Premium
Association of Anticipated and Laboratory‐Derived Alcohol Stimulation, Sedation, and Reward
Author(s) -
Fridberg Daniel J.,
Rueger Sandra Y.,
Smith Patrick,
King Andrea C.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
alcoholism: clinical and experimental research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.267
H-Index - 153
eISSN - 1530-0277
pISSN - 0145-6008
DOI - 10.1111/acer.13415
Subject(s) - alcohol , psychology , sedation , placebo , clinical psychology , medicine , pharmacology , chemistry , pathology , biochemistry , alternative medicine
Background Laboratory alcohol challenges are the “gold standard” for obtaining accurate measurements of subjective alcohol stimulation, sedation, and reward. However, these approaches are time and resource intensive. This study examined the extent to which self‐reported anticipated alcohol stimulation, sedation, and reward corresponded with those same responses measured with the Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale ( BAES ), Brief‐ BAES (B‐ BAES ), and Drug Effects Questionnaire ( DEQ ) during a controlled laboratory alcohol challenge. Methods Participants were 106 light‐to‐heavy social drinkers (58.5% male; mean ± SD age = 35.8 ± 3.2 years) who completed the Anticipated BAES and DEQ , as well as laboratory‐derived versions of these scales 30 and 60 minutes after consuming placebo and 0.8 g/kg alcohol on separate days as part of laboratory sessions in the Chicago Social Drinking Project. Results Anticipated BAES /B‐ BAES and Anticipated DEQ alcohol effects were strong predictors of their corresponding laboratory‐derived responses during both the rising limb and at peak breath alcohol concentrations. Effects were significant even when accounting for age, sex, past‐month heavy drinking frequency, and laboratory session order (placebo or alcohol first). Conclusions This study provides strong preliminary support for measuring anticipated alcohol effects with the Anticipated BAES /B‐ BAES and Anticipated DEQ as a proxy of subjective responses experienced during a controlled laboratory alcohol challenge. The findings lend support for these measures as viable alternatives to other anticipatory scales when laboratory‐derived alcohol response measurement is not feasible.