Elsevier

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Volume 179, 1 October 2017, Pages 341-346
Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Full length article
The influence of groups and alcohol consumption on individual risk-taking

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.07.032Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Examined the effects of alcohol on risk-taking, in isolated or group contexts.

  • Individuals are more likely to take risks when in groups.

  • Alcohol consumption does not affect individual risk-taking.

  • There is no difference in risk-taking between intoxicated and sober groups.

Abstract

Background

Research addressing the influence of alcohol and groups on risky behaviour has yielded contradictory findings regarding the extent to which intoxicated groups exaggerate or minimise risk-taking. Previous work has examined the effect of intoxication on risk-taking focusing on collective group decision-making, and to date the influence of alcohol consumption and groups on individual risk-taking has yet to be explored experimentally. The current study therefore examined the impact of intoxication and groups on individual risk-taking.

Methods

In a mixed design, 99 social drinkers (62 female) attended an experimental session individually (N = 48) or in groups of three (N = 51). Individuals completed the study in isolation while groups were tested in the same room. Participants completed two behavioural measures of risk-taking: Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) and Stoplight Task (SLT), both before and following consumption of an alcoholic (0.6 g/kg males, 0.5 g/kg females) or a placebo beverage.

Results

Those who participated in groups took significantly more risks in both tasks than those in isolation. Alcohol did not increase risk-taking on either risk-taking tasks. However, those who consumed placebo were significantly less risky on the SLT, compared to baseline. No interactions were found between context and beverage on risk-taking.

Conclusion

The findings do not support a combined effect of alcohol and groups on individual risk-taking. Rather, results indicate that risk-taking behaviour is influenced by peer presence regardless of alcohol consumption. Targeting the influence of groups (above those of alcohol) may hold promise for reducing risk-taking behaviours in drinking environments.

Introduction

Alcohol is a social lubricant and forms the basis of a variety of social celebrations, cultural and religious events (Gordon et al., 2012). However, in addition to well-documented adverse impacts on health and well-being (World Health Organisation, 2014), research suggests that alcohol consumption can be associated with a variety of potentially harmful risky behaviours, including aggression (Ito et al., 1996), drunk-driving (Taylor et al., 2010), and sexual risk-taking (Rehm et al., 2012). Given that alcohol is frequently consumed in groups, it is noteworthy that much alcohol-related risk-taking research has been conducted on individuals in isolated contexts. While research into the impact of social contexts on alcohol-induced risk has begun to address this shortcoming, findings to date are inconsistent (Abrams et al., 2006, Sayette et al., 2012), and more research is needed to better understand how social contexts and alcohol consumption interact to shape risky behaviours. A fuller account of how the psychopharmacological effects of alcohol are shaped by different social settings to impact risk-taking behaviours may also be important for informing interventions that are sensitive to the different contexts in which people become intoxicated.

In a rare exception to the dearth of research examining alcohol-induced risk taking in social contexts, Sayette et al. (2012) found that intoxicated groups made riskier decisions than sober groups. However, they found that risky choices did not differ between sober and intoxicated individuals when the risk-taking decisions were made in isolation. This research therefore points to a negative impact of social influences on alcohol-induced risk-taking, whereby alcohol consumption may only enhance risk-taking behaviour within groups. In contrast, Abrams et al. (2006) and Hopthrow et al. (2014) found that the extent to which group members were attracted to risk appeared either not to differ (Abrams et al., 2006) or was lesser (Hopthrow et al., 2014) as a function of intoxication, whereas those in socially isolated contexts appeared more risk-taking following alcohol consumption. This work therefore suggests a protective effect of groups on risk-taking associated with alcohol consumption.

Addressing these inconsistent findings, it is worthwhile to consider methodological differences regarding the contexts in which beverages were consumed between studies. Sayette et al. (2012) consistently administered beverages in groups, subsequently extricating some group members for individual assessment of decision-making. On the other hand, Abrams et al. (2006) kept testing contexts consistent throughout the study, with participants who completed the risk task alone also consuming their beverages in isolation, compared to groups who both drank and completed the task with peers. The varied drinking contexts utilised in these studies may help explain the inconsistent findings, as participants may respond differently following social drinking (Sayette et al., 2012), compared to drinking in isolation (Abrams et al., 2006).

In addition to the methodological differences between these studies, it is also important to distinguish between collective group risk-taking and group influence on individual risk-taking. Both Abrams et al. (2006) and Sayette et al. (2012) examined group risk-taking as one collective decision within the group, as opposed to group member’s personal decisions. Notably, Frings et al. (2008) found intoxication to increase vigilance errors in individuals, whereas errors made in groups (collectively and privately by group members) remained unaffected by alcohol consumption. However, vigilance errors did appear to differ depending on whether group members made their judgements privately, or collectively. Here, collective group decisions were found to be less erroneous. Moreover, risk preferences appear to be influenced by the presence of peers to a greater extent when tasks are discussed with the group, in contrast to when group members complete tasks independently (Centifanti et al., 2016). This highlights the necessity to distinguish between collective group decisions, and individual decisions within a group. To our knowledge, group influence on individual risk-taking has not yet been examined experimentally in intoxicated groups. The impact of social drinking on individual, as opposed to collective (group), risk-taking therefore remains unclear.

Theoretically, the impact of peer presence and alcohol on risk taking behaviours may be explained via cognitive and social influence frameworks such as the alcohol myopia model (AMM; Steele and Josephs, 1990) and perceived norms (Borsari and Carey, 2001). AMM postulates that the pharmacological effects of alcohol narrow an individual’s attention to the most salient cues, thereby constricting individuals’ focus. This is seen to impede attempts at evaluating systematically a given situation (Steele and Josephs, 1990), resulting in increases in risky behaviour (Lane et al., 2004, Rose et al., 2014). Furthermore, in social contexts the saliency of group membership may result in an alcohol-related focal narrowing of attention towards peers (Hopthrow et al., 2007), leading to subsequent behaviour to be driven by, and evaluated in light of, peer approval.

Beliefs regarding the alcohol consumption behaviours of one’s social group may also be an important determinant of alcohol-related behaviours (Borsari and Carey, 2001). For instance, young adults and students in social groups often overestimate their peers’ risky drinking behaviour (Martens et al., 2006). In turn, this (mis)perception has been suggested to predict behaviour as individuals attempt to match their conduct to the perceived norm (Crawford and Novak, 2010, Kenney et al., 2013, Martens et al., 2006). In social contexts, alcohol-related increases in attention to one’s peers may thereby lead to norm-driven heightened risky drinking behaviour.

In summary, it may be suggested that the effects of alcohol are likely to enhance risky behaviour due to pharmacologically-driven myopia impairing systematic evaluation of consequences. In social contexts, a narrowed focus may be directed towards peers, influencing behaviour in line with perceived group norms, which may overestimate peer engagement in risky drinking behaviour (Kenney et al., 2013, Martens et al., 2006). The effect of alcohol consumption on individual risk-taking might therefore be expected to be exaggerated in the presence of peers.

The current study, therefore, aimed to investigate the influence of group context, specifically peer presence, and alcohol consumption on individual risk-taking behaviour. We examined risk-taking behaviour both before and after consumption of 0.5-0.6 g/kg alcohol or a placebo, across two varying contexts (a group or an isolated context). The study investigated both the independent and combined effects of groups and alcohol consumption on individual risk-taking. It was expected that (a) alcohol and (b) group context will increase individual risk-taking behaviour. Additionally, we hypothesised that (c) the combination of both alcohol consumption and group context would elevate risk-taking behaviour further.

Section snippets

Design

A 2 (context: group or isolation) x 2 (beverage: alcohol or placebo) mixed design was used. Risk-taking behaviour was a repeated variable, due to measurement before and following beverages.

Participants

A total of 99 social drinkers (62 female, M age = 20.71, SD = 4.34) were recruited by opportunity sampling at a UK University. Recruitment was facilitated by online and campus advertisements, as well as via an online participation pool (SONA). Participants signed up to the study either individually or as a group of

Participant characteristics

Preliminary analyses revealed that participants did not differ in terms of age or gender between beverage or context conditions (p > 0.05). Participants did however, have significantly higher AUDIT scores in the alcohol beverage condition (M = 12.09, SD = 4.99), compared to placebo (M = 9.98, SD = 4.47), F (1,95) = 4.62, p = 0.03, ηp2 = 0.04. RT-18 scores also differed significantly across conditions, as those tested within groups had significantly higher trait risk-taking scores (M = 10.18, SD = 3.66) compared to

Discussion

Findings from the current study indicate that group contexts increase individual risk-taking behaviour, as predicted. However, against expectations, alcohol consumption and the combined effect of group contexts and alcohol did not appear to increase risk-taking.

Individuals who participated in groups appeared significantly more risk-taking than those who completed the study in isolation. These findings are consistent with previous work (c.f., Chein et al., 2011, Gardner and Steinberg, 2005,

Conclusion

Through examining the influence of social contexts and alcohol consumption on individual risk-taking, the study found that group contexts increased risk-taking behaviour regardless of alcohol consumption. Current findings suggest that targeting the influence of groups (above that of alcohol), could be a way of inducing positive outcomes when addressing risky behaviour in social drinking contexts. Moving forward, expanding investigations into different types of risk-taking (using varying

Contributors

All authors contributed significantly in the study design and manuscript preparation. The final version was approved by all authors.

Role of funding source

This research is funded by an Alcohol Research UK PhD studentship. The funders had no contribution in the design of the study, data collection, and analysis, preparation of manuscript or the decision to publish.

Conflict of interest

No conflict declared by all authors.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge Zara Jones for her contribution to data collection.

References (54)

  • L.C. Bidwell et al.

    Biphasic effects of alcohol on delay and probability discounting

    Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol.

    (2013)
  • S.-J. Blakemore et al.

    Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing?

    Annu. Rev. Psychol.

    (2014)
  • F.C. Breslin et al.

    The effects of alcohol, gender, and sensation seeking on the gambling choices of social drinkers

    Psychol. Addict. Behav.

    (1999)
  • L.C.M. Centifanti et al.

    Driving under the influence of risky peers: an experimental study of adolescent risk taking

    J. Res. Adolesc.

    (2016)
  • J. Chein et al.

    Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry

    Dev. Sci.

    (2011)
  • L. Corazzini et al.

    Economic behavior under the influence of alcohol: an experiment on time preferences, risk-taking, and Altruism

    PLoS One

    (2015)
  • L.A. Crawford et al.

    Beliefs about Alcohol and the College Experience as Moderators of the effects of perceived drinking norms on student alcohol use

    J. Alcohol Drug Educ.

    (2010)
  • L. de Haan et al.

    The RT-18: a new screening tool to assess young adult risk-taking behavior

    Int. J. Gen. Med.

    (2011)
  • A.S. Euser et al.

    Acute effects of alcohol on feedback processing and outcome evaluation during risky decision-making: an ERP study

    Psychopharmacology (Berl.)

    (2011)
  • A. Finney

    Violence in the night-time economy: key findings from the research

    Home Off. Res. Stat. Dep. Find.

    (2004)
  • D. Frings et al.

    Groupdrink: the effects of alcohol and group process on vigilance errors

    Gr. Dyn. Theory Res. Pract.

    (2008)
  • M. Gardner et al.

    Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: an experimental study

    Dev. Psychol.

    (2005)
  • J. Green

    Risk and Misfortune: The Social Construction of Accidents

    (1997)
  • R.J. Hannagan et al.

    Does gender composition affect group decision outcomes? evidence from a laboratory experiment

    Polit. Behav.

    (2010)
  • T. Hopthrow et al.

    Groupdrink: the effects of alcohol on intergroup competitiveness

    Psychol. Addict. Behav.

    (2007)
  • T. Hopthrow et al.

    Drinking in social groups. Does groupdrink provide safety in numbers when deciding about risk?

    Addiction

    (2014)
  • T.A. Ito et al.

    Alcohol and aggression: a meta-analysis on the moderating effects of inhibitory cues, triggering events, and self-focused attention

    Psychol. Bull.

    (1996)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text