Wiers - Retraining Automatic Action Tendencies Flashcards
What type of bias does Wiers target in their paper?
Approach bias (for AUD)
How is the approach-avoidance task used in Wiers?
Patients (in the exp. condition) were explicitly or implicitly trained to make avoidance movements (pushing joystick) in response to alcohol pictures
followed by inpatient treatment
General results of Wiers? (2)
- In exp. conditions, patients’ approach bias changed into an avoidance bias for alcohol
- Exp. conditions showed better treatment outcomes a year later
To what did the results/effects of Wiers generalize? (2)
- Untrained pictures
- Implicit Association Test
What perspective/assumption is the foundation of CBM?
Wiers
Imbalance between strong impulsive (associative) reactions to drug related cues + weak reflective (controlled) processes = Susceptibility to sensitized cues triggering action tendencies leading to addictive behaviour
In prior research of Wiers, heavy drinkers showed an approach bias for alcohol: What was an important factor that moderated this effect?
The effect was genetically moderated
carriers of OPRM1 G-allele
How did the approach/avoidance bias change for the control group in Wiers?
Control group changes from small approach bias to no bias
For the implicit association test in Wiers, what were the results for both conditions?
- Exp. = From strong alcohol-approach associations > strong alcohol-avoidance associations
- Control = no change in association (thus still strong approach)
Results regarding subjective craving (both for alcohol and soft drinks) in Wiers?
- Alcohol cravings didn’t really change
- Soft drink craving increased (moreso in the exp. condition)
note that the paper reports a decrease of craving in exp. condition being significant, but the effect size is small + p = 0.047
What was the clinical outcome in Wiers (i.e., relapse rates between te conditions)?
There was no significant difference (59% in control vs. 46% in experimental, p = 0.057)
- Note that the paper considers this a “marginally significant difference” (likely because it is close to the 0.05 threshold and they still find the result interesting enough to persue)
Again, this is a somewhat questionable termenology of the authors, especially considering what was said in the discussion (“this minimal intervention appeared to
improve treatment outcome a year later”)
What were the results of AAT & IAT as mediators for treatment outcome in Wiers?
Not statistically signficant (> .5), thus no confirmation of mediation of condition on treatment outcome by changes in cognitive veriables
