Abstract
Preference for ethanol versus a placebo was assessed in 12 normal volunteers using a cumulative dosing preference test. The test consisted of four sampling sessions followed by three choice sessions. During the sampling sessions subjects received either five cumulating oral doses of ethanol (0.1g/kg per dose) or equal volumes of placebo, at 15-min intervals. Subjective and observer-rated drug effects, psychomotor performance, drug liking ratings, and breath ethanol levels were measured at regular intervals. During choice sessions, subjects first chose which of the two substances (drug or placebo) they wished to take and ingested one unit dose. Then, at 15-min intervals throughout the session, they could ingest up to ten additional unit doses of the same substance (i.e., up to 1.1 g/kg ethanol). On average, the subjects chose the ethanol-containing beverage on 75% of the choice sessions, and they self-administered a mean total dose of 0.8g/kg per session. Subjects varied in the amount of ethanol ingested on choice sessions, and the amount they chose was related to their subjective responses to the drug during sampling. Subjects who chose the most ethanol reported experiencing stimulant-like effects from the ethanol, whereas the subjects who chose ethanol less frequently and ingested lower doses reported primarily sedative-like effects from the drug. The results demonstrate that the cumulative dosing procedure can be used effectively to evaluate drug preferences and dose preferences in normal volunteers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Psychiatric Association (1980) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 3rd edn. Washington, DC
Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Rickels K, Uhlenhuth EH, Covi L (1974) The Hopkins symptom checklist (HSCL): a self-report symptom inventory. Behav Sci 19:1–15
Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG (1968) Eysenck personality inventory (Manual). Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San Diego, CA
Goodwin D (1979) Alcoholism and heredity: a review and hypothesis. Arch Gen Psychiatry 36:57–61
Griffiths RR, Bigelow GE, Liebson I, Kaliszak JE (1980a) Drug preference in humans: double-blind choice comparison of pentobarbital, diazepam and placebo. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 215:649–661
Griffiths RR, Bigelow GE, Henningfield J (1980b) Similarities in animal and human drug-taking behavior. In: Mello NK (ed) Advances in substance abuse, vol 1. JAI Press, Greehwich, CT, pp 1–90
Haertzen CA, Martin WR, Ross FE, Niedert GL (1980) Psychopathic State Inventory (PSI): development of a short test for measuring psychopathic states. Int J Addict 15:137–146
Johanson CE, Schuster CR (1981) Animal models of drug self-administration. Adv Subst Abuse 2:219–297
Johanson CE, Uhlenhuth EH (1980) Drug preference and mood in humans: diazepam. Psychopharmacology 71:269–273
Koek W, Woods JH, Ornstein P (1987) A simple rapid method for assessing similarities among directly observable behavioral effects of drugs: PCP-like effects of 2-amino 5-phosphonovalerate in rats. Psychopharmacology 91:297–304
McNair DM, Lorr M, Droppleman LF (1971) Profile of mood states (Manual). Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San Diego, CA
Mello NK, Mendelson JH (1978) Behavioral pharmacology of human alcohol, heroin and marijuana use. In: Fishman J (ed) The bases of addiction. Dahlem Konferenzen, Berlin, pp 133–158
Parrott AC, Hindmarch I (1980) The Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire in psychopharmacological investigations: a review. Psychopharmacology 71:173–179
Pohorecky LA (1977) Biphasic action of ethanol. Biobehav Rev 1:231–240
Rotter JB (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol Manage 80:609
Sanger DJ (1986) Drug taking as adjunctive behavior. In: Goldberg SR, Stolerman IP (eds) Behavioral analysis of drug dependence. Academic Press, New York, pp 123–160
Schuckit MA (1983) The genetics of alcoholism. In: Tabakoff B, Sutkers PB, Randall CL (eds) medical and social aspects of alcohol abuse. Plenum Press, New York, pp 31–44
Shippenberg TS, Altshuler HL (1985) A drug discrimination analysis of ethanol-induced behavioral excitation and sedation: the role of endogenous opiate pathways. Alcohol 2:197–201
Uhlenhuth EH, Johanson CE, Kilgore K, Kobasa SC (1981) Drug preference and mood in humans: preference for d-amphetamine and subject characteristics. Psychopharmacology 74:191–194
Waller MB, Murphy JM, McBride WJ, Lummeng L, Li T-K (1986) Effect of low dose ethanol on spontaneous motor activity in alcohol-preferring and-non-preferring lines of rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 24:617–623
Wechsler D (1958) The measure and appraisal of adult intelligence. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore
de Wit H, Uhlenhuth EH, Johanson CE (1986a) Individual differences in the reinforcing and subjective effects of amphetamine and diazepam. Drug Alcohol Depend 16:341–360
de Wit H, Uhlenhuth EH, Hedeker D, McCracken SM, Johanson CE (1986b) Lack of preference for diazepam in anxious volunteers. Arch Gen Psychiatry 43:533–541
de Wit H, Uhlenhuth EH, Pierri J, Johanson CE (1987a) Individual differences in behavioral and subjective responses to alcohol. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 11:52–59
de Wit H, Uhlenhuth EH, Johanson CE (1987b) The reinforcing properties of amphetamine in overweight subjects and subjects with depression. Clin Pharmacol Ther 42:127–136
Zuckerman M (1971) Dimensions of sensation seeking. J Consult Clin Psychol 36:45–52
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
DeWit, H., Pierri, J. & Johanson, C.E. Assessing individual differences in ethanol preference using a cumulative dosing procedure. Psychopharmacology 98, 113–119 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00442016
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00442016