바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.28 No.1

Citation Share

Attentional bias toward smartphone-relevant stimuli in smartphone addictive tendency: Using Comparison Blindness Task

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2016, v.28 no.1, pp.25-43
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2016.28.1.002




& (2016). Attentional bias toward smartphone-relevant stimuli in smartphone addictive tendency: Using Comparison Blindness Task. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 28(1), 25-43, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2016.28.1.002

Abstract

We examined whether attention is biased toward smartphone-relevant visual cues in smartphone addictive tendencies. Based on a survey of Smartphone Addiction Scale(NIA, 2011), participants (n=42) were categorized into either normal control or addiction tendency group. Participants of each group carried out comparison blindness task which consisted of three classes of different stimulus combinations(smartphone changed(SC), neutral changed(NC), & smartphone absent(SA) visual stimuli). Then, we measured response time and accuracy while accomplishing a comparison blindness task, and we compared performance (change detection) of participants between SC and NC condition. As results, the tendency-group showed significantly faster response time under SC condition than NC condition. Next, the tendency-group showed significantly faster response time than control-group under SC condition, and the tendency-group showed significantly slower response time than control-group under NC condition. Consistent with (Similar to) previous studies, relevant-stimuli give rise to attentional bias in smartphone addictive tendencies. Consequently, the results suggest that addiction characteristics are manifested in smartphone addictive tendencies.

keywords
smartphone addiction, change detection, attentional bias, comparison blindness, 스마트폰 중독, 변화 탐지, 주의 편향, 비교 맹시

Reference

1.

김교헌 (2006). 중독과 자기조절. 한국심리학회지: 건강, 11(1), 63-105.

2.

김병년 (2013). 대학생의 자기통제력과 스마트폰 중독 간의 관계에서 우울의 매개효과. 한국가족복지학회지, 39(1), 49-81.

3.

김세진, 김교헌 (2013). 인터넷 중독 개선을 위한 인지적 접근: 조절실패와 갈망에 대한 대책을 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 건강, 18(3), 421-443.

4.

백현기, 윤지원 (2014). 청소년의 스마트폰 중독과 심리적 마음상태와의 관계 분석. 디지털융복합연구, 12(7), 389-400.

5.

오강탁, 이제은 (2012). 스마트 라이프 혁명의 실제와 스마트폰 중독. Internet and Information Security, 3(4), 21-43.

6.

이인혜, 김영주, 강성군 (2011). 억제기능 결함과 도박중독의 관계: 카지노 도박중독자들을 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 건강, 16(3), 501-520.

7.

전혜연, 현명호, 전영민 (2011). 인터넷 중독 성향자의 전두엽 실행기능의 특징. 한국심리학회지: 건강, 16(1), 215-229.

8.

조민경, 곽호완 (2010). 변화맹시과제 제시방법에 따른 성인 ADHD 성향군의 주의력 결함. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 22(3), 355-368.

9.

한국정보화진흥원 (2011). 스마트폰중독 진단척도 개발 연구.

10.

한국정보화진흥원 (2013). 인터넷중독 실태조사.

11.

Bauer, D., & Cox, W. M. (1998). Alcohol-related words are distracting to both alcohol abusers and non-abusers in the Stroop colour-naming task. Addiction, 93(10), 1539-1542.

12.

Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.

13.

Brevers, D., Cleeremans, A., Bechara, A., Laloyaux, C., Kornreich, C., Verbanck, P., & Noel, X. (2011a). Time course of attentional bias for gambling information in problem gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 25(4), 675- 682.

14.

Brevers, D., Cleeremans, A., Bechara, A., Laloyaux, C., Kornreich, C., Verbanck, P., & Noel, X. (2011b). Reduced attentional blink for gambling-related stimuli in problem gamblers. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 42(3), 265-269.

15.

Cohen, A. L., & Shapiro, A. K. (2007). Exploring the performance differences on the flicker task and the Conners' Continuous Performance Test in adults with ADHD. Journal of attention Disorders, 11(1), 49-63.

16.

Davis, R. A. (2011). A cognitive-Behavioral model of pathological Internet use. Computer in Human Behavior, 17(2), 187-195.

17.

Field, M., Eastwood, B., Bradley, B. P., & Mogg, K. (2006). Selective processing of cannabis cues in regular cannabis users. Drug and Alcohol Dependance, 85(1), 75-82.

18.

Franken, I. H. A., Kroon, L. Y., Wiers, R. W., & Jansen, A. (2000). Selective cognitive processing of drug cues in heroin dependence. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 14(4), 395-400.

19.

Hare, T. A., Camerer, C. F., & Rangel, A. (2009). Self-control in decision-making involves modulation of the vmPFC valuation system. Science, 324(5927), 646-648.

20.

Hollingworth, A. (2003). Failures of retrieval and comparison constrain change detection in natural scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and Performance, 29(2), 388-403.

21.

Jones, B. C., Jones, B. T., Blundell, L., & Bruce, G. (2002). Socialusers of alcohol and cannabis who detect substance-related change in a change blindness paradigm report higher levels of use than those detecting substance-neutral changes. Psychopharmacology, 165(1), 93-96.

22.

Jones, B. T., Jones, B. C., Smith, H., & Copley, N. (2003). A flicker paradigm for inducing change blindness reveals alcohol and cannabis information processing biases in social users. Addiction, 98(2), 235-244.

23.

Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2010). 신호탐지론 [Detection theory]. (이재식 역). 서울: 시그마프레스.

24.

McClure, S. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science, 306(5695), 503-507.

25.

O’Regan, J. K. (1992). Solving the “real” mysteries of visual perception: The world as an outside memory. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46(3), 461-488.

26.

Potenza, M. N. (2006). Should addictive disorders include non-substance-related condition?. Addiciton, 101(Suppl. 1), 142-151.

27.

Ryan, F. (2002). Detected, selected, and sometimes neglected: Cognitive processing of cues in addiction. Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology, 10(2), 67-76.

28.

Rensink, R. A., O'Regan, J. K., & Cark, J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8(5), 368-373.

29.

Sayette, M. A., & Hufford, M. R. (1994). Effects of cue exposure and deprivation on cognitive resources in smokers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(4), 812-818.

30.

Schooll, B. J. (2000). Attenuated change blindness for exogenously attened items in a flicker paradigm. Visual Cognition. 7(1/2/3), 377-396.

31.

Scott-Brown, K. C., Baker, M. R., & Orbach, H. S. (2000). Comparison blindness. Visual Cognition, 7(1/2/3), 253-267.

32.

Sharma, D., Albery, I. P., & Cook, C. (2001). Selective attentional bias to alcohol-related stimuli in problem drinkers and non-problem drinkers. Addiction, 96(2), 285-295.

33.

Shaffer, H. J., LaPlanter, D. A., LaBrie, R. A., Kidman, R. C., Donato, A. N., & Stanton, M. V. (2004). Toward a syndrome model of addiction: Multiple expressions, common etiology. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 12(6), 367-374.

34.

Tiffany, S. T. (1990). A cognitive model of drug urges and drug-use behavior: Role of automatic and nonautomatic processes. Psychological Review, 97(2), 147-168.

35.

Yaxley, R., & Zwaan, R. A. (2005). Attentional bias affects change detection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(6), 1106-1111.

36.

Wickens, C. D., & Hollands, J. G. (2003). 공학심리학 제 3판 [Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, Third Edition]. (곽호완, 김영진, 박창호, 남종호, 이재식 역). 서울: 시그마프레스.

37.

Wölfling, K., Mörsen, C. P., Duven, E., Albrecht, U., Grüsser, S. M., & Flor, H. (2011). To gamble or not to gamble: At risk for craving and relapse-learned motivated attention in pathological gambling. Biological Psychology, 87(2), 275-281.

38.

Zwaan, R. A., & Truitt, T. P. (1998). Smoking urges affect language processing. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 6(3), 325-330.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy