Effects of alcohol intoxication and autonomic arousal on delay discounting and risky sex in young adult heterosexual men

Abstract

Objectives The relationship between alcohol use and risky sexual behavior is complex and depends on psychological and environmental factors. The alcohol myopia model predicts that, due to alcohol’s impact on attention, the behavior of intoxicated individuals will become increasingly directed by salient cues. Autonomic arousal (AA) may have a similar effect on attention. Experiential delay discounting (DD) may be increased by both alcohol consumption and AA due to their common effects and may mediate the relationship between these conditions and risky sex. Methods This study employed a 3 (alcohol, placebo, control) x 2 (high, low arousal) experimental design to examine the effects of acute alcohol intoxication and AA on experiential delay discounting, subjective sexual arousal, and risky sex. Results Path models revealed complex results that only partially supported study hypotheses. Ratings of subjective sexual arousal did not differ across either beverage or arousal conditions. DD was also unrelated to any study variable. However, subjective sexual arousal was positively related to risky sexual intentions. Alcohol intoxication was also positively associated with increased unprotected sex intentions, consistent with past studies. Conclusions These results affirm the role of subjective sexual arousal and alcohol intoxication in risky sexual decision-making, yielding effect sizes similar to comparable past studies. Lack of differences across autonomic arousal groups also suggests effects of attentional myopia may be behavior-specific. Failure to replicate effects of alcohol intoxication on DD also suggests reservation regarding its involvement in alcohol-involved risky sex.

Research on the Effects of Alcohol and Sexual Arousal on Sexual Risk in Men who have Sex with Men: Implications for HIV Prevention Interventions

“…Except in Wray et al [25], the general respective hypothesis was supported with measures of subjective sexual arousal; Wray et al’s findings may have been due in part to raising alcohol participants to an insufficiently high BAC (.067 %, compared to a target of .08 %), which has yielded inconsistent findings in this literature. However, the specific findings warrant emphasis.…”

“…Thus the typical design of the experiments discussed next is for participants to consume a dose of alcohol, expose them to a sexual stimulus such as an erotic film (as a manipulated variable or generally) and measure sexual arousal in response to the stimulus, and then test participants’ reactions to a situation that involves decisions about engaging in sexual risk behaviors, typically while the BAC still is rising to peak level. Ebel-Lam et al [24] manipulated sexual arousal, and Wray et al [25] manipulated autonomic, but not sexual arousal. A summary of the eight experimental studies is presented in Table 1.…”

Acute Effects of Intoxication and Arousal on Approach/Avoidance Biases Toward Sexual Risk Stimuli in Heterosexual Men

“…This sample is a portion of individuals participating in a larger study of sexual risk taking. Wray, Simons, and Maisto (2014) present additional detail on the sample. Only men were included due to limited resources available for the study.…”

“…The timeline is thus (1) beverage administration (and 5-minute absorption period), (2) physiological arousal manipulation, (3) delay discounting task (not relevant to this paper), (4) second physiological arousal manipulation (booster session), (5) view sexual arousal prime, (6) view and rate sexual risk scenarios, and (7) complete the implicit sexual approach-avoidance tendencies task. See Wray et al (2014) for further detail on study procedures. All procedures were approved by the university IRB.…”

Alcohol Expectancies and Inhibition Conflict as Moderators of the Alcohol–Unprotected Sex Relationship: Event-Level Findings from a Daily Diary Study Among Individuals Living with HIV in Cape Town, South Africa

“…In laboratory settings researchers have operationalized instigatory cues as sexual arousal (30), 29), which when testing it in a field setting is difficult to obtain real time measures of sexual arousal. Inhibitory cues have been operationalized as intentions to use condoms (29).…”