Selective processing of smoking-related cues in smokers: manipulation of deprivation level and comparison of three measures of processing bias
Selective processing of smoking-related cues in smokers: manipulation of deprivation level and comparison of three measures of processing bias
Recent theories of addiction suggest that an attentional bias for drug-related cues plays an important role in maintaining drug-taking behaviours. A key feature of the present study is that it used three different measures of processing bias for linguistic and pictorial smoking-related cues: masked and unmasked conditions of the modified Stroop task, and a pictorial version of the visual probe task. Participants were smokers (n = 27), who were tested twice, with deprivation level manipulated as a within-subjects variable. They were asked to abstain from smoking for 12 h before one session, and to smoke normally before the other. Results were consistent with an attentional bias for smoking-related pictures on the visual probe task, and for smoking-related words in the unmasked condition of the modified Stroop task. The latter bias was most strongly predicted by self-reported urge to smoke, rather than by the deprivation manipulation. There was no evidence of a preconscious bias for smoking cues. The three measures of cognitive bias (from masked and unmasked Stroop and visual probe tasks) were not significantly correlated with each other, which suggests they may tap different underlying mechanisms. We discuss the results with respect to conceptualizations of selective attention, addiction and motivational states in general.
attention, cigarette smokers, deprivation, nicotine dependence, processing bias
385-392
Mogg, Karin
5f1474af-85f5-4fd3-8eb6-0371be848e30
Bradley, Brendan Patrick
bdacaa6c-528b-4086-9448-27ebfe463514
2002
Mogg, Karin
5f1474af-85f5-4fd3-8eb6-0371be848e30
Bradley, Brendan Patrick
bdacaa6c-528b-4086-9448-27ebfe463514
Mogg, Karin and Bradley, Brendan Patrick
(2002)
Selective processing of smoking-related cues in smokers: manipulation of deprivation level and comparison of three measures of processing bias.
Journal of Psychopharmacology, 16 (4), .
Abstract
Recent theories of addiction suggest that an attentional bias for drug-related cues plays an important role in maintaining drug-taking behaviours. A key feature of the present study is that it used three different measures of processing bias for linguistic and pictorial smoking-related cues: masked and unmasked conditions of the modified Stroop task, and a pictorial version of the visual probe task. Participants were smokers (n = 27), who were tested twice, with deprivation level manipulated as a within-subjects variable. They were asked to abstain from smoking for 12 h before one session, and to smoke normally before the other. Results were consistent with an attentional bias for smoking-related pictures on the visual probe task, and for smoking-related words in the unmasked condition of the modified Stroop task. The latter bias was most strongly predicted by self-reported urge to smoke, rather than by the deprivation manipulation. There was no evidence of a preconscious bias for smoking cues. The three measures of cognitive bias (from masked and unmasked Stroop and visual probe tasks) were not significantly correlated with each other, which suggests they may tap different underlying mechanisms. We discuss the results with respect to conceptualizations of selective attention, addiction and motivational states in general.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 2002
Keywords:
attention, cigarette smokers, deprivation, nicotine dependence, processing bias
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 18425
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/18425
ISSN: 0269-8811
PURE UUID: 83f698b7-1611-4669-822e-30b535c0eddf
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 21 Dec 2005
Last modified: 09 Jan 2022 03:05
Export record
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics