Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Drug expectancy is necessary for stimulus control of human attention, instrumental drug-seeking behaviour and subjective pleasure

  • Original Investigation
  • Published:
Psychopharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

It has been suggested that drug-paired stimuli (S+) control addictive behaviour by eliciting an explicit mental representation or expectation of drug availability.

Aims

The aim of the present study was to test this hypothesis by determining whether the behavioural control exerted by a tobacco-paired S+ in human smokers would depend upon the S+ eliciting an explicit expectation of tobacco.

Design

In each trial, human smokers (n=16) were presented with stimuli for which attention was measured with an eyetracker. Participants then reported their cigarette reward expectancy before performing, or not, an instrumental tobacco-seeking response that was rewarded with cigarette gains if the S+ had been presented or punished with cigarette losses if the S− had been presented. Following training, participants rated the pleasantness of stimuli.

Results

The S+ only brought about conditioned behaviour in an aware group (those who expected the cigarette reward outcome when presented with the S+). This aware group allocated attention to the S+, performed the instrumental tobacco-seeking response selectively in the presence of the S+ and rated the S+ as pleasant. No conditioned behaviour was seen in the unaware group (those who did not expect the cigarette reward outcome in the presence of the S+).

Conclusions

Drug-paired stimuli control selective attention, instrumental drug-seeking behaviour and positive emotional state by eliciting an explicit expectation of drug availability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams CD, Dickinson A (1981) Instrumental responding following reinforcer devaluation. Q J Exp Psychol 33B:109–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolles RC (1972) Reinforcement, expectancy and learning. Psychol Rev 79:394–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon TH, Herzog TA, Irvin JE, Gwaltney CJ (2004) Cognitive and social learning models of drug dependence: implications for the assessment of tobacco dependence in adolescents. Addiction 99:51–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carter BL, Tiffany ST (2001) The cue–availability paradigm: the effects of cigarette availability on cue reactivity in smokers. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 9:183–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark RE, Manns JR, Squire LR (2001) Trace and delay eyeblink conditioning: contrasting phenomena of declarative and nondeclarative memory. Psychol Sci 12:304–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins L, Pearce JM (1985) Predictive accuracy and the effects of partial reinforcement on serial autoshaping. J Exp Psychol 11:548–564

    Google Scholar 

  • Colwill RM, Rescorla RA (1988) Associations between the discriminative stimulus and the reinforcer in instrumental learning. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 14:155–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson ME, Grings WW (1968) Comparison of classical conditioning and relational learning. J Exp Psychol 76:227–231

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dayan P, Kakade S, Montague PR (2000) Learning and selective attention. Nat Neurosci 3(Suppl):1218–1223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson A (1997) Bolles’s psychological syllogism. In: Bouton M, Fanselow M (eds) Learning, motivation and cognition. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 345–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson A (2001) The 28th Bartlett memorial lecture. Causal learning: an associative analysis. Q J Exp Psychol B 54:3–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson A, Wood N, Smith JW (2002) Alcohol seeking by rats: action or habit? Q J Exp Psychol B 55:331–348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dols M, Willems B, van den Hout M, Bittoun R (2000) Smokers can learn to influence their urge to smoke. Addict Behav 25:103–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Droungas A, Ehrman R, Childress A, O’Brien C (1995) Effects of smoking cues and cigarette availability on craving and smoking behavior. Addict Behav 20:657–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Field M, Duka T (2001) Smoking expectancy mediates the conditioned responses to arbitrary smoking cues. Behav Pharmacol 12:183–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Field M, Mogg K, Bradley BP (2004) Eye movements to smoking-related cues: effects of nicotine deprivation. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 173:116–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geier A, Mucha RF, Pauli P (2000) Appetitive nature of drug cues confirmed with physiological measures in a model using pictures of smoking. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 150:283–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grings WW, Schell AM, Carey CA (1973) Verbal control of an autonomic response in a cue reversal situation. J Exp Psychol 99:215–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth L, Duka T (2005) Human nicotine conditioning requires explicit contingency knowledge: is addictive behaviour cognitively mediated? Psychopharmacology (Berl):1–14 DOI 10.1007/s00213-005-0150-0

  • Hogarth L, Dickinson A, Duka T (2003) Discriminative stimuli that control instrumental tobacco-seeking by human smokers also command selective attention. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 168:435–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth L, Dickinson A, Duka T (2005) Explicit knowledge of stimulus–outcome contingencies and stimulus control of selective attention and instrumental action in human smoking behaviour. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 177:428–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland PC (2004) Relations between Pavlovian-instrumental transfer and reinforcer devaluation. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 30:104–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hutcheson DM, Everitt BJ, Robbins TW, Dickinson A (2001) The role of withdrawal in heroin addiction: enhances reward or promotes avoidance? Nat Neurosci 4:943–947

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Juliano LM, Brandon TH (1998) Reactivity to instructed smoking availability and environmental cues: evidence with urge and reaction time. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 6:45–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye H, Pearce JM (1984) The strength of the orienting response during Pavlovian conditioning. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 10:90–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lazev A, Herzog T, Brandon T (1999) Classical conditioning of environmental cues to cigarette smoking. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 7:56–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman DA, Connell GL, Moos HF (1998a) Reinforcement without awareness: II. Word class. Q J Exp Psychol B 51:317–335

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman DA, Sunnucks WL, Kirk JD (1998b) Reinforcement without awareness: I. Voice level. Q J Exp Psychol B 51:301–316

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lovibond PF (2003) Causal beliefs and conditioned responses: retrospective revaluation induced by experience and by instruction. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 29:97–106

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lovibond PF (2004) Cognitive processes in extinction. Learn Mem 11:495–500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lovibond PF, Shanks DR (2002) The role of awareness in Pavlovian conditioning: empirical evidence and theoretical implications. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 28:3–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lovibond PF, Davis NR, O’Flaherty AS (2000) Protection from extinction in human fear conditioning. Behav Res Ther 38:967–983

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mackintosh NJ (1974) The psychology of animal learning. Academic, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles FJ, Everitt BJ, Dickinson A (2003) Oral cocaine seeking by rats: action or habit? Behav Neurosci 117:927–938

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mogg K, Bradley BP, 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 98:825–836

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olmstead MC, Lafond MV, Everitt BJ, Dickinson A (2001) Cocaine-seeking by rats is a goal directed action. Behav Neurosci 115:394–402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Orain-Pelissolo S, Grillon C, Perez-Diaz F, Jouvent R (2004) Lack of startle modulation by smoking cues in smokers. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 173:160–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palfai TP (2002) Positive outcome expectancies and smoking behaviour: the role of expectancy accessibility. Cogn Ther Res 26:317–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce JM, Hall G (1980) A model for Pavlovian learning: variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not unconditioned stimuli. Psychol Rev 87:532–552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perruchet P (1985) A pitfall for the expectancy theory of human eyelid conditioning. Pavlov J Biol Sci 20:163–170

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson TE, Berridge KC (1993) The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of drug addiction. Brain Res Rev 18:247–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sayette MA, Wertz JM, Martin CS, Cohn JF, Perrott MA, Hobel J (2003) Effects of smoking opportunity on cue-elicited urge: a facial coding analysis. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 11:218–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Seligman MEP, Johnston JC (1973) A cognitive theory of avoidance learning. In: McGuigan FJ, Lumsden DB (eds) Contemporary approaches to conditioning and learning. V. H. Winston, Washington, DC, pp 69–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel S (1989) Pharmacological conditioning and drug effects. In: Goudie A, Emmett-Oglesby M (eds) Psychoactive drugs. Tolerance and sensitisation. Humana, Clifton, pp 115–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith CN, Clark RE, Manns JR, Squire LR (2005) Acquisition of differential delay eyeblink classical conditioning is independent of awareness. Behav Neurosci 119:78–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon RL, Corbit JD (1974) An opponent–process theory of motivation: I. Temporal dynamics of affect. Psychol Rev 81:119–145

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart J, de Wit H, Eikelboom R (1984) Role of conditioned and unconditioned drug effects in self-administration of opiates and stimulants. Psychol Rev 63:251–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiffany ST (1995) Potential functions of classical conditioning in drug addiction. In: Drummond DC, Tiffany ST, Glautier S, Remington B (eds) Addictive behaviour: cue exposure theory and practice. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisman RG, Litner JS (1972) The role of Pavlovian events in avoidance training. In: Boakes RA, Halliday MS (eds) Inhibition and learning. Academic, London, pp 253–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertz JM, Sayette MA (2001a) Effects of smoking opportunity on attentional bias in smokers. Psychol Addict Behav 15:268–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wertz JM, Sayette MA (2001b) A review of the effects of perceived drug use opportunity of self-reported urge. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 9:3–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson SJ, Sayette MA, Fiez JA (2004) Prefrontal responses to drug cues: a neurocognitive analysis. Nat Neurosci 7:211–214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yu AJ, Dayan P (2005) Uncertainty, neuromodulation, and attention. Neuron 46:681–692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by a BBSRC research grant #BBS/B/09384/01.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QG, UK

    Lee Hogarth, Sam B. Hutton, Nieke Elbers & Theodora Duka

  2. Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK

    Anthony Dickinson

Authors
  1. Lee Hogarth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anthony Dickinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sam B. Hutton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nieke Elbers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Theodora Duka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theodora Duka.

Additional information

The study was carried out in the Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QG, UK.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hogarth, L., Dickinson, A., Hutton, S.B. et al. Drug expectancy is necessary for stimulus control of human attention, instrumental drug-seeking behaviour and subjective pleasure. Psychopharmacology 185, 495–504 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-005-0287-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-005-0287-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation