Search

Background and Objective: Theoretical models propose that different cognitive biases are caused by a common underlying mechanism (incentive salience/"wanting") and should, therefore, be interrelated. Additionally, stronger impulsive processes should be related to weaker inhibitory abilities. However, these assumptions have hardly been empirically tested and key psychometric information have hardly been reported in samples of smokers. To extent previous research, the present study aimed (1) to estimate the reliability (split-half) of different cognitive bias measures and (2) to investigate associations between attention, approach and associative biases, response inhibition, and smoking-related variables., Methods: Eighty current, non-deprived smokers completed the following tasks in random order: Approach-Avoidance Task (AAT), Stimulus-Response Compatibility Task (SRCT), Implicit-Association Tests (IAT, approach-avoid, valence), Dotprobe Task, Go-/NoGo Task (GNGT). Additionally, different smoking-related variables were assessed. Split-half reliabilities of the different cognitive (bias) measures and correlations between them were calculated., Results: Split-half reliabilities of the AAT, the SRCT, and the Dotprobe Task were unacceptable whereas both IATs and the GNGT showed good to excellent reliability. Smoking-approach associations were significantly related to nicotine dependence; however, none of the cognitive bias measures correlated with response inhibition or smoking-related variables., Limitations: Pictorial stimuli were the same across paradigms and might not have been relevant to all participants., Conclusions: This is the first study to investigate the association between different cognitive biases, response inhibition, and smoking-related variables. Although findings are at odds with theoretical assumptions, their interpretation is clearly restricted by the low reliability of the cognitive bias measures., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)