Tobacco Smoking
Conditions
Brief summary
Controlled laboratory experiment to examine whether Episodic Future Thinking influences loss aversion and cigarette smoking among adult individuals who currently smoke cigarettes daily.
Detailed description
Specific Aim 1: Examine in a controlled laboratory study using a randomized parallel-group design whether an intervention that increases LA among 138 current adult daily cigarette smokers (≥21 years; 50% male/50% female) also (1) decreases cigarette smoking and (2) can improve with practice and (3) sustain effectiveness at a follow-up assessment. Potential influence of DD, other self-control, and potential sociodemographic confounders will be accounted for in all analyses. Hypothesis 1.1: EFT will increase LA and reduce cigarette smoking (i.e., smoking rate). (Primary) Hypothesis 1.2: Changes in LA will mediate the effect of EFT on cigarette smoking independent of changes in DD, and relevant self-control related factors. (Primary) Hypothesis 1.3: EFT effects will be greater following Extended compared to Brief training. (Secondary) Hypothesis 1.4: Changes in LA and smoking rate sustained at follow up will be mediated by EFT habit learning indexed by the perceived automaticity of cue generation with extended EFT practice. (Exploratory)
Interventions
BEHAVIORALEpisodic Future Thinking
Episodic Future Thinking involves generating positive, autobiographical events that could realistically occur following each of five delays in the subsequent DD task: 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year. Participants will be told to not include events related specifically to smoking. Using a five-point Likert scale, participants will rate each event according to four dimensions: vividness, enjoyment, importance, and excitement. The event rated the most vivid at each time frame will be chosen for use in subsequent behavioral testing (ties will be settled randomly). Participants will then be recorded reciting a self-created two or three-sentence summary of each event. These recordings will serve as audio cues. Participants will also create abbreviated versions of each description to serve as text cues.
BEHAVIORALControl Episodic Thinking
Control Episodic Thinking will report three real, positive events that occurred earlier in the session while playing mobile video games. Participants will be told to not include events related specifically to smoking. Using a five-point Likert scale, participants will rate each event according to four dimensions: vividness, enjoyment, importance, and excitement. The event rated the most vivid at each time frame will be chosen for use in subsequent behavioral testing (ties will be settled randomly). Participants will then be recorded reciting a self-created two or three-sentence summary of each event. These recordings will serve as audio cues. Participants will also create abbreviated versions of each description to serve as text cues.
Sponsors
University of Vermont
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
BASIC_SCIENCE
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Intervention model description
Randomized parallel group design
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
21 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion/
Exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: 1. Adult ≥ age 21 years. 2. Able to provide informed, written consent. 3. Smoke an average of at least five (5) cigarettes per day for at least one year. 4. Breath CO levels \> 8 ppm. If breath CO is less than 8 ppm, we will administer a urine test (NicAlert Strip) and include if result is greater than 2. 5. Desire to quit smoking, but not actively trying to quit or currently taking medications to aid smoking cessation (e.g, varenicline, bupropion). 6. US citizen or a permanent resident alien with a green card 7. Comfortable reading and writing in English
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Loss aversion | 30 days | Loss aversion will be measured with a gamble task developed by Tom et al. (2007). Participants will choose whether to accept or reject each of a series of hypothetical lotteries offering a 50-50 chance of a monetary loss and a monetary gain. Participants will indicate their decision to play a lottery by clicking on accept or reject buttons (strongly accept, accept, reject, strongly reject) located on the screen below the amounts (Figure 2). The task will consist of a series of 49 trials presenting each combination of 7 possible gains (+$2, +$12, +$22, +$32, +$42, +$52, and +$62) and 7 possible losses (-$1, -$6, -$11, -$16, -$21, -$26, and -$31). Combinations of gains and losses will be presented in random order. |
| Cigarette self-administration | 30 days | All participants will complete a 60-min self-administration task, in which they can earn single cigarette puffs for every 10 clicks on a moving circle on a computer screen. After completing each response requirement, participants will self-administer 1 cigarette puff. Target cigarette puff volume will be standardized at approximately 70 mL and participants will be instructed to light a cigarette without inhaling, place it in a cigarette holder connected to the pressure sensor, and inhale from the cigarette while estimated puff volume is displayed on the computer screen in real time. The displayed puff volume will turn from white to red at 60 ml and signal the approximate time participants should stop inhaling to reach 70 ml. Participants will have practiced this procedure prior to the task. Participants will be instructed that they can smoke as much or as little as they want during the task. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Delay discounting | 30 days | Delay discounting will be measured with a standard adjusting-amount task. This task used to measure intervention effects on delay discounting (e.g., Stein et al., 2016). At each of five delays, participants will choose between two different hypothetical amounts: $1,000.00 available after a delay or a smaller amount of money available immediately. The smaller amount will be titrated across six consecutive trials until reaching a point of subjective equality between choice options. Delays will be presented in random order. The value of the smaller amount at indifference indexes the discounted value of the larger option at each delay. This titration process will repeat at each of five delays: 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year. |
Contacts
Primary ContactEric A Thrailkill, PhD
Outcome results
None listed