“Push it!” or “Hold it!”? A comparison of nicotine-avoidance training and nicotine-inhibition training in smokers motivated to quit

• DOI: 10.1007/s00213-021-06058-5
• Publication Date: 2022-01-11T03:02:46Z
• Authors: Alla Machulska; Mike Rinck; Tim Klucken; Kristian Kleinke; Jana-Carina Wunder; Olga Remeniuk; Jürgen Margraf
• Keywords: Inhibitory control

Recently, experimental paradigms have been developed to strengthen automatic avoidance or inhibitory responses for smoking cues. However, these procedures not yet directly compared regarding their effectiveness and mechanisms of action.This study the effects vs. training as an add-on a brief cessation intervention. The standard Approach-Avoidance-Task (AAT) was adapted both types control conditions.One hundred twenty-four smokers attended behavioral counseling were thereafter randomized one four conditions: avoidance-AAT, sham-avoidance-AAT, inhibition-AAT, sham-inhibition-AAT. During 2-week period including five sessions, in avoidance-AAT trained implicitly avoid all smoking-related cues, while inhibition-AAT inhibit response sham training, no such contingencies appeared. Self-report data assessed before after training. Cigarette nicotine dependence also at 4- 12-week follow-ups.At posttest, more effective reducing daily than inhibition this difference longer evident follow-up assessments. All conditions improved other smoking- health-related outcomes. Neither changed approach biases associations, but smoking-unrelated pictures increased Stroop interference decreased conditions. Smoking devaluation comparable groups.Avoidance might be slightly Overall, however, yielded equivalent therapy effects. Hence, clear preference type remains premature.