1. Group influence on alcohol-induced risk-taking behaviour
Marianne Erskine-Shaw
PhD Candidate

2. Content The Issue The Research What have we learnt? The Study
The Results What more have we learnt?
The Future Crystal ball gazing

3. The Issue
Excessive alcohol consumption is one of the top five risk factors for disease, disability and mortality globally (WHO, 2014)
Binge drinking associated with risky behaviours and subsequent injuries/harm (Corte & Sommers, 2005) Campaigns – know your limits Nek Nominations – the social aspect? Understanding drinking behaviour at a group-level – can groups moderate alcohol behaviour in a positive way?
(BBC, 2014)

4. Group Influences on Alcohol-Induced Risk-Taking
The Research
Group Influences on Alcohol-Induced Risk-Taking
Risk-Taking – behaviours which carry a probability of negative consequences (Lane et al., 2004)
Alcohol and risk-taking behaviour – well documented in the psychological literature. Alcohol consumption  increased risk-taking (Lane et al., 2004; Rose et al., 2014) Group influences of risk-taking – Majority of research in adolescence. Social contexts  increased risk-taking (Gardner & Steinberg, 2005) Social contexts  increase positive alcohol expectancies (Monk & Heim, 2013) Diminutive research exploring social influences on alcohol-induced risk-taking behaviour experimentally.

5. The Research Groups increase alcohol-induced risk-taking behaviour
Sayette and colleagues (2012; 2004)
Groups of 3 consumed alcohol, soft drink or placebo
Decision (as individuals or as group of 3) - 30min Q’s / coin toss = no Q’s or 60mins Q’s
Findings: Groups more risky when believed they had alcohol (alcohol and placebo). No differences when choice was made individually.
The Research
Groups compensate for alcohol-induced risk-taking behaviour
Abrams et al. (2006)
Individual or groups of 4 consumed placebo or alcohol
Risk attraction task
Findings – individuals found risky choices more attractive after alcohol.
Groups showed no difference

6. The Research Group Influences on Alcohol-Induced Risk-Taking
Why the inconsistencies?
Varied procedures to examine the topic e.g. Sayette and colleagues (2012;2004) examined individual choice following beverage consumption in groups. Still social drinking?
Group influence is measured by obtaining a collective decision. Individual characteristics may influence individuals to voice their ideas more or be more persuasive within the group (c.f. Oreg & Sverdlik, 2013)

7. To examine social influence on individual alcohol-induced risk-taking
The Study
To examine social influence on individual
alcohol-induced risk-taking
What can we hypothesise from what we have learnt?
Alcohol consumption will increase risk-taking behaviour in individuals
Social contexts will increase individual risk-taking behaviour
Social contexts will affect alcohol-induced risk-taking behaviour

8. The Study: Demographics and Materials
Design: A single session, between subjects design Participants N=99 (62 female) Conditions: Individual Alcohol (N=23) x Individual Placebo (N=25) x Group Alcohol (N=27) x Group Placebo (N=24) Age = 20.71(±4.34) AUDIT = 11.04(±4.84) Participants were matched across all independent variables across condition p>.05 Materials Self Report – Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Task (AUDIT; Saunders et al., 1993), Subjective Intoxication Scale, RT-18 (de Haan et al., 2011) Behavioural Tasks – Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) (Lejuez et al., 2002) and Stoplight Task (Chein et al., 2011) Beverage Administration – 0.5/6g/kg of alcohol or a placebo

9. The Study: BART
Lejuez et al., 2002

10. The Study: Stoplight
(Chein et al., 2011)

11. The Study: Procedure Performed individually Self Reports
Behavioural task (risk-taking)
Individuals
0.6 (male) 0.5 (female) g/kg alcohol or placebo
Natural friendship groups of 3
0.6 (male) 0.5 (female) g/kg alcohol or placebo
Performed individually
Self Reports
Behavioural task (risk-taking)

12. The Study: Results
Mixed ANOVA was performed to examine the effect of beverage and context of risk-taking behaviour Covariates: AUDIT and RT18 Beverage For both risk-taking measures (BART and Stoplight), no main effect was found with beverage (p>.05) Context Significant main effects for both the BART and stoplight were reported (p<.05) Interactions No significant interactions were found for context and beverage on risk-taking behaviour.

13. The Study: Results BART
Participants who were tested within groups were significantly more risk-taking on the BART, compared those tested individually f(1,93)=3.94, p=.05, r=.20
Stoplight Task
Participants who were tested within groups were significantly more risk-taking on the stoplight task, compared those tested individually f(1,93)=7.69, p<.01, r=.28

14. The Study: Results
Alcohol does not have a significant effect on risk-taking behaviour regardless of the social context
Group contexts increase an individuals risk-taking behaviour both with and without alcohol consumption
Social influence is more influential than alcohol on both risk-taking behaviour and alcohol-induced risk-taking.
However…
No beverage control condition (characteristic of alcohol administration paradigms)
Although social contexts were incorporated to replicate a realistic drinking environment, this is still lab based

15. The Future: ‘Crystal Ball Gazing’
Diminutive research within this area – need to incorporate social contexts into alcohol research regarding binge-related behaviours
More research within naturalistic drinking environments.
Hopthrow et al. (2014) field research found that groups decreases risk taking behaviour
Alcohol administration research needs to develop further to incorporate the use of control beverages as a true comparison to alcohol consumption behaviour (physiological AND subjective effects).

16. Acknowledgements
Supervisory Team: Professor Derek Heim, Dr Rebecca Monk and Dr Adam Qureshi Edge Hill University: Psychology Department and Graduate School Alcohol Research UK Psychology Postgraduate Affairs Group

17. Cheers!

18. References
Abrams, D., Hopthrow, T., Hulbert, L., & Frings, D. (2006). “Groupdrink”? The effect of alcohol on risk attraction among groups versus individuals. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67(4),
Charness, G., & Sutter, M. (2012). Groups make better self-interested decisions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(3), doi: /jep
Corte, C. M., & Sommers, M. S. (2005). Alcohol and risky behaviors. Annual Review of Nursing Research, 23,
de Haan, L., Kuipers, E., Kuerten, Y., van Laar, M., Olivier, B., & Verster, J. C. (2011). The RT-18: a new screening tool to assess young adult risk-taking behaviour. International Journal of General Medicine, 2011(4), doi: /IJGM.S23603
Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study. Developmental Psychology, (4), doi: /
Hopthrow, T., Abrams, D., Frings, D., & Hulbert, L. G. (2007). Groupdrink: The effects of alcohol on intergroup competitiveness. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21(2), doi: / X
Hopthrow, T. de Moura, G. R., Meleady, R., Abrams, D., & Swift, H. J. (2014). Drinking in social groups. does 'groupdrink' provide safety in numbers when deciding about risk? Addiction, (6), doi: /add.12496
Lane, S. D., Cherek, D. R., Pietras, C. J., & Tcheremissine, O. V. (2004). Alcohol effects on human risk taking. Psychopharmacology, 172(1), doi: /s
Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., Brown, R A. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The balloon analogue risk task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(2), doi: / X
Chein, J., Albert, D., O’Brien, L., Uckert, K., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitary. Dev Sci., 14(2), F1-F10. doi: /j x.

19. References
Monk, R. L., & Heim, D. (2013). Panoramic projection: Affording a wider view on contextual influences on alcohol-related cognitions. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 21(1), 1-7. doi: /a
Oreg, S. and Sverdlik, N. (2014), Source Personality and Persuasiveness: Big Five Predispositions to Being Persuasive and the Role of Message Involvement. Journal of Personality, 82(3), 250–264. doi:  /jopy.12049
Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51,
Rose, A. K., Jones, A., Clarke, N., & Christiansen, P. (2014). Alcohol-induced risk taking on the BART mediates alcohol priming. Psychopharmacology, 231(11), doi: /s
Saunders, J. B., Aasland, O. G., Babor, T. F., de la Fuente, J. R., Grant, M. (1993). Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II. Addiction, 88,
Sayette, M. A., Dimoff, J. D., Levine, J. M., Moreland, R. L., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2012). The effects of alcohol and dosage-set on risk-seeking behavior in groups and individuals. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26(2), doi: /a
Sayette, M. A., Kirchner, T. R., Moreland, R. L., Levine, J. M., & Travis, T. (2004). Effects of alcohol on risk-seeking behavior: A group-level analysis. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(2), doi: / X