Value-based decision-making in daily tobacco smokers following experimental manipulation of mood.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-26 DOI:10.1037/pha0000781
Amber Copeland, Jonas Dora, Kevin M King, Tom Stafford, Matt Field
{"title":"Value-based decision-making in daily tobacco smokers following experimental manipulation of mood.","authors":"Amber Copeland, Jonas Dora, Kevin M King, Tom Stafford, Matt Field","doi":"10.1037/pha0000781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Induction of negative mood increases tobacco choice in dependent smokers; however, less is known about the mechanisms behind this. This study addressed this gap by applying a computational model of value-based decision making to tobacco and tobacco-unrelated choices following mood manipulation. Using a preregistered, within-subject design, 49 daily tobacco smokers (>10 daily cigarettes) watched two different videos which primed them to experience negative and positive mood (tobacco valuation and devaluation, respectively). Participants completed self-report measures of mood and craving to smoke before and after priming, followed by a two-alternative forced-choice task with (separate) blocks of tobacco-related and tobacco-unrelated (animal) images. On each block, participants selected the image that they previously rated higher. A drift-diffusion model was fitted to the reaction time and error data to estimate evidence accumulation processes and response thresholds during the different blocks. After watching videos intended to induce negative mood, happiness scores were lower (<i>p</i> < .001, <i>d</i> = 1.16), while sadness and craving to smoke scores were higher (both <i>p</i>s < .001, <i>d</i>s > .60) compared to after watching videos intended to induce positive mood. However, contrary to hypotheses, the experimental manipulation did not robustly affect evidence accumulation rates (<i>F</i> = 1.15, <i>p</i> = .29, η<sub><i>p</i></sub>² = .02) or response thresholds (<i>F</i> = .07, <i>p</i> = .79, η<i><sub>p</sub></i>² = .00) for either tobacco or tobacco-unrelated decisions. Manipulation of mood in daily smokers did not lead to alterations in the internal processes that precede value-based decisions made about tobacco and tobacco-unrelated cues. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":12089,"journal":{"name":"Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology","volume":" ","pages":"459-468"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pha0000781","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Induction of negative mood increases tobacco choice in dependent smokers; however, less is known about the mechanisms behind this. This study addressed this gap by applying a computational model of value-based decision making to tobacco and tobacco-unrelated choices following mood manipulation. Using a preregistered, within-subject design, 49 daily tobacco smokers (>10 daily cigarettes) watched two different videos which primed them to experience negative and positive mood (tobacco valuation and devaluation, respectively). Participants completed self-report measures of mood and craving to smoke before and after priming, followed by a two-alternative forced-choice task with (separate) blocks of tobacco-related and tobacco-unrelated (animal) images. On each block, participants selected the image that they previously rated higher. A drift-diffusion model was fitted to the reaction time and error data to estimate evidence accumulation processes and response thresholds during the different blocks. After watching videos intended to induce negative mood, happiness scores were lower (p < .001, d = 1.16), while sadness and craving to smoke scores were higher (both ps < .001, ds > .60) compared to after watching videos intended to induce positive mood. However, contrary to hypotheses, the experimental manipulation did not robustly affect evidence accumulation rates (F = 1.15, p = .29, ηp² = .02) or response thresholds (F = .07, p = .79, ηp² = .00) for either tobacco or tobacco-unrelated decisions. Manipulation of mood in daily smokers did not lead to alterations in the internal processes that precede value-based decisions made about tobacco and tobacco-unrelated cues. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

日常吸烟者在情绪操纵实验后的价值决策。
消极情绪的诱导增加了依赖吸烟者的烟草选择;然而,人们对其背后的机制知之甚少。本研究通过将基于价值的决策计算模型应用于情绪操纵后的烟草和与烟草无关的选择,解决了这一差距。使用预先注册的主题内设计,49名每天吸烟的人(每天吸烟10支)观看了两个不同的视频,这些视频分别让他们体验消极和积极的情绪(烟草估值和贬值)。参与者在启动之前和之后完成了情绪和吸烟渴望的自我报告测量,然后是一个两种选择的强迫选择任务,其中有(分开的)与烟草相关和与烟草无关的(动物)图像块。在每个街区,参与者选择他们之前评价较高的图像。对反应时间和误差数据拟合漂移-扩散模型,估计不同区块的证据积累过程和响应阈值。观看诱发消极情绪的视频后,与观看诱发积极情绪的视频后相比,快乐得分较低(p < 0.001, d = 1.16),而悲伤和渴望吸烟得分较高(p < 0.001, d = 0.60)。然而,与假设相反,对于烟草或与烟草无关的决策,实验操作并未显著影响证据积累率(F = 1.15, p = 0.29, ηp²= 0.02)或响应阈值(F = 0.07, p = 0.79, ηp²= 0.00)。日常吸烟者对情绪的操纵并没有导致对烟草和与烟草无关的线索做出基于价值的决定之前的内部过程的改变。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
8.70%
发文量
164
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology publishes advances in translational and interdisciplinary research on psychopharmacology, broadly defined, and/or substance abuse.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信