Cited by 47Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral Health and InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

To Drink or Not to Drink: The Role of Automatic and Controlled Cognitive Processes in the Etiology of Alcohol-Related Problems

Open access
Wiers, Reinout W., Houben, Katrijn, Smulders, Fren T. Y., Conrod, Patricia J., Jones, Barry T.·2006·Handbook of Implicit Cognition and Addiction

Abstract

Explicit measures revealed three basic types of alcohol-related cognitions: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement (relief), and negative expectancies. Using the same typology, we review studies assessing alcohol-related cognitions with implicit measures. Most research focused on automatic appetitive responses (positive reinforcement). The common model is that an automatic appetitive response tendency can be inhibited by more controlled inhibitory processes. In addition, there is scattered evidence indicating a role for automatic aversive responses to alcohol. Negative reinforcement appears to be more difficult to assess with tests involving single associations. It is argued that the reason is that for negative reinforcement two associations are needed (negative affect alcohol positive affect). Findings are integrated into a model from which suggestions for interventions are given.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4135/9781412976237.n22

Cites

122 of 122 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wiers, R. W., Houben, K., Smulders, F. T. Y., Conrod, P. J., & Jones, B. T.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
Venue
Handbook of Implicit Cognition and Addiction
Published
2006
Pages
339-362
OpenAlex
W2122141830
Cited by
47
References
122
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
30.69
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Sage eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
alcohol-related cognitions, automatic cognitive processes, positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, negative expectations, implicit measures, aversive responses, inhibitory control, alcoholism, alcohol interventions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review