Browsing by Author "McCarthy, Denis M."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Applying Bayesian Cognitive Models to Decisions to Drive after Drinking
    (Wiley, 2021) McCarthy, Denis M.; McCarty, Kayleigh N.; Hatz, Laura E.; Prestigiacomo, Christiana J.; Park, Sanghyuk; Davis-Stober, Clintin P.; Psychology, School of Science
    Background and aims: Despite widespread negative perceptions, the prevalence of alcohol-impaired driving (AID) in the United States remains unacceptably high. This study used a novel decision task to evaluate whether individuals considered both ride service cost and alcohol consumption level when deciding whether or not to drive, and whether the resulting strategy was associated with engagement in AID. Design: A two-sample study, where sample 1 developed a novel AID decision task to classify participants by decision strategy. Sample 2 was used to cross-validate the task and examine whether decision strategy classifications were predictive of prior reported AID behavior. Setting: A laboratory setting at the University of Missouri, USA. Participants: Sample 1 included 38 student participants from introductory psychology classes at the University of Missouri. Sample 2 included 67 young adult participants recruited from the local community. Measurements: We developed a decision task that presented hypothetical drinking scenarios that varied in quantity of alcohol consumption (one to six drinks) and the cost of a ride service ($5-25). We applied a Bayesian computational model to classify choices as consistent with either: integrating both ride cost and consumption level (compensatory) or considering only consumption level (non-compensatory) when making hypothetical AID decisions. In sample 2, we assessed established AID risk factors (sex, recent alcohol consumption, perceived safe limit) and recent (past 3 months) engagement in AID. Findings: In sample 1, the majority of participants were classified as using decision strategies consistent with either a compensatory or non-compensatory process. Results from sample 2 replicated the overall classification rate and demonstrated that participants who used a compensatory strategy were more likely to report recent AID, even after accounting for study covariates. Conclusions: In a hypothetical alcohol-impaired driving (AID) decision task, individuals who considered both consumption level and ride service cost were more likely to report recent AID than those who made decisions based entirely on consumption level.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    To Infuse or Ingest in Human Laboratory Alcohol Research
    (Wiley, 2020-04) Cyders, Melissa A.; Plawecki, Martin H.; Corbin, William; King, Andrea; McCarthy, Denis M.; Ramchandani, Vijay A.; Weafer, Jessica; O’Connor, Sean J.; Psychology, School of Science
    Human alcohol laboratory studies use two routes of alcohol administration: ingestion and infusion. The goal of this paper is to compare and contrast these alcohol administration methods. The work summarized in this report was the basis of a 2019 Research Society on Alcoholism Roundtable, “To Ingest or Infuse: A Comparison of Oral and Intravenous Alcohol Administration Methods for Human Alcohol Laboratory Designs.” We review the methodological approaches of each and highlight strengths and weaknesses pertaining to different research questions. We summarize methodological considerations to aid researchers in choosing the most appropriate method for their inquiry, considering exposure variability, alcohol expectancy effects, safety, bandwidth, technical skills, documentation of alcohol exposure, experimental variety, ecological validity, and cost. Ingestion of alcohol remains a common, and often a preferable, methodological practice in alcohol research. Nonetheless, the main problem with ingestion is that even the most careful calculation of dose and control of dosing procedures yields substantial and uncontrollable variability in the participants’ brain exposures to alcohol. Infusion methodologies provide precise exposure control but are technically complex and may be limited in ecological validity. We suggest that alcohol ingestion research may not be the same thing as alcohol exposure research; investigators should be aware of the advantages and disadvantages that the choice between ingestion and infusion of alcohol invokes.