Current Addiction Reports

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 200–209 | Cite as

Assessment of Automatically Activated Approach–Avoidance Biases Across Appetitive Substances

  • Naomi KakoschkeEmail author
  • Lucy Albertella
  • Rico S. C. Lee
  • Reinout W. Wiers
Food Addiction (A Meule, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Food Addiction


Purpose of Review

Automatic approach–avoidance tendencies drive excessive intake of drugs and unhealthy food. Dual-process models of behaviour propose that strong approach biases predict excessive intake when reflective processes are weak. Consistent with theory, early findings indicated that approach biases predicted excessive use of drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. Given that reviews on approach bias for appetitive substances are lacking, the current review aimed to synthesise the recent findings on automatic approach biases across three of the most commonly assessed substances: alcohol, food and tobacco.

Recent Findings

The findings suggest that approach biases exist for a range of substances, are mostly stronger in clinical samples than healthy controls and predict consumption behaviour, albeit under certain conditions.


Approach biases for appetitive substances are related to excessive consumption in line with theoretical premises. Further longitudinal research is needed, particularly in the domains of tobacco and food, to determine the prediction of consumption of these substances over time. Nevertheless, the findings highlight a continued need for approach bias modification techniques aimed at changing this underlying mechanism.


Approach–avoidance bias Action tendency Implicit cognition Alcohol Tobacco Food 



The authors would like to thank Antonio Verdejo-Garcia for his helpful feedback on an earlier version of this paper.


RSCL was supported by funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (No. 1162031).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Albertella has nothing to disclose.

Dr. Wiers has nothing to disclose.

Dr. Kakoschke has nothing to disclose.

Dr. Lee reports funding from the National Health & Medical Research Council (No. 1162031) during the conduct of the study. The funders had no input to the study design, data collection, or interpretation, writing of the report, or submission for publication.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Marteau TM, Hollands GJ, Fletcher PC. Changing human behavior to prevent disease: the importance of targeting automatic processes. Science. 2012;337(6101):1492–5 Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wiers RW, Gladwin TE, Hofmann W, Salemink E, Ridderinkhof KR. Cognitive bias modification and cognitive control training in addiction and related psychopathology. Clin Psychol Sci. 2013;1(2):192–212. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wiers RW, Rinck M, Kordts R, Houben K, Strack F. Retraining automatic action-tendencies to approach alcohol in hazardous drinkers. Addiction. 2010;105(2):279–87. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Havermans RC, Giesen JCAH, Houben K, Jansen A. Weight, gender, and snack appeal. Eat Behav. 2011;12(2):126–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Field M, Kiernan A, Eastwood B, Child R. Rapid approach responses to alcohol cues in heavy drinkers. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2008;39(3):209–18 Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wiers CE, Kühn S, Javadi AH, Korucuoglu O, Wiers RW, Walter H, et al. Automatic approach bias towards smoking cues is present in smokers but not in ex-smokers. Psychopharmacology. 2013;229(1):187–97. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Strack F, Deutsch R. Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2004;8(3):220–47. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ramirez JJ, Hendershot CS, Rangel-Gomez M, Lindgren KP, Peterson KP, Bernat E, et al. A dual process perspective on advances in cognitive science and alcohol use disorder. Clin Psychol Rev. 2018;69:83–96. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hommel B, Wiers RW. Towards a unitary approach to human action control. Trends Cogn Sci. 2017;21(12):940–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keren G, Schul Y. Two is not always better than one: a critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009;4(6):533–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Watson P, Pearson D, Wiers RW, Le Pelley M. Prioritising pleasure and pain: attentional capture by reward- and punishment-related stimuli. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2019;26:107–13. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gladwin TE, Figner B, Crone EA, Wiers RW. Addiction, adolescence, and the integration of control and motivation. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2011;1(4):364–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wiers RW, Gladwin TE. Reflective and impulsive processes in addiction and the role of motivation. In: Deutsch R, Gawronski B, Hofmann W, editors. Reflective and impulsive determinants of human behavior. Abingdon: Routledge; 2017. p. 173–88.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gladwin TE, Figner B. Hot cognition and dual systems: introduction, criticisms, and ways forward. In: Wilhelms E, Reyna VF, editors. Frontiers of cognitive psychology series: neuroeconomics, judgment and decision making. New York: Psycholoy Press; 2014. p. 157–80.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wiers RW, Anderson KG, Van Bockstaele B, Salemink E, Hommel BE. Affect, dual-processing, developmental psychopathology, and health behaviors. In: Affective determinants of health behavior, vol. 16. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 158.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Woud ML, Maas J, Wiers RW, Becker ES, Rinck M. Assessment of tobacco-related approach and attentional biases in smokers, cravers, ex-smokers, and non-smokers. Front Psychol. 2016;7:172. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rinck M, Becker ES. Approach and avoidance in fear of spiders. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2007;38(2):105–20 Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Houwer J, Crombez G, Baeyens F, Hermans D. On the generality of the affective Simon effect. Cogn Emot. 2001;15(2):189–206. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roefs A, Huijding J, Smulders FTY, MacLeod CM, de Jong PJ, Wiers RW, et al. Implicit measures of association in psychopathology research. Psychol Bull. 2011;137(1):149–93. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wiers RW, Eberl C, Rinck M, Becker ES, Lindenmeyer J. Retraining automatic action tendencies changes alcoholic patients’ approach bias for alcohol and improves treatment putcome. Psychol Sci. 2011;22(4):490–7. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ostafin BD, Palfai TP. Compelled to consume: the implicit association test and automatic alcohol motivation. Psych Addict Behav. 2006;20(3):322–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cristea IA, Kok RN, Cuijpers P. The effectiveness of cognitive bias modification interventions for substance addictions: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0162226. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kakoschke N, Kemps E, Tiggemann M. Approach bias modification training and consumption: a review of the literature. Addict Behav. 2017;64:21–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wiers RW, Boffo M, Field M. What’s in a trial? On the importance of distinguishing between experimental lab studies and randomized controlled trials: the case of cognitive bias modification and alcohol use disorders. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2018;79(3):333–43 Scholar
  25. 25.
    • Zhang MWB, Ying J, Wing T, Song G, Fung DSS, Smith HE. Cognitive biases in cannabis, opioid, and stimulant disorders: a systematic review. Front Psychiatry. 2018;9:376. In this systematic review, the authors documented the existence of substance-specific attentional and approach biases across opioid, cannabis and stimulant use disorders.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roefs A, Huijding J, Smulders FTY, Macleod CM, De Jong PJ, Wiers RW, et al. Implicit measures of association in psychopathology research. Psych Bull. 2011;137(1):149.–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim D-Y, Lee J-H. Development of a virtual approach–avoidance task to assess alcohol cravings. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2015;18(12):763–6. Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fleming KA, Bartholow BD. Alcohol cues, approach bias, and inhibitory control: applying a dual process model of addiction to alcohol sensitivity. Psychol Addict Behav. 2014;28(1):85–96 Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Duijvenbode N, Didden R, Korzilius HPLM, Engels RCME. The addicted brain: cognitive biases in problematic drinkers with mild to borderline intellectual disability. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2015;60(3):242–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Duijvenbode N, Didden R, Korzilius HPLM, Engels RCME. The usefulness of implicit measures for the screening, assessment and treatment of problematic alcohol use in individuals with mild to borderline intellectual disability. Adv Neurodev Disord. 2017;1(1):42–51. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wiers RW. The potential usefulness of cognitive bias modification (CBM) in the treatment of problematic alcohol use in individuals with mild to borderline intellectual disability. Adv Neurodev Disord. 2017;1(2):105–6. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Larsen H, Kong G, Becker D, Cousijn J, Boendermaker W, Cavallo D, et al. Implicit motivational processes underlying smoking in American and Dutch adolescents. Front Psychiatry. 2014;5:51. Scholar
  33. 33.
    • Weckler H, Kong G, Larsen H, Cousijn J, Wiers RW, Krishnan-Sarin S. Impulsivity and approach tendencies towards cigarette stimuli: implications for cigarette smoking and cessation behaviors among youth. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2017;25(5):363–72 This study shows that adolescent smokers with a stronger approach bias and higher levels of impulsivity increased the odds of being a smoker. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Machulska A, Zlomuzica A, Adolph D, Rinck M, Margraf J. “A cigarette a day keeps the goodies away”: smokers show automatic approach tendencies for smoking—but not for food-related stimuli. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0116464. Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cohn AM, Cobb C, Hagman BT, Cameron A, Ehlke S, Mitchell JN. Implicit alcohol cognitions in risky drinking nicotine users with and without co-morbid major depressive disorder. Addict Behav. 2014;39(4):797–802 Scholar
  36. 36.
    Creemers HE, Korhonen T, Kaprio J, Vollebergh WAM, Ormel J, Verhulst FC, et al. The role of temperament in the relationship between early onset of tobacco and cannabis use: the TRAILS study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009;104(1–2):113–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rubinstein ML, Luks TL, Dryden WY, Rait MA, Simpson GV. Adolescent smokers show decreased brain responses to pleasurable food images compared with nonsmokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2011;13(8):751–5. Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kemps E, Tiggemann M. Approach bias for food cues in obese individuals. Psychol Health. 2015;30(3):370–80. Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kakoschke N, Kemps E, Tiggemann M. Differential effects of approach bias and eating style on unhealthy food consumption in overweight and normal weight women. Psychol Health. 2017;32(11):1371–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mehl N, Mueller-Wieland L, Mathar D, Horstmann A. Retraining automatic action tendencies in obesity. Physiol Behav. 2018;192:50–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schmidt R, Sebert C, Kösling C, Grunwald M, Hilbert A, Hübner C, et al. Neuropsychological and neurophysiological indicators of general and food-specific impulsivity in children with overweight and obesity: a pilot study. Nutrients. 2018;10(12):1983 Available from: Scholar
  42. 42.
    Roefs A, Quaedackers L, Werrij MQ, Wolters G, Havermans R, Nederkoorn C, et al. The environment influences whether high-fat foods are associated with palatable or with unhealthy. Behav Res Ther. 2006;44:715–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Paslakis G, Kühn S, Grunert S, Erim Y. Explicit and implicit approach vs. avoidance tendencies towards high vs. low calorie food cues in patients with obesity and active binge eating disorder. Nutrients. 2017;9(10):1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brockmeyer T, Hahn C, Reetz C, Schmidt U, Friederich H-C. Approach bias and cue reactivity towards food in people with high versus low levels of food craving. Appetite. 2015;95:197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    May CN, Juergensen J, Demaree HA. Yum, cake!: how reward sensitivity relates to automatic approach motivation for dessert food images. Pers Individ Dif. 2016;90:265–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Maas J, Keijsers GPJ, Rinck M, Sharbanee JM, Vroling MS, Becker ES. Implicit action tendencies and evaluations in unwanted snacking behavior. Int J Cog Ther. 2017;10(1):79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Brignell C, Griffiths T, Bradley BP, Mogg K. Attentional and approach biases for pictorial food cues. Influence of external eating. Appetite. 2009;52(2):299–306 Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kersbergen I, Woud ML, Field M. The validity of different measures of automatic alcohol action tendencies. Psychol Addict Behav. 2015;29(1):225–30. Scholar
  49. 49.
    •• Martin Braunstein L, Kuerbis A, Ochsner K, Morgenstern J. Implicit alcohol approach and avoidance tendencies predict future drinking in problem drinkers. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2016;40(9):1945–52 This is an important longitudinal study showing that a stronger approach bias for alcohol cues predicts future drinking in problem drinkers with alcohol-use disorder.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    •• Field M, Di Lemma L, Christiansen P, Dickson J. Automatic avoidance tendencies for alcohol cues predict drinking after detoxification treatment in alcohol dependence. Psychol Addict Behav. 2017;31(2):171–9 An important longitudinal study showing that approach–avoidance biases for alcohol cues predict treatment responses among individuals with alcohol use disorder. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Janssen T, Larsen H, Vollebergh WAM, Wiers RW. Longitudinal relations between cognitive bias and adolescent alcohol use. Addict Behav. 2015;44:51–7. Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lindgren KP, Baldwin SA, Ramirez JJ, Olin CC, Peterson KP, Wiers RW, et al. Self-control, implicit alcohol associations, and the (lack of) prediction of consumption in an alcohol taste test with college student heavy episodic drinkers. PLoS One. 2019;14(1):e0209940. Available from. Scholar
  53. 53.
    Baker S, Dickson JM, Field M. Implicit priming of conflicting motivational orientations in heavy drinkers. BMC Psychol. 2014;2(1):28. Scholar
  54. 54.
    Snelleman M, Schoenmakers TM, van de Mheen D. Attentional bias and approach/avoidance tendencies do not predict relapse or time to relapse in alcohol dependency. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2015;39(9):1734–9 Scholar
  55. 55.
    • Wiers CE, Gladwin TE, Ludwig VU, Gröpper S, Stuke H, Gawron CK, et al. Comparing three cognitive biases for alcohol cues in alcohol dependence. Alcohol Alcohol. 2016;52(2):242–8 This paper was the first to investigate three conceptually distinct automatically activated cognitive biases for alcohol cues: attentional bias, approach–avoidance bias, and implicit alcohol-approach associations among patients with alcohol use disorder. Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Spruyt A, De Houwer J, Tibboel H, Verschuere B, Crombez G, Verbanck P, et al. On the predictive validity of automatically activated approach/avoidance tendencies in abstaining alcohol-dependent patients. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;127(1–3):81–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Pieters S, Burk WJ, Van der Vorst H, Engels RC, Wiers RW. Impulsive and reflective processes related to alcohol use in young adolescents. Front Psychiatry. 2014;5:56. Scholar
  58. 58.
    Janssen T, Wood MD, Larsen H, Peeters M, Vollebergh WAM, Wiers RW. Investigating the joint development of approach bias and adolescent alcohol use. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2015;39(12):2447–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Booth C, Spronk D, Grol M, Fox E. Uncontrolled eating in adolescents: the role of impulsivity and automatic approach bias for food. Appetite. 2018;120:636–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kakoschke N, Kemps E, Tiggemann M. Combined effects of cognitive bias for food cues and poor inhibitory control on unhealthy food intake. Appetite. 2015;87:358–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    • Maas J, Woud ML, Keijsers GPJ, Rinck M, Becker ES, Wiers RW. The attraction of sugar: an association between body mass index and impaired avoidance of sweet snacks. J Exp Psychopathol. 2017;8(1):40–54. This human laboratory study showed that higher body mass index was related to impaired avoidance, but not increased approach, of sweet snacks on the AAT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Schroeder PA, Lohmann J, Butz MV, Plewnia C. Behavioral bias for food reflected in hand movements: a preliminary study with healthy subjects. Cyberpsychology, Behav Soc Netw. 2016;19(2):120–6. Scholar
  63. 63.
    Gladwin TE, Mohr SE, Wiers RW. The potential role of temporal dynamics in approach biases: delay-dependence of a general approach bias in an alcohol approach–avoidance task. Front Psychol. 2014;5:1398. Scholar
  64. 64.
    Di Lemma LCG, Dickson JM, Jedras P, Roefs A, Field M. Priming of conflicting motivational orientations in heavy drinkers: robust effects on self-report but not implicit measures. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1465. Scholar
  65. 65.
    Cousijn J, Luijten M, Wiers RW. Mechanisms underlying alcohol-approach action tendencies: the role of emotional primes and drinking motives. Front Psychiatry. 2014;5:44. Scholar
  66. 66••.
    . Stautz K, Frings D, Albery IP, Moss AC, Marteau TM. Impact of alcohol-promoting and alcohol-warning advertisements on alcohol consumption, affect, and implicit cognition in heavy-drinking young adults: a laboratory-based randomized controlled trial. Br J Health Psychol. 2017;22(1):128–50. This is an important experimental laboratory study examining the effects of alcohol advertisements on approach bias and alcohol use in young adults. The results show that exposure to alcohol-promoting advertisements increased approach and reduced avoidance of alcohol on the AAT relative to exposure to non-alcohol advertisements.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Talley AE, Fleming K, Hancock DW, Sher KJ. The impact of sexual self-concept ambiguity on alcohol approach bias and consumption. Addict Behav. 2019;92:155–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sharbanee JM, Stritzke WG, Jamalludin ME, Wiers RW. Approach-alcohol action tendencies can be inhibited by cognitive load. Psychopharmacology. 2014;231(5):967–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sayette MA, Creswell KG, Dimoff JD, Fairbairn CE, Cohn JF, Heckman BW, et al. Alcohol and group formation: a multimodal investigation of the effects of alcohol on emotion and social bonding. Psychol Sci. 2012;23(8):869–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Jones A, Button E, Rose AK, Robinson E, Christiansen P, Di Lemma L, et al. The ad-libitum alcohol ‘taste test’: secondary analyses of potential confounds and construct validity. Psychopharmacology. 2016;233(5):917–24. Available from. Scholar
  71. 71.
    Cohn A, Ehlke S, Cobb CO. Relationship of nicotine deprivation and indices of alcohol use behavior to implicit alcohol and cigarette approach cognitions in smokers. Addict Behav. 2017;67:58–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Yannakoulia M, Anastasiou CA, Zachari K, Sidiropoulou M, Katsaounou P, Tenta R. Acute effect of smoking and smoking abstinence on energy intake and appetite-related hormones blood concentrations. Physiol Behav. 2018;184:78–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Jünger E, Javadi AH, Wiers CE, Sommer C, Garbusow M, Bernhardt N, et al. Acute alcohol effects on explicit and implicit motivation to drink alcohol in socially drinking adolescents. J Psychopharmacol. 2017;31(7):893–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wegman J, van Loon I, Smeets PAM, Cools R, Aarts E. Top-down expectation effects of food labels on motivation. Neuroimage. 2018;173:13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Mollen S, Holland RW, Ruiter RAC, Rimal RN, Kok G. When the frame fits the social picture: the effects of framed social norm messages on healthy and unhealthy food consumption. Communic Res. 2016;1:33.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kotynski AE, Demaree HA. A study named desire: local focus increases approach motivation for desserts. Motiv Emot. 2017;41(4):455–64. Scholar
  77. 77.
    Piqueras-Fiszman B, Kraus AA, Spence C. “Yummy” versus “yucky”! Explicit and implicit approach–avoidance motivations towards appealing and disgusting foods. Appetite. 2014;78:193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kraus AA, Piqueras-Fiszman B. Sandwich or sweets? An assessment of two novel implicit association tasks to capture dynamic motivational tendencies and stable evaluations towards foods. Food Qual Prefer. 2016;49:11–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Cheval B, Audrin C, Sarrazin P, Pelletier L. When hunger does (or doesn’t) increase unhealthy and healthy food consumption through food wanting: the distinctive role of impulsive approach tendencies toward healthy food. Appetite. 2017;116:99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    •• Lender A, Meule A, Rinck M, Brockmeyer T, Blechert J. Measurement of food-related approach–avoidance biases: larger biases when food stimuli are task relevant. Appetite. 2018;125:42–7 This study is the first to show that approach bias for food-related cues is stronger when participants are instructed to respond to the content of the pictures rather than to a task irrelevant feature (e.g. the outline of the picture) measured using the AAT. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Field M, Caren R, Fernie G, De Houwer J. Alcohol approach tendencies in heavy drinkers: comparison of effects in a relevant stimulus-response compatibility task and an approach/avoidance Simon task. Psychol Addict Behav. 2011;25(4):697–701. Scholar
  82. 82.
    Rougier M, Muller D, Ric F, Alexopoulos T, Batailler C, Smeding A, et al. A new look at sensorimotor aspects in approach/avoidance tendencies: the role of visual whole-body movement information. J Exp Social Psych. 2018;76:42–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Tibboel H, De Houwer J, Spruyt A, Brevers D, Roy E, Noël X. Heavy social drinkers score higher on implicit wanting and liking for alcohol than alcohol-dependent patients and light social drinkers. J Behav Ther Exp Psych. 2015;48:185–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Keck ME, Kappelmann N, Kopf-Beck J. Translational research as prerequisite for personalized psychiatry. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2018;268(3):215–7. Scholar
  85. 85.
    Boffo M, Smits R, Salmon JP, Cowie ME, de Jong DTHA, Salemink E, et al. Luck, come here! Automatic approach tendencies toward gambling cues in moderate- to high-risk gamblers. Addiction. 2018;113(2):289–98. Scholar
  86. 86.
    Juergensen J, Leckfor C. Stop pushing me away: relative level of Facebook addiction is associated with implicit approach motivation for Facebook stimuli. Psychol Rep 2018;003329411879862. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Albertella L, Copeland J, Pearson D, Watson P, Wiers RW, Le Pelley ME. Selective attention moderates the relationship between attentional capture by signals of nondrug reward and illicit drug use. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017;175:99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naomi Kakoschke
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lucy Albertella
    • 1
  • Rico S. C. Lee
    • 1
  • Reinout W. Wiers
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Psychological Sciences and Turner Institute for Brain and Mental HealthMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Addiction, Development and Psychopathology (ADAPT) Lab, Department of PsychologyUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations