Impulsivity and Alcohol Use

Background

Previous work shows associations between urgency and response inhibition on measures such as the go/no-go (Gay, Rochat, Billieux, d’Acremont, & Van der Linden, 2008), go-stop (Bagge, Littlefield, Rosellini, & Coffey, 2013; Gay et al., 2008; Wilbertz et al., 2014), and anti-saccade tasks (Roberts, Fillmore, & Milich, 2011). A meta-analysis found correlations between negative urgency and impaired response inhibition behaviour were robust in clinical samples but very small in student and community samples (Johnson, Tharp, Peckham, Sanchez, & Carver, 2016). Negative urgency relates more to impaired response inhibition than to other aspects of impulsivity (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011), and negative urgency does not relate much to other behavioural indicators of impulsivity, including delay discounting. The logic behind impulsive reactivity to emotion, however, is that its effects should depend on the presence of an emotion.

Recent work by work by Johnson & colleagues shows:

1) High emotion-related impulsivity (pos/neg urgency) + arousal (i.e., heightened emotional state) = reduced inhibitory control (possibly due to diminished cognitive resources available to constrain emotions), and

2) Low emotion-related impulsivity (pos/neg urgency) + arousal (i.e., heightened emotional state) = improved inhibitory control (considered “normative”).

Research Questions / Hypotheses

  1. Can we replicate findings by Johnson and colleagues that show a relationship between positive urgency and response inhibition in the presence of high positive arousal?
  2. Does this relationship extend to delay discounting? Is the relationship between neg/pos urgency and response inhibition and/or delay discounting stronger in hazardous versus non-harmful drinkers?

Participants

N = 60 Male: 17; 28.3% Female: 43; 72.7% Age: 20.40 (2.26) Yrs education: 13.98 (1.54)

Methods

Demographics: - Various Alcohol: - Alcohol Use Questionnaire (Q13-15); AUQ binge score (Townshend & Duka, 2002) - Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT); Harmful/Hazardous/Non-harmful use (Babor et al., 2001; Saunders et al., 1993) - Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (BYAACQ); Total score (Kahler et al., 2005; Poulton et al., 2019) - TimeLine Followback; Various alcohol-related indices (Sobell & Sobell, 1992) Drugs: - Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screen (ASSIST); Total score (WHO Assist Working Group, 2002); Total score minus alcohol component (Poulton et al., 2019) Anxiety, Depression: - Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7); Total score (Löwe et al., 2008; Spitzer et al., 2006) - Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9); Total score (Kocalevent et al., 2013; Kroenke et al., 2001) Smoking: - Researcher-determined questions IQ: - Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM-12U); Total score (Poulton, Rutherford et al., 2022) - Emotion-related impulsivity (self-report); UPPS-P Total score (positive); UPPS-N Total score (negative) Response inhibition: - Stop Signal Task Choice Impulsivity: - Delay Discounting Participants randomised into 4 groups: 1: APM-6 (Evens) Arousal1 MCQ APM-6 (Odds) Arousal2 SST 2: APM-6 (Odds) Arousal1 SST APM-6 (Evens) Arousal2 MCQ 3: APM-6 (Evens) - MCQ APM-6 (Odds) - SST 4: APM-6 (Odds) - SST APM-6 (Evens) - MCQ Arousal1: Positive statements about score + timing on APM Arousal2: Positive statements about score + timing on APM Choice Impulsivity (measured via a delayed discounting paradigm; see Poulton & Hester, 2020 for overview; see also Poulton, Eastwood et al., 2022): - Monetary Choice Questionnaire (MCQ; Kirby et al., 1999) - k-values (Kaplan et al., 2016) Response Inhibition (measured via a Stop-Signal Task; see Poulton & Hester, 2020 for overview; see also Poulton, Eastwood et al., 2022): - Stop-Signal Task (SST; Poulton, Chen et al., 2022) - Stop-Signal Reaction Time (SSRT) Self-report positive arousal: Post cognitive task 5-point Likert scale questions on level of enthusiasm, excitement, and elation

Results

Data collection is ongoing, but results to date are as follows: Correlations Condition 1&2 (Arousal) High Mood (Median split) UPPS-Pos to MCQ (log k): 0.25 (.359) UPPS-Neg to MCQ (log k): 0.33 (.215) UPPS-Pos to SSRT: 0.36 (.177) UPPS-Neg to SSRT: 0.38 (.148) UPPS-Pos to Av Impulsivity: 0.45 (.082) UPPS-Neg to Av Impulsivity: 0.57 (.021) Condition 3&4 (No arousal) High Mood (Median split) UPPS-Pos to MCQ (log k): 0.27 (.272) UPPS-Neg to MCQ (log k): 0.09 (.716) UPPS-Pos to SSRT: -0.08 (.759) UPPS-Neg to SSRT: -0.08 (.765) UPPS-Pos to Av Impulsivity: 0.07 (.789) UPPS-Neg to Av Impulsivity: -0.05 (.835) Condition 1&2 (Arousal) Low Mood (Median split) UPPS-Pos to MCQ (log k): 0.09 (.815) UPPS-Neg to MCQ (log k): 0.19 (.594) UPPS-Pos to SSRT: -0.011(.773) UPPS-Neg to SSRT: 0.05 (.892) UPPS-Pos to Av Impulsivity: -0.08 (.836) UPPS-Neg to Av Impulsivity: 0.17 (.646) Condition 3&4 (No arousal) Low Mood (Median split) UPPS-Pos to MCQ (log k): 0.28 (.426) UPPS-Neg to MCQ (log k): -0.68 (.031) UPPS-Pos to SSRT: -0.02 (.956) UPPS-Neg to SSRT: 0.06 (.863) UPPS-Pos to Av Impulsivity: 0.21 (.560) UPPS-Neg to Av Impulsivity: -0.45 (.196)

Implications

Results suggest there is a stronger correlation between urgency and average impulsivity when participants have high mood (following positive arousal). This relationship is not evident when participants have low mood (following positive arousal). This relationship is also not apparent when there has been no positive arousal. Preliminary results suggest we have replicated Johnson's findings, but more data is required. We aim to collect further data in S2. Results will be used to support grant applications to conduct further studies in this emerging area of cognitive research.