Individualised but not general alcohol Stroop predicts alcohol use

Christiansen, Paul; Bloor, Jacqueline Fiona

doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.10.021

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We computed a composite measure of alcohol use as our dependent variable. We used this measure in order to better capture the general pattern of alcohol use rather than a specific behaviour such as heavy episodic drinking, as in previous research (see ( Christiansen and Bloor, 2014 , Fernie et al, 2013 )). This consisted of scores on the AUDIT, units consumed as measured by the TLFB and frequency of heavy episodic drinking (6 + units in a single session for females 8 + for males: Office of National statistics 2015), z-scored and combined.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hopelessness and alcohol use: The mediating role of drinking motives and outcome expectancies

Baines

Jones

Christiansen

2016

Addictive Behaviors Reports

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionHeavy drinking is a considerable public health concern. There is a broad evidence-base examining the separate contributions of personality characteristics, motives and alcohol-expectancies on subsequent alcohol use to identify those at risk. However, little is known about the complex relationships by which these variables may interact to predict drinking behavior. Feelings of hopelessness and anxiety sensitivity are hypothesized to be distal predictors of alcohol use, with outcome expectancies and drinking motives more proximal. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to examine whether hopelessness and anxiety sensitivity influenced alcohol use via drinking to cope and alcohol - outcome expectancies.MethodsWe recruited 230 participants to complete an online questionnaire consisting of the brief drinking motives questionnaire, the Substance Use Risk Profile scale and Brief Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol scale. We conducted path analyses using structural equation modelling.ResultsWe demonstrated a significant direct effect of anxiety sensitivity on alcohol use, and a significant serial indirect effect of hopelessness through coping motives and alcohol outcome expectancies.ConclusionsThese findings suggest feelings of hopelessness may predict alcohol consumption through a complex pathway and future research should use these findings to identify individuals at risk of increased alcohol use.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hopelessness and alcohol use: The mediating role of drinking motives and outcome expectancies

Baines

Jones

Christiansen

2016

Addictive Behaviors Reports

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, when measuring AB using a visual probe task, found that personalised stimuli produced acceptable levels of internal reliability compared to generalised alcohol stimuli (although no improvements in predictive validity were found). However, a personalised (but not general) card-based alcohol Stroop was found to predict drinking behaviour in undergraduate drinkers (Christiansen & Bloor, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Differences in AB magnitude were examined with a 2x2x2 mixed ANOVA with Stroop type (basic, upgraded) and stimulus type (alcohol-related, control) as within subjects' factors and condition (neutral room-computer, home-smartphone) as the between subjects' factor. For predictive validity, alcohol use involvement was calculated as the sum of the standardised TLFB and AUDIT scores (see Christiansen & Bloor, 2014). Due to multicollinearity problems in the interaction terms between AB scores and condition (VIFs > 10), a separate regression was run for each condition.…”

Section: Data Reduction and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

A Stroop in the Hand is Worth Two on the Laptop: Superior Reliability of a Smartphone Based Alcohol Stroop in the Real World

Spanakis

Jones

Field

et al. 2018

Substance Use & Misuse

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Attentional bias (AB) is the tendency for substance-related stimuli to grab attention. The addiction Stroop task is widely used for measuring AB in the lab, but it has poor reliability and inconsistent predictive validity. Therefore, there is a need to improve the psychometric properties of the task. Objectives. This study contrasts the internal reliability and predictive validity of a basic (general alcohol words) and an upgraded (personalized alcohol pictures) Stroop task delivered in a neutral room on a laptop computer versus a smartphone application on. Methods. 120 participants recruited in 2016, completed a basic and an upgraded Stroop task. Half the participants completed the tasks on a laptop computer in a neutral university room and the remainder completed the tasks on a smartphone app in their homes. Participants also self-reported their typical alcohol consumption. Results. Acceptable internal reliability was found for both basic (= .70) and upgraded (= .74) Stroop tasks in the home-smartphone condition, but neither had acceptable internal reliability when administered in the neutral room-computer condition (basic = .49; upgraded = .58). Participants showed AB toward alcohol words, but not for beer pictures, Running title: Smartphone alcohol Stroop reliability. 3 regardless of condition. None of the indices of AB was associated with individual differences in alcohol involvement, regardless of condition. Conclusion. The internal reliability of the alcohol Stroop was acceptable when administered on smartphones, in naturalistic settings, rather than on laptop computers, in neutral university rooms.

show abstract

“…Similarly, we used generic rather than personalized stimuli in the RT measures of attentional bias. Alcohol studies have shown that the internal reliability and predictive validity of RT tasks can be increased by using personalized stimuli rather than generic stimuli (Christiansen & Bloor, 2014; Christiansen, Mansfield, Duckworth, Field, & Jones, 2015), although the tailoring of stimuli may be challenging to implement for each participant (Ataya et al, 2012b). Another limitation is that participants were asked to report on whether a smoking-related cue was seen or not, prior to assessing craving.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association between smoking-related attentional bias and craving measured in the clinic and in the natural environment.

Begh¹,

Smith²,

Ferguson³

et al. 2016

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record. This is the accepted author manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via American Psychological Association at http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/adb/index.aspx. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. University of Bristol -Explore Bristol Research General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms 1 Association between smoking-related attentional bias and craving measured in the clinic and in the natural environment 2 ObjectivePrevious studies have investigated the association between attentional bias and craving in laboratories, but ecological momentary assessment (EMA) may provide ecologically valid data. This study examines whether clinic-measured attentional bias is associated with noticing smoking cues, attention to smoking, and craving assessed by EMA and whether EMA-assessed cues and attention to smoking are associated with craving. MethodSecondary analyses of clinical trial data involving 100 cigarette smokers attempting to quit assisted by behavioural support and nicotine patch treatment. Two weeks prior to quitting, participants completed attentional bias assessments on visual probe and Stroop tasks.Participants carried personal digital assistants for seven weeks thereafter, which administered random assessments of smoking cues, attention towards smoking, and craving. ResultsParticipants completed 9271 random prompt assessments, averaging 3.3 prompts/day. There was no evidence that clinic-measured attentional bias was associated with cues seen (visual probe: OR=1.00, 95%CI=0.99, 1.01; Stroop: OR=1.00, 95%CI=0.99, 1.00), attention towards smoking (visual probe: OR=1.00, 95%CI=0.99, 1.02; Stroop: OR=1.00, 95%CI=0.99, 1.00), or craving (visual probe: OR=1.00, 95%CI=0.99, 1.02; Stroop: OR=1.00, 95% CI=0.99, 1.01). EMA responses to seeing a smoking cue (OR=1.94, 95%CI=1.74, 2.16) and attention towards smoking (OR=3.69, 95%CI=3.42, 3.98) were associated with craving. Internal reliability was higher for the Stroop (α=0.75) than visual probe task (α=0.20). Conclusions 3In smokers attempting cessation, clinic measures of attentional bias do not predict noticing smoking cues, focus on smoking, or craving. However, there are associations between noticing smoking cues, attention towards smoking, and craving when assessed in the moment, suggesting that attentional bias may not be a stable trait.

show abstract

Individualised but not general alcohol Stroop predicts alcohol use

Cited by 13 publications

References 17 publications

Hopelessness and alcohol use: The mediating role of drinking motives and outcome expectancies

Hopelessness and alcohol use: The mediating role of drinking motives and outcome expectancies

A Stroop in the Hand is Worth Two on the Laptop: Superior Reliability of a Smartphone Based Alcohol Stroop in the Real World

Association between smoking-related attentional bias and craving measured in the clinic and in the natural environment.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About