↓ Skip to main content

Adolescent Drinking and Motivated Decision-Making: A Cotwin-Control Investigation with Monozygotic Twins

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Genetics, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
Adolescent Drinking and Motivated Decision-Making: A Cotwin-Control Investigation with Monozygotic Twins
Published in
Behavior Genetics, March 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10519-014-9651-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen M. Malone, Monica Luciana, Sylia Wilson, Jordan C. Sparks, Ruskin H. Hunt, Kathleen M. Thomas, William G. Iacono

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Romania 1 1%
Unknown 74 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 13%
Researcher 8 10%
Other 7 9%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 17 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 35%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 20 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 November 2014.
All research outputs
#18,382,900
of 22,769,322 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Genetics
#727
of 908 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,771
of 224,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Genetics
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,769,322 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 908 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 224,836 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.