The Anticipated Effects of Alcohol Use - Research Proposal Example

The Anticipated Effects of Alcohol Use: Physical versus Personal Consequences Name (first name, middle initial, surname) Instructor’s name Course Institutional affiliation Student ID Date Abstract The objective of the current study was to examine alcohol expectancies (AEs) among alcohol mixed with energy drinks (AmED) users. The types of consequences experienced—Personal or physical—were assessed via a modified version of the Anticipated Effects of Alcohol Scale (AEAS). 876 university students completed an online version of the AEAS. AmED users who scored high on the high positive ascending limb scale of the AEAS for AmEDs reported experiencing more personal consequences while those who scored low on the low negative ascending limb scale of the AEAS for AmEDs reported experiencing more physical consequences in comparison. Both non-legal and legal measures should therefore be taken to curb the consumption of AmEDs especially among university students. Keywords; alcohol expectancies, AmED, AEAS. The Anticipated Effects of Alcohol Use: Physical versus Personal Consequences Energy drinks (EDs) are beverages such as Red Bull, Venom, Monster, and Rockstar among others containing large amounts of stimulants which are considered legal. These legal stimulants include caffeine (mostly) and sometimes guarana or ginseng. Caffeine being the most common stimulant in EDs is present in the amounts ranging from 75milligrams to 200 milligrams and over per serving. This is starkly alarming when juxtaposed to the 34 milligrams of coke and 55 milligrams in Mountain Dew. Some EDs falsely advertise themselves and “non-Caffeinated” and “no crash”. This is false advertisement because they contain either guarana or ginseng which are caffeine equivalents (with all the side effects), and the “crash” referred to here is the “sugar crush” simply because they contain artificial sweeteners in place of actual sugar. The consumer therefore experiences a “non-sugar crash” upon the consumption of such drinks (Brown.edu, 2014; Attwood, 2012). Alcoholic beverages, on the other hand, also come in many different shapes, sizes, and colors. There are three main types of alcoholic beverages which include beer, spirits and wines. Alcoholic beverages contain alcohol in the form of either ethanol or methanol. Ethanol is formed through a process where the sugar contained in fruits, sugar canes, and cereals is fermented by yeast. Most alcoholic drinks contain 4- 40% ethanol. Research has proven that carbonated alcoholic drinks are absorbed much faster than their non-carbonated counterparts (Brown.edu, 2014; Ham and Hope, 2014). Since the year 2006, Energy drinks have steadily risen in sales in the UK by 12% every year (Refreshing the nation: The 2013 soft drinks report, 2013). It has also become commonplace to mix these drinks with alcoholic beverages such as spirits and liqueurs—pubs are often seen to promote such drink combinations as well. Moreover, some companies manufacture caffeinated alcoholic drinks/ alcoholic energy drinks like Four Loko and Joose, for example. Such drinks contain high alcoholic and caffeine content (a Four Loko can of 23.5- one ounce contains 12% alcohol while an equal volume of Joose holds 10-12% alcohol—a standard beer of 12 ounces contains 3-6% alcohol). The caffeine content in these has however been removed following the issuing of a warning letter from the FDA stating harmful effects of such combinations (Miller, 2012). Schry & Norberg (2013) observe that 36-41% of college students have episodes of binge drinking during which they also experience negative effects of alcohol consumption. They also find that almost 11% of all students experience unintentional injuries of the alcohol-related nature. The problem is further worsened when alcoholic is combined with caffeine; this is termed as alcohol mixed with energy drinks (AmED). Since alcohol is a depressor of the central nervous system (CNS) while caffeine is a stimulator, their effects when consumed together counter each other to create what researchers have called the “wide awake drunk” (Peacock, Bruno & Martin, 2012). The caffeine masks the gravity of intoxication (because the stimulant effects are felt more strongly than the depressive ones) thus enabling the consumer to keep taking more and more alcohol. AmED consumption leads to the creation of a false sense of alertness and ability to make sound judgments (Droste et al, 2014; Velazquez, Poulos, Latimer & Pasch, 2012). This trend of AmED consumption has led to the consumers experiencing more serious effects than if alcohol were consumed alone. These effects include: increased risk taking; physical and psychological effects such as problems sleeping, heart palpitations, feeling agitated or tense; panic attacks and anxiety from the consumption of large amounts of caffeine; consumption of large amounts of sugar and calories which may lead to the development of diabetes type 2 which increases the risk of long term health problems. Other consequences include nausea, headache, missing school the next day due to hung-overs, aggressiveness, verbal arguments, increased sexual risk taking, neglecting one’s other responsibilities, financial hemorrhage, impaired ability to function normally, damage of property, road traffic accidents, and memory loss/ loss of consciousness among others (Schry & Norberg, 2013; Varvil-Weld at al, 2012). This research paper seeks to address the gap left by other studies regarding AmED use—the relationship between AmED use and the extent of physical and personal consequences. It aims to do this by examining and comparing the types of consequences experienced by AmED users with their score on the AEAS. The hypothesis under investigation in this study (according to the general findings of the research) is that AmED users who experience arousal as a result of AmED use experience more personal consequences while those who experience sedation experience more negative consequences of the physical nature. The prediction was that AmED users would experience a greater number of social consequences during AmED sessions. Method Participants The total number of participants (n) of the study was 876. Of these, 220 were male, and 642 were female while 3 declined to share this information and 11 were missing from the system. There ages ranged from 17 to 63 years (M= 20.46 years, S.D= 5.163). 26 participants were international students while 850 were domestic. 471 participants reported their relationship status as single, 91 as casually dating, 267 as being in a committed relationship, 28 were married, 5 divorced, and 14 who preferred not to say. In terms of ethnicities, they comprised of 420 Anglo Australian, 3 Aboriginal Torres/straight Islanders, 198 Asians, 111 Europeans, 62 Middle Easterners, 74 Blacks/Sub-Saharan Africans, 3 of indeterminate ethnicities, and 5 who preferred not to say. On the question of religion, 377 reported as Christian, 28 Muslims, 15 Jews, 24Hindhus, 30 Buddhists, 268 agnostics/atheists, 66 did not report, while 68 preferred not to answer this question. 663 participants reported having ever consumed an energy drink, 2018 as never having consumed ED, while 5 declined to answer. The participants reported on their alcohol or ED use between the 14th of July to the 10th of August. The study was filled online and was anonymous, no incentive was provided. Method An online version of the modified Timeline Followback (MTLFB) was completed anonymously by the participants. The MTLFB is a tool used to measure alcohol-related consequences and alcohol-use (Schry & Norberg, 2013). This study however was carried out over 28 as opposed to 30 days. Using the Anticipated Effects of Alcohol Scale (AEAS) created for the determination of the predicted effects of alcohol over a 2 hour long episode of alcohol consumption (adjusted for sex) (Morean, Corbin & Treat, 2012). This scale utilized a Blood Alcohol Curve (BAC) limb to assess alcohol effects (AEs). The AEAS specified the number of drinks individuals imagined consuming (adjusted for sex) (Morean, Corbin, & Treat, 2012). A four factor internal structure formed the basis of exploratory and confirmatory analyses where alcohol effects were categorized into four quadrants (low/high arousal crossed with negative/positive valence). These factors were correlated and analyzed Results and Discussion A two-tailed Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to assess the relationship the types of consequences experienced by the AmED users and their score on the AEAS ascending limb subscale for AmEDs. As predicted, those who score higher on the high positive ascending limb subscale of the AEAS for AmEDs reported more personal consequences. Among the female participants, There was a positive correlation between the two variables (reporting high on the high positive ascending limb subscale and the experiencing of personal consequences) r = 1.000, n = 625, p = 0.000. There was also a positive correlation between the experiencing of physical consequences and reporting low on the low ascending limb subscale; r = 1.000, n = 625, p = 0.000. Overall, there was a strong correlation between the experience of consequences and AmED use as hypothesized. By way of results, the current study appears to support the hypotheses that more personal consequences are experienced by AmED users who score high on the high positive ascending limb subscale while more physical consequences are experienced by AmED users who score low on the low negative ascending limb subscale of the AEAS. These results are consistent with a number of studies that evidence the experiencing of alcohol-induced/related consequences. It however, goes further to divide these consequences into the above categories thus giving the study an edge above the already-existing researches. One of the reasons posited for the different experiences in terms of consequences by the AmED users lies in the physiological changes effected by alcohol-caffeine concentration. As the effects of these two compounds are counteractive, and it is known that stimulation is more strongly felt that sedation, the result of the equation is determined by how much alcohol was consumed versus how much caffeine or whatever other form of stimulant was ingested. It is also known that different individuals have different tolerance levels to both alcohol and caffeine depending on a variety of factors such as duration of exposure, gender, genetics, metabolic rate, and health status among others. This might also explain why different individuals experience different types of AEs over an episode during which the same types of substances were consumed (Huntley & Juliano, 2012; Heinz, de Wit, Lilje & Kassel, 2013). As stated in many research papers, alcohol as a sedative and caffeine and other stimulants are counteractive against each other. When consumed together, they mask each other’s effects by lowering the consumer’s ability to perceive their impairment (Verster et al, 2012). By doing so, AmEDs render the individual helpless and at their mercy as they are unable to gauge for themselves whether or not they are behaving differently. This therefore creates an environment where AmED users experience more consequences. If the individual’s BAC is higher than the caffeine content, then they experience more depressive types of consequences and these are usually of the physical nature. If the individual’s caffeine content is higher than their BAC, they then experience more consequences resulting from inattention, irritability, and uninhibition (usually personal consequences). This indicates that AmED users are likely to pose a danger to either themselves or others while under the influence of these substances (Mallett et al 2014; Berger et al 2011). This research—just like others similar to it— may have a bearing on the regulation of the sales and marketing of alcoholic energy drinks or AmEDs in general as a sales strategy. Countries such as Lithuania have set the example which was the first country in Europe to ban the sale of energy drinks to minors (below 18 years) (Thrastardottir, 2014). Such regulations surrounding the sale and marketing of alcohol and energy drinks have become more commonplace in the recent past and will probably be even more common in the years to come with evidence from emerging studies. The findings of this study may also warrant the creation of policies on the regulation or banning of AmED by learning institutions on their grounds since majority of those affected by AmED use are within the college going age group. It may also be upon such institutions to create campaigns shedding light on the dangers of AmED use in the effort to curb these harmful effects. The strengths of this research include the web-based format of the survey which was anonymous allowing students to report freely and reducing the chances of dishonesty, and also time efficient as participants were able to take the survey at their own time and pace. One of the study’s main weakness was the gender imbalance among participants with over three quarters of the participants being female while the rest were male—not a good representation of the university population. There was also not much variation in terms of geographical area as the participants were all PSYC105 students from the same general geographical location. In conclusion, the present study demonstrates the role of AmED use in physical and personal consequences thus giving a more holistic understanding to the topic of AEs among AmED users. Further studies may also be necessary to examine the strategies that may be employed to curb the use of AmEDs among university students. References Attwood, A. (2012). Alcohol and caffeine Caffeinated Alcohol Beverages: A Public Health Concern. Alcohol and Alcoholism , 2012 doi: Advance Access Publication 29 May 2012., [online] 47(4), pp.370–371. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22645036 [Accessed 3 Nov. 2014]. Berger, L., Fendrich, M., Chen, H., Arria, A., & Cisler, R. (2011). Sociodemographic correlates of energy drink consumption with and without alcohol: Results of a community survey. Addictive Behaviors, 36, 516–519. Brown.edu, (2014). Energy Drinks | Brown University Health Education. [online] Available at: http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/alcohol,_tobacco,_&_other_drugs/energy_drinks.php [Accessed 4 Nov. 2014]. Droste, N., Tonner L, L., Zinkiewicz L, L., Pennay A, A., Lubman, D., & Miller P., P. (2014). Combined Alcohol and Energy Drink Use:Motivations as Predictors of Consumption Patterns, Risk of Alcohol Dependence, and Experience of Injury and Aggression. Alcoholism And Clinical Experimental Research, 38(7), 2087-2095. doi:10.1111/acer.12438 Ham, L. and Hope, D. (2014). College students and problematic drinking: a review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, [online] 23(5), pp.719–759. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735803000710 [Accessed 3 Nov. 2013]. Heinz, A., de Wit, H., Lilje, T., & Kassel, J. (2013). The combined effects of alcohol, caffeine, and expectancies on subjective experience, impulsivity, and risk-taking. Experimental And Clinical Psychopharmacology, 21(3), 222-234. doi:10.1037/a0032337 Huntley, E., & Juliano, L. (2012). Caffeine Expectancy Questionnaire (CaffEQ): Construction, Psychometric Properties, and Associations With Caffeine Use, Caffeine Dependence, and Other Related Variables. Psychological Assessment, Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1037/A0026417, 24(3), 592-607. doi:10.1037/a0026417 Mallett, K., Marzell, M., Scaglione, N., Hultgren, B., & Turrisi, R. (2014). Are all alcohol and energy drink users the same? Examining individual variation in relation to alcohol mixed with energy drink use, risky drinking, and consequences. Psychology Of Addictive Behaviors, 28(1), 97-104. doi:10.1037/a0032203 Miller, K. (2012). Alcohol Mixed with Energy Drink Use and Sexual Risk-Taking: Casual, Intoxicated, and Unprotected Sex. JOURNAL OF CAFFEINE RESEARCH Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., 2(2). doi:10.1089/caf.2012.0015 Morean, M., Corbin, W., & Treat, T. (2012). The Anticipated Effects of Alcohol Scale: Development and Psychometric Evaluation of a Novel Assessment Tool for Measuring Alcohol Expectancies. Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 1008-1023. doi:10.1037/a0028982 Peacock, A., Bruno, R., & Martin, F. (2012). The Subjective Physiological, Psychological, and Behavioral Risk-Taking Consequences of Alcohol and Energy Drink Co-Ingestion. Alcoholism: Clinical And Experimental Research, 36(11), 2008-2015. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2012.01820.x Refreshing the nation: The 2013 soft drinks report. (2013). 1st ed. [ebook] London: British Soft Drinks Association. Available at: http://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/PDF/2013UKsoftdrinksreport.pdf [Accessed 3 Nov. 2014]. Schry, A., & Norberg, M. (2013). Factor structure of the modified Timeline Followback: a measure of alcohol-related consequences. Journal Of Studies On Alcohol And Drugs, 74(5), 803-9. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23948541# Thrastardottir, A. (2014). A Country In Europe Bans Energy Drinks For Minors. [online] Business Insider. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/lithuania-bans-energy-drinks-for-minors-2014-11 [Accessed 3 Nov. 2014]. Varvil-Weld, L., Marzell, M., Turrisi, R., Mallett, K., & Cleveland, M. (2013). Examining the Relationship Between Alcohol-Energy Drink Risk Profiles and High-Risk Drinking Behaviors. Alcoholism: Clinical And Experimental Research, 37(8), 1410-1416. doi:10.1111/acer.12102 Velazquez, C., Poulos, N., Latimer, L., & Pasch, K. (2012). Associations between energy drink consumption and alcohol use behaviors among college students. Drug And Alcohol Dependence, 123(1-3), 167-172. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.11.006 Verster, J., de Haan, L., de Haan, van der Paalen, & Olivier, B. (2012). Effects of consuming alcohol mixed with energy drinks versus consuming alcohol only on overall alcohol consumption and negative alcohol-related consequences. International Journal Of General Medicine, 953. doi:10.2147/ijgm.s38020 Read More

Research has proven that carbonated alcoholic drinks are absorbed much faster than their non-carbonated counterparts (Brown.edu, 2014; Ham and Hope, 2014). Since the year 2006, Energy drinks have steadily risen in sales in the UK by 12% every year (Refreshing the nation: The 2013 soft drinks report, 2013). It has also become commonplace to mix these drinks with alcoholic beverages such as spirits and liqueurs—pubs are often seen to promote such drink combinations as well. Moreover, some companies manufacture caffeinated alcoholic drinks/ alcoholic energy drinks like Four Loko and Joose, for example.

Such drinks contain high alcoholic and caffeine content (a Four Loko can of 23.5- one ounce contains 12% alcohol while an equal volume of Joose holds 10-12% alcohol—a standard beer of 12 ounces contains 3-6% alcohol). The caffeine content in these has however been removed following the issuing of a warning letter from the FDA stating harmful effects of such combinations (Miller, 2012). Schry & Norberg (2013) observe that 36-41% of college students have episodes of binge drinking during which they also experience negative effects of alcohol consumption.

They also find that almost 11% of all students experience unintentional injuries of the alcohol-related nature. The problem is further worsened when alcoholic is combined with caffeine; this is termed as alcohol mixed with energy drinks (AmED). Since alcohol is a depressor of the central nervous system (CNS) while caffeine is a stimulator, their effects when consumed together counter each other to create what researchers have called the “wide awake drunk” (Peacock, Bruno & Martin, 2012).

The caffeine masks the gravity of intoxication (because the stimulant effects are felt more strongly than the depressive ones) thus enabling the consumer to keep taking more and more alcohol. AmED consumption leads to the creation of a false sense of alertness and ability to make sound judgments (Droste et al, 2014; Velazquez, Poulos, Latimer & Pasch, 2012). This trend of AmED consumption has led to the consumers experiencing more serious effects than if alcohol were consumed alone. These effects include: increased risk taking; physical and psychological effects such as problems sleeping, heart palpitations, feeling agitated or tense; panic attacks and anxiety from the consumption of large amounts of caffeine; consumption of large amounts of sugar and calories which may lead to the development of diabetes type 2 which increases the risk of long term health problems.

Other consequences include nausea, headache, missing school the next day due to hung-overs, aggressiveness, verbal arguments, increased sexual risk taking, neglecting one’s other responsibilities, financial hemorrhage, impaired ability to function normally, damage of property, road traffic accidents, and memory loss/ loss of consciousness among others (Schry & Norberg, 2013; Varvil-Weld at al, 2012). This research paper seeks to address the gap left by other studies regarding AmED use—the relationship between AmED use and the extent of physical and personal consequences.

It aims to do this by examining and comparing the types of consequences experienced by AmED users with their score on the AEAS. The hypothesis under investigation in this study (according to the general findings of the research) is that AmED users who experience arousal as a result of AmED use experience more personal consequences while those who experience sedation experience more negative consequences of the physical nature. The prediction was that AmED users would experience a greater number of social consequences during AmED sessions.

Method Participants The total number of participants (n) of the study was 876. Of these, 220 were male, and 642 were female while 3 declined to share this information and 11 were missing from the system. There ages ranged from 17 to 63 years (M= 20.46 years, S.D= 5.163). 26 participants were international students while 850 were domestic.

Read More