Reaching out towards cannabis: approach‐bias in heavy cannabis users predicts changes in cannabis use

Abstract

Aims Repeated drug exposure can lead to an approach‐bias, i.e. the relatively automatically triggered tendencies to approach rather that avoid drug‐related stimuli. Our main aim was to study this approach‐bias in heavy cannabis users with the newly developed cannabis Approach Avoidance Task (cannabis‐AAT) and to investigate the predictive relationship between an approach‐bias for cannabis‐related materials and levels of cannabis use, craving, and the course of cannabis use. Design, settings and participants Cross‐sectional assessment and six‐month follow‐up in 32 heavy cannabis users and 39 non‐using controls. Measurements Approach and avoidance action‐tendencies towards cannabis and neutral images were assessed with the cannabis AAT. During the AAT, participants pulled or pushed a joystick in response to image orientation. To generate additional sense of approach or avoidance, pulling the joystick increased picture size while pushing decreased it. Craving was measured pre‐ and post‐test with the multi‐factorial Marijuana Craving Questionnaire (MCQ). Cannabis use frequencies and levels of dependence were measured at baseline and after a six‐month follow‐up. Findings Heavy cannabis users demonstrated an approach‐bias for cannabis images, as compared to controls. The approach‐bias predicted changes in cannabis use at six‐month follow‐up. The pre‐test MCQ emotionality and expectancy factor were associated negatively with the approach‐bias. No effects were found on levels of cannabis dependence. Conclusions Heavy cannabis users with a strong approach‐bias for cannabis are more likely to increase their cannabis use. This approach‐bias could be used as a predictor of the course of cannabis use to identify individuals at risk from increasing cannabis use.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 54

1. 1.

   World Drug Report. 2009.

   Not in our library

2. 2.
   Toward a Global View of Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine Use: Findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys · 2008

   No notice
3. 3.

   Perkonigg A, Goodwin RD, Fiedler A, Behrendt S, Beesdo K, Lieb R, et al. The natural course of cannabis use, abuse and dependence during the first decades of life. Addiction. 2008;103:439-49.

   Not in our library10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.02064.x

4. 4.

   Bechara A. Decision making, impulse control and loss of willpower to resist drugs: a neurocognitive perspective. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8:1458-63.

   Not in our library10.1038/nn1584

5. 5.

   Koob GF, Volkow ND. Neurocircuitry of addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010;35:217-38.

   Not in our library10.1038/npp.2009.110

6. 6.

   Robinson TE, Berridge KC. Addiction. Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54:25-53.

   Not in our library10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145237

7. 7.

   Verdejo-Garcia A, Bechara A. A somatic marker theory of addiction. Neuropharmacology. 2009;56:48-62.

   Not in our library10.1016/j.neuropharm.2008.07.035

8. 8.

   Wiers RW, Bartholow BD, van den Wildenberg E, Thush C, Engels RC, Sher KJ, et al. Automatic and controlled processes and the development of addictive behaviors in adolescents: a review and a model. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2007;86:263-83.

   Not in our library10.1016/j.pbb.2006.09.021

9. 9.

   Wiers RW, Rinck M, Dictus M, van den Wildenberg E. Relatively strong automatic appetitive action-tendencies in male carriers of the OPRM1 G-allele. Genes Brain Behav. 2009;8:101-6.

   Not in our library10.1111/j.1601-183x.2008.00454.x

10. 10.

    Bradley B, Field M, Mogg K, De Houwer J. Attentional and evaluative biases for smoking cues in nicotine dependence: component processes of biases in visual orienting. Behav Pharmacol. 2004;15:29-36.

    Not in our library10.1097/00008877-200402000-00004

11. 11.

    Ehrman RN, Robbins SJ, Bromwell MA, Lankford ME, Monterosso JR, O'Brien CP. Comparing attentional bias to smoking cues in current smokers, former smokers, and non-smokers using a dot-probe task. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;67:185-91.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0376-8716(02)00065-0

12. 12.

    Field M, Kiernan A, Eastwood B, Child R. Rapid approach responses to alcohol cues in heavy drinkers. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2008;39:209-18.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jbtep.2007.06.001

13. 13.

    Field M, Mogg K, Bradley BP. Craving and cognitive biases for alcohol cues in social drinkers. Alcohol Alcohol. 2005;40:504-10.

    Not in our library10.1093/alcalc/agh213

14. 14.

    Mogg K, Bradley BP, Field M, De Houwer J. Eye movements to smoking-related pictures in smokers: relationship between attentional biases and implicit and explicit measures of stimulus valence. Addiction. 2003;98:825-36.

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00392.x

15. 15.

    Mogg K, Field M, Bradley BP. Attentional and approach biases for smoking cues in smokers: an investigation of competing theoretical views of addiction. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2005;180:333-41.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00213-005-2158-x

16. 16.

    Ostafin BD, Palfai TP. Compelled to consume: the Implicit Association Test and automatic alcohol motivation. Psychol Addict Behav. 2006;20:322-7.

    Not in our library10.1037/0893-164x.20.3.322

17. 17.

    Palfai TP, Ostafin BD. Alcohol-related motivational tendencies in hazardous drinkers: assessing implicit response tendencies using the modified-IAT. Behav Res Ther. 2003;41:1149-62.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0005-7967(03)00018-4

18. 18.

    Waters AJ, Feyerabend C. Determinants and effects of attentional bias in smokers. Psychol Addict Behav. 2000;14:111-20.

    Not in our library10.1037//0893-164x.14.2.111

19. 19.

    Field M, Schoenmakers T, Wiers RW. Cognitive processes in alcohol binges: a review and research agenda. Curr Drug Abuse Rev. 2008;1:263-79.

    Not in our library10.2174/1874473710801030263

20. 20.

    Field M, Wiers RW, Christiansen P, Fillmore MT, Verster JC. Acute alcohol effects on inhibitory control and implicit cognition: implications for loss of control over drinking. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2010;34:1346-52.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1530-0277.2010.01218.x

21. 21.

    Stacy AW, Wiers RW. Implicit cognition and addiction: a tool for explaining paradoxical behavior. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2010;6:551-75.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131444

22. 22.

    Jones BC, Jones BT, Blundell L, Bruce G. Social users of alcohol and cannabis who detect substance-related changes in a change blindness paradigm report higher levels of use than those detecting substance-neutral changes. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2002;165:93-6.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00213-002-1264-2

23. 23.

    Jones BT, Jones BC, Smith H, Copley N. A flicker paradigm for inducing change blindness reveals alcohol and cannabis information processing biases in social users. Addiction. 2003;98:235-44.

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00270.x

24. 24.

    Field M. Cannabis ‘dependence’ and attentional bias for cannabis-related words. Behav Pharmacol. 2005;16:473-6.

    Not in our library10.1097/00008877-200509000-00021

25. 25.

    Field M, Mogg K, Bradley BP. Cognitive bias and drug craving in recreational cannabis users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004;74:105-11.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2003.12.005

26. 26.

    Field M, Eastwood B, Bradley BP, Mogg K. Selective processing of cannabis cues in regular cannabis users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;85:75-82.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.03.018

27. 27.

    Ames SL, Grenard JL, Thush C, Sussman S, Wiers RW, Stacy AW. Comparison of indirect assessments of association as predictors of marijuana use among at-risk adolescents. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2007;15:204-18.

    Not in our library10.1037/1064-1297.15.2.218

28. 28.

    Palfai TP. Activating action tendencies: the influence of action priming on alcohol consumption among male hazardous drinkers. J Stud Alcohol. 2006;67:926-33.

    Not in our library10.15288/jsa.2006.67.926

29. 29.

    Rinck M, Becker ES. Approach and avoidance in fear of spiders. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2007;38:105-20.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jbtep.2006.10.001

30. 30.

    Wiers RW, Rinck M, Kordts R, Houben K, Strack F. Retraining automatic action-tendencies to approach alcohol in hazardous drinkers. Addiction. 2010;105:279-87.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02775.x

31. 31.

    Krieglmeyer R, Deutsch R. Comparing measures of approach–avoidance behaviour: the manikin task versus two versions of the joystick task. Cogn Emot. 2010;24:810-28.

    Not in our library

32. 32.

    De Houwer J, Musch J, Klauer KC. Structural analysis of indirect measures of attitudes. The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion. 2003;219-44.

    Not in our library

33. 33.

    Nelson HE. National Adult Reading Test. 1984.

    Not in our library

34. 34.

    Schmand B, Bakker D, Saan R, Louman J. The Dutch Reading Test for Adults: a measure of premorbid intelligence level. Tijdschr Gerontol Geriatr. 1991;22:15-9.

    Not in our library

35. 35.

    Kouri EM, Pope HG, Lukas SE. Changes in aggressive behavior during withdrawal from long-term marijuana use. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1999;143:302-8.

    Not in our library10.1007/s002130050951

36. 36.

    Pope HG, Gruber AJ, Hudson JI, Huestis MA, Yurgelun-Todd D. Neuropsychological performance in long-term cannabis users. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58:909-15.

    Not in our library10.1001/archpsyc.58.10.909

37. 37.

    Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Grant M. Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption—II. Addiction. 1993;88:791-804.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb02093.x

38. 38.

    Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, Amorim P, Janavs J, Weiller E, et al. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59:22-33.

    Not in our library

39. 39.

    Adamson SJ, Sellman JD. A prototype screening instrument for cannabis use disorder: the Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test (CUDIT) in an alcohol-dependent clinical sample. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2003;22:309-15.

    Not in our library10.1080/0959523031000154454

40. 40.

    Adamson SJ, Kay-Lambkin FJ, Baker AL, Lewin TJ, Thornton L, Kelly BJ, et al. An improved brief measure of cannabis misuse: the Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test-Revised (CUDIT-R). Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010;110:137-43.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.02.017

41. 41.

    Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerstrom KO. The Fagerstrom Test for nicotine dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict. 1991;86:1119-27.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01879.x

42. 42.

    Heishman SJ, Evans RJ, Singleton EG, Levin KH, Copersino ML, Gorelick DA. Reliability and validity of a short form of the Marijuana Craving Questionnaire. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009;102:35-40.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.12.010

43. 43.

    Heishman SJ, Singleton EG, Liguori A. Marijuana Craving Questionnaire: development and initial validation of a self-report instrument. Addiction. 2001;96:1023-34.

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.967102312.x

44. 44.

    MacLeod C, Rutherford E, Campbell L, Ebsworthy G, Holker L. Selective attention and emotional vulnerability: assessing the causal basis of their association through the experimental manipulation of attentional bias. J Abnorm Psychol. 2002;111:107-23.

    Not in our library

45. 45.

    Little RJA. A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. J Am Stat Assoc. 1988;83:1198-202.

    Not in our library

46. 46.

    Goldstein RZ, Craig AD, Bechara A, Garavan H, Childress AR, Paulus MP, et al. The neurocircuitry of impaired insight in drug addiction. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009;13:372-80.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.004

47. 47.

    Wiers RW, Eberl C, Rinck M, Becker ES, Lindenmeyer J. Re-training automatic action tendencies changes alcoholic patients' approach bias for alcohol and improves treatment outcome. Psychol Sci. 2011;22:490-7.

    Not in our library10.1177/0956797611400615

48. 48.

    Robinson TE, Berridge KC. The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive–sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1993;18:247-91.

    Not in our library10.1016/0165-0173(93)90013-p

49. 49.

    Robinson TE, Berridge KC. The psychology and neurobiology of addiction: an incentive–sensitization view. Addiction. 2000;95:S91-117.

    Not in our library10.1080/09652140050111681

50. 50.

    Di Chiara G. Role of dopamine in the behavioural actions of nicotine related to addiction. Eur J Pharmacol. 2000;393:295-314.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0014-2999(00)00122-9

51. 51.

    Everitt BJ, Robbins TW. Neural systems of reinforcement for drug addiction: from actions to habits to compulsion. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8:1481-9.

    Not in our library10.1038/nn1579

52. 52.

    Field M, Munafo MR, Franken IH. A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between attentional bias and subjective craving in substance abuse. Psychol Bull. 2009;135:589-607.

    Not in our library10.1037/a0015843

53. 53.

    Bennett A, Sznitman SR, Olsson B, Room R. Cannabis: a harm reduction perspective. A Cannabis Reader: Global Issues and Local Experiences, Monograph Series 8. 2008;171-83.

    Not in our library

54. 54.

    McPartland JM, Blanchon DJ, Musty RE. Cannabimimetic effects modulated by cholinergic compounds. Addict Biol. 2008;13:411-5.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1369-1600.2008.00126.x

Cited by papers we hold 3

• Evidence for the embodiment of the automatic approach bias · 2022
  Not checked
• Approach-bias predicts development of cannabis problem severity in heavy cannabis users: results from a prospective FMRI study. · 2012
  Not checked
• Quantifying Individual Variation in the Propensity to Attribute Incentive Salience to Reward Cues · 2012
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.