BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Influential dual-system models of addiction suggest that an automatic system that is associative and habitual promotes drug use, whereas a controlled system that is propositional and rational inhibits drug use. It is assumed that effects on the Implicit Association Test (IAT) reflect the automatic processes that guide drug seeking. However, results have been inconsistent, challenging: (1) the validity of addiction IATs; and (2) the assumption that the automatic system contains only simple associative information. We aimed to further test the validity of IATs that are used within this field of research using an experimental design. Second, we introduced a new procedure aimed at examining the automatic activation of complex propositional knowledge, the Relational Responding Task (RRT) and examine the validity of RRT effects in the context of smoking. METHODS: In two experiments, smokers performed two different tasks: an approach/avoid IAT and a liking IAT in Experiment 1, and a smoking urges RRT and a valence IAT in Experiment 2. Smokers were tested once immediately after smoking and once after 10 hours of nicotine-deprivation. RESULTS: None of the IAT scores were affected by the deprivation manipulation. RRT scores revealed a stronger implicit desire for smoking in the deprivation condition compared to the satiation condition. CONCLUSIONS: IATs that are currently used to assess automatic processes in addiction have serious drawbacks. Furthermore, the automatic system may contain not only associations but complex drug-related beliefs as well. The RRT may be a useful and valid tool to examine these beliefs.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Influential dual-system models of addiction suggest that an automatic system that is associative and habitual promotes drug use, whereas a controlled system that is propositional and rational inhibits drug use. It is assumed that effects on the Implicit Association Test (IAT) reflect the automatic processes that guide drug seeking. However, results have been inconsistent, challenging: (1) the validity of addiction IATs; and (2) the assumption that the automatic system contains only simple associative information. We aimed to further test the validity of IATs that are used within this field of research using an experimental design. Second, we introduced a new procedure aimed at examining the automatic activation of complex propositional knowledge, the Relational Responding Task (RRT) and examine the validity of RRT effects in the context of smoking. METHODS: In two experiments, smokers performed two different tasks: an approach/avoid IAT and a liking IAT in Experiment 1, and a smoking urges RRT and a valence IAT in Experiment 2. Smokers were tested once immediately after smoking and once after 10 hours of nicotine-deprivation. RESULTS: None of the IAT scores were affected by the deprivation manipulation. RRT scores revealed a stronger implicit desire for smoking in the deprivation condition compared to the satiation condition. CONCLUSIONS: IATs that are currently used to assess automatic processes in addiction have serious drawbacks. Furthermore, the automatic system may contain not only associations but complex drug-related beliefs as well. The RRT may be a useful and valid tool to examine these beliefs.
Authors: Anthony G Greenwald; Miguel Brendl; Huajian Cai; Dario Cvencek; John F Dovidio; Malte Friese; Adam Hahn; Eric Hehman; Wilhelm Hofmann; Sean Hughes; Ian Hussey; Christian Jordan; Teri A Kirby; Calvin K Lai; Jonas W B Lang; Kristen P Lindgren; Dominika Maison; Brian D Ostafin; James R Rae; Kate A Ratliff; Adriaan Spruyt; Reinout W Wiers Journal: Behav Res Methods Date: 2021-09-13