Marcella L Woud1, Moniek H M Hutschemaekers2, Mike Rinck2, Eni S Becker2. 1. Mental Health Research and Treatment Center, Department of Psychology, University of Bochum, Germany. Electronic address: marcella.woud@rub.de. 2. Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a large body of evidence demonstrating that alcohol abuse and misuse is characterized by alcohol-related interpretation biases (IBs). The present study tested whether alcohol-related IBs can be trained, and whether this has an effect on alcohol-related associations and drinking behavior. A newly developed alcohol Cognitive Bias Modification - Interpretation (CBM-I) training was employed. The potential moderating effect of executive control on CBM-I training effects was tested. METHOD: Participants were hazardously male drinking students. A classical Stroop was used to assess levels of executive control. Half of the sample was trained to interpret ambiguous alcohol-related scenarios in an alcohol-related manner (alcohol training group), whereas the other half was trained to interpret ambiguous alcohol-related scenarios in a neutral manner (neutral training group). A Single Target Implicit Association Test (STIAT) was used to test whether the training would generalize to implicit alcohol-related associations (target words: alcohol, attributes: positive vs. neutral). To test the training's effect on drinking behavior, a bogus taste test and a one week follow-up measure assessing participant's real life drinking behavior were used. RESULTS: The CBM-I training was partly successful: When presented with novel ambiguous alcohol-related scenarios, participants of the alcohol training group interpreted these scenarios as more alcohol-related after the training. However, there was no reduction in alcohol-related IBs in the neutral training group. Results of the STIAT demonstrated that both training groups showed stronger positive than neutral alcohol-related associations. However, there were no between-group differences in alcohol-related associations. Moreover, the CBM-I training's effect was not moderated by levels of executive control. Finally, no group differences were found on levels of alcohol consumption (bogus taste test and at one week follow-up). LIMITATIONS: The neutral training might have been operationalized sub-optimally. A multi-session training might have resulted in stronger effects. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are the first to show that alcohol-related IBs can be trained. However, the training effect only partly generalized so more research is needed to advance our understanding of alcohol CBM-I effects.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a large body of evidence demonstrating that alcohol abuse and misuse is characterized by alcohol-related interpretation biases (IBs). The present study tested whether alcohol-related IBs can be trained, and whether this has an effect on alcohol-related associations and drinking behavior. A newly developed alcohol Cognitive Bias Modification - Interpretation (CBM-I) training was employed. The potential moderating effect of executive control on CBM-I training effects was tested. METHOD:Participants were hazardously male drinking students. A classical Stroop was used to assess levels of executive control. Half of the sample was trained to interpret ambiguous alcohol-related scenarios in an alcohol-related manner (alcohol training group), whereas the other half was trained to interpret ambiguous alcohol-related scenarios in a neutral manner (neutral training group). A Single Target Implicit Association Test (STIAT) was used to test whether the training would generalize to implicit alcohol-related associations (target words: alcohol, attributes: positive vs. neutral). To test the training's effect on drinking behavior, a bogus taste test and a one week follow-up measure assessing participant's real life drinking behavior were used. RESULTS: The CBM-I training was partly successful: When presented with novel ambiguous alcohol-related scenarios, participants of the alcohol training group interpreted these scenarios as more alcohol-related after the training. However, there was no reduction in alcohol-related IBs in the neutral training group. Results of the STIAT demonstrated that both training groups showed stronger positive than neutral alcohol-related associations. However, there were no between-group differences in alcohol-related associations. Moreover, the CBM-I training's effect was not moderated by levels of executive control. Finally, no group differences were found on levels of alcohol consumption (bogus taste test and at one week follow-up). LIMITATIONS: The neutral training might have been operationalized sub-optimally. A multi-session training might have resulted in stronger effects. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are the first to show that alcohol-related IBs can be trained. However, the training effect only partly generalized so more research is needed to advance our understanding of alcohol CBM-I effects.
Authors: Courtney Beard; Andrew D Peckham; Margaret L Griffin; Roger D Weiss; Nadine Taghian; R Kathryn McHugh Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-10-18 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Patrick S Forscher; Calvin K Lai; Jordan R Axt; Charles R Ebersole; Michelle Herman; Patricia G Devine; Brian A Nosek Journal: J Pers Soc Psychol Date: 2019-06-13
Authors: Kristen P Lindgren; Christian S Hendershot; Jason J Ramirez; Edward Bernat; Mauricio Rangel-Gomez; Kirsten P Peterson; James G Murphy Journal: Clin Psychol Rev Date: 2018-04-11