that it is not what it seems: the role of fast and slow components.

Authors:  Frank P McKenna; Dinkar Sharma
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 3.051

Review 4.  Generalizability of carry-over effects in the emotional Stroop task.

Authors:  Andrew J Waters; Michael A Sayette; Ingmar H A Franken; Joseph E Schwartz
Journal:  Behav Res Ther       Date:  2005-06

5.  Decomposing the emotional Stroop effect.

Authors:  Christian Frings; Julia Englert; Dirk Wentura; Christina Bermeitinger
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.143

6.  Predicting quit attempts among homeless smokers seeking cessation treatment: an ecological momentary assessment study.

Authors:  Michael S Businelle; Ping Ma; Darla E Kendzor; Lorraine R Reitzel; Minxing Chen; Cho Y Lam; Ira Bernstein; David W Wetter
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 4.244

Review 7.  The impact of depression on smoking cessation in women.

Authors:  B Borrelli; B Bock; T King; B Pinto; B H Marcus
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  1996 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.043

8.  Clinical effectiveness of attentional bias modification training in abstinent alcoholic patients.

Authors:  Tim M Schoenmakers; Marijn de Bruin; Irja F M Lux; Alexa G Goertz; Dorieke H A T Van Kerkhof; Reinout W Wiers
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2010-01-12       Impact factor: 4.492

9.  Effects of depressive symptoms on antecedents of lapses during a smoking cessation attempt: an ecological momentary assessment study.

Authors:  Jeannette Brodbeck; Monica S Bachmann; Anna Brown; Hans Joerg Znoj
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2014-05-23       Impact factor: 6.526

10.  Cigarette smoking and attention to signals of reward and threat in the Stroop paradigm.

Authors:  Jane Powell; Samantha Tait; Jane Lessiter
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 6.526

View more
  4 in total

1.  Mechanisms linking mindfulness and early smoking abstinence: An ecological momentary assessment study.

Authors:  Claire A Spears; Liang Li; Cai Wu; Christine Vinci; Whitney L Heppner; Diana S Hoover; Cho Lam; David W Wetter
Journal:  Psychol Addict Behav       Date:  2019-03-04

2.  Barriers to Building More Effective Treatments: Negative Interactions Amongst Smoking Intervention Components.

Authors:  Timothy B Baker; Daniel M Bolt; Stevens S Smith
Journal:  Clin Psychol Sci       Date:  2021-04-26

3.  Negative affectivity as a mechanism underlying perceived distress tolerance and cannabis use problems, barriers to cessation, and self-efficacy for quitting among urban cannabis users.

Authors:  Kara Manning; Daniel J Paulus; Julianna B D Hogan; Julia D Buckner; Samantha G Farris; Michael J Zvolensky
Journal:  Addict Behav       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 3.913

4.  Dispositional mindfulness, affect and tobacco dependence among treatment naive cigarette smokers in Brazil.

Authors:  Isabel Weiss de Souza; Elisa Harumi Kozasa; Luane A Rabello; Beatriz Mattozo; Sarah Bowen; Kimber P Richter; Laisa Marcorela Andreoli Sartes; Ana Regina Noto
Journal:  Tob Induc Dis       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 2.600

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.