Psychopharmacology

, Volume 197, Issue 1, pp 169–178 | Cite as

Effects of a low dose of alcohol on cognitive biases and craving in heavy drinkers

Original Investigation

Abstract

Rationale

Heavy alcohol drinking increases the incentive salience of alcohol-related cues. This leads to increased appetitive motivation to drink alcohol as measured by subjective craving and cognitive biases such as attentional bias and approach bias. Although these measures relate to the same construct, correlations between these variables are often very low. Alcohol consumption might not only increase different aspects of appetitive motivation, but also correlations between those aspects.

Objectives

To investigate the effect of a low alcohol dose on changes in various measures of appetitive motivation.

Materials and methods

Twenty-three heavy social drinkers were tested in 2 sessions, once after receiving an alcohol prime dose and once after receiving a placebo drink. After drink administration, attentional bias was measured with a visual-probe task using concurrent eye movement monitoring. Furthermore, we measured the approach bias with a stimulus response compatibility task and subjective craving with the Desires for Alcohol Questionnaire.

Results

After the alcohol prime dose, participants had higher levels of craving and more pronounced attentional bias (faster reaction times to probes that replaced alcohol rather than control pictures, increased maintenance of gaze on alcohol pictures, and a higher percentage of first eye movements directed toward alcohol pictures). Approach bias was not influenced by the alcohol prime dose. The correlation between attentional bias and approach bias was significantly higher after the alcohol than after the placebo drink.

Conclusions

A low alcohol dose increased most measures of appetitive motivation for alcohol and increased the interrelation between cognitive measures of this construct.

Keywords

Attentional bias Approach bias Eye movements Craving Alcohol prime dose 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Elizabeth Tyler and Paul Christiansen for their help during testing, Fren Smulders for his contribution to devising the experimental design, and Gerard van Breukelen for his statistical advice. We would also like to thank the N.W.O. (Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research) for the Vidi-Grant 452.02.005 awarded to Reinout W. Wiers and the Medical Research Council Grant GO601070 awarded to Matt Field.

References

  1. Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle JC, Saunders JB, Monteiro MG (2001) AUDIT: the alcohol use disorders identification test, guidelines for use in primary care, 2nd edn. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradley B, Field M, Mogg K, De Houwer J (2004) Attentional and evaluative biases for smoking cues in nicotine dependence: component processes of biases in visual orienting. Behav Pharmacol 15:29–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chutuape MAD, Mitchell SH, de Wit H (1994) Ethanol preloads increase ethanol preference under concurrent random-ratio schedules in social drinkers. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 2:310–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Houwer J, Crombez G, Baeyens F, Hermans D (2001) On the generality of the affective Simon effect. Cogn Emot 15:189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Wit H, Chutuape MA (1993) Increased ethanol choice in social drinkers following ethanol preload. Behav Pharmacol 4:29–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Duka T, Townshend JM (2004) The priming effect of alcohol pre-load on attentional bias to alcohol-related stimuli. Psychopharmacology 176:353–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duka T, Stephens DN, Russell C, Tasker R (1998) Discriminative stimulus properties of low doses of ethanol in humans. Psychopharmacology 136:379–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards G (1996) Sensible drinking. BMJ 312:1PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Ehrman RN, Robbins SJ, Bromwell MA, Lankford ME, Monterosso JR, O’Brien CP (2002) Comparing attentional bias to smoking cues in current smokers, former smokers, and non-smokers using a dot-probe task. Drug Alcohol Depend 67:185–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Field M, Duka T (2002) Cues paired with a low dose of alcohol acquire conditioned incentive properties in social drinkers. Psychopharmacology 159:325–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Field M, Eastwood B (2005) Experimental manipulation of attentional bias increases the motivation to drink alcohol. Psychopharmacology 183:350–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Field M, Mogg K, Bradley BP (2004a) Eye movements to smoking-related cues: effects of nicotine deprivation. Psychopharmacology 173:116–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Field M, Mogg K, Zetteler J, Bradley BP (2004b) Attentional biases for alcohol cues in heavy and light social drinkers: the roles of initial orienting and maintained attention. Psychopharmacology 176:88–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Field M, Mogg K, Bradley BP (2005a) Alcohol increases cognitive biases for smoking cues in smokers. Psychopharmacology 180:63–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Field M, Mogg K, Bradley BP (2005b) Craving and cognitive biases for alcohol cues in social drinkers. Alcohol Alcohol 40:504–510PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Field M, Eastwood B, Bradley BP, Mogg K (2006) Selective processing of cannabis cues in regular cannabis users. Drug Alcohol Depend 85:75–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Field M, Duka T, Eastwood B, Child R, Santarcangelo M, Gayton M (2007a) Experimental manipulation of attentional biases in heavy drinkers: do the effects generalize? Psychopharmacology 192:593–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Field M, Kiernan A, Eastwood B, Child R (2007b) Rapid approach responses to alcohol cues in heavy drinkers. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry, in press, doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2007.06.001
  19. Fillmore MT, Vogel Sprott M (1999) An alcohol model of impaired inhibitory control and its treatment in humans. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 7:49–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fillmore MT, Vogel Sprott M (2000) Response inhibition under alcohol: effects of cognitive and motivational conflict. J Stud Alcohol 61:239–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fillmore MT, Vogel Sprott M (2006) Acute Effects of Alcohol and Other Drugs on Automatic and Intentional Control. In: Wiers RW, Stacy AW (eds) Handbook of implicit cognition and addiction. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 293–306Google Scholar
  22. Fillmore MT, Vogel Sprott M, Gavrilescu D (1999) Alcohol effects on intentional behavior: dissociating controlled and automatic influences. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 7:372–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Franken IHA (2003) Drug craving and addiction: integrating psychological and neuropsychopharmacological approaches. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 27:563–579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Franken IH, Kroon LY, Hendriks VM (2000a) Influence of individual differences in craving and obsessive cocaine thoughts on attentional processes in cocaine abuse patients. Addict Behav 25:99–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Franken IHA, Kroon LY, Wiers RW, Jansen A (2000b) Selective cognitive processing of drug cues in heroin dependence. J Psychopharmacol 14:395–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirk JM, de Wit H (2000) Individual differences in the priming effect of ethanol in social drinkers. J Stud Alcohol 61:64–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Koster EHW, Crombez G, Verschuere B, De Houwer J (2004) Selective attention to threat in the dot probe paradigm: differentiating vigilance and difficulty to disengage. Behav Res Ther 42:1183–1192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lavender T, Hommel B (2007) Affect and action: towards an event-coding account. Cogn Emot 21:1270–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Love A, James D, Willner P (1998) A comparison of two alcohol craving questionnaires. Addiction 93:1091–1102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Markman AB, Brendl CM (2005) Constraining theories of embodied cognition. Psychol Sci 16:6–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mogg K, Bradley BP, Field M, De Houwer J (2003) Eye movements to smoking-related pictures in smokers: relationship between attentional biases and implicit and explicit measures of stimulus valence. Addiction 98:825–836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mogg K, Field M, Bradley BP (2005) Attentional and approach biases for smoking cues in smokers: an investigation of competing theoretical views of addiction. Psychopharmacology 180:333–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Noel X, Colmant M, Van der Linden M, Bechara A, Bullens Q, Hanak C, Verbanck P (2006) Time course of attention for alcohol cues in abstinent alcoholic patients: the role of initial orienting. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 30:1871–1877PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Payne BK (2005) Conceptualizing control in social cognition: how executive functioning modulates the expression of automatic stereotyping. J Pers Soc Psychol 89:488–503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Robinson TE, Berridge KC (1993) The neural basis of drug craving: a incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Res Rev 18:247–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Robinson TE, Berridge KC (2000) The psychology and neurobiology of addiction: a incentive-sensitization view. Addiction 95:S91–S117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Grant M (1993) Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption: II. Addiction 88:791–804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sayette MA, Monti PM, Rohsenow DJ, Gulliver SB et al (1994) The effects of cue exposure on reaction time in male alcoholics. J Stud Alcohol 55:629–633PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Schoenmakers T, Wiers RW, Jones BT, Bruce G, Jansen A (2007) Attentional retraining decreases attentional bias in heavy drinkers without generalization. Addiction 102:399–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sobell LC, Sobell MB (1990) Self-report issues in alcohol abuse: sate of the art and future directions. Behav Assess 12:77–90Google Scholar
  41. Steiger JH (1980) Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychol Bull 87:245–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stormark KM, Field NP, Hugdahl K, Horowitz M (1997) Selective processing of visual alcohol cues in abstinent alcoholics: an approach-avoidance conflict? Addict Behav 22:509–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Townshend JM, Duka T (2001) Attentional bias associated with alcohol cues: differences between heavy and occasional social drinkers. Psychopharmacology 157:67–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Townshend JM, Duka T (2007) Avoidance of alcohol-related stimuli in alcohol-dependent inpatients. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 31:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van den Wildenberg E, Beckers M, van Lambaart F, Conrod PJ, Wiers RW (2006) Is the strength of implicit alcohol associations correlated with alcohol-induced heart-rate acceleration? Alcohol Clin Exp Res 30:1336–1348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wiers RW, Bartholow BD, van den Wildenberg E, Thush C, Engels RCME, Sher KJ, Grenard J, Ames SL, Stacy AW (2007) Automatic and controlled processes and the development of addictive behaviors in adolescents: a review and a model. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 86:263–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Schoenmakers
    • 1
    • 2
  • Reinout W. Wiers
    • 1
    • 3
  • Matt Field
    • 2
  1. 1.Clinical Psychological ScienceMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  3. 3.Behavioural Science InstituteRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations