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.
BakerTBMorseEShermanJE (1987) The motivation to use drugs: A psychobiological analysis of urges. In: RiversC (ed) The Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 34. Alcohol Use and Abuse. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 257–323.
2.
BeardC (2011) Cognitive bias modification for anxiety: Current evidence and future directions. Expert Rev Neurother11: 299–311.
3.
BlantonHJaccardJ (2006) Arbitrary metrics in psychology. Am Psychol61: 27–41.
4.
BorsboomDMellenberghGJvan HeerdenJ (2004) The concept of validity. Psychol Rev111: 1061–1071.
5.
CoxLSTiffanySTChristenAG (2001) Evaluation of the brief questionnaire of smoking urges (QSU-brief) in laboratory and clinical settings. Nicotine Tob Res3: 7–16.
6.
CoxWMFadardiJSPothosEM (2006) The addiction-Stroop Test: Theoretical considerations and procedural recommendations. Psychol Bull132: 443–476.
7.
CunninghamWAZelazoPD (2007) Attitudes and evaluations: A social cognitive neuroscience perspective. TRENDS Cogn Sci11: 97–104.
8.
DasguptaNGreenwaldAG (2001) On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. J Pers Soc Psychol81: 800–814.
9.
De HouwerJ (2014) A propositional perspective on context effects in human associative learning. Behav Process104: 20–25.
10.
De HouwerJCustersRDe ClercqA (2006) Do smokers have a negative implicit attitude toward smoking?Cognition Emotion20: 1274–1284.
11.
De HouwerJDe BruyckerE (2007) The identification-EAST as a valid measure of implicit attitudes toward alcohol-related stimuli. J Behav Ther Exp Psy38: 133–143.
12.
De HouwerJHeiderNSpruytA. (2015) The relational responding task: Toward a new implicit measure of beliefs. Front Psychol6: 319.
13.
De HouwerJTeige-MocigembaSSpruytA. (2009) Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. Psychol Bull135: 347–368.
14.
FieldMMoggKBradleyBP (2004) Eye movements to smoking-related cues: Effects of nicotine deprivation. Psychopharmacology173: 116–123.
15.
GladwinTEFignerBCroneEA. (2011) Addiction, adolescence, and the integration of control and motivation. Dev Cogn Neurosci1: 364–376.
16.
GovanCLWilliamsKD (2004) Reversing or eliminating IAT effects by changing the affective valence of the stimulus items. J Exp Soc Psychol40: 357–365.
17.
GreenwaldAGMcGheeDESchwartzJLK (1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. J Pers Soc Psychol74: 1464–1480.
18.
GreenwaldAGNosekBABanajiMR (2003) Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. J Pers Soc Psychol85: 197–216.
19.
HanHACzellarSOlsonMA. (2010) Malleability of attitudes or malleability of the IAT?J Exp Soc Psychol46: 286–298.
20.
HeinzAWatersAJTaylorRCMyersCSMoolchanETHeishmanSJ (2007) Effect of tobacco deprivation on the attentional blink in rapid serial visual presentation. Hum Psychopharmacol Clin Exp22: 89–96.
21.
HeathertonTFKozlowskiLTFreckerRC. (1991) The Fagerström test for nicotine dependence: A revision of the Fagerström tolerance questionnaire. Brit J Addict86: 1119–1127
22.
HoubenKWiersRW (2006) Assessing implicit alcohol associations with the implicit association test: Fact or artifact?Addict Behav31: 1346–1362.
23.
HoubenKWiersRW (2007) Personalizing the alcohol-IAT with individualized stimuli: Relationship with drinking behavior and drinking-related problems. Addict Behav32: 2852–2864.
HustenCG (2009) How should we define light or intermittent smoking? Does it matter?Nicotine Tob Res11: 111–121.
26.
JajodiaAEarlywineM (2003) Measuring alcohol expectancies with the implicit association test. Psychol Addict Behav17: 126–133.
27.
KoobGFVolkowN (2010) Neurocircuitry of addiction. Neuropsychopharmacol35: 217–238.
28.
KenfordSLSmithSSWelterDW. (2002) Predicting relapse back to smoking: Contrasting affective and physical models of dependence. J Consult Clin Psychol70: 216–227.
29.
LaneKABanajiMRNosekBAGreenwaldAG (2007) Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: IV. What we know (so far) about the method. In: WittenbrinkBSchwarzN (eds) Implicit Measures of Attitudes. New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 59–102.
30.
LoganG (1988) Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychol Rev95: 492–527.
31.
McCarthyDMThompsenDM (2006) Implicit and explicit measures of alcohol and smoking cognitions. Psychol Addict Behav20: 436–444.
MoorsADe HouwerJ (2006) Automaticity: A conceptual and theoretical analysis. Psychol Bull132: 297–326.
34.
OlsonMAFazioRH (2004) Reducing the influence of extrapersonal associations on the implicit association test: Personalizing the IAT. J Pers Soc Psychol86: 653–667.
35.
OstafinBDPalfaiTP (2006) Compelled to consume: The Implicit Association Test and automatic alcohol motivation. Psychol Addict Behav20: 322–327.
36.
OstafinBDPalfaiTPWechslerCE (2003) The accessibility of motivational tendencies toward alcohol: Approach, avoidance, and disinhibited drinking. Exp Clin Psychopharm11: 294–301.
37.
PalfaiTPOstafinBD (2003) Alcohol-related motivational tendencies in hazardous drinkers: Assessing implicit response tendencies using the modified-IAT. Behav Res Ther41: 1149–1162.
38.
PalfaiTWoodMD (2001) Positive alcohol expectancies and drinking behavior: The influence of expectancy strength and memory accessibility. Psychol Addict Behav15: 60–67.
39.
ParrottACJoyceC (1993) Diurnal patterns of stress and arousal in cigarette smokers, deprived smokers, and non-smokers. Hum Psychopharm8: 21–28
40.
PiaseckiTMJoernbyDESmithSS. (2003) Smoking withdrawal dynamics: II. Improved tests of withdrawal-relapse relations. J Abnorm Psychol112: 14–27.
41.
RemueJDe HouwerJBarnes-HolmesD. (2013) Self-esteem revisited: Performance on the implicit relational assessment procedure as a measure of self- versus ideal self-related cognitions in dysphoria. Cognition Emotion27: 1441–1449.
42.
RemueJHughesSDe HouwerJ. (2014) To be or want to be: Disentangling the role of actual versus ideal self in implicit self-esteem. PLoS ONE9: e108837.
43.
RobinsonTE.BerridgeKC (2003) Addiction. Ann Rev Psychol54: 1–29.
44.
RouderJNSpeckmanPLSunD. (2009) Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychon Bull Rev16: 225–237.
45.
SchneiderWEschmanAZuccolottoA (2002a) E-Prime User’s Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
46.
SchneiderWEschmanAZuccolottoA (2002b) E-Prime Reference Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
47.
ShiffrinRMSchneiderW (1977) Controlled and automatic information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychol Rev84: 127–190.
48.
ShermanSJPressonCCChassinL. (2003) Implicit and explicit attitudes toward cigarette smoking: the effects of context and motivation. J Soc Clin Psychol22: 13–39.
49.
SnyderFRHenningfieldDFC (1989) The tobacco withdrawal syndrome: Performance decrements assessed on a computerized test battery. Drug Alcohol Depend23: 259–266.
50.
SpruytADe HouwerJTibboelH. (2013) On the predictive validity of automatically activated approach/avoidance tendencies in abstaining alcohol-dependent patients. Drug Alcohol Depen127: 81–86.
51.
TibboelHDe HouwerJSpruytA. (2015) Heavy social drinkers score higher on implicit wanting and liking for alcohol than alcohol-dependent patients and light social drinkers. J Behav Ther Exp Psy48: 185–191.
52.
TibboelHDe HouwerJSpruy. (2011) Testing the validity of implicit measures of wanting and liking. J Behav Ther Exp Psy42: 284–292.
53.
WatsonPDe WitSCousijnJ. (2013) Motivational mechanisms underlying the approach bias to cigarettes. J Exp Psychopathol4: 250–262.
54.
WiersRWBartholowBDVan den WildenbergE. (2007a) Automatic and controlled processes and the development of addictive behaviors in adolescents: A review and a model. Pharmacol Biochem Be86: 263–283.
55.
WiersRWEberlCRinckMBeckerELindenmeyerJ (2011) Re-training automatic action tendencies changes alcoholic patients’ approach bias for alcohol and improves treatment outcome. Psychol Sci22: 490–497.
56.
WiersRWHoubenKDe KrakerJ (2007b) Implicit cocaine associations in active cocaine users and controls. Addict Behav32: 1284–1289.
57.
WiersRWRinckMKordtsR. (2010) Re-training automatic action-tendencies to approach alcohol in hazardous drinkers. Addiction105: 279–287.
58.
WiersRWVan WoerdenNSmuldersFTY. (2002) Implicit and explicit alcohol-related cognitions in heavy and light drinkers. J Abnorm Psychol111: 648–658.
59.
WiswedeDKoranyiNMuellerFLangnerORothermundK (2013) Validating the truth of propositions: Behavioral and ERP indicators of truth evaluation processes. SCAN8: 647–653.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
