INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES IN CUE REACTIVITY AMONG SMOKERS TRYING TO QUIT- EFFECTS OF GENDER AND CUE TYPE

Citation
R. Niaura et al., INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES IN CUE REACTIVITY AMONG SMOKERS TRYING TO QUIT- EFFECTS OF GENDER AND CUE TYPE, Addictive behaviors, 23(2), 1998, pp. 209-224
Citations number
42
Categorie Soggetti
Substance Abuse","Psycology, Clinical
Journal title
ISSN journal
03064603
Volume
23
Issue
2
Year of publication
1998
Pages
209 - 224
Database
ISI
SICI code
0306-4603(1998)23:2<209:IICRAS>2.0.ZU;2-8
Abstract
Across studies, when presented with a variety of smoking cues, smokers and ex-smokers evidence distinct patterns of self-reported, physiolog ical, and behavioral reactions. However, few studies have compared mor e than two different kinds of cues within the same experiment. Further more, despite the importance of examining the moderating effect of gen der on smoking outcomes, few studies have examined gender differences in smoking cue reactivity. We examined the effect of eight distinct cu e manipulations on heart rate, mean arterial pressure, smoking urges, and self-efficacy in a sample of 129 participants (50% female) who had recently quit smoking. Cue manipulations included (a) in vivo exposur e, (b) an idiographically designed exposure of subjects' most recent r elapse, (c) an idiographically designed exposure to subjects' highest risk situation, and (d) affectively valenced standardized scripts depi cting situations generally associated with relapse. These manipulation s were compared to a standard cognitive stressor (mental arithmetic) a nd to a resting baseline. Results revealed differences in the degree o f reactivity to different manipulations, with in vivo cues producing t he greatest changes. Gender differences in reactivity between the type of cues presented were found for mean arterial pressure, with standar dized scripts producing greater changes for women. These findings have implications for understanding the reasons for differences in cue rea ctivity across manipulations and for gender differences in cue reactiv ity. (C) 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd.