This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Mogg, K. Articles by Bradley, B. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mogg, K. Articles by Bradley, B. P. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Selective processing of smoking-related cues in smokers: manipulation of deprivation level and comparison of three measures of processing bias

Brendan P. Bradley

Centre for the Study of Emotion and Motivation, Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

Recent theories of addiction suggest that an attentional bias for drug-related cues plays an important role in maintaining drug-taking behaviours. A key feature of the present study is that it used three different meas ures of processing bias for linguistic and pictorial smoking-related cues: masked and unmasked conditions of the modified Stroop task, and a pictorial version of the visual probe task. Participants were smokers (n= 27), who were tested twice, with deprivation level manipulated as a within-subjects variable. They were asked to abstain from smoking for 12 h before one session, and to smoke normally before the other. Results were consistent with an attentional bias for smoking-related pictures on the visual probe task, and for smoking-related words in the unmasked condition of the modified Stroop task. The latter bias was most strongly predicted by self-reported urge to smoke, rather than by the deprivation manipulation. There was no evidence of a preconscious bias for smoking cues. The three measures of cognitive bias (from masked and unmasked Stroop and visual probe tasks) were not significantly correlated with each other, which suggests they may tap different underlying mechanisms. We discuss the results with respect to conceptualizations ofselective attention, addiction and motivational states in general.

Key Words: attention • cigarette smokers • deprivation • nicotine dependence • processing bias

Journal of Psychopharmacology, Vol. 16, No. 4, 385-392 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/026988110201600416


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Vollstadt-Klein, S. Loeber, C. von der Goltz, K. Mann, and F. Kiefer Avoidance of Alcohol-Related Stimuli Increases During the Early Stage of Abstinence in Alcohol-Dependent Patients Alcohol Alcohol., September 1, 2009; 44(5): 458 - 463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. R. Munafo, Z. N. Mannie, P. J. Cowen, C. J. Harmer, and S. B. McTavish Effects of acute tyrosine depletion on subjective craving and selective processing of smoking-related cues in abstinent cigarette smokers J Psychopharmacol, November 1, 2007; 21(8): 805 - 814. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Field, M. Rush, J. Cole, and A. Goudie The smoking Stroop and delay discounting in smokers: effects of environmental smoking cues J Psychopharmacol, August 1, 2007; 21(6): 603 - 610. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. I. ZETTELER, B. T. STOLLERY, A. M. WEINSTEIN, and A. R. LINGFORD-HUGHES ATTENTIONAL BIAS FOR ALCOHOL-RELATED INFORMATION IN ADOLESCENTS WITH ALCOHOL-DEPENDENT PARENTS Alcohol Alcohol., July 1, 2006; 41(4): 426 - 430. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. J. Robbins and R. N. Ehrman The Role of Attentional Bias in Substance Abuse Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev, December 1, 2004; 3(4): 243 - 260. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Munafo, K. Mogg, S. Roberts, B. P. Bradley, and M. Murphy Selective Processing of Smoking-Related Cues in Current Smokers, Ex-Smokers and Never-Smokers on the Modified Stroop Task J Psychopharmacol, September 1, 2003; 17(3): 310 - 316. [Abstract] [PDF]