Begh Rachna, Smith Margaret, Ferguson Stuart G, Shiffman Saul, Munafò Marcus R, Aveyard Paul
UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford.
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford.
Psychol Addict Behav. 2016 Dec;30(8):868-875. doi: 10.1037/adb0000231.
Previous laboratory studies have investigated associations between attentional bias and craving, 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 in a secondary analysis of data from 100 cigarette smokers attempting cessation. Two weeks before quitting, participants completed attentional bias assessments on visual probe (VP) and Stroop tasks and completed random EMA-assessments for seven weeks thereafter. Participants completed 9,271 random assessments, averaging 3.3 prompts/day. Clinic-measured attentional bias was not associated with cues seen (VP: OR = 1.00, 95% CI = [0.99, 1.01]; Stroop: OR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.99, 1.00]), attention toward smoking (VP: OR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.99, 1.02]; Stroop: OR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.99, 1.00]), or craving (VP: 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 toward smoking (OR = 3.69, 95% CI [3.42, 3.98]) were associated with craving. Internal reliability was higher for the Stroop (α = .75) than visual probe task (α = .20). In smokers attempting cessation, clinic measures of attentional bias do not predict noticing smoking cues, focus on smoking, or craving. However, associations exist between noticing smoking cues, attention toward smoking, and craving assessed in the moment, suggesting that attentional bias may not be a stable trait. (PsycINFO Database Record
以往的实验室研究探讨了注意偏向与渴望之间的关联，但生态瞬时评估（EMA）或许能提供生态学上有效的数据。本研究考察了临床测量的注意偏向是否与注意到吸烟线索、对吸烟的注意力以及通过EMA评估的渴望相关，以及在对100名尝试戒烟的吸烟者的数据进行二次分析中，EMA评估的线索和对吸烟的注意力是否与渴望相关。在戒烟前两周，参与者完成了视觉探测（VP）和斯特鲁普任务的注意偏向评估，并在之后的七周内完成了随机的EMA评估。参与者共完成了9271次随机评估，平均每天3.3次提示。临床测量的注意偏向与看到的线索（VP：比值比[OR]=1.00，95%置信区间[CI]=[0.99,1.01]；斯特鲁普：OR=1.00，95%CI[0.99,1.00]）、对吸烟的注意力（VP：OR=1.00，95%CI[0.99,1.02]；斯特鲁普：OR=1.00，95%CI[0.99,1.00]）或渴望（VP：OR=1.00，95%CI[0.99,1.02]；斯特鲁普：OR=1.00，95%CI[0.99,1.01]）均无关联。EMA对看到吸烟线索的反应（OR=1.94，95%CI[1.74,2.16]）和对吸烟的注意力（OR=3.69，95%CI[3.42,3.98]）与渴望相关。斯特鲁普任务的内部信度（α=.75）高于视觉探测任务（α=.20）。在尝试戒烟的吸烟者中，临床测量的注意偏向无法预测是否注意到吸烟线索、对吸烟的关注程度或渴望程度。然而，注意到吸烟线索、对吸烟的注意力与即时评估的渴望之间存在关联，这表明注意偏向可能不是一个稳定的特质。（《心理学文摘数据库记录》
