Advertisement

Psychopharmacology

, Volume 229, Issue 1, pp 167–176 | Cite as

Cannabis intoxication inhibits avoidance action tendencies: a field study in the Amsterdam coffee shops

  • Janna CousijnEmail author
  • Robin W. M. Snoek
  • Reinout W. Wiers
Original Investigation

Abstract

Rationale

Experimental laboratory studies suggest that the approach bias (relatively fast approach responses) toward substance-related materials plays an important role in problematic substance use. How this bias is moderated by intention to use versus recent use remains unknown. Moreover, the relationship between approach bias and other motivational processes (satiation and craving) and executive functioning remains unclear.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to investigate the cannabis approach bias before and after cannabis use in real-life setting (Amsterdam coffee shops) and to assess the relationship between approach bias, craving, satiation, cannabis use, and response inhibition.

Methods

Cannabis, tobacco, and neutral approach and avoidance action tendencies were measured with the Approach Avoidance Task and compared between 42 heavy cannabis users with the intention to use and 45 heavy cannabis users shortly after cannabis use. The classical Stroop was used to measure response inhibition. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to investigate relationships between approach bias, satiation, craving, cannabis use, and response inhibition.

Results

In contrast to the hypotheses, heavy cannabis users with the intention to use did not show a cannabis approach bias, whereas intoxicated cannabis users did show an approach bias regardless of image category. This could be attributed to a general slowing of avoidance action tendencies. Moreover, craving was negatively associated with the approach bias, and no relationships were observed between the cannabis approach bias, satiation, prior cannabis use, and response inhibition.

Conclusion

Cannabis intoxication in a real-life setting inhibited general avoidance. Expression of the cannabis approach bias appeared not to be modulated by satiation or response inhibition.

Keywords

Approach Avoidance Task Approach bias Cannabis Cannabis abuse Craving Satiation Response inhibition 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NWO) Vici grant 453.008.001 awarded to R.W. Wiers. The authors report no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adamson SJ, Kay-Lambkin FJ, Baker AL, Lewin TJ, Thornton L, Kelly BJ et al (2010) An improved brief measure of cannabis misuse: the Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test—Revised (CUDIT-R). Drug Alcohol Depend 110:137–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechara A (2005) Decision making, impulsive control and loss of willpower to resist drugs: a neurocognitive perspective. Nat Neurosci 8:1458–1463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradley BP, Mogg K, Wright T, Field M (2003) Attentional bias in drug dependence: vigilance for cigarette-related cues in smokers. Psychol Addict Behav 17:66–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradley BP, Field M, Healy H, Mogg K (2008) Do the affective properties of smoking-related cues influence attentional and approach biases in cigarette smokers? J Psychoparmacol 22:737–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christiansen P, Rose AK, Cole JC, Field M (2012) A comparison of the anticipated and pharmacological effects of alcohol on cognitive bias—executive function, craving, and ad-lib drinking. J Psychopharmacol. doi: 10.1177/0269881112450787 Google Scholar
  6. Cortina JM (1993) What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol 78:98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cousijn J, Goudriaan AE, Wiers RW (2011) Reaching out towards cannabis: approach-bias in heavy cannabis users predicts changes in cannabis use. Addiction 106:667–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cousijn J, Goudriaan AE, Ridderinkhof KR, Veltman DJ, Van den Brink W, Wiers RW (2012) Approach-bias predicts the development of cannabis problem severity: results from a prospective fMRI study. PLoS One 7:e42394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crean RD, Crane NA, Mason BJ (2011) An evidence based review of acute and long-term effects of cannabis use on executive cognitive functions. J Addict Med 5:1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Di Chiara G (2000) Role of dopamine in the behavioural actions of nicotine related to addiction. Eur J Pharmacol 393:295–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duka T, Townshend JM (2004) The priming effect of alcohol pre-load on attentional bias to alcohol-related stimuli. Psychopharmacol 176:353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Everitt BJ, Robbins TW (2005) Neural systems of reinforcement for drug addiction: from actions to habits to compulsion. Nat Neurosci 8:1481–1489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Field M, Cox WM (2008) Attentional bias in addictive behaviors: a review of its development, causes, and consequences. Drug Alcohol Depend 97:1–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Field M, Mogg K, Bradley BP (2005) Alcohol increases cognitive biases for smoking cues in smokers. Psychopharmacol 180:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Field M, Kiernan A, Eastwood B, Child R (2008) Rapid approach responses to alcohol cues in heavy drinkers. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 39:209–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Field M, Munafo MR, Franken IHA (2009) A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between attentional bias and subjective craving in substance abuse. Psychol Bull 135:589–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flint A, Raben A, Blundell JE, Astrup A (2000) Reproducibility, power and validity of visual analogue scales in assessment of appetite sensations in single test meal studies. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 24:38–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franken IHA (2003) Drug craving and addiction: integrating psychological and neuropsychopharmacological approaches. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 27:563–579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geiselman PJ, Anderson AM, Dowdy ML, West DB, Redmann SM, Smith SR (1998) Reliability and validity of a macronutrient self-selection paradigm and a food preference questionnaire. Physiol Behav 63:919–928PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldstein RZ, Craig AD, Bechara A, Garavan H, Childress AR, Paulus MP, Volkow ND (2009) The neurocircuitry of impaired insight in drug addiction. Trends Cogn Sci 13:372–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grenard JL, Ames SL, Wiers RW, Thush C, Sussman S, Stacy AW (2008) Working memory capacity moderates the predictive effects of drug-related associations on substance use. Psychol Addict Behav 22:426–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haney M, Ward AS, Comer SD, Foltin RW, Fischman MW (1999) Abstinence symptoms following smoked marijuana in humans. Psychopharmacol (Berl) 141:395–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hart CL, van Gorp W, Haney M, Foltin RW, Fischman MW (2001) Effects of acute smoked marijuana on complex cognitive performance. Neuropsychopharmacology 25:757–765PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerstrom KO (1991) The Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict 86:1119–1127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heisman SJ, Evans RJ, Singleton EG, Levin KH, Copersion ML, Gorelick DA (2009) Reliability and validity of a short form of the Marijuana Craving Questionnaire. Drug Alcohol Depend 102:35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Houben K, Wiers RW (2009) Response inhibition moderates the relationship between implicit associations and drinking behavior. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 33:626–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Houben K, Wiers RW, Jansen A (2011) Getting a grip on drinking behavior: training working memory to reduce alcohol abuse. Psychol Sci 22:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones BT, Jones BC, Smith H, Copley N (2003) A flicker paradigm for inducing change blindness reveals alcohol and cannabis information processing biases in social users. Addiction 98:235–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krompinger JW, Simons RF (2011) Cognitive inefficiency in depressive undergraduates: Stroop processing and ERP’s. Biol Psychol 86:239–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lenné MG, Dietze PM, Triggs TJ, Walsmley S, Murphy B, Redman JR (2010) The effects of cannabis and alcohol on simulated arterial driving: influences of driving experience and task demand. Accid Anal Prev 42:859–866PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McKay D, Schare ML (1999) The effects of alcohol and alcohol expectancies on subjective reports and physiological reactivity: a meta-analysis. Addict Behav 24:633–647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Montgomery C, Field M, Atkinson AM, Cole JC, Goudie AJ, Sumnall HR (2010) Effects of alcohol preload on attentional bias towards cocaine-related cues. Psychopharmacol 210:365–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ostafin BS, Palfai TP (2006) Compelled to consume: the Implicit Association Test and automatic alcohol motivation. Psychol Addict Behav 20:322–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Palfai TP (2006) Activating action tendencies: the influence of action priming on alcohol consumption among male hazardous drinkers. J Stud Alcohol 67:926–933PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Palfai TP, Ostafin BD (2003) Alcohol-related motivational tendencies in hazardous drinkers: assessing implicit response tendencies using the modified IAT. Behav Res Ther 41:1149–1162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peeters M, Wiers RW, Monshouwer K, Janssen T, Vollebergh WAM (2012) Automatic processes in at-risk adolescent: the role of alcohol-approach tendencies and response inhibition in drinking behavior. Addiction 107:1939–1946PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Robinson TE, Berridge KC (1993) The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Res Rev 18:247–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Schoenmakers TM, Wiers RW (2010) Craving and attentional bias respond differently to alcohol priming: a field study in the pub. Eur Addict Res 16:9–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schoenmakers TM, Wiers RW, Field M (2008) Effects of a low dose of alcohol on cognitive biases and craving in heavy drinkers. Psychopharmacol 197:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stacy AW, Wiers RW (2010) Implicit cognition and addiction: a tool for explaining paradoxal behaviour. Ann Rev Clin Psychol 6:551–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thush C, Wiers RW, Ames SL, Grenard JL, Sussman S, Stacy AW (2008) Interactions between implicit and explicit cognition and working memory capacity in the prediction of alcohol use in at-risk adolescents. Drug Alcohol Depend 94:116–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van der Elst W, Van Boxtel MPJ, Van Breukelen GJP, Jolles J (2006) The Stroop color word test: influence of age, sex and education; and normative data for a large sample across the adult age range. Assessment 13:62–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Watson P, De Wit S, Hommel B, Wiers RW (in press) Motivational mechanisms and outcome expectancies underlying the approach bias towards addictive substances. Front CognGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiers RW, Rinck M, Dictus M, van den Wildenberg E (2009) Relatively strong automatic appetitive action-tendencies in male carriers of the OPRM1G-allele. Genes Brain Behav 8:101–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wiers RW, Rinck M, Kordts R, Houben K, Strack F (2010a) Retraining automatic action-tendencies to approach alcohol in hazardous drinkers. Addiction 105:279–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wiers RW, Ames SL, Hofmann W, Krank M, Stacy AW (2010b) Impulsivity, impulsive and reflective processes and the development of alcohol use and misuse in adolescence and young adults. Front Psychol 2010:1–12Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janna Cousijn
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  • Robin W. M. Snoek
    • 1
  • Reinout W. Wiers
    • 1
  1. 1.Addiction Development and Psychopathology (ADAPT)-lab, Department of PsychologyUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Amsterdam Institute for Addiction Research, Department of Psychiatry, Academic Medical CentreUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations