- Email: [email protected]
Alcohol's effects on self-awareness
0306~4603/84 $3.00 + .OO Copyright e 1985 Pergamon Press Ltd
Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 9, pp. 323-328, 1984 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
ALCOHOL’S EFFECTS ON SELF-AWARENESS WILLIAM FRANKENSTEIN
and G. TERENCE WILSON
Rutgers University Abstract-The results of two studies were reanalyzed to examine the effect of alcohol and expectations about intoxication on measures of self-awareness. The first study evaluated alcohol’s effects on perception of negative interpersonal feedback and self-evaluation; the second analyzed alcohol’s impact on the interaction of couples in which one of the spouses was an alcoholic. In neither study did intoxication result in decreased use of self-focused statements or first person pronouns as predicted by Hull’s self-awareness model of alcohol consumption.
Hull (1981) proposed a self-awareness model of the causes and consequences of alcohol consumption that has several implications for the study of alcohol use and abuse. Alcohol is said to interfere with “encoding processes fundamental to a state of selfawareness, thereby decreasing the individual’s sensitivity to both the self-relevance of cues regarding appropriate forms of behavior and the self-evaluative nature of feedback about past behaviors. Insofar as the latter form of information can provide a source of self-criticism and negative affect, alcohol as an inhibitor of self-aware processing is proposed to provide a source of psychological relief” (Hull, 198 1, p. 586). The model is heuristic in a number of ways. First, it links alcohol’s effects to an important body of theory and research in the social psychological literature. Second, it proposes an alternative to the tension reduction theory of alcohol consumption. And third, it generates several testable hypotheses about why people drink. Hull, Levenson, Young and Sher (1983) reported that subjects made significantly fewer self-focused statements and used first person pronouns less often when intoxicated. To evaluate the generality of alcohol’s effects on self-awareness we analyzed alcohol’s impact on dissimilar populations engaged in contrasting social interactions in different settings. The data for this evaluation were drawn from two studies: Yankovsky, Wilson, Adler, Hay, and Vrana’s (1984) investigation of alcohol’s effects on perception of interpersonal feedback and self-evaluation in male social drinkers; and alcohol’s effects on marital interaction in couples in which one of the spouses was an alcoholic (Frankenstein, Hay, & Nathan, 1984). EXPERIMENT
1: METHOD
Procedure Forty male, moderate drinkers between the ages of 19 and 25 were randomly assigned to the four cells of the balanced placebo design (Marlatt & Rohsenow, 1980). They were told that (a) the study was concerned with the effects of alcohol on heterosexual social interaction and self-perception; (b) they and another subject would meet twice at the bar in interactions that would be videotaped; (c) by a flip of a coin one of them would be required to impress the other, the latter’s job being to “form an impression and act Preparation of this paper was made possible by Grant AAOO259-13from the National Institute on Alcohol and Alcohol Abuse and Grant 28-9178 from the Charles and Johanna Busch Foundation, Rutgers University. Requests for reprints should be sent to G.T. Wilson, Alcohol Behavior Research Laboratory, Building 3530, Busch Campus, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903. 323
324
WILLIAM
FRANKENSTEIN
and G. TERENCE WILSON
naturally”; and (d) the subject whose role it was to impress the other would be the only one to drink and that the other subject would not know the contents of that drink. Experimental setting The experimental room contained a bar with two bar stools, a mirror, and various advertisement signs from alcohol manufacturers often found in local pubs and bars. Located off to the side, above the mirror behind the bar, was a video camera for filming the interactions that took place between the subject and confederate. Only the subject was actually filmed. Social interaction and videotaping procedure At the first meeting, prior to the drink administration, the subject and confederate engaged in one role play requiring assertive behavior from the subject, followed by a 2-minute free conversation period, followed by two more role plays and a 4-minute free conversation period. Videotaping began on this latter sequence. The confederate always began the role play by reading the “lead-in” line from the script, this being rationalized to the subject as being randomly determined. Instructions for the free conversation period were that they could talk about anything, except the experiment itself and the experience of being participants. The duration of time for the free conversation period was unknown to the subjects. The subject and confederate were then separated for approximately 1% hours during which time the drinks were administered. When the subject and confederate met at the bar again, two more role play scenes were enacted followed by a 4-minute free conversation period. This whole sequence was videotaped. Confederates and the manipulation of interpersonal feedback Seven undergraduate females participated as confederates. They were equally distributed across, and were uninformed as to experimental conditions. While the confederate’s behavior was consistent for the role play scenes (i.e., to respond oppositionally and to maintain the attitude set up by the hypothetical situation) both before and after the administration, a radical shift occurred in their behavior during the free conversation period. Prior to the drink administration, the confederate faced the subject, was friendly, responsive, self-disclosing, asked questions and showed interest in the subject. Following the drink administration, the confederate did not face the subject, acted bored and withdrawn, fidgeted, asked no questions, broke no silences, and responded to questions minimally and monosyllabically. A third BAL reading was taken at the end of the second interaction. Instructional set and alcohol content manipulation The procedure used in previous studies in this laboratory was followed (see Wilson & Abrams, 1977). The alcohol content of the drinks was .75 grams of ethanol per kilogram of body weight. The subject was asked to consume the drink within 25 minutes. Following a 20-minute absorption period after the drink had been consumed, a Breathalyzer test was administered. Dependent measures Verbatim transcripts were made of subjects’ statements for the second sequence of role plays and free conversation. Raters who were blind to the experimental conditions and the nature of the study coded individual statements using an adaptation of Exner’s (1973) self-focused sentence completion task. Statements were coded as self-focus,
325
Alcohol’s effects on self-awareness
external-focus, ambiguous or other focus. Following Hull et al.‘s (1983) procedure, between-group differences in proportions of self, other and externally focused statements to total statements were analyzed. In addition, proportion of self-relevant pronouns to total words was analyzed as a measure of degree of self-awareness. RESULTS
Manipulation checks Subjects’ responses to the question that asked which beverage (alcoholic or nonalcoholic) they had consumed showed 100% agreement with the experimental manipulation. Subjects who had been told that they would receive alcohol estimated on average that they had consumed 6.05 ounces, while those who had been told that they were control subjects uniformly reported receiving no alcohol. This difference was highly significant, F(1,36) = 104.83, p<.OOl. Subjects in the two groups that were administered alcohol showed a mean BAL of 57 mg/% prior to the second social interaction and a mean BAL of 60 mg/% immediately following it. Statement analyses Reliability of individual codes were calculated for 20% of randomly selected freeconversation transcripts by an independent rater. Mean reliabilities, calculated by agreement divided by agreement plus disagreement were: self-focus, 92%; externalfocus, 88%; ambiguous-focus, 75%; and other focus, 87%. Mean reliability of word and pronoun counts, calculated for 20% of randomly selected transcripts, was r = .99 for both counts. Two-way analyses of variance (dosage x expectancy) revealed no significant main effects or interactions betwen groups in relative proportions of selffocused, external-focused and other-focused statements for the role plays or free conversation period (see Table 1). Word analyses Analyses of variance revealed no significant main effects or interactions of drug and expectancy on total number of subjects’ words or self-relevant pronouns to total words (Table 1). Table 1.
Experiment ff1: Effects of alcohol and expectation on relative proportions of speech statements and self-relevant pronouns during role plays and free conversation. Group
Expect
Consume
Proportion of Speech Statements Self-focus
External-focus
Word Analyses
Other-focus
Self-relevant Pronouns
Role Play Tonic Tonic Alcohol Alcohol
Tonic Alcohol Tonic Alcohol
.379 .471 .499 .424
.221 .213 .173 .203
.164 .159 .177 .169
.096 .117 ,114 .122
.202 .225 .228 .253
.422 .437 .410 .433
.257 .254 .238 .200
.061 .083 .062 .086
Free Conversation Tonic Tonic Alcohol Alcohol
Tonic Alcohol Tonic Alcohol
326
WILLIAM
FRANKENSTEIN
and G. TERENCE WILSON
EXPERIMENT
2: METHOD
Subjects Four males and one female, participants in a conjoint outpatient treatment and research program for alcoholism, served as subjects for this study. Alcoholic subjects met DSM-III criteria for alcoholism, had Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST) scores greater than 7 (Selzer, 1971); and had not been abstinent at the time of initial contact. The mean age of the five alcoholic subjects was 44.0 (range 31-63) and they had been married an average of 18.0 years (range 3-32). Their mean MAST score was 26.4 and they consumed an average 43.0 oz. absolute ethanol per week (range 26-56). All had experienced moderate withdrawal symptoms and had undesirable sequelae to drinking in at least one significant life area. Four had received previous alcohol treatment and three had abnormally high liver enzyme activity (SGOT, SGPT, GGTP). None of the spouses had an alcohol problem. Experimental design The independent variables in a 2 x 2 x 3 factorial design were (a) Groupalcoholics were placed in the alcoholic group and their spouses were placed in the spouse group; (b) Session-the alcoholic received either alcohol or no beverage; and (c) Topic - couples discussed as conflict stimuli the alcohol topic, a major marital problem of high importance, and a minor marital topic of lesser importance. Couples were randomly assigned to predetermined session-topic sequences. Procedure This study evaluated the effects of alcoholic’s intoxication on their marital communication and problem-solving. In one session, a legally intoxicating amount of alcohol (100 mg/%) was consumed by the alcoholic partner prior to the interactions, in the other session no alcohol was given. In both sessions, couples were videotaped during three lo-minute interactions during which they worked towards resolution of the topic under discussion (Frankenstein et al., 1984). Conflict interactions were transcribed verbatim, statements were coded and pronouns counted as in Experiment 1.
RESULTS
In the alcohol session, subjects had a mean preinteraction BAL of 103 mg/%, a mean BAL of 94 mg/(‘/o after the second interaction, and a mean BAL of 75 mg/% after the third interaction. Self-focused statements Analysis of variance (group x session x topic) revealed a significant effect for spouse, F (1,48) = 26.44, p < .OOOl, such that alcoholics (M = .37) had a greater proportion of self-focused statements than spouses (M = .20). External-focus statements Three-way analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect for group, F (1,48) = 14.83, p < .0005, with spouses using a greater proportion of externally focused statements (M = .33) than alcoholics (M = .20). Other focus statements Analysis of variance revealed no significant main effects or interactions for group, session or topic on proportions of other-focused statements.
327
Alcohol’s effects on self-awareness
Word analyses A words-per-minute measure was used since interactions differed slightly in duration. Analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect for group, F( I,48 = 7.81, p < .OOl. Alcoholics spoke significantly more than spouses across sessions and topics. There was a significant interaction of group and session, F (1,48) = 15.62, p c .0005. Post hoc comparisons using Scheffe’s method indicated that alcoholics spoke significantly more during the alcohol session compared to the sober session, or their spouses across sessions (p c .05). For proportions of self-relevant pronouns to total words, analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect for group, F (1,48) = 22.59, p < .OOOl. Alcoholics used a greater proportion of pronouns (M = .097) compared to spouses (M = .071). There was a significant interaction of spouse and topic E (1,48) = 4.48, p < .05. Alcoholics used a significantly greater proportion of pronouns than did spouses in the alcohol and major marital problem discussions (p < .05). Because the alcohol topic discussions were expected to induce negative selfevaluation, and since alcoholics tended to use a greater proportion of self-relevant pronouns for this topic, a planned comparison was done to determine if alcohol intoxication decreased alcoholics’ pronoun usage during the alcohol topic discussions. A one-tailed t test for correlated samples, t (4) = 1.39, showed no significant difference (see Table 2). DISCUSSION
The proposition that alcohol reduces self-awareness is at the core of Hull’s model, and failure to demonstrate this effect is damaging to the model. In response, Hull and Reilly (1963) have argued that the experimental contexts in both studies described here contained multiple cues to self-reference-namely, a mirror, face-to-face interaction, role-playing activity, and an evaluative context. These cues, they suggest, might in combination have overcome an alcohol-induced reduction in self-awareness. At the very least, this post hoc analysis places significant limits on the generality of the model. If “face-to-face interaction” and an “evaluative context” readily negate the putative effect of alcohol in decreasing self-awareness, the external validity of Hull’s laboratory demonstrations is questionable. Interpersonal situations that are evaluative in nature are widely viewed as important antecedants of alcohol use and abuse. Hull and Reilly’s (1983) post hoc explanation of the data in the studies presented here fail to account for the findings of other studies that are inconsistent with their model. For example, as studied in the laboratory, self-disclosure is measured in much the same way as self-awareness in Hull’s experiments. Yet alcohol increases rather than decreases self-disclosure (Wilson, 1983). Finally, Lisman, Keane, and Noel (1983) found that Table 2.
Experiment #2: Effects of alcohol intoxication on relative proportions of speech statements and self-relevant pronouns for alcoholics and spouses. Word Analyses Proportion of Speech Statements
Group
Session
Self-focus
External Focus
Alcoholic
Sober Alcohol
.398
.335
.174 .226
Spouse
Sober Alcohol
.186 .219
.332 .327
Words Minute
Self-relevant pronouns
.214 .216
69.0 107.9
.103 .090
.184 240
77.1 61.2
.070 .073
Other-focus
328
WILLIAM FRANKENSTEIN and G. TERENCE WILSON
subjects’ ruminations and worries increased after they drank alcohol. As these authors note, “the heightened, self-evaluative, affective nature of the [intoxicated] subjects’ experience would appear inconsistent with the idea that alcohol interferes with selfawareness” (p. 197). REFERENCES Exner, J.E. (1973). The self-focus sentence competition: A study of egocentricity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 37, 437-455. Frankenstein, W., Hay, W.M., & Nathan, P.E. (1984). Alcohol intoxication effects on alcoholics’ marital communication and problem-solving. Unpublished manuscript. Rutgers University. Hull, J. (1981). A self-awareness model of the causes and effects of alcohol consumption. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 586-m. Hull, J., Levenson, R., Young, R., & Sher, K. (1983). The self-awareness reducing effects of alcohol consumption. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 461-473. Hull, J., & Reilly, M. (1983). Self-awareness, self-regulation, and alcohol consumption: A reply to Wilson. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 514-519. Lisman, S., Keane, T., & Noel, B. (1983). Feeling depressed, angry, shy, sexually aroused? -Why not have a drink? In L. Pohorecky & J. Brick (Eds.), Stress and alcohol use. New York: Elsevier, North-Holland. Marlatt, G.A., & Rohsenow, D. (1980). Cognitive processes in alcohol use: Expectancy and the balanced placebo design. In N. Mello (Ed.), Advances in substance abuse: Behavioral and biological research. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Seizer, M.L. (1971). The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test: The quest for a new diagnostic instrument. American Journal of Psychiatry, 127, 89-94. Wilson, G.T. (1983). Self-awareness, self-regulation, and alcohol consumption. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 505-513. Wilson, CT., & Abrams, D.B. (1977). Effects of alcohol on social anxiety and physiological arousal: Cognitive versus pharmacological processes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 195-210. Yankovsky, L., Wilson, CT., Adler, J., Hay, W., & Vrana, S. (1984). The effect of alcohol on self-evaluation, awareness of negative interpersonal feedback, andperceptions of control andpower. Unpublished manuscript. Rutgers University.
Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 9, pp. 323-328, 1984 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
ALCOHOL’S EFFECTS ON SELF-AWARENESS WILLIAM FRANKENSTEIN
and G. TERENCE WILSON
Rutgers University Abstract-The results of two studies were reanalyzed to examine the effect of alcohol and expectations about intoxication on measures of self-awareness. The first study evaluated alcohol’s effects on perception of negative interpersonal feedback and self-evaluation; the second analyzed alcohol’s impact on the interaction of couples in which one of the spouses was an alcoholic. In neither study did intoxication result in decreased use of self-focused statements or first person pronouns as predicted by Hull’s self-awareness model of alcohol consumption.
Hull (1981) proposed a self-awareness model of the causes and consequences of alcohol consumption that has several implications for the study of alcohol use and abuse. Alcohol is said to interfere with “encoding processes fundamental to a state of selfawareness, thereby decreasing the individual’s sensitivity to both the self-relevance of cues regarding appropriate forms of behavior and the self-evaluative nature of feedback about past behaviors. Insofar as the latter form of information can provide a source of self-criticism and negative affect, alcohol as an inhibitor of self-aware processing is proposed to provide a source of psychological relief” (Hull, 198 1, p. 586). The model is heuristic in a number of ways. First, it links alcohol’s effects to an important body of theory and research in the social psychological literature. Second, it proposes an alternative to the tension reduction theory of alcohol consumption. And third, it generates several testable hypotheses about why people drink. Hull, Levenson, Young and Sher (1983) reported that subjects made significantly fewer self-focused statements and used first person pronouns less often when intoxicated. To evaluate the generality of alcohol’s effects on self-awareness we analyzed alcohol’s impact on dissimilar populations engaged in contrasting social interactions in different settings. The data for this evaluation were drawn from two studies: Yankovsky, Wilson, Adler, Hay, and Vrana’s (1984) investigation of alcohol’s effects on perception of interpersonal feedback and self-evaluation in male social drinkers; and alcohol’s effects on marital interaction in couples in which one of the spouses was an alcoholic (Frankenstein, Hay, & Nathan, 1984). EXPERIMENT
1: METHOD
Procedure Forty male, moderate drinkers between the ages of 19 and 25 were randomly assigned to the four cells of the balanced placebo design (Marlatt & Rohsenow, 1980). They were told that (a) the study was concerned with the effects of alcohol on heterosexual social interaction and self-perception; (b) they and another subject would meet twice at the bar in interactions that would be videotaped; (c) by a flip of a coin one of them would be required to impress the other, the latter’s job being to “form an impression and act Preparation of this paper was made possible by Grant AAOO259-13from the National Institute on Alcohol and Alcohol Abuse and Grant 28-9178 from the Charles and Johanna Busch Foundation, Rutgers University. Requests for reprints should be sent to G.T. Wilson, Alcohol Behavior Research Laboratory, Building 3530, Busch Campus, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903. 323
324
WILLIAM
FRANKENSTEIN
and G. TERENCE WILSON
naturally”; and (d) the subject whose role it was to impress the other would be the only one to drink and that the other subject would not know the contents of that drink. Experimental setting The experimental room contained a bar with two bar stools, a mirror, and various advertisement signs from alcohol manufacturers often found in local pubs and bars. Located off to the side, above the mirror behind the bar, was a video camera for filming the interactions that took place between the subject and confederate. Only the subject was actually filmed. Social interaction and videotaping procedure At the first meeting, prior to the drink administration, the subject and confederate engaged in one role play requiring assertive behavior from the subject, followed by a 2-minute free conversation period, followed by two more role plays and a 4-minute free conversation period. Videotaping began on this latter sequence. The confederate always began the role play by reading the “lead-in” line from the script, this being rationalized to the subject as being randomly determined. Instructions for the free conversation period were that they could talk about anything, except the experiment itself and the experience of being participants. The duration of time for the free conversation period was unknown to the subjects. The subject and confederate were then separated for approximately 1% hours during which time the drinks were administered. When the subject and confederate met at the bar again, two more role play scenes were enacted followed by a 4-minute free conversation period. This whole sequence was videotaped. Confederates and the manipulation of interpersonal feedback Seven undergraduate females participated as confederates. They were equally distributed across, and were uninformed as to experimental conditions. While the confederate’s behavior was consistent for the role play scenes (i.e., to respond oppositionally and to maintain the attitude set up by the hypothetical situation) both before and after the administration, a radical shift occurred in their behavior during the free conversation period. Prior to the drink administration, the confederate faced the subject, was friendly, responsive, self-disclosing, asked questions and showed interest in the subject. Following the drink administration, the confederate did not face the subject, acted bored and withdrawn, fidgeted, asked no questions, broke no silences, and responded to questions minimally and monosyllabically. A third BAL reading was taken at the end of the second interaction. Instructional set and alcohol content manipulation The procedure used in previous studies in this laboratory was followed (see Wilson & Abrams, 1977). The alcohol content of the drinks was .75 grams of ethanol per kilogram of body weight. The subject was asked to consume the drink within 25 minutes. Following a 20-minute absorption period after the drink had been consumed, a Breathalyzer test was administered. Dependent measures Verbatim transcripts were made of subjects’ statements for the second sequence of role plays and free conversation. Raters who were blind to the experimental conditions and the nature of the study coded individual statements using an adaptation of Exner’s (1973) self-focused sentence completion task. Statements were coded as self-focus,
325
Alcohol’s effects on self-awareness
external-focus, ambiguous or other focus. Following Hull et al.‘s (1983) procedure, between-group differences in proportions of self, other and externally focused statements to total statements were analyzed. In addition, proportion of self-relevant pronouns to total words was analyzed as a measure of degree of self-awareness. RESULTS
Manipulation checks Subjects’ responses to the question that asked which beverage (alcoholic or nonalcoholic) they had consumed showed 100% agreement with the experimental manipulation. Subjects who had been told that they would receive alcohol estimated on average that they had consumed 6.05 ounces, while those who had been told that they were control subjects uniformly reported receiving no alcohol. This difference was highly significant, F(1,36) = 104.83, p<.OOl. Subjects in the two groups that were administered alcohol showed a mean BAL of 57 mg/% prior to the second social interaction and a mean BAL of 60 mg/% immediately following it. Statement analyses Reliability of individual codes were calculated for 20% of randomly selected freeconversation transcripts by an independent rater. Mean reliabilities, calculated by agreement divided by agreement plus disagreement were: self-focus, 92%; externalfocus, 88%; ambiguous-focus, 75%; and other focus, 87%. Mean reliability of word and pronoun counts, calculated for 20% of randomly selected transcripts, was r = .99 for both counts. Two-way analyses of variance (dosage x expectancy) revealed no significant main effects or interactions betwen groups in relative proportions of selffocused, external-focused and other-focused statements for the role plays or free conversation period (see Table 1). Word analyses Analyses of variance revealed no significant main effects or interactions of drug and expectancy on total number of subjects’ words or self-relevant pronouns to total words (Table 1). Table 1.
Experiment ff1: Effects of alcohol and expectation on relative proportions of speech statements and self-relevant pronouns during role plays and free conversation. Group
Expect
Consume
Proportion of Speech Statements Self-focus
External-focus
Word Analyses
Other-focus
Self-relevant Pronouns
Role Play Tonic Tonic Alcohol Alcohol
Tonic Alcohol Tonic Alcohol
.379 .471 .499 .424
.221 .213 .173 .203
.164 .159 .177 .169
.096 .117 ,114 .122
.202 .225 .228 .253
.422 .437 .410 .433
.257 .254 .238 .200
.061 .083 .062 .086
Free Conversation Tonic Tonic Alcohol Alcohol
Tonic Alcohol Tonic Alcohol
326
WILLIAM
FRANKENSTEIN
and G. TERENCE WILSON
EXPERIMENT
2: METHOD
Subjects Four males and one female, participants in a conjoint outpatient treatment and research program for alcoholism, served as subjects for this study. Alcoholic subjects met DSM-III criteria for alcoholism, had Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST) scores greater than 7 (Selzer, 1971); and had not been abstinent at the time of initial contact. The mean age of the five alcoholic subjects was 44.0 (range 31-63) and they had been married an average of 18.0 years (range 3-32). Their mean MAST score was 26.4 and they consumed an average 43.0 oz. absolute ethanol per week (range 26-56). All had experienced moderate withdrawal symptoms and had undesirable sequelae to drinking in at least one significant life area. Four had received previous alcohol treatment and three had abnormally high liver enzyme activity (SGOT, SGPT, GGTP). None of the spouses had an alcohol problem. Experimental design The independent variables in a 2 x 2 x 3 factorial design were (a) Groupalcoholics were placed in the alcoholic group and their spouses were placed in the spouse group; (b) Session-the alcoholic received either alcohol or no beverage; and (c) Topic - couples discussed as conflict stimuli the alcohol topic, a major marital problem of high importance, and a minor marital topic of lesser importance. Couples were randomly assigned to predetermined session-topic sequences. Procedure This study evaluated the effects of alcoholic’s intoxication on their marital communication and problem-solving. In one session, a legally intoxicating amount of alcohol (100 mg/%) was consumed by the alcoholic partner prior to the interactions, in the other session no alcohol was given. In both sessions, couples were videotaped during three lo-minute interactions during which they worked towards resolution of the topic under discussion (Frankenstein et al., 1984). Conflict interactions were transcribed verbatim, statements were coded and pronouns counted as in Experiment 1.
RESULTS
In the alcohol session, subjects had a mean preinteraction BAL of 103 mg/%, a mean BAL of 94 mg/(‘/o after the second interaction, and a mean BAL of 75 mg/% after the third interaction. Self-focused statements Analysis of variance (group x session x topic) revealed a significant effect for spouse, F (1,48) = 26.44, p < .OOOl, such that alcoholics (M = .37) had a greater proportion of self-focused statements than spouses (M = .20). External-focus statements Three-way analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect for group, F (1,48) = 14.83, p < .0005, with spouses using a greater proportion of externally focused statements (M = .33) than alcoholics (M = .20). Other focus statements Analysis of variance revealed no significant main effects or interactions for group, session or topic on proportions of other-focused statements.
327
Alcohol’s effects on self-awareness
Word analyses A words-per-minute measure was used since interactions differed slightly in duration. Analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect for group, F( I,48 = 7.81, p < .OOl. Alcoholics spoke significantly more than spouses across sessions and topics. There was a significant interaction of group and session, F (1,48) = 15.62, p c .0005. Post hoc comparisons using Scheffe’s method indicated that alcoholics spoke significantly more during the alcohol session compared to the sober session, or their spouses across sessions (p c .05). For proportions of self-relevant pronouns to total words, analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect for group, F (1,48) = 22.59, p < .OOOl. Alcoholics used a greater proportion of pronouns (M = .097) compared to spouses (M = .071). There was a significant interaction of spouse and topic E (1,48) = 4.48, p < .05. Alcoholics used a significantly greater proportion of pronouns than did spouses in the alcohol and major marital problem discussions (p < .05). Because the alcohol topic discussions were expected to induce negative selfevaluation, and since alcoholics tended to use a greater proportion of self-relevant pronouns for this topic, a planned comparison was done to determine if alcohol intoxication decreased alcoholics’ pronoun usage during the alcohol topic discussions. A one-tailed t test for correlated samples, t (4) = 1.39, showed no significant difference (see Table 2). DISCUSSION
The proposition that alcohol reduces self-awareness is at the core of Hull’s model, and failure to demonstrate this effect is damaging to the model. In response, Hull and Reilly (1963) have argued that the experimental contexts in both studies described here contained multiple cues to self-reference-namely, a mirror, face-to-face interaction, role-playing activity, and an evaluative context. These cues, they suggest, might in combination have overcome an alcohol-induced reduction in self-awareness. At the very least, this post hoc analysis places significant limits on the generality of the model. If “face-to-face interaction” and an “evaluative context” readily negate the putative effect of alcohol in decreasing self-awareness, the external validity of Hull’s laboratory demonstrations is questionable. Interpersonal situations that are evaluative in nature are widely viewed as important antecedants of alcohol use and abuse. Hull and Reilly’s (1983) post hoc explanation of the data in the studies presented here fail to account for the findings of other studies that are inconsistent with their model. For example, as studied in the laboratory, self-disclosure is measured in much the same way as self-awareness in Hull’s experiments. Yet alcohol increases rather than decreases self-disclosure (Wilson, 1983). Finally, Lisman, Keane, and Noel (1983) found that Table 2.
Experiment #2: Effects of alcohol intoxication on relative proportions of speech statements and self-relevant pronouns for alcoholics and spouses. Word Analyses Proportion of Speech Statements
Group
Session
Self-focus
External Focus
Alcoholic
Sober Alcohol
.398
.335
.174 .226
Spouse
Sober Alcohol
.186 .219
.332 .327
Words Minute
Self-relevant pronouns
.214 .216
69.0 107.9
.103 .090
.184 240
77.1 61.2
.070 .073
Other-focus
328
WILLIAM FRANKENSTEIN and G. TERENCE WILSON
subjects’ ruminations and worries increased after they drank alcohol. As these authors note, “the heightened, self-evaluative, affective nature of the [intoxicated] subjects’ experience would appear inconsistent with the idea that alcohol interferes with selfawareness” (p. 197). REFERENCES Exner, J.E. (1973). The self-focus sentence competition: A study of egocentricity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 37, 437-455. Frankenstein, W., Hay, W.M., & Nathan, P.E. (1984). Alcohol intoxication effects on alcoholics’ marital communication and problem-solving. Unpublished manuscript. Rutgers University. Hull, J. (1981). A self-awareness model of the causes and effects of alcohol consumption. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 586-m. Hull, J., Levenson, R., Young, R., & Sher, K. (1983). The self-awareness reducing effects of alcohol consumption. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 461-473. Hull, J., & Reilly, M. (1983). Self-awareness, self-regulation, and alcohol consumption: A reply to Wilson. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 514-519. Lisman, S., Keane, T., & Noel, B. (1983). Feeling depressed, angry, shy, sexually aroused? -Why not have a drink? In L. Pohorecky & J. Brick (Eds.), Stress and alcohol use. New York: Elsevier, North-Holland. Marlatt, G.A., & Rohsenow, D. (1980). Cognitive processes in alcohol use: Expectancy and the balanced placebo design. In N. Mello (Ed.), Advances in substance abuse: Behavioral and biological research. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Seizer, M.L. (1971). The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test: The quest for a new diagnostic instrument. American Journal of Psychiatry, 127, 89-94. Wilson, G.T. (1983). Self-awareness, self-regulation, and alcohol consumption. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 505-513. Wilson, CT., & Abrams, D.B. (1977). Effects of alcohol on social anxiety and physiological arousal: Cognitive versus pharmacological processes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 195-210. Yankovsky, L., Wilson, CT., Adler, J., Hay, W., & Vrana, S. (1984). The effect of alcohol on self-evaluation, awareness of negative interpersonal feedback, andperceptions of control andpower. Unpublished manuscript. Rutgers University.