Nicolas Kaczmarek

Astrid Mignon

Amelie Rousseau

Charlotte Baey

published or not. The documents may come

Evaluating the effectiveness of implementation intentions to strengthen approach-avoidance training:

Pilot study on alcohol use disorder

Avoidance Task (see [START_REF] Rinck | Approach and avoidance in fear of spiders[END_REF] for the original task; [START_REF] Wiers | Relatively strong automatic appetitive action-tendencies in male carriers of the OPRM1 G-allele[END_REF] for the alcohol version). In both tasks, participants have to categorize at least two classes of stimuli (e.g., images of alcoholic vs. non-alcoholic beverages) by making approach-avoidance responses. In the Stimulus-Response Compatibility task, those responses rely on symbolism: participants have to press keys to move a manikin toward (i.e., approach) or away from stimuli (i.e., avoidance). In the Approach-Avoidance Task, those responses rely on sensorimotor information: participants have to move a joystick toward (i.e., approach) or away from stimuli (i.e., avoidance); a visual feedback system causes stimuli to increase when participants move toward them, and shrinks them when they move away. This sensorimotor information is thought to play a major role in approach-avoidance tendencies [START_REF] Rougier | Mesure des tendances comportementales d'approche/évitement : Le rôle des processus sensorimoteurs[END_REF][START_REF] Rougier | A new look at sensorimotor aspects in approach/avoidance tendencies : The role of visual whole-body movement information[END_REF]. A novel task, named the Visual Approach/Avoidance by the Self Task, has been developed to strengthen them (i.e., by simulating approach and avoidance of the whole self, and not mere approach and avoidance of stimuli), but has never been used in the alcohol literature [START_REF] Rougier | A new look at sensorimotor aspects in approach/avoidance tendencies : The role of visual whole-body movement information[END_REF].

The tasks used to probe approach-avoidance tendencies can be administered in two versions: with relevant and irrelevant instructions (e.g., [START_REF] Kersbergen | The validity of different measures of automatic alcohol action tendencies[END_REF]. In the relevant version, participants are explicitly instructed to approach or avoid stimuli according to their content (e.g., images of alcoholic vs. non-alcoholic beverages): in one block, they are asked to approach one class of stimuli and avoid the other; in a second block, they must do the opposite. In the irrelevant version, they are instructed to approach or avoid stimuli according to their presentation format (e.g., images presented with or without borders), irrespective of their content: there is only one block in which images of each class of stimuli are presented uniformly in the approach and avoidance formats. In both versions, contingencies require participants to emit an equal number of approach and avoidance responses for each stimulus class.

Technology readiness levels. The relevant Approach-Avoidance Task, with valenced terms for approach-avoidance responses seems more appropriate for probing approach-avoidance tendencies toward alcohol. One meta-analysis highlighted that, in general, approach-avoidance effects (i.e., the tendency to approach positive stimuli, rather than avoid negative stimuli) were stronger when tasks used valenced terms for approach-avoidance responses (e.g., "approach", "toward" for approach; "avoid", "away" for avoidance; [START_REF] Laham | A meta-analysis of the facilitation of arm flexion and extension movements as a function of stimulus valence[END_REF]. This meta-analysis found no differences between relevant and irrelevant versions of these tasks. However, when assessing convergent validity rather than approach-avoidance effects per se, two studies in the Pre-registered article : N. Kaczmarek, A. Mignon, C. Baey, & A. Rousseau (2022) alcohol literature have shown that the relevant version has a stronger correlation with hazardous drinking [START_REF] Kaczmarek | Alcohol approach tendencies in heavy drinkers : Comparison of effects in a relevant stimulus-response compatibility task and an approach/avoidance Simon task[END_REF][START_REF] Kersbergen | The validity of different measures of automatic alcohol action tendencies[END_REF]. One of them also showed that the relevant Approach-Avoidance Task is more strongly correlated with hazardous drinking than the relevant Stimulus-Response Compatibility Task [START_REF] Kersbergen | The validity of different measures of automatic alcohol action tendencies[END_REF]. Main findings. An approach tendency toward alcohol may contribute to perpetuating alcohol use disorder. Some studies have shown that it was associated with higher cravings toward alcohol (see [START_REF] Field | Craving and cognitive biases for alcohol cues in social drinkers[END_REF] for significant findings; [START_REF] Field | Rapid approach responses to alcohol cues in heavy drinkers[END_REF] for mixed findings; [START_REF] Wiers | approach bias in alcohol addiction : The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak for spirits[END_REF] for non-significant findings in an underpowered study), alcohol consumption (see [START_REF] Field | Rapid approach responses to alcohol cues in heavy drinkers[END_REF] for significant findings; [START_REF] Kaczmarek | Alcohol approach tendencies in heavy drinkers : Comparison of effects in a relevant stimulus-response compatibility task and an approach/avoidance Simon task[END_REF][START_REF] Kersbergen | The validity of different measures of automatic alcohol action tendencies[END_REF] for mixed findings; [START_REF] Field | Craving and cognitive biases for alcohol cues in social drinkers[END_REF] for non-significant findings), and hazardous drinking in nonclinical samples (see [START_REF] Field | Rapid approach responses to alcohol cues in heavy drinkers[END_REF]Willem et al., 2013 for significant findings;Kersbergen et al., 2015 for mixed findings). Other studies have shown that an approach tendency toward alcohol could differentiate hazardous drinkers from light drinkers (see [START_REF] Field | Rapid approach responses to alcohol cues in heavy drinkers[END_REF]Sharbanee et al., 2013 for significant findings;[START_REF] Kaczmarek | Alcohol approach tendencies in heavy drinkers : Comparison of effects in a relevant stimulus-response compatibility task and an approach/avoidance Simon task[END_REF] for mixed findings) and alcohol use disorder participants from control participants (see [START_REF] Ernst | Prefrontal correlates of approach preferences for alcohol stimuli in alcohol dependence[END_REF] for significant findings in an underpowered study; [START_REF] Wiers | approach bias in alcohol addiction : The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak for spirits[END_REF] for marginally significant findings in an underpowered study; [START_REF] Spruyt | On the predictive validity of automatically activated Pre-registered article[END_REF] for opposite findings). It is worth noting that there is some heterogeneity in those results, which may be due part to variations in tasks and instructions (see, for example, [START_REF] Kersbergen | The validity of different measures of automatic alcohol action tendencies[END_REF]. It seems premature to draw conclusion on the role of approach-avoidance tendencies on alcohol use disorder at this point.

Approach-avoidance training

Paradigm and instructions. Approach-avoidance training toward alcohol refers to computerized programs developed to train participants to emit an avoidance response when confronted with alcohol stimuli [START_REF] Wiers | Retraining automatic action-tendencies to approach alcohol in hazardous drinkers[END_REF]. Such training is based on variants of the tasks used to probe approach-avoidance tendencies, where contingencies require participants to (quasi-)systematically avoid images of alcoholic beverages and to (quasi-)systematically approach images of non-alcoholic ones.

Approach-avoidance training can be conducted in two versions: with relevant and irrelevant instructions (e.g., [START_REF] Wiers | Retraining automatic action tendencies changes alcoholic patients' approach bias for alcohol and improves treatment outcome[END_REF]. In relevant approach-avoidance training, participants are explicitly instructed to avoid one class of stimuli (e.g., alcoholic beverages) and to approach the other one (e.g., non-alcoholic beverages). In irrelevant approach-avoidance training, participants are instructed to avoid images presented in one format (e.g., without borders) and Pre-registered article : N. Kaczmarek, A. Mignon, C. Baey, & A. Rousseau (2022) to approach those presented in another (e.g., with borders), irrespective of their content (e.g., alcoholic vs. non-alcoholic beverages). However, one stimulus class (e.g., alcoholic beverages) is quasi-systematically presented in the avoidance format; whereas the other (e.g., non-alcohlic beverages) is quasi-systematically presented in the approach format (e.g., 90-100% of trials).

Main findings. Approach-avoidance training might be an attractive add-on treatment for alcohol use disorder. A meta-analysis has found that, approach-avoidance training toward alcohol has a small to medium effect on approach tendency toward alcohol (g = 0. 46), a non-significant effect on cravings (g = 0.10), and a small effect on follow-up outcomes such as relapse (g = 0.20; [START_REF] Cristea | The effectiveness of cognitive bias modification interventions for substance addictions : A meta-analysis[END_REF]. However, this meta-analysis includes only 3 studies conducted in alcohol use disorder. Approach-avoidance training might be more effective as an add-on treatment for clinical samples than as a stand-alone intervention for non-clinical or even clinical samples (see [START_REF] Wiers | What's in a trial? On the importance of distinguishing between experimental lab studies and randomized controlled trials: The case of cognitive bias modification and alcohol use disorders[END_REF] for a review). Studies assessing the effectiveness of approachavoidance training as an add-on treatment for alcohol use disorder have shown a potential to decrease approach tendency (see [START_REF] Eberl | Approach bias modification in alcohol dependence : Do clinical effects replicate and for whom does it work best?[END_REF][START_REF] Manning | Effect of cognitive bias modification on early relapse among adults undergoing inpatient alcohol withdrawal treatment : A randomized clinical trial[END_REF]Wiers et al., 2011 for significant findings;[START_REF] Rinck | Relapse prevention in abstinent alcoholics by cognitive bias modification : Clinical effects of combining approach bias modification and attention bias modification[END_REF][START_REF] Wiers | Effects of cognitive bias modification training on neural signatures of alcohol approach tendencies in male alcohol-dependent patients[END_REF] for marginally significant findings), and relapse risk by approximately 10% or more in follow-ups after 2 weeks (see Manning et al., 2021 for significant findings;[START_REF] Manning | Cognitive bias modification training during inpatient alcohol detoxification reduces early relapse : A randomized controlled trial[END_REF] for marginally significant findings) and up to 1 year (see Rinck et al., 2018 for significant findings;[START_REF] Eberl | Approach bias modification in alcohol dependence : Do clinical effects replicate and for whom does it work best?[END_REF] for mixed findings; [START_REF] Wiers | Retraining automatic action tendencies changes alcoholic patients' approach bias for alcohol and improves treatment outcome[END_REF] for marginally significant findings).

It should be noted that relapse was assessed through a problematic heuristic in the abovementioned studies (i.e., like most studies in the alcohol literature; see Maisto, Witkiewitz, et al., 2016a). Relapse was operationalized dichotomously with alcohol consumption as its central criterion (e.g., more than one episode of alcohol consumption or a single episode with negative consequences). However, the diagnosis of alcohol use disorder is primarily based on alcohol dependency and biopsychosocial consequences, independently of alcohol consumption level (American Psychiatric Association, 2013;World Health Organization, 1992). Furthermore, these relapse indicators seem to have only weak correlations with long-term alcohol consumption, alcohol-related consequences, and biopsychosocial functioning (Maisto, Roos, et al., 2016b). Future studies should attempt to adopt a broader view of clinical outcomes to improve understanding of how approach-avoidance training functions. Models and recommendations. The classical understanding of the effect of approach-avoidance training through the dual-process model (e.g., [START_REF] Stacy | Implicit cognition and addiction : A tool for explaining paradoxical behavior[END_REF][START_REF] Wiers | Implicit cognition and addiction[END_REF] is Pre-registered article : N. Kaczmarek, A. Mignon, C. Baey, & A. Rousseau (2022) currently being challenged. In this view, it is assumed that approach-avoidance training targets an associative process: this intervention is thought to affect alcohol consumption by changing the dominant association in memory from approaching alcohol to avoiding it. However, recent findings seem to contradict the tenets of this approach. Some studies have tended to show that approach-avoidance training's effectiveness is moderated by beliefs about the meaning of approach-avoidance (e.g., that avoiding alcohol helps to alter one's consumption; see Mertens et al., 2018 for indirect evidence;[START_REF] Van Dessel | How do actions influence attitudes? An inferential account of the impact of action performance on stimulus evaluation[END_REF] for a brief rundown of yet-to-bepublished studies showcasing more direct evidence). Other studies have shown that verbal instructions of approach-avoidance responses of neutral stimuli, in the absence of extensive training, were sufficient to observe a corresponding effect on their explicit and implicit evaluations [START_REF] Van Dessel | Instruction-based approachavoidance effects[END_REF]. Further studies have shown that the effects of approachavoidance training on both implicit and explicit evaluations depended on relevant contingency awareness [START_REF] Van Dessel | Approach-avoidance training effects are moderated by awareness of stimulus-action contingencies[END_REF].

These findings seems more compatible with an inferential account of the effects of approachavoidance training (see [START_REF] Van Dessel | How do actions influence attitudes? An inferential account of the impact of action performance on stimulus evaluation[END_REF] for a review). Such a view assumes that approach-avoidance training affects behavior by changing a propositional representation containing information about the causal link between stimuli (e.g., alcohol), response (e.g., approach vs. avoidance), and outcomes (e.g., negative vs. positive consequences). These changes are thought to rely on goal-driven inferences that are learned and evoked based on individuals' beliefs about their instrumental relevance to their goal. Hence, approach-avoidance training could be viewed as a form of ABC training in which participants are trained in the context of personally relevant antecedent (A) to make a behavioral choice (B) coherent with their personal goals regarding their consequences (C). This training is thought to increase certain features of automaticity (e.g., rapidity) of goal-directed behavior in a specific context through repeated practice [START_REF] Wiers | ABC training : A new theory-based form of cognitive-bias modification to Foster automatization of alternative choices in the treatment of addiction and related disorders[END_REF].

Three recommendations for approach-avoidance training were derived from this inferential account [START_REF] Wiers | ABC training : A new theory-based form of cognitive-bias modification to Foster automatization of alternative choices in the treatment of addiction and related disorders[END_REF]. This intervention should try to include: (A) personally relevant antecedents, (B) a goal-relevant alternative behavior (see Kopetz et al., 2017 but offer full support). Regarding this latter recommendation, it might be useful to use relevant instructions to avoid alcohol, while highlighting the importance of doing so to change alcohol Pre-registered article : N. Kaczmarek, A. Mignon, C. Baey, & A. Rousseau (2022) consumption. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact of these recommendations on approach-avoidance training's effectiveness.

Implementation intentions

Definition. In parallel to this inferential account, which assumed automatization of goaldirected behaviors could be achieved through repeated practice [START_REF] Wiers | ABC training : A new theory-based form of cognitive-bias modification to Foster automatization of alternative choices in the treatment of addiction and related disorders[END_REF], the literature on implementation intentions assumes that it can be achieved through verbal planning [START_REF] Gollwitzer | Goal achievement : The role of intentions[END_REF][START_REF] Gollwitzer | Implementation intentions : Strong effects of simple plans[END_REF]. Implementation intentions involve linking a critical situation that could be an enabler or an obstacle to goal achievement (e.g., being in a bar) to an adequate response in order to seize the opportunity or overcome the obstacle (e.g., ordering sparkling water), through the verbal "if-then" plan (e.g., "If I'm in a bar, then I'll order sparkling water"; [START_REF] Gollwitzer | Goal achievement : The role of intentions[END_REF][START_REF] Gollwitzer | Implementation intentions : Strong effects of simple plans[END_REF]. Implementation intentions thus differentiate from mere goal intentions that simply state the intention to achieve a goal (e.g., "I intend to stop drinking"; [START_REF] Ajzen | The theory of planned behavior[END_REF].

They also differ from other plans, which we will call "standard", that specify the desired behavior before the critical situation in which it is to occur, and do not use the verbal "if-then" plan (e.g., "I'll order a sparkling water if I am in a bar"). In the language of ABC training, we could say that implementation intentions use the verbal "if-then" proposition to create a link between a personally relevant antecedent (A) and a chosen goal-directed behavior (B).

Main findings. The literature has found evidence that implementation intentions may delegate the control of goal-directed behaviors to anticipated situational cues, which (when encountered) elicited these behaviors with certain features of increased automaticity (see [START_REF] Wieber | Promoting the translation of intentions into action by implementation intentions : Behavioral effects and physiological correlates[END_REF] for a review). Automatization is characterized by several features including goal-independency, redundancy of conscious awareness, rapidity, efficiency, and uncontrollability. These features are continuous and don't necessarily map onto each other [START_REF] Melnikoff | The mythical number two[END_REF][START_REF] Moors | Automaticity : Componential, causal, and mechanistic explanations[END_REF] 1 . Multiple studies have shown that a high level of motivation to achieve a goal is required to observe the effects of implementation intentions and that this strategy is thus goal-dependent [START_REF] Orbell | The automatic component of habit in health behavior : Habit as cue-contingent automaticity[END_REF][START_REF] Prestwich | Crossing two types of implementation intentions with a protection motivation intervention for the reduction of saturated fat intake : A randomized trial[END_REF][START_REF] Sheeran | The interplay between goal intentions and implementation intentions[END_REF][START_REF] Van Osch | The formation of specific action plans can enhance sun protection behavior in motivated parents[END_REF].

Nevertheless, several studies have found that implementation intentions seem to affect other features of automaticity, such as: rapidity [START_REF] Brandstätter | Implementation intentions and efficient action initiation[END_REF][START_REF] Cohen | Self-regulatory strategy and executive control : Implementation intentions modulate task switching and Simon task performance[END_REF][START_REF] Eder | Control of impulsive emotional behaviour through implementation intentions[END_REF][START_REF] Gawrilow | Implementation intentions facilitate response inhibition in children with ADHD[END_REF]Lengfelder & Gollwitzer, 2001;[START_REF] Webb | Identifying good opportunities to act : Implementation intentions and cue discrimination[END_REF], 2007), efficiency [START_REF] Brandstätter | Implementation intentions and efficient action initiation[END_REF][START_REF] Gilbert | Separable brain systems supporting cued versus self-initiated realization of delayed intentions[END_REF][START_REF] Hallam | The neural correlates of emotion regulation by implementation intentions[END_REF]Lengfelder & Gollwitzer, 2001), uncontrollability [START_REF] Mendoza | Reducing the expression of implicit stereotypes : Reflexive control through implementation intentions[END_REF][START_REF] Stewart | Bringing automatic stereotyping under control : Implementation intentions as efficient means of thought control[END_REF][START_REF] Webb | Strategic control over the unhelpful effects of primed social categories and goals[END_REF], 2012;[START_REF] Webb | Gaining control over responses to implicit attitude tests : Implementation intentions engender fast responses on attitudeincongruent trials[END_REF], and even redundancy of conscious awareness [START_REF] Bayer | Responding to subliminal cues : Do if-then plans facilitate action preparation and initiation without conscious intent[END_REF]. Moreover, implementation intentions seem to change the subjective experience of executing the desired response, such that it's perceived as more automatic [START_REF] Orbell | The automatic component of habit in health behavior : Habit as cue-contingent automaticity[END_REF].

Implementation intentions has proven its effectiveness in promoting the initiation and maintenance of goal-directed behaviors, or the control of goal-conflicting behaviors in several life domains (e.g., academic, consumer, health, environmental…). Meta-analyses have revealed this strategy to have a medium to large effect size on goal achievement (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006, d = 0.65 [START_REF] Armitage | Effectiveness of experimenter-provided and self-generated implementation intentions to reduce alcohol consumption in a sample of the general population : A randomized exploratory trial[END_REF][START_REF] Armitage | Evidence that a volitional help sheet reduces alcohol consumption among smokers : A pilot randomized controlled trial[END_REF][START_REF] Armitage | A volitional help sheet to reduce alcohol consumption in the general population : A field experiment[END_REF][START_REF] Moors | Automaticity : Componential, causal, and mechanistic explanations[END_REF][START_REF] Chatzisarantis | Effects of Implementation Intentions Linking Suppression of Alcohol Consumption to Socializing Goals on Alcohol-Related Decisions[END_REF][START_REF] Hagger | An intervention to reduce alcohol consumption in undergraduate students using implementation intentions and mental simulations : A cross-national study[END_REF][START_REF] Murgraff | Moderating binge drinking : It is possible to change behaviour if you plan it in advance[END_REF][START_REF] Norman | Combining self-affirmation and implementation intentions to reduce heavy episodic drinking in university students[END_REF]; see [START_REF] Malaguti | Effectiveness of the use of implementation intentions on reduction of substance use : A meta-analysis[END_REF] for a meta-analysis, g = 0.31).

Implementation intentions might be a promising way to strengthen approach-avoidance training's effectiveness on alcohol use disorder. To our knowledge, no study has ever tested the effect of "if-then" plans in this context, compared to standard plans or other control instructions.

However, multiple studies have found that "if-then" plans tended to be more effective than standard plans (e.g., [START_REF] Armitage | A volitional help sheet to encourage smoking cessation : A randomized exploratory trial[END_REF][START_REF] Freydefont | Goal striving strategies and effort mobilization : When implementation intentions reduce effort-related cardiac activity during task performance[END_REF][START_REF] Oettingen | Effective self-regulation of goal attainment[END_REF]. Furthermore, one study seems to show that implementation intentions can alter alcohol-elicited responses in a non-clinical sample of heavy drinkers. Participants completed 2 tasks thought to modify attentional and approach-avoidance tendencies toward alcohol. They completed the tasks prior to and after the formation of a goal intention (e.g., "It might be useful to focus instead on a non-alcoholic choice, like water") or implementation intentions (i.e., "If I see an alcoholic drink, then I will focus all my attention away from it!"; "If… then I will move the manikin away from it!"). Results indicate that implementation intentions change alcohol-elicited responses with a large effect size (d = 0.85). They also show that implementation intentions reduce alcohol consumption at a 1-month follow-up with a moderate effect size (d = 0.74), and thus that its effects are generalizable to real-life situations (Mcgrath et al., 2020).

Pre-registered article : N. Kaczmarek, A. Mignon, C. Baey, & A. Rousseau (2022) Research Overview Pilot study. A pilot study was conducted to select images for the tasks used to probe and train approach-avoidance tendencies toward alcohol in the main study. The primary objective was to select 30 alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages that fitted well with a French sample, from a set of 76 images from a Netherlands validation study [START_REF] Pronk | Validation of the Amsterdam Beverage Picture Set : A controlled picture set for cognitive bias measurement and modification paradigms[END_REF]. The secondary objective was to create 5 pairs of similar alcoholic beverages and 5 pairs of similar nonalcoholic beverages to be able to explore the generalizability of intervention effects.

Main study. The primary objective of the main study is to replicate the effectiveness of approach-avoidance training for alcohol use disorder and to evaluate the potential of implementation intentions to improve it. As discussed above, previous research has shown that approach-avoidance training may be an effective add-on treatment for alcohol use disorder. In parallel, the literature on implementation intentions has found evidence that verbal "if-then" plans could increase some features of automaticity of a goal-directed behavior in a specific context, without requiring repeated practice. Hence, implementation intentions may be useful in strengthening alcohol avoidance during approach-avoidance training. We will compare the effectiveness of an approach-avoidance training integrating implementation intentions (i.e., with a target instruction formulated with an "if-then" plan: "If I see an alcoholic beverage, then I'll move away from it"), to a standard approach-avoidance training (i.e., with a target instruction formulated with a standard plan: "I'll move away from alcoholic beverages"), and a sham training, on alcohol use disorder.

The secondary objective is to improve the measures of approach-avoidance training's effectiveness. As discussed above, most studies on alcohol use disorder have focused on a problematic relapse indicator. We will still measure this relapse indicator, as well as approachavoidance tendencies toward alcohol, to replicate the results observed in the literature.

However, the primary outcome will be alcohol dependency (as it is a central feature of alcohol use disorder diagnosis). Secondary outcomes will include alcohol-related consequences (as it is another central feature of alcohol use disorder diagnosis), heavy drinking (as it provides a less binary view on alcohol consumption) and alcohol consumption's perceived automaticity (as it may reflect the subjective experience of alcohol consumption).

The main hypotheses are that approach-avoidance training -implementation intentions will be more effective than approach-avoidance training -standard (H1a) and sham training (H1b), and also that approach-avoidance training -standard will be more effective than sham training Pre-registered article : N. Kaczmarek, A. Mignon, C. Baey, & A. Rousseau (2022) (H1c) in reducing alcohol dependency 6 months after the intervention. The secondary hypotheses are that approach-avoidance training -implementation intentions will be more effective than approach-avoidance training -standard (H2-5a) and sham training (H2-5b), and also that approach-avoidance training -standard will be more effective than sham-training (H2-5c) in reducing the approach tendency toward alcohol after the intervention (H2a, b, c), as well as heavy drinking (H3a, b, c), relapse indicator (H4a, b, c), and alcohol consumption 's perceived automaticity in cases of consumption 6 months after the intervention (H5a, b, c).

Pilot Study 2

Sample size and characteristics Three hundred and fifty-two participants were recruited on Facebook. The inclusion criteria were as follows: a) French nationality, b) over 18 years old, and c) having consumed alcohol at least once in the last year. We had no specific exclusion criteria. Nine of the participants were not included because they didn't meet the inclusion criteria. The final sample was thus composed of 343 participants, of whom 77.5% were women, 22.2% were men, and 0.3% did not consider themselves to be either men or women, with a mean age of 30 years old (SD = 10).

Procedure and material

This study was conducted on Limesurvey software (Limesurvey, 2017). The questionnaire and pre-selected images are available on the Open Science Framework (see Supporting Text S1, Supporting Image S1, https://osf.io/sc2qm/). Participants first evaluated their problematic alcohol consumption with a French version of the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test [START_REF] Accietto | La validation d'une version française du questionnnaire AUDIT" Alcohol Use Identification Test[END_REF][START_REF] Saunders | Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) : WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II[END_REF]. This scale categorized them as non-problematic drinkers (i.e., score ≤ 6 for men or score ≤ 5 for women), hazardous drinkers (i.e., 7 ≤ score ≤ 12 for men or 6 ≤ score ≤ 12 for women), or potentially suffering from alcohol use disorder (score ≥ 13 for both men and women; [START_REF] Gache | The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) as a screening tool for excessive drinking in primary care : Reliability and validity of a French version[END_REF]. Participants then viewed 5 random images from the pool of 76 and have to evaluate: how much they want to drink those beverage; if they have already drunk them; if they know them; if they think it contains alcohol or not; and how 2 A more in-depth section is available on the Open Science Framework (see https://osf.io/sc2qm/).

Pre-registered article : N. Kaczmarek, A. Mignon, C. Baey, & A. Rousseau (2022) difficult it was to determine if they contains alcohol or not. They finally filled in sociodemographic information.

We subjectively estimated that a minimum of 10 responses for each image was required to select those most relevant. Due to the randomization of image presentation, some were evaluated by 10 participants faster than others. We decided to progressively remove those images and continue data collection exclusively with images not yet evaluated by 10 participants.

Data analysis

The final sample includes 56.27% non-problematic drinkers, 30.61% hazardous drinkers, 13.12% people potentially suffering from Alcohol Use Disorder. The raw data, the data analysis, and the selected images are available on the Open Science Framework (see Supporting Data S1 and Image S2, https://osf.io/sc2qm/). The primary criteria for selecting 15 alcoholic beverages and 15 non-alcoholic beverages were as follows: a) being correctly categorized as containing alcohol or not by all participants, b) being easy to categorize as containing alcohol or not, c) eliciting more wanting than other beverage of the same category.

We then created 5 pairs of equivalent alcoholic beverages and 5 pairs of equivalent nonalcoholic beverages. The pairing criteria were as follows: a) similar type of beverages (i.e., alcoholic vs. non-alcoholic), b) similar beverages subtypes (i.e., for alcoholic: beer, wine, spirits or alcopops), c) comparable mean wanting elicited by the beverages.

Main study: Methods, Procedures, and Scales 3

Sample characteristics

This study will be conducted at the Clinique de la Mitterie addictology center, 59160 Lille, France. We will include participants who: a) are currently hospitalized at the rehab center for an alcohol use disorder, according to DSM-V criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 3 A more in-depth section is available on the Open Science Framework (see https://osf.io/76djt/). Eligibility will be verified jointly by the investigators and the doctors monitoring the participants.

Power analysis and sample size justification

A prospective power study was conducted in a Bayesian framework, using the Region Of Practical Equivalence paradigm [START_REF] Kruschke | Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test[END_REF]. A Region Of Practical Equivalence is a region whose values that are considered negligible from a clinical perspective. This power analysis has been conducted on the primary outcome, groups difference in alcohol dependency scores measured by the Short Alcohol Dependence Data questionnaire at 6-month follow-up, adjusted on the baseline score (i.e., H1a, b, c). Assuming a true difference of 4 points at the Short Alcohol Dependence Data questionnaire between approach-avoidance trainingimplementation intentions and standard versions, and of 8 points between approach-avoidance training -implementation intentions version and sham training (i.e., which shall reflect a respective improvement of 10 and 20% between conditions, based on cautious interpretation of previous results yielded by similar interventions in different contexts, see Supporting Table S1 on the Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/76djt/), we evaluated the posterior probability that the difference is strictly greater than the upper bound of the Region Of Practical Equivalence, and the posterior probability that the difference is strictly greater than 0. We assumed that the scores followed a non central t-distribution, and assigned wide priors to each parameter (Gaussian distributions for the means, Uniform distributions for the standard deviations and Exponential distributions for the non-normality parameters). The posterior distributions were build from a Markov Chain of size 100000. The objective of this analysis is Pre-registered article : N. Kaczmarek, A. Mignon, C. Baey, & A. Rousseau (2022) to estimate the (Bayesian) power of this study (i.e., its ability to detect an existing effect). Due to practical constraints, it will be difficult to include more than 80 patients per group. Therefore, we conducted the power analysis by comparing several sampling sizes per group: N=20, 30, 50, and 80 patients. Analyses were conducted in R using the BEST package [START_REF] Kruschke | Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test[END_REF].

The R code script used for this power analysis and its results are available on the Open Science Framework (see Supporting Data S2, https://osf.io/76djt/).

The central comparison will be the difference of alcohol dependency at 6-month follow-up between approach-avoidance training -implementation intentions and standard versions (H1a).

The results of this comparison indicate that the 95% Highest Density Interval for the difference in mean scores is greater than the Region Of Practical Equivalence (i.e., the lower bound of the 95% Highest Density Interval is greater than the upper bound of the Region Of Practical Equivalence) in 14% of the cases for N=20, in 21% of the cases for N=30, in 32% of the cases for N=50, and in 44% of the cases when N=80. More detailed results are given on the Open Science Framework (see Supporting Table S2, https://osf.io/76djt/). In practice, the 95% Highest Density Interval for the difference of means will be evaluated dynamically when new data are available at 6-month follow-up. The study might then be terminated early if we collect enough evidence in favor or disfavor of this comparison (H1a). We would stop the study in favor of an effect of approach-avoidance training -implementation intentions version if the 95% Highest Density Interval for the difference of means falls entirely outside the Region Of Practical Equivalence, and in disfavor of an effect if the 95% Highest Density Interval falls entirely inside the Region Of Practical Equivalence [START_REF] Kruschke | Rejecting or accepting parameter values in Bayesian estimation[END_REF]. If none of these criteria are met, the study would be continued until 80 patients per group are included. To ensure a minimal power, we will include at least 20 participants in each condition, since performance is degraded below this number.

Procedure

This study is divided into two phases: an experimental phase and a follow-up phase (see Figure 1). All the questionnaires will be conducted on Qualtrics software (Qualtrics, 2021), and the computerized tasks on Inquisit Lab software (Inquisit, 2016). They are all available on the Open Science Framework (see Supporting Text S2 and Supporting Program S1, https://osf.io/76djt/). All data will be collected anonymously to limit social desirability.

Experimental phase. The experimental phase will take place during the participants' hospitalization at the rehab center, in parallel with Treatment As Usual. Participants will first Pre-registered article : N. Kaczmarek, A. Mignon, C. Baey, & A. Rousseau (2022) be met with to sign the informed consent and to conduct a baseline that assesses heavy drinking, alcohol dependency, alcohol consumption's perceived automaticity, alcohol-related consequences, motivation, self-efficacy and intentions to change alcohol consumption, history of alcohol use disorder treatments, general symptomatology, and sociodemographic information. Within the three following days, participants will be quasi-randomly assigned4 to one of the computerized interventions {approach-avoidance training -standard version; approach-avoidance training -implementation intentions version; sham training}, for six sessions. Approach-avoidance tendencies toward alcohol will be measured at pre-test, just before the first session of intervention; and at post-test, within the three days following the last intervention session. At post-test, we will also note the number of individual psychological sessions. In the prior analyses, we will only analyze participants who have finished the experimental phase and compare the drop-out rate of the different interventions. We will not exclude participants' data from planned analyses for other reasons.

Follow-up phase. We will conduct an online follow-up at 2, 4, and 6-month post-intervention. These 3 follow-ups will assess heavy drinking and alcohol dependency. Furthermore, in cases of alcohol consumption, they will evaluate a relapse indicator, alcohol consumption's perceived automaticity, and alcohol-related consequences. Exclusively for the 6-month follow-up, participants will additionally fill in their use of care centers. In the planned analyses, we will analyze the follow-up data with an Intention-to-Treat approach. We will replace participants' missing data (i.e., those of participants who didn't respond to a follow-up) with their baseline data, to ensure that the absence of response is an unfavorable outcome. We will compare the proportion of missing data across intervention conditions.

Scales and Measurement

The dependent variables will be heavy drinking, alcohol dependency, alcohol consumption's perceived automaticity, alcohol-related consequences, approach-avoidance tendencies toward alcohol, and a relapse indicator.

Heavy drinking. The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test -Consumption will be used to measure heavy drinking. It's a 3-items questionnaire developed by Bush et al. ( 1998) as a shortened version of the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test [START_REF] Saunders | Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) : WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II[END_REF] and validated in French by [START_REF] Accietto | La validation d'une version française du questionnnaire AUDIT" Alcohol Use Identification Test[END_REF]. The internal consistency will be evaluated at baseline with the McDonald's ω [START_REF] Flora | Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability estimates[END_REF][START_REF] Mcdonald | Test theory : A unified approach[END_REF].

Alcohol dependency. The Short Alcohol Dependence Data questionnaire will be used to measure alcohol dependency. It's a 15-item questionnaire developed by [START_REF] Raistrick | Development of a questionnaire to measure alcohol dependence[END_REF] and translated into French by [START_REF] Tremblay | Questionnaire bref sur la dépendance à l'alcool (QBDA). Traduction du Severity of alcohol dependence date (SADD) de Raistrick D[END_REF]. We are currently validating the psychometric properties of the French version in another study. The internal consistency will be evaluated at baseline with the McDonald's ω [START_REF] Flora | Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability estimates[END_REF][START_REF] Mcdonald | Test theory : A unified approach[END_REF].

Alcohol consumption's perceived automaticity. The Self-Report Behavioral Automaticity Index will be used to measure alcohol consumption's perceived automaticity. It's a 4-item questionnaire developed and validated by [START_REF] Gardner | Towards parsimony in habit measurement : Testing the convergent and predictive validity of an automaticity subscale of the Self-Report Habit Index[END_REF] as a shortened version of the Self-Report Habit Index [START_REF] Kaczmarek | Reflections on past behavior : A self-report index of habit strength 1[END_REF]. Researchers are currently validating the psychometric properties of a French version of this questionnaire in another study. The internal consistency will be evaluated at baseline with the McDonald's ω [START_REF] Flora | Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability estimates[END_REF][START_REF] Mcdonald | Test theory : A unified approach[END_REF].

Alcohol-related consequences. The Short Inventory of Problems -Revised will be used to measure alcohol-related consequences. It's a 17-item questionnaire developed by [START_REF] Kiluk | The Short Inventory of Problems-Revised (SIP-R) : Psychometric properties within a large, diverse sample of substance use disorder treatment seekers[END_REF] as a shortened version of the Drinker Inventory of Consequences (DrInC, Miller, et al., 1995). We have translated this questionnaire into French and are currently validating the psychometric properties of the French version in another study. This questionnaire has 5 subscales that assess different types of alcohol-related consequences: Physical, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Impulse Management, and Social Responsibility (5 items). The internal Pre-registered article : N. Kaczmarek, A. Mignon, C. Baey, & A. Rousseau (2022) consistency will be evaluated at baseline with the McDonald's ω [START_REF] Flora | Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability estimates[END_REF][START_REF] Mcdonald | Test theory : A unified approach[END_REF].

The previous questionnaires will be measured at baseline, and at 2, 4, and 6-month follow-ups (i.e., only in case of alcohol consumption for alcohol consumption's perceived automaticity and alcohol-related consequences). They will be adjusted to focus on the last 2 months at the 3 follow-ups and on the 2 months before admission at the rehab center at baseline. This modification will allow measurement of changes in those dependent variables at each of the three follow-ups and to have an equivalent baseline before hospitalization at the Clinique de la Mitterie rehab center.

Approach-avoidance tendencies. The relevant Approach-Avoidance Task -alcohol version will be used to measure approach-avoidance tendencies toward alcohol at pre-test and post-test.

It is a computerized task that assesses the relative ease with which participants emit approachavoidance responses when confronted with alcohol stimuli (see [START_REF] Rinck | Approach and avoidance in fear of spiders[END_REF] for the conception of the task; [START_REF] Wiers | Relatively strong automatic appetitive action-tendencies in male carriers of the OPRM1 G-allele[END_REF] for the conception of the alcohol version; Kersbergen et al., 2015 for an example of a relevant version of this task in the alcohol domain). This task requires participants to categorize images of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages with joystick approach-avoidance responses, according to their content. In one block, participants are instructed to "Move away from alcoholic beverages by pushing the joystick away from you" and to "Approach non-alcoholic beverages by pulling the joystick toward you"; and to do the opposite in a second block. A zoom feature enhances the approach/avoidance sensation: pulling the joystick towards oneself enlarges the images, whereas pushing the joystick away shrinks the images. Each block will consist of 10 practice trials, followed by 40 evaluations trials, with equivalent proportions of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages. Hence, the global contingencies require participants to approach and avoid both beverages types equally. All trials will be conducted with 10 alcoholic beverages and 10 non-alcoholic beverages from the pilot study. Approach tendency toward alcohol will be measured through the difference in median reaction time between trials in which participants have to approach the alcoholic beverages and those in which they are asked to avoid it. For this analysis, data from trials where participants have committed an error will be excluded. This will be the only exclusion criterion.

Furthermore, we will compare the proportion of errors as a function of trial type (e.g., approach alcohol; avoid alcohol), time (i.e., pre-test and post-test), and experimental condition (i.e., approach-avoidance training -implementation intentions and standard versions, and sham training).

Pre-registered article : N. Kaczmarek, A. Mignon, C. Baey, & A. Rousseau (2022) Relapse indicator. The relapse indicator used is based on a selection of previous studies on approach-avoidance training [START_REF] Eberl | Approach bias modification in alcohol dependence : Do clinical effects replicate and for whom does it work best?[END_REF][START_REF] Rinck | Relapse prevention in abstinent alcoholics by cognitive bias modification : Clinical effects of combining approach bias modification and attention bias modification[END_REF][START_REF] Wiers | Retraining automatic action tendencies changes alcoholic patients' approach bias for alcohol and improves treatment outcome[END_REF] and will be used at 2, 4, and 6-month follow-ups in cases of alcohol consumption. Participants will be considered relapser if they have had: a) a period of alcohol consumption longer than 3 days, b) a period of alcohol consumption with further negative consequences, or c) more than 1 period of alcohol consumption during the entire follow-up phase. With an Intention-to-Treat conservative approach, participants who did not respond to a follow-up will also be considered as relapser.

We will also control for the homogeneity of the 3 participant groups with respect to motivation, self-efficacy, intention, treatment history, general symptomatology, sociodemographic information, individual psychological sessions, and use of care centers.

Motivation. The Stage Of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale will be used to measure motivation to change alcohol consumption at baseline. It's a 19-items questionnaire developed by [START_REF] Miller | Assessing drinkers' motivation for change : The Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES)[END_REF] and translated and validated in French by Zullino et al. (2007). This questionnaire comprises 3 subscales: Ambivalence, Problem Recognition, and Action towards change. The internal consistency will be evaluated with the McDonald's ω [START_REF] Flora | Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability estimates[END_REF][START_REF] Mcdonald | Test theory : A unified approach[END_REF].

Self-efficacy. The Alcohol Self-Efficacy Questionnaire will be used to measure self-efficacy to change alcohol consumption at baseline. It's a 20-items questionnaire developed in French by [START_REF] Wallart | Sentiment d'auto-efficacité à rester abstinent d'alcool. Construction d'un questionnaire francophone[END_REF]. This questionnaire comprises 3 subscales measuring coping with : Positive Affective Situations, Negative Affective Situations, and Craving and Temptation. The internal consistency will be evaluated with the McDonald's ω [START_REF] Flora | Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability estimates[END_REF][START_REF] Mcdonald | Test theory : A unified approach[END_REF].

Intention. We have developed an intention to change alcohol consumption questionnaire based on the recommendations of [START_REF] Rhodes | Conceptualizing and Defining the Intention Construct for Future Physical Activity Research[END_REF] and will use it at baseline. Two dimensions of behavioral intention will be measured: decisional intention and strength of intention. We will not use the term "intention" in the questions due to its lack of clarity. The decisional intention will be measured with 1 item asking participants if their therapeutic goal gor the next 6 months was abstinence or controlled consumption. The strength of intention will then be measured with 5 items assessing their level of commitment to this therapeutic goal. The internal consistency will be evaluated with the McDonald's ω [START_REF] Flora | Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability estimates[END_REF][START_REF] Mcdonald | Test theory : A unified approach[END_REF].

Pre-registered article : N. Kaczmarek, A. Mignon, C. Baey, & A. Rousseau (2022) Treatment history. We have developed a Treatment History Questionnaire to obtain additional details about participants' alcohol use disorder at baseline. This questionnaire assesses: the time elapsed since their alcohol consumption has become problematic; the total duration of remissions since then; as well as the number of previous withdrawals / full hospitalization for addiction and the time elapsed since their first one.

General symptomatology. The 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire will be used to measure general symptomatology at baseline. Said test was developed by [START_REF] Goldberg | A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire[END_REF] and translated and validated by [START_REF] Salama-Younes | Factor structure and internal consistency of the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and the Subjective Vitality Scale (VS), and the relationship between them : A study from France[END_REF]. This questionnaire comprises 3 subscales: Anxiety/Depression, Social dysfunction, and Loss of confidence. The internal consistency will be evaluated with the McDonald's ω [START_REF] Flora | Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability estimates[END_REF][START_REF] Mcdonald | Test theory : A unified approach[END_REF].

Sociodemographic information. The socio-demographic data questionnaire will allow provide additional information about the patients at baseline: their gender, age, education level, socioprofessional category, marital status, living arrangements, and dominant hand.

Individual psychological sessions. We will assess participants' number of individual psychological sessions at post-test, via their medical files at the Clinique de la Mitterie rehab center.

Use of care centers. We have developed a Use of Care Centers Questionnaire and will use it at Approach-Avoidance Task, participants are asked to categorize images of alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages with joystick approach-avoidance responses, according to their content.

However, in this variant, there is only one block in which participants are instructed to avoid alcoholic beverages, and approach non-alcoholic beverages. Hence, the contingencies require participants to systematically avoid alcoholic beverages and systematically approach nonalcoholic ones. Participants will first complete 10 practice trials and then 200 approachavoidance training trials, with a short break halfway through. All the trials will be conducted with the same set of 10 alcoholic beverages and 10 non-alcoholic beverages as in the pre-test Approach-Avoidance Task. An error correction system is included to ensure that participants perform the expected responses and thus train to avoid alcohol (and not the contrary).

Experimental manipulation: the goal of the approach-avoidance training is to train participants to avoid alcohol. The two approach-avoidance training groups will thus differ exclusively in the formulation of a target instruction focused on this point. Said instruction will be given at each session, just before the beginning of the training trials, and just after the short break halfway through:

 Approach-avoidance training -standard version. The target instruction is similar to the one commonly found in the approach-avoidance training literature and uses a standard plan: "I'll move away from alcoholic beverages as fast as possible". The raw data7 , the R code script of the prior and exploratory data analyses, and their results will be available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/srwut/)8 .

Before testing the hypotheses, we will control for the homogeneity of the 3 groups of participants regarding motivation, self-efficacy, intention, treatment history, general symptomatology, socio-demographic variables, individual psychological sessions, use of care centers, drop-out rate, and proportion of missing data. We will use chi-square tests to control for homogeneity of the qualitative variables and Student's t-test to control for homogeneity of the quantitative variables.

The primary outcome is the difference in alcohol dependency at 6 months as measured by the Short Alcohol Dependence Data Questionnaire score, adjusted on the baseline score. The central comparison will be performed between the approach-avoidance trainingimplementation intentions and standard groups (H1a), but comparisons will also be carried out between approach-avoidance training -implementation intentions and sham training groups (H1b), and between approach-avoidance training standard version and the sham training groups (H1c). These comparisons will be made in a Bayesian framework, assuming that the Short Alcohol Dependence Data Questionnaire scores in each group follow a non-central tdistribution, and assuming wide priors for the associated parameters in each group. More precisely, we chose wide Gaussian distributions for the means, wide uniform distributions for the standard deviations and a wide Exponential distribution for the non-normality parameters [START_REF] Kruschke | Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test[END_REF]. The posterior distribution of the difference of means will be assessed through Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms, using a chain length of 100,000. The 95% Highest Density Interval will be derived from this posterior distribution and compared to a Region Of Practical Equivalence (i.e., a region corresponding to values assumed to be negligible from a clinical perspective). If the 95% Highest Density Interval falls entirely inside the Region Of Practical Equivalence, we will conclude that there is no effect of approach-avoidance training, and if the 95% Highest Density Interval falls entirely outside the Region Of Practical Equivalence, we will conclude that there is an effect. In all other cases (i.e., if there is an overlap between the 95% Highest Density Interval and the Region Of Practical Equivalence), it means that we cannot exclude that the effect of approach-avoidance training is negligible, and therefore we will remain undecided. Note that the choice of the prior distributions ensures that the prior probability that the parameters fall inside the ROPE is non-null. However, since such binary decisions can be reductive with respect to the amount of statistical information available, we will also provide quantitative results. More precisely, we will report the 95% Highest Density Interval but also the full posterior distribution and its intersection with the Region Of Practical Equivalence. The Region Of Practical Equivalence is defined as the interval [-1.1],

which means a 5% difference in mean Short Alcohol Dependence Data Questionnaire scores between the approach-avoidance training -implementation intentions and standard groups, assuming a mean score of approximately 16 in the approach-avoidance training -standard group. A prospective power study based on simulated data has demonstrated that with approximately 80 patients per group, the probability that the 95% Highest Density Interval is greater than the Region Of Practical Equivalence is equal to 44%.

In addition, secondary outcomes (H2-6a, b, c) will be studied, with the same method as the primary outcome. More precisely, we will study the difference in approach tendency (H2a, b, c) at post-test, and differences in heavy drinking (H3a, b, c), relapse indicator (H4a, b, c), and alcohol consumption's perceived automaticity in cases of alcohol consumption at 6-month follow-up between the 3 groups (H5a, b, c).

  in overall, d = 0.65 for published studies, and d = 0.67 for unpublished studies; Toli et al., 2016, d = 0.99 in clinical and analogue samples, d = 1.11 for published studies, and d = 0.70 for unpublished studies). It is noteworthy that several studies have shown that implementation intentions could reduce alcohol consumption during 2-12 week follow-ups in non-clinical samples

  Pre-registered article : N.Kaczmarek, A. Mignon, C. Baey, & A. Rousseau (2022) 2013), b) have finished their physical withdrawal, c) can guarantee their presence at the clinique during the three following weeks for the study (i.e., hospitalization in the rehab center or if necessary in ambulatory care) d) have a valid email address and agree to be contacted by email, e) have a good command of spoken and written French, f) have given their informed consent to participate in a study "that tests the effectiveness of computerized interventions in improving the treatment of alcohol addiction".We will exclude participants who: a) are currently in remission for their alcohol use disorder, b) have other substance use disorders (except smoking), c) have proven and persistent neurocognitive disorders, d) receive medication that may significantly alter their level of alertness, e) have a history of schizophrenia, f) have motor or visual impairment(s) that prevent them from completing computerized interventions.

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Summary of the experimental procedure. Participants will be sequentially administered a baseline, a pre-test, one of the three interventions, a post-test, and 2, 4, and 6month follow-ups.

  the 6-month follow-up. It assesses the frequency of consultation of various professional and structure in addiction or psychopathology treatment, as well as the potential presence, frequency and duration of full-time re-hospitalization for addiction during the 6 previous month. Interventions Participants will be quasi-randomly assigned to one computerized interventions {approachavoidance training -standard version; approach-avoidance training -implementation intentions version; sham training}. Each intervention will consist of 6 sessions of approximately 15 minutes, conduct over 2 weeks.Approach-avoidance training. The two approach-avoidance trainings (i.e., standard and implementation intentions versions) will be conducted with a variant of the relevant Approach-Avoidance Task designed to train participants to emit an avoidance response when confronted with alcohol stimuli (see[START_REF] Wiers | Retraining automatic action-tendencies to approach alcohol in hazardous drinkers[END_REF] for the conception of this task in the alcohol domain;[START_REF] Wiers | Retraining automatic action tendencies changes alcoholic patients' approach bias for alcohol and improves treatment outcome[END_REF] for an example of the relevant version of this task). As in the original relevant Pre-registered article : N.Kaczmarek, A. Mignon, C. Baey, & A. Rousseau (2022)

  Sham training. Sham training is a conservative control condition used in the literature on approach-avoidance training (e.g.,[START_REF] Manning | Cognitive bias modification training during inpatient alcohol detoxification reduces early relapse : A randomized controlled trial[END_REF][START_REF] Manning | Effect of cognitive bias modification on early relapse among adults undergoing inpatient alcohol withdrawal treatment : A randomized clinical trial[END_REF][START_REF] Rinck | Relapse prevention in abstinent alcoholics by cognitive bias modification : Clinical effects of combining approach bias modification and attention bias modification[END_REF]; also see[START_REF] Kaczmarek | What is the appropriate control condition for approach bias modification? A response to commentary by[END_REF] for a discussion on sham training). It will be conducted with a relevant Approach-Avoidance Task. In sham training, participants are asked to avoid non-alcoholic beverages and to approach alcoholic beverages in a first block of 100 trials, and to do the opposite in a second block of 100 trials. Hence, contrary to approach-avoidance training groups, contingencies require participants to approach and avoid both beverages types equally. With Pre-registered article : N.Kaczmarek, A. Mignon, C. Baey, & A. Rousseau (2022) the exception of this point, sham training will be identical to approach-avoidance training -

	standard version. 5
	Main study: Planned Analyses 6

 Approach-avoidance training -implementation intentions version. The target instruction is formulated with an "if-then" plan: "If I see an alcoholic beverage, then I'll move away from it as fast as possible".

It thus seems more appropriate to refer to "increasing some features of automaticity" than about "automatizing a behavior".

We will assign participants randomly to the different interventions, whilst taking into account their therapeutic goal (i.e., abstinence vs. controlled consumption) and their length of stay in the rehab center (more than three weeks vs. less than three weeks).

Note that a figure that summarized intervention instructions are available on the Open Science Framework (see Supporting FigureS1, https://osf.io/76djt/).

A more in-depth section is available on the Open Science Framework (see https://osf.io/srwut/).

Note that noise will be added to the data, to ensure non-reidentification of participants.

The R code script for the planned analyses, and a simulated data set are already available on the Open Science Framework (see Supporting Data S3, https://osf.io/srwut/)

World Health Organization. (1992). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders : Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Weekly Epidemiological Record= Relevé épidémiologique hebdomadaire, 67 (30), 227-227. Zullino, D. F., Krenz, S., Frésard, E., Montagrin, Y., Kolly, S., Chatton, A., Manghi, R. A., & Broers, B. (2007). Psychometric properties of a French-language version of the stage of change readiness and treatment eagerness scale (SOCRATES). Addiction Research & Theory,15(2),[153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160]