Search

Research demonstrates that cognitive biases toward drug-related stimuli are correlated with substance use. This study aimed to investigate differences in cognitive biases (including approach bias, attentional bias and memory associations) between smoking and non-smoking adolescents in the US and the Netherlands. Within the group of smokers, we examined the relative predictive value of the cognitive biases and impulsivity related constructs (i.e.,including inhibition skills, working memory and risk taking) on daily smoking and nicotine dependence.Method: A total of 125 American and Dutch adolescent smokers (n = 67) and non-smokers (n = 58) between 13-18 years old participated. Participants completed the smoking Approach-Avoidance Task (S-AAT), the classical and emotional Stroop task, brief Implicit Associations Task (bIAT), Balloon Analogue Risk Taking (BART), the Self-Ordering Pointing Task (SOPT) and a questionnaire assessing level of nicotine dependence and smoking behavior. Results: The analytical sample consisted of 56 Dutch adolescents (27 smokers and 29 non-smokers) and 37 American adolescents (19 smokers and 18 non-smokers). No differences in cognitive biases between smokers and non-smokers were found. Generally, Dutch adolescents demonstrated an avoidance bias towards both smoking and neutral stimuli whereas the American adolescents did not demonstrate a bias. Within the group of smokers, regression analyses showed that stronger attentional bias and weaker inhibition skills predicted greater nicotine dependence while weak working memory predicted more daily cigarette use. Conclusion: Attentional bias, inhibition skills and working memory might be important factors explaining smoking in adolescence. Cultural differences in approach-avoidance bias should be considered in future research.

A recent review on facial mimicry concludes that emotional mimicry is less ubiquitous than has been suggested, and only occurs in interactions that are potentially affiliative (see Hess & Fischer, 2012). We hypothesize that individuals do not mimic facial expressions that can be perceived as offensive, such as disgust, and mimic positive emotion displays, but only when the context is affiliative (i.e. with intimates). Second, we expect that in spontaneous interactions not mimicry, but empathic feelings with the other predict the accurateness of emotion recognition. Data were collected in a pseudo-experimental setting, during an event organized for subscribers of a large Dutch women’s magazine. One woman (expresser) was exposed to two emotional stimuli (i.e., a vile smell, a compliment) in order to evoke disgust and pride respectively. Another woman (observer: intimate or stranger) was sitting opposite of her. We collected self-report measures on emotions and empathy, and coded facial expressions of disgust and smiling on the basis of FACS. The results show that participants do not mimic disgust. In contrast, smiles displayed after the vile smell and the compliment were mimicked, but only among intimates. We also found that self-reported empathy and not mimicry is related to the recognition of disgust. These findings are discussed in the light of a Social Contextual view on emotional mimicry.