Limits...
Plain cigarette packs do not exert Pavlovian to instrumental transfer of control over tobacco-seeking.

Hogarth L, Maynard OM, Munafò MR - Addiction (2014)

Bottom Line: Both experiments found that branded packs primed a greater percentage of tobacco-seeking (overall mean = 62%) than plain packs (overall mean = 53%) and the no-stimulus condition (overall mean = 52%; Ps ≤ 0.01, ŋp (2) s ≥ 0.16), and that there was no difference in percentage tobacco-seeking between plain packs and the no-stimulus condition (Ps ≥ 0.17, ŋp (2) s ≤ 0.04).Plain tobacco packs showed an overall 9% reduction in the priming of a tobacco choice response compared to branded tobacco packs.Plain packaging may reduce smoking in current smokers by degrading cue-elicited tobacco-seeking.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK; School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

The vertical axis shows the mean percentage choice of the tobacco- versus chocolate-seeking response [± standard error of the mean (SEM)] during the Pavlovian to instrumental transfer (PIT) test (50% = equal choice or indifference). The horizontal axis shows the stimulus that was presented on the screen before a response choice was made: either no-stimulus, an image of a plain pack (Fig. 1a) or a branded pack (Fig. 1b). In both experiments, the branded pack stimulus primed tobacco-seeking more than the no-stimulus and plain pack conditions, and the latter two conditions did not differ
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4309177&req=5

fig02: The vertical axis shows the mean percentage choice of the tobacco- versus chocolate-seeking response [± standard error of the mean (SEM)] during the Pavlovian to instrumental transfer (PIT) test (50% = equal choice or indifference). The horizontal axis shows the stimulus that was presented on the screen before a response choice was made: either no-stimulus, an image of a plain pack (Fig. 1a) or a branded pack (Fig. 1b). In both experiments, the branded pack stimulus primed tobacco-seeking more than the no-stimulus and plain pack conditions, and the latter two conditions did not differ

Mentions: One participant was excluded for reporting inaccurate knowledge of the response–outcome contingencies following concurrent choice acquisition, leaving a final sample of n = 23 for analysis. These participants had a mean age of 20.8 years [standard deviation (SD) = 2.3, range = 18–27] and smoked an average of 9.3 cigarettes on smoking days (SD = 5.7, range = 1–25). Table 1 and Fig. 2a show the percentage choice of the tobacco- versus the chocolate-seeking response in the three stimulus conditions of the PIT test. ANOVA with these data (see Table 2) produced a main effect of stimulus (F(2,44) = 3.44, P = 0.04, ŋp2 = 0.14). Crucially, that there was no evidence of a difference in tobacco-seeking between the plain pack and the no-stimulus condition (F(1,22) = 0.97, P = 0.33, ŋp2 = 0.04). This critical result was confirmed by a Bayes factor of 0.38, indicating low confidence in this difference. Accordingly, the plain and no-stimulus conditions were averaged, and the branded pack enhanced tobacco-seeking above this average (F(1,22) = 7.23, P = 0.01, ŋp2 = 0.25). The failure of the plain packs to elicit tobacco-seeking in the PIT test, in contrast to branded packs, demonstrates that the discriminative control function of plain packs is degraded.


Plain cigarette packs do not exert Pavlovian to instrumental transfer of control over tobacco-seeking.

Hogarth L, Maynard OM, Munafò MR - Addiction (2014)

The vertical axis shows the mean percentage choice of the tobacco- versus chocolate-seeking response [± standard error of the mean (SEM)] during the Pavlovian to instrumental transfer (PIT) test (50% = equal choice or indifference). The horizontal axis shows the stimulus that was presented on the screen before a response choice was made: either no-stimulus, an image of a plain pack (Fig. 1a) or a branded pack (Fig. 1b). In both experiments, the branded pack stimulus primed tobacco-seeking more than the no-stimulus and plain pack conditions, and the latter two conditions did not differ
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4309177&req=5

fig02: The vertical axis shows the mean percentage choice of the tobacco- versus chocolate-seeking response [± standard error of the mean (SEM)] during the Pavlovian to instrumental transfer (PIT) test (50% = equal choice or indifference). The horizontal axis shows the stimulus that was presented on the screen before a response choice was made: either no-stimulus, an image of a plain pack (Fig. 1a) or a branded pack (Fig. 1b). In both experiments, the branded pack stimulus primed tobacco-seeking more than the no-stimulus and plain pack conditions, and the latter two conditions did not differ
Mentions: One participant was excluded for reporting inaccurate knowledge of the response–outcome contingencies following concurrent choice acquisition, leaving a final sample of n = 23 for analysis. These participants had a mean age of 20.8 years [standard deviation (SD) = 2.3, range = 18–27] and smoked an average of 9.3 cigarettes on smoking days (SD = 5.7, range = 1–25). Table 1 and Fig. 2a show the percentage choice of the tobacco- versus the chocolate-seeking response in the three stimulus conditions of the PIT test. ANOVA with these data (see Table 2) produced a main effect of stimulus (F(2,44) = 3.44, P = 0.04, ŋp2 = 0.14). Crucially, that there was no evidence of a difference in tobacco-seeking between the plain pack and the no-stimulus condition (F(1,22) = 0.97, P = 0.33, ŋp2 = 0.04). This critical result was confirmed by a Bayes factor of 0.38, indicating low confidence in this difference. Accordingly, the plain and no-stimulus conditions were averaged, and the branded pack enhanced tobacco-seeking above this average (F(1,22) = 7.23, P = 0.01, ŋp2 = 0.25). The failure of the plain packs to elicit tobacco-seeking in the PIT test, in contrast to branded packs, demonstrates that the discriminative control function of plain packs is degraded.

Bottom Line: Both experiments found that branded packs primed a greater percentage of tobacco-seeking (overall mean = 62%) than plain packs (overall mean = 53%) and the no-stimulus condition (overall mean = 52%; Ps ≤ 0.01, ŋp (2) s ≥ 0.16), and that there was no difference in percentage tobacco-seeking between plain packs and the no-stimulus condition (Ps ≥ 0.17, ŋp (2) s ≤ 0.04).Plain tobacco packs showed an overall 9% reduction in the priming of a tobacco choice response compared to branded tobacco packs.Plain packaging may reduce smoking in current smokers by degrading cue-elicited tobacco-seeking.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK; School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus