the role of expectancy and pharmacology in alcohol related behaviour l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The role of expectancy and pharmacology in alcohol related behaviour. PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The role of expectancy and pharmacology in alcohol related behaviour.

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 12

The role of expectancy and pharmacology in alcohol related behaviour. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 135 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'The role of expectancy and pharmacology in alcohol related behaviour.' - tana


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
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
Expectancy theory

Behaviour Modification

Expectancy

Two models: placebo effect and compensatory response

Source: Jones et al. 2001, Vogel-Sprott and Filmore 1999

research
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

method
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

procedure
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)

results tri and aeq

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?

results lightheadedness
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)

results imt correct responses

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)

results dmt correct responses
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)

results go stop paradigm
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.

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