Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explicit knowledge of stimulus–outcome contingencies and stimulus control of selective attention and instrumental action in human smoking behaviour

  • Original Investigation
  • Published:
Psychopharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rationale

External stimuli (S+) that reliably signal that addictive drugs are available command the focus of selective attention and control instrumental action that procures the drug. According to incentive salience theory, as the contingency between the S+ and the drug is learned the magnitude of attentional orienting towards the S+ increases. By contrast, alternative theories propose that processing of the S+ becomes more efficient with training such that the measured attentional orienting response elicited by the S+ decreases.

Objectives

The aim of the present study was to prompt half of participants to acquire explicit knowledge of the stimulus-reinforcer contingencies arranged in training, to examine the impact of this manipulation on the magnitude of attentional orienting towards the S+.

Methods

Smokers (n=32) completed an instrumental discrimination training procedure in which a set of stimuli were established as differential predictors that an instrumental response would yield tobacco-smoke reinforcement. During training, attention for the stimuli and performance of the instrumental tobacco-seeking response were measured in parallel. One group (n=16) was prompted to develop explicit knowledge of the discriminative contingencies in training whereas another group (n=16) underwent discrimination training without prompting.

Results

The prompted group reported accurate knowledge of the contingencies and showed no attentional orienting response towards the S+. By contrast, the unprompted group reported inaccurate knowledge of the contingencies and showed an attentional orienting response towards the S+. The S+ appeared to control the instrumental tobacco-seeking response in both groups equally.

Conclusions

The results suggest that attention for drug paired S+ is associated with the process of learning about the relationship between those cues and the drug.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bindra D (1978) How adaptive behaviour is produced: a perceptual-motivational alternative to response reinforcement. Behav Brain Sci 1:41–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley BP, Mogg K, Wright T, Field M (2003) Attentional bias in drug dependence: vigilance for cigarette-related cues in smokers. Psychol Addict Behav 17:66–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colwill RM, Rescorla RA (1988) Associations between the discriminative stimulus and the reinforcer in instrumental learning. J Exp Psychol [Anim Behav Proc] 14:155–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox LS, Tiffany ST, Christen AG (2001) Evaluation of the brief questionnaire of smoking urges (qsu-brief) in the laboratory and clinical settings. Nicotine Tob Res 3:7–16

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson T (1993) The nature and function of interoceptive signal to feed: towards integration of physiological and learning perspectives. Psychol Rev 100:640–657

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • D’Amato MR, Etkin M, Fazzaro J (1968) Cue-producing in the capuchin monkey during reversal, extinction, acquisition and overtraining. J Exp Anal Behav 11:425–433

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeBold RC, Miller NE, Jensen DD (1965) Effect of strength of drive determined by a new technique for appetitive classical conditioning of rats. J Comp Psychol 59:102–108

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson A, Dearing MF (1979) Mechanisms of learning and motivation: a memorial volume to Jerzy Konorski. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 67:185–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerstrom K, Schneider NG (1989) Measuring nicotine dependence: a review of the fagerstrom tolerance questionnaire. J Behav Med 12:159–182

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg SR, Spealman RD, Goldberg DM (1981) Persistent behaviour at high rates maintained by intravenous self-administration of nicotine. Science 214:573–575

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth LC, Mogg K, Bradley BP, Duka T, Dickinson A (2003a) Attentional orienting towards smoking related stimuli. Behav Pharmacol 14:153–160

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth LC, Dickinson A, Duka T (2003b) Discriminative stimuli that control instrumental tobacco-seeking by human smokers also command selective attention. Psychopharmacology 168:435–445

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye H, Pearce JM (1984) The strength of the orienting response during pavlovian conditioning. J Exp Psychol [Anim Behav Proc] 10:90–109

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lovibond P (1983) Facilitation of instrumental behavior by a pavlovian appetitive conditioned stimulus. J Exp Psychol [Anim Behav Proc] 9:225–247

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lovibond PF (2003) Causal beliefs and conditioned responses: retrospective revaluation induced by experience and by instruction. J Exp Psychol [Learn Mem Cogn] 29:97–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovibond PF, Shanks DR (2002) The role of awareness in pavlovian conditioning: empirical evidence and theoretical implications. J Exp Psychol [Anim Behav Proc] 28:3–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackintosh NJ (1975) A theory of attention: variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychol Rev 82:276–298

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod C, Mathews A, Tata P (1986) Attentional bias in emotional disorders. J Abnorm Psychol 95:15–20

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell DS, Gormezano I (1970) Effects of water deprivation on classical appetitive conditioning of the rabbit’s jaw movement response. Learn Motiv 1:199–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Mogg K, Bradley BP (2002) Selective processing of smoking-related cues in smokers: manipulation of deprivation level and comparison of three measures of processing bias. J Psychopharmacol 16:385–392

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mogg K, Bradley B, Hyare H, Lee S (1998) Selective attention to food stimuli in hunger: are attentional biases specific to emotion and psychopathological states, or are they also found in normal drive states? Behav Res Ther 36:227–237

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mucha RF, Pauli P, Angrilli A (1998) Conditioned responses elicited by experimentally produced cues for smoking. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 76:259–268

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oscar-Berman M, Heywood SP, Gross CG (1971) Eye orientation during visual discrimination learning by monkeys. Neuropsychologia 9:351–358

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce JM, Hall G (1980) A model for pavlovian learning: variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not unconditioned stimuli. Psychol Rev 87:532–552

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins KA, Epstein LH, Grobe J, Fonte C (1994) Tobacco abstinence, smoking cues, and the reinforcing value of smoking. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 47:107–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner M, Snyder C, Davidson B (1980) Attention and the detection of signals. J Exp Psychol Gen 109:160–174

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Premack D, Collier G (1966) Duration of looking and number of brief looks as dependent variables. Psychon Sci 4:81–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla RA (1966) Predictability and the number of pairings in pavlovian fear conditioning. Psychon Sci 4:383–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla RA, Solomon RL (1967) Two-process learning theory: relationships between pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning. Psychol Rev 74:151–182

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla RA, Wagner AR (1972) A theory of pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In: Prokasy WF (ed) Classical conditioning. 2. Current research and theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson TE, Berridge KC (1993) The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of drug addiction. Brain Res Rev 18:247–291

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schrier AM, Povar ML (1979) Eye movements of stumptailed monkeys during discrimination learning: Vte revisited. Anim Learn Behav 7:239–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrier AM, Wing TG (1973) Eye movements of monkeys during brightness discrimination and discrimination reversal. Anim Learn Behav 1:145–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder S (1969) Effects of cue factors on selective eye movements and choices during successive discrimination. Percept Mot Skills 29:991–998

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder SR (1970) Selective eye movements to simultaneously presented stimuli during discrimination. Percept Psychophys 7:121–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokolov YN (1963) Perception and the conditioned reflex. Pergamon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart J, Wit H, Eikelboom R (1984) Role of conditioned and unconditioned drug effects in self-administration of opiates and stimulants. Psychol Rev 63:251–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland NS, Mackintosh NJ (1971) Mechanisms of animal discrimination learning. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiffany ST, Drobes DJ (1991) The development and initial validation of a questionnaire on smoking urges. Br J Addict 86:1467–1476

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Townshend JM, Duka T (2001) Attentional bias associated with alcohol cues: differences between heavy and occasional social drinkers. Psychopharmacology 157:67–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Trapold MA, Overmier JB (1972) The second learning process in instrumental learning. In: Prokasy WF (ed) Classical conditioning. 2. Current research and theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 427–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Treisman A, Gormican S (1988) Feature analysis in early vision—evidence from search asymmetries. Psychol Rev 95:15–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a Wellcome Trust Research Grant # 061162.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QG, UK

    Lee Hogarth & Theodora Duka

  2. Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3 EB, UK

    Anthony Dickinson

Authors
  1. Lee Hogarth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anthony Dickinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Theodora Duka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theodora Duka.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hogarth, L., Dickinson, A. & Duka, T. Explicit knowledge of stimulus–outcome contingencies and stimulus control of selective attention and instrumental action in human smoking behaviour. Psychopharmacology 177, 428–437 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-004-1973-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-004-1973-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation