1. Alcohol Use in College Freshmen: Differences in Self-reported Sensation-seeking, Trait Impulsivity, and Motivation, but Not in Behavioral Delay-discounting or Risk-taking Tasks J. Sisante 1, S.A. Meda 1, R. Rosen 1, R. Jiantonio 1, M. Ginley 1, H. Tennen 3, C. Austad 4, S. Raskin 5 & G. Pearlson 1,2 1 Olin Neuropsychiatry Research Center, Institute of Living at Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT; 2 Dept. of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; 3 University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT; 4 Dept. of Psychology, Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT; 5 Dept. of Psychology and Neuroscience Program, Trinity College, Hartford, CT HYPOTHESES MATERIALS AND METHODS INTRODUCTION REFERENCES DISCUSSION - 160 college freshmen (95 female) between the ages of 18 and 21 (M: 18.42, SD: 0.578) were recruited from an ongoing NIAAA- funded BARCS study on a voluntary basis from two demographically distinct colleges in Connecticut. -Measures of cognitive testing, academic grades, genetics, alcohol and drug use assessments, and psychiatric diagnoses were obtained for all subjects at their home colleges. Presence of a psychiatric diagnosis did not result in study exclusions as we hoped to obtain a representative sample. Self-reported measures obtained included: BIS-11; tests for Attentional Impulsiveness (AI), Motor Impulsiveness (MI), and Nonplanning Impulsiveness (NPI) subscales derived from first order factors attention, motor impulsiveness, self control, cognitive complexity, perseverance, and cognitive instability 7. BIS/BAS; tests for motivations of impulsive behavior and sensitivity towards punishment and reward. BIS portion assesses behavioral inhibition while BAS subscales assess Reward Responsiveness (RR), Drive (D), and Fun Seeking (FS) 13. SSS tests preference for stimulating activities; subscales include Disinhibition (DIS), Thrill and Adventure Seeking (TAS), Boredom Susceptibility (BS), and Experience Seeking (ES) 11. -Students were then invited to complete the BART, EDT, and Alcohol Interview (ALI). BART assesses risky behavior via balloon inflations that are linked to monetary gains; balloon grows larger or explodes. EDT is a real-time consequence feedback task that measures delay-discounting 16, which is the preference for smaller, immediate rewards (i.e., 15 cents now) compared to a larger, later reward (i.e., 30 cents in ten seconds). -The customized Alcohol Interview has been adapted from the Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcohol (SSAGA) 19. Students were categorized into three distinct groups based on total number of points towards dysfunction 20 : 0 total points = Teetotaler (TEE) 1-10 points= Social Drinker (SOC) 11+ points = Dysfunctional Drinker (DYS) -Categories: 23 TEE, 53 SOC, 84 DYS (2 excluded for incomplete data). -ANOVA performed to distinguish differences in self-report and behavioral measures between TEE, SOC, and DYS groups. Funded by RO1 AA016599 (BARCS Study) and RC1 AA019036 to Dr. Godfrey Pearlson. Brain and Alcohol Research in College Students (aka BARCS Study ) “Mascot” - Problem drinking in college students creates harmful consequences 1,2. -Considerable research has been done linking college alcohol misuse to impulsivity 1,5. -Impulsivity is multidimensional and not explicitly defined 3,6, and there are multiple underlying constructs tested by questionnaires: Barratt Impulsivity Scale (BIS-11); predictor of alcohol use in social drinkers 8, alcohol use disorders 9, and predicts binge drinking 10. Behavioral Inhibition System and Behavioral Activation System (BIS/BAS) predicts adolescent alcohol use 14. Zuckerman’s Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS) is a predictor of current alcohol use in late adolescents 12 and predicts binge drinking 10. -Behavioral measures tests cognitive processes that underlie impulsive behavior 4: Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) is an indicator of excessive alcohol use 15,8. Acute alcohol increased impulsivity on the Experiential Discounting Task (EDT) compared to placebo 17. -Compared to social drinkers, heavy drinkers display steeper temporal discounting in the hypothetical money choice task 8. - Hazardous drinkers reported higher impulsivity but did not show differences compared to social drinkers on a delay-discounting task 9. -Observe significant differences in EDT and BART performances among teetotalers, social drinkers, and dysfunctional drinkers. -Dysfunctional drinkers should have lower area under the curve for the EDT and higher adjusted pumps average for BART compared to other two groups. - Likewise, we expected differences among the groups in self-report scores on BIS-11, SSS, and BIS/BAS with dysfunctional drinkers showing higher scores on these three assessments than other two groups. RESULTS N.B.: 0 ALI pts. = TEE 1-10 ALI pts.= SOC 11+ ALI pts. = DYS ** = p ≤ 0.01 * = p ≤ 0.05 -No sex differences observed in self-reported or behavioral impulsivity measures. -No significant differences observed in BART or EDT performance. -Significant differences in BIS-11, SSS, and BIS/BAS between groups. DYS had higher total BIS-11 scores than both TEE and SOC; higher MI subscale score compared to TEE; and higher motor impulsiveness and cognitive complexity compared to both TEE and SOC. SOC had higher motor impulsiveness than TEE. No differences in NP and AI, contrasting Fernie et al. 12 and Carlson et al. 10 Observed higher BAS FS subscale in DYS and SOC compared to TEE, supporting previous studies that identified FS as a factor of adolescent drinking 14. -Supports prior research : DIS subscale relates to adolescent alcohol use 15. -Does not support prior studies reporting TAS and BS as indicators of problem drinking 10. -No significant differences between groups in either BART or EDT performance, contradicting previous reports which identified alcohol influence on task perfromance 5, 8, 15-18. -Future research should utilize a combination of neuroimaging, other self- report measures (i.e., Eysenck Personality Questionnaire or I 7 ) and other behavioral measures (Stop-Signal, Go/No-Go). -These findings suggest that self-report measures may be more sensitive than behavioral measures in identifying freshmen problem drinkers. 1)Vuchinich, R. & Simpson, C. Exp clin Psychopharm (1999) 2)Congdon, E. & Canli, T. Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev. 2005 3)Verdejo-Garcia, A. et al. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008 4)Dick, D. et al. Addict Biol. 2010 5)MacKillop, J. et al. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2007 6)Evenden, J. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1999 7)Patton, J. et al. J Clin Psychol. 1995 8)Fernie, G. et al. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010 9)Fox, H. et al. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2010 10)Carlson, S. et al. Addict Behav. 2010 11)Zuckerman, & M., Neeb, M. Psychiatry Res. 1979 12)Clapper, R. et al. J Subst Abuse. 1994 13)Carver, C. & White, T. J.Per and Soc Psy, 1994 14)Willem, L. et al. Addict Behav. 2010 15)Lejuez, C. et al. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2002 Jun 16)Reynolds, B. & Schiffbauer, R. Behav Processes. 2004 17)Reynolds, B. et al. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2006 18)Vuchinich, R. & Simpson, C. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 19)Hesselbrock, M. et al. Addiction. 1999 20)Anderson, B. et al. INS 2011 poster presentation