1. Light and intermittent smoking in young adulthood – what characterizes this group? Johannes Thrul & Anneke Bühler IFT Institut für Therapieforschung München International Conference: Future Challenges for Addiction Research, 09. – 10. Sept 2013, Zurich Institut für Therapieforschung, München INTRODUCTION METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONSLITERATURE Contact: Johannes Thrul, Dipl.-Psych., thrul@ift.de Funding: This study was funded by Pfizer Inc. (GRAND Award) Background Light and intermittent smoking has become a prevalent pattern of use among adolescents and young adults (Coggins et al., 2009; Presson et al., 2002). Only few German studies have examined this subgroup of young smokers. Study aim In this study, we compare young adult light and intermittent smokers (LITS) with heavy smokers (HS) with regard to demographic and smoking related variables, general self-control abilities, and concrete strategies of smoking restraint. Procedure Recruitment online (e.g., Facebook) Baseline survey online (approx. 20 minutes) Participants 137 young adult smokers (M=21.1 years, 46.0% female) 76 heavy smokers (HS; M=16.2 cig/day, SD=5.7) 61 light and intermittent smokers (LITS; M=3.6 cig/day, SD=1.2) Other inclusion criteria: >100 cigarettes/lifetime; intention to quit smoking Measures Socio-demographics Nicotine dependence (HONC; DiFranza et al., 2002) Quit motivation Self-efficacy to resist cigarettes Strategies of smoking restraint (Scharf, 2009) General self-control abilities (Gibbs et al., 2003) Analytical strategy t-tests, Chi 2 -tests, logistic regression analyses There are relevant differences between LITS and HS with regard to strategies of smoking restraint. These results provide evidence for the importance of monitoring of the own smoking behavior as a part of smoking cessation interventions. In the further course of this study, we examine the role of these strategies with regard to day-to-day smoking behavior by using an ambulatory assessment technique for mobile phones (Ecological Momentary Assessment; Shiffman et al., 2008). More LITS than HS report using strategies of smoking restraint to limit their cigarette use. This effect was not explained by differences in nicotine dependence. Surprisingly, LITS did not report higher general self- control abilities than HS. Coggins, C., Murrelle, E., Carchman, R. & Heidbreder, C. (2009): Light and intermittent cigarette smokers: a review (1989 ‐ 2009). Psychopharmacology, 207, 343 ‐ 363. DiFranza, J. R., Savageau, J. A., Fletcher, K., Ockene, J. K., Rigotti, N. A., McNeill, A. D., & Wood, C. (2002): Measuring the loss of autonomy over nicotine use in adolescents: the DANDY (Development and Assessment of Nicotine Dependence in Youths) study. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 156(4), 397. Gibbs, J. J., Giever, D., & Higgins, G. E. (2003): A test of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory using structural equation modeling. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 441- 458. Presson, C. C., Chassin, L. & Sherman, S. J. (2002): Psychosocial Antecedents of Tobacco Chipping. Health Psychology, 21, 384 ‐ 392. Scharf, D.M. (2009): Rigid and flexible styles of smoking restraint. (doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh) Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008): Ecological Momentary Assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1-32. More students among LITS than HS (88% vs. 62%) HS report more smoking parents, more quit motivation, and a higher self-efficacy to resist cigarettes Use of strategies of smoking restraint, nicotine dependence, and general self-control abilities: Differences in the use of strategies were still significant after accounting for nicotine dependence in a logistic regression analysis (restrict number of cigarettes: OR=6.0 (2.6-13.6); count cigarettes: OR=4.5 (1.9-10.6))