4.4 Review

Impulsivity and substance-related attentional bias: A meta-analytic review

期刊

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
卷 133, 期 1, 页码 1-14

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.05.008

关键词

Impulsivity; Attentional bias; Substance; Alcohol; Drug; Meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Previous research demonstrates the role of attentional bias in addictive behaviors. Impulsivity is thought to affect the strength of attentional biases, and thus, attentional biases might be one mechanism by which impulsivity affects addictive behaviors. However, whether or not impulsivity is related to attentional biases across different conceptualizations of impulsivity and attentional biases has yet to be examined as an initial test of such causal models. Methods: The authors completed a meta-analysis of 13 published research studies examining the relationship between substance-related attentional bias and different conceptualizations of impulsivity. Results: There was a small and significant effect size between impulsivity and substance-related attentional bias (r = 0.20), which was moderated by impulsivity measurement type (Q(b) = 5.91, df = 1, p <0.05): there was a stronger relationship between behavioral impulsivity and substance-related attentional bias (r = 0.22) than trait impulsivity and substance-related attentional bias (r = 0.10). Different components of behavioral impulsivity and trait impulsivity did not affect the relationship. Conclusions: This study is the first systematic and empirical demonstration of the relationship between substance-related attentional bias and impulsivity and suggests viability of future examinations of casual models relating these constructs. Since trait and behavioral conceptualizations differentially relate to substance-related attentional bias, the current review further supports research suggesting how disaggregation of multidimensional constructs can lead to more robust relationships. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据