Attentional Bias In Alcohol Drinkers Psychology Essay

Attentional Bias In Alcohol Drinkers psychology EssayAttentional Bias refers to the term not every(prenominal)owing one to come across all possible outcomes when judging about an association. Previous research stems from the illustrious Stroop effect that was disc overed in 1930 by J.Ridley Stroop. This was an experimental effect in which he discovered that the individuals cognitive process ability was very(prenominal) powerful. In otherwise linguistic process The Stroop effect (Stroop, 1935) is a prime example of the kind-hearted failure to attend selectively to a special(prenominal) aspect of a complex stimulus (Algom, D., Chajut, E., Lev, S. (2004). Since most researchers ar interested in determination out things, the logical next step would be to develop set ahead on and ask whether this actual delay in response conviction is due to moderate drinkers comp ard to light drinkers. In instal to screen the military posture of this Stroop effect, one uses the colour lyric example. By this, we fuddled wrangle that are scripted using same dark-skinned ink i.e. red written in red ink, and oral communication written in dissentent coloured ink i.e. red written in lively. The participants are asked to read the words and not the colour. This sounds easier to do than it actually is. In this get the methodology and the affects of the Stroop test willinging be critically evaluated. To achieve this, previous research and publications will be drawn upon. A study of Duka and Townshend (2001) show attentional bias associated with inebriant cues differences between ominous and occasional social drinkers, they utilise a dot examine ( inebriantic drink-related pictures and words) and questionnaires, and the aim was to examine whether non- strung-out heavy drinkers would differ in their selective attention towards alcohol-related stimuli compared to social drinkers, the results showed attentional bias amongst the heavy drinkers in simile to alcoh ol-related stimuli, readys in factors such as sociability and sexuality shown to also be high, but low on character and persistence. A further study of Duka and Townshend (2004) demonstrated the priming effect of alcohol pre-load on attentional bias to alcohol-related stimuli they use a dot examine and questionnaires, and the aim of this study was to examine whether attentional bias towards alcohol-related stimuli wound affix after priming with either one or ii doses of alcohol/placebo, the results on mood ratings showed dose dependent plusd in controlling mood radar after alcohol pre-load, and in the dot probe task, all participants showed attentional bias towards the alcohol-related stimuli, and the apathetic bias was only dogmatic at low alcohol dosage. A study of Sharma, Albery, and Cook (2001) demonstrated selective attentional bias to alcohol-related stimuli in problem drinkers and non-problem drinkers they used a modified Stroop task (computerized), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory in order to appreciate Anxiety, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test ( pottyvass) to tolerate scoring (high or low), the participants were divided into three groups local community alcohol service (CAS), disciple volunteers who were divided into ii control groups, the aim of this study was to examine whether persevering of problem drinkers selectively attend to alcohol-related stimuli compare to the two control groups of non-problem drinkers, the results fate logical implication amongst the CAS group in longer answer metres in responding to colour of alcohol-related words compared to neutral words, with reduced interference for the high AUDIT group, therefore significant in the low AUDIT group no significance was found. Additionally, no evidence is provided in the interference habituated amongst the three groups. A study of Stetter, Ackermann, Scherer, Schmid, Straube, and Mann (1994) demonstrated whether alcoholics develop an information proces sing bias towards infirmity-related stimuli, the results call ford an increase of error amongst alcoholics when presented with the disease-related stimuli compared to the neutral conditions, and controls. A further study Stetter, Ackemann, Bizer, Straube, and Mann (1995) by interrogation their hypothesis that alcoholics develop a disease-related attentional bias, with 40 male alcohol-dependent, and 40 male healthy, and used the Stroop colour-naming task, the results showed alcoholic inpatients performed significantly poorer than the control group on a lower floor the critical experimental condition (colour-naming of disease-related words), as compared with the non-critical condition (colour-naming of neutral words p = 0.03), no effects were found on the reaction times. A study of Johnsen, Laberg, Cox, Vaksdal, and Hugdahl, (1994) conducted in Norway demonstrated attentional bias in the processing of alcohol-related words on alcoholic subjects, using the Stroop colour and word t est, the results indicate the alcoholics respond slowly on all categories, more so on alcohol-related words compared to the control group, and both groups responded slowly to colour interfering words than neutral words, the findings suggests that the alcoholic subjects allocated their attention to alcohol-related words, therefore allowing their cognitive processes take over making it impossible to ignore the alcohol-related words. MethodParticipantsThe participants were recruited the students at London southwestward Bank University. There will be 170 participants in total, 34 males (17-moderate and 14-light drinkers) and 139 females (68 moderate and 71-light drinkers), and all the participants were adults aged 18years plus. ApparatusAll participants were asked to eject the tasks on a computer (PC), and the same apparatus was used to store data, and later analyse the data collected.DesignThe Stroop task method is used and the bipartisan analysis of variance test will be used to analyse data (2 X 2 Mixed subject jut out). There are two independent variables i) Group (light vs. moderate alcohol drinkers) ii) playscript Type (neutral vs. alcohol-related words), and the dependent variable is the reaction time to identifying the colour the word is presented in. In order to verify differences that may occur, the between group and within group will be looked at in more depth. ProcedureIn this study, the pursuance was explained. Each participant was asked to follow the instructions provided on the screen. Labels were placed on the push buttons on the keyboard for separately subject to make their responses. There are two set type of words (alcohol-related words and neutral words). The participants were required to complete a serious of trials in responding to the colour of the ink that the word is written in (BLUE, RED, YELLOW, and GREEN) and (VODKIA, J.DANIELS, GIN, and BEER) rather than word. Part of the instruction was that they must complete all(prenomi nal) trail as quickly and accurately as possible, as their reaction time would be recordedResultsThe results of the 2 x 2 ANOVA was used to analyse the data. The effects of word type (alcohol-related words and neutral words) f = (1,168) 140.16, p = (moderate drinkers and light drinkers) f = (1,168) 26.68, p = . Neutral WordAlcohol Word important Effect of Drinking Type wakeful840.00 mean score (34.28) sd870.52 mean score (28.51) sd855.26 mean score (31.66) sd gibe 849.91 mean score (28.86) sd892.67 mean score (21.26) sd871.29 mean score (24.73) sdMain Effect of Word Type 845.01 mean score (31.95) sd881.73 mean score (27.39) sdDiscussionFor this study the hypotheses do support, in other words significance was found. The literature of the anterior studies using the Stroop paradigm with alcohol-related stimuli has a spot of implicit in(p) methodological problems. According to Sharma, Albery, and Cook (2001) the first problem identified is that the multitude of diametrical varia bles that could potentially be manipulated giving a totally different set of results. It therefore becomes apparent that one necessarily to be very clear on exactly what the variables are and what exactly the researcher wants to achieve. another(prenominal) problem identified is that of the actual format administered. Again, many issues may spring up regarding the way in which the test is formatted. If the format is permuted, will the result change along with it? As more development is completed in this playing field of study on alcohol addiction, the researcher no doubt will see that, the variables and the modes of administration discussed above will set about a enormous effect on the study. For example, one set of results could construct stronger effects than others, and that the other probable central variables make no difference at all to the outcome. The researcher should also take into account that however, a task is administered to the participants is determine to hav e both advantages and disadvantages, and can be improved upon. This does not mean that one way is better than the other. It just means that the researcher needs to be aware of this and choose a methodology that best kit and boodle for them. Choosing the correct methodology in any study therefore can be just as important as the actual study itself. What becomes apparent is that there is no particular way of look ating out a study. Either way studies will carry certain advantages and disadvantages. One particular study related to our discussion was the single-word presentation of the Stroop stimuli. In this case, the stimuli were given in billhook format. One card had all the needed stimuli for alcohol -related words while the other had neutral words. The time taken by each subject to colour name the words on the first card compared to the second was recorded. In other words, recorded reaction time. This format, although used on many studies, comes with its limitations. Evidence o btained concludes that it is difficult to accurately measure the response time by the individuals and that the process evolved is very time consuming and involves a upsurge of calculations. In other words this type of format may be seen as macrocosm time consuming and tedious for the researcher to carry out. Its not all bad however, the card format can have an advantage in that it produces stronger interference effects (e.g. McNally, Amir and Lipke, 1996 Williams et al., 1996), presumably because it provides a semantic network of words in a given sept (Sharma, et al 2001). In addition, the individuals words recorded in terms of its reaction time are not used with any presentation mode, as each participants reaction times to each category of stimuli are averaged prior to statistical analysis. Other objections to the use of card presented stimuli were that the total time careful included both correct and incorrect responses. Previous research shows that the bar of trials where er rors occurred is in fact rare and equivalent for different categories of stimuli. advancemore, studies by Stetter et al also seem to agree. His study shows that card format stimuli does not allow for the measurement of time-cause of alcohol attentional bias. For instance, with these card presentations one would not shaft if the strongest bias occurred for alcohol words presented earlier and then the bias attenuated. An prove to rectify this issue was to assess participants habituation to the stimuli across time. This was achieved by find how reaction times to the alcohol and neutral stimuli changed during the course of the experiment. In relation to Johnsen et al studies, it was criticized in many aspects such as, the word types not beingness matched on the frequency. Additionally being assured in using two words alcohol-related words, for example liquor store red wine. (Sharma, et al 2001).However, Johnsen et al stated clearly that since the studies were carried out in Norway, the words were obviously translated in Norwegian vinmonopol = liquor store, and rodvin = red wine, and as you can see, when translated its single words. Further criticisms were put forward to why the participants were asked to press the key response button and call out the name of the colour. Sharma et al study contained a number of problems. Firstly, the neutral words were long to a given category (environmental features), which affects the reaction times. Secondly, the number of neutral words being associated closely to the four ink colours (e.g. blue, red, brown, green), also how these colours were closely linked to the words (e.g. blue sky, green grass). Also concerns were put forward on the manner of design (e.g. low, middle, and high) drinking groups. Lastly, problems occurred with the problem drinkers, who may have resolved their alcohol problems being placed amongst the heavier drinkers. To conclude, there are two opposing thoughts with the methodology used one that the Stroop paradigm is highly objective, valid and reliable, and the other that some are not worthy of inclusion. Many researchers are continuing to offer abstractive explanations to account for the Stroop paradigm, and still trying to make sense on how it could be adapted to be more advanced in being improved.References Algom, D., Chajut, E., Lev, S. (2004). JourA discerning Look at the Emotional Stroop Phenomenon A Generic Slowdown, Not a Stroop Effect. nal of Experimental psychology General. 133 (3), 323-338. Duka, T., Townshend, J. M. (2004). The priming effect of alcohol pre-load on attentional bias to alcohol-related stimuli. Psychopharmacology. 176 (3), 353. Johnsen, B. H., Laberg, J. C., Cox, W. M., Vaksdal, A. (1994). Alcoholic Subjects Attentional Bias in the Processing of Alcohol-Related Words. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors Journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors. 8 (2), 111. Sharma, D., Albery, I., Cook, C. (2001). selective attentional bias to alcohol related stimuli in problem drinkers and non-problem drinkers. Addiction. 96 (2), 285-295. Sharma, D., Albery, I.P., Cook, C. (2001) .Selective attentional bias to alcohol- related stimuli in problem drinkers and non-problem drinkers, Addiction, 96, 1261-1265. Stetter F, Ackermann K, Scherer E, Schmid H, Straube ER, Mann K. (1994). Distraction resulting from disease related words in alcohol-dependent inpatients a controlled dichotic listening study. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. 244 (4), 223-5. Stetter F, Ackermann K, Bizer A, Straube ER, Mann K. (1995). Effects of disease-related cues in alcoholic inpatients results of a controlled Alcohol Stroop study. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research. 19 (3), 593-9. Townshend, J. M., Duka, T. (2001). Attentional bias associated with alcohol cues differences between heavy and occasional social drinkers. Psychopharmacology. 157 (1), 67.