The concepts of rash impulsiveness and reward sensitivity in substance use disorders

Borderline Personality Disorder With Versus Without Alcohol Use Disorder: Comparing Impulsivity and Schema Modes

Substance use disorders (SUDs) and borderline personality disorder (BPD) are highly comorbid. In the present study, an attempt was made to understand the differences between BPD and BPD with comorbid SUD (BPD + alcohol use disorder [AUD]), by studying impulsivity and schema modes (i.e., maladaptive moment-to-moment emotional states and coping responses). BPD patients, BPD+AUD patients, and nonpatients (NP) were compared regarding behavioral impulsivity (motor impulsivity, risk taking, delay discounting), and schema modes. The two patient groups displayed greater delay discounting than the NP group. Further, BPD and BPD+AUD groups were different from the NP group regarding all schema modes investigated. However, no differences were found on any of the dependent variables between the two patient groups. It is suggested that although BPD patients are in general more impulsive and have more maladaptive moment-to-moment emotional states and coping responses, BPD patients with and without AUD seem not to be different in this respect.

The role of rash-impulsivity, emotional dysregulation and reward drive in comorbid disordered eating and substance use disorders

Purpose

Substance use disorder (SUD) frequently co-occurs with other psychological conditions, such as eating disorders (EDs). Psychological factors such as emotional dysregulation, rash impulsivity (RI) and reward sensitivity (RS) play a role in the etiology of each disorder, yet little is known about the combined effects of these on comorbid SUDs and EDs or disordered eating behaviours (DEBs). This study aims to examine the role of these psychological factors in comorbid DEBs and SUDs among individuals in treatment for SUDs. The role of gender is tested as a moderator.

Design/methodology/approach

A cross-sectional self-report survey was completed by 131 participants attending Australian residential substance use treatment centres. A binomial logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the effects of emotional dysregulation, RI and RS on comorbid DEB and SUD. Further, moderation analyses were used to examine the moderating effect for gender on the relationship between these three personality variables and comorbidity.

Findings

The most commonly reported primary substance of use was alcohol (43.5%), followed by amphetamines (38.6%). Findings showed that emotional dysregulation and RI were significantly related to an increase in comorbidity likelihood; however, RS was not. Gender moderated the relationship between comorbidity and RI only.

Originality/value

The significant positive relationship found between RI and comorbidity for females only was a novel finding for the current study. Further research is needed to develop an understanding of the etiology of comorbidity.

Craving mediates the effect of impulsivity on lapse-risk during alcohol use disorder treatment

Rash impulsiveness, the propensity for approach behaviour despite potential negative consequences, is associated with stronger alcohol craving in patients with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD). This relationship is poorly understood and implications for treatment response are unexamined. This study explored the relationship between rash impulsiveness, craving, and treatment response among 304 outpatients enrolled in a 12-week abstinence-based Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) program for AUD. Assessments were completed pre-and-post treatment, with craving and alcohol consumption monitored at each treatment session. Higher rash impulsiveness predicted more frequent craving over treatment (b = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.40, 1.50). Higher craving was associated with greater lapse-risk (b = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.05), with the association between craving and lapse-risk increasing as treatment progressed (b = 0.01, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.02). Craving positively mediated the relationship between rash impulsiveness and lapse-risk (µ = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.10, 0.70). Contrary to hypotheses, the risk of lapse in response to craving was not moderated by rash-impulsiveness. These results suggest that AUD patients with a predisposition for rash impulsiveness are more vulnerable to alcohol craving, and subsequently, poorer treatment outcomes.

Transdiagnostic Investigation of Impulsivity in Alcohol Use Disorder and Binge Eating Disorder With Eye-Tracking Methodology-A Pilot Study

Objective: Patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD) and patients with binge eating disorder (BED) are characterized by increased impulsivity, i.e. increased reward sensitivity and diminished response inhibition. In this pilot study, we compare both disorders directly concerning impulsivity using disorder-specific stimuli to gain insight into the relationship of both disorders and underlying mechanisms. Methods: We compared eye movements of 23 women with BED (age M = 40.9), 21 participants with AUD (13 females, 8 males, age M = 46.6), and age- and sex-matched control groups (BED-CG and AUD-CG, respectively). We measured reward sensitivity with the free exploration paradigm and response inhibition with the modified antisaccade paradigm. We presented disorder-specific stimuli vs. neutral stimuli, i.e. food stimuli in the BED and BED-CG and alcohol stimuli in the AUD and AUD-CG. Results: BED and BED-CG initially fixated more often on food stimuli vs. neutral stimuli, whereas AUD and AUD-CG initially fixated more often on neutral stimuli vs. alcohol stimuli. AUD showed shorter dwell times on both stimulus categories in comparison with the other groups. When saccades towards stimuli should be inhibited, BED made more errors in first saccades for both stimulus categories in comparison with AUD-CG and in second saccades particularly for food stimuli in comparison with all other groups, whereas AUD did not differ from the control groups. Conclusions: This pilot study indicates that food and alcohol stimuli are at the first sight differently processed. Moreover, patients with BED and with AUD seem to process disorder-specific stimuli differently. Whereas patients with AUD avoid stimuli generally, patients with BED predominantly show deficits in inhibitory control.

Exploring the Relationship between Reward and Punishment Sensitivity and Gambling Disorder in a Clinical Sample: A Path Modeling Analysis

Most individuals will gamble during their lifetime, yet only a select few will develop gambling disorder. Gray's Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory holds promise for providing insight into gambling disorder etiology and symptomatology as it ascertains that neurobiological differences in reward and punishment sensitivity play a crucial role in determining an individual's affect and motives. The aim of the study was to assess a mediational pathway, which included patients' sex, personality traits, reward and punishment sensitivity, and gambling-severity variables. The Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire, the South Oaks Gambling Screen, the Symptom Checklist-Revised, and the Temperament and Character Inventory-Revised were administered to a sample of gambling disorder outpatients (N = 831), diagnosed according to DSM-5 criteria, attending a specialized outpatient unit. Sociodemographic variables were also recorded. A structural equation model found that both reward and punishment sensitivity were positively and directly associated with increased gambling severity, sociodemographic variables, and certain personality traits while also revealing a complex mediational role for these dimensions. To this end, our findings suggest that the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire could be a useful tool for gaining a better understanding of different gambling disorder phenotypes and developing tailored interventions.

Is binge drinking in young adults associated with an alcohol-specific impairment of response inhibition?

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Little is known about the association of binge drinking with impulsivity related to trait- or state-like aspects of behavior. The aim of the present study was therefore to investigate whether binge drinkers show an impairment of inhibitory control in comparison to non-binge drinkers when confronted with alcohol-associated or control stimuli, and whether this is reflected in self-reported impulsivity.

METHODS

A go/no-go task with pictures of alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages as well as control stimuli was administered to binge drinkers and a gender-matched group of non-binge drinkers. All participants also completed the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11).

RESULTS

We found an alcohol-specific impairment of response inhibition for binge drinkers only, while the groups did not differ with regard to overall response inhibition to the experimental stimuli or self-reported impulsiveness (BIS-11). In addition, the number of commission errors in response to alcohol-associated stimuli was the only significant predictor of binge drinking.

CONCLUSION

The findings of the present study suggest that when young adults have established binge drinking as a common drinking pattern, impairment of inhibition in response to alcoholic stimuli is the only significant predictor of binge drinking, but not general impulsive behavior.

Rash impulsiveness and reward sensitivity as predictors of treatment outcome in male substance dependent patients

Recent theories hypothesize that the impulsivity observed in addictive behaviors is a two-factor construct, consisting of Rash Impulsiveness and Reward Sensitivity. There is some evidence for this distinction, but it is unknown what the clinical relevance of this distinction is. The present study examines the predictive value of the two-factor model regarding drop-out from treatment and relapse into substance use in a clinical population of male substance dependent patients. Both behavioral and self-report measures of Rash Impulsiveness and Reward Sensitivity were measured during treatment while substance use relapse was measured after 90days. Results indicate that treatment drop-out could be predicted by a behavioral index of Reward Sensitivity (Card Playing Task); self-reported Rash Impulsiveness only approached significance as predictor drop-out. In contrast, relapse could not be predicted in the present study. These findings might have implications for the early identification and treatment of patients at risk of treatment drop-out.

Cognitive Inflexibility in Gamblers is Primarily Present in Reward-Related Decision Making

One hallmark of gambling disorder (GD) is the observation that gamblers have problems stopping their gambling behavior once it is initiated. On a neuropsychological level, it has been hypothesized that this is the result of a cognitive inflexibility. The present study investigated cognitive inflexibility in patients with GD using a task involving cognitive inflexibility with a reward element (i.e., reversal learning) and a task measuring general cognitive inflexibility without such a component (i.e., response perseveration). For this purpose, scores of a reward-based reversal learning task (probabilistic reversal learning task) and the Wisconsin card sorting task were compared between a group of treatment seeking patients with GD and a gender and age matched control group. The results show that pathological gamblers have impaired performance on the neurocognitive task measuring reward-based cognitive inflexibility. However, no difference between the groups is observed regarding non-reward-based cognitive inflexibility. This suggests that cognitive inflexibility in GD is the result of an aberrant reward-based learning, and not based on a more general problem with cognitive flexibility. The pattern of observed problems is suggestive of a dysfunction of the orbitofrontal cortex, the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, and the ventral regions of the striatum in gamblers. Relevance for the neurocognition of problematic gambling is discussed.