Showing papers by "Michael R. Frone published in 2020"

Sensitivity to Experiencing Alcohol Hangovers: Reconsideration of the 0.11% Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Threshold for Having a Hangover

Abstract: The 2010 Alcohol Hangover Research Group consensus paper defined a cutoff blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.11% as a toxicological threshold indicating that sufficient alcohol had been consumed to develop a hangover. The cutoff was based on previous research and applied mostly in studies comprising student samples. Previously, we showed that sensitivity to hangovers depends on (estimated) BAC during acute intoxication, with a greater percentage of drinkers reporting hangovers at higher BAC levels. However, a substantial number of participants also reported hangovers at comparatively lower BAC levels. This calls the suitability of the 0.11% threshold into question. Recent research has shown that subjective intoxication, i.e., the level of severity of reported drunkenness, and not BAC, is the most important determinant of hangover severity. Non-student samples often have a much lower alcohol intake compared to student samples, and overall BACs often remain below 0.11%. Despite these lower BACs, many non-student participants report having a hangover, especially when their subjective intoxication levels are high. This may be the case when alcohol consumption on the drinking occasion that results in a hangover significantly exceeds their “normal” drinking level, irrespective of whether they meet the 0.11% threshold in any of these conditions. Whereas consumers may have relative tolerance to the adverse effects at their “regular” drinking level, considerably higher alcohol intake—irrespective of the absolute amount—may consequentially result in a next-day hangover. Taken together, these findings suggest that the 0.11% threshold value as a criterion for having a hangover should be abandoned.

Organizational Downsizing, Work Conditions, and Employee Outcomes: Identifying Targets for Workplace Intervention among Survivors.

Abstract: This study broadly assesses the association of organizational downsizing to work conditions and employee outcomes, and the extent to which work conditions mediate the association of downsizing to employee outcomes, thereby serving as targets for workplace intervention to reduce the harmful effects of downsizing on surviving workers. The cross-sectional data came from a national probability sample of 2297 U.S. workers. A parallel multiple-mediator model with multiple outcomes was estimated, adjusting for personal, occupational, geographic, and temporal covariates. Exposure to downsizing was the predictor. A set of 12 work conditions, representing four dimensions of the work environment, served as simultaneous mediators (Work Role: work demands, role conflict, role ambiguity, and work autonomy; Interpersonal Relationships: supervisor aggression, coworker aggression, friendship formation, and dysfunctional leadership; Rewards: distributive justice and promotion opportunities; Security: job insecurity and employment insecurity). A set of 16 employee consequences, representing five categories of outcomes, served as simultaneous outcomes (Inability to Detach from Work: negative work rumination and inability to unwind after work; Energetic Resource Depletion: physical, mental, and emotional work fatigue; Negative Affect: depression, anxiety, and anger; Positive Affect: happiness, confidence, and vigor; Health: physical and mental health; Work Attitudes: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions). The results indicated that downsizing had an adverse association with nine of the 12 work conditions (higher levels of work demands, role conflict, supervisor aggression, dysfunctional leadership, job insecurity, and employment insecurity, and lower levels of friendship formation, distributive justice, and promotion opportunities) and all 16 employee outcomes. Moreover, the associations of downsizing to the employee outcomes were indirect, collectively mediated by the nine work conditions. This study provides the broadest evaluation of the deleterious effects of downsizing on U.S. workers surviving a downsizing, identifies affected work conditions that can serve as targets for workplace interventions, and provides insight into why organizational downsizing often fails to deliver anticipated financial and performance benefits to organizations. In terms of serving as targets for workplace intervention, some work conditions meditated the associations of downsizing to a broad set of employee outcomes, whereas other work conditions were specific to certain outcomes. The broad mediators should be targets of any intervention aimed at reducing the adverse effects of downsizing, with additional workplace targets depending on the class of outcomes to be addressed by the intervention.

The Role of Past and Current Medical Use on Nonmedical Use of Prescription Drugs among College Students: Exploring Same-Drug and Cross-Drug Class Associations

Abstract: Background: Understanding the role that medical use of prescription drugs plays in nonmedical use of prescription drugs can inform prevention efforts. In order to understand fully the potential risk that medical use of prescription drugs conveys for nonmedical use of prescription drugs, the current study explored (a) the simultaneous associations between the medical use of several classes of prescription drugs with current nonmedical use of the same and other prescription drug classes, and (b) whether the associations depended upon past or current medical use. Methods: Data came from a cross-sectional survey of 1686 college students, which assessed past and current medical use and current nonmedical use of stimulants, sedatives/anxiolytics, and opioid analgesics. Results: Logistic regression analyses revealed that both past and current medical use of sedatives/anxiolytics and opioid analgesics predicted the current nonmedical use of the same drug class, whereas past medical use of stimulants predicted the current nonmedical use of stimulants. In addition, current medical use of stimulants predicted current nonmedical use of sedatives/anxiolytics and past medical use of sedatives/anxiolytics predicted current nonmedical use of opioid analgesics. Conclusions: This study provides a broader examination than past research of simultaneous same-drug class and cross-drug class associations between medical and nonmedical prescription drug use, as well as the role of past and current medical use in these associations. Overall, the results suggest that efforts to prevent nonmedical use of a prescription drug class should move beyond targeting only those who have or who are using the same drug class medically.