| Literature DB >> 26282686 |
Olivia M Maynard1, Andrew L Skinner2, David M Troy2, Angela S Attwood2, Marcus R Munafò2.
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate the relationship between objectively-assessed alcohol consumption and perception of attractiveness in naturalistic drinking environments, and to determine the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a large-scale study in these environments.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26282686 PMCID: PMC4755554 DOI: 10.1093/alcalc/agv096
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Alcohol Alcohol ISSN: 0735-0414 Impact factor: 2.826
Characteristics of participants
| Males ( | Females ( | Overall ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 32 (12) | 31 (11) | 31 (12) |
| BrAC (µg/100 ml) | 22.53 (17.02) | 17.90 (14.68) | 20.44 (16.15) |
| Perceived intoxication | 3.13 (1.31) | 2.94 (1.41) | 3.05 (1.36) |
| BAES stimulated | 36.71 (14.27) | 36.21 (16.71) | 36.49 (15.39) |
| BAES sedated | 23.01 (12.98) | 20.74 (12.92) | 21.99 (12.98) |
Values represent means (standard deviation).
BrAC, Breath Alcohol Concentration; BAES, Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale.
Associations between BrAC and attractiveness ratings
| Attractiveness rating | Unadjusted | Adjusted | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | 95% CI | B | 95% CI | ||||||
| BrACa | |||||||||
| All stimuli | 3.70 (0.62) | −0.004 | −0.008 | +0.001 | 0.085 | −0.004 | −0.009 | +0.000 | 0.054 |
| Faces | 3.49 (0.73) | −0.003 | −0.008 | +0.002 | 0.201 | −0.004 | −0.009 | +0.001 | 0.140 |
| Landscapes | 4.10 (0.73) | −0.005 | −0.010 | +0.000 | 0.066 | −0.005 | −0.010 | +0.000 | 0.050 |
| Opposite-sex faces | 3.53 (0.91) | +0.003 | −0.003 | +0.009 | 0.372 | −0.001 | −0.007 | +0.005 | 0.786 |
| Opposite-sex faces—females | 3.07 (0.85) | +0.001 | −0.009 | +0.011 | 0.844 | +0.001 | −0.009 | +0.011 | 0.817 |
| Opposite-sex faces—males | 3.90 (0.78) | −0.002 | −0.009 | +0.005 | 0.599 | −0.002 | −0.009 | +0.005 | 0.595 |
| Same-sex faces | 3.46 (0.89) | −0.009 | −0.015 | −0.003 | 0.002 | −0.007 | −0.013 | −0.001 | 0.022 |
| Same-sex faces—females | 3.78 (0.78) | −0.004 | −0.013 | +0.005 | 0.381 | −0.005 | −0.014 | +0.004 | 0.285 |
| Same-sex faces—males | 3.21 (0.89) | −0.009 | −0.017 | −0.001 | 0.025 | −0.009 | −0.016 | −0.001 | 0.032 |
| Time of testingb | |||||||||
| All stimuli | 3.70 (0.62) | −0.021 | −0.058 | +0.015 | 0.245 | −0.028 | −0.065 | +0.009 | 0.135 |
| Faces | 3.49 (0.73) | −0.030 | −0.072 | +0.012 | 0.164 | −0.033 | −0.077 | +0.010 | 0.132 |
| Landscapes | 4.10 (0.73) | −0.004 | −0.047 | +0.039 | 0.848 | −0.170 | −0.061 | +0.026 | 0.428 |
| Opposite-sex faces | 3.53 (0.91) | −0.031 | −0.084 | +0.023 | 0.258 | −0.038 | −0.088 | +0.011 | 0.125 |
| Same-sex faces | 3.46 (0.89) | −0.029 | −0.081 | +0.022 | 0.263 | −0.028 | −0.079 | +0.022 | 0.265 |
aUnstandardized B coefficient represents change in attractiveness ratings per one point increase in BrAC (µg/100 ml). Adjusted model includes adjustment for age, sex, public house and alcohol expectancies.
bUnstandardized B coefficient represents change in attractiveness ratings per 1 h increase in time of testing. Adjusted model includes adjustment for BrAC, age, sex, public house and alcohol expectancies.
Fig. 1.Associations between BrAC and attractiveness ratings for all stimuli.
Fig. 2.Associations between BrAC and attractiveness ratings for each of the stimuli types.
Results of post-study questionnaire
| Question | Rating scale | Responses |
|---|---|---|
| To what extent did you mind not drinking for the duration of the experiment? | 5-point scale: | 77% answered 5 |
| To what extent did you find using the tablet computer easy to use? | 5-point scale: | 77% answered 5 |
| How interesting was the study? | 4-point scale: | 37% answered 4 |
| How enjoyable was the study? | 4-point scale: | 38% answered 4 |