中国临床心理学杂志

新型毒品成瘾者在不同情境下的决策特点

单位：1. 中国政法大学刑事司法学院北京 100088 2. 中国政法大学社会学院北京 100088 3. 长治大辛庄强制隔离戒毒所长治 046000

分类号：R395.1

出版年,卷(期):页码：2017,25(4):626-629

摘要：

目的：探讨甲卡西酮成瘾者和冰毒成瘾者的决策特点。方法：从某强制隔离戒毒所筛选出甲卡西酮成瘾者45人，冰毒成瘾者41人，从某大学后勤工作人员中招募对照组被试33人，分别使用冲动性量表（BIS-11）、杯子任务研究被试的冲动性水平和决策特点。结果：冰毒成瘾组的冲动性显著高于对照组和甲卡西酮成瘾组；在收益情境下，甲卡西酮成瘾组和冰毒成瘾组选择风险选项的比例显著高于对照组，甲卡西酮成瘾组和对照组比冰毒成瘾组选择更多的适应性选项；在损失情境下，三组被试选择风险选项和适应性选项的比例不存在显著差异。结论：在收益情境下，成瘾组比对照表现出更明显的风险决策偏好，只有冰毒成瘾组表现出非适应性决策。

Objective: To investigate the characteristics of decision-making in Individuals with new drug addiction from compulsory isolated drug detoxification and rehabilitation. Methods: Forty-five individuals with mephedrone addiction and forty-one individuals with methamphetamine addiction from compulsory isolated drug detoxification and rehabilitation and thirty-three healthy controls were recruited. Cups task and barratt impulsiveness scale(BIS-11) were used to measure decision-making and impulsivity, respectively. Results: The impulsivity level of methamphetamine group was significantly higher than control group and mephedrone group. In comparison to control group, methamphetamine group and mephedrone group made more risky choices; control group and mephedrone group made more adaptive choices than methamphetamine group in the gain domain. There was no significant difference among three groups in the loss domain. Conclusion: Addiction subjects exhibit generally greater risk decision-making tendencies than control group. But, methamphetamine group only has adaptive decision-making functional deficits.

基金项目：

本研究得到国家社会科学基金项目（15BSH085）、北京市社会科学基金一般项目（15SHB019）、北京市社会科学基金一般项目（14JYB018）、中国政法大学人文社会科学研究项目、中国政法大学重点学科应用心理学以及中国政法大学博士创新实践项目（2016BSCX17）资助。

作者简介：

参考文献：

1 《2015年中国毒品形势报告》.中国长安网.http://www.chinapeace.gov.cn/2016-02/19/content_11323042_all.htm
2 李重阳, 王乐, 赵文成. 甲卡西酮类新型策划毒品的危害及其检测. 中国司法鉴定, 2014, 2:47-50
3 常颖, 高利生. 甲卡西酮概述及其分析方法. 刑事技术, 2011, 5:35-38
4 Redish AD, Jensen S, Johnson A. A unified framework for addiction:vulnerabilities in the decision process. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2008, 31(4):415-437
5 严万森, 李纾, 隋南. 成瘾人群的决策障碍:研究范式与神经机制. 心理科学进展, 2011, 19(5):652-663
6 Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ. Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1988, 14(3):534
7 Bechara A, Damasio H. Decision-making and addiction(part I):impaired activation of somatic states in substance dependent individuals when pondering decisions with negative future consequences. Neuropsychologia, 2002, 40(10):1675-1689
8 Monterosso J, Ehrman R, Napier KL, et al. Three decisionmaking tasks in cocaine-dependent patients:do they measure the same construct? Addiction, 2001, 96(12):1825-1837
9 Rogers RD, Everitt BJ, Baldacchino A, et al. Dissociable deficits in the decision-making cognition of chronic amphetamine abusers, opiate abusers, patients with focal damage to prefrontal cortex, and tryptophan-depleted normal volunteers:evidence for monoaminergic mechanisms. Neuropsychopharmacology, 1999, 20(4):322-339
10 Stout JC, Rock SL, Campbell MC, et al. Psychological processes underlying risky decisions in drug abusers. Psycholo gy of Addictive Behaviors, 2005, 19(2):148
11 Brand M, Kalbe E, Labudda K, et al. Decision-making impairments in patients with pathological gambling. Psychiatry research, 2005, 133(1):91-99.
12 梁三才, 游旭群. 网络成瘾者情感决策能力的对照研究. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2010, 18(5):597-599
13 聂佳, 郑丽娜, 张微.冒险情境与奖惩信息对网络成瘾者决策行为的影响. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2016, 24(4):601-617
14 De Martino B, Kumaran D, Seymour B, et al. Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science, 2006, 313(5787):684-687
15 Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory:An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica:Journal of the Econometric Society, 1979. 263-291
16 Levin IP, Xue G, Weller J A, et al. A neuropsychological approach to understanding risk-taking for potential gains and losses. Decision Making under Uncertainty, 2015. 80
17 Seymour B, Daw N, Dayan P, et al. Differential encoding of losses and gains in the human striatum. The Journal of Neuroscience, 2007, 27(18):4826-4831
18 Jasper JD, Bhattacharya C, Levin IP, et al. Numeracy as a predictor of adaptive risky decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2013, 26(2):164-173
19 Levin IP, Hart SS. Risk preferences in young children:Early evidence of individual differences in reaction to potential gains and losses. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2003, 16(5):397-413
20 Levin IP, Weller JA, Pederson AA, et al. Age-related differences in adaptive decision making:Sensitivity to expected value in risky choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 2007, 2(4):225
21 Weller JA, Levin IP, Denburg NL. Trajectory of risky decision making for potential gains and losses from ages 5 to 85. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2011, 24(4):331-344
22 Yao YW, Chen PR, Li S, et al. Decision-making for risky gains and losses among college students with Internet gaming disorder. PloS One, 2015, 10(1):e0116471
23 赵辉, 杨波, 朱千, 等. 海洛因依赖者对毒品相关线索的前注意偏向. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2016, 24 (5):795-799
24 Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Environmental Impact Assessment, Technology Assessment, and Risk Analysis. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1985. 107-129

服务与反馈：

【文章下载】【加入收藏】