, Volume 232, Issue 15, pp 2773–2779 | Cite as

Heavy drinking, impulsivity and attentional narrowing following alcohol cue exposure

  • Joshua A. Hicks
  • Sherecce Fields
  • William E. Davis
  • Philip A. Gable
Original Investigation



Research shows that alcohol-related stimuli have the propensity to capture attention among individuals motivated to consume alcohol. Research has further demonstrated that impulsive individuals are especially prone to this type of attentional bias. Recently, it is suggested that alcohol cue exposure can also produce a general narrowing of attention consistent with the activation of approach motivational states.


Based on previous models of addiction and recent research on the activation of approach motivational states, we predicted that impulsive individuals would demonstrate a constriction of attentional focus in response to alcohol cue exposure.


Participants (n = 392) completed a task assessing attentional breadth in response to alcohol and non-alcohol cues, followed by measures of alcohol use and impulsivity.


The findings revealed that impulsivity scores predicted narrowing of attentional scope following the presentation of alcohol cues for heavier drinkers but not for light drinkers.


These results suggest that impulsive individuals who drink more heavily demonstrate a narrowing of attention in the presence of alcohol-related incentive cues. Implications for how these findings might account for the link between impulsivity and alcohol use and misuse are discussed.


Alcohol myopia Motivational intensity Impulsivity Approach motivation Attentional scope Attentional bias 


  1. Baumann SB, Sayette MA (2006) Smoking cues in a virtual world provoke craving in cigarette smokers. Psychol Addict Behav 20:484–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bickel WK, Jarmolowicz DP, Mueller ET, Koffarnua MN, Gatchalian KM (2012) Excessive discounting of delayed reinforcers as a trans-disease process contributing to addiction and other disease-related vulnerabilities: emerging evidence. Pharmacol Therapeut 134:287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjork JM, Hommer DW, Grant SJ, Danube C (2004) Impulsivity in abstinent alcohol-dependent patients: relation to control subjects and type 1–/type 2–like traits. Alcohol 34:133–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carter BL, Tiffany ST (1999) Meta‐analysis of cue‐reactivity in addiction research. Addiction 94:327–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carver CS, White TL (1994) Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. J PersSocPsychol 67:319–333Google Scholar
  6. Cooper ML (1994) Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: development and validation of a four-factor model. Psychol Assessment 6:117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coskunpinar A, Cyders MA (2013) Impulsivity and substance-related attentional bias: a meta-analytic review. Drug Alcohol Depen 133:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox WM, Klinger E (1988) A motivational model of alcohol use. J Abnorm Psychol 97:168–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawe S, Loxton NJ (2004) The role of impulsivity in the development of substance use and eating disorders. NeurosciBiobehavR 28:343–351Google Scholar
  10. Dawe S, Gullo MJ, Loxton NJ (2004) Reward drive and rash impulsiveness as dimensions of impulsivity: implications for substance misuse. Addict Behav 29:1389–1405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fazio RH (1990) A practical guide to the use of response latencies in social psychological research. In: Hendrick C, Clark MS (Eds) Review of personality and social psychology, vol 11.Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp74-97Google Scholar
  12. Field M, Mogg K, Bradley BP (2006) Attention to drug-related cues in drug abuse and addiction: component processes. In:Wiers RW, Stacy AW (Eds) Handbook of implicit cognition and addiction. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 45–57Google Scholar
  13. Field M, Christiansen P, Cole J, Goudie A (2007) Delay discounting and the alcohol stroop in heavy drinking adolescents. Addiction 102:579–586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Förster J, Dannenberg L (2010) GLOMOsys: a systems account of global versus local processing. PsycholInq 21:175–197Google Scholar
  15. Franken IH (2003) Drug craving and addiction: integrating psychological and neuropsychopharmacological approaches. Prog Neuro-Psychoph 27:563–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Franken IH, Muris P (2005) Individual differences in reward sensitivity are related to food craving and relative body weight in healthy women. Appetite 45:198–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Franken IH, Muris P, Georgieva I (2006) Gray’s model of personality and addiction. Addict Behav 31:399–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gable PA, Harmon-Jones E (2008) Approach-motivated positive affect reduces breadth of attention. PsycholSci 19:476–482Google Scholar
  19. Gable P, Harmon-Jones E (2010a) The blues broaden, but the nasty narrows: attentional consequences of negative affects low and high in motivational intensity. Psychol Sci 21:211–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gable PA, Harmon-Jones E (2010b) The effect of low vs. high approach-motivated positive affect on memory for peripherally vs. centrally presented information. Emotion 10:599–603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gable PA, Harmon-Jones E (2011) Attentional states influence early neural responses associated with motivational processes: local vs. global attentional scope and N1 amplitude to appetitive stimuli. Biol Psychol 87:303–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gable PA, Harmon-Jones E (2013) Does arousal per se account for the influence of appetitive stimuli on attentional scope and the late positive potential? Psychophysiology 50:344–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gould TJ (2010) Addiction and cognition. Addict Sci Clin Pract 5:4–14PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Gray JA (1987) Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: a commentary. J Res Pers 21:493–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harmon-Jones E, Price T, Gable PA (2012) The influence of affective states on cognitive broadening/narrowing: considering the importance of motivational intensity. Soc Pers Psychol Compass 6:314–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harmon-Jones E, Gable PA, Price T (2013) Does negative affect always narrow and positive affect always broaden the mind? Considering the influence of motivational intensity on cognitive scope. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 22:301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heather N, Booth P, Luce A (1998) Impaired control scale: cross‐validation and relationships with treatment outcome. Addiction 93(5):761–771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hicks JA, Friedman RF, Gable P, Davis WE (2012) Interactive effects of approach motivational intensity and alcohol cues on the scope of perceptual attention. Addiction 107:1074–1080PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. International Society for Research on Impulsivity (2014) International Society for Research on Impulsivity. Accessed 21 Oct 2014
  30. Koob GM (2013) Theoretical frameworks and mechanistic aspects of alcohol addiction: alcohol addiction as a reward deficit disorder. Curr Top Behav Neurosci 13:3–30PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krishnan-Sarin S, Reynolds B, Duhig A, Smith A, Liss T, McFetridge A, Cavallo D, Carroll K, Potenza M (2007) Behavioral impulsivity predicts treatment outcome in a smoking cessation program for adolescent smokers. Drug Alcohol Depen 88:79–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krueger RF, Nichol PE, Hicks BM, Markon KE, Patrick CJ, McGue M (2004) Using latent trait modeling to conceptualize an alcohol problems continuum. Psychol Assessment 16:107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leeman RF, Potenza MN (2012) Similarities and differences between pathological gambling and substance use disorders: a focus on impulsivity and compulsivity. Psychopharmacology 219:469–490PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Madden GJ, Bickel WK (2010) Impulsivity: the behavioral and neurological science of discounting.Google Scholar
  35. Navon D (1977) Forest before trees: the precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychol 9:353–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Patton JH, Stanford MS, Barratt ES (1995) Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. J Clin Psychol 51:768–774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reynolds B, Richards JB, Horn K, Karraker K (2004) Delay discounting and probability discounting as related to cigarette smoking status in adults. Behav Process 65:35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reynolds B, Penfold RB, Patak M (2008) Dimensions of impulsive behavior in adolescents: laboratory behavioral assessments. Exp Clin Psychopharm 16:124–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robinson MD (2007) Lives lived in milliseconds: using cognitive methods in personality research. In: Fraley RC, Krueger R, Robins RW (eds) Handbook of research methods in personality psychology. Guilford press, New York, pp 345–359Google Scholar
  40. Robinson TE, Berridge KC (1993) The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Res Rev 18:247–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robinson SM, Sobell LC, Sobell MB, Leo GI (2014) Reliability of the timeline followback for cocaine, cannabis, and cigarette use. Psychol Addict Behav 28:154–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rubio G, Jiménez M, Rodríguez-Jiménez R, Martínez I, Ávila C, Ferre F, Jiménez-Arriero MA, Ponce G, Palomo T (2008) The role of behavioral impulsivity in the development of alcohol dependence: a 4-year follow-up study. Alcohol ClinExp Res 32:1681–1687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U (2011) False-positive psychology undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci 22:1359–1366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Steele CM, Josephs RA (1990) Alcohol myopia: its prized and dangerous effects. Am Psychol 45:921–933PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua A. Hicks
    • 1
  • Sherecce Fields
    • 1
  • William E. Davis
    • 1
  • Philip A. Gable
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.The University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA

Personalised recommendations