The present study used a monozygotic (MZ) cotwin-control (CTC) design to investigate associations between alcohol use and performance on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) in a sample of 96 adolescents (half female). The MZ CTC design is well suited to shed light on whether poor decision-making, as reflected on IGT performance, predisposes individuals to abuse substances or is a consequence of use. Participants completed structural MRI scans as well, from which we derived gray matter volumes for cortical and subcortical regions involved in IGT performance and reduced in adolescents with problematic alcohol use. Drinking was associated with poorer task performance and with reduced volume of the left lateral orbital-frontal cortex. CTC analyses indicated that the former was due to differences between members of twin pairs in alcohol use (suggesting a causal effect of alcohol), whereas the latter was due to factors shared by twins (consistent with a pre-existing vulnerability for use). Although these preliminary findings warrant replication, they suggest that normative levels of alcohol use may diminish the quality of adolescent decision-making and thus have potentially important public health implications.

A standard assumption in the delay discounting literature is that individuals who exhibit steeper discounting of hypothetical rewards also experience greater difficulty deferring gratification to real-world rewards. There is ample cross-sectional evidence that delay discounting paradigms reflect a variety of maladaptive psychosocial outcomes, including substance use pathology. We sought to determine whether a computerized assessment of hypothetical delay discounting (HDD) taps into behavioral impulsivity in a community sample of adolescent twins (N = 675). Using a longitudinal design, we hypothesized that greater HDD at age 14–15 predicts real-world impulsive choices and risk for substance use disorders in late adolescence. We also examined the genetic and environmental structure of HDD performance. Individual differences in HDD behavior showed moderate heritability, and were prospectively associated with real-world temporal discounting at age 17–18. Contrary to expectations, HDD was not consistently related to substance use or trait impulsivity. Although a significant association between HDD behavior and past substance use emerged in males, this effect was mediated by cognitive ability. In both sexes, HDD failed to predict a comprehensive index of substance use problems and behavioral disinhibition in late adolescence. In sum, we present some of the first evidence that HDD performance is heritable and predictive of real-world temporal discounting of rewards. Nevertheless, HDD might not serve as a valid marker of substance use disorder risk in younger adolescents, particularly females.

No abstract

Researchers commonly explore their data in multiple ways before deciding which analyses they will include in the final versions of their papers. While this improves the chances of researchers finding publishable results, it introduces an "opportunistic bias," such that the reported relations are stronger or otherwise more supportive of the researcher's theories than they would be without the exploratory process. The magnitudes of opportunistic biases can often be stronger than those of the effects being investigated, leading to invalid conclusions and a lack of clarity in research results. Authors typically do not report their exploratory procedures, so opportunistic biases are very difficult to detect just by reading the final version of a research report. In this article, we explain how a number of accepted research practices can lead to opportunistic biases, discuss the prevalence of these practices in psychology, consider the different effects that opportunistic biases have on psychological science, evaluate the strategies that methodologists have proposed to prevent or correct for the effects of these biases, and introduce an integrated solution to reduce the prevalence and influence of opportunistic biases. The recent prominence of articles discussing questionable research practices both in scientific journals and in the public media underscores the importance of understanding how opportunistic biases are created and how we might undo their effects.