It’s not that they are all hopeless addicts. Many smokers are capable of quitting.
It’s not that they are ignorant. Studies show that smokers are at least
as informed as nonsmokers about the risks of smoking — and possibly more
informed.
You might suspect, then, that smokers tend to be risk takers by nature.
And some evidence suggests that smokers do take more risks than
nonsmokers: they are more often involved in traffic accidents, less
likely to wear seat belts and more likely to engage in risky sexual
behavior. Women who smoke even have mammograms less frequently than
their nonsmoking counterparts.
But we don’t believe that smokers have a greater tolerance for risk. As we argue in a study published this month
in the journal PLoS One, the personality trait that distinguishes
smokers from nonsmokers is their relative inability to delay
satisfaction and respect long-term considerations (like their health).
In other words: it’s their poor self-control.
Key to our study is a card game known as the Iowa gambling task,
commonly used to measure risk taking. You are presented with four decks
of cards. Each card reveals a financial outcome: “You won $100,” or “You
lost $250,” for example. Your task is to keep picking cards from
whichever decks you would like, trying to make as much money as you can.
The twist is that the decks have different payoff distributions: two of
them offer higher risk (cards with larger gains and larger losses) but
long-term overall losses; the other two decks offer lower risk (smaller
gains and smaller loses) but long-term gains.
Most participants, after selecting several dozen cards from the various
decks, learn to stick with the two “good” decks and end up faring well.
Studies have shown, however, that people with brain lesions affecting
decision making tend to favor the “bad,” riskier decks and fare poorly.
The same is true of chronic cocaine and cannabis users. But when smokers
and nonsmokers perform the Iowa gambling task there are no significant differences
between the two groups, as the psychologist Carl Lejuez and his
colleagues have demonstrated. This strongly suggests that smokers are
not, in fact, especially tolerant of risk.
So what accounts for smokers’ risky-looking behavior? Our contention is
that smokers exhibit poor self-control in the face of immediate
temptation — which can look like a willingness to assume risk. (For
instance, you might choose to have sex without a condom not because you
are comfortable with the risk but because you are too weak-willed to
bother with the inconvenience.)
To test our hypothesis we took 100 research participants (smokers and
nonsmokers) and had them perform a modified version of the Iowa gambling
task. We focused on a subtle difference between the two “bad” decks.
One offers payoffs that commonly result in immediate satisfaction — it
produces a gain of $100 in 9 out of 10 draws — but in 1 of 10 draws it
produces a disaster: losing $1,250. The other bad deck is less
immediately satisfying — the losses are smaller ($250) but more
frequent, occurring about every second draw. Thus both decks are bad
overall but the first is more satisfying in the short run.
In addition, in our modified version, every time a participant selected a
card from one of the four decks, we showed the outcomes that would have
resulted from selecting from the other three decks. This increased the
salience of the immediately satisfying deck, since when choosing any
other deck, 9 times out of 10 the player could see that this deck
produced the best outcome.
We found that as the game progressed, smokers selected this deck about
1.5 times more than nonsmokers. They could not resist the short-term
pleasure despite the long-term disaster.
(We also had our research subjects play another version of the game in
which the good and bad decks differed in terms of risk but not in the
immediacy of their satisfying outcomes. This change wiped out the
differences between smokers and nonsmokers, confirming the Lejuez team’s
finding that smokers are not more tolerant of risk.)
Our finding is admittedly nuanced: it is not risk taking per se
that drives smokers’ risky behavior; it’s a weakness for activities
that are profitable most of the time yet hazardous eventually.
This distinction may suggest strategies for fighting smoking. For
example, hospitals and universities have started to ban smoking not only
inside buildings but also at their perimeter; while originally proposed
to address secondary smoking hazards, this may also have the benefit of
imposing an additional short-term inconvenience on smoking. If we are
right that smokers tend to have poorer self-control, such manipulations
may be used to help sustain their willpower.
No comments:
Post a Comment