Motivational Mechanisms and Outcome Expectancies Underlying the Approach Bias toward Addictive Substances

Abstract

Human behavior can be paradoxical, in that actions can be initiated that are seemingly incongruent with an individual’s explicit desires. This is most commonly observed in drug addiction, where maladaptive behavior (i.e., drug seeking) appears to be compulsive, continuing at great personal cost. Approach biases toward addictive substances have been correlated with actual drug-use in a number of studies, suggesting that this measure can, in some cases, index everyday maladaptive tendencies. At present it is unclear whether this bias to drug cues is a Pavlovian conditioned approach response, a habitual response, the result of a Pavlovian-instrumental transfer process, or a goal-directed action in the sense that expectancy of the rewarding effects of drugs controls approach. We consider this question by combining the theoretical framework of associative learning with the available evidence from approach bias research. Although research investigating the relative contributions of these mechanisms to the approach bias is to date relatively limited, we review existing studies and also outline avenues for future research.

Addiction and embodiment

“…That is, these models emphasize rational or associative connections between psychological states and/or emphasize cognitive control processes involved in regulating automatic approach tendencies. Excellent reviews on details of these models have been published elsewhere (e.g., Phaf et al, 2014;Watson et al, 2012)). Here, we provide a brief overview of the most important cognitive models on the basis of which we provisionally address some important predictions about what we would expect to see were these models correct.…”

“…It remains unclear what the underlying mechanisms of the approach bias are. For example, the bias has been investigated in light of cognitive theories, such as Pavlovian conditioning (i.e., classical conditioning of the drug with drug cues) and habit--formations (i.e., pairing of drug stimulus and the response) or dual process models which hypothesize an imbalance between overactive impulsive processes and less active control processes in drug consumption, resulting in imbalanced approach/avoid responses to drug cues (e.g., Watson, de Wit, Hommel, & Wiers, 2012; R. W. Wiers, Gladwin, Hofmann, Salemink, & Ridderinkhof, 2013). In contrast to purely cognitive explanations which rely on rational or associative mental representations to account for cognition, embodiment theorists highlight the possibility of situated bodily and sensorimotor processes structuring and possibly even constituting cognitive states (Paulus & Stewart, 2014).…”

A comparison of emotion regulation strategies in response to craving cognitions: Effects on smoking behaviour, craving and affect in dependent smokers

“…The manikin appeared above or below the image an equal number of times, and trials were presented in a randomised order. This task has good split-half reliability (Watson, de Wit, Hommell & Wiers, 2012;Field, Caren, Fernie & De Houwer, 2011) and construct validity (Field et al, 2011).…”

Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer effects in the nucleus accumbens relate to relapse in alcohol dependence

“…In alcohol-dependent patients, confrontation with Pavlovian cues may interact with more complex effects of context and mood, which have been shown to interact with the relapse risk of detoxified patients (Heinz et al 2003;Koob & Le Moal 2008). Nevertheless, the neural activation patterns underlying PIT effects are candidate mechanisms mediating or influencing drug seeking and relapse (Watson et al 2012). A better understanding of PIT effects in substance dependence may thus help to explain how and why drug-related cues can induce craving and promote relapses even after prolonged periods of abstinence when drug intake is no longer desired (O'Brien et al 1998;Grüsser et al 2002;Robinson & Berridge 2008).…”