تجربی ناشی از ولع مصرف شکلات منجر به تعصب توجه در افزایش حواس پرتی اما نه در تشخیص می شود

Abstract In the present study, the causal influence of chocolate craving on attentional bias for chocolate-related information was examined by experimentally inducing chocolate craving in a sample of high trait chocolate cravers vs. low trait chocolate cravers. A sample of 35 high trait chocoholics and 33 low trait chocolate cravers were randomly assigned to either the exposure condition in which craving was manipulated or the non-exposure condition. To measure attentional bias, a pictorial version of the visual search paradigm [Smeets, E., Roefs, A., van Furth, E., & Jansen, A. (2008). Attentional bias for body and food in eating disorders: increased distraction, speeded detection, or both? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46, 229–238] was used, assessing two components: distraction and detection. It was found that experimentally induced chocolate craving led to increased distraction by chocolate pictures in the high trait chocolate cravers, in comparison to the low trait chocolate cravers. Moreover, this measure of distraction correlated strongly with self-reported craving, but only in the chocoholics and in the exposure condition. In the non-exposure condition, high trait chocolate cravers showed speeded detection of chocolate pictures relative to non-chocoholics, but this component did not correlate with self-reported craving. It is concluded that experimentally induced craving for chocolate causes a bias in, specifically the increased distraction component of attention in high trait chocolate cravers.

Results Participant characteristics Analyses of variances were conducted to check for differences in age, BMI, restraint and trait chocolate craving between the groups. Four 2 (Group: chocoholics vs. non-chocoholics) × 2 (Condition: exposure vs. non-exposure) ANOVAs with respectively age, BMI, Restraint, and trait chocolate craving as the dependent variables, revealed no significant Group × Condition interactions, all F's < 1.19, all p's > .28, no significant main effects of Condition, all F's < 2.51, all p's > .12, and no effects of group for age (chocoholics exposure condition: M = 21.17, SD = 2.01; chocoholics non-exposure condition: M = 21.06, SD = 1.52; non-chocoholics exposure condition: M = 21.41, SD = 2.85; non-chocoholics non-exposure condition: M = 21.19, SD = 1.79), BMI (chocoholics exposure condition: M = 21.93, SD = 2.72; chocoholics non-exposure condition: M = 21.58, SD = 2.83; non-chocoholics exposure condition: M = 21.79, SD = 3.52; non-chocoholics non-exposure condition: M = 19.95, SD = 2.01), and Restraint score (chocoholics exposure condition: M = 10.94, SD = 4.02; chocoholics non-exposure condition: M = 11.53, SD = 3.43; non-chocoholics exposure condition: M = 9.35, SD = 4.46; non-chocoholics non-exposure condition: M = 10.43, SD = 4.38), all F's < 1.82, all p's > .18. A significant main effect of Group was found for trait chocolate craving, F(1, 67) = 7.44, p < .05, chocoholics (chocoholics exposure condition: M = 17.12, SD = 6.97; chocoholics non-exposure condition: M = 18.35, SD = 6.43) scored significantly higher on trait chocolate craving than non-chocoholics (non-chocoholics exposure condition: M = −28.45, SD = 7.76, non-chocoholics non-exposure condition: M = −27.10, SD = 6.74. Manipulation check Two paired samples t-tests were conducted to investigate whether our manipulation was successful at increasing levels of state chocolate craving in the exposure condition. Analyses show that state chocolate craving levels at pre-measurement (M = 5.49; SD = 2.65) increased significantly after the first (M = 6.60, SD = 2.79), t(34) = 3.47, p < .01 and the second chocolate exposure (M = 6.42, SD = 2.81), t(34) = 3.23, p < .01. Furthermore, an additional paired samples t-test showed that the level of chocolate craving after the first chocolate exposure was equal to the level of chocolate craving after the second chocolate exposure, t(34) = 1.06, p = .29. It can be concluded that our chocolate craving induction was successful at increasing levels of state chocolate craving in both chocoholics and non-chocoholics. Attentional bias scores We calculated bias scores (i.e., attentional bias difference scores) for both speeded detection and increased distraction. For investigating speeded detection effects, mean response latencies of trials in which a neutral target was presented among neutral distractors was subtracted from mean response latencies of trials in which a chocolate target was presented among neutral distractors. For investigating increased distraction effects, mean response latencies of trials in which a neutral target was presented among neutral distractors was subtracted from mean response latencies of trials in which a neutral target was presented among chocolate distractors. Speeded detection. Bias scores were analyzed in a 2 (Condition: exposure vs. non-exposure) × 2 (Group: chocoholics vs. non-chocoholics) ANOVA. Consistent with our expectations, a significant Condition × Group interaction was found, F(1, 64) = 9.98, p < .01. Furthermore, a trend significant main effect of Group, F(1, 64) = 3.34, p = .07, was found. The effect of Condition was not significant, F(1, 64) = 0.86, p = .35. See Fig. 1a for means and SEs. Follow-up t-tests comparing exposure and non-exposure conditions separately for chocoholics and non-chocoholics were conducted. Chocoholics in the non-exposure condition were significantly faster at detecting a chocolate target than a neutral target in comparison to chocoholics in the exposure condition, t(33) = 2.93, p < .01. For non-chocoholics, no effect of condition was found, t(31) = 1.56, p = .129. In addition, t-tests comparing chocoholics and non-chocoholics within each condition were conducted. In the non-exposure condition, chocoholics were significantly faster at detecting chocolate targets than neutral targets in comparison to non-chocoholics, t(31) = 3.61, p < .01. No difference between chocoholics and non-chocoholics was found in the exposure condition, t(33) = 0.93, ns. (a) Mean bias scores of speeded detection (y-axis) for chocoholics and ... Fig. 1. (a) Mean bias scores of speeded detection (y-axis) for chocoholics and non-chocoholics in the exposure and non-exposure condition (x-axis). Error bars represent one standard error. (b) Mean bias scores of increased distraction (y-axis) for chocoholics and non-chocoholics in the exposure and non-exposure condition (x-axis). Error bars represent one. Figure options Taken together, chocoholics in the non-exposure condition showed speeded detection of chocolate targets, relative to chocoholics in the exposure condition and non-chocoholics in either the exposure or the non-exposure condition. Increased distraction. Bias scores were analyzed in a 2 (Condition: exposure vs. non-exposure) × 2 (Group: chocoholics vs. non-chocoholics) ANOVA. In accordance with our hypothesis, a significant Condition × Group interaction was found, F(1, 64) = 7.62, p < .01. Furthermore main effects of Condition, F(1, 64) = 4.47, p < .05, and Group, F(1, 64) = 4.44, p < .05 were found. See Fig. 1b for means and SEs. Follow-up t-tests comparing exposure and non-exposure conditions separately for chocoholics and non-chocoholics were conducted. In line with our expectations, chocoholics in the exposure condition showed significantly higher distraction bias scores in comparison to chocoholics in the non-exposure condition, t(33) = 3.44, p < .01. In the non-chocoholics group, distraction bias scores did not differ between conditions, t(31) = 0.46, ns. In addition, t-tests comparing chocoholics and non-chocoholics within each condition were conducted. Within the exposure condition, chocoholics showed significantly higher distraction bias scores than non-chocoholics, t(33) = 3.06, p < .01. Within the non-exposure condition, distraction bias scores did not differ between groups, t(31) = 0.55, ns. In conclusion, experimentally induced craving (i.e., exposure condition) caused increased distraction by chocolate targets in chocoholics, but not in non-chocoholics, as compared to a non-exposure control condition. Craving and attentional bias for candy To test whether either experimentally induced craving or trait levels of chocolate craving would also be related to an attentional bias for candy, two 2 (Condition: exposure vs. non-exposure) × 2 (Group: chocoholics vs. non-chocoholics) ANOVAs of the attentional bias scores were conducted to investigate both speeded detection and increased distraction effects. These analyses showed that all interaction and main effects were non-significant, all F's < 2.02, all p's > .16. Taken together, these analyses show that our chocolate attentional bias effects did not generalize to candy. Correlations Pearson correlations were used to examine the relationship between the attentional bias measures (i.e., speeded detection, and increased distraction) and the state chocolate craving measures. To increase power, the measure of state chocolate craving was calculated by taking the mean of the chocolate craving measurements after the first (i.e., craving 2) and the second chocolate exposure (i.e., craving 4). Increased distraction and state chocolate craving were positively correlated, r = .28, p < .05. Interestingly, this correlation was significant in the exposure condition, r = .38, p < .05, and in the chocoholics, r = .36, p < .05, but not in the non-exposure condition or in the non-chocoholics, all r's < .01, all p > .95. Speeded detection on the other hand was not correlated with state chocolate craving, r = .001, p = .99.