Implicit attitudes toward smoking: How the smell of cigarettes influences college-age smokers and non-smokers

in Journal of Health Psychology (2013)

The habit of smoking may have automatic behavioral components guided by implicit attitudes. Smokers’ attitudes toward smoking should thus be less negative than nonsmokers’, so that a salient smoking cue ... [more ▼]

The habit of smoking may have automatic behavioral components guided by implicit attitudes. Smokers’ attitudes toward smoking should thus be less negative than nonsmokers’, so that a salient smoking cue (smell) is able to activate positive aspects of these attitudes. An affective priming task was used to explore this hypothesis. Unexpectedly, smokers and nonsmokers showed equally negative implicit attitudes, irrespective of smell. Smokers exposed to the cigarette smell did, however, display generally slower responses than nonsmokers, suggesting attentional bias. This could have implications for smoking policies in contexts where attentional factors affect performance. [less ▲]

Beyond fear appeals: Contradicting positive smoking outcome expectancies to influence smokers' implicit attitudes, perception, and behavior.

in Addictive Behaviors (2012), 37

Smokers often have (implicit or explicit) positive smoking outcome expectancies that motivate them to smoke. For instance, they may feel that smoking is relaxing, that it improves concentration, or that ... [more ▼]

Smokers often have (implicit or explicit) positive smoking outcome expectancies that motivate them to smoke. For instance, they may feel that smoking is relaxing, that it improves concentration, or that it is seen as cool and attractive by peers. These expectations are, for the most part, illusory. In order to counteract these expectations, we designed cigarette package warning labels that contradicted common positive outcome expectancies. We investigated the effectiveness of our new warning labels in two experiments. We first measured smokers' implicit attitudes toward smoking using an affective priming method and found that our new warning labels changed positive attitudes into ambivalent attitudes. We then tested whether our warning labels changed smokers' self-reported positive outcome expectancies and smoking behavior. Smokers presented with the new warning labels immediately associated positive outcome expectancies less strongly with smoking and reported smoking fewer cigarettes in the 24 hours following the experiment. Explicitly taking the reasons for unhealthy behavior into account when trying to change people's habits could offer a valuable contribution to effective health campaigns. [less ▲]