effects of alcohol consumption on the prevention and alleviation of stress-reactions

.Addicrivc Bchviors. Vol. 17. pp. 567-577. 1992 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.

0306~4603/92 SS.00 -i .OO

Copyright C 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd.

EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION ON THE PREVENTIOX AND ALLEVIATION OF STRESS-REACTIONS

NORA E. NOEL University of North Carolina at Wilmington

STEPHEN A. LISMAN State University of New York at Binghamton

MITCHELL L. SCHARE Hofstra Universit?

and

STEPHEN A. MAISTO Brockton/West Roxbuv VAMC and Brown University

Abstract - .L\lcohol’sStress-Response-DampcningtSRD) effect has been the subject of much research. but little has been done to examine the effects of drinking alcohol after experiencing

a stressor (Stress-Response-Recovep: SRR). In this study. 65 male and 65 female moderate or hea\) drinking undergraduates were randomly assigned (with equal numbers of each sex per

group) to I of I3 groups. Six experimental conditions were used to compare alcohol’s SRD and

SRR effects with two doses (moderate: .75 ml/kg: low: .33 ml/kg) and a placebo. and seven

control conditions were used to measure the effects of the stressor (uncontrollable aversive

noise) and the alcohol doses alone on the dependent measures. The major dependent variable was escape learning in a human shuttle box. In the SRD conditions. subjects who drank a mod-

emte dose ofalcohol learned to escape faster than those drinking the low dose or placebo. How-

e\ cr. in the SRR conditions. subjects in the placebo group did not show escape learning deticits.

in contrast to the impaired performance of subjects in the two alcohol groups. These results

su_eest a complex alcohol-stress relationship in which timing. dose. and expectations about alcohol lead to ditferential SRD and SRR effects.

Research on drinking and stress has focused mostly on alcohol’s putative “stress- response-dampening” (SRD) effect. which is the attenuation of stress-reactions to an aversive event when alcohol is consumed before the event (Levenson. Sher, Grossman. Newman. & Neulin, 1980). The SRD effect often is hypothesized to be an important determinant of alcohol consumption. However, SRD analog study results are inconsis- tent \vith the hypothesis (Sher, 1987) leading to the speculation that SRD is modulated by several mediating factors. One of these factors may be amount of alcohol consumed or dose level. Generally, a moderate to high dose of alcohol (above 0.6 ml of ethanol/kg body weight) consumed before a stressor seems to attenuate stress-responses in an aversive situation (e.g., Levenson et al.. 1980; Bradlyn. Strickler, & Maxwell.

Submitted for publication. I99 I. Please do not cite or quote without permission. This paper is based in part on the first author‘s doctoral dissertation. conducted under the direction of the

second author. Preliminary results ofthisesperiment were presented at the Eastern Psychological Association Convention. NY’. I YS I, and at the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy Convention. L.A. 1982.

The authors wish to thank Drs. Stanle! Scobie and Richard Burright. the other members ofthe dissertation advisop committee. and Maurice Daitz. Michael Kalish. Margaret Branchler. Jan Lederer and Deborah

Wickes-Ra) who assisted with the experiment. Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Noel. Psychology Dept.. University of North Carolina at W’il-

mington. LVilmington. NC X403-3297.

568 NOR.4 E. NOEL et al.

198 1). Lower doses. in contrast. may even produce an increased stress response (Keane & Lisman. 1980). Some reviewers (e.g., Sher. 1987) have postulated a two-part explanation for SRD: At high doses. pharmacological factors over-ride all others and produce an SRD effect, while at low doses situational and cognitive factors. such as the subject’s expectations, play a significant role in determining alcohol’s effect.

In contrast to the multitude ofSRD studies. Stress-Response-Recovery (SRR). or the attenuation of stress-reactions by drinking after the av.ersive event (Noel. Lisman, Schare. ,F: Lederer. 198 1). has had little research attention. This omission is puzzling. because clinical literature suggests that most people drink because they expect a SRR effect. For example, people commonly report drinking to calm down. relax. or to “drown their sorrows.” The few available controlled studies that use a “drinking after the stressor” procedure (e.g.. Sutker. Allain. Brantley. c!? Randall. 1982; Steele. South- wick. & Pagano, 1986) also suggest that the expectation of SRR is an important factor in drinking behavior. Some research shows that SRR (recovery) effects do not neces- sarily parallel SRD (dampening) effects and, in fact, may be more important than SRD in controlling drinking behavior. Tucker, Vuchinich. Sobell. and Xlaisto (1980) con- trasted the drinking choices of subjects who w’ere allowed access to alcoholic beverages before and after a stressful ev’ent. Subjects who were led to believe they had only one drinking period (before the stressor) consumed equal amounts before and after the stressor. However, those vvho knew they could drink after as well as before the stressor planned their drinking so that they consumed less before and more after the stressor. This contrast was even more pronounced in a follow-up study (Tucker, Vuchinich, & Sobell. I98 I). Thus. subjects in both studies appeared to drink more for the expected SRR (recover?/) versus the SRD (dampening) effects of alcohol. However, this prefer- ence must be inferred. since amount consumed was the dependent variable.

Why are there so few controlled SRR analog studies? Probably because it is difficult to implement the required procedure. Stress-Response-Dampening (dampening) studies require only that the subject drink a specilied dose of alcohol. uait to reach a per- ceptible blood alcohol level. and then experience the stressor. Stress-reactions are measured immediately following the stressor. In contrast. an SRR (recovery) study requires a stressor of unusual durability since drinking and digesting of alcohol take place between the application of the stressor and the measurement of stress-reactions. More than an hour of “waiting time” may elapse in the SRR procedure. To date, the few SRR studies av.ailable (Sutker et al., 1982: Steele & Josephs. 1988) have failed to show that attenuation of stress-reactions was due to alcohol and not to the time between stressor application and measurement.

The aims of this study were (a) replication of previous research in which SRD is produced with a moderate (.75 ml/kg) dose ofalcohol and(b) production ofSRR using the same analog stressor. In addition, since most SRD and SRR studies have relied upon self-reported measures of affect as the major dependent variable. in this study a behavioral measure - performance on a task thought to be mediated by stress - was selected to assess stress-reactions. The procedure used. learned helplessness induction (Hiroto & Seligman, 1975). is one in which an uncontrollable aversive stimulus (stressor) is applied and subsequent escape learning performance is measured. The learned helplessness effect (subsequent debilitated performance) has been produced reliably in the laboratory and has been shown to increase alcohol consumption (Noel Br Lisman, 1980). Furthermore. pilot work has suggested that the effect persists. undiminished in severity-. up to I hour following the uncontrollable aversive stimulus.

Thus. it was expected that a moderate dose of alcohol. consumed before the uncon-

.AIcohol prevents and alleriates stress? 569

trollable aversive noise. would attenuate. or dampen. the usual disruption of escape learning performance induced by learned helplessness. In contrast. the low dose or placebo would have little to no SRD effect. It also was predicted that drinking alcohol after the uncontrollable aversive noise would lead to SRR; that is, alcohol would attenuate subsequent performance deficits caused by learned helplessness. with a stronger SRR effect vvith higher doses.

M E THOD

A tvvo-part design was used in this study (see Figure 1. with explanation belovv). The first part was used to determine if the learned helplessness manipulation produced stress-reactions. as measured by escape learning performance. and if alcohol or placebo consumption alone did not. The second part was designed to evaluate the alcohol-stress interactions.

In Part 1, seven control groups were used to attempt to verify that: a) the uncontrollable aversive noise (stressor) produced the expected learned helplessness effect (debilitated performance); b) the learned helplessness efefct was still observ,able even up to 1 hour after the stressor exposure: and c) the performance deficits were not caused by the alcohol or placebo alone (i.e., the stressor had to be applied),

The first three control groups followed the traditional learned helplessness procedure. to test the hypothesis that the uncontrollability of the stressor leads to helplessness. The first group ( 1) vvas given uncontrollable aversive noise followed immediately by a measure of escape learning (human shuttle box): a second group (2) was given controllable

--)Tim Line (Minutes) --9

-0 5 ,O 15 20 25 30 ,5 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 Conditions 1 Alcoiwl .75 ml/Q ---IO min-‘WA- Putton Task (Lh- WA- ShuttIe &Ii-

a c9_n>~~ollnble) g, Task -. I -..._.

2 WA- Alcchl .33 ml/Ig -10 min- WA- Button Task (ul- WA Shuttle Box a controllable) a Task

3 Placebo

~;~~;;lz~- Ig4- ~A1cd-d .75 ml/k4

Alc&d .33 ml/kg

Plciceta a contmllable)

m Cnrditions 7 WA- &,tton Task (lm- MA-

a controllable) a

8 Button Tut (h- KU- Shuttle &x- controllable) a Task

9

Note- m m

Alcohol .75 ml/kg

Alcohol .33 ml/lq

MA- Placebo a

Fig. I. Procedure in each condition (showing timing ofe\ents)

510 NORA E. SOEL et al

aversive noise followed by the same measure: and the third group (3) was given no aversive noise before the escape learning task. Assessing the possible effects of the 1 hour delay required the addition of a fourth group (4): subjects who were given uncontrollable aversive noise and waited 1 hour before performance was measured.

The final three control groups (5, 6, and 7) were used to assess the effects of alcohol dose and the expectation ofalcohol (placebo) on escape learning performance. Subjects in these three groups drank their beverage (moderate or low dose or placebo) and heard no aversive noise before the escape learning task. Thus. there were a total of seven control groups.

In Part 2. the experimental part of the study, SRD and SRR effects were examined. To measure stress-response-dampening (SRD), subjects in three groups (8. 9, and 10) drank beverages with either a moderate or low dose or a placebo before they were exposed to the uncontrollable aversive noise. Their escape learning was compared to that of the no beverage traditional uncontrollable and controllable noise groups (I and 2) from Part I of the study. Studying SRR involved parallel comparisons and was accomplished through the addition of three beverage conditions (moderate, low and placebo: 1 1. I?. and 13) in which subjects drank after the uncontrollable aversive noise. Again. two control groups. the uncontrollable noise/l hour wait group (4) and the controllable noise group (2) served as the no-beverage contrasts.

Thus, the entire design consisted of 13 groups (summarized in Figure 1). Note that the control conditions are labelled 1-7 and that the SRD and SRR groups are labelled 8- 10 and I 1- 13, respectively.

Subjects from ail 13 groups were from the same pool and had an equal probability of being assigned to any of the 13 conditions, with the limitation that there were 5 men and 5 women per group. For ease of understanding, results of the two parts of the study will be reported and discussed separately.

SUNY-Binghamton undergraduates in psychology classes filled out the Test Anxiety Scale (TAS) (Sarason. 1972) and the Quantity-Frequency-Variability Index (QFV) (Cahalan, Cisin, & Crossley, 1969) which classifies drinkers as infrequent. light, moderate, or heavy. Only moderate (n = 72) and heavy (n = 58) drinkers were contacted for the study. Of the 134 volunteers, 4 were dropped for health reasons (poor hearing) or because they arrived with a positive Blood Alcohol Level (BAL), leaving 130 subjects (65 men). Fi1.e men and five women were randomly assigned to each of the 13 conditions. There were no group- or gender-related age. TAS. or QFV differences. Subjects chose a small payment (Sj) or a class credit for participating.

The three undergraduate research assistants were kept blind about hypotheses and alcohol doses used. Three clinical psychology graduate students with previous experience in alcohol research supervised the experimenters, mixed the beverages, and debriefed the subjects.

Subjects were seated in an easy chair and wore headphones throughout the session. To minimize contact the experimenter stayed in an adjacent room with video and audio monitoring equipment. and all standard instructions were taped. During long periods of inactivity.. subjects could read travel magazines.

Alcohol prevents and alIe\ iatcs stress? 571

Soundgetwrator.. A Wavetek VCG generator (Model I3 I) with adjustable frequency. volume. and waveshape produced the aversive noise (3,000 Hz, 90 dB. sinusoidal sig- nal. A Scale). The sound pressure level in dB’s was calibrated before each session with a sound level meter (General Radio * 1563). Two Layfayette 100 second timers auto- matically controlled the sound duration and the intertrial interval and a Layfayette dig- ital stop clock displayed a readout of the duration of each trial. Sound \vas projected to the subject through Telex stereo headphones.

Jyersive noise/hrton press task. Immediately in front of the subject \vas a stimulus response panel with three black springloaded buttons mounted on a Lvooden block 12” X 3” X 1.25” and arranged in a horizontal line about 3” apart. On the vertical panel were two lights (red and green) with nhich the experimenter signalled the subject (see Procedure section).

E.\peritt~mrer’s comde. The experimenter monitored the subject’s problem solving efforts by Lvatching three white lights on a console that corresponded to the subject’s three buttons. In addition, the experimenter used two buttons to illuminate the subject’s red or green lights in order to give feedback.

Inro.~i/~rrr. An Intoximeter Mark IV (Intoximeters, Inc.) was used to ensure that all subjects arrived with a 0.0% BAL. and they did not leave with greater than 0.05% BAL.

Human shuttle box. A modified Manipulandum Type S was the human analog to a two-way shuttle box (Hiroto, 1974). It consisted ofa wooden box (23” X j” X 6”) with a 4” plexiglass manipulandum protruding from the top. The subject grasped this manipulandum and moved it from side to side along a 19” straight channel. Attached to the knob. on the underside of the channel. Lvas a plexiglass disc that contacted switches at either end of the box, thus illuminating lights on the sxperimenter’s console.

Subjects ivere asked to refrain from eating. drinking alcohol, or using drugs for at least 5 hours before the session (held in the evening). The subject’s BAL was checked. weight recorded. and signature on the consent form obtained before the session began. Throughout the rest of the time. subjects Lvere isolated in the experimental room. com- municating only through the audiovisual system. Initial instructions (taped and presented over headphones) set up the expectation that the problems Lvould test the subjects’ creati\.e ability instead of their academic ability.

The graduate supervisor then randomly assigned the subject to 1 of the 13 conditions and told the esperimenter which procedure to follow. Experimenters \t’ere kept blind about beverage contents.

Depending upon the assigned condition. tasks lvere presented in direrent sequences. Follo\ving is a description of each task Lvith a final note about the order in which they appeared.

Bcw,ngc~ (alcold) ucittlit?i.rrrariotl. In another room, unobserved by the esperimenter. the supervisor mixed beverages. The experimenter gave them to the subject in an opaque pitcher Lvith a glass on the side. Duggan’s vodka (90 proof) and Canada dry tonic Lvatsr \vere mixed in a 1:5 ratio lvith a lime twist. The moderate dose was .75 ml


of 95% ethanol/kg body weight. The low dose was .33 ml/kg. The placebo was tonic water only with some drops of vodka scattered on the tray. pitcher, and glass so it smelled authentic. In previous research (e.g.. Lang, Goeckner. Addesso. & Marlatt. 1975). this placebo has led subjects to believe they were consuming alcohol. Subjects were given 20 minutes for drinking, with reminders of the time every 5 minutes. All subjects consumed their drinks within the allotted time. Intosimeter readings at the end of the experimental sessions, 40 minutes after the completion of drinking. showed that those given a moderate dose achieved a mean BAL of .060. with a range of .035-.086. With the low dose, the mean BAL was .029, with a range of .O 1 j-.038. The Intoximeter malfunctioned for a short period of time during the running of the experiment, so a total of I4 of 60 subjects who drank alcohol had to be retested later with another device. Data from these 14 subjects was omitted in calculating the mean BAL’s.

.-l\wsi\v noisc~/button press task. Via taped instructions. subjects were told that by using the console in front of them, they would have to figure out the correct series of three button pushes to terminate an aversive noise. They then heard a two-second sample of the noise to demonstrate how unpleasant it was. During the task, the noise was presented in 40 trials of 5 seconds or less with an intertrial interval of 10 seconds. Sub- jects were told that as soon as they heard the noise, they could try to turn it off by press- ing buttons until they found the predetermined “correct” sequence of three button presses. If they found the sequence during the trial, the noise would stop, and they would see a green feedback light. They could then use that sequence to turn off the noise more quickly on subsequent trials. If. alternately, they did not press the correct sequence before the end ofthe trial, the red feedback light would be illuminated. Thus, if the subject found the correct sequence, the noise was escapable. or controllable. If not, the aversive noise was uncontrollable.

For subjects in the controllable noise group (2, Figure 1). there was, indeed, a “correct” sequence to find. All subjects in the controllable noise condition could and did find the correct sequence by the end of the 40 trials (criterion: at least five consecutive green lights). For subjects in all of the uncontrollable aversive noise conditions (1. 4, and 8- 13. Figure I), there was no solution. Instead, they saw a red light at the end of each trial, and the amount oftime exposed to the noise was yoked to that ofthe previous controllable noise (2) subject. In the traditional learned helplessness induction procedure (e.g., Hiroto & Seligman. 1975), the experimenter expects to find deficits in subsequent escape learning performance (in this case, on the human shuttle box) ofsubjects in the uncontrollable noise condition relative to those given controllable aversive noise. The amount of noise exposure is equated, so the key difference is the element of uncontrollability in the learned helplessness induction condition.

Hw~zar~ s/luttk bo.v/cscape learning. The final task for all subjects to complete was 20 trials in the human shuttle box, learning to escape quickly from the same aversive noise. Subjects were told that they had 20 trials (up to 5 seconds each) in which to learn the correct series of side-to-side movements of the manipulandum that would turn off‘ the noise. Again, once they knew the correct sequence (touch right. then left). subjects could turn offthe noise at the beginning ofeach trial. Since escape learning in the shuttle box was the main dependent variable. all trials for all subjects were solvable. Latency to escape was recorded for each of the 20 trials, and a mean trial latency was computed for each subject. If a subject failed to escape by the end of a trial. the maximum latency (5 seconds) was recorded for that trial.

Alcohol prevents and alIe\ iates stress? 513

Order qffhe tusks. Figure I illustrates both the order and the timing ofthe tasks. Bev- erage consumption and the uncontrollable aversive noise/button task took place in crossed order, depending upon experimental condition (SRD vs. SRR). The MAACL. a measure of affect. was administered at timed intervals throughout the procedure.’ Escape learning in the human shuttle box was the last task for all subjects, since the main dependent measure was derived from it. At the end of the experiment, each subject was breath tested. Those who had consumed alcohol vvere kept in the laboratory until their BALs were below O.Oj?/,.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF PART I

As noted above, two sets of analyses were performed, with the interpretation of Part 2 (SRD and SRR) depending upon the results in Part 1 (control conditions). The results and discussion of each part are presented separately. However. the means and standard deviations of escape latencies for all groups are summarized in Table 1.

In Part I, the traditional learned helplessness groups were compared: 1 (uncontrollable/short wait), 2 (controllable). and 3 (no pretreatment), with an additional group, 4 (uncontrollable/long wait), to measure changes in escape learning over 1 hour. A 4 (groups) X 2 (sex) completely randomized factorial analysis of variance showed overall significant group differences [F(#‘3, 39) = 2.98: p < .05] on mean escape latency. Duncan Multiple Range Tests showed that subjects in Group 2 escaped more quickly than those in Group 1, Group 3, and Group 4 (all p < .05). In summary, subjects who had been in the uncontrollable noise conditions escaped more slowly than those in the controllable noise condition, suggesting that the uncontrollable aversive noise was an

Table I. Mean escape latent) per trial (sets.) in shuttle box

Group =

I 2 ,

;

: 7 s 9

IO II I2 13

.\I (SD)

4.2 I (0.86) 2.98 (0.75) 3.89 (1.25) 3.98 (121) 4.29 (0.84, 4.26 (0.90) 4.15 (0.89) 3.29 (I JO) 3.94 (0.89) 4.19 (0.92) 4.14 (0.89) 4.62 (0.71) 3.39 (0.95)

Group description

Uncontrollable/short wait Controllable No pretreatment/no bckerage Uncontrollable/lonp uait No pretreatment/moderate dose No pretreatment/lo\r dose No pretreatment/placebo SRD/moderate dose SRD/low dose SRD/placebo SRR/moderate dose SRR/lo\\ dose SRR/piacebo

Differences observed between groups: 2 < I. 3. 4. 9. IO. I I (all p < .05. all Duncan XIRT‘s): 8 < I (s, <c .05) (Duncan MRT). SRD vs. SRR comparisons: 8 < I I (p < .Oj): IO < I3 @ < IO: p > .05) (simple main effects).

‘.\l~tlri~le.?#i,~r.~rljcc,ri~eC/~ecklist (.\1.-liCL):The MAACL wasoriginally included asa self-reported measure of affect. but the results were so variable as to be inconclusive at best. Thus. the results will not be reported here but are available from the first author if requested. The MAACL is a list of I10 adjectives describing feelings or moods (Zuckerman & Lubin. 1965). The subjects checked off the adjectikcs as a self-report measure of anxiety. depression. and hostilit\.

511 NORA E. NOEL et al.

effective stressor. In addition. the differences were still evident even when 1 hour had elapsed between uncontrollable aversive noise exposure and escape learning in the human shuttle bos.

However, there is some question about the interpretation of these findings. since the controllable noise subjects escaped faster than those in the no noise condition. Maybe the controllable noise facilitated subsequent escape learning through enhanced feelings or expectations of control. Alternately, perhaps the no noise condition was not benign. Nonetheless. since differential escape learning was produced with the uncontrollable versus controllable noise, it \vas decided to use uncontrollable aversive noise as a stressor analog but compare all the SRD and SRR groups to both the uncontrollable and the controllable noise groups.

The final important result of Part I is that a 4 (groups) X 2 (sex) analysis of variance of the escape latencies in the beverage only conditions (Groups 3, 5. 6, and 7) showed no indication that alcohol or the placebo, without an active stressor, differentially affected escape learning. This finding argues against alcohol alone (or expectations related to alcohol consumption) as an explanation for differences seen in the SRD and SRR conditions.

RESULTS OF PART Z

The second part of the study focused on the interaction of alcohol dose with the uncontrollable noise in developing and maintaining stress-reactions. Alcohol’s SRD effect was assessed by comparing the escape learning performance ofthe “alcohol before stressor” groups (S-IO) with that of the no beverage control, uncontrollable aversive noise/short wait (1) and controllable aversive noise (2) groups. To examine the SRR effect. the “beverage after stressor” groups (I 1-13) Lvere compared with the control. uncontrollable aversive noise/long wait (4) and controllable aversive noise (2) groups.

SRD As in Part 1, specific group contrasts (Duncan Multiple Range Tests) were made as

they followed from the hypotheses. Subjects given a moderate dose of alcohol (.75 ml/kg) before the uncontrollable aversive noise exposure (Group 8) had shorter trial latencies in the shuttle box than subjects who drank no beverage before the uncontrollable aversive noise exposure (Group 1) (p < .Oj). In fact. escape learning in the moderate dose group was comparable to that in the controllable noise group (2). In contrast, subjects in the low dose (.33 ml/kg) group (9) and the placebo group (10) escaped significantly more slo~vly than those in the controllable noise group (2) (p < .05 in both cases).

SRR Alcohol’s possible SRR effects were examined with parallel group contrasts using the

“beverage after stressor” groups (1 I- 13) and the appropriate control groups. uncontrollable aversive noise/long \\.ait (4) and controllable aversive noise (2). Although a consistent pattern Leas seen Lvith these data, the differences between groups were not as pronounced as they are in the SRD comparisons. In contrast to the pattern seen with the SRD groups. subjects in the group given a moderate dose of alcohol after the aversive noise (I 1) had longer mean escape latencies than those in the controllable aversive noise group (2) (u < .05). Subjects in the low dose group (12) and the placebo group ( 13) had shorter mean latenciss than those in the moderate dose group, but these differences lvere not significant.

Alcohol prevents and alleviates stress? 575

SRD vs. SRR A completely randomized factorial analysis of variance was performed on the escape

latency data to determine the differences between the SRD and SRR conditions. The three factors were (a) timing of the drinking in relation to the aversive noise (SRD or SRR procedure): (b) alcohol condition (moderate dose. low dose. placebo. or no beverage); and (c) sex of subject. Only 12 conditions were included in this analysis. The controllable aversive noise group (2) was excluded because there was no direct “alcohol after the noise” comparison and using the controllable noise condition would have resulted in an empty cell in the analysis. Results indicated a significant interaction of timing and alcohol condition [F(3,64) = 2.8;~ < .OS]. A simple main effects test (Kep- pel, 1973) showed that, at the moderate dose only, subjects in the SRD “alcohol before stressor” group (8) escaped faster than those in the SRR “alcohol after stressor” group ( 11) [F( 1.64) = 3.8: p < .05]. Although it was not significant. it was of interest that in the placebo conditions there was a marginal effect in the opposite direction. Subjects in the SRD group ( 10) escaped faster than those in the SRR group ( 13) [F( I .64) = 3.2: p < . 10, > .05]. No gender differences were seen in any of these analyses.’

DISCUSSION OF PART 2

The pattern of findings on SRD effects is consistent with that reported in the literature. The moderate dose group showed the best performance on the subsequent task. followed by the low dose and the placebo groups. respectively. although the differences with the low dose and the placebo were not significant. Two interpretations of these findings were suggested in the discussion of Part I. If the uncontrollable aversive noise procedure produced longer latencies in the human shuttle box, then only the moderate dose protected the subjects from these effects. If. on the other hand, the controllable aversiv,e noise exposure facilitated learning. then the findings with the moderate dose SRD groups must be re-interpreted. Perhaps, as with controllable noise. a moderate dose of alcohol. even in the face of uncontrollable aversive noise. facilitated escape learning in the human shuttle box.

In contrast. subjects uho drank a beverage after the uncontrollable aversive noise showed a dose effect, but in a suprising direction. Subjects who drank the placebo escaped as quickly as those in the controllable aversive noise condition. vvhile those drinking the moderate dose did not. The low dose subjects were, again. in the middle. not significantly different from either group.

When considered alone. the SRD findings appear to have a straightfonvard relationship to dose: the more the subject drank, the more likely he or she was to show facilitated escape learning performance relative to the appropriate no beverage control group subjects. However. the SRR findings complicate the picture. The belief that alcohol was consumed (placebo group) either led to alleviation of stress-effects or the facilitation of escape learning. In contrast, that belief, plus the consumption of alcohol (low or moderate dose), failed to alter escape learning performance in the uncontrollable aversive noise conditions. These findings may be explained. in part. by an extension ofthe model postulated by Steele et al. (1986). They suggested that alcohol narrows the focus of a person’s cognitions (attention) onto whatever he or she is feeling in the situation where the drinking occurred. Alcohol relieves stress only in situations in which a nonstressful

‘Since \ery few studies ofthis sort include female subjects. all analyses included gender as a variable


distraction is available during drinking. In the present study, subjects in the SRR conditions drank in an atmosphere of stress following the uncontrollable aversive noise. Perhaps alcohol. especially in the moderate dose, forced the subject to concentrate on the feeling ofstress and helplessness, thus increasing the effects ofthe uncontrollability. In the contrasting SRD conditions, helplessness and stress-responses had not been elic- ited at the time of drinking. In fact. these subjects, especially in the moderate dose group. may have experienced enhanced expectations of controllability. iLIiiler (1979) suggested that there is a connection between perceptions of controllability and stress- reactions. She speculated that during “anticipatory stress” (before the onset of an expected aversive event), a person is more likely to feel in control, to feel that he or she has an array of coping responses that can prevent the aversive event. After the event, as in the SRR conditions, people experience “impact stress.” They perceive themselves as helpless. and their only recourse is to find coping methods (such as drinking) to alleviate or attenuate the painful feelings.

These hypotheses may provide part of a model of the differential dose and stressor timing effects revealed in this study. One caveat to observe in the interpretation of the findings from this particular study is that the subjects were a nondependent. nonalco- holic sample. Nevertheless. it appears that a comprehensive model of alcohol effects, and. ultimately.. reasons for drinking, must include mechanisms to account for two interacting factors: (a) the effects of alcohol dose and expectations and (b) the action of alcohol in the possible prevention versus alleviation of stress-effects.

REFERENCES

Bradlvn. A., Strickler. D., & Maxwell. W. (198 I). Alcohol. expectancy and stress: Methodological concerns with the expectancy design. .-lddicfive Behaviors, 6. 1-8.

Cahalan. D., Cisin. I.. & Crossley, H. ( 1969). American drinkingpractices: A nafionalstzrdv o/drinking behuv-

ior andpaf!erns. New Brunswick. NJ: Rutgers Center for Alcohol Studies. Hiroto. D. (1974). Locus ofcontrol and learned helplessness. Jo~muzlofE.~perimenral fsycholog~ 102. l87-

193. Hiroto. D.. & Seligman, M. (1975). Generality of learned helplessness in man. Journal o/Personalir.v and

Social Psj*chology, 31. 3 I I-327.

Keane, T.. & Lisman. S. (1980). Alcohol and social anxiety in males: Behavioral, cognitive and physiological effects. Journal yf.~bnormal Psychology, 89, 2 13-223.

Keppel. G. (1973). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Lang. A.. Goeckner. D.. Addesso. V.. & Marlatt, G. A. (1975). The effects of alcohol and aggression in male

social drinkers. Journal qf./.lbnortnal Ps.vcho1og.v. 85, 508-j 18. Levenson. R.. Sher. K.. Grossman. L.. Newman, J., & Newlin, D. (1980). Alcohol and stress response damp-

ening. Journal ql-lbnormal Ps.vchology. 89, 528-538. Miller. S. (1979). Controllability and human stress: Method, evidence and theov. Behavior Research and

Therapy. 17. 287-304.

Noel. S.. & Lisman. S. (1980). Alcohol consumption by college women following exposure to unsolvable problems: Learned helplessness or stress induced drinking? Behaviozrr Research and Thrr~?, 18, 429- 440.

Noel. S.. Lisman. S.. Schare, M.. & Lederer. J. (I 98 I ). Effects of alcohol consumption before or after unsolvable problems. Presented at the Eastern Psychological Association Convention. New Y’ork. NY.

Sarason. 1. (1972). Experimental approaches to test anxiety: Attention and the use ofinformation. In C. Speil- berger (Ed.). .4&iefy: Curren; irends in fheory and r&earch. New York: Academic Press.

Sher. K. ( 1987). Stress response dampening. In H. Blane & K. Leonard (Eds.). Psj.chological rheories oJdrink- in4 and alcolrolism (pp. 227-264). New York: Guilford Press.

Stee1e.C.. & Josephs. R. (i988). Drinking your troubles away, II: An attention-allocation model ofalcohol’s effects on psychological stress. Journal oj.-lbnormal Ps.vcizo1og.x 97. 196-205.

Steele. C.. Southwick. L.. & Pagano. R. ( 1986). Drinking your troubles away: The role of acti\ ity in mediating alcohol’s reduction of psychological stress. Journal o/‘._(bnormnl Ps.~~I~o/ogj.. 95. I73- 180.

Sutker. P.. Allain. A.. Brantley. P.. B: Randall, C. (1982). Acute alcohol intoxication. negative an&t and auto- nomic arousal in men and women. .-!ddicrire Behaviors. 7. 17-X.

Alcohol prekents and alleviates stress? 517

Tucker. J.. Vuchinich. R.. & Sobell. M. (198 I). Alcohol consumption as a self-handicapping strategy. Jo~lrrral ~i.~hnwnal Ps,whology. 90, 220-230.

Tucker. J.. Vuchinich. R.. Sobell. M.. 8: Maisto. S. (1980). Normal drinkers’ alcohol consumption asa func- tion of conflicting motives induced by intellectual performance stress. .4ddicriw Behiors. 5. I7 I-I 78.

Zuckerman. M.. & Lubin. B. ( 1965). .~lanuai/tir the rnuiripk a&l adjrctiw h&list. San Diego. CA: Edu- cational and Industrial Testing Semite.

effects of alcohol consumption on the prevention and alleviation of stress-reactions

Documents