View More View Less
  • 1 Doctoral School of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
  • | 2 Institute of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
  • | 3 SE-NAP2 Genetic Brain Imaging Migraine Research Group, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
  • | 4 Department of Pharmacodynamics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
  • | 5 Independent Researcher
Open access

Abstract

Background and aims

Previous studies suggest that attentional bias and disengagement may vary as a function of Body Mass Index (BMI), most notably in a palatable food related context. Though this could indeed represent a food context specific effect, it could also represent a general reward related context effect. In addition, though mindfulness and stress have both been reported to affect attention, it is not yet clear whether these moderate the relationship between BMI and attention as a function of reward context. In the current study we addressed these questions. It was hypothesized that BMI would be positively associated with bias in a food context and money context relative to a neutral context. The inverse was expected for disengagement. It was expected that mindfulness would decrease these relationships and for stress the inverse was expected.

Methods

In the current online study, eighty-seven participants (24 males and 63 females; age: M = 30.1, SD = 8.3; BMI: M = 24.2, SD = 4.67), filled out questionnaires and completed a visuospatial cueing task measuring attention and disengagement of attention in a neutral, food-related, and money-related condition.

Results

There was no association between BMI and attentional bias. Higher BMI was associated with faster responses to money pictures presented opposite to a cued location as compared to money pictures that did not follow a predictive cue. Our results do not support a clear moderating role of mindfulness and stress.

Discussion and conclusion

Our results imply faster processing and associated quicker responding to unanticipated reward-related stimuli in individuals with overweight or obesity.

Abstract

Background and aims

Previous studies suggest that attentional bias and disengagement may vary as a function of Body Mass Index (BMI), most notably in a palatable food related context. Though this could indeed represent a food context specific effect, it could also represent a general reward related context effect. In addition, though mindfulness and stress have both been reported to affect attention, it is not yet clear whether these moderate the relationship between BMI and attention as a function of reward context. In the current study we addressed these questions. It was hypothesized that BMI would be positively associated with bias in a food context and money context relative to a neutral context. The inverse was expected for disengagement. It was expected that mindfulness would decrease these relationships and for stress the inverse was expected.

Methods

In the current online study, eighty-seven participants (24 males and 63 females; age: M = 30.1, SD = 8.3; BMI: M = 24.2, SD = 4.67), filled out questionnaires and completed a visuospatial cueing task measuring attention and disengagement of attention in a neutral, food-related, and money-related condition.

Results

There was no association between BMI and attentional bias. Higher BMI was associated with faster responses to money pictures presented opposite to a cued location as compared to money pictures that did not follow a predictive cue. Our results do not support a clear moderating role of mindfulness and stress.

Discussion and conclusion

Our results imply faster processing and associated quicker responding to unanticipated reward-related stimuli in individuals with overweight or obesity.

Introduction

Attentional bias and disengagement of attention are central to everyday functioning (Corbetta & Shulman, 2002). Attention is generally directed to relevant elements in our environment (attentional bias) resulting in facilitated processing of these elements. Stimuli can be relevant because they are salient, or they have relevance in relation to our current goals/tasks (Corbetta & Shulman, 2002). For instance, when individuals are hungry, the chance of consciously noticing stimuli related to palatable foods is relatively higher (Nederkoorn, Guerrieri, Havermans, Roefs, & Jansen, 2009). Of course, when we attend to a certain location in our environment, something relevant may occur at the unattended location. To be able to process information at that location, attention needs to be disengaged from the initial location and reoriented to the other, relevant location. This process of disengagement refers to the decoupling of attention allowing processing of initially unattended stimuli (Corbetta & Shulman, 2002). Although studies have suggested that weight, or more specifically Body Mass Index (BMI; kg/m2), is associated with attentional bias and disengagement, the exact relationship and role of (reward) context has not yet been elucidated.

To elaborate, consistent with the Incentive Sensitization theory (Robinson, Fischer, Ahuja, Lesser, & Maniates, 2016), results of previous studies strongly suggest that higher BMI is associated with enhanced motivation and attentional bias for food-related stimuli (Hendrikse et al., 2015; Volkow, Wise, & Baler, 2017; Yokum, Ng, & Stice, 2011). Attentional bias, in turn, predicts subsequent weight gain and persistence of excessive eating patterns (Yokum et al., 2011). Although studies on the relationship between BMI and disengagement of attention are lacking, several investigations have assessed the association between BMI and inhibitory control (Bartholdy, Dalton, O’Daly, Campbell, & Schmidt, 2016).

Inhibitory control can be defined as the ability to inhibit or abort a planned response, and is related to disengagement (Logemann et al., 2017). More specifically, both the process of inhibition and disengagement of attention are triggered by sudden changes in task-demands, and are driven by overlapping neurocircuitry (Logemann et al., 2017). Studies on the relationship between BMI and inhibitory control have yielded inconsistent results for neutral contexts (Bartholdy et al., 2016). However, in a recent study it was reported that higher BMI was associated with reduced inhibitory control in a palatable food context (operationalized using pictures representing palatable food) relative to a neutral context (operationalized using neutral letters), underscoring the importance of reward context (Houben, Nederkoorn, & Jansen, 2014). To the degree to which the process of inhibition overlaps with disengagement of attention, it may be expected that the aforementioned effect of BMI is mirrored with respect to disengagement. In other words, it may be expected that higher BMI is associated with reduced disengagement of attention from attended loci and/or stimuli that have reward value. In addition, previous studies suggest that rewards are processed differently in the brain (and specifically, the striatum) in individuals with obesity which resembles the pattern found in pharmacological addiction (Volkow et al., 2017). Hence, with respect to context, it seems possible that the aforementioned relationship is not specific to a food-context, but plausibly evident in any reward context.

With respect to other important moderators that may affect the relationship between BMI and visuospatial attention, studies suggest that stress may enhance the association between BMI and behavioral control (Tsegaye et al., 2020). Firstly, stress is known to induce preferential bias to palatable food (Oliver, Wardle, & Gibson, 2000), and palatable food may provide a negative reinforcement in a context of stress (Tsegaye et al., 2020). In other words, individuals that are stressed may ingest palatable food as a temporary escape from negative affect. Also noteworthy is the study of Nederkoorn, Smulders, Havermans, Roefs, and Jansen (2006). In their study, the relationship between BMI and inhibitory control was investigated using a stop signal task, which can be regarded as a relatively taxing (and plausibly relatively stressful) task. There was an inverse relationship between BMI and inhibitory control, but only at the end of the task. Hence, as stress may be induced as time on task increases, this may indicate that the relationship between BMI and inhibitory control varies as a function of (induced) stress.

A moderator that seems to affect the aforementioned relation in the opposite way, is mindfulness. There is some support for a direct relation between a mindful state and executive control. Specifically, enhanced mindfulness has been associated with generally improved attention (Sibalis et al., 2019), and improved inhibitory control (Gallant, 2016).

In the current study, we employed a Visuospatial Cueing (VSC) task, which is an ideal paradigm to measure attentional bias as well as disengagement (Posner, Snyder, & Davidson, 1980). In short, in the VSC task, a cue (i.e., arrow) signals the likely location of a subsequent target to which a response is required. Attentional bias is reflected in the speeded response times to validly cued targets relative to non-cued targets. Disengagement of attention is associated with reaction time costs and is reflected in the slowed responses to targets that appear at the non-indicated location (invalidly cued targets) relative to non-cued targets.

In the current study, we included three conditions, a neutral condition, a palatable food, and money condition. Targets in the neutral condition consisted of simple gray bars. Targets in the food condition represented palatable foods, similar to Houben et al. (2014). The novel money condition consisted of targets that represented money (which is generally rewarding).

It was hypothesized that higher BMI would be associated with increased attentional bias in both reward (food and money) contexts relative to the neutral context. Secondly, a negative relationship was expected between BMI and disengagement in the reward contexts relative to the neutral context. Finally, it was hypothesized that higher perceived stress would be associated with an increase of the aforementioned effects, and the opposite was expected for trait mindfulness.

Methods

Participants

Participants were included if they were between 18 and 50 years old, were not pregnant and had no known current mental disorder (by own admission), if they were not currently using drugs affecting cognitive functioning and had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. The final sample for the analyses consisted of in total eighty-seven individuals (24 males and 63 females; age: M = 30.1, SD = 8.3; body mass index (BMI): M = 24.2, SD = 4.67).

Measures

Visuospatial Cueing (VSC) Task

The VSC task was modeled after (Clark, Geffen, & Geffen, 1989; Logemann et al., 2017), and developed using Canvas for HTML5. The task was implemented on a Raspberry Pi3 with Linux operating system and Apache2 as webserver for online use. In a typical trial, a fixation dot was presented for 600 ms, after which a cue was presented centrally for 400 ms. The cue (width: 60 pixels; height: 60 pixels) indicated the likely location (unless in case of a non-informative cue) of a subsequent target to which a response was required. After presentation of the cue, the fixation dot was presented again for 600 ms after which the target was presented for 200 ms. The target was always a portrait-oriented bar-shaped stimulus, and presented at the vertical midline of the display, at the left or right side of the display. The required response depended on whether the bar (width: 200 pixels) was either long (height: 400 pixels) or short (height: 320 pixels). The current implementation included non-cued, invalid, and valid trials. In a non-cued trial, the cue was not informative of the location of the target. In invalid trials, the target was presented opposite to the location indicated by the cue. In valid trials, the target was presented on the side of the screen indicated by the cue (Fig. 1). The task consisted of three conditions, a neutral condition, a money, and food condition. The conditions differed only with respect to the target-pictures, the dimensions of the two (short and long) types of pictures did not differ between conditions. In the neutral condition, targets were solid gray filled bars. For the food condition, the short or long bar was always one out of four potential pictures representing palatable food (chips, chocolate, chocolate chip cookies, cashew nuts) similar to Houben et al. (2014). For the money condition, the short or long bar was always one out of four potential pictures representing money. Presentation of each picture, and type of target (short/long) was equiprobable. Condition order as well as response-target (short/long) assignment was counterbalanced over participants. Each condition consisted of 48 valid trials, 16 invalid trials, and 16 trials that consisted of non-informative cues. Trial order was randomized for each participant and trials could not be predicted from previous trials. Early (<150 ms) and late responses (>1,400 ms) were discarded from the analyses. The relevant outcomes of the VSC task were attentional bias, and disengagement. Bias was operationalized as the mean response time to non-cued targets minus the mean response time to validly cued targets. Disengagement was operationalized as the mean response time to invalidly cued targets minus the mean response time to non-cued targets. For both measures, the measurement level is milliseconds (ms).

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Graphical depiction of a valid trial in the food condition of the visuospatial cueing task

Citation: Journal of Behavioral Addictions 9, 3; 10.1556/2006.2020.00073

Self-report measures implemented in Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, 2019)

Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995)

The DASS-21 consists of three self-report scales that is thought to measure the subjective degree of depression, anxiety, and stress. The subscales of DASS-21 have been reported to have a high reliability (Cronbach's α > 0.85) (Sinclair et al., 2012). In our sample (N = 87), the stress subscale also showed a good reliability (Cronbach's alpha: 0.891).

Mindful attention awareness scale (MAAS) (Brown & Ryan, 2003)

The MAAS is a 15-item scale that measures trait mindfulness. The questionnaire shows high internal consistency (Cronbach's α > 0.80) (Brown, West, Loverich, & Biegel, 2011), and in our sample (N = 87) Cronbach's alpha was 0.853.

Procedure

The study was advertised on digital (social) media such as Facebook. The advertisement provided some brief information regarding the study, contact details of the investigator, and included a link to the online Qualtrics survey platform that included the information letter/informed consent form. After providing their informed consent, participants started with the questionnaires also implemented in Qualtrics. First, participants were requested to provide their age, gender, and hunger level. Hunger level was assessed with one question “Please state on a scale from 1(not hungry at all) to 5(very hungry) how hungry you currently are”. Subsequently, participants filled out the DASS-21 and MAAS. Upon completion, participants were directed to the online VSC task. For this task, participants were instructed to respond to the targets as fast and as accurately as possible. After performing the VSC task, the experiment was completed. The total duration of the experiment was approximately 30 minutes.

Statistical analysis

Data preprocessing (to calculate the relevant outcome variables) was done using R (R Development Core Team, 2017) and statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (IBM Corp., 2019). Similar to Houben et al. (2014), we employed repeated measures ANCOVAs. Specifically, for evaluating the effects regarding attentional bias, we tested the BMI × condition (neutral/food) × validity (non-cued/valid) interaction with respect to response time (in ms level of measurement). In addition, we tested the BMI × condition (neutral/money) × validity (non-cued/valid) interaction with respect to response time. For disengagement, we performed the same tests, except the validity levels were non-cued/invalid. Lastly, we tested whether mindfulness and stress moderated the aforementioned interactions. Alpha was set at 0.05, and we controlled for age, gender, and hunger level. These variables were included in all analyses as covariates of no interest. All variables, except the within-subjects factor “condition” were continuous.

Ethics

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee at ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Faculty of Education and Psychology (reference number: 2017/218, date: 2017/10/25), and has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Results

Descriptive data for age, BMI, mindfulness, stress, and hunger level are shown in Table 1. Data regarding the inferential statistics are reported in Table 2. Importantly, the well-known validity effect was replicated in the current study. Specifically, irrespective of condition, the validity effect was significant with shorter response times (RTs) to validly cued targets and longer RTs to invalidly cued targets relative to non-cued targets, F(1,86) = 109.61, P < 0.001 (partial η2 = 0.560), and F(1,86) = 6.37, P = 0.013 (partial η2 = 0.069) respectively.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of age, BMI, mindfulness, stress and hunger level (N = 87)

Max (maximum)Min (minimum)M (Mean)SD (std. deviation)
Age50.0018.0030.108.30
BMI44.0817.5024.204.67
Mindfulness6.001.934.060.74
Stress40.000.0013.109.05
Hunger level5.002.004.180.84
Table 2.

Primary analyses: attentional bias (top four rows) and disengagement (bottom four rows)

FactorF(1,82)Ppartial η2
Condition (neutral/food) × validity (non-cued/valid)9.770.0020.106
BMI × condition (neutral/food) × validity (non-cued/valid)2.370.1280.028
Condition (neutral/money) × validity (non-cued l/valid)6.530.0120.074
BMI × condition (neutral/money) × validity (non-cued/valid)2.530.1160.030
Condition (neutral/food) × validity (non-cued/invalid)8.230.0050.091
BMI × condition (neutral/food) × validity (non-cued/invalid)3.270.0740.038
Condition (neutral/money) × validity (non-cued/invalid)5.940.0170.068
BMI × condition (neutral/money) × validity (non-cued/invalid)5.950.0170.068

Note: Dependent variable is response time in ms.

Performance data with respect to bias and disengagement are graphically depicted in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, respectively. Inferential statistics are shown in Table 2. As indicated by the condition (neutral/food) × validity (non-cued/valid) interaction, bias was reduced in the food condition relative to the neutral condition, but this effect was not affected by BMI. Similarly, as indicated by the condition (neutral/money) × validity (non-cued/valid) interaction, bias was significantly reduced in the money condition as compared to the neutral condition, and this effect was not affected by BMI.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Graphical depiction of the relationship between BMI and bias (response time to non-cued targets minus validly cued targets, higher values indicate stronger bias) in the three conditions

Citation: Journal of Behavioral Addictions 9, 3; 10.1556/2006.2020.00073

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Graphical depiction of the relationship between BMI and disengagement (response time to invalidly cued targets minus non-cued targets, lower values indicate stronger disengagement) in the three conditions

Citation: Journal of Behavioral Addictions 9, 3; 10.1556/2006.2020.00073

As indicated by the condition (neutral/food) × validity (non-cued/invalid) interaction, disengagement was significantly enhanced in the food condition as opposed to the neutral condition and BMI did not affect this effect. Disengagement increased in the money condition compared to the neutral condition, as indicated by the condition (neutral/money) × validity (non-cued/invalid) interaction and BMI increased this effect. Posthoc testing indicated that higher BMI was associated with increased disengagement in the money condition (F(1,82) = 7.29, P = 0.008), but not in the neutral condition, F(1,82) = 0.95, P = 0.334.

With respect to the secondary explorative analyses, both self-reported mindfulness and stress did not affect any of the BMI × condition interactions that were described in Table 2 (all partial η2 < 0.023).

Discussion

Previous studies have suggested that attentional bias may vary as a function of BMI. In addition, inhibitory control, and its associated process of attentional disengagement has also been implicated in relation to high BMI. However, the exact role of these aspects of visuospatial attention and the complex interaction between BMI with environment contexts of reward and subject variables (stress and trait mindfulness) had not yet been thoroughly investigated. Addressing this main gap in the literature, was the main aim of the current study.

The lack of a significant relationship between BMI and attentional bias to reward related stimuli relative to neutral stimuli was unexpected. Previous studies have suggested that high BMI (i.e., Yokum et al., 2011) and specifically obesity (Nijs, Muris, Euser, & Franken, 2010; Werthmann et al., 2011) is associated with increased attentional bias to food cues. However, it has also been noted that studies have yielded contradictory effects that may be accountable to differences in the exact methodology employed (Nijs & Franken, 2012). It is plausible that attentional bias for a specific location (as opposed to i.e., stimulus characteristics) is not affected by BMI.

With respect to disengagement, results are opposite to what was expected. Interestingly, higher BMI was associated with speeded responses to unexpected stimuli in the money condition (but not in the food condition) relative to the neutral condition. Results may imply that inhibitory control operates differently in the visuospatial cueing task as opposed to the stop signal task employed by Houben et al. (2014). Specifically, in the stop signal task the prepotent response to a stimulus that has reward value must be inhibited subsequent to a stop-stimulus. In this case, the requirement for inhibition contradicts with the primary task requirement (responding as fast and accurate as possible to the go stimuli). In the visuospatial cueing task however, disengagement of attention is congruent with the requirement to respond as fast and accurate as possible to the unattended target. In that vein, inhibition/disengagement may be speeded with increased perceived reward value of targets in the visuospatial cueing task, but negatively affected in the stop signal task (or go/no-go task).

It should be noted that there were some extreme values (defined as three times the interquartile range) with respect to bias (n = 2) and disengagement (n = 4). In view of the stringent exclusion criteria (erroneous responses were excluded, see materials) there is no reason to assume these represent erroneous data. Nevertheless, excluding the extreme cases did not change the significance of the BMI × condition (neutral/money) interaction with respect to disengagement.

With respect to the moderators, we did not find evidence for a moderating effect of stress on the aforementioned effects. This might seem to contrast previous studies on obesity that have suggested a moderating role of stress (Nederkoorn et al., 2006). However, we did not specifically focus on obesity, and we did not induce acute stress but assessed self-reported stress experience via the DASS-21 questionnaire which might not interact with BMI with respect to attentional/inhibitory control. Indeed, previous studies have shown a complex relation between stress and food intake. Although acute stress may affect food intake (Rutters, Nieuwenhuizen, Lemmens, Born, & Westerterp-Plantenga, 2009), a very recent study has suggested that the relationship between chronic stress and food intake may depend on the degree of impulsive-risk taking tendencies (Mason, Schleicher, Coccia, Epel, & Aschbacher, 2018).

Our results do not support a clear effect of trait mindfulness on the relationship between BMI and inhibitory control across the conditions. Previous studies have shown that mindfulness training improves executive control (Gallant, 2016; Sahdra et al., 2011), which in turn may promote weight loss. Indeed, with respect to obesity and weight-loss some systematic reviews have indicated that mindfulness-based training may promote weight loss (Carrière, Khoury, Günak, & Knäuper, 2018), but others have reported inconsistent findings (Rogers, Ferrari, Mosely, Lang, & Brennan, 2017; Ruffault et al., 2017). The main issue is that there are numerous mindfulness-based methods, which may differ in terms of rendered effects. In fact, a recent review suggests that specifically mindful eating, not mindfulness, is associated with subsequent weight loss (Dunn et al., 2018). To the best of our knowledge, the relation between mindfulness and executive mechanisms has not previously been thoroughly investigated in relation to BMI in contexts of reward.

The relationship between BMI and disengagement in the money condition was not evident in the food condition. One important difference between these conditions is the type of reinforcer. Food can be regarded as a primary reward/reinforcer whereas money becomes a secondary reinforcer via a conditioning process over time. Indeed, some differences exist with respect to the exact brain-regions that are activated subsequent to processing pictures of food and money, but both types of stimuli have been shown to activate the primary brain circuitry responsible for reward processing, and neural processing of these stimuli has been suggested to be modulated by metabolic state (Yousuf, Heldmann, Göttlich, Münte, & Doñamayor, 2018). The reason why the differential modulation of disengagement by BMI was limited for the contrast of the money versus neutral condition, might be due to the operationalization of the condition. Specifically, responses were more varied in the latter condition, negatively affecting statistical power. One limitation of the current study is that stimuli were not matched on salience. Thus, it might be that the enhanced variability in the food condition may be due to stimulus differences across conditions (i.e., salience).

Other limitations should also be noted. Firstly, height and weight were assessed by self-report, which can be affected by self-representation bias. However, as noted by Houben et al. (2014), it is not plausible that self-representation bias affects the overall rank-order of BMI values in the sample. Secondly, this was an online study. We should emphasize that studies suggest that the reliability of online cognitive experiments is comparable to those conducted in the lab (Hilbig, 2016). Most importantly, the overall validity effect was replicated in our study, confirming the validity of the employed paradigm. In a related vein, it has been suggested that the effects of cueing on performance is more substantial when perceptual demands and potential target locations are increased (Meinke, Thiel, & Fink, 2006). Indeed, in the current employed paradigm, participants plausibly quickly learned that there are only two possible target locations which might reduce the effect of cueing on response times. However, we should also emphasize again that the effect of cueing on response time was significant in the current paradigm and employment of a more taxing VSC task may result in a higher level of attrition. Lastly, although we controlled for gender, it should be noted that only four male participants had a BMI below the median. Excluding male participants, and performing the analyses on the female sample did not yield a different outcome (data available upon request). However, appropriate nuance should be applied in generalizing results to the male population.

In conclusion, our results suggest that higher BMI is associated with facilitated processing of unexpected stimuli that have general reward value. This might imply that individuals with overweight or obesity are sensitive to unexpected reward related stimuli and suggests that reward context should be considered in clinical context.

Funding sources

GK was supported was supported by the MTA-SE-NAP B Genetic Brain Imaging Migraine Research Group, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Semmelweis University (Grant No. KTIA_NAP_13-2-2015-0001); Hungarian Brain Research Program (Grant No. 2017-1.2.1-NKP-2017-00002). The preparation of this article was supported by the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office (Grant No. FK128614). RC was supported by Bolyai János Research Fellowship of the Hungarian Academy of Science.

Authors' contribution

HNAL was the principal investigator. AT, GK, RC, and HNAL developed the project. JB wrote the code of the computer task and implemented it on the server. AW was responsible for participant-recruiting and data-acquisition under supervision of AT and HNAL. AT and HNAL performed the analyses. AT and HNAL developed the first draft of the manuscript. All authors had access to the source-data, interpreted the results and contributed to and approved the final article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there was no conflict of interest.

References

  • Bartholdy, S., Dalton, B., O’Daly, O. G., Campbell, I. C., & Schmidt, U. (2016). A systematic review of the relationship between eating, weight and inhibitory control using the stop signal task. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 64, 3562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.02.010.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brown, K. W., West, A. M., Loverich, T. M., & Biegel, G. M. (2011). Assessing adolescent mindfulness: Validation of an adapted mindful attention awareness scale in adolescent normative and psychiatric populations. Psychological Assessment, 23(4), 10231033. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021338.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carrière, K., Khoury, B., Günak, M. M., & Knäuper, B. (2018). Mindfulness-based interventions for weight loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews, 19(2), 164177. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12623.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Clark, C. R., Geffen, G. M., & Geffen, L. B. (1989). Catecholamines and the covert orientation of attention in humans. Neuropsychologia, 27(2), 131139. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(89)90166-8.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(3), 201215. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn755.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dunn, C., Haubenreiser, M., Johnson, M., Nordby, K., Aggarwal, S., Myer, S., et al. (2018). Mindfulness approaches and weight loss, weight maintenance, and weight regain. Current Obesity Reports, 7(1), 3749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-018-0299-6.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gallant, S. N. (2016). Mindfulness meditation practice and executive functioning: Breaking down the benefit. Consciousness and Cognition, 40, 116130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.01.005.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hendrikse, J. J., Cachia, R. L., Kothe, E. J., Mcphie, S., Skouteris, H., & Hayden, M. J. (2015). Attentional biases for food cues in overweight and individuals with obesity: A systematic review of the literature. Obesity Reviews, 16(5), 424432. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12265.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hilbig, B. E. (2016). Reaction time effects in lab- versus Web-based research: Experimental evidence. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 17181724. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0678-9.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Houben, K., Nederkoorn, C., & Jansen, A. (2014). Eating on impulse: The relation between overweight and food-specific inhibitory control. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.), 22(5), E6-E8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24910860.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • IBM Corp. (2019). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, Version 26.0. In 2019.

  • Logemann, H. N. A., Böcker, K. B. E., Deschamps, P. K. H., van Harten, P. N., Koning, J., Kemner, C., et al. (2017). Haloperidol 2 mg impairs inhibition but not visuospatial attention. Psychopharmacology, 234(2), 235244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-016-4454-z.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-U.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mason, A. E., Schleicher, S., Coccia, M., Epel, E. S., & Aschbacher, K. (2018). Chronic stress and impulsive risk-taking predict increases in visceral fat over 18 months. Obesity, 26(5), 869876. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.22150.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Meinke, A., Thiel, C. M., & Fink, G. R. (2006). Effects of nicotine on visuo-spatial selective attention as indexed by event-related potentials. Neuroscience, 141(1), 201212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2006.03.072.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nederkoorn, C., Guerrieri, R., Havermans, R. C., Roefs, A., & Jansen, A. (2009). The interactive effect of hunger and impulsivity on food intake and purchase in a virtual supermarket. International Journal of Obesity, 33(8), 905912. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2009.98.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nederkoorn, C., Smulders, F. T. Y., Havermans, R. C., Roefs, A., & Jansen, A. (2006). Impulsivity in obese women. Appetite, 47(2), 253256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.05.008.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nijs, I. M. T., & Franken, I. H. A. (2012). Attentional processing of food cues in overweight and obese individuals. Current Obesity Reports, 1, 106113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-012-0011-1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nijs, I. M. T., Muris, P., Euser, A. S., & Franken, I. H. A. (2010). Differences in attention to food and food intake between overweight/obese and normal-weight females under conditions of hunger and satiety. Appetite, 54(2), 243254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2009.11.004.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Oliver, G., Wardle, J., & Gibson, E. L. (2000). Stress and food choice: A laboratory study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 62(6), 853865. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-200011000-00016.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 109(2), 160174. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7381367.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Qualtrics. (2019). Qualtrics. https://www.qualtrics.com.

  • R Development Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In Vienna, Austria. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Robinson, M. J. F., Fischer, A. M., Ahuja, A., Lesser, E. N., & Maniates, H. (2016). Roles of “wanting” and “liking” in motivating behavior: Gambling, food, and drug addictions. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, 27, 105136. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2015_387.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rogers, J. M., Ferrari, M., Mosely, K., Lang, C. P., & Brennan, L. (2017). Mindfulness-based interventions for adults who are overweight or obese: A meta-analysis of physical and psychological health outcomes. Obesity Reviews, 18(1), 5167. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12461.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ruffault, A., Czernichow, S., Hagger, M. S., Ferrand, M., Erichot, N., Carette, C., et al. (2017). The effects of mindfulness training on weight-loss and health-related behaviours in adults with overweight and obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Research and Clinical Practice, 11(5), 90111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orcp.2016.09.002.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rutters, F., Nieuwenhuizen, A. G., Lemmens, S. G. T., Born, J. M., & Westerterp-Plantenga, M. S. (2009). Acute stress-related changes in eating in the absence of hunger. Obesity, 17(1), 7277. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2008.493.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sahdra, B. K., MacLean, K. A., Ferrer, E., Shaver, P. R., Rosenberg, E. L., Jacobs, T. L., et al. (2011). Enhanced response inhibition during intensive meditation training predicts improvements in self-reported adaptive socioemotional functioning. Emotion, 11(2), 299312. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022764.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sibalis, A., Milligan, K., Pun, C., McKeough, T., Schmidt, L. A., & Segalowitz, S. J. (2019). An EEG investigation of the attention-related impact of mindfulness training in youth with ADHD: Outcomes and methodological considerations. Journal of Attention Disorders, 23(7), 733743. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054717719535.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sinclair, S. J., Siefert, C. J., Slavin-Mulford, J. M., Stein, M. B., Renna, M., & Blais, M. A. (2012). Psychometric evaluation and normative data for the depression, anxiety, and stress scales-21 (DASS-21) in a nonclinical sample of U.S. Adults. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 35(3), 259279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278711424282.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tsegaye, A., Kökönyei, G., Baldacchino, A., Urbán, R., Demetrovics, Z., & Logemann, H. N. A. (2020). Chapter 4 – the psychological basis of obesity. In T. A. Mahmood, S. Arulkumaran, & F. A. B. T. Chervenak (Eds.), Obesity and obstetrics (2nd ed., pp. 3744). Elsevier. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817921-5.00004-7.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Volkow, N., Wise, R. A., & Baler, R. (2017). The dopamine motive system: Implications for drug and food addiction. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(12), 741752. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2017.130.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Werthmann, J., Roefs, A., Nederkoorn, C., Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., & Jansen, A. (2011). Can(not) take my eyes off it: Attention bias for food in overweight participants. Health Psychology, 30(5), 561569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024291.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yokum, S., Ng, J., & Stice, E. (2011). Attentional bias to food images associated with elevated weight and future weight gain: An fMRI study. Obesity, 19(9), 17751783. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2011.168.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yousuf, M., Heldmann, M., Göttlich, M., Münte, T. F., & Doñamayor, N. (2018). Neural processing of food and monetary rewards is modulated by metabolic state. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 12(5), 13791392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-017-9811-y.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bartholdy, S., Dalton, B., O’Daly, O. G., Campbell, I. C., & Schmidt, U. (2016). A systematic review of the relationship between eating, weight and inhibitory control using the stop signal task. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 64, 3562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.02.010.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brown, K. W., West, A. M., Loverich, T. M., & Biegel, G. M. (2011). Assessing adolescent mindfulness: Validation of an adapted mindful attention awareness scale in adolescent normative and psychiatric populations. Psychological Assessment, 23(4), 10231033. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021338.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carrière, K., Khoury, B., Günak, M. M., & Knäuper, B. (2018). Mindfulness-based interventions for weight loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews, 19(2), 164177. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12623.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Clark, C. R., Geffen, G. M., & Geffen, L. B. (1989). Catecholamines and the covert orientation of attention in humans. Neuropsychologia, 27(2), 131139. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(89)90166-8.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(3), 201215. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn755.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dunn, C., Haubenreiser, M., Johnson, M., Nordby, K., Aggarwal, S., Myer, S., et al. (2018). Mindfulness approaches and weight loss, weight maintenance, and weight regain. Current Obesity Reports, 7(1), 3749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-018-0299-6.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gallant, S. N. (2016). Mindfulness meditation practice and executive functioning: Breaking down the benefit. Consciousness and Cognition, 40, 116130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.01.005.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hendrikse, J. J., Cachia, R. L., Kothe, E. J., Mcphie, S., Skouteris, H., & Hayden, M. J. (2015). Attentional biases for food cues in overweight and individuals with obesity: A systematic review of the literature. Obesity Reviews, 16(5), 424432. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12265.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hilbig, B. E. (2016). Reaction time effects in lab- versus Web-based research: Experimental evidence. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 17181724. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0678-9.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Houben, K., Nederkoorn, C., & Jansen, A. (2014). Eating on impulse: The relation between overweight and food-specific inhibitory control. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.), 22(5), E6-E8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24910860.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • IBM Corp. (2019). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, Version 26.0. In 2019.

  • Logemann, H. N. A., Böcker, K. B. E., Deschamps, P. K. H., van Harten, P. N., Koning, J., Kemner, C., et al. (2017). Haloperidol 2 mg impairs inhibition but not visuospatial attention. Psychopharmacology, 234(2), 235244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-016-4454-z.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-U.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mason, A. E., Schleicher, S., Coccia, M., Epel, E. S., & Aschbacher, K. (2018). Chronic stress and impulsive risk-taking predict increases in visceral fat over 18 months. Obesity, 26(5), 869876. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.22150.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Meinke, A., Thiel, C. M., & Fink, G. R. (2006). Effects of nicotine on visuo-spatial selective attention as indexed by event-related potentials. Neuroscience, 141(1), 201212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2006.03.072.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nederkoorn, C., Guerrieri, R., Havermans, R. C., Roefs, A., & Jansen, A. (2009). The interactive effect of hunger and impulsivity on food intake and purchase in a virtual supermarket. International Journal of Obesity, 33(8), 905912. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2009.98.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nederkoorn, C., Smulders, F. T. Y., Havermans, R. C., Roefs, A., & Jansen, A. (2006). Impulsivity in obese women. Appetite, 47(2), 253256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.05.008.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nijs, I. M. T., & Franken, I. H. A. (2012). Attentional processing of food cues in overweight and obese individuals. Current Obesity Reports, 1, 106113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-012-0011-1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nijs, I. M. T., Muris, P., Euser, A. S., & Franken, I. H. A. (2010). Differences in attention to food and food intake between overweight/obese and normal-weight females under conditions of hunger and satiety. Appetite, 54(2), 243254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2009.11.004.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Oliver, G., Wardle, J., & Gibson, E. L. (2000). Stress and food choice: A laboratory study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 62(6), 853865. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-200011000-00016.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 109(2), 160174. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7381367.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Qualtrics. (2019). Qualtrics. https://www.qualtrics.com.

  • R Development Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In Vienna, Austria. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Robinson, M. J. F., Fischer, A. M., Ahuja, A., Lesser, E. N., & Maniates, H. (2016). Roles of “wanting” and “liking” in motivating behavior: Gambling, food, and drug addictions. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, 27, 105136. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2015_387.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rogers, J. M., Ferrari, M., Mosely, K., Lang, C. P., & Brennan, L. (2017). Mindfulness-based interventions for adults who are overweight or obese: A meta-analysis of physical and psychological health outcomes. Obesity Reviews, 18(1), 5167. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12461.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ruffault, A., Czernichow, S., Hagger, M. S., Ferrand, M., Erichot, N., Carette, C., et al. (2017). The effects of mindfulness training on weight-loss and health-related behaviours in adults with overweight and obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Research and Clinical Practice, 11(5), 90111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orcp.2016.09.002.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rutters, F., Nieuwenhuizen, A. G., Lemmens, S. G. T., Born, J. M., & Westerterp-Plantenga, M. S. (2009). Acute stress-related changes in eating in the absence of hunger. Obesity, 17(1), 7277. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2008.493.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sahdra, B. K., MacLean, K. A., Ferrer, E., Shaver, P. R., Rosenberg, E. L., Jacobs, T. L., et al. (2011). Enhanced response inhibition during intensive meditation training predicts improvements in self-reported adaptive socioemotional functioning. Emotion, 11(2), 299312. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022764.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sibalis, A., Milligan, K., Pun, C., McKeough, T., Schmidt, L. A., & Segalowitz, S. J. (2019). An EEG investigation of the attention-related impact of mindfulness training in youth with ADHD: Outcomes and methodological considerations. Journal of Attention Disorders, 23(7), 733743. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054717719535.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sinclair, S. J., Siefert, C. J., Slavin-Mulford, J. M., Stein, M. B., Renna, M., & Blais, M. A. (2012). Psychometric evaluation and normative data for the depression, anxiety, and stress scales-21 (DASS-21) in a nonclinical sample of U.S. Adults. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 35(3), 259279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278711424282.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tsegaye, A., Kökönyei, G., Baldacchino, A., Urbán, R., Demetrovics, Z., & Logemann, H. N. A. (2020). Chapter 4 – the psychological basis of obesity. In T. A. Mahmood, S. Arulkumaran, & F. A. B. T. Chervenak (Eds.), Obesity and obstetrics (2nd ed., pp. 3744). Elsevier. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817921-5.00004-7.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Volkow, N., Wise, R. A., & Baler, R. (2017). The dopamine motive system: Implications for drug and food addiction. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(12), 741752. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2017.130.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Werthmann, J., Roefs, A., Nederkoorn, C., Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., & Jansen, A. (2011). Can(not) take my eyes off it: Attention bias for food in overweight participants. Health Psychology, 30(5), 561569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024291.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yokum, S., Ng, J., & Stice, E. (2011). Attentional bias to food images associated with elevated weight and future weight gain: An fMRI study. Obesity, 19(9), 17751783. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2011.168.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yousuf, M., Heldmann, M., Göttlich, M., Münte, T. F., & Doñamayor, N. (2018). Neural processing of food and monetary rewards is modulated by metabolic state. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 12(5), 13791392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-017-9811-y.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE

Dr. Zsolt Demetrovics
Institute of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University
Address: Izabella u. 46. H-1064 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: +36-1-461-2681
E-mail: jba@ppk.elte.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Web of Science [Science Citation Index Expanded (also known as SciSearch®)
  • Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition
  • Social Sciences Citation Index®
  • Journal Citation Reports/ Social Sciences Edition
  • Current Contents®/Social and Behavioral Sciences
  • EBSCO
  • GoogleScholar
  • PsychInfo
  • PubMed Central
  • SCOPUS
  • Medline
  • CABI
2020  
Total Cites 4024
WoS
Journal
Impact Factor
6,756
Rank by Psychiatry (SSCI) 12/143 (Q1)
Impact Factor Psychiatry 19/156 (Q1)
Impact Factor 6,052
without
Journal Self Cites
5 Year 8,735
Impact Factor
Journal  1,48
Citation Indicator  
Rank by Journal  Psychiatry 24/250 (Q1)
Citation Indicator   
Citable 86
Items
Total 74
Articles
Total 12
Reviews
Scimago 47
H-index
Scimago 2,265
Journal Rank
Scimago Clinical Psychology Q1
Quartile Score Psychiatry and Mental Health Q1
  Medicine (miscellaneous) Q1
Scopus 3593/367=9,8
Scite Score  
Scopus Clinical Psychology 7/283 (Q1)
Scite Score Rank Psychiatry and Mental Health 22/502 (Q1)
Scopus 2,026
SNIP  
Days from  38
sumbission  
to 1st decision  
Days from  37
acceptance  
to publication  
Acceptance 31%
Rate  

2019  
Total Cites
WoS
2 184
Impact Factor 5,143
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
4,346
5 Year
Impact Factor
5,758
Immediacy
Index
0,587
Citable
Items
75
Total
Articles
67
Total
Reviews
8
Cited
Half-Life
3,3
Citing
Half-Life
6,8
Eigenfactor
Score
0,00597
Article Influence
Score
1,447
% Articles
in
Citable Items
89,33
Normalized
Eigenfactor
0,7294
Average
IF
Percentile
87,923
Scimago
H-index
37
Scimago
Journal Rank
1,767
Scopus
Scite Score
2540/376=6,8
Scopus
Scite Score Rank
Cllinical Psychology 16/275 (Q1)
Medicine (miscellenous) 31/219 (Q1)
Psychiatry and Mental Health 47/506 (Q1)
Scopus
SNIP
1,441
Acceptance
Rate
32%

 

Journal of Behavioral Addictions
Publication Model Gold Open Access
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 850 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription Information Gold Open Access
Purchase per Title  

Journal of Behavioral Addictions
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2011
Publication
Programme
2021 Volume 10
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem
Founder's
Address
H-1053 Budapest, Hungary Egyetem tér 1-3.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2062-5871 (Print)
ISSN 2063-5303 (Online)

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Zsolt DEMETROVICS

Assistant Editor(s): Csilla ÁGOSTON

Associate Editors

  • Judit BALÁZS (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Joel BILLIEUX (University of Lausanne, Switzerland)
  • Matthias BRAND (University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany)
  • Anneke GOUDRIAAN (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
  • Daniel KING (Flinders University, Australia)
  • Ludwig KRAUS (IFT Institute for Therapy Research, Germany)
  • H. N. Alexander LOGEMANN (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Anikó MARÁZ (Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany)
  • Astrid MÜLLER (Hannover Medical School, Germany)
  • Marc N. POTENZA (Yale University, USA)
  • Hans-Jurgen RUMPF (University of Lübeck, Germany)
  • Attila SZABÓ (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Róbert URBÁN (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Aviv M. WEINSTEIN (Ariel University, Israel)

Editorial Board

  • Max W. ABBOTT (Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand)
  • Elias N. ABOUJAOUDE (Stanford University School of Medicine, USA)
  • Hojjat ADELI (Ohio State University, USA)
  • Alex BALDACCHINO (University of Dundee, United Kingdom)
  • Alex BLASZCZYNSKI (University of Sidney, Australia)
  • Kenneth BLUM (University of Florida, USA)
  • Henrietta BOWDEN-JONES (Imperial College, United Kingdom)
  • Beáta BÖTHE (University of Montreal, Canada)
  • Wim VAN DEN BRINK (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
  • Gerhard BÜHRINGER (Technische Universität Dresden, Germany)
  • Sam-Wook CHOI (Eulji University, Republic of Korea)
  • Damiaan DENYS (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
  • Jeffrey L. DEREVENSKY (McGill University, Canada)
  • Naomi FINEBERG (University of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom)
  • Marie GRALL-BRONNEC (University Hospital of Nantes, France)
  • Jon E. GRANT (University of Minnesota, USA)
  • Mark GRIFFITHS (Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom)
  • Heather HAUSENBLAS (Jacksonville University, USA)
  • Tobias HAYER (University of Bremen, Germany)
  • Susumu HIGUCHI (National Hospital Organization Kurihama Medical and Addiction Center, Japan)
  • David HODGINS (University of Calgary, Canada)
  • Eric HOLLANDER (Albert Einstein College of Medicine, USA)
  • Jaeseung JEONG (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Republic of Korea)
  • Yasser KHAZAAL (Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland)
  • Orsolya KIRÁLY (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Emmanuel KUNTSCHE (La Trobe University, Australia)
  • Hae Kook LEE (The Catholic University of Korea, Republic of Korea)
  • Michel LEJOXEUX (Paris University, France)
  • Anikó MARÁZ (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Giovanni MARTINOTTI (‘Gabriele d’Annunzio’ University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy)
  • Frederick GERARD MOELLER (University of Texas, USA)
  • Daniel Thor OLASON (University of Iceland, Iceland)
  • Nancy PETRY (University of Connecticut, USA)
  • Bettina PIKÓ (University of Szeged, Hungary)
  • Afarin RAHIMI-MOVAGHAR (Teheran University of Medical Sciences, Iran)
  • József RÁCZ (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary)
  • Rory C. REID (University of California Los Angeles, USA)
  • Marcantanio M. SPADA (London South Bank University, United Kingdom)
  • Daniel SPRITZER (Study Group on Technological Addictions, Brazil)
  • Dan J. STEIN (University of Cape Town, South Africa)
  • Sherry H. STEWART (Dalhousie University, Canada)
  • Attila SZABÓ (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Ferenc TÚRY (Semmelweis University, Hungary)
  • Alfred UHL (Austrian Federal Health Institute, Austria)
  • Johan VANDERLINDEN (University Psychiatric Center K.U.Leuven, Belgium)
  • Alexander E. VOISKOUNSKY (Moscow State University, Russia)
  • Kimberly YOUNG (Center for Internet Addiction, USA)

 

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
May 2021 0 37 25
Jun 2021 0 39 29
Jul 2021 0 93 27
Aug 2021 0 32 12
Sep 2021 0 14 11
Oct 2021 0 11 6
Nov 2021 0 0 0