4.4 Article

Is all risk bad? Young adult cigarette smokers fail to take adaptive risk in a laboratory decision-making test

期刊

PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 215, 期 4, 页码 801-811

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-011-2182-y

关键词

Cigarette smoking; Adolescent; Young adult; Risk; Impulsivity; Adaptive

资金

  1. NIH [K23 DA027734]
  2. Philip Morris USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cigarette smoking has been linked to real-world risky behavior, but this association has been based largely on retrospective self-reports. Limitations of self-report data can be avoided by using laboratory, performance-based measures, such as the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART; Lejuez et al., J Exp Psychol Appl 8:75-84, 2002). Initial studies have suggested that smokers display greater risk-taking on this task than nonsmokers, but these studies did not account for drug abuse and psychiatric comorbidities, which are commonplace among smokers. We sought to examine the performance of smokers and nonsmokers on the BART after excluding drug abuse and psychiatric comorbidities. We conducted a study of late adolescent/young adult (age 18 to 21) smokers (n = 26) and nonsmokers (n = 38) performing the BART and excluded individuals with positive drug or alcohol toxicology screens, substance abuse or dependence diagnoses, and/or current psychiatric conditions. Contrary to previous findings, smokers did not display greater risk-taking on the BART than nonsmokers. In fact, when performance was examined trial-by-trial, the nonsmokers displayed progressively greater pumping relative to smokers over time (p < .001), earning them a nonsignificantly greater amount of money than the smokers. Controlling for smoking status, additional analyses revealed that pumping on the BART was positively associated with years of education, nonverbal IQ, and employment. The results suggest that in young adults, smoking may be associated with a failure to take risks in situations where risk-taking is adaptive.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据