LMU Munich, Department of Psychology, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Germany; University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Center for Psychosocial Medicine, Germany.
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Center for Psychosocial Medicine, Germany.
J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2023 Dec;81:101853. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2023.101853. Epub 2023 Mar 11.
Theoretical models propose that different cognitive biases are caused by a common underlying mechanism (incentive salience/"wanting") and should, therefore, be interrelated. Additionally, stronger impulsive processes should be related to weaker inhibitory abilities. However, these assumptions have hardly been empirically tested and key psychometric information have hardly been reported in samples of smokers. To extent previous research, the present study aimed (1) to estimate the reliability (split-half) of different cognitive bias measures and (2) to investigate associations between attention, approach and associative biases, response inhibition, and smoking-related variables.
Eighty current, non-deprived smokers completed the following tasks in random order: Approach-Avoidance Task (AAT), Stimulus-Response Compatibility Task (SRCT), Implicit-Association Tests (IAT, approach-avoid, valence), Dotprobe Task, Go-/NoGo Task (GNGT). Additionally, different smoking-related variables were assessed. Split-half reliabilities of the different cognitive (bias) measures and correlations between them were calculated.
Split-half reliabilities of the AAT, the SRCT, and the Dotprobe Task were unacceptable whereas both IATs and the GNGT showed good to excellent reliability. Smoking-approach associations were significantly related to nicotine dependence; however, none of the cognitive bias measures correlated with response inhibition or smoking-related variables.
Pictorial stimuli were the same across paradigms and might not have been relevant to all participants.
This is the first study to investigate the association between different cognitive biases, response inhibition, and smoking-related variables. Although findings are at odds with theoretical assumptions, their interpretation is clearly restricted by the low reliability of the cognitive bias measures.
理论模型提出,不同的认知偏差是由一个共同的潜在机制(激励显著性/“想要”)引起的,因此应该相互关联。此外,更强的冲动过程应该与更弱的抑制能力相关。然而,这些假设几乎没有经过实证检验,关键的心理计量学信息在吸烟者样本中几乎没有报道。为了扩展以前的研究,本研究旨在(1)估计不同认知偏差测量的可靠性(分半),(2)调查注意、接近和联想偏差、反应抑制与吸烟相关变量之间的关系。
80 名当前、非剥夺性吸烟者以随机顺序完成以下任务:接近回避任务(AAT)、刺激反应兼容性任务(SRCT)、内隐联想测试(IAT,接近回避,效价)、点探测任务、Go/NoGo 任务(GNGT)。此外,还评估了不同的吸烟相关变量。计算了不同认知(偏差)测量的分半可靠性和它们之间的相关性。
AAT、SRCT 和点探测任务的分半可靠性不可接受,而两个 IAT 和 GNGT 显示出良好到极好的可靠性。吸烟接近关联与尼古丁依赖显著相关;然而,没有一个认知偏差测量与反应抑制或吸烟相关变量相关。
图片刺激在各个范式中是相同的,可能与所有参与者都不相关。
这是第一项研究不同认知偏差、反应抑制与吸烟相关变量之间关系的研究。尽管研究结果与理论假设不一致,但由于认知偏差测量的可靠性低,其解释显然受到限制。