Does Alcohol Hangover Affect Emotion Regulation Capacity? Evidence From a Naturalistic Cross-Over Study Design

Performance on a relational integration task is impaired during hangover

Recently, researchers have proposed an updated model of executive functions that includes relational integration, the mental ability to bind information into more complex structures. Hangover is known to disrupt other core components of executive functions, but little is known about how it influences relational integration. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate how hangover influences performance on a relational integration task. Twenty-seven participants completed an online relational integration task and mood- and emotion-regulation questionnaires during a hangover and no-hangover condition in this naturalistic design study. Results indicated that relational integration was impaired in hangover (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.562) relative to the no-hangover condition. In addition, participants experienced greater difficulties in regulating emotions (p < 0.001, d = 0.85) and lower mood (p < 0.001, d = 0.88) during hangover. These results suggest that relational integration is impaired in hangover and add weight to the argument that cognitive impairments in hangover may be due to the hangover-related impact on domain-general processing resources.

Investigating the effects of emotion dysregulation and repetitive negative thinking on alcohol hangover anxiety and depression

INTRODUCTION

Underlying factors associated with alcohol hangover psychological symptoms, such as anxiety and depression, have not been identified. Emotion dysregulation and repetitive negative thinking (RNT) are transdiagnostic factors associated with psychopathology, including non-hangover anxiety and depression. The current study prospectively examined the role of emotion dysregulation on subsequent alcohol hangover anxiety and depression symptoms, as well as the moderating role of RNT on this relation among university students.

METHODS

One hundred thirty-six participants completed baseline assessments of emotion dysregulation (DERS-16) and non-hangover anxiety and depression (DASS-21). Thirty-nine participants reported experiencing alcohol hangover at 2-week follow up and completed assessments of RNT (PTQ) and hangover anxiety and depression (modified DASS-21). Two independent regression-based moderation analyses were conducted to examine the relation of baseline emotion dysregulation, 2-week follow-up RNT, and hangover anxiety and depression symptoms after accounting for baseline non-hangover anxiety and depression symptoms.

RESULTS

Among those experiencing alcohol hangover (n = 39), emotion dysregulation and RNT were not associated with hangover related anxiety beyond non-hangover anxiety. Emotion dysregulation significantly predicted hangover depression but was rendered non-significant by the addition of RNT, which was significantly associated with hangover depression. RNT moderated the emotion dysregulation-hangover depression relation such that emotion dysregulation was not associated with future hangover depression at low levels of RNT but was positively associated with hangover depression at moderate to high levels of RNT.

CONCLUSION

Results provide preliminary support for the role of emotion dysregulation and RNT in hangover depression severity.

Does Personality, Trait Emotion Regulation, and Trait Attentional Control Contribute toward the Experience and Impact of an Alcohol Hangover?

Mixed results have been reported for the relationship between personality and hangover, but recent findings have indicated that regulatory and attentional control processes may relate to hangover severity and the impact of a hangover on completing daily activities. This study aimed to explore how these factors relate to hangover severity, hangover impact, and to unhealthy alcohol use. In total, 108 participants completed a survey, rating the severity and impact of their last-experienced hangover and completing measures of the above factors. Separate multiple linear regressions were conducted to analyse each outcome (severity, impact, unhealthy drinking). For severity, the overall regression was significant (Adj. R2 = 0.46, p < 0.001), with the attentional control factor ‘Focusing’ (B = −0.096, p = 0.011), and personality factor ‘Agreeableness’ (B = 0.072, p = 0.005) predicting severity. For impact, the overall regression was significant (Adj. R2 = 0.41, p < 0.001) with the attentional control factor ‘Shifting’ (B = −0.252, p = 0.021), personality factors ‘Extraversion’ (B = 0.225, p = 0.009) and ‘Agreeableness’ (B = −0.156, p = 0.042), and hangover severity (B = 1.603, p < 0.001) predicting impact. For unhealthy drinking, the overall regression model was significant (Adj. R2 = 0.45, p < 0.001) with emotion dysregulation factors ‘Awareness’ (B = 0.301, p = 0.044) and ‘Impulse Control’ (B = 0.381, p = 0.011) predicting unhealthy drinking. These findings add to our understanding of the heterogeneity of hangover experience and highlight that attentional control, emotion regulation, and personality play important roles in the experience and impact of a hangover.

Alcohol intoxication, but not hangover, differentially impairs learning and automatization of complex motor response sequences

Behavioral automatization usually makes us more efficient and less error-prone, but may also foster dysfunctional behavior like alcohol abuse. Yet, it has remained unclear whether alcohol itself causes the shift from controlled to habitual behavior commonly observed in alcohol use disorder (AUD). We thus investigated how the acute and post-acute effects of binge drinking affect the automatization of motor response sequences and the execution of automated vs. controlled motor response sequences. N = 70 healthy young men performed a newly developed automatization paradigm once sober and once after binge drinking (half of them intoxicated and half of them hungover). While we found no significant effects of alcohol hangover, acute intoxication (~ 1.2 ‰) had two dissociable effects: Firstly, it impaired the automatization of complex motor response sequence execution. Secondly, it eliminated learning effects in response selection and pre-motor planning processes. The results suggest that alcohol hangover did not affect controlled or automated processes, and disprove the assumption that alcohol intoxication generally spares or facilitates motor response sequence automatization. As these effects could be specific to the investigated explicit learning context, acute intoxication might potentially still improve the execution of pre-existing automatisms and/or the implicit acquisition of motor response sequence automatisms.