Approach Bias and Tobacco Craving as Mechanisms of the Effect of Approach Bias Retraining on Smoking Cessation.

INTRODUCTION: Approach bias, the automatic tendency to advance toward, rather than move away from appetitive cues, has been associated with greater tobacco cravings, dependence, and likelihood of smoking relapse. Approach bias retraining (ABR) has emerged as one way to reduce approach bias and promote avoidance toward smoking cues. Yet, additional research is needed to identify the mechanisms that may help explain the effect of ABR on smoking cessation. METHODS: The current study uses data collected as part of a randomized controlled trial to test two unique mechanisms of action ([1] approach bias and [2] tobacco craving) for the efficacy of standard smoking cessation treatment (ST) augmented by ABR on smoking abstinence. Participants were 96 adult daily smokers (Mage=43.1, SD=10.7) motivated to quit smoking. RESULTS: Results showed that lower approach bias and lower cravings at a treatment session were significantly related to next session smoking abstinence (p's<.018). Further, deviations in approach bias partially mediated the effect of ABR on smoking abstinence (ab=-12.17, 95%CI: [-29.67, -0.53]). However, deviations in tobacco craving did not mediate this relation (ab=.40, 95%CI: [-.27, 1.34]). CONCLUSIONS: The current findings add to extant literature by identifying approach bias as a mechanism of action of the effect of ABR on smoking abstinence during smoking cessation treatment. IMPLICATIONS: The current study adds to our knowledge on the effectiveness of approach bias retraining (ABR) as a part of smoking cessation treatment. Results indicate that reductions in approach bias partially mediate the effect of ABR on smoking abstinence. These findings are consistent with previous research on alcohol-dependent adults and underline the potential of ABR to reduce approach bias and promote smoking cessation among smokers. Such findings could inform the development of future research exploring more targeted and effective smoking cessation interventions, ultimately improving outcomes for individuals attempting to quit smoking.

Approach bias retraining to augment smoking cessation: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Approach tendency to smoking-related cues has been associated with greater cravings, nicotine dependence, and the likelihood of relapse. In this pilot randomized clinical trial, we examined the efficacy of approach bias retraining (ABR; i.e., increasing avoidance tendency) for enhancing standard smoking cessation treatment (ST). METHODS: Adult smokers (N = 96) motivated to quit were randomly assigned to 7 weekly in-person treatment sessions consisting of either (1) cognitive-behavioral therapy for smoking cessation (ST) and ABR (ST+ABR) or ST and sham retraining (ST+Sham). All participants also received optional nicotine replacement therapy for up to 8 weeks following the scheduled quit date (week 6). We measured avoidance tendency from weeks 1-7. Point prevalence abstinence (PPA) and prolonged abstinence (PA) were measured up to 3 months following the quit attempt (week 18 follow-up). RESULTS: Consistent with our hypothesis, participants in ST+ABR evidenced higher abstinence rates than those in ST+Sham at the final follow-up (b=0.71, 95 % CI: [0.14, 1.27], t[1721]=2.46, p = 0.014, OR=2.03, 95 % CI: [1.15, 3.57]). Specifically, PPA and PA rates were 50 % and 66 % in ST+ABR compared to 31 % and 47 % in ST+Sham. As expected, participants assigned to the ST+ABR condition also showed a greater training-compatible increase in avoidance tendency scores relative to those assigned to the ST+Sham condition (b=248.06, 95 % CI: [148.51, 347,62], t[84]=4.96, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The current pilot randomized clinical trial provides initial evidence for the efficacy of integrating standard smoking cessation with ABR. These findings encourage the testing of the long-term efficacy and mechanisms of action of this integrated intervention.