Moderation of neural alcohol-cue craving by core personality systems

Alcohol cues are prevalent in our everyday lives (on commercials and billboards, in grocery ads, etc.). Past work has demonstrated that exposure to alcohol cues evokes alcohol craving as evidenced by cortical activation. Neural activity underlying cue-elicited craving is connected to core personality systems of approach motivation, avoidance motivation, and supervisory control. However, it is unclear which personality system is driving measures of frontal activation related to cue-elicited alcohol craving. The current study sought to determine which personality system moderates frontal asymmetric activation evoked by cue-elicited alcohol craving, when participants were exposed to alcohol or neutral pictures. Results revealed that greater trait impulsivity moderated the relationship between greater left-frontal activation and picture type. Approach motivation and avoidance motivation were unrelated to left-frontal activation and picture type. These results suggest that decreased activation of the supervisory control system (increased trait impulsivity) is responsible for greater left-frontal activation in response to cue-elicited alcohol craving, not increased activation of the approach system or the avoidance system. (Published By University of Alabama Libraries

Data from: Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

This record contains the underlying research data for the publication "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science" and the full-text is available from: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/5257Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams