Poulton Antoinette, Eastwood Oliver, Bruns Loren Richard, Sinnott Richard O, Hester Robert
Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic., Australia.
Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic., Australia.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2022 Feb;46(2):262-276. doi: 10.1111/acer.14755. Epub 2021 Dec 14.
Heightened behavioral impulsivity has been advocated as a preexisting risk factor for the development of alcohol use disorder (AUD). Nonetheless, studies investigating impulsivity in adolescent/young adult at-risk drinkers-who are at increased risk of developing AUD-report mixed findings. This may be due to methodological limitations related to definitions of at-risk drinking, the retrospective assessment of alcohol intake, and/or the relatively modest sample size of some studies.
Healthy individuals (N = 814, M = 22.50) completed online surveys and a measure of choice impulsivity. Of these, a number of participants also undertook an online measure of response inhibition (n = 627, M = 22.66), and a further subgroup submitted real-time alcohol consumption information for a period of 21 days using an app (n = 543, M = 22.96). Differences in behavioral impulsivity were assessed as a function of various at-risk alcohol intake categories. Hierarchical multiple regression was employed to determine whether impulsivity predicted alcohol use in the form of a continuous index comprising variables related to intake and consequences of use.
Significantly greater impulsivity was not evident in heavy, standard binge, high binge, harmful, or hazardous alcohol drinkers as compared to controls, regardless of the criteria employed to categorize these at-risk drinkers. Neither choice impulsivity nor reduced response inhibition significantly predicted the alcohol use index.
While results could be attributed to the online nature of this research, it is possible that more sensitive measures of behavioral impulsivity are required when assessing nondependent drinkers.
行为冲动性增强被认为是酒精使用障碍(AUD)发生的一个预先存在的风险因素。尽管如此,对处于AUD发生风险增加的青少年/青年高危饮酒者的冲动性进行调查的研究结果不一。这可能是由于与高危饮酒定义、酒精摄入量的回顾性评估和/或一些研究相对较小的样本量相关的方法学局限性。
健康个体(N = 814,M = 22.50)完成了在线调查和一项选择冲动性测量。其中,一些参与者还进行了一项在线反应抑制测量(n = 627,M = 22.66),另有一个亚组使用应用程序提交了为期21天的实时酒精消费信息(n = 543,M = 22.96)。根据各种高危酒精摄入量类别评估行为冲动性的差异。采用分层多元回归来确定冲动性是否以包含与摄入量和使用后果相关变量的连续指数形式预测酒精使用。
与对照组相比,无论采用何种标准对这些高危饮酒者进行分类,重度、标准暴饮、高度暴饮、有害或危险饮酒者均未表现出明显更高的冲动性。选择冲动性和反应抑制降低均未显著预测酒精使用指数。
虽然结果可能归因于本研究的在线性质,但在评估非依赖饮酒者时,可能需要更敏感的行为冲动性测量方法。