Behavioral Inhibition and Addiction

Fillmore, Mark T.; Weafer, Jessica

doi:10.1002/9781118384404.ch6

Cited by 27 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 148 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding could have potentially important implications for understanding factors contributing to excessive, undercontrolled alcohol consumption. Alcohol’s impairing effects on inhibitory control are well documented (Fillmore & Weafer, 2013), and previous studies have demonstrated associations between greater sensitivity to alcohol impairment of inhibitory control and heavy drinking (Gan et al, in press; Marczinski et al, 2007; Weafer & Fillmore, 2008). Together, these findings suggest that acute alcohol-induced disinhibition might directly influence on-going consumption by reducing an individual’s ability to stop or control drinking (Fillmore, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alcohol is well-known for its ability to acutely impair inhibitory control over pre-potent responses in laboratory tasks, such as the cued go/no-go model (for a review see, Fillmore & Weafer, 2013). Such acute impairment of inhibitory control could be especially pronounced in the context of alcohol-related environmental stimuli that also disrupt response inhibition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Alcohol-related cues potentiate alcohol impairment of behavioral control in drinkers.

Weafer¹,

Fillmore²

2015

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The acute impairing effects of alcohol on inhibitory control are well-established, and these disinhibiting effects are thought to play a role in its abuse potential. Alcohol impairment of inhibitory control is typically assessed in the context of arbitrary cues, yet drinking environments are comprised of an array of alcohol-related cues that are thought to influence drinking behavior. Recent evidence suggests that alcohol-related stimuli reduce behavioral control in sober drinkers, suggesting that alcohol impairment of inhibitory control might be potentiated in the context of alcohol cues. The current study tested this hypothesis by examining performance on the attentional-bias behavioral activation (ABBA) task that measures the degree to which alcohol-related stimuli can reduce inhibition of inappropriate responses in a between-subjects design. Social drinkers (N=40) performed the task in a sober condition, and then again following placebo (0.0 g/kg) and a moderate dose of alcohol (0.65 g/kg) in counter-balanced order. Inhibitory failures were greater following alcohol images compared to neutral images in sober drinkers, replicating previous findings with the ABBA task. Moreover, alcohol-related cues exacerbated alcohol impairment of inhibitory control as evidenced by more pronounced alcohol-induced disinhibition following alcohol cues compared to neutral cues. Finally, regression analyses showed that greater alcohol-induced disinhibition following alcohol cues predicted greater self-reported alcohol consumption. These findings have important implications regarding factors contributing to binge or ‘loss of control’ drinking. That is, the additive effect of disrupted control mechanisms via both alcohol-cues and the pharmacological effects of the drug could compromise an individual’s control over ongoing alcohol consumption.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alcohol-related cues potentiate alcohol impairment of behavioral control in drinkers.

Weafer¹,

Fillmore²

2015

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One index is delay discounting (DD) (Ainslie 1975; Green and Myerson 2004; Bickel et al 2014), a behavioral economic measure of preference for smaller immediate rewards over larger delayed rewards and is also referred to as impulsive choice . A second form of impulsivity measures the capacity to inhibit a prepotent motor response, often referred to as impulsive action , and is assessed using measures such as the Go/NoGo and Stop Signal Tasks (Fillmore and Weafer 2013). A third form of impulsivity is as a personality trait, assessed using self-report inventories, such as the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (Patton et al 1995) and the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale (Whiteside and Lynam 2001; Cyders et al 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A third form of impulsivity is as a personality trait, assessed using self-report inventories, such as the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (Patton et al 1995) and the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale (Whiteside and Lynam 2001; Cyders et al 2007). These forms of impulsivity have each been consistently linked to addictive behavior (Stanford et al 2009; MacKillop et al 2011; Fillmore and Weafer 2013; Coskunpinar et al 2013), but in relation to each other, the associations vary considerably (Petry 2001; Cyders and Coskunpinar 2011; Murphy and MacKillop 2012; Courtney et al 2012), ranging from moderate links to no association at all. These findings suggest that there is no single underlying construct of impulsivity, but a number of different facets or dimensions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The latent structure of impulsivity: impulsive choice, impulsive action, and impulsive personality traits

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale Impulsivity has been strongly linked to addictive behaviors, but can be operationalized in a number of ways that vary considerably in overlap, suggesting multidimensionality. Objective This study tested the hypothesis that the latent structure among multiple measures of impulsivity would reflect three broad categories: impulsive choice, reflecting discounting of delayed rewards; impulsive action, reflecting ability to inhibit a prepotent motor response; and impulsive personality traits, reflecting self-reported attributions of self-regulatory capacity. Methods The study used a cross-sectional confirmatory factor analysis of multiple impulsivity assessments. Participants were 1252 young adults (62% female) with low levels of addictive behavior who were assessed in individual laboratory rooms at the University of Chicago and the University of Georgia. The battery comprised a delay discounting task, Monetary Choice Questionnaire, Conners Continuous Performance Test, Go/NoGo Task, Stop Signal Task, Barratt Impulsivity Scale, and the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale. Results The hypothesized three-factor model provided the best fit to the data, although Sensation Seeking was excluded from the final model. The three latent factors were largely unrelated to each other and were variably associated with substance use. Conclusions These findings support the hypothesis that diverse measures of impulsivity can broadly be organized into three categories that are largely distinct from one another. These findings warrant investigation among individuals with clinical levels of addictive behavior and may be applied to understanding the underlying biological mechanisms of these categories.

show abstract

“…There is some evidence from clinical samples, particularly individuals with ADHD, of moderate to high reliability of tasks assessing impulsive action (Fillmore & Weafer, 2013). Similarly, impulsive choice measures demonstrate good test-retest reliability in healthy adults.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Test–retest reliability of behavioral measures of impulsive choice, impulsive action, and inattention.

Weafer¹,

Baggott²,

Wit³

2013

Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology

Self Cite

181

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioral measures of impulsivity are widely used in substance abuse research, yet relatively little attention has been devoted to establishing their psychometric properties, especially their reliability over repeated administration. The current study examined the test-retest reliability of a battery of standardized behavioral impulsivity tasks, including measures of impulsive choice (delay discounting, probability discounting, and the Balloon Analogue Risk Task), impulsive action (the stop signal task, the go/no-go task, and commission errors on the continuous performance task), and inattention (attention lapses on a simple reaction time task and omission errors on the continuous performance task). Healthy adults (n=128) performed the battery on two separate occasions. Reliability estimates for the individual tasks ranged from moderate to high, with Pearson correlations within the specific impulsivity domains as follows: impulsive choice (r = .76 - .89, ps < .001); impulsive action (r = .65 - .73, ps < .001); and inattention (r = .38-.42, ps < .001). Additionally, the influence of day-to-day fluctuations in mood as measured by the Profile of Mood States was assessed in relation to variability in performance on each of the behavioral tasks. Change in performance on the delay discounting task was significantly associated with change in positive mood and arousal. No other behavioral measures were significantly associated with mood. In sum, the current analysis demonstrates that behavioral measures of impulsivity are reliable measures and thus can be confidently used to assess various facets of impulsivity as intermediate phenotypes for drug abuse.

show abstract

Behavioral Inhibition and Addiction

Cited by 27 publications

References 148 publications

Alcohol-related cues potentiate alcohol impairment of behavioral control in drinkers.

Alcohol-related cues potentiate alcohol impairment of behavioral control in drinkers.

The latent structure of impulsivity: impulsive choice, impulsive action, and impulsive personality traits

Test–retest reliability of behavioral measures of impulsive choice, impulsive action, and inattention.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About