Academic constraints on alcohol consumption in college students: A behavioral economic analysis.

Abstract

Behavioral economic analyses recently have been extended to alcohol drinking among college students. The current study used a hypothetical alcohol purchase task (APT) to assess the effects of academic constraints (next-day class time and next-day class requirement) on alcohol demand among college students. Participants were asked to read a description of a drinking scenario and indicate how many standard drinks they would consume at a variety of prices. In Experiment 1, 164 participants (71% female) were randomly assigned to one of three "academic constraint" conditions, for which the scenario included a next-day class that differed by scheduled time (8:30 a.m., 10:00 a.m., or 12:30 p.m.), or a control condition (no next-day class). Exponential demand analyses revealed that participants in all three of the academic constraint conditions reported fewer drinks consumed and displayed lower "essential value" of alcohol, or greater sensitivity to price increases, compared with the no-constraint control. In Experiment 2, 66 participants (80.3% female) were randomly divided into four groups and received one of four versions of the APT, manipulated to examine class time and class requirement (8:30 a.m. class, 8:30 a.m. exam, 12:30 p.m. class, 12:30 p.m. exam). Exponential demand analyses revealed that the essential value of alcohol was lower for the two 8:30 a.m. conditions compared with the 12:30 p.m. conditions and was lowest for participants in the 8:30 a.m. exam condition compared with the other three. These results suggest that academic requirements may reduce alcohol demand among college students.

Behavioral economic measures of alcohol reward value as problem severity indicators in college students.

“…This extends a previous study that indicated that symptoms of depression (and PTSD) were associated with elevated demand by suggesting that depression does not account for the relation between elevated demand and alcohol problems (Murphy et al, 2013). Insensitivity to price, or in the case of RR insensitivity to alternative substance-free activity reinforcers, may override contextual features or potential risks that might otherwise limit drinking (Gentile et al, 2012; Skidmore & Murphy, 2010). Although intensity was positively correlated with alcohol-related problems, contrary to our hypotheses, it was not a significant predictor of problems when demographic variables and alcohol use were controlled for.…”

The Behavioral Economics of Substance Use Disorders: Reinforcement Pathologies and Their Repair

“…The sample included 207 college-student binge drinkers who were instructed to make drink purchases across a range of prices and preceding three responsibility conditions for the next day: no class, morning class without a test, and morning class with a test. Consumption was reduced markedly as a function of both price and the availability of a competing next-day alternative reinforcer that would presumably be negatively impacted by heavy drinking (see also Gentile et al 2012). The results of this study are consistent with behavioral economics theory and suggest that substance abuse prevention and intervention approaches are most likely to be successful when they attempt to increase direct constraints on substance use while simultaneously increasing the availability of particular classes of alternative reinforcers that are incompatible with substance use.…”

“…These include enforcing age limits on cigarette and alcohol purchases, maintaining or increasing taxes and/or legal sanctions (related to alcohol/tobacco or illicit substance use, respectively), reducing the density of outlets that sell regulated substances (alcohol, tobacco, and, in some areas, marijuana), carefully regulating the prescribing practices related to commonly abused prescription medications (opioids, benzodiazepines, stimulants), and enhancing the availability of prosocial activities that may increase the opportunity costs of substance abuse (e.g., access to education, employment, recreational activities) (DeFulio & Silverman 2011, Gentile et al 2012, Weitzman & Kawachi 2000). Interventions that attempt to increase constraints on drug choices are discussed next.…”

The behavioral economics of young adult substance abuse

“…Although the value of all rewards decreases with delayed receipt, there are individual differences in the degree that delayed rewards are discounted, and this systematic decision making bias may be a key risk factor for substance abuse (Madden & Bickel, 2010). Young adults who sharply discount the value of delayed health and career outcomes may be less likely to engage in the behaviors consistent with success in these areas (e.g., exercising, studying, attending class or internships), and may instead allocate their behavior towards immediately reinforcing activities such as using drugs or sleeping late and missing work/class following an evening of substance use (Gentile, Librizzi, & Martinetti, 2012). Indeed, numerous studies have demonstrated that the capacity to value delayed outcomes increases throughout the lifespan (Eppinger, Nystrom, & Cohen, 2012; Green et al, 1994; Whelan & McHugh, 2009) and that young adult substance abusers discount the value of delayed rewards more steeply than control participants (Acheson et al, 2011; Field, Christianson, Cole and Goudie, 2007; Kollins et al, 2003; Vuchinich & Simpson, 1998).…”