Use of mindfulness training to improve BAC self-estimation during a drinking episode

Abstract

Objective: Individuals are often inaccurate at estimating levels of intoxication following doses of alcohol. Previous research has shown that when required to estimate (BAC) at different time points, participants often underestimate their BACs and amounts of alcohol consumed. The present study aimed to increase drinkers' BAC estimation accuracy after drinking alcohol using mindfulness-based feedback to increase their awareness of the interoceptive cues associated with alcohol intoxication.

Method: Thirty-three adults were given 0.65 g/kg of alcohol and received one of three training conditions: BAC feedback only, body scan exercise + BAC feedback and no treatment control. Those in the BAC feedback group received feedback concerning their observed BAC during dose exposure. Participants in the body scan group received BAC feedback and underwent a mindfulness exercise to enhance their perception of the acute subjective effects of alcohol. The control group received no BAC estimation training. Participants attended four study sessions: Two training sessions where participants underwent structured training based on their condition and two retention sessions to test for the lasting effects of the training exercises.

Results: Retention tests showed that participants in both treatment groups were most accurate in estimating their BACs. There were no differences among the groups in their perceived levels of intoxication at posttraining. The findings suggest that BAC feedback, alone and in combination with, mindfulness training can improve accuracy in estimating BACs.

Conclusions: The findings provide preliminary support for the efficacy of mindfulness training in combination with BAC feedback to improve BAC estimation accuracy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Figure 1a.

Mean observed and estimated BACs at each time point during training sessions in each condition. Bars depict the participants’ observed BAC and lines depict the participants’ estimated BAC.

Figure 1b.

Mean observed and estimated BACs at each time point during retention sessions in each condition. Bars depict the participants’ observed BAC and lines depict the participants’ estimated BAC.

Figure 2a.

BAC estimation error at each time point during pre-training and training session 2 in each condition. Box 1 shows mean BAC estimation error for each condition during the second training session at a mean observed BAC most comparable to the observed BAC during the pre-training test. An asterisk indicates a significant reduction in error from the pre-training to the training session. * p < .05

Figure 2b.

BAC estimation error at each time point during retention sessions in each condition. Box 2 and 3 show mean BAC estimation error for each condition during the retention sessions at mean observed BACs most comparable to the observed BAC during the pre-training test. An asterisk indicates a significant reduction in error from the pre-training to the retention session. * p < .05

Figure 3a.

Subjective intoxication at each time point during pre-training and training session 2 in each condition. The box shows mean subjective intoxication for each condition during the pretraining and training sessions at a mean observed BAC most comparable to the observed BAC during the pre-training test.

Figure 3b.

Subjective intoxication at each timepoint during retention sessions in each condition. The boxes show mean subjective intoxication for each condition during the retention sessions at mean observed BACs most comparable to the observed BAC during the pre-training test. An asterisk indicates a significant reduction in error from the pre-training to the retention session. * p < .05