We investigated (1) the effects of alcohol on cognitive biases for alcohol-related cues, (2) the effects of drinking status on alcohol-related cognitive biases and (3) the similarity of any effects of alcohol across two measures of alcohol cognitive bias. Healthy, heavy and light social alcohol users (n = 72) were examined in a single-blind placebo-controlled design. Participants received 0.00 g/kg, 0.13 g/kg or 0.40 g/kg of alcohol in a between-subjects design and then completed both a modified Stroop task and a visual probe task. Modified Stroop data indicated a main effect of cue type, which was qualified by drinking status, with heavier drinkers slower to respond to alcohol-related cues. Visual probe data, in contrast, indicated a significant interaction effect between validity (valid: alcohol-related, invalid: neutral) and drink condition. Participants receiving a moderate dose of alcohol (0.40 g/kg) were faster to respond to alcohol-related stimuli compared with participants receiving a low dose of alcohol or placebo. These data indicate that the cognitive processes assayed by the visual probe and Stroop tasks may not be mediated by a common underlying mechanism.
BruceGJonesBT (2004) A pictorial Stroop paradigm reveals an alcohol attentional bias in heavier compared to lighter social drinkers. J Psychopharmacol18: 527–533.
2.
CislerJMBaconAKWilliamsNL (2009) Phenomenological characteristics of attentional biases towards threat: a critical review. Cognit Ther Res33: 221–234.
3.
CooperRMLangtonSRH (2006) Attentional bias to angry faces using the dot-probe task? It depends when you look for it. Behav Res Ther44: 1321–1329.
4.
CoxWMYeatesGNReganCM (1999) Effects of alcohol cues on cognitive processing in heavy and light drinkers. Drug Alcohol Depend55: 85–89.
5.
CoxWMPothosEMHosierSG (2007) Cognitive-motivational predictors of excessive drinkers’ success in changing. Psychopharmacology192: 499–510.
6.
DalgleishTTaghaviRNeshat-DoostH (2003) Patterns of processing bias for emotional information across clinical disorders: a comparison of attention, memory, and prospective cognition in children and adolescents with depression, generalized anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol32: 10–21.
7.
DukaTTownshendJM (2004) The priming effect of alcohol pre-load on attentional bias to alcohol-related stimuli. Psychopharmacology176: 353–U356.
8.
EysenckHJEysenckSBG (1991) Manual of the Eysenck Personality Scales (EPS Adult). London: Hodder and Stoughton.
9.
FieldMCoxWM (2008) Attentional bias in addictive behaviors: a review of its development, causes, and consequences. Drug Alcohol Depend97: 1–20.
10.
FieldMMoggKZettelerJ (2004) Attentional biases for alcohol cues in heavy and light social drinkers: the roles of initial orienting and maintained attention. Psychopharmacology176: 88–93.
11.
FieldMMunafòMRFrankenIHA (2009) A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between attentional bias and subjective craving in substance abuse. Psychol Bull135: 589–607.
12.
GotlibIHKaschKLTraillS (2004) Coherence and specificity of information-processing biases in depression and social phobia. J Abnorm Psychol113: 386–398.
13.
GreeleyJDSwiftWPrescottJ (1993) Reactivity to alcohol-related cues in heavy and light drinkers. J Studies Alcohol54: 359–368.
14.
JohnsenBrHLabergJCCoxWM (1994) Alcoholic subjects’ attentional bias in the processing of alcohol-related words. Psychol Addict Behav8: 111–115.
15.
JonesBTSchulzeD (2000) Alcohol-related words of positive affect are more accessible in social drinkers’ memory than are other words when sip-primed by alcohol. Addict Res8: 221–232.
16.
JonesBTJonesBCSmithH (2003) A flicker paradigm for inducing change blindness reveals alcohol and cannabis information processing biases in social users. Addiction98: 235–244.
17.
MacleodCM (1991) Half a century of research on the Stroop effect – an integrative review. Psychol Bull109: 163–203.
18.
McNairDMLorrMDropplemanLF (1992) Profile of Mood States (POMS). San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
19.
MoggKBradleyBP (2002) Selective processing of smoking-related cues in smokers: manipulation of deprivation level and comparison of three measures of processing bias. J Psychopharmacol16: 385–392.
20.
MoggKBradleyBPDixonC (2000) Trait anxiety, defensiveness and selective processing of threat: an investigation using two measures of attentional bias. Pers Individ Dif28: 1063–1077.
21.
NoelXColmantMvan der LindenM (2006) Time course of attention for alcohol cues in abstinent alcoholic patients: the role of initial orienting. Alcohol Clin Expl Res30: 1871–1877.
22.
PosnerMIPetersenSE (1990) The attention system of the human brain. Ann Rev Neurosci13: 25–42.
23.
RobinsonTEBerridgeKC (1993) The neural basis of drug craving – an incentive–sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Res Rev18: 247–291.
24.
RoseAKDukaT (2008) Effects of alcohol on inhibitory processes. Behav Pharmacol19: 284–291.
25.
SchoenmakersTMWiersRW (2010) Craving and attentional bias respond differently to alcohol priming: a field study in the pub. Eur Addict Res16: 9–16.
26.
SchoenmakersTWiersRWFieldM (2008) Effects of a low dose of alcohol on cognitive biases and craving in heavy drinkers. Psychopharmacology197: 169–178.
27.
SharmaDAlberyIPCookC (2001) Methodological issues attached to the alcohol Stroop paradigm: a rejoinder to Cox, Pothos, Johnsen and Laberg. Addiction96: 1512–1514.
28.
StetterFAckermannKBizerA (1995) Effects of disease-related cues in alcoholic inpatients – results of a controlled alcohol Stroop study. Alcohol Clin Exp Res19: 593–599.
29.
StewartJDewitHEikelboomR (1984) Role of unconditioned and conditioned drug effects in the self-administration of opiates and stimulants. Psychol Rev91: 251–268.
30.
TownshendJMDukaT (2001) Attentional bias associated with alcohol cues: differences between heavy and occasional social drinkers. Psychopharmacology157: 67–74.
