Jesus Chavarria1, Daniel J Fridberg2, Andrea C King3. 1. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 100 Collip Cir. Suite 200, London, ON N6G 4X8, Canada. Electronic address: jesus.chavarria@camh.ca. 2. Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue MC-3077, Chicago, IL 60637, United States. 3. Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue MC-3077, Chicago, IL 60637, United States. Electronic address: aking@bsd.uchicago.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Acute subjective alcohol effects appear to play an important role in predicting alcohol hangover. However, no studies have used a laboratory-based alcohol challenge to examine the concurrent or longitudinal effects of subjective alcohol responses on hangover frequency. As such, we investigated the direct and indirect effects of alcohol stimulation, sedation, liking and wanting, as measured in a controlled setting, on hangover frequency over five years. METHOD: Participants were 294 young adult light-to-heavy social drinkers (aged 21-35 years, 42% female) enrolled in the Chicago Social Drinking Project. The study utilized a placebo-controlled, double blind, laboratory alcohol challenge and a battery of measures including the Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale, Drug Effects Questionnaire, Hangover Symptom Scale, and alcohol use Quantity-Frequency Interview, with the latter two re-administered after five years. RESULTS: Through the use of a path analysis, the present study found significant direct effects from alcohol liking to hangover frequency at initial testing. In addition, there were multiple significant indirect effects from greater alcohol liking and wanting to greater alcohol use quantity-frequency and, in turn, greater hangover frequency at initial testing and 5-year follow-up. Last, there were significant indirect effects from greater alcohol sedation to less alcohol use quantity-frequency and, in turn, less hangover frequency at initial testing and 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the role of the hedonic reward and motivational salience of alcohol as potential mechanisms of alcohol-related consequences (i.e., hangover) among light-to-heavy social drinking young adults.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Acute subjective alcohol effects appear to play an important role in predicting alcohol hangover. However, no studies have used a laboratory-based alcohol challenge to examine the concurrent or longitudinal effects of subjective alcohol responses on hangover frequency. As such, we investigated the direct and indirect effects of alcohol stimulation, sedation, liking and wanting, as measured in a controlled setting, on hangover frequency over five years. METHOD: Participants were 294 young adult light-to-heavy social drinkers (aged 21-35 years, 42% female) enrolled in the Chicago Social Drinking Project. The study utilized a placebo-controlled, double blind, laboratory alcohol challenge and a battery of measures including the Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale, Drug Effects Questionnaire, Hangover Symptom Scale, and alcohol use Quantity-Frequency Interview, with the latter two re-administered after five years. RESULTS: Through the use of a path analysis, the present study found significant direct effects from alcohol liking to hangover frequency at initial testing. In addition, there were multiple significant indirect effects from greater alcohol liking and wanting to greater alcohol use quantity-frequency and, in turn, greater hangover frequency at initial testing and 5-year follow-up. Last, there were significant indirect effects from greater alcohol sedation to less alcohol use quantity-frequency and, in turn, less hangover frequency at initial testing and 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the role of the hedonic reward and motivational salience of alcohol as potential mechanisms of alcohol-related consequences (i.e., hangover) among light-to-heavy social drinking young adults.
Authors: Andrea C King; Deborah Hasin; Sean J O'Connor; Patrick J McNamara; Dingcai Cao Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Christopher W Kahler; John Hustad; Nancy P Barnett; David R Strong; Brian Borsari Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Joris C Verster; Aurora J A E van de Loo; Sarah Benson; Andrew Scholey; Ann-Kathrin Stock Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 4.241