Jump to content

User:Lilytaub/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inhibition Conflict

[edit]

One effect of alcohol myopia that it amplifies rash responses in intoxicated individuals. Alcohol does not directly effect the emotions and actions of inebriated people, but does so indirectly via its involvement in the inhibition conflict.

Inhibition conflict is a cognitive function that arises in people and allows them to make decisions based on immediate stimuli and stimuli that require a higher level of processing. In sober individuals, situations that produce an inhibition conflict would consist of one set of salient cues (external stimuli) that stimulate a certain response and other cues (internal stimuli such as possible negative consequences or societal standards and norms) that would inhibit the salient cues and therefore prevent rash action [1]. Those influenced by alcohol myopia are unable to comprehend this second set of cues, as the condition narrows an individual’s ability for higher-level cognitive functioning. Therefore, these individuals tend to act rashly without consideration for the consequences of their actions. [2]

Studies have been conducted to test the effects of alcohol on the intensity of males’ aggressive response to external stimuli, demonstrating the role of inhibition conflict on alcohol myopia. Male subjects under the influence of alcohol often ignored external cues, both in laboratory settings and in real life situations. In the lab patients who were given alcohol were more likely to respond to unpleasant tones (external stimuli) violently, despite internal cues advising them against aggression.[3] Surveys conducted also demonstrated that while intoxicated men are more likely to address the salient cue of anger with aggressive behavior towards their partners.[4] The results of these studies demonstrate men experiencing the effects of alcohol myopia were unable to process the consequences of their actions, and continued to act aggressively despite consequences. Alcohol had effectively limited their interpretation of salient cues and prevented them from interpreting cues that would inhibit aggressive action.

Women have also exhibited the effects of alcohol myopia's ability to disrupt the inhibition conflict. Research conducted in 2002 determined that there was a positive relationship between college females’ level of sobriety and their decisions to engage in risky sexual behavior. Results showed that a majority of college aged females who had been drinking chose not to address risk topics before sexual intercourse with a partner. [5] Alcohol myopia can explain this relationship. The inebriated females’ abilities to analyze internal cues warning them of the risks of sex were inhibited by alcohol, while alcohol caused them to become more responsive to the salient cue of arousal.

Risky Behavior

[edit]

Alcohol myopia has been shown to increase the likelihood that a person will engage in risky behavior. The increased risk taking brought on by alcohol myopia often ends with aversive consequences for the person acting dangerously or those influenced by the intoxicated's actions[6]. Those under the influence of alcohol myopia are often unaware of the consequences of their behavior as well as its risky nature. It has been shown that alcohol myopia causes people to function like those with maladaptive risky behaviors, often caused by behavior disorders or a personal history of abuse [7]. Dosage of alcohol intensifies these effects of myopia [8].

People under the influence of alcohol myopia act in a risky manner because of the myopia's inhibiting affects on their ability to analyze the probable outcomes of their actions. Alcohol activates dopaminergic circuits in the midbrain that also regulate the brain's analyzation and recognition of the outcomes of an action [9] [10]. It is not yet clear on exactly how alcohol effects these dopaminergic circuits. The following behaviors are influenced by risk taking when a person is experiencing the effects of alcohol myopia.

Personal Goals

[edit]

Alcohol myopia has also been found to affect one’s level of commitment to a personal goal. Individual commitment to a goal is dependent upon level of personal desire and feasibility of the goal. A person’s ability to appropriately interpret feasibility is inhibited by alcohol myopia. This is because desire is a more salient stimuli than feasibility, causing those experiencing alcohol myopia to ignore the less salient stimulant of feasibility. Because one is less inhibited by the prospect of unfeasible goals, those under the influences of alcohol myopia tend to feel more committed to their goals than sober individuals. Studies testing the relationship between intoxication and level of commitment to goals support the theory that increased goal commitment (despite level of feasibility) is a side effect of alcohol myopia.[11] [12]

Sexual Arousal

[edit]

Alcohol myopia causes individuals to become increasingly aware of sexual arousal and more likely to respond rashly to the arousal stimulus. The decision about how to respond to sexual arousal involves cognitive function that synthesizes both impelling cues (those that draw attention to the benefits of an action) and inhibiting cues (those that focus on the consequences of an action). The alcohol myopia theory suggests that intoxicated individuals will be more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior. Intoxicated males subject to high levels of sexual arousal were more likely to engage in unprotected sex than sober males subject to the same levels of arousal.[13] This is because the impelling cues (sexual arousal) are often more imminent than inhibitory cues (safety precautions), and those affected by alcohol myopia are limited to cognitive processing of the more immediate cues and often ignore the inhibitory cues.

The extent of alcohol myopia’s effects on one’s decisions about how to react to sexual arousal is dependent upon the level of confliction one feels. The more intense the personal conflict of whether or not to use a condom, the greater effect alcohol has on the final decision to engage in risky sexual behavior. Intoxicated males who had felt heavily conflicted about condom use were least likely to use a condom. Those intoxicated men who had been less conflicted about using a condom were more likely to engage in safe sex.[14] The effects of alcohol myopia on response to sexual arousal also depend on the level of sexual arousal. When sexual arousal levels were high a greater percentage of men reported not using a condom than when arousal levels were low.[15] This goes back to the importance of saliency in alcohol myopia. The more salient the external cue (in this case, higher levels of sexual arousal were more salient than lower levels) the more likely it is for alcohol to inhibit the comprehension of the consequences of an action.

Self Confidence

[edit]

Alcohol myopia also involves the inhibition of self-evaluative conflicts. The remembrance of deficiencies and the comparing of the self to others more skilled often inhibit peoples’ thoughts of self-confidence. This is what happens in a sober individual. Under the influence of alcohol myopia, people often experience an inhibition of self-doubt and therefore an elevation in confidence. After intoxication people see less of a discrepancy between their real abilities and ideal abilities, causing them to become more confident than their sober counterparts, who still recognize the limits of their abilities.

[edit]

Lily Taub

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Steele, Claude M.; Josephs, Robert A. (1990). "Alcohol myopia: Its prized and dangerous effects". American Psychologist. 45 (8): 921–933. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.8.921. PMID 2221564.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  2. ^ Steele, Claude M.; Josephs, Robert A. (1990). "Alcohol myopia: Its prized and dangerous effects". American Psychologist. 45 (8): 921–933. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.8.921. PMID 2221564.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  3. ^ Zeichner, A (1979). "Effects of alcohol and behavior contingencies on human aggression". Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 88 (2): 153–160. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.88.2.153. PMID 447898. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Shorey, Ryan C.; Stuart, Gregory L.; McNulty, James K.; Moore, Todd M. (2014). "Acute alcohol use temporally increases the odds of male perpetrated dating violence: A 90-day diary analysis". Addictive Behaviors. 39 (1): 365–368. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.10.025. PMC 3858531. PMID 24199932. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  5. ^ Griffin, Jessica A.; Umstattd, M. Renée; Usdan, Stuart L. (10 May 2010). "Alcohol Use and High-Risk Sexual Behavior Among Collegiate Women: A Review of Research on Alcohol Myopia Theory". Journal of American College Health. 58 (6): 523–532. doi:10.1080/07448481003621718. PMID 20452928. S2CID 20971769.
  6. ^ Lane, Scott D.; Cherek, Don R.; Pietras, Cynthia J.; Tcheremissine, Oleg V. (1 February 2004). "Alcohol effects on human risk taking". Psychopharmacology. 172 (1): 68–77. doi:10.1007/s00213-003-1628-2. PMID 14647967. S2CID 25817991.
  7. ^ Schmitt, WA (1999). "Testin Demasio's somatic marker hypothesis with psychopathic individuals: risk takers or risk averse?". Abnormal Psychology. 108 (3): 538–543. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.108.3.538. PMID 10466278. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ Lane, Scott D.; Cherek, Don R.; Pietras, Cynthia J.; Tcheremissine, Oleg V. (1 February 2004). "Alcohol effects on human risk taking". Psychopharmacology. 172 (1): 68–77. doi:10.1007/s00213-003-1628-2. PMID 14647967. S2CID 25817991.
  9. ^ Breiter, HC (2001). "Functional imaging of neural responses to expectancy and experience of monetary gains and losses". Neuron. 30 (2): 619–639. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(01)00303-8. PMID 11395019. S2CID 2688773. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  10. ^ Brodie, MS (1990). "Ethanol increases the firing of dopamine neurons of the rat ventral tegmental area in vitro". Brain Research. 508 (1): 65–69. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(90)91118-Z. PMID 2337793. S2CID 43089800. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  11. ^ Sevincer, A. Timur; Oettingen, Gabriele; Lerner, Tobias (2012). "Alcohol affects goal commitment by explicitly and implicitly induced myopia". Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 121 (2): 524–529. doi:10.1037/a0025931. PMID 22004115.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  12. ^ Sevincer, A. Timur; Oettingen, Gabriele (2009). "Alcohol breeds empty goal commitments". Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 118 (3): 623–633. doi:10.1037/a0016199. PMID 19685958.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  13. ^ MacDonald, Tara K.; MacDonald, Geoff; Zanna, Mark P.; Fong, Geoffrey (2000). "Alcohol, sexual arousal, and intentions to use condoms in young men: Applying alcohol myopia theory to risky sexual behavior". Health Psychology. 19 (3): 290–298. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.19.3.290. PMID 10868774.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  14. ^ MacDonald, Tara K.; MacDonald, Geoff; Zanna, Mark P.; Fong, Geoffrey (2000). "Alcohol, sexual arousal, and intentions to use condoms in young men: Applying alcohol myopia theory to risky sexual behavior". Health Psychology. 19 (3): 290–298. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.19.3.290. PMID 10868774.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  15. ^ Dermen, Kurt H.; Cooper, M. Lynne (2000). "Inhibition conflict and alcohol expectancy as moderators of alcohol's relationship to condom use". Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. 8 (2): 198–206. doi:10.1037/1064-1297.8.2.198. PMID 10843303.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lilytaub/sandbox&oldid=1168296325"