1 / 12

The role of expectancy and pharmacology in alcohol related behaviour.

The role of expectancy and pharmacology in alcohol related behaviour. Dr Abigail Rose Rebekah Robson November 2009. Expectancy theory. Behaviour Modification. Expectancy. Two models: placebo effect and compensatory response. Source: Jones et al. 2001, Vogel-Sprott and Filmore 1999.

tana
Download Presentation

The role of expectancy and pharmacology in alcohol related behaviour.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The role of expectancy and pharmacology in alcohol related behaviour. • Dr Abigail Rose • Rebekah Robson • November 2009

  2. Expectancy theory Behaviour Modification Expectancy Two models: placebo effect and compensatory response Source: Jones et al. 2001, Vogel-Sprott and Filmore 1999

  3. Balanced placebo design has been used extensively Marlett et al. (1973) • Current research shows instruction can be more important in determining alcohol’s effects in dependent and non-dependent drinkers • Aim: use balanced placebo design to find roles of expectancy vs pharmacology in alcohol related impairment in bingers and non-bingers. Research Sour Source: Fillmore and Blackburn 2002, Vogel-Sprott and Fillmore 1999

  4. Within subjects balanced placebo design with four conditions • Participants – some couldn’t be used Measurements and Tasks • Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire(Fromme et al. 1993) • Temptation & Restraint Inventory(Collins and Lapp 1992) • Mood visual analogue scale(Duka et al. 1998) • Immediate & Delayed Memory Task (Dougherty and Marsh 2003) • Go-stop paradigm (Dougherty et al. 2003) Method IMT 35291 DMT 52678 12345 12345 12345 35291 52878 Go – stop paradigm 35291 35291

  5. Drinks & Instruction • Men: 0.6g/kg Women: 0.5 g/kg Procedure TAGA TAGP TSGS TSGA Baseline AUseQ, AEQ, TRI Mood VAS Tasks & Measures IMT, DMT, GNG (counterbalanced) Mood VAS, (post task) Mood VAS (post drink)

  6. P = 0.01 P = 0.01 P < 0.01 P = 0.03 P = 0.01 P = 0.04 P = 0.01 P = 0.02 Results TRI and AEQ Pre-clinical stage of dependence?

  7. Results Lightheadedness Subtraction analysis showed that non-binge drinkers were more lightheaded in the given alcohol conditions; binge drinkers did not show this effect of alcohol on lightheadedness (p=0.03)

  8. TSGS TAGA TAGP TSGA ResultsIMT correct responses Alcohol consumption (men: 0.6g/kg, women: 0.5g/kg) decreased correct responding on the IMT (p=0.011)

  9. ResultsDMT correct responses Binge drinkers made more correct responses in TSGS relative to TAGP condition. This was reversed in non-binge drinkers (p=0.03)

  10. ResultsGo-stop paradigm Behavioural inhibition on the GSP was greatest in the told alcohol/given soft drink condition (p<0.01) and bingers made most errors (p=0.04). Bingers are worse no matter what the condition. Bingers were more impulsive.

  11. Summary • Non-bingers: • Alcohol instruction led to some performance improvement (compensatory model) • Bingers: • at risk of alcohol dependence. • alcohol instruction impaired performance as per placebo model. • Binge drinkers tolerant to alcohol’s discriminative properties.

  12. Conclusion • Challenging binge drinker expectations may reduce aversive effects of alcohol in this group. • Different models between groups: • Predisposition? • Result of excessive drinking?

More Related