The influence of groups and alcohol consumption on individual risk-taking

Erskine-Shaw, Marianne; Monk, Rebecca; Qureshi, Adam; Heim, Derek

doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.07.032

Cited by 20 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 237 publications

(669 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is therefore possible that alcohol residue in the mouth may have inflated BrAC readings. However, readings are similar to previous work which has used comparable doses [ 43 ]]. Finally, both studies used different versions of the bogus taste test and so the amount of alcohol consumed between the two studies may not be directly comparable.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

The effect of beliefs about alcohol’s acute effects on alcohol priming and alcohol-induced impairments of inhibitory control

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acute alcohol administration can lead to a loss of control over drinking. Several models argue that this ‘alcohol priming effect’ is mediated by the effect of alcohol on inhibitory control. Alternatively, beliefs about how alcohol affects behavioural regulation may also underlie alcohol priming and alcohol-induced inhibitory impairments. Here two studies examine the extent to which the alcohol priming effect and inhibitory impairments are moderated by beliefs regarding the effects of alcohol on the ability to control behaviour. In study 1, following a priming drink (placebo or .5g/kg of alcohol), participants were provided with bogus feedback regarding their performance on a measure of inhibitory control (stop-signal task; SST) suggesting that they had high or average self-control. However, the bogus feedback manipulation was not successful. In study 2, before a SST, participants were exposed to a neutral or experimental message suggesting acute doses of alcohol reduce the urge to drink and consumed a priming drink and this manipulation was successful. In both studies craving was assessed throughout and a bogus taste test which measured ad libitum drinking was completed. Results suggest no effect of beliefs on craving or ad lib consumption within either study. However, within study 2, participants exposed to the experimental message displayed evidence of alcohol-induced impairments of inhibitory control, while those exposed to the neutral message did not. These findings do not suggest beliefs about the effects of alcohol moderate the alcohol priming effect but do suggest beliefs may, in part, underlie the effect of alcohol on inhibitory control.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

The effect of beliefs about alcohol’s acute effects on alcohol priming and alcohol-induced impairments of inhibitory control

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given that adaptive decision behavior is guided by balancing risks of potential negative and positive consequences (Brown et al, ) or weighing immediate rewards against long‐term negative consequences (Mazas, Finn, & Steinmetz, ), this risky bias suggests dysfunctional evaluation of risk and/or outcome in AUD. Evidence from a variety of experimental tasks indicates faster and riskier choices associated with AUD, whether in abstinent AUD, adolescents at risk, offspring of AUD parents, or individuals with other substance use disorders (Erskine‐Shaw, Monk, Qureshi, & Heim, ; Euser, Evans, Greaves‐Lord, Huizink, & Franken, ; Euser, Greaves‐Lord et al, ). Several moderators of dysfunctional decision behavior in AUD have been proposed, such as optimistically biased perception of one’s own risk (Klepper, Odenwald, & Rockstroh, ), indifference to the negative consequences of alcohol consumption (Kamarajan et al, ), and trait impulsivity (Dick et al, ; Kumar, Kumar, & Benegal, ), but the impact of these moderators and their interactions are not sufficiently understood.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision‐ and feedback‐related brain potentials reveal risk processing mechanisms in patients with alcohol use disorder

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) are aware of the risks of alcohol abuse yet continue risky drinking. Research indicates that dysfunctional decision processes and trait variables such as impulsivity contribute to this awareness‐behavior discrepancy. The present study focused on decision‐related versus feedback‐related processes as potential contributors to decision making in AUD by examining the relationship between decision choices and decision‐ and feedback‐related ERP phenomena in the balloon analogue risk task (BART). N = 39 AUD and n = 35 healthy comparison participants (HC) performed the BART modified for EEG assessment. In each of 100 runs, participants made a series of choices about whether to pump up a virtual balloon, which popped pseudorandomly, ending the run. Alternatively, participants ended the run by pressing a “cash‐out” button. Each pump not producing a pop provided .05 €; popping resulted in loss of the run’s accumulated gain. Groups made similar choices, though AUD responded more slowly. The decision P3 200‒400 ms after decision prompt (balloon) was larger in AUD than in HC, and decision P3 enhancement on high‐risk trials predicted choices to pump. Feedback‐related negativity (FRN) after loss (relative to cash out) feedback was smaller in AUD than in HC, suggesting indifference to negative feedback. In AUD, high impulsivity was associated with risk‐modulated decision P3 but not FRN. Results indicate atypical decision‐ and feedback‐related processes that could contribute to difficulties in engaging with daily challenges effectively.

show abstract

“…This relates to social norms, and there is a large body of evidence indicating that young people often underestimate their own, and overestimate their peers', alcohol consumption. 158,159 However, although most evidence suggests that young people increase their consumption to match perceived social norms, 160 the results of these interviews instead show a comparison between young people who drink some alcohol and those other young people who drink more.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Brief alcohol intervention for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in secondary schools: the SIPS JR-HIGH RCT

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Adverse effects from young people’s alcohol consumption manifest in a range of physical and psychosocial factors, including neurological issues, cognitive impairment and risk-taking behaviours. The SIPS JR-HIGH pilot trial showed alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI) to be acceptable to young people and schools in the north-east of England. Objectives To conduct a two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ASBI for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in the school setting, to monitor the fidelity of ASBI and to explore the barriers to, and facilitators of, implementation with staff, young people and parents. Design A baseline survey with a 12-month follow-up. Interviews with 30 school staff, 21 learning mentors and nine teachers, and 33 young people and two parents. Setting Thirty state schools in four areas of England: north-east, north-west, Kent and London. Participants Year 10 school pupils who consented to the study (aged 14–15 years, recruited between November 2015 and June 2016), school-based staff and parents of the young people who took part in the study. Interventions Young people who screened positively on a single alcohol screening question and consented were randomised to the intervention or control arm (blinded). The intervention was a 30-minute one-to-one structured brief intervention with a trained learning mentor and an alcohol leaflet. The control group received a healthy lifestyle leaflet (no alcohol information). Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was total alcohol consumed in the last 28 days. Secondary outcomes related to risky drinking, general psychological health, sexual risk-taking, energy drink consumption, age of first smoking, quality of life, quality-adjusted life-years, service utilisation and demographic information. Results A total of 4523 young people completed the baseline survey, with 1064 screening positively (24%) and 443 being eligible to take part in the trial. Of those 443, 233 (53%) were randomised to the control arm and 210 were randomised to the intervention arm. Of the 443, 374 (84%) were successfully followed up at 12 months (intervention, n = 178; control, n = 196). The results were that the intervention showed no evidence of benefit for any alcohol-related measure when compared with the control arm. At 12 months we found a reduction from 61.9% to 43.3% using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test cut-off point of 8 and cut-off point of 4 (69.0% to 60.7%). These results were not significant. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average net cost saving of the brief intervention was £2865 (95% confidence interval –£11,272 to £2707) per year compared with usual practice, with the intervention showing a 76% probability of being cost saving compared with usual practice. The interview findings showed that school was an acceptable setting to carry out ASBI among staff and young people. Limitations Recruitment of parents to take part in interviews was poor. Only 18 ASBI sessions were recorded, making it difficult to assess internal validity. Conclusions Although the intervention was ineffective in reducing risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years, it was well received by the young people and school staff who participated. Future work Uniform reporting of the outcomes used for ASBI would generate more robust conclusions on the effectiveness of ASBI in the future. Pilot feasibility studies should include more than one geographical area. Future work on involving parents is needed. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45691494. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 7, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

The influence of groups and alcohol consumption on individual risk-taking

Cited by 20 publications

References 237 publications

The effect of beliefs about alcohol’s acute effects on alcohol priming and alcohol-induced impairments of inhibitory control

The effect of beliefs about alcohol’s acute effects on alcohol priming and alcohol-induced impairments of inhibitory control

Decision‐ and feedback‐related brain potentials reveal risk processing mechanisms in patients with alcohol use disorder

Brief alcohol intervention for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in secondary schools: the SIPS JR-HIGH RCT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About