Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2021 Nov;45(11):2357-2369. doi: 10.1111/acer.14720. Epub 2021 Nov 29.
Considerable variation exists in the extent to which alcohol-related consequences are evaluated as positive or negative. These evaluations, in turn, predict subsequent drinking behavior. Understanding the etiological pathways to positive and negative alcohol-related consequences is essential to the design of interventions aimed at reducing drinking consequences. Behavioral economic models posit that excessive alcohol valuation contributes to problematic use. Elevated alcohol demand (i.e., relative alcohol value) is associated with negative alcohol-related consequences; however, it is unclear whether demand is related to positive consequences or subjective consequence evaluations.
College student drinkers (n = 114; 74.6% female) completed an online survey. Participants indicated whether they had ever experienced any of 24 negative and 14 positive consequences and subjectively evaluated their most recent experience of each consequence endorsed. An alcohol purchase task assessed hypothetical alcohol consumption across 14 prices and three observed demand indices were calculated: intensity (i.e., consumption at zero cost), O (i.e., maximum expenditure), and P (i.e., price associated with maximum expenditure). Bivariate correlations and hierarchical regressions were used to test associations between observed demand indices and the number and subjective evaluations of positive and negative (researcher- and participant-defined) consequences.
Intensity and O , but not P , were bivariately associated with researcher- and participant-defined negative and positive consequences. However, in hierarchical regression models that controlled for the maximum number of drinks consumed in a single day over the past month, only intensity was significantly associated with more negative and positive consequences. Intensity was associated with positive consequence evaluations in bivariate but not regression models.
Students with higher intensity reported more prior alcohol consequences (positive and negative), independent of drinking level. However, subjective evaluations of recent consequences did not vary as a function of demand. Results support using behavioral economic models to facilitate identifying etiologic pathways to alcohol consequences and suggest that novel interventions incorporating demand manipulation may reduce drinking consequences.
酒精相关后果被评估为积极或消极的程度存在很大差异。这些评估反过来又预测了随后的饮酒行为。了解积极和消极酒精相关后果的病因途径对于旨在减少饮酒后果的干预措施的设计至关重要。行为经济学模型假设过度的酒精估值会导致问题使用。较高的酒精需求(即相对酒精价值)与负面的酒精相关后果相关;然而,目前尚不清楚需求是否与积极后果或主观后果评估有关。
大学生饮酒者(n=114;74.6%为女性)完成了一项在线调查。参与者表示他们是否经历过 24 种负面和 14 种积极后果中的任何一种,并对他们最近经历的每种后果进行了主观评估。酒精购买任务评估了在 14 种价格下的假设饮酒量,并计算了三种观察到的需求指数:强度(即零成本下的消费)、O(即最大支出)和 P(即与最大支出相关的价格)。使用双变量相关和分层回归来检验观察到的需求指数与积极和消极(研究人员和参与者定义)后果的数量和主观评估之间的关联。
强度和 O 与研究人员和参与者定义的消极和积极后果均呈双变量相关,但在控制过去一个月内每天最大饮酒量的分层回归模型中,只有强度与更多的消极和积极后果显著相关。在双变量模型中,强度与积极后果评估相关,但在回归模型中不相关。
强度较高的学生报告了更多之前的酒精后果(积极和消极),独立于饮酒水平。然而,最近后果的主观评估并不随需求而变化。结果支持使用行为经济学模型来促进确定酒精后果的病因途径,并表明采用需求干预的新干预措施可能会减少饮酒后果。