Crowdsourcing provides an efficient and effective means of recruiting participants for psychological research. This review summarizes existing evidence supporting the use of crowdsourcing for topics relevant to addiction science and explains how crowdsourcing may be used to complement existing research by improving the rigor and reproducibility of study outcomes.

Objective: The present study meta-analyzed studies examining changes in alcohol consumption during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and systematically reviewed contextual and individual difference factors related to these changes. Method: Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) protocol, studies were gathered via PsycINFO, PubMed/MEDLINE, and preprint databases (published April 29, 2021) that examined individual-level changes in consumption during the initial COVID-19 mitigation measures (before October 2020). Next, sample proportion increases and decreases in consumption, in addition to mean change in consumption variables from pre-to during-COVID, were meta-analyzed, and contextual and individual difference variables related to consumption changes during the pandemic were summarized. Results: One hundred and twenty-eight studies provided data from 58 countries (M n = 3,876; Mdn n = 1,092; aggregate sample n = 492,235). The average mean change in alcohol consumption was nonsignificant (Cohen's d = −0.01, p = .68); however, meta-analysis revealed that 23% of participants reported increases in consumption and 23% reported decreases. These changes were moderated by per capita gross domestic product and country. Narrative synthesis revealed multiple predictors of increased drinking, including contextual changes (e.g., children at home, income loss, working remotely), individual difference variables (being female, a young-to-middle aged adult, or Black), and mental health/alcohol-related risk factors (e.g., depression). Conclusions: The identified factors associated with increased alcohol consumption should be considered in planning behavioral health services during future crisis events that abruptly alter everyday environments in ways that increase stress and decrease access to naturally occurring rewards. Public Health Significance StatementThroughout the early months of the first wave of COVID-19, about one-fourth of study samples reported increases in alcohol consumption, and one-fourth reported decreases in consumption. The review suggested that the pandemic differentially affected drinking based on multiple individual and contextual variables. In light of the emergence of mutant strains and the prediction of similar future pandemics, these results provide an empirical basis for a behavioral health pandemic preparedness plan that could reduce the likelihood of pandemic-related drinking increases.

No abstract

We demonstrate through theoretical, empirical, and sociocultural evidence that the concept of impulsivity fails the basic requirements of a psychological construct and should be rejected as such. Impulsivity (or impulsiveness) currently holds a central place in psychological theory, research, and clinical practice and is considered a multifaceted concept. However, impulsivity falls short of the theoretical specifications for hypothetical constructs by having meaning that is not compatible with psychometric, neuroscience, and clinical data. Psychometric findings indicate that impulsive traits and behaviors (e.g., response inhibition, delay discounting) are largely uncorrelated and fail to load onto a single, superordinate latent variable. Modern neuroscience has also failed to identify a specific and central neurobehavioral mechanism underlying impulsive behaviors and instead has found separate neurochemical systems and loci that contribute to a variety of impulsivity types. Clinically, these different impulsivity types show diverging and distinct pathways and processes relating to behavioral and psychosocial health. The predictive validity and sensitivity of impulsivity measures to pharmacological, behavioral, and cognitive interventions also vary based on the impulsivity type evaluated and clinical condition examined. Conflation of distinct personality and behavioral mechanisms under a single umbrella of impulsivity ultimately increases the likelihood of misunderstanding at a sociocultural level and facilitates misled hypothesizing and artificial inconsistencies for clinical translation. We strongly recommend that, based on this comprehensive evidence, psychological scientists and neuroscientists reject the language of impulsivity in favor of a specific focus on the several well-defined and empirically supported factors that impulsivity is purported to cover.