Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jul 13.
Published in final edited form as: Clin Psychol Rev. 2021 Jan 13;84:101971. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2021.101971

Table 3.

Description and main results of studies evaluating emotional response in binge drinking.

Authors (year) Participants Intervention Comparator Experimental design Outcomes Quality
Sample (n) Age Gender ratio (% of males) Inclusion criteria Binge drinking criteria Control group/variable Processes measured Task/scale Stimuli Main results Limits
Balodis et al. (2011) 87 college students Range 19–27

Mean 20.00
33.33% No allergic reaction to alcohol or contraindication to drink alcohol, cardiovascular disease, or neurological disorder.

No food before the experiment
Drinking at least once per month (mean occasions/month = 6.08, SD=4.3; mean alcohol gr/occasion = 74.2)

Alcohol administration: BAC level of 0.08%, fresca soda and Vodka (alcohol), Fresca soda and flattened tonic water (placebo), Fresca soda (soft); 3 glasses, 10–15 min intervals
Contrast between stress and non-stress conditions

Alcohol administration versus placebo versus soft drink
Physiological stress level

Mood
Stress (public task) and No-stress (crossword puzzles)

Cortisol and alpha-amylase

Risk-taking task

Profile of Mood States

Mood evaluation
N/A Stress condition, tension, anxiety, increase in cortisol: alcohol, placebo < soft groups

Risk-taking: alcohol, placebo > soft groups

Risk-taking was not related to stress
Small sample size 64.71
Connell et al. (2015) 10 BD

9 BD with depressive symptoms
Range 18–22 40% N/A At least one binge drinking episode (≥ 70 alcohol gr for boys or ≥ 56 for girls) in the past year 11 non-binge drinkers (no binge drinking episode in the past year)

12 controls with depressive symptoms
Electrophysiological emotional response Passive viewing of neutral, positive, and negative emotional images

Electrophysiological recording: event-related potentials (EPN, P3, LPP)
Neutral, positive, and negative images from the IAPS LPP amplitudes, negative images: BD < non-BD

EPN amplitude, negative and neutral images: BD > non-BD

Reduced later processing P3 and LPP, all emotional: depressed BD < non-depressed BD
Small sample size 64.71
Hefner et al. (2013) 72 college students Range 21–35

Mean 21.60
50% No history of alcohol-related problem, medical or psychopathological disorder

No alcohol/food use before the experiment
Alcohol use: ≥ 42 alcohol gr for boys and 28 for girls on one occasion in the last year

Alcohol administration: BAC level of 0.08%, fruit juice and vodka (alcohol), fruit juice and water (placebo), fruit juice (soft); 2 glasses, 15min interval
Alcohol administration versus placebo versus soft drink Startle response to anxiety and fear Shock tolerance threshold assessment

Experimental task (color square cues; predicted (fear elicitation) and unpredicted (anxiety elicitation) shocks

Electromyographic activity
Electric shocks of intensity (maximum tolerance for each participant) Startle response in predicted condition: BD < placebo, soft groups

Alcohol stress-response dampening, specific to anxiety and persistent in time
No inclusion of attentional measures 58.82
Lindgren et al. (2018) 149 college students Range 21–25

Mean 21.55
53.29% No major medical problem or alcohol use disorder.

No alcohol, drug, or food use before the experiment
At least one binge drinking episode (≥ 70 alcohol gr for boys or ≥ 56 for girls) in the last month Control by contrasting emotional videos (positive, negative, and neutral) Emotional and alcohol-related responses Implicit alcohol-related association test (alcohol excite, alcohol approach, and drinking identity)

Alcohol Self-Concept Scale

Mood induction (video clips)

Mood evaluation after the video

Alcohol taste test
Emotional videos inducing sadness, happiness, or neutral state. Alcohol approach or drinking identity associations: non-significant

Sad mood moderated the negative relation between implicit alcohol excite associations and drinking

Happy and neutral mood moderated the positive relation between implicit alcohol excite associations and drinking
No assessment of baseline mood 64.71
Loeber & Duka (2009) 36 moderate social drinkers Mean 21.6 52.78% Body mass index between 18 and 28, no pregnant or breastfeeding women, heavy smoker (≥ 20 cigarettes/day), dyslexia, mental or neurological disorder, drug use

No illicit drugs, medication, and alcohol use before the experiment
At least 80 alcohol gr per week (≤ 320)

Alcohol administration: Alcohol dose of 0.8 g/kg, 90% v/v alcohol, tonic water, and Angostura Bitter (alcohol), tonic water and Angostura Bitter (placebo); 10×50 ml, 3 min intervals
Control by contrasting emotional positive and negative words

Alcohol administration versus placebo
Emotional response to aversive noise

Inhibition of emotional information after the auditory aversive procedure
Abstract stimuli with eye tracking measures: occurrence of aversive (102 db, S+) or no noise (S−) after specific stimuli

Instrumental training: same procedure with possibility to avoid the noise

Stop Signal task

Affective Go/No-Go task
Bursts of 102 db

Presentation of positive or negative words during the affective Go/No-Go task
Avoidance in S+ trials: alcohol < placebo

Stop-signal performance: alcohol < placebo

Go/No-Go, positive versus negative words: alcohol < placebo

Reaction time, negative words: alcohol > placebo
The alcohol group guessed they received alcohol (compared to the placebo group) 58.82
Poncin et al. (2017) 1 32 BD Range 18–30

Mean 20.88
59.4% No personal or family history of substance use disorder Consumption > 60 alcohol gr per occasion, at least 2 times a week, with consumption speed > 20 gr per hour 23 non-BD (consumption < 20 alcohol gr per week, < 0.5 occasion per week, consumption speed < 10 gr per hour) Emotional response to distress Anagram solution task (soluble and insoluble anagrams)

Visual analogue scale (distress)

Emotion regulation (self-blame, blaming others, rumination, catastrophizing, putting into perspective, positive refocusing, positive, reappraisal, acceptance, and refocusing on planning)

Self-consciousness scale
No emotional stimuli No difference in distress rating

Anagram induced distress predicted blaming others in the whole sample

Acceptance: BD < non-BD

Anagram induced distress was related to rumination and self-blame in BD
No assessment of emotional states before distress induction 58.82
Stephens et al. (2005) 2 9 BD Range 19–30

Mean 21.65
33.3% N/A Binge drinking score ≥ 27 9 non-BD (binge drinking score ≤ 13.2)

Groups were matched on age, gender, depression, anxiety, and severity of severe alcohol use disorder
Fear conditioning Aversive auditory procedure (63-dB intensity with low, medium, and high frequencies; low and high tones as CS+ before an aversive burst of 97-dB, 40msec)

Electromyographic recording and skin conductance
Bursts of different intensities and frequencies Electromyographic and skin conductance: impaired fear conditioning in BD

BD had reduced abilities to discriminate aversive conditioned stimuli (also in later blocks)
Not reported 76.47

Note. All alcohol units have been converted in grams of pure ethanol, according to the number of grams per unit in each country. BD = binge drinkers.

1

This study also evaluates emotional regulation processing

2

This study describes animal and human experiments, but we focused on the human research in the current review.