Resisting temptation: Decreasing alcohol-related affect and drinking behavior by training response inhibition
Introduction
Contemporary dual-process theories propose that drinking behavior is guided by two distinct cognitive systems: One system is associative and operates through fast automatic processes, while the other system is propositional and operates through slower controlled processes (Bechara et al., 2006, Deutsch and Strack, 2006, Wiers et al., 2007). According to these theories, drinking behavior is instigated by automatic processes, which generate an automatic impulse to drink alcohol, unless one is able to engage in effortful controlled processing to regulate automatic impulses. In line with these models, stronger automatic associations between alcohol and positive affect predict increased levels of alcohol consumption (Houben and Wiers, 2007a, Houben and Wiers, 2007b, Houben and Wiers, 2008, Jajodia and Earleywine, 2003, McCarthy and Thompsen, 2006), especially when cognitive control abilities, such as response inhibition and working memory, are low (Houben and Wiers, 2009, Thush et al., 2008).
The clinical implication of these insights is that interventions might benefit from procedures that decrease automatic processes which lead to excessive alcohol use. Recent research indeed suggests that automatic alcohol-related affective processes are amenable to change and that decreasing these automatic impulses reduces alcohol intake (Houben et al., 2010). Alternatively, interventions might also aim to strengthen cognitive control abilities such as response inhibition and working memory, which are important moderators of the predictive relationship between automatic impulses and drinking behavior. If cognitive control can be enhanced, automatic impulses could be regulated more easily and control over drinking behavior could be increased. Consistent with this perspective, Jones et al. (2011) demonstrated decreased alcohol intake following a manipulation that primed inhibitory control compared to a manipulation that primed impulsive behavior. Hence, these findings indicate that increasing inhibitory control may indeed be a valuable technique to decrease alcohol use. However, Jones et al. (2011) did not include a control condition or pretest measures in their study, which makes it impossible to determine whether both the impulsivity and the inhibition manipulation effectively influenced alcohol consumption relative to baseline. Moreover, Jones et al. (2011) merely induced a temporary state of impulsivity or inhibition. While priming such a mental state is interesting to show causality, it is highly unlikely that temporarily priming an inhibitory mental state induces long-term effects on both inhibitory control and drinking behavior.
The current study further explores this issue by examining whether increasing or decreasing inhibitory control respectively decreases or increases alcohol consumption relative to baseline. Moreover, the present study tested a behavioral training of inhibition that consistently paired certain stimuli with a stopping response in an adapted version of a go/no-go task. Recent research confirms that response inhibition can be trained by consistently mapping stimuli onto a stopping response (no-go) as this effectively strengthens the ability to inhibit responses to those stimuli (Verbruggen and Logan, 2008). Moreover, the effect of such a behavioral training should be even more potent when rewarding stimuli, such as alcohol cues, are mapped onto a stopping response. Because positive stimuli automatically elicit approach tendencies due to their reward value, pairing such stimuli with situational cues signaling that approach is unwanted (no-go signal) should result in response conflict (Veling and Aarts, in press, Veling et al., 2008). As a result, pairing such rewarding stimuli with stopping responses causes a devaluation of those stimuli (Veling et al., 2008) and increases motor inhibition for those stimuli (Veling and Aarts, in press) in an effort to resolve the response conflict. Importantly, the consistent mapping of stimuli onto stopping is not limited to short-term effects on behavior and may even cause automatic inhibition to develop (Verbruggen and Logan, 2008).
Hence, recent research shows that training response inhibition changes both evaluations of stimuli that were associated with a stopping response, and increases inhibitory control over these stimuli. In this study, we used a similar go/no-go task that consistently paired alcohol-related cues with a stopping response to strengthen the ability to inhibit responses to alcohol-related stimuli in heavy drinking college students. Especially for heavy drinkers, alcohol-related stimuli automatically elicit positive affect (Houben and Wiers, 2007a, Houben and Wiers, 2007b, Houben and Wiers, 2008, Jajodia and Earleywine, 2003, McCarthy and Thompsen, 2006), and approach tendencies (Field et al., 2008, Palfai and Ostafin, 2003, Wiers et al., 2009). Therefore, it was expected that repeatedly pairing alcohol-related stimuli with a stopping response would decrease automatic affect that is elicited by alcohol-related stimuli as well as decrease alcohol intake.
Section snippets
Participants
Participants were 52 heavy drinking students of Maastricht University (33 female students; mean age = 22.37, SD = 4.92), who regularly consumed beer. Participants were recruited via advertisements and flyers. The advertisements stated that participants were needed for research on attitudes and preferences for beer. Participants were screened for alcohol use and were only included if they consumed an average of 12 (males) or 10 (females) alcoholic consumptions or more per week and if beer was their
Results
None of the participants guessed the goal of the study or the purpose of the go/no-go manipulation. At baseline, there was no significant difference between conditions in age (F = 2.80) or AUDIT scores (F < 1). With respect to the go/no-go manipulation, results showed relatively low error percentages on both beer and water trials, in the beer/go condition (M = .07, SD = .19, and M = .01, SD = .02, respectively) and in the beer/no-go condition (M = .01, SD = .02, and M = .03, SD = .03, respectively).
Discussion
In this study, we examined whether training response inhibition by consistently pairing alcohol-related stimuli with a stopping response would decrease alcohol intake. Further, it was tested whether this pairing of alcohol with a stopping response would decrease the positive affect that is automatically associated with alcohol-related stimuli. As expected, participants who repeatedly inhibited responding to alcohol cues showed both increased negative automatic associations with alcohol-related
Role of funding source
Funding for this study was provided by a grant from ERAB: The European Foundation for Alcohol Research awarded to the first author and a grant from the Technology Foundation STW to the third author; the sponsors had no further role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.
Contributors
Katrijn Houben designed the study, performed the statistical analysis, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to and have approved the final manuscript.
Conflict of interest
All other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
References (26)
- et al.
Rapid approach responses to alcohol cues in heavy drinkers
J. Behav. Ther. Exp. Psychiatry
(2008) - et al.
Personalizing the alcohol-IAT with individualized stimuli: relationship with drinking behavior and drinking-related problems
Addict. Behav.
(2007) - et al.
Implicitly positive about alcohol? Implicit positive associations predict drinking behavior
Addict. Behav.
(2008) - et al.
The effects of priming restrained versus disinhibited behaviour on alcohol-seeking in social drinkers
Drug Alcohol Depend.
(2011) - et al.
Alcohol-related motivational tendencies in hazardous drinkers: assessing implicit response tendencies using the modified-IAT
Behav. Res. Ther.
(2003) - et al.
Interactions between implicit and explicit cognition and working memory capacity in the prediction of alcohol use in at-risk adolescents
Drug Alcohol Depend.
(2008) - et al.
When approach motivation and behavioral inhibition collide: behavior regulation through stimulus devaluation
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
(2008) - et al.
Automatic and controlled processes and the development of addictive behaviors in adolescents: a review and a model
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
(2007) - et al.
Loss of willpower: abnormal neural mechanisms of impulse control and decision making in addiction
- et al.
Reflective and impulsive determinants of addictive behavior
Drug addiction and its underlying neurobiological basis: neuroimaging evidence for the involvement of the frontal cortex
Am. J. Psychiatry
Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Cited by (281)
Happy Hour: The association between trait hedonic capacity and motivation to drink alcohol
2024, Addictive Behaviors ReportsNeural correlates of impulsivity in bipolar disorder: A systematic review and clinical implications
2023, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral ReviewsResponse Inhibition and Predicting Response to Pharmacological and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Treatments for Major Depressive Disorder: A Canadian Biomarker Integration Network for Depression Study
2023, Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and NeuroimagingResponse inhibition training and measures of explicit and implicit food valuation
2022, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences