Effect of Smoking-Related Visual and Auditory Stimuli on Attention Bias in Young People Who Smoke

Yıl 2020, , 159 - 171, 31.12.2020

Ceren Özerbil , Gün Pakyürek

https://doi.org/10.31461/ybpd.836020

Öz

Attentional bias is the tendency to prioritize the process of detecting and processing certain stimuli that are crucial to the organism. It is known that people who smoke develop a bias towards smoking-related cues, and these cues are effective in cases of relapse and craving. For this reason, the aim of the study is to examine the attention processes of young people who smoke and non-smoke and whether a potential attention bias may exist. In this context, data was collected from 70 university students between the ages of 18 and 25 who made up the sample of the study using various tools. The responses of the participants, the number of correct responses and reaction times for correct response, 2 (Group: Smokers and Non-smokers) x 2 (Stimulus Relationship Status: Unrelated to Smoking, Related to Smoking) x 2 (Stimulus Type: Visual, Auditory) were analyzed by two-factor repeated measures ANOVA. According to the results, smokers responded more accurately when faced with smoking-related stimuli than non-smokers, and their response time was shorter. However, when they faced with stimuli that unrelated to smoking, on the contrary, they gave fewer correct responses than non-smokers and their response time was longer.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Attention, Attentional Bias, Smoking, Visual-Auditory-Stimuli

Sigara Kullanan Gençlerde Sigara ile İlişkili Görsel ve İşitsel Uyaranların Dikkat Yanlılığı Üzerindeki Etkisi

Öz

Dikkat yanlılığı, organizma için önemli olan belirli uyarıcıların, saptanması ve işlenmesi sürecine öncelik verilmesi eğilimidir. Sigara kullanan kişilerin, sigara ile ilişkili ipuçlarına yönelik bir yanlılık geliştirdiği, nüksetme ve aşerme durumlarında bu ipuçlarının etkili olduğu bilinmektedir. Bu sebeple çalışmanın amacı, sigara kullanan ve sigara kullanmayan gençlerin dikkat süreçlerinin ve potansiyel bir dikkat yanlılığının var olup olmayacağının incelenmesidir. Bu bağlamda çalışmanın örneklemini oluşturan 18-25 yaş arasındaki 70 üniversite öğrencisinden çeşitli araçlar kullanılarak veri toplanmıştır. Katılımcıların yanıtları, doğru tepki sayısı ve doğru yanıtlara ilişkin tepki süreleri, 2 (Grup: Sigara Kullanan ve Sigara Kullanmayan) x 2 (Uyaranın İlişki Durumu: Sigara ile İlişkili, Sigara ile İlişkisiz) x 2 (Uyaranın Türü: Görsel, İşitsel) son iki faktörde tekrar ölçümlü ANOVA ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgulara göre sigara kullananlar, sigara kullanmayanlara göre sigara ile ilişkili uyaranlar ile karşılaştığında daha fazla sayıda doğru yanıt vermiş ve tepki süreleri daha kısa olmuştur. Ancak sigara ile ilişkisiz uyaranlar ile karşılaştığında tam tersi şekilde sigara kullanmayanlara göre daha az sayıda doğru yanıt vermiş ve tepki süreleri daha uzun olmuştur. Bulgular, dikkat yanlılığı, modalite ve ilgili alanyazına göre tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Dikkat, Dikkat yanlılığı, Sigara Kullanımı, Görsel-işitsel uyaranlar

Kaynakça

• Attwood, A. S., O'Sullivan, H., Leonards, U., Mackintosh, B., & Munafò, M. R. (2008). Attentional bias training and cue reactivity in cigarette smokers. Addiction, 103(11), 1875-1882.
• Benowitz, N. L. (1992). Cigarette smoking and nicotine addiction. The medical clinics of north America, 76(2), 415-437.
• Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (2003). Parsing reward. Trends in neurosciences, 26(9), 507-513.
• Besson, M., & Forget, B. (2016). Cognitive dysfunction, affective states, and vulnerability to nicotine addiction: A multifactorial perspective. Frontiers in psychiatry, 7, 160.
• Bozkurt, N., & Bozkurt, A. İ. (2016). Nikotin bağımlılığını belirlemede Fagerström Nikotin Bağımlılık Testinin (FBNT) değerlendirilmesi ve nikotin bağımlılığı için yeni bir test oluşturulması. Pamukkale Tıp Dergisi, (1), 45-51.
• Bradley, B. P., Mogg, K., Wright, T., & Field, M. (2003). Attentional bias in drug dependence: vigilance for cigarette-related cues in smokers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 17(1), 66.
• Broadbent, D. E. (2013). Perception and communication. Elsevier.
• Chanon, V. W., Sours, C. R., & Boettiger, C. A. (2010). Attentional bias toward cigarette cues in active smokers. Psychopharmacology, 212(3), 309-320.
• Davidson, R. J., & Hugdahl, K. (1996). Brain asymmetry. Mit Press.
• Dewitte, M., De Houwer, J., Koster, E. H., & Buysse, A. (2007). What's in a name? Attachment-related attentional bias. Emotion, 7(3), 535.
• Durazzo, T. C., Meyerhoff, D. J., & Nixon, S. J. (2012). A comprehensive assessment of neurocognition in middle-aged chronic cigarette smokers. Drug and alcohol dependence, 122(1-2), 105-111.
• Ehrman, R. N., Robbins, S. J., Bromwell, M. A., Lankford, M. E., Monterosso, J. R., & O'Brien, C. P. (2002). Comparing attentional bias to smoking cues in current smokers, former smokers, and non-smokers using a dot-probe task. Drug and alcohol dependence, 67(2), 185-191.
• Eysenck, M. W. (2001). Principles of cognitive psychology. Psychology Press.
• Field, M., Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2004). Eye movements to smoking-related cues: effects of nicotine deprivation. Psychopharmacology, 173(1-2), 116-123.
• Fitzpatrick, C. L. (2019). Attentional Bias in Non-Smokers Who Use an Electronic Cigarette. (Yüksek lisans tezi). University of Calgary/ Arts.
• Franken, I. H. (2003). Drug craving and addiction: integrating psychological and neuropsychopharmacological approaches. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 27(4), 563-579.
• Geffen, G., & Caudrey, D. (1981). Reliability and validity of the dichotic monitoring test for language laterality. Neuropsychologia, 19(3), 413-423.
• Heishman, S. J., Kleykamp, B. A., & Singleton, E. G. (2010). Meta-analysis of the acute effects of nicotine and smoking on human performance. Psychopharmacology, 210(4), 453-469.
• Johnston, J. C., McCann, R. S., & Remington, R. W. (1995). Chronometric evidence for two types of attention. Psychological Science, 6(6), 365-369.
• Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I. Q. (1996). Attention, Imagery and Consciosness. Fundamental of Human Neuropsychology, WH Freeman, New York, 465-476.
• Koranyi, N., & Rothermund, K. (2012). When the grass on the other side of the fence doesn't matter: Reciprocal romantic interest neutralizes attentional bias towards attractive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 186-191.
• Kwak, S. M., Na, D. L., Kim, G., Kim, G. S., & Lee, J. H. (2006). Use of eye movement to measure smokers' attentional bias to smoking-related cues. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(2), 299-304.
• McCarthy, D. E., Gloria, R., & Curtin, J. J. (2009). Attention bias in nicotine withdrawal and under stress. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23(1), 77.
• MacLean, R. R., Sofuoglu, M., Brede, E., Robinson, C., & Waters, A. J. (2018). Attentional bias in opioid users: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug and alcohol dependence, 191, 270-278.
• MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., & Tata, P. (1986). Attentional bias in emotional disorders. Journal of abnormal psychology, 95(1), 15.
• Masiero, M., Lucchiari, C., Maisonneuve, P., Pravettoni, G., Veronesi, G., & Mazzocco, K. (2019). The attentional bias in current and former smokers. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience.
• Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., & Williams, R. (1995). Attentional bias in anxiety and depression: The role of awareness. British journal of clinical psychology, 34(1), 17-36.
• Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2002). Selective processing of smoking-related cues in smokers: manipulation of deprivation level and comparison of three measures of processing bias. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 16(4), 385-392.
• Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Field, M., & De Houwer, J. (2003). Eye movements to smoking‐related pictures in smokers: relationship between attentional biases and implicit and explicit measures of stimulus valence. Addiction, 98(6), 825-836.
• Peuker, A. C., & Bizarro, L. (2014). Attentional avoidance of smoking cues in former smokers. Journal of substance abuse treatment, 46(2), 183-188.
• Renwick, B., Campbell, I. C., & Schmidt, U. (2013). Attention bias modification: A new approach to the treatment of eating disorders?. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 46(5), 496-500.
• Schmukle, S. C. (2005). Unreliability of the dot probe task. European Journal of Personality: Published for the European Association of Personality Psychology, 19(7), 595-605.
• Smith, W. F. (1933). The relative quickness of visual and auditory perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16(2), 239.
• Staugaard, S. R. (2009). Reliability of two versions of the dot-probe task using photographic faces. Psychology Science Quarterly, 51(3), 339-350.
• Tiffany, S. T. (1990). A cognitive model of drug urges and drug-use behavior: role of automatic and nonautomatic processes. Psychological review, 97(2), 147.
• Waisman Campos, M., Serebrisky, D., & Mauricio Castaldelli-Maia, J. (2016). Smoking and cognition. Current drug abuse reviews, 9(2), 76-79.