4.2 Article

Attentional Bias and Approach/Avoidance Tendencies Do Not Predict Relapse or Time to Relapse in Alcohol Dependency

Journal

ALCOHOLISM-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
Volume 39, Issue 9, Pages 1734-1739

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/acer.12817

Keywords

Alcohol; Attentional Bias; Approach; Avoidance Tendencies; Relapse; Predictors

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundImplicit processes such as attentional bias (AB) and automatic approach/avoidance tendencies (AA) play a role in substance use disorders. Whether these processes can predict a relapse in alcohol-dependent patients is still unclear and must be examined in more detail than has been done previously. We aimed to establish whether AB and AA measured during treatment would predict relapse in alcohol-dependent patients. We also investigated whether these implicit processes predicted time to relapse better than a more common binary relapse variable. MethodsA total of 50 alcohol-dependent outpatients undergoing treatment completed the study. Patients completed the Addiction Stroop Task, which assesses AB, and the relevant Stimulus-Response Compatibility Task, which measures AA. Time to relapse was assessed 1, 2, and 3months after the bias assessment. ResultsTwenty patients (40%) relapsed during the follow-up period. The average time to relapse was 40days after the first session. Overall, participants had an AB for alcohol-related stimuli and a tendency to avoid these stimuli. Neither relapse nor time to relapse was predicted by either bias type. ConclusionsAlthough both AB and avoidance tendencies were present in our sample, these measures did not predict relapse or time to relapse in an outpatient alcohol-dependent sample in the following 3months. Future research should focus on studying the predictive value of these biases in the short term, for example, using ecological momentary assessment techniques to assess implicit processes shortly before a relapse.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available