Implicit priming of conflicting motivational orientations in heavy drinkers

Samantha Baker,Matt Field,Joanne M Dickson

doi:10.1186/s40359-014-0028-1

Abstract

BackgroundApproach and avoidance motivation for alcohol are relatively independent, and they operate in both automatic (or implicit) and controlled processes. In this study, we adapted methods previously used in the appetite literature and implicitly primed an alcohol-related motivational orientation (approach or avoidance) in order to investigate its influence on the opposing motivational orientation, in a group of non-dependent heavy drinkers.MethodsParticipants (N = 110) completed computerised measures of attentional bias and avoidance for alcohol cues (visual probe task) and behavioural approach and avoidance for alcohol cues (Stimulus–response Compatibility (SRC) task). Word primes were subliminally presented during each trial of these tasks. Participants were randomly allocated to groups that were exposed to alcohol-appetitive primes, alcohol-aversive primes, or neutral primes.ResultsContrary to hypotheses, word primes had no effect on responding during the visual probe or SRC tasks. Supplementary analyses revealed that participants showed attentional avoidance of alcohol cues combined with slower behavioural avoidance responses to alcohol cues. Attentional bias was positively correlated with scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test.ConclusionsIn contrast to previous findings from the appetite domain, our findings suggest that automatic alcohol cognitions are unaffected by implicit priming of motivational orientations, although features of our novel methodology may account for these results.

Highlights

Approach and avoidance motivation for alcohol are relatively independent, and they operate in both automatic and controlled processes
AAAQ = Approach and Avoidance of Alcohol Questionnaire – ; AUDIT = Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test; Timeline followback (TLFB) = Time Line Follow Back: Units = Total units consumed in two week period before study (1 unit = 8 g alcohol), Drinking days = Total number of days on which alcohol was consumed in two week period
Contrary to expectations, we found no effects of masked priming of motivational orientations on attentional bias for alcohol cues, or on automatic approach and avoidance tendencies evoked by those cues

Summary

Introduction

Approach and avoidance motivation for alcohol are relatively independent, and they operate in both automatic (or implicit) and controlled processes. Evidence to support the concept of separable approach and avoidance motivation exists in the domains of alcohol use (McEvoy et al 2004) as well as Multiple factors are known to influence the relative strength of alcohol approach and avoidance motivation, both of which can operate in automatic and controlled processes. With extensive experience of drinking, automatic processes are strengthened and they come to control drinking behaviour, eventually overriding conscious intentions to stop drinking (Ostafin et al 2008). Other theoretical models based on brain adaptations (Robinson and Berridge 1993) make similar predictions: after repeated alcohol use, automatic motivational processes are strengthened and they influence drinking behaviour irrespective of the subjective benefits or costs of drinking

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion