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

Ben C. Jones, Barry T. Jones, Laura Blundell, Gillian Bruce

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

39 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Rationale. Understanding the cognitions underpinning substance use has stalled using the Stroop paradigm.

Objective. To employ a novel version of the flicker paradigm for induced change blindness to independently compare information processing biases in social users of alcohol and cannabis.

Method. Alcohol and cannabis experiments were independently run. In both, participants were asked to view successively and repeatedly on a monitor two versions of a visual scene (an original and a slightly changed version) until the change was detected. In fact, in both experiments two simultaneous changes competed for detection: a substance-neutral and a substance-related change.

Results. In both the alcohol and the cannabis experiments, participants detecting the substance-related change reported higher levels of use than those detecting the substance-neutral change.

Conclusion. A substance-related processing bias was independently revealed for both substances. The utility of the flicker paradigm for substance use research is demonstrated as sensitive and quick to administer (taking only 1 min).

Alcohol Cannabis Attentional bias Information processing bias Flicker paradigm Induced change blindness
Electronic Publication
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)93-96
Number of pages4
JournalPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
Volume165
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2002
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Alcohol
  • Cannabis
  • Attentional bias
  • Information processing bias
  • Flicker paradigm
  • Induced change blindness

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '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'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this