Interactions and addiction.

Momentary effects of exposure to prosmoking media on college students' future smoking risk.

“…This finding is consistent with the theoretical position that individuals with heavier levels of smoking (even experimental smoking) are thought to be controlled more by processes related to nicotine dependence which may necessarily restrict variability in responding to socio-environmental stimuli like pro-smoking media (Flay et al, 2009; Shadel & Scharf, in press). Alternatively, pro-smoking media may have functioned as a conditioned smoking cue in ever smokers (because they had previous experience with smoking) and thus contributed to more uniform, focused levels of risk responding (see Lochbuehler et al, 2009; Upadhyaya, Drobes, & Thomas, 2004).…”

“…Alternatively, pro-smoking media may have functioned as a conditioned smoking cue in ever smokers (because they had previous experience with smoking) and thus contributed to more uniform, focused levels of risk responding (see Lochbuehler et al, 2009; Upadhyaya, Drobes, & Thomas, 2004). Never smokers, in contrast, are thought to be controlled more by socio-environmental variables such as exposure to cigarette advertising and marketing (Flay et al, 2009; Shadel & Scharf, in press), which may contribute to more variability in their levels of risk responding. For example, individual never smokers may have responded differently to the diversity of pro-smoking media to which they were exposed (e.g., point-of-sale, movie smoking), contributing to increased variability.…”

“…Regular daily smokers were excluded because pro-smoking media are theorized to be more relevant for individuals in the early stages of smoking (Flay et al, 2009; Shadel & Scharf, in press; Wellman et al, 2006). Of the 158 scheduled for a baseline visit, 142 attended.…”

“…Although exposure contributes to smoking initiation (Dalton et al, 2003), progression to more established smoking (Sargent et al, 2007), and serves as a “cue” to smoke for established smokers (Lochbuehler, Engels, & Scholte, 2009), the effects of pro-smoking media on the progression from never smoking to experimental smoking are stronger than the effects of pro-smoking media on the progression from experimental smoking to regular smoking (Wellman et al, 2006). These differences are thought to be a consequence of increasing engagement of processes relating to nicotine dependence as level of smoking increases (Flay, Snyder, & Petraitis, 2009; Shadel & Scharf, in press). That is, early smoking trials are thought to be governed by socio-environmental variables such as exposure to cigarette advertising and marketing whereas progression to heavier levels of smoking are thought to be governed by processes related to nicotine dependence (e.g., craving, withdrawal, cue reactivity; see Shadel et al, 2000).…”

“…Second, differences in responsiveness to pro-smoking media may be observed in the level of variability around future smoking risk between ever and never smokers; this outcome has not been investigated in this domain of inquiry. To the extent that the development of nicotine dependence resembles a developmental process (Flay et al, 2009; Shadel & Scharf, in press; Shadel et al, 2000), mean differences between individuals who have different levels of experience with smoking may only provide partial insight into underlying processes (see Hertzog & Nesselroade, 2003). Indeed, in a recent study, Hedeker and colleagues (2009) found that adolescents’ level of smoking was related both to their mean mood levels (i.e., adolescents experienced less negative affect when they smoked compared to during random prompts) and to their level of variance in mood (i.e., adolescents experienced less mood variability as their level of smoking increased).…”