Volume 46, Issue 2 pp. 262-276
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Addressing methodological issues in a study of impulsivity and vulnerability for transition to alcohol use disorder

Antoinette Poulton

Corresponding Author

Antoinette Poulton

Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic., Australia

Correspondence

Antoinette Poulton, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, Vic., Australia.

Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Oliver Eastwood

Oliver Eastwood

Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic., Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Loren Richard Bruns Jr.

Loren Richard Bruns Jr.

Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic., Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Richard O. Sinnott

Richard O. Sinnott

Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic., Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Robert Hester

Robert Hester

Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic., Australia

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 02 December 2021
Citations: 3

Funding information

This research was supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council grant (1050766) and an Australian Research Council fellowship (FT110100088). The funding bodies had no role in designing the study; collecting, analyzing, or interpreting data; writing the report; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

Healthy individuals (N = 814, Mage = 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, Mage = 22.66), and a further subgroup submitted real-time alcohol consumption information for a period of 21 days using an app (n = 543, Mage = 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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Graphical Abstract

We examined behavioural impulsivity in adolescent/young adult at-risk drinkers. Online protocols were utilised to facilitate a large sample. Impulsivity differences were assessed as a function of various at-risk alcohol intake categories. Heightened impulsivity was not evident in heavy, standard binge, high binge, harmful, or hazardous alcohol drinkers, as compared to controls, regardless of criteria employed to categorise these individuals. Impulsivity did not predict elevated alcohol use in the form of an alcohol use index.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No conflict declared.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.