Erica N Grodin1,2, Spencer Bujarski1, Alexandra Venegas1, Wave-Ananda Baskerville1, Steven J Nieto1, J David Jentsch3, Lara A Ray1,2. 1. Department of Psychology, University of California 1285 Franz Hall, Box 951563 Los Angeles, CA 90095. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences University of California 760 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90095. 3. Department of Psychology Binghamton University State University of New York PO Box 6000 Binghamton NY 13902.
Abstract
AIMS: Alcohol use disorder is highly heterogeneous. One approach to understanding this heterogeneity is the identification of drinker subtypes. A candidate classification consists of reward and relief subtypes. The current study examines a novel self-report measure of reward, relief, and habit drinking for its clinical correlates and subjective response (SR) to alcohol administration. METHODS: Non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers (n = 140) completed the brief reward, relief, habit drinking scale (RRHDS). A subset of this sample (n = 67) completed an intravenous alcohol administration. Individuals were classified into drinker subtypes. A crowdsourced sample of heavy drinkers (n = 187) completed the RRHDS and a validated reward relief drinking scale to compare drinking classification results. RESULTS: The majority of the sample was classified as reward drinkers (n = 100), with fewer classified as relief (n = 19) and habit (n = 21) drinkers. Relief and habit drinkers reported greater tonic alcohol craving compared to reward drinkers. Reward drinkers endorsed drinking for enhancement, while relief drinkers endorsed drinking for coping. Regarding the alcohol administration, the groups differed in negative mood, such that relief/habit drinkers reported a decrease in negative mood during alcohol administration, compared to reward drinkers. The follow-up crowdsourcing study found a 62% agreement in reward drinker classification between measures and replicated the tonic craving findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that reward drinkers are dissociable from relief/habit drinkers using the brief measure. However, relief and habit drinkers were not successfully differentiated, which suggests that these constructs may overlap phenotypically. Notably, measures of dysphoric mood were better at detecting group differences than measures capturing alcohol's rewarding effects.
AIMS: Alcohol use disorder is highly heterogeneous. One approach to understanding this heterogeneity is the identification of drinker subtypes. A candidate classification consists of reward and relief subtypes. The current study examines a novel self-report measure of reward, relief, and habit drinking for its clinical correlates and subjective response (SR) to alcohol administration. METHODS: Non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers (n = 140) completed the brief reward, relief, habit drinking scale (RRHDS). A subset of this sample (n = 67) completed an intravenous alcohol administration. Individuals were classified into drinker subtypes. A crowdsourced sample of heavy drinkers (n = 187) completed the RRHDS and a validated reward relief drinking scale to compare drinking classification results. RESULTS: The majority of the sample was classified as reward drinkers (n = 100), with fewer classified as relief (n = 19) and habit (n = 21) drinkers. Relief and habit drinkers reported greater tonic alcohol craving compared to reward drinkers. Reward drinkers endorsed drinking for enhancement, while relief drinkers endorsed drinking for coping. Regarding the alcohol administration, the groups differed in negative mood, such that relief/habit drinkers reported a decrease in negative mood during alcohol administration, compared to reward drinkers. The follow-up crowdsourcing study found a 62% agreement in reward drinker classification between measures and replicated the tonic craving findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that reward drinkers are dissociable from relief/habit drinkers using the brief measure. However, relief and habit drinkers were not successfully differentiated, which suggests that these constructs may overlap phenotypically. Notably, measures of dysphoric mood were better at detecting group differences than measures capturing alcohol's rewarding effects.
Authors: Hugh Myrick; Robert Malcolm; Patrick K Randall; Elizabeth Boyle; Raymond F Anton; Howard C Becker; Carrie L Randall Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Miriam Sebold; Stephan Nebe; Maria Garbusow; Matthias Guggenmos; Daniel J Schad; Anne Beck; Soeren Kuitunen-Paul; Christian Sommer; Robin Frank; Peter Neu; Ulrich S Zimmermann; Michael A Rapp; Michael N Smolka; Quentin J M Huys; Florian Schlagenhauf; Andreas Heinz Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: V Voon; K Derbyshire; C Rück; M A Irvine; Y Worbe; J Enander; L R N Schreiber; C Gillan; N A Fineberg; B J Sahakian; T W Robbins; N A Harrison; J Wood; N D Daw; P Dayan; J E Grant; E T Bullmore Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Steven J Nieto; Erica N Grodin; Diana Ho; Wave-Ananda Baskerville; Lara A Ray Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 3.928
Authors: Victoria R Votaw; Karl Mann; Henry R Kranzler; Corey R Roos; Helmut Nakovics; Katie Witkiewitz Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: John Kramer; Danielle M Dick; Andrea King; Lara A Ray; Kenneth J Sher; Ashley Vena; Leandro F Vendruscolo; Laura Acion Journal: Alcohol Alcohol Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 2.826
Authors: Jacqueline M Barker; Kathleen G Bryant; Alan Montiel-Ramos; Benjamin Goldwasser; Lawrence Judson Chandler Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 3.455