HYPOTHESES

1. HYPOTHESES Alcohol Use in College Freshmen: Differences in Self-reported Sensation-seeking, Trait Impulsivity, and Motivation, but Not in Behavioral Delay-discounting or Risk-taking Tasks J. Sisante1, S.A. Meda1, R. Rosen1, R. Jiantonio1, M. Ginley1, H. Tennen3, C. Austad4, S. Raskin5 & G. Pearlson1,21Olin Neuropsychiatry Research Center, Institute of Living at Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT; 2Dept. of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; 3University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT; 4Dept. of Psychology, Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT; 5Dept. of Psychology and Neuroscience Program, Trinity College, Hartford, CT INTRODUCTION DISCUSSION REFERENCES RESULTS • -No sex differences observed in self-reported or behavioral impulsivity measures. • -No significant differences observed in BART or EDT performance. • -Significant differences in BIS-11, SSS, and BIS/BAS between groups. • DYS had higher total BIS-11 scores than both TEE and SOC; higher MI subscale score compared to TEE; and higher motor impulsiveness and cognitive complexity compared to both TEE and SOC. • SOC had higher motor impulsiveness than TEE. • No differences in NP and AI, contrasting Fernie et al.12 and Carlson et al.10 • Observed higher BAS FS subscale in DYS and SOC compared to TEE, supporting previous studies that identified FS as a factor of adolescent drinking14. • -Supports prior research : DIS subscale relates to adolescent alcohol use15. • -Does not support prior studies reporting TAS and BS as indicators of problem drinking10. • -No significant differences between groups in either BART or EDT performance, contradicting previous reports which identified alcohol influence on task perfromance5, 8, 15-18. • -Future research should utilize a combination of neuroimaging, other self-report measures (i.e., Eysenck Personality Questionnaire or I7) and other behavioral measures (Stop-Signal, Go/No-Go). • -These findings suggest that self-report measures may be more sensitive than behavioral measures in identifying freshmen problem drinkers. -Problem drinking in college students creates harmful consequences1,2. -Considerable research has been done linking college alcohol misuse to impulsivity1,5. • -Impulsivity is multidimensional and not explicitly defined3,6, and there are multiple underlying constructs tested by questionnaires: • Barratt Impulsivity Scale (BIS-11); predictor of alcohol use in social drinkers8, alcohol use disorders9 , and predicts binge drinking10. • Behavioral Inhibition System and Behavioral Activation System (BIS/BAS) predicts adolescent alcohol use14. • Zuckerman’s Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS) is a predictor of current alcohol use in late adolescents12 and predicts binge drinking10. • -Behavioral measures tests cognitive processes that underlie impulsive behavior4: • Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) is an indicator of excessive alcohol use15,8. • Acute alcohol increased impulsivity on the Experiential Discounting Task (EDT) compared to placebo17. • -Compared to social drinkers, heavy drinkers display steeper temporal discounting in the hypothetical money choice task 8. • - Hazardous drinkers reported higher impulsivity but did not show differences compared to social drinkers on a delay-discounting task9. -Observe significant differences in EDT and BART performances among teetotalers, social drinkers, and dysfunctional drinkers. -Dysfunctional drinkers should have lower area under the curve for the EDT and higher adjusted pumps average for BART compared to other two groups. - Likewise, we expected differences among the groups in self-report scores on BIS-11, SSS, and BIS/BAS with dysfunctional drinkers showing higher scores on these three assessments than other two groups. Vuchinich, R. & Simpson, C. Exp clin Psychopharm (1999) Congdon, E. & Canli, T. Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev. 2005 Verdejo-Garcia, A. et al. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008 Dick, D. et al. Addict Biol. 2010 MacKillop, J. et al. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2007 Evenden, J. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1999 Patton, J. et al. J Clin Psychol. 1995 Fernie, G. et al. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010 Fox, H. et al. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2010 Carlson, S. et al. Addict Behav. 2010 Zuckerman, & M., Neeb, M. Psychiatry Res. 1979 Clapper, R. et al. J Subst Abuse. 1994 Carver, C. & White, T. J.Per and Soc Psy, 1994 Willem, L. et al. Addict Behav. 2010 Lejuez, C. et al. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2002 Jun Reynolds, B. & Schiffbauer, R. Behav Processes. 2004 Reynolds, B. et al. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2006 Vuchinich, R. & Simpson, C. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Hesselbrock, M. et al. Addiction. 1999 Anderson, B. et al. INS 2011 poster presentation • -160 college freshmen (95 female) between the ages of 18 and 21 (M: 18.42, SD: 0.578) were recruited from an ongoing NIAAA- funded BARCS study on a voluntary basis from two demographically distinct colleges in Connecticut. • -Measures of cognitive testing, academic grades, genetics, alcohol and drug use assessments, and psychiatric diagnoses were obtained for all subjects at their home colleges. Presence of a psychiatric diagnosis did not result in study exclusions as we hoped to obtain a representative sample. Self-reported measures obtained included: • BIS-11; tests for Attentional Impulsiveness (AI), Motor Impulsiveness (MI), and Nonplanning Impulsiveness (NPI) subscales derived from first order factors attention, motor impulsiveness, self control, cognitive complexity, perseverance, and cognitive instability7. • BIS/BAS; tests for motivations of impulsive behavior and sensitivity towards punishment and reward. BIS portion assesses behavioral inhibition while BAS subscales assess Reward Responsiveness (RR), Drive (D), and Fun Seeking (FS) 13. • SSS tests preference for stimulating activities; subscales include Disinhibition (DIS), Thrill and Adventure Seeking (TAS), Boredom Susceptibility (BS), and Experience Seeking (ES)11. • -Students were then invited to complete the BART, EDT , and Alcohol Interview (ALI). • BART assesses risky behavior via balloon inflations that are linked to monetary gains; balloon grows larger or explodes. • EDT is a real-time consequence feedback task that measures delay-discounting16 , which is the preference for smaller, immediate rewards (i.e., 15 cents now) compared to a larger, later reward (i.e., 30 cents in ten seconds). • -The customized Alcohol Interview has been adapted from the Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcohol (SSAGA) 19. Students were categorized into three distinct groups based on total number of points towards dysfunction20: • 0 total points = Teetotaler (TEE) • 1-10 points= Social Drinker (SOC) • 11+ points = Dysfunctional Drinker (DYS) • -Categories: 23 TEE, 53 SOC, 84 DYS (2 excluded for incomplete data). • -ANOVA performed to distinguish differences in self-report and behavioral measures between TEE, SOC, and DYS groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS Funded by RO1 AA016599 (BARCS Study) and RC1 AA019036 to Dr. Godfrey Pearlson. • N.B.: • 0 ALI pts. = TEE • 1-10 ALI pts.= SOC • 11+ ALI pts. = DYS • ** = p ≤ 0.01 • * = p ≤ 0.05