• Energy Research
• Open Access close
• Embargo close
• TH close
• UNC Dataverse close

C57BL/6J (C57) and DBA/2J (DBA) mice respond differently to drugs that affect dopamine systems, including alcohol. The current study compared effects of D1 and D2 receptor agonists and antagonists, and the interaction between D1/D2 antagonists and alcohol, on intracranial self-stimulation in male C57 and DBA mice to determine the role of dopamine receptors in the effects of alcohol on brain stimulation reward (BSR). In the initial strain comparison, dose effects on BSR thresholds and maximum operant response rates were determined for the D1 receptor agonist SKF-82958 (±-6-chloro-7,8-dihydroxy-3-allyl-1-phenyl-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-1H-3-benzazepine; 0.1–0.56 mg/kg) and antagonist SCH 23390 (+-7-chloro-8-hydroxy-3-methyl-1-phenyl-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-1H-3-benzazepinehydrochloride; 0.003–0.056 mg/kg), and the D2 receptor agonist quinpirole (0.1–3.0 mg/kg) and antagonist raclopride (0.01–0.56 mg/kg). For the alcohol interaction, SCH 23390 (0.003 mg/kg) or raclopride (0.03 mg/kg) was given before alcohol (0.6–2.4 g/kg p.o.). D1 antagonism dose-dependently elevated and SKF-82958 dose-dependently lowered BSR threshold in both strains; DBA mice were more sensitive to SKF-82958 effects. D2 antagonism dose-dependently elevated BSR threshold only in C57 mice. Low doses of quinpirole elevated BSR threshold equally in both strains, whereas higher doses of quinpirole lowered BSR threshold only in C57 mice. SCH 23390, but not raclopride, prevented lowering of BSR threshold by alcohol in DBA mice. Conversely, raclopride, but not SCH 23390, prevented alcohol potentiation of BSR in C57 mice. These results extend C57 and DBA strain differences to D1/D2 sensitivity of BSR, and suggest differential involvement of D1 and D2 receptors in the acute rewarding effects of alcohol in these two mouse strains.

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions’ effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior—several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people’s initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.