ArticleScientific reports2024
Nicotine-related interpretation biases in cigarette smoking individuals.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of alcohol and tobacco use in psychotherapy: validation of the german self-report ASSIST alcohol and tobacco subscales in an outpatient setting.Addictive behaviors reports · 2025Article
- The interplay between perceived stress, psychological flexibility, and interpretation biases in undergraduate mental health.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The link between tobacco smoking and susceptibility to misinformation.Psychopharmacology · 2025Article
- Smoking cessation behavior, nicotine addiction, and mental health among current smokers in Klang Valley, Malaysia- a cross-sectional questionnaire survey.BMC public health · 2025Article
- The dual impact of tobacco spending: crowding out essentials and crowding in addictive behaviors.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Addictive behaviors are characterized by information processing biases, including substance-related interpretation biases. In the field of cigarette smoking, such biases have not been investigated yet. The present study thus adopted an open-ended scenario approach to measure smoking-related interpretation biases. Individuals who smoke, those who ceased smoking, and those without a smoking history (total sample N = 177) were instructed to generate spontaneous continuations for ambiguous, open-ended scenarios that described either a smoking-related or neutral context. Overall, people who smoke generated more smoking-related continuations in response to smoking-relevant situations than non-smoking individuals or people who had stopped smoking, providing evidence for a smoking-related interpretation bias. When differentiating for situation type within smoking-relevant scenarios, smoking individuals produced more smoking-related continuations for positive/social and habit/addictive situations compared to negative/affective ones. Additionally, the tendency to interpret habit/addictive situations in a smoking-related manner was positively associated with cigarette consumption and levels of nicotine dependence. Exploratory analyses indicated that other substance-related continuations were correlated with their respective behavioral counterparts (e.g., the level of self-reported alcohol or caffeine consumption). The present study is the first to demonstrate smoking-related interpretation biases in relation to current cigarette smoking. Future studies should investigate the causal role of such biases in the initiation and/or maintainance of nicotine addiction and the merit of Interpretation-Bias-Modification training to support smoking cessation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.