ALCOIIOL,
CREAT I V TTY
,
AN D STATE PEP EN DENT
H a r k L.
B.A.
S E N S O R I l l O T OF. LEARNTMG
Brunkc
( E o n o u r s ) , Simon E r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y ,
T H E S I S SUBK1.TTED IN PARTIAL
FULFILLIIENT
1977
CF
THE REQUIREMENTS F O R THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
in the
Department
P s y c h o 1 ogy
@
h a r k L.
Brun'ce
1381
S T K O N FRASER U N I V ERSITY
April
19 8 1
A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . T h i s t h e s i s may n o t b e
r e p r o d u c e d i n w h o l e or i n p a r t , by p h o t o c o p y
or o t h e r m e a n s , w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n of t h e a u r h o r .
Approva 1
Name:
Degree:
Mark L. Srunke
Master of A r t s
T i t l e o f thesis:
Alcohol,
C r e a t i v i t y , and S t a t e
Dependent Sensor
E x a m i n i n g Committee:
Chai r p e r s o n :
Denn
B r u c e K. A l e x a n d e r
Senior Supervisor
Roger B lackman
D a v i d M. Lawson
- d t e r n a l Examincr
Department o f P s y c h o l o g y
University of B r i t i s h
Columbia
D a t e Approved :
,
PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE
I h e r e b y g r a n t t o Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y t h e r i g h t
t o le11d
my t h e s i s o r d i s s e r t a t i o n (the t i t l e of w l i i c h i s shown below) t u u:;crs
o f t h e Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y , and t o nldke p a r t i a l o r s i n g l c
c o p i e s o n l y f o r s u c h u s e r s o r i n r e s p o n s e t o a r e q u e s t from t h e l i b r a r y
of any o t h e r u n i v e r s i t y , o r o t h e r e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n , on i t s own
b e h a l f o r f o r o n e of i t s u s e r s .
I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permission f o r
m u l t i p l e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d
by m e o r t h e Dean o f G r a d u a t e S t u d i e s .
It i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t copying
o r p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n shall riot be allowed
w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n .
T i t l e of T h e s i s / D i s s e r t a t i o n :
Alcohol. C r e a t i v i t y . and S t a t e Dependent Sensorimotor.---
-
Learning
---
-Author:
(signature)
Mark L. Brunke ----(name)
(date)
- - ----------
-
ABSTRACT
I n l i g h t of
theoretical approaches t o alcohol use t h a t
e m p h a s i z e t h e p o s s i b l e a d a p t i v e o r f u n c t i o n a l c o n s e q u e n c e s of
drinking alcoholic beverages,
t h e p o s s i b l e b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t s of
a l c o h o l on performance were t e s t e d on n o n - a l c o h o l i c
undergraduate students.
i n t o x i c a t i n g d o s e of
would i n c r e a s e
I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d
alcohol
male
t h a t a moderately
(1.1 m l e t h a n o l l k g body w e i g h t )
c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g a s m e a s u r e d by n o v e l f i g u r a t i v e
l a n g u a g e u s a g e a n d p e r f o r m a n c e on t h e Remote A s s o c i a t e s T e s t
(RAT; M e d n i c k a n d M e d n i c k ,
1967).
A c o m p a r i s o n of
11 s u b j e c t s u n d e r a l c o h o l a n d p l a c e b o c o n d i t i o n s
a l c o h o l i n g e s t i o n i n c r e a s e d t h e p r o d u c t i o n of
l a n g u a g e a n d i n c r e a s e d t h e t o t a l a m o u n t of
t h e w r i t i n g of
showed t h a t
novel figurative
words w r i t t e n .
A
b e t w e e n g r o u p s a n a l y s i s ( a l c o h o l v s p l a c e b o ) s h o w e d n o e f f e c t of
a l c o h o l o n RAT p e r f o r m a n c e .
identified.
A possible expectancy
confound was
The s e c o n d h y p o t h e s i s p r e d i c t e d t h a t a l c o h o l c a n
p r o d u c e s t a t e d e p e n d e n t l e a r n i n g of
sensorimotor acts.
throwing accuracy w i t h t h e nonpreferred hand and m i r r o r
s k i l l w e r e examined i n f o u r g r o u p s of
w e r e d e f i n e d by s t a t e
s o b r i e t y ) o n Day
testing.
found,
1 of
six subjects.
Dart
tracing
The g r o u p s
(alcohol intoxication or placebo-linked
t e s t i n g c r o s s e d w i t h s t a t e o n Day 2 o f
No e v i d e n c e o f
alcohol s t a t e dependent learning w a s
nor were t h e r e any s i g n i f i c a n t
p e r f ormanc,e.
iii
e f f e c t s of
a l c o h o l on
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Without
t h e encouragement
and s u p p o r t t h a t
t h r o u g h o u t my a c a d e m i c c a r e e r f r o m D r .
t h e s i s would have n e v e r been w r i t t e n .
B r u c e K.
I received
Alexander
this
TABLE OF CONTENTS
......................................................
ii
A b s t r a c t ....................................................i i i
A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s ............................................. i v
L i s t o f T a b l e s .............................................. v .l .i
I . T h e P r o b l e m ............................................ 1
I1 . T h e F o c u s ............................................. 6
A l c o h o l a n d C r e a t i v i t y ................................7
A l c o h o l a n d S t a t e D e p e n d e n t L e a r n i n g ................. 1 1
I11 . T h e P r e s e n t E x p e r i m e n t : H y p o t h e s e s a n d M e a s u r e s ..... 1 8
A l c o h o l a n d C r e a t i v i t y : H y p o t h e s e s a n d M e a s u r e s ......1 8
S t a t e D e p e n d e n t L e a r n i n g : H y p o t h e s e s a n d M e a s u r e s ....2 0
I V . M e t h o d ............................................... 2 1
S u b j e c t s ............................................. 2 1
A p p a r a t u s ............................................ 2 2
P r o c e d u r e ............................................ 2 3
D a t a A n a l y s i s ........................................ 29
V . R e s u l t s ............................................... 3 1
E s t i m a t e s o f I n t o x i c a t i o n a n d A l c o h o l C o n t e n t ........3 1
C r e d i b i l i t y of t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l I n s t r u c t i o n s .........3 2
C r e a t i v i t y D a t a ...................................... 3 2
R e m o t e A s s o c i a t e s T e s t ............................... 3 7
S e n s o r i m o t o r P e r f o r m a n c e ............................. 38
V I . D i s c u s s i o n ........................................... 4 3
A l c o h o l a n d C r e a t i v i t y ...............................4 3
Approval
v
...................
.............
.................................................
Alcohcl S t a t e Cependent Learninq
.,48
I m ~ l i c a t i o n sf c r t h e F u n c t i o n a l A F F ~ O ~ C ~
Eeferences
5 1
..:4
L I S T OF T A B L E S
Table
I
Page
Mean f r e q u e n c y o f
s u b j e c t s of
Placebo
I1
w r i t i n g by t h e
t h e AP a n d PA g r o u p s i n t h e A l c o h o l
(P) conditions
(A)
tropes per
(P) conditions
111 T h e f r e q u e n c y o f
(N=ll).
d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of
tropes occurring i n the Alcohol
conditions
of
34
t o t a l w o r d s w r i t t e n by
s u b j e c t s i n t h e AP a n d PA g r o u p s i n t h e A l c o h o l
and Placebo
and
.............
(N=ll).
T h e m e a n p e r c e n t a g e of
the
a
t r o p e s a n d amount of
(A)
t h e AP a n d PA g r o u p s
(A)
...........
36
novel and f r o z e n
and Placebo (P)
(N=ll).
.......
37
t
lV
s
Mean d a r t t h r o w i n g i n a c c u r a c y
f r o m t h e c e n t e r of
1'i
3
( P r ) , Day
i
( d i s t a n c e of
the bullseye,
1 , a n d Day 2 .
impact
cm) d u r i n g t h e p r a c t i c e
Mean d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e Day
1 a n d Day 2 s c o r e s ( d ) a n d t h e m e a n p e r c e n t a g e
i
Day
1 score that t h i s difference represents
V
Mean l e n g t h o f
(Pr),
I
Day
of
the
(Xd) a r e
a l s o presented f o r the four experimental groups
each group)..
point
(N=6 i n
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
mirror
tracing
1 , a n d Day 2 .
a n d Day 2 s c o r e s
(cm) d u r i n g t h e p r a c t i c e
Mean d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n Day
( d ) a n d t h e mean p e r c e n t a g e of
1 score that t h i s difference represents
t h e Day
(%d) a r e a l s o
presen,ted f o r t h e f o u r experimental groups
vii
1
(N=6 i n e a c h
42
group).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
viii
I.
The Problem
This chapter discusses the
and t h e t h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e s i t r a i s e s .
drinking habits
f o c u s e s on t h e
functional approach t o alcohol
possibility
that
C h a p t e r I1
alcohol intoxication directly
f a c i l i t a t e s c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g and i n d i r e c t l y f a c i l i t a t e s
sensorimotor performance v i a alcohol s t a t e dependent learning.
What
psychological
processes operate t o perpetuate alcohol
d r i n k i n g h a b i t s ? What f u n c t i o n s m i g h t
~ l c o h o ls e r v e i n t h e l i f e
of
associated with alcohol
t h e d r i n k e r ? And w h a t
intoxication,
questions that
experiences,
r e i n f o r c e d r i n k i n g ? These a r e t h e
the
general
f o l l o w i n g r e s e a r c h a t t e m p t s t o a d d r e s s and
t h e y a r e c r u c i a l q u e s t i o n s a s k e d by a
functional (or adaptive)
approach t o alcohol use.
T h e i m p o r t a n c e of
t h e s e q u e s t i o n s nay a p p e a r t o be s o
o b v i o u s t h a t c o n s i d e r a t i o n of
p o w e r e x e r t e d by
them seems s u p e r f l u o u s .
t h e d i s e a s e m o d e l of
A l c o h o l i c s Anonyiitous,
1957; J e l l i n e k ,
Yet t h e
alcoholism (e.g.
1960) which emphasizes t h e
c o m p u l s i v e a n d p h y s i o l o g i c a l a s p e c t s of
alcoholism,
has
u n f o r t u n a t e l y d r a w n a t t e n t i o n away f r o m s u c h q u e s t i o n s .
are reasons for preferring the
There
functional approach t o the
d i s e a s e model.
The d i s e a s e model i s f o u n d l a c k i n g b e c a u s e ,
contrary t o its
premises,
'loss
of
Demning,
alcoholism does not p r e c i p i t a t e severe craving o r the
control'
and Reid,
tolerance,
distress
phenomenon
(Maisto & Scheft,
1973). N e i t h e r must a p a t i e n t
withdrawal,
o r a n y o t h e r s i g n s of
t o be diagnosed a s a l c o h o l i c
Furthermore,
t o alcoholism (e.g.
physiological
(Schuckit,
1979).
Goodwin,
1 9 7 9 ) , no o r g a n i c
a l c o h o l i s m have been i d e n t i f i e d .
The e m p h a s i s t h a t
processes
show s i g n s of
d e s p i t e t h e evidence from twin s t u d i e s f o r a
g e n e t i c component
s u b s t r a t e s of
1977; M a r l a t t ,
t h e d i s e a s e model p l a c e s on p a t h o l o g i c a l
(physical o r mental) has arguably limited inquiry into
a l c o h o l i s m by r e j e c t i n g t h e p o s s i b l e a d a p t i v e o r f u n c t i o n a l
a s p e c t s of
of
drinking habits.
Non-alcoholics
t h e r e i n f o r c i n g a s p e c t s of
may
b e e n j o y i n g many
d r u n k e n n e s s s h a r e d by t h e
a l c o h o l i c and not a l l drunken experiences need be d e l e t e r i o u s .
Rather
t h a n dichotomizing a l c o h o l u s e r s i n t o a l c o h o l i c s and
social drinkers,
i t may
b e more f r u i t f u l t o c o n s i d e r a l c o h o l
c o n s u m p t i o n a s a m a t t e r of
degree.
C l i n i c i a n s h a v e o b s e r v e d a d a p t i v e c o n s e q u e n c e s of
intoxication.
Davis,
r e p o r t e d t h e c a s e of
Berenson,
S t e i n g l a s s and Davis
a n a l c o h o l i c whose a l c o h o l r e l a t e d
a s s e r t i v e n e s s was u s e f u l a n d i n o n e c a s e l i f e s a v i n g
alcoholic,
(1974)
contrary t o her
sober habits,
(the
made a l o u d c a l l f o r
m e d i c a l i n t e r v e n t i o n when h e r c h i l d d i s p l a y e d a m b i g u o u s s i g n s of
distress).
T h e s e a u t h o r s a d v i s e t h a t when a r r a n g i n g c o n t i n g e n c y
contracts with alcoholics,
the behavior
therapist
should attempt
t o d i s c o v e r what
r e i n f o r c i n g a s p e c t s of
maintaining i t s use.
(1971)
Bateson's
a l c o h o l i s m s u p p o r t s t h i s t y p e of
a l c o h o l may h a v e b e e n
c l i n i c a l a n a l y s i s of
s t r a t e g y a s he d e s c r i b e d
a l c o h o l i s m a s b e i n g p e r p e t u a t e d by a n i n t o x i c a t i o n l i n k e d l o g i c ,
o r v i e w of
the world,
a l c o h o l i c when h e
Galanter
w h e r e i n t h e w o r l d makes more s e n s e f o r t h e
o r s h e i s d r u n k t h a n when s o b e r .
( 1 9 7 6 ) a r g u e s f o r a n i n t o x i c a t e d s t a t e of
c o n s c i o u s n e s s model of
drugs
(e.g.
addiction,
e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e c a s e of
alcohol and marijuana)
social interaction.
t h a t can serve the user
in
He e n c o u r a g e s c l i n i c i a n s t o c o n s i d e r t h i s
when t r e a t i n g a d d i c t s :
" T h e a l t e r e d s t a t e t h e a b u s e r a c h i e v e s may b e v a l u a b l e
i n a s s i s t i n g him t o s u s t a i n a n e q u i l i b r i u m w i t h i n h i s
p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l c o n t e x t . I t b e c o m e s of c e n t r a l
importance t o a s c e r t a i n what a d a p t i v e t r a i t s t h e
i n t o x i c a t i o n s t a t e provides a given p a t i e n t and then
a s s i s t him t o develop t h e c a p a c i t y t o a c h i e v e such ends
without recourse t o t h e i n t o x i c a n t s " (p. 638).
T h e r e a r e many l o g i c a l l y p o s s i b l e a d a p t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f
alcohol intoxication.
A d a p t i v e i n t h i s c o n t e x t means
individually functional,
rather
than b e n e f i c i a l t o t h e group.
D r i n k i n g may b e s e e n a s a d a p t i v e i f
the user
f a c i l i t a t e s desired thoughts o r behaviours.
can be r e a l o r imagined.
That is,
t h e p h a r m a c o l o g i c a l a c t i o n of
of
factors
(e.g.
Such f a c i l i t a t i o n
t h e b e n e f i t may
alcohol,
f a l s e l y a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e e f f e c t s of
non-specific
finds that alcohol
be c a u s e d by
o r s u c h b e n e f i t s may b e
alcohol.
Furthermore,
e x p e c t a n c y ) common i n t h e c o n s u m p t i o n
almost any drug can produce f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t s
(e.g.
pain
relief
a r i s i n g from placebos;
Beecher,
1955).
TWO b a s i c p r o b l e m s a r i s e i n d i s c u s s i n g a d a p t i v e f u n c t i o n s
of
alcohol.
First,
and i r r e f u t a b l e ,
If
t h e a d a p t i v e a r g u m e n t nay
be s e l f - v a l i d a t i n g
p a r t i c u l a r l y when b a s e d o n p o s t h o c a n a l y s i s .
o n e l o o k s l o n g enough o n e i s a l m o s t bound t o f i n d a n a d a p t i v e
c o n s e q u e n c e of
v i r t u a l l y any a c t i o n .
f a c i l i t a t e one b e h a v i o r i t nay
negative net adaptive value.
methodological
Second,
disrupt
w h i l e a d r u g may
two o t h e r s t h u s h a v i n g a
The f i r s t p r o b l e m i s a
o n e s h a r e d by a l l f u n c t i o n a l o r e v o l u t i o n a r y
approaches i n s c i e n t i f i c inquiry.
P h i l o s o p h i c a l a n a l y s i s of
f u n c t i o n a l approach t o any s u b j e c t m a t t e r y i e l d s
a
a basic
metaphysical assumption t h a t everything serves a function.
This
need not o b s t r u c t i n q u i r y a s a f u n c t i o n a l approach can a c t a s an
organizing principle t o f u r t h e r our investigations
use.
The s e c o n d p r o b l e m i s more d i r e c t .
It presents
r e s e a r c h e r w i t h t h e n e e d t o d e v e l o p some s o r t o f
s o t h a t o n e may
another.
of
alcohol
the
scoring system
s a y t h a t o n e h a b i t i s more o r l e s s a d a p t i v e t h a n
T h i s p r o b l e m w i l l b e s i d e s t e p p e d a s t h e p u r p o s e of
t h e s i s i s t o c o n s i d e r t h e p r e s e n c e of
c o n s e q u e n c e s of
this
certain adaptive
alcohol intoxication.
Two p o s s i b l e f u n c t i o n a l v a l u e s o f
may e n h a n c e c r e a t i v i t y ,
while intoxicated,
and 2)
may b e b e s t
( s t a t e dependent learning).
intoxication are:
thoughts or behaviors,
1) i t
learned
recalled i n the intoxicated s t a t e
The e x p e r i m e n t
d e s c r i b e d below was d e s i g n e d t o examine
p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s of
alcohol on c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g and t o t e s t
the
If
p r e s e n c e of
alcohol state-dependent
for
sensorimotor learning.
a l c o h o l d o e s show f a c i l i t a t i n g e f f e c t s w i t h c a s u a l d r i n k e r s
w e might
further
reinforcements
our understanding
of
what p o s s i b l e
might be o p e r a t i n g i n t h e t r a n s i t i o n from c a s u a l
t o h a b i t u a l u s e of
alcohol.
11. T h e F o c u s
Alcohol's
r e l a t i o n s h i p with c r e a t i v i t y and s t a t e dependent
l e a r n i n g i s p o e t i c a l l y a d d r e s s e d by t h e C h i n e s e p o e t L i P o :
With t h r e e cups,
I u n d e r s t a n d t h e g r e a t way.
With one j a r ,
I am a t o n e w i t h n a t u r e .
Only t h e p e r c e p t i o n s
t h a t one has while drunk
c a n n o t be t r a n s m i t t e d
a f t e r one i s sober, ( i n Birch,
1965, p.
231).
L i Po i s famous f o r h i s c e l e b r a t i o n s of
s t a t e of
consciousness,
attitude.
b u t h a r d l y t y p i c a l of
the intoxicated
the Chinese
China h a s p r o h i b i t e d a l c o h o l and r e p e a l e d such laws a t
l e a s t 40 t i m e s
(Moore,
1948).
Ambivelance toward a l c o h o l can
a l s o be s e e n i n Western c i v i l i z a t i o n .
When d i s t i l l e d s p i r i t s
w e r e i n t r o d u c e d a l c o h o l was h e l d t o b e a m i r a c l e d r u g t h a t
opened t h e mind and h e a l e d t h e body;
t h i s w a s s o o n f o l l o w e d by
c o n d e m n a t i o n s of
drunkenness a s a
(Roueche,
From B i b l i c a l t i m e s t o t h e p r e s e n t a l c o h o l h a s
1960).
b e e n v i e w e d by r e l i g i o u s ,
" d i s e a s e of
political,
t h e mind"
and medical a u t h o r i t i e s a s
being e i t h e r beneficial or dangerously disruptive t o the
p h y s i c a l o r m e n t a l s t a t e of
whether
bad,
the user,
t h e c o g n i t i v e e f f e c t s of
(Szasz,
1974). However,
a l c o h o l w e r e j u d g e d good o r
t h e y w e r e most o f t e n s e e n a s e x t r a o r d i n a r y .
Alcohol and C r e a t i v i t y
The p o s s i b l e f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t s o f
h a s been a
persistent
issue.
alcohol on c r e a t i v i t y
The 1 5 t h c e n t u r y p h y s i c i a n
Brunschwig h e l d t h a t a l c o h o l " c a u s e s t h e heavy
t o n g u e t o become
l i g h t and w e l l s p e a k i n g , "
24).
( i n Rouche,
1 9 6 0 , p.
most c h e r i s h e d w r i t e r s were s a i d t o be a l c o h o l i c s
i n c l u d i n g Edgar A l l e n Poe, J a c k London,
D y l a n Thomas,
and J a c k Kerouac.
a l c o h o l may h a v e a f f e c t e d t h e i r
(Kazin,
p a r t of
the
creativity.
F i t z g e r a l d and
Thomas,
on t h e o t h e r
social events i n his l i f e .
t h e r e h a s been no s y s t e m a t i c r e s e a r c h on t h e
between a l c o h o l and p r o f e s s i o n a l w r i t i n g ,
1976),
e x a c t l y how
was c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y s o b e r d u r i n g h i s work;
w e r e more a
our
Scott Fitzgerald,
It i s unclear
Kerouac were o f t e n drunk w h i l e w r i t i n g .
hand,
F.
Many o f
h i s binges
Although
relationship
the conjecture that
a l c o h o l may f a c i l i t a t e c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g i s c o n s i d e r e d i n b o t h
the popular
(e.g.
Conrad,
1980) and medical
(e.g.
Goodwin,
1973)
literature.
The s c i e n t i f i c l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l s f e w a t t e m p t s t o
i n v e s t i g a t e t h e p o s s i b l e l i n k between a l c o h o l and c r e a t i v i t y .
Roe ( 1 9 4 6 ) s u r v e y e d o v e r
t w e n t y a r t i s t s i n New Y o r k a n d f o u n d
o n l y o n e who a t t r i b u t e d t o a l c o h o l a n y p o s i t i v e e f f e c t o n h i s
painting.
a v e r a g e of
One u n p u b l i s h e d s t u d y f o u n d t h a t s u b j e c t s d r i n k i n g a n
240 m l of
80 p r o o f
whiskey
s o l u t i o n s t o a word a s s o c i a t i o n t e s t
7
produced more o r i g i n a l
(Kent-Rosanoff
Test) than
sober subjects
(Hajcak,
1976).
Kastyl
(1969) found t h a t alcohol
p r o d u c e d no d i f f e r e n c e s i n a s s o c i a t i v e c r e a t i v i t y .
found t h a t
low d o s e s of
association.
of
Nash
(1962)
a l c o h o l i n c r e a s e d t h e amount of
verbal
A l t h o u g h Nash
(1962) h a s been c i t e d a s a n example
a l c o h o l i n • ’l u e n c i n g c r e a t i v i t y
(Arieti,
1 9 7 6 ) , o n l y Ha j c a k
(1976) a p p l i e d a d i r e c t and e x p l i c i t experimental t e s t of
hypothesis
the
that alcohol facilitates creativity.
D e s p i t e t h e meager
alcohol as a possible
a n e c d o t a l r e p o r t s of
t o o l i n overcoming
research,
there a r e reasons
f a c i l i t a t o r of
t o consider
creative writing.
There a r e
alcohol being perceived a s an e f f e c t i v e
"writer's
w i t h i n i t i a t i n g t h e a c t of
block",
writing
the frustration associated
(Goodwin,
1973).
Further,
a l c o h o l consumption h a s been regarded i n most c u l t u r e s a s having
disinhibiting effects
(Nash,
(Horton,
1962) and a g g r e s s i o n
1943).
(Graham,
Increases i n talkativeness
1980) have been a s s o c i a t e d
with and a t t r i b u t e d t o a l c o h o l i n t o x i c a t i o n .
Such d i s i n h i b i t i n g
e f f e c t s h a v e b e e n e x p l a i n e d by t h e p h y s i o l o g i c a l
a l c o h o l on t h e nervous system (Greenberg,
e f f e c t s of
1 9 5 3 ) a n d by
expectancies associated with sociocultural sanctions attached t o
drunkenness
(MacAndrew a n d E d g a r t o n ,
t h e u n d e r l y i n g p r o c e s s e s may b e ,
may
loosen the drinker's
1969).
R e g a r d l e s s of
what
alcohol linked disinhibition
c o n s t r a i n t s on s t y l e .
H e o r s h e may
e n t e r t a i n t h o u g h t s a n d s y n t a x t h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n e d i t e d when
sober.
William James,
w e l l a w a r e of
the disinhibition idea,
regarded alcohol intoxication a s a route t o mystic
1
8
consciousness:
"The sway of a l c o h o l o v e r m a n k i n d i s u n q u e s t i o n a b l y d u e
t o i t s , p o w e r t o s t i m u l a t e t h e m y s t i c a l f a c u l t i e s of
h u m a n n a t u r e , u s u a l l y c r u s h e d t o e a r t h by t h e c o l d f a c t s
and d r y c r i t i c i s m s of t h e s o b e r hour. S o b r i e t y
diminishes, d i s c r i m i n a t e s and s a y s no; drunkenness
expands, u n i t e s and s a y s yes. I t i s i n f a c t t h e g r e a t
e x c i t e r of t h e Y e s f u n c t i o n i n man" ( 1 9 7 7 , p. 3 0 5 ) .
However c r e a t i v i t y i s more t h a n s a y i n g y e s t o i n h i b i t e d
images and i d e a s .
response
A p p r o p r i a t e n e s s marks o f f
from t h e merely u n u s u a l one.
the creative
Whether w r i t i n g i s
generated while drunk or sober,
appropriate writing w i l l
c h a r a c t e r i z e some p r o p o r t i o n of
the t o t a l output.
t o t a l output i s increased,
t h e n t h e amount of
So i f
the
creative writing
should i n c r e a s e too.
S i m i l a r t o t h e d i s i n h i b i t i o n argument i s Rees'
that
" a l c o h o l m i g h t p r o m o t e l i t e r a r y work i n t h o s e
severe emotional d i s t r e s s prevents e f f e c t i v e work,"
6 ) . He a d v i s e s t h a t a m o u n t s o f
d i s t r e s s but
Goodwin
p.
(1973) observed t h a t professional
sometimes s u f f e r from a
s u g g e s t s t h a t a l c o h o l may
w r i t i n g may p r o c e e d .
excess anxiety
creativity
(1960,
a l c o h o l h i g h enough t o r e l i e v e
f o r m of
a r i s i n g f r o m a n t i c i p a t e d c r i t i c i s m s of
of
f o r whom
l o w e n o u g h t o a v o i d i n t e l l e c t u a l i m p a i r m e n t may
help such writers.
writers
suggestion
but
( e . g.
"stagefright"
their
(tension
l a t e s t work) and he
"silence the critic" so that the
Some c o n c e d e t h a t a l c o h o l may
flow
relieve
t h a t t h i s does not imply an increase i n
Arieti,
1976).
surrounding the assertion that
T h e r e i s c o n • ’l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e
people drink t o r e l i e v e s t r e s s or
9
that alcohol i s tension reducing
( C a p p e l l and Herman,
E x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a on t h e e f f e c t s of
alcohol on verbal
performance with placebo controls i s s p a r s e ,
suggest
t h a t low d o s e s of
but
i n general
alcohol tend t o increase verbal
f l u e n c y w h i l e a l s o r e d u c i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of
Nash
1972).
the response.
( 1 9 6 2 ) f o u n d t h i s w i t h t h e w r i t t e n p e r f o r m a n c e of
with a
. 0 3 5 % b l o o d a l c o h o l c o n c e n t r a t i o n (BAG).
subjects
Kastyl's
(1969)
s u b j e c t s produced more v e r b a l a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h moderate d o s e s
(.33
1.0
a n d .67 n l e t h a n o l l k g body w e i g h t )
rnl/kg d o s e .
In a
study t h a t lacked a placebo control,
s u b j e c t s w i t h a BAG o f
critical ability
1960).
than with a placebo or a
.13% had i n c r e a s e d v e r b o s i t y and lowered
(Reputen, Al'perovich,
Mikheyev,
&
On t h e o t h e r h a n d , H a r t o c o l l i s a n d J o h n s o n ' s
subjects,
w i t h a BAC of
approximately
verbal fluency i n both the
.lo%,
Shneider,
(1956)
showed reduced
r e s t r i c t e d and open-ended
association
tasks.
As with appropriateness,
the
a l s o s e e m s a f f e c t e d by a l c o h o l .
subjects'
Pollach
o u t p u t became more p e r s o n a l ,
m o r e e m o t i o n a l when d r u n k .
Alcoholics
Applying a l o g i c t h a t i s unclear,
i n t e r a c t i o n i n t e r m s of
behaviors.
s t y l e of
verbal associations
(1966) found t h a t normal
less stereotypical,
showed a n o p p o s i t e e f f e c t .
Pollach discusses this
alcoholics having d i f f e r e n t coping
Unfortunately Pollach didn 't apply placebos
sober condition.
and
L e v y a n d Murphy
g i v e n m o d e r a t e a m o u n t s of
alcohol
i n the
( 1 9 6 6 ) showed t h a t s u b j e c t s
(.7
ml/kg)
tend t o generalize
v e r b a l a s s o c i a t i o n s t o sound more t h a n t o meaning w h e r e a s
p l a c e b o s u b j e c t s showed a r e v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p .
that alcohol reduces the appropriateness
Indeed,
verbal response.
evidence r e g a r d i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a l c o h o l
and c r e a t i v i t y ,
muddled.
of
This suggests
a s r e f l e c t e d by t h e l i t e r a t u r e ,
i s somewhat
There a r e several r i v a l hypotheses explaining the
a n e c d o t a l l i n k between a l c o h o l and c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g .
J a c k K e r o u a c may h a v e b e e n c r e a t i v e i n s p i t e of
a n d t h e r e may b e a g r e a t e r n u m b e r
of
L i Po and
intoxication,
p e o p l e who s u f f e r a l o s s of
c r e a t i v i t y w h e n d r i n k i n g t h a n who b e n e f i t f r o m a l c o h o l .
e x p e r i m e n t a l t e s t i n g may
Further
delineate the elusive relationship
be tween a l c o h o l a n d c r e a t i v i t y .
Alcohol and S t a t e Dependent Learning
Is i t t h e c a s e t h a t a p e r s o n l e a r n s some t h i n g s when d r u n k
which he can only perform,
or performs
best,
when a g a i n d r u n k ?
T h i s i s t h e m a i n q u e s t i o n a d d r e s s e d i n s t u d i e s of
d e p e n d e n t l e a r n i n g (ASDL).
developing a
The i m p o r t a n c e of
alcohol s t a t e
ASDL r e s e a r c h
in
t h e o r y a b o u t t h e a d a p t i v e o r r e i n f o r c i n g a s p e c t s of
a l c o h o l d r i n k i n g h a b i t s i s s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d and t h e
i m p l i c a t i o n s of
t h i s research have been considered.
( 1 9 7 2 ) s u c c i n c t l y s t a t e s t h a t t h e r e l e v a n c e of
clinical
Overton
s t a t e dependent
l e a r n i n g t o a l c o h o l i s m " a r i s e s f r o m t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of
conditioned reactions t o alcohol,
11
a s d i s t i n c t from i t s
pharmacological e f f e c t s , "
(p.
211-212).
reactions t o alcohol are reinforcing,
t h e n t h e p r o c e s s of
a l c o h o l a d d i c t i o n may a l s o b e r e i n f o r c e d .
advised that i f
c e r t a i n behaviors
such conditioned
I f
Clinicians have
a r e s t a t e dependent,
then the
t h e r a p i s t must i d e n t i f y them and h e l p t h e a d d i c t / c l i e n t g a i n
a c c e s s t o s u c h a r e p e r t o i r e of
(Galanter,
drugs
1976; Reus,
behaviors without recourse t o
Weingartner,
&
S u c h d i s s o c i a t i v e l e a r n i n g may a l s o a c t
therapeutic intervention because alcoholics,
sober,
may n o t g e n e r a l i z e t h e i r
1979).
to obstruct
treated while
therapeutic insights or
c o n t i n g e n c y c o n t r a c t s i n t o t i m e s of
Smart
Post,
intoxication.
Storm and
( 1 9 6 4 ) g o s o f a r a s t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e t r e a t m e n t of
alcoholism might be furthered i f
the client is ,intoxicated
during therapy.
T h e r e a r e s e v e r a l r e p o r t s of
Powell,
Bremer, Hoine & S t e r n ,
1970; Weingartner,
alcoholics
1971).
Adefis,
ASDL i n n o r m a l s
1969; P e t e r s e n ,
E i c h & Murphy,
(Storm and Caird,
1977; T a r t e r ,
1976) and i n
1967; Weingartner and F a i l l a c e ,
These s t u d i e s have t y p i c a l l y used a 2 X 2 design w i t h
s t a t e o n Day
o n Day 2 .
1 (alcohol ingestion or placebo) crossed with s t a t e
The W e i n g a r t n e r s t u d i e s (1971;
four drug state/order
combinations
i n the
1976) examined t h e s e
same s u b j e c t s ,
t h e o t h e r s u s e d a m o r e t r a d i t i o n a l m e t h o d of
of
(Goodwin,
subjects,
one f o r each combination.
whereas
t e s t i n g four groups
The a l c o h o l c o n d i t i o n i n
t h e s e s t u d i e s t y p i c a l l y i n v o l v e s t h e c o n s u m p t i o n of
approximately
m l e t h a n o l l k g body w e i g h t .
1.0
T h i s produces blood
alcohol concentrations averaging approximately
subjects perform novel verbal learning t a s k s
l i s t s of
words,
nonsense s y l l a b l e s ,
1 . On Day 2 ,
a r e t e s t e d o n Day
testing,
Two o f
Tarter,
(e.g.
memorizing
o r word a s s o c i a t i o n s ) a n d
u s u a l l y 2 4 h o u r s a f t e r Day
the subjects a r e tested again.
i s p e r f o r m a n c e o n Day
. l o % . The
1
The dependent v a r i a b l e
2.
t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d s t u d i e s (Goodwin e t a l . ,
1969;
1970) found alcohol s t a t e dependent negative t r a n s f e r .
That i s ,
groups experiencing d i f f e r e n t drug s t a t e s across days
p e r f o r m e d b e t t e r o n Day 2 t a s k s t h a t w e r e s l i g h t l y a l t e r e d f r o m
t h e Day
1 tasks
across days.
r e c a l l of
a
t h a n t h e g r o u p s who w e r e i n t h e
Theoretically,
the
same d r u g s t a t e
same s t a t e s u b j e c t s h a d g r e a t e r
1 t a s k which s e r v e d t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h l e a r n i n g
t h e Day
similar y e t different task.
S t a t e d e p e n d e n t l e a r n i n g i n man h a s a l s o b e e n f o u n d w i t h
marijuana
(Darley, Tinklenberg & Roth,
(Bustamante, Rosello,
barbiturates
Jordan,
(Bus t a m a n t e ,
Pradere & Insus,
Jordan, Villa,
1969). Non-pharmacologically
has a l s o been reported.
1974), amphetamine
1968), and
Gonzolez & I r s u a ,
induced s t a t e dependent learning
R e c a l l of
v e r b a l a s s o c i a t i o n s shows
s t a t e dependence w i t h p a t i e n t s a l t e r n a t i n g between t h e
mania and normalcy
(Weingartner, Miller
& Murphy,
s t a t e s of
1977).
Some e x p e r i m e n t e r s h a v e f a i l e d t o s h o w ASDL b o t h i n n o r m a l s
(Miller,
Adesso,
Fleming,
Gino,
& Lauerman,
1972; P a r k e r ,
Birnbaun & Noble,
(Goodwin,
197 6 ;
Wickelgren,
Leiberman & Viamontes,
Powell, H i l l ,
Goldman, Lisman,
& Taylor,
1972).
n o t a s t r o n g r e f u t a t i o n of
d i r e c t l y t e s t it. Also,
recognition,
1975) and a l c o h o l i c s
The W i c k e l g r e n
Nathan,
(1975) study
h i s d e p e n d e n t measure was word
and r e c o g n i t i o n t a s k s have been r e p e a t e d l y
1974; P a r k e r e t a l . ,
is
t h e ASDL h y p o t h e s i s a s h e d i d n o t
b e i n s e n s i t i v e t o ASDL ( G o o d w i n e t a l . ,
shown t o
1 9 6 9 ; Goodwin e t a l . ,
1976).
These c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s might
d i f f e r e n c e s i n d e g r e e of
Most of
1974;
intoxication
be e x p l a i n e d by i d e n t i f y i n g
(Goodwin,
t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d i e s o n ASDL d i d n o t
subjects f e l t intoxicated.
et.
al.,
1974).
report i f
the
Other possible confounding variables
c o u l d b e g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s i n Day
1 learning (Miller e t al.,
1972) o r s t a t e r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n m o t i v a t i o n t o r e c a l l
accurately
(Parker e t al.,
1976).
Unfortunately
no
single
e x p e r i m e n t a l p r o c e d u r e h a s been r e p l i c a t e d which confounds t h e
t a s k of
a c c o u n t i n g f ' o r t h e s e e q u i v o c a l f i n d i n g s i n ASDL.
The m e t h o d s o f
d a t a a n a l y s i s a l s o pose a problem.
X 2 f a c t o r i a l a n a l y s i s of
variance
(ANOVA),
Using a 2
w i t h s t a t e o n Day
1
c r o s s e d w i t h s t a t e o n Day 2 a n d w i t h Day 2 p e r f o r m a n c e a s t h e
dependent v a r i a b l e
(DV),
a c k n o w l e d g e ASDL o n l y i f
e f f e c t of
s t a t e o n Day
the aforementioned research w i l l
there is a significant
1 a n d s t a t e o n Day 2 .
interaction
T h i s method
can be
confusing a s both sober s t a t e dependent learning and alcohol
s t a t e dependent l e a r n i n g a r e p a r t of
the interaction.
Goodwin e t
al.
(1974),
c i t e d a b o v e a s r e f u t i n g ASDL,
a c t u a l l y show e v i d e n c e
f o r ASDL i n a s m u c h a s t h e Day 2 p e r f o r m a n c e o f
a l c o h o l on both days
a l c o h o l o n Day
(AA) w a s b e t t e r
variable,
group t h a t had
than t h e group t h a t had
1 a n d a p l a c e b o o n Day 2 ( A P ) .
2 d a t a a s t h e dependent
the
Also,
by u s i n g Day
one overlooks t h e p o s s i b l e
c h a n g e s f r o m Day
1. I f
Day 2 s c o r e s ,
i s s t i l l c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t ASDL o c c u r e d i f
it
t h e AA a n d t h e AP g r o u p s h a d i d e n t i c a l
AA g r o u p h a d i m p r o v e d o r r e m a i n e d t h e
AP g r o u p d e c l i n e d i n p e r f o r m a n c e .
1967; T a r t e r ,
1970) had t h e
the
sane across days while the
Two s t u d i e s
(Storm & Caird,
subjects learn the task t o a
c r i t e r i o n o n Day
1. T h i s i s a n i n a d e q u a t e c o n t r o l of
i n f l u e n c e of
1 performance as groups could s t i l l d i f f e r i n
terms of
Day
The p r e s e n t
e x p e r i m e n t employed
data analysis strategies i n addition t o the
standard f o u r group
ANOVA;
overlearning the task.
the
these a r e discussed i n Chapter V.
I n v e s t i g a t i o n s of
r e c a l l and r e c o g n i t i o n ,
( 1 9 6 9 ) who,
ASDL i n man h a v e b e e n l i m i t e d t o v e r b a l
w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of
v i a a negative t r a n s f e r paradigm,
operating i n avoidance t a s k performance.
Goodwin e t .
al.
f o u n d ASDL
Changes i n v e r b a l
memory p r e s e n t a n a t u r a l f o c u s f o r r e s e a r c h
s i n c e t h o s e who
e x p e r i e n c e a l c o h o l i c b l a c k o u t h a v e b e e n known t o r e c a l l t h e
f o r g o t t ' e n word o r image when t h e y
(Goodwin,
1974).
return t o an intoxicated s t a t e
There a r e a l s o methodological advantages t o
u s i n g v e r b a l l e a r n i n g i n t e s t s of
ASDL.
A s t a t e dependent
l e a r n i n g paradigm r e l i e s on providing o r i g i n a l t a s k s s o t h a t the
s u b j e c t ' s p e r f o r m a n c e i s r e l a t i v e l y u n i n f l u e n c e d by p r e v i o u s
learning experiences.
Original verbal learning tasks a r e easy t o
construct and s o p r i o r
learning i s avoided.
l f ASDL i s t o b e u s e f u l i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e p o s s i b l e
r e i n f o r c i n g a s p e c t s of
d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of
intoxication,
it
i s important t o consider
s t i m u l i o r b e h a v i o r s t h a t may
s t a t e dependent manner.
be l e a r n e d i n a
Are movements s t a t e d e p e n d e n t ? Are f i n e
s e n s o r i m o t o r a d j u s t m e n t s s t a t e d e p e n d e n t ? Drug u s e h a s b e e n
commonly a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p r o f e s s i o n a l m u s i c i a n s
(Becker,
could musical improvisation be,
s t a t e dependent?
t o some d e g r e e ,
1963);
Research on a l c o h o l and s e n s o r i m o t o r c o o r d i n a t i o n h a s
f o c u s e d on a l c o h o l ' s main e f f e c t w i t h t h e r e s u l t s showing t h a t
-
m o d e r a t e d o s e s of
alcohol
(1.1
performance,
pursuit
rotor
&
Pless,
e . g.
1971;
Tarter,
Jones,
2.0
nl/kg)
can impair
s k i l l and r e a c t i o n time
Simpson & Vega,
(Side11
1971). However,
t h i s e f f e c t f a i l s t o show u p i n some e a s y s e n s o r i m o t o r t a s k s ,
e.g.
card-sorting
(Lewis,
1973).
T h i s main e f f e c t of
should not discourage s t a t e dependent research
o v e r a l l impairment of
& Noble,
of
memory
(Parker,
Alkana,
alcohol
since alcohol's
Birnbaum,
Har t l e y
1 9 7 4 ) h a s o b v i o u s l y n o t p r e v e n t e d t h e d i s c o v e r y of
ASDL
verbal stimuli.
If
a l c o h o l s t a t e dependent sensorimotor l e a r n i n g can be
demonstrated,
adaptive
n o t o n l y w o u l d t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of
f u n c t i o n s of
more knowledge
of
alcohol be advanced,
what t h e
the possible
but one might g a i n
phenomenological " h i t " ,
or
sensual
pleasure,
is for
t h e d r i n k e r who i s m o r e i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e
p l e a s u r a b l e r a t h e r t h a n t h e t e n s i o n r e d u c i n g a s p e c t s of
use
(Schwarz,
Burkhart
h Green,
competence i n sensorimotor
1978).
skill
i n t h i s t y p e of
ASDL,
(Bandura,
1977).
improved performance.
e x p e c t a n c i e s of
c o u l d b e e n h a n c e d by i n t o x i c a t i o n .
shown t o b e i m p o r t a n t
alcohol linked
( v i a s t a t e dependence) might
r e i n f o r c e d b y m o r e t h a n t h e o u t c o m e of
example,
That is,
alcohol
be
For
self-efficacy
Such e x p e c t a n c i e s have been
i n p r o d u c i n g a n d m a i n t a i n i n g new h a b i t s
111. T h e P r e s e n t E x p e r i m e n t :
Alcohol and C r e a t i v i t y :
Hypotheses and Measures
Hypotheses and Measures
I t was hypothesized
t h a t i n t o x i c a t i o n would i n c r e a s e
c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g a s m e a s u r e d b y n o v e l u s e of
and p e r f o r m a n c e on t h e Remote A s s o c i a t e s T e s t
Mednick,
1 9 6 7 ) . N o v e l u s e of
v a l i d i t y a s a m e a s u r e of
writing that
is original,
f i g u r a t i v e language
(Mednick and
f i g u r a t i v e language has strong face
creativity.
C r e a t i v e w r i t i n g i s simply
imaginative,
yet appropriate.
F i g u r a t i v e l a n g u a g e u s e i s common i n t h e w o r k o f
r e c o g n i z e d a s b e i n g c r e a t i v e ( e . g.
Conrad,
authors
M e l v i l l e , Kesey
,
e t c . ).
F i g u r a t i v e language use was s c o r e d f o l l o w i n g a procedure
adapted from Barlow, K e r l i n ,
c a t e g o r i e s of
(1970).
Fourteen
language use q u a l i f y a s being figurative:
metaphor,
simile,
metonymy,
periphrasis,
litotes,
and P o l l i o
irony,
oxymoron,
pun,
anthimeria,
apostrophe,
onomatopoeia, hyperbole,
and r h e t o r i c a l question.
overlap i n these categories.
o f t e n a c a s e of
personification,
For example,
N o t e t h a t t h e r e i s some
personification is
metaphor.
T h e f r ' e q u e n c y of
tropes
( c a s e s of
f i g u r a t i v e l a n g u a g e ) was
o r g a n i z e d i n t o two main c a t e g o r i e s :
frozen i f
it
i s s o common t h a t
language construction occurred.
h e a d of
Canada,
but
the term
it
frozen and novel.
is unlikely
A trope i s
t h a t any o r i g i n a l
Trudeau i s n o t l i t e r a l l y
'head'
the
i s s o common a n a l l u s i o n t o
l e a d e r s h i p t h a t one would regard t h i s metaphor a s a f r o z e n
trope.
An o r i g i n a l o r n o v e l t r o p e w o u l d b e ,
b u t t o n s of
next
Canada."
"Trudeau pushes t h e
Scoring tropes is discussed further i n the
chapter.
The R e m o t e A s s o c i a t e s T e s t
i s widely used and easy
(RAT;
t o score.
Mednick a n d M e d n i c k ,
I t i s based on a
1967)
unifactorial
approach t o c r e a t i v i t y which d e f i n e s i t a s t h e a c t of
producing
unusual
particular
(non-logically
r e q u i r e m e n t s of
connected) associations t o the
a problem (Mednick,
p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h r e e words
t o produce a
(e.g.
rat,
blue,
c o t t a g e ) and asked
f o u r t h word t h a t i s r e l a t e d t o a l l t h r e e .
answer i n t h i s c a s e i s cheese.
one
The s u b j e c t i s
1962).
T h e RAT w a s d e s i g n e d s o t h a t o n l y
( a n d i n some c a s e s t w o ) a n s w e r s a r e a p p r o p r i a t e .
r e s t r i c t i v e demands,
The
t h e c r i t e r i o n of
By i t s
appropriateness i n
measuring c r e a t i v i t y i s met,
u n l i k e many o t h e r c r e a t i v i t y t e s t s
(e.g.
that could accept
the Torrence measures)
response a s creative.
Mednick a n d Mednick
the bizarre
(1967) r e p o r t t h a t the
RAT i s h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h o u t s i d e c r i t e r i a f o r c r e a t i v i t y ,
e.g.
r a t i n g s of
s u b j e c t s a n d r a t i n g s of
the
subjects'
projects.
S t a t e Dependent Learning:
Hypotheses and Measures
I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t a l c o h o l s t a t e dependent
can occur with sensorimotor behaviors.
The
learning
specific behaviors
were d a r t throwing w i t h t h e nonpreferred hand and m i r r o r
tracing
w i t h t h e p r e f e r r e d hand.
These p a r t i c u l a r measures were s e l e c t e d f o r
reasons:
practice;
the
1) t h e y r e q u i r e c o o r d i n a t e d movements t h a t
2)
it is unlikely that
would f a t i g u e t h e
following
improve w i t h
performance on e i t h e r test
subject during the brief
time i n the l a b ;
3)
both t a s k s involve immediate feedback necessary f o r rapid
learning;
and 4) both t a s k s have a game-like
q u a l i t y t h a t c a n be
expected t o enhance a t t e n t i o n and motivation t o perform well.
A l c o h o l wa's a l s o e x p e c t e d t o i m p a i r p e r f o r m a n c e o n b o t h
measures
(Side11 and P l e s s ,
1971).
IV.
Method
Subjects
Male Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y
students over
who r e g a r d e d t h e m s e l v e s a s c a s u a l d r i n k e r s ,
through classroom announcements.
19 y e a r s o f
age,
were r e c r u i t e d
S u b j e c t s were asked t o
p a r t i c i p a t e i n an experiment investigating
performance and sensorimotor coordination."
"cognitive
They w e r e t o l d t h a t
t h e e x p e r i m e n t w o u l d t a k e t h r e e h o u r s a day o n two d a y s a n d t h a t
they would r e c e i v e
five dollars for participating.
R e s p o n d e n t s w e r e s c r e e n e d t o i n s u r e t h a t t h e y h a d no
m e d i c a l p r o b l e m s which would b e i r r i t a t e d by a l c o h o l ,
e x p e r i e n c e d i n t o x i c a t i o n a t some t i m e ,
disturbed should they
and would n o t be
be asked t o d r i n k an a l c o h o l i c beverage
t h a t m i g h t c o n t a i n a n i n t o x i c a t i n g d o s e of
were t o l d t h a t
had
alcohol.
Subjects
d i f f e r e n t d o s e s were b e i n g t e s t e d s o i t would b e
i m p o s s i b l e t o s a y how much a l c o h o l t h e y w o u l d r e c e i v e .
a g e of
the
s u b j e c t s was 23 y e a r s .
The a v e r a g e amount of
t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d comsuming p e r week was 8 . 7
(with one beer,
o n e g l a s s of
wine,
l i q u o r c o u n t i n g a s one d r i n k ) .
T h e mean
o r o n e o u n c e of
None o f
the
alcohol
drinks
80 p r o o f
s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d any
p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e RAT,
nonpreferred hand,
Of
or
d a r t throwing with the
tracing mirror
image p a t t e r n s .
t h e 2 7 s u b j e c t s who made a p p o i n t m e n t s w i t h t h e
experimenter,
24 s u b j e c t s completed t h e experimental procedure.
Two q u i t f o r r e a s o n s u n r e l a t e d t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t ,
b e c a u s e of
and one q u i t
discomfort with drinking t h e alcohol beverage.
Apparatus
A S m i t h a n d Wesson Model
1000 b r e a t h a l y z e r was u s e d t o
T h e d a r t b o a r d w a s 4 6 cm
determine blood alcohol concentration.
i n diameter.
test,
2.5
P l a c e d on t h e
w a s a w h i t e s h e e t of
cm i n d i a m e t e r ,
s u r f a c e of
paper with a black dot
i n the center.
arranged with an apparatus
the d a r t board,
for every
(bullseye),
The m i r r o r t r a c i n g t a s k was
( L a f a y e t t e Model 31010) t h a t h a d a
m i r r o r on one end and a m e t a l s h i e l d on t h e o t h e r end ( f a c i n g
the
s u b j e c t ) which p r o h i b i t e d any d i r e c t view of
pattern.
The p a t t e r n
t o b e t r a c e d was a
p a r a l l e l t r a c k s 4 mm a p a r t .
s t a r was
1 5 cm.
the tracing
6 p o i n t s t a r o u t l i n e d by
The p o i n t t o p o i n t d i a m e t e r of
the
Procedure
The s u b j e c t s w e r e s c h e d u l e d t o m e e t w i t h t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r
i n the lab,
i n t h e m o r n i n g o r a f t e r n o o n of
convenient time.
Day
1, a t a mutually
T h e Day 2 a p p o i n t m e n t w a s a l w a y s 4 8 h o u r s
o n e h o u r ) a f t e r t h e Day
(+
1 appointment.
S u b j e c t s were asked t o r e f r a i n from e a t i n g f o r a t l e a s t 4
h o u r s b e f o r e coming t o t h e l a b and t o a b s t a i n from a l c o h o l f o r
at least
the previous
18 h o u r s .
The s u b j e c t s w e r e randomly
divided i n t o four groups according t o the beverage
alcohol on both days
Day
(AA),
1 a n d a l c o h o l o n Day 2
p l a c e b o o n Day 2
(AP).
placebo on both days
(PA),
condition:
( P P ) , placebo on
a n d a l c o h o l o n Day
1 and
There were 6 s u b j e c t s i n each group.
The l a b w a s a s m a l l c i n d e r b l o c k o f f i c e w i t h a c u s h i o n e d
chair for the
s u b j e c t and i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c p r i n t s on t h e w a l l .
The f o l l o w i n g s c h e d u l e a p p l i e s t o a l l s u b j e c t s e x c e p t where
noted.
Day
Each s u b j e c t was t e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y .
1
The
s u b j e c t was t h a n k e d f o r v o l u n t e e r i n g a n d was t o l d t h e
p r o c e d u r e s t h a t he was expected t o perform.
d e s c r i p t i o n of
A written
t h e p r o c e d u r e was a l s o h a n d e d t o him.
All
s u b j e c t s signed a consent form i n d i c a t i n g t h a t they understood
the
procedure and t h e i r
r i g h t t o withdraw.
I n a n a d j o i n i n g room,
an 8 oz.
beverage:
d r o p s of
the experimenter prepared the
d r i n k c o n s i s t i n g of
peppermint e x t r a c t ,
and a l c o h o l .
1.1 m l
condition the drink contained
For a
1 6 1 l b man
tonic water,
(mean w e i g h t of
the
of
80 p r o o f
vodka.
( e q u i v a l e n t t o 0.2
I n the placebo
95% e t h a n o l / k g b o d y w e i g h t .
subjects) such a drink
approximately
condition,
2 m l of
o z v o d k a ) r e s t e d o n t h e t o p of
a l l o w f o r a t l e a s t a n i n i t i a l t a s t e of
Twenty m i n u t e s l a t e r t h e
with a non a l c o h o l i c d r i n k ,
i n t h e mouth
breathalyzer.
alcohol,
consumed.
(Spector,
as
s u b j e c t r i n s e d h i s mouth
t o r e d u c e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of
alcohol
1971), and b r e a t h e d i n t o t h e
o u n c e s of
When n e e d e d ,
ethanol
alcohol.
T h e s u b j e c t w a s a s k e d how h e
i n t e r m s of
6.5
the drink t o
A l l s u b j e c t s d r a n k t h e b e v e r a g e w i t h i n 20 m i n u t e s ,
requested.
two
I n the alcohol
would h a v e t h e e q u i v a l e n t a l c o h o l c o n t e n t of
oz
ice,
80 p r o o f
f e l t a n d how much
vodka,
he guessed he had
additional questions probing possible
i n t o x i c a t i o n were asked.
A d o u b l e b l i n d p r o c e d u r e was n o t used a s t h e
contrast i n
a l c o h o l c o n t e n t between t h e two d r i n k s was s o h i g h t h a t i t
a p p e a r e d o b v i o u s t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r when t h e a l c o h o l d r i n k was
consumed.
M o s t s u b j e c t s g i v e n t h e a l c o h o l d r i n k c o m m e n t e d o n how
r e m a r k a b l y s t r o n g i t was.
The s u b j e c t s t h e n b e g a n
n o n p r e f e r r e d hand.
20 p r a c t i c e d a r t t h r o w s w i t h t h e
S u b j e c t s were t o l d t o aim f o r the bullseye.
Each impadt p o i n t of
t h e t h r o w was numbered a s i t l a n d e d on t h e
paper covering the board,
board
b e f o r e t h e next one was thrown.
above t h e
of
2 m.
f l o o r and t h e
T h e b u l l s e y e w a s 1 6 0 cm
subject threw the d a r t s from a d i s t a n c e
No t i m e c o n s t r a i n t w a s p l a c e d o n t h e d a r t t h r o w i n g .
t h e p r a c t i c e was o v e r ,
the
subject threw a
1 test score.
p r o v i d e d t h e Day
r a d i a l d i s t a n c e of
the
and e a c h d a r t was removed f r o m t h e
further
When
10 d a r t s t h a t
The dependent v a r i a b l e was t h e
t h e impact p o i n t of
t h e d a r t f r o m c e n t e r of
bullseye.
For
the mirror
tracing task,
the subject s a t before a
m i r r o r w h i c h d i s p l a y e d a r e v e r s e i m a g e of
the
star pattern.
A
s m a l l metal s h i e l d prevented t h e subject from d i r e c t l y observing
the
The s u b j e c t w a s i n s t r u c t e d t o draw a l i n e
star pattern.
following the
s t a r p a t t e r n as quickly a s p o s s i b l e w h i l e keeping
t h e pen w i t h i n
the
4 mm w i d t h o f
the track outlining the
star.
They w e r e a l s o t o l d t o c o n t i n u e t r a c i n g a n o t h e r l a p a r o u n d t h e
star pattern i f
they
completed a c i r c u i t before t h e time l i m i t .
A f t e r a one minute p r a c t i c e t r i a l ,
and t h e
the
star pattern was replaced
s u b j e c t w a s t e s t e d on a two minute t r i a l .
The dependent
v a r i a b l e was t h e d i s t a n c e (cm) t h e pen l i n e t r a v e l l e d w i t h i n t h e
star pattern.
The s u b j e c t was t h e n p r e s e n t e d w i t h a s u b t e s t of
Associates Test
(RAT). To p r o v i d e two t e s t s ,
was s p l i t i n t o odd a n d e v e n i t e m s .
was c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d f o r a l l g r o u p s .
Form 1 of
T h e o r d e r of
these
t h e Remote
t h e RAT
two t e s t s
The s u b j e c t was g i v e n 20
m i n u t e s t o c o m p l e t e t h i s s h o r t e n e d RAT.
The d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e
i
was t h e
t o t a l number
RAT s c o r i n g k e y
For
of
Day
c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e s a s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e
(Mednick and Mednick,
1967).
s u b j e c t s i n t h e AA o r P P g r o u p s ,
1 testing.
breathalyzer.
lunches
of
t h e RAT m a r k e d t h e e n d
A l l subjects breathed again into the
To f a c i l i t a t e s o b e r i n g u p a n d c o m f o r t ,
free
(meal t i c k e t s f o r the nearby c a f e t e r i a ) were provided
f o r a l l the subjects a f t e r an alcohol condition.
The f r e e l u n c h
was unannounced
d u r i n g t h e r e c r u i t m e n t campaign.
The
d i s t r i b u t i o n of
m e a l t i c k e t s was l i m i t e d b e c a u s e of
c o n s t r a i n t s on t h e experiment.
financial
T h i s d i f f e r e n t i a l t r e a t m e n t of
s u b j e c t s w a s e x p e c t e d t o p r e s e n t a n i n s i g n i f i c a n t s o u r c e of
e r r o r b e c a u s e a r e w a r d of
one $2.50
meal t i c k e t would probably
b e t o o weak t o e l i c i t s i g n i f i c a n t m o t i v a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s
b e t w e e n s u b j e c t s w h e n t h e y a p p e a r o n Day 2 .
Following t h e
commitment e x p r e s s e d o n t h e c o n s e n t f o r m , a l l s u b j e c t s i n any
alcohol condition reaffirmed their
they reached sobriety
intention not t o drive u n t i l
(2 t o 3 hours a f t e r consumption).
Total
e x p e r i m e n t a l t i m e f o r s u b j e c t s i n t h e AA o r P P c o n d i t i o n r a n g e d
between one and one and a h a l f
hours.
S u b j e c t s i n t h e AP a n d PA g r o u p s r e m a i n e d i n t h e l a b t o
carry out the creative writing task.
The c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g t a s k
was g i v e n o n l y t o t h e s e g r o u p s s i n c e a r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s t e s t i n g
of
t h e e f f e c t s of
a l c o h o l on f i g u r a t i v e language u s e was
r e g a r d e d a s a more s e n s i t i v e p r o c e d u r e t h a n a b e t w e e n g r o u p s
design.
Also,
since the
s c o r i n g of
26
t h i s measure r e q u i r e d t h r e e
j u d g e s and a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of
to restrict
t h i s measure t o the
time,
it
seemed a p p r o p r i a t e
groups subjected t o repeated
measures analysis.
On Day
1 each subject
a table with writing paper,
a print
of
Courbet's
f r o m t h e AP a n d PA g r o u p s s a t b e f o r e
a pen,
a cassette tape recorder,
an impressionistic painting.
" M i l l
A s s i g n m e n t of
a c r o s s days and c o n d i t i o n .
i n case the
The p r i n t was e i t h e r
on t h e R i v e r Loue" o r P i s s a r o ' s
C a s t l e a t Ergany".
and
"Church and
p r i n t s was c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d
A cassette tape recorder w a s provided
s u b j e c t p r e f e r r e d t o d i c t a t e some,
or a l l ,
of
his
thoughts.
The s u b j e c t w a s t o l d t h e f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s :
T h i s i s a c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g t a s k . I want you t o w r i t e a s
much c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g a s y o u c a n i n 1 0 m i n u t e s . T h i s c a n
be i n t h e form of p o e t r y , p r o s e , s t r e a m of c o n s c i o u s n e s s
w r i t i n g , o r a n y s t y l e y o u p r e f e r . I am i n t e r e s t e d o n l y
i n creativity. This i s not a personality t e s t nor w i l l
your w r i t i n g be scored f o r a n y t h i n g o t h e r than
c r e a t i v i t y . I f y o u a r e i n t e r e s t e d , I w i l l t e l l y o u how
t h i s i s s c o r e d a f t e r y o u f i n i s h t h e e x p e r i m e n t . I f you
prefer t o d i c t a t e your thoughts, t h i s tape recorder w i l l
r e c o r d a n y t h i n g y o u s a y . T h e p u r p o s e of t h e p i c t u r e ( t h e
p r i n t ) i s t o provide a stimulus f o r writing. Study i t
f o r a f e w m i n u t e s a n d when y o u a r e r e a d y t o s t a r t
w r i t i n g l e t me k n o w a n d I w i l l t u r n o n t h e t a p e r e c o r d e r
and t h e n l e a v e you a l o n e w i t h your w r i t i n g . I f your
w r i t i n g d e p a r t s from t h e context of t h e p i c t u r e , t h a t i s
O K . You d o n o t h a v e t o r e f e r t o t h e p i c t u r e . T h e p u r p o s e
of t h e p i c t u r e i s t o a l l o w a l l s u b j e c t s a t l e a s t some
s t a r t i n g p o i n t s h o u l d t h e y n e e d o n e . Do y o u u n d e r s t a n d ?
When i t w a s c l e a r
t h a t the subject understood
s u b j e c t began s t u d y i n g t h e p i c t u r e .
picture.
the task,
the
All subjects attended t o the
T,he 1 0 m i n u t e w r i t i n g p e r i o d b e g a n a f t e r t h e
subject
d e c l a r e d h e was r e a d y t o w r i t e .
experimenter
insure that
When t h i s p e r i o d
the
r e t u r n e d t o the l a b and p r o o f r e a d t h e w r i t i n g t o
t h e h a n d w r i t i n g was l e g i b l e .
dictated into the recorder
Only one s u b j e c t
( a n d o n l y o n o n e of
c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g data were omitted i n the
of
ended,
the days).
H i s
f i n a l a n a l y s i s because
d i c t a t i o n being confounded w i t h condition.
T h i s m a r k e d t h e e n d of
testing for
t h e AP a n d PA s u b j e c t s .
A l l s u b j e c t s breathed again i n t o the breathalyzer and s u b j e c t s
i n t h e alcohol condition were provided with a meal t i c k e t f o r a
f r e e lunch.
Day 2
Each s u b j e c t w e n t t h r o u g h t h e
a s o n Day
same e x p e r i m e n t a l p r o c e d u r e
1, with the exception that the
s u b j e c t s i n t h e AP a n d
PA g r o u p s r e c e i v e d t h e a l t e r n a t e d r i n k a n d s t u d i e d t h e a l t e r n a t e
print,
a n d a l l s u b j e c t s h a d t h e a l t e r n a t e RAT s u b t e s t .
s u b j e c t s had
t e s t i n g of
5 , i n s t e a d of
20,
practice
Also a l l
t h r o w s b e f o r e Day 2
d a r t throwing accuracy.
When a l l t e s t i n g w a s c o m p l e t e d ,
w h a t t h e y t h o u g h t w a s t h e p u r p o s e of
the
s u b j e c t s were asked
the experiment.
Subjects
were d e b r i e f e d r e g a r d i n g t h e hypotheses and s c o r i n g procedures.
They w e r e p a i d f i v e d o l l a r s e a c h a n d w e r e h e a r t i l y
the experimenter.
receive a
t h a n k e d by
Their addresses were recorded s o they
s u m m a r y of
t h e r e s u l t s of
the experiment.
could
Again,
a l l
s u b j e c t s i n the alcohol condition received a meal t i c k e t .
Data Analysis
The p r e s e n c e of
alcohol s t a t e dependent sensorimotor
l e a r n i n g w a s t e s t e d by c o m p a r i n g t h e p e r c e n t a g e d i f f e r e n c e
between t h e
groups.
not sober,
s t a t e dependent learning.
d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n Day
p o s s i b l e c o n f o u n d of
performance.
Also,
using
1 a n d Day 2 s c o r e s r e d u c e s t h e
1
d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n g r o u p s i n Day
( s e e C h a p t e r 11).
A 2 X 2 a n a l y s i s of
c o v a r i a n c e w i t h s t a t e o n Day
intoxication or placebo-linked
Day
t h e AA a n d AP
T h i s was r e g a r d e d a s a c r u c i a l t e s t a s i t f o c u s e s on t h e
alcohol,
percent
1 a n d Day 2 t e s t s o f
s c o r e s o n t h e Day
2 was p l a n n e d w i t h t e s t
d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e a n d Day
a l l o w s a measure
of
s o b r i e t y ) c r o s s e d w i t h s t a t e on
p e r f o r m a n c e o n Day 2 a s t h e
1 performance a s a covariate.
t h e i n f l u e n c e of performance
a l l o w s f o r a n a n a l y s i s of
1 (alcohol
t h e p r o p o r t i o n of
This
o n Day 1 a n d i t
variance accounted
f o r by t h e a l c o h o l c o n d i t i o n s .
Alcohol's
e f f e c t s o n c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g w e r e t e s t e d by
c o m p a r i n g f r e q u e n c y of
both frozen and novel t r o p e s i n the
a l c o h o l a n d p l a c e b o c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e AP a n d PA g r o u p s .
s c o r e s were determined by t h r e e t r a i n e d judges
procedure
s u g g e s t e d by B a r l o w e t a l . ,
typed t e x t of
the
(1970).
s u b j e c t s ' w r i t i n g and t h e
29
These
following a
Each
judges
judge
read a
were b l i n d t o
t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n of
one word
(e.g.
question).
each d a t a sample.
pun) o r a whole sentence
(e.g.
rhetorical
S e e C h a p t e r I11 f o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f
judges worked t o g e t h e r
A trope could be
tropes.
to score the creative writing.
t r o p e s t h a t were unanimously agreed upon were scored.
for
t h i s group e f f o r t a t scoring,
e t al.
the
s a m p l e of
writing.
they
Using Winer's
reliability
d a t a sample.
s t u d i e d t h e Barlow
of
independently
blind
r a t e d each
the
judges
showed a b e t w e e n
. 8 7 when a n a l y z i n g t o t a l n o v e l t r o p e s p e r
The r e l i a b i l i t y f o r s c o r i n g f r o z e n t r o p e s was . 4 5 .
judges discussed t h e i r differences i n scoring and proposed
resolutions.
problem of
D i s c u s s i o n was most u s e f u l i n t h e o f t e n d i f f i c u l t
identifying a
trope a s being e i t h e r frozen or novel.
Both a between groups t - t e s t
measures t - t e s t
test
To p r e p a r e
(1962) procedure f o r
determining r e l i a b i l i t y s t a t i s t i c s ,
The
Only
(1970) t r a i n i n g manual f o r s c o r i n g t r o p e s and t h e n ,
t o the experimental condition,
rater
judges
The t h r e e
(AA v s P P ) a n d a r e p e a t e d
(A v s P i n t h e AP a n d PA g r o u p s ) w e r e p l a n n e d t o
t h e e f f e c t of
a l c o h o l i n g e s t i o n o n RAT p e r f o r m a n c e .
V.
Results
Estimates
Intoxication and Alcohol Content
A l l subjects i n an alcohol condition
they f e l t i n t o x i c a t e d and they
concentration
(BAC) o f
0.095
o v e r a l l mean BAC of
(SE=0.004).
condition,
Of
the
second.
80 p r o o f
oz
'normal',
a n d none of
these subjects regarded
T h e mean d o s e o f
vodka) t h a t the
6 subjects reported
alcohol
s u b j e c t s judged
i n the alcohol condition and
7 of
the
s u b j e c t s labeled the drink placebo.
t h i s paper
they had
18 s u b j e c t s r e c e i v i n g t h e placebo
( t h e placebo had t h e e q u i v a l e n t of
r e m a i n d e r of
( i n t e r m s of
1.1 o z f o r t h e
g u e s s e d t h a t t h e d r i n k was v i r t u a l l y a l c o h o l f r e e ,
less
The
1 8 s u b j e c t s who e x p e r i e n c e d t h e p l a c e b o
alcohol,
placebo condition.
on t h e
t h e two r e a d i n g s combined was 0.092
themselves a s intoxicated.
r e c e i v e d was 4.2
alcohol
on t h e f i r s t
(SE=0.004)
12 s a i d t h a t they f e l t
s l i g h t e f f e c t s of
ounces of
r e g i s t e r e d a mean b l o o d
(SE=0.006)
b r e a t h a l y z e r r e a d i n g a n d 0.088
(N=18) r e p o r t e d t h a t
0.2
oz.),
Accordingly,
t h e a l c o h o l c o n d i t i o n may
0.5
oz o r
and 3 of
for the
be r e g a r d e d a s
s y n o y m o u s w i t h i n t o x i c a t i o n a n d t h e p l a c e b o c o n d i t i o n may
r e g a r d e d a s , synonymous w i t h s o b e r .
these
be
the Experimental Instruct ions
-
Credib i l itv
The p o s t - e x p e r i m e n t a l
i n t e r v i e w s showed t h a t none of
the
s u b j e c t s d o u b t e d t h a t t h e e x p e r i m e n t was d e s i g n e d t o s t u d y
alcohol,
sensorimotor
suggested that
coordination and c r e a t i v i t y .
One s u b j e c t
alcohol on i n h i b i t i o n s w a s a l s o
the e f f e c t of
being studied.
C r e a t i v i t y Data
Figurative language use
T a b l e 1 p r e s e n t s t h e means and s t a n d a r d e r r o r s
f i g u r a t i v e language
groups
s c o r e s of
the
( N = l l , a s one s u b j e c t ' s
p r o p o r t i o n of
words
of
words,
the
s u b j e c t s i n t h e P A a n d AP
w r i t i n g them).
n u m b e r of
t o sentences,
Table I also
sentences,
a n d p r o p o r t i o n of
t o t o t a l t r o p e s i n t h e two c o n d i t i o n s :
that a l l t-tests
of
d a t a w e r e o m i t t e d b e c a u s e he
d i c t a t e d h i s t h o u g h t s i n s t e a d of
s h o w s t h e mean n u m b e r
(SE)
the
novel tropes
a l c o h o l and placebo.
Note
a r e two-tailed.
The s u b j e c t s w r o t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y more n o v e l t r o p e s w h i l e
i n t o x i c a t e d t h a n when s o b e r
( t = 2.27,
df
= 10,
p
<
.05).
alcohol condition a l s o produced a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher
The
TABLE I .
Mean frequency o f t r o p e s and amount o f w r i t i n g by
t h e s u b j e c t s o f t h e PA and AP groups i n t h e A l c o h o l
(A) and Placebo (P) c o n d i t i o n s (N=I 1)
.
Novel t r o p e s
3.5
(1 . l ) n a n
Frozen t r o p e s
3.2
(0.9)
Total tiopes
6.3
(1 -8)
T o t a l words
Sentences
k
166.0
(6.9)
10.8
(1.3)
Repeated measures t - t e s t o f d i f f e r e n c e i n mean performance
i n t h e A and P c o n d i t i o n s .
* T w o - t a i l e d t - t e s t ; df=lO.
***Values i n parentheses a r e
J;
standard e r r o r s o f t h e mean.
p r o p o r t i o n of
novel tropes t o t o t a l tropes than the placebo
3.0,
df
10, p
<
.02).
No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
condition
(t
i n u s e of
f r o z e n t r o p e s was f o u n d between t h e
= 0.08,
df
=
10, p
=
<
=
assess the possibility
l e n g t h of
( t
=
q u a n t i t y of
of
t o t a l writing.
were i n t o x i c a t e d
S u b j e c t s w r o t e m o r e w o r d s when t h e y
11.3,
df
= 10,
T a b l e I1 s h o w s t h e n u m b e r o f
p r o p o r t i o n of
w r i t i n g were performed t o
c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g b e i n g a f u n c t i o n of
s e n t e n c e s was a l m o s t t h e
t o t a l words w r i t t e n .
p
<
.001).
<
.35).
t r o p e s a s a p r o p o r t i o n of
I n t o x i c a t i o n produced a
novel tropes than the
the
somewhat h i g h e r
sober condition but
( t = 1.01,
this
df
=
10,
No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n c o n d i t i o n s w e r e
f o u n d i n t h e p r o p o r t i o n of
of
The a v e r a g e
same a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s .
d i f f e r e n c e was n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t
p
(t
.90).
P o s t h o c a n a l y s e s of
amount of
two c o n d i t i o n s
frozen tropes,
nor i n the
proportion
t o t a l tropes.
F u r t h e r a n a l y s i s of
creative writing
T a b l e I11 p r e s e n t s t h e
f r e q u e n c y of
d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of
n o v e l a n d f r o z e n t r o p e s u s e d by s u b j e c t s i n t h e a l c o h o l a n d
placebo conditions.
of
the
judges
T h e s e w e r e d e t e r m i n e d b y a n a n a l y s i s by o n e
(the author).
Only 1 0 of
the
1 4 c a t e g o r i e s of
t r o p e s l i s t e d i n s c o r i n g m a n u a l by B a r l o w e t .
applicable.
Metaphor was t h e most
al.
(1970) were
p r o m i n e n t t y p e of
trope i n
TABLE I I .
Mean percentage of tropes per t o t a l words
w r i t t e n by t h e s u b j e c t s i n t h e AP and PA groups
i n t h e Alcohol (A) and Placebo (P) c o n d i t i o n s
(N=ll).
Novel t r o p e s
Frozen tropes
Total tropes
31
Repeated measures t - t e s t o f d i f f e r e n c e i n mean performance i n
t h e A and P c o n d i t i o n s .
*f T w o - t a i l e d
A**
t-test;
df=lO.
Values i n parentheses a r e standard e r r o r s o f t h e mean.
TABLE I I I.
The frequency o f d i f f e r e n t types o f novel and
frozen tropes o c c u r r i n g i n the Alcohol (A) and
P 1acebo (P) cond i t ions o f the AP and PA groups
(N=I 1 ) .
ALCOHOL
Nove 1
Metaphor
Simile
Personification
Hyperbole
Onomatopoeia
L itote
l rony
Apostrophe
Anthimeria
Rhetorical
Quest i o n
PLACEBO
Frozen
Nove 1
Frozen
both conditions.
Further
i n f o r m a l i n s p e c t i o n of
t h e w r i t i n g r e v e a l e d no
a p p a r e n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the i n t o x i c a t e d and s o b e r w r i t i n g
i n t h e number of
things.
lines,
Nor
d i d t h e s e s a m p l e s d i f f e r i n t e r m s of
moral themes,
11 s a m p l e s o f
of
references t o imaginary people,
or personal experiences.
places,
producing story
However,
i n t o x i c a t e d w r i t i n g a n d o n l y 4 of
or
the
1 0 of
the
11 s a m p l e s
sober writing referred t o experiential elements outside the
r e a l m of
s t r i c t l y personal experiences.
a r e e x a m p l e s of
peace..
. , " "we
t i n g e of
such non-personal
s e e a l a y e r i n g of
The f o l l o w i n g e x t r a c t s
experiences:
"one c a n f e e l a t
mountains," and "he sensed a
guilt."
Remote A s s o c i a t e s T e s t
Contrary
t o the Mednicks'
reliability
( r = .86
reliability
of
t o .92)
(1967) c l a i m of
w i t h t h e RAT,
t h e RAT s c o r e s f o r
the
(AA a n d P P ) w a s l o w ( r = . 2 4 ) .
RAT s c o r e s o f
a l l s u b j e c t s shows t h a t
items
(mean
a n a l y s i s of
=
5.4).
s c o r e s (mean
=
Accordingly,
the
t h e odd-even
subjects i n the
on b o t h t e s t s
produced f a r higher
h i g h odd-even
same s t a t e
E x a m i n a t i o n of
the
t h e odd n u m b e r e d i t e m s
7.3)
t h a n t h e even numbered
proposed repeated measures
RAT s c o r e s a c r o s s s t a t e c o n d i t i o n s w a s n o t p u r s u e d
a s i t r e l i e s on c o m p a r i s o n s between odd and e v e n i t e m s c o r e s .
The b e t w e e n g r o u p s a n a l y s i s of
d a y s s h o w s t h e PP g r o u p (N
non-significantly
higher
10.3,
=
SE
=
2.3;
t
6,
=
t o t a l RAT s c o r e s o n b o t h
mean = 1 3 . 2 ,
SE = 1 . 9 )
having
s c o r e s t h a n t h e AA g r o u p ( N = 6 ,
1.06,
p
<
mean =
.35).
Sensorimotor Performance
Dart throwing accuracy
Table I V
s h o w s t h e mean d i s t a n c e f r o m t h e b u l l s e y e
(cm) f o r
the d a r t s thrown on both experimental days i n a l l groups.
t h a t the lower
the score,
A n a l y s i s of
Note
t h e more a c c u r a t e t h e throw.
t h e p e r c e n t a g e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n Day
1 a n d Day
2 t r i a l s c o r e s s h o w s t h e AA g r o u p a v e r a g i n g a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t l y
g r e a t e r d e c l i n e of
p e r f o r m a n c e a c r o s s d a y s t h a n t h e AP g r o u p ( t
= 1.46,
<
df
= 10,
p
.20).
overall non-significant
T h e PP a n d PA g r o u p s a l s o s h o w e d a n
d e c l i n e of
A 2 X 2 a n a l y s i s of
covariance
performance across days.
( s t a t e o n Day 1 X s t a t e o n
Day 2 ) w a s p e r f o r m e d o n t h e Day 2 s c o r e s w i t h t h e Day
acting a s a covariate.
1/20,
Day
p
<
p
<
.58).
.19).
6.55,
p
<
Day
.,02,
No i n t e r a c t i o n w a s f o u n d ( F = 0 . 3 1 ,
N e i t h e r w e r e t h e r e a n y m a i n e f f e c t s of
1 ( F = 1.09,
df
=
1 scores
1/20,
p .36)
o r Day 2 ( F = 1 . 8 8 ,
df
=
s t a t e on
df
=
1/20,
1 p e r f o r m a n c e was a s i g n i f i c a n t c o v a r i a t e (F =
df
=
1/20).
T h e p r o p o r t i o n of
variance accounted
TABLE I V .
Mean d a r t throwing inaccuracy ( d i s t a n c e o f impact
p o i n t from t h e c e n t e r o f t h e b u l lseye, cm) d u r i n g
t h e p r a c t i c e ( ~ r ) ,Day 1, and Day 2 . Mean d i f f e r e n c e
between t h e Day 1 and Day 2 scores (d) and t h e mean
percentage o f t h e Day 1 score t h a t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e
represents (%d) a r e a l s o presented f o r t h e f o u r
experimental groups (N=6 i n each group).
Day 1
,,
Day 2
AA
7.1
(0.8)
AP
8.4'
(0.7)
8.8
(1.4)
PP
6.6
(0.6)
6.8
(0.7)
PA
8.1
(1.5)
9.4
(1.8)
8.9
(0.9)
-1.
7:
''(Day 1 - Day 2) / Day 1
;
:
Values i n parentheses a r e standard e r r o r s o f t h e mean.
f o r b y t h e c o m b i n e d Day 1 a n d Day 2 m a i n e f f e c t s w a s 1 2 X .
b e t w e e n g r o u p s a n a l y s i s of
s h o w e d no e f f e c t o f
p <.65,
Day
1 performance
A
(A vs P) a l s o
alcohol on d a r t throwing accuracy
( t = 0.5,
df = 2 2 ) .
C o m p a r i s o n s of
v s t h e Day
1 trial
t h e f i r s t t e n p r a c t i c e d a r t t h r o w s o n Day
1
( t e n t h r o w s ) shows s i g n i f i c a n t s i g n s of
l e a r n i n g i n t h e AA g r o u p ( t
PA g r o u p ( t = 3 . 9 3 ,
<
p
=
.05,
3.98,
df
showed n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t
s i g n s of
t h i s a n a l y s i s (AP:
2.1,
t
=
p
<
=
p
5).
<
.05,
df
=5 ) and i n t h e
T h e AP a n d t h e P P g r o u p s
l e a r n i n g o n Day 1 a c c o r d i n g t o
.10;
PP:
t
= 1.6,
<
p
.20).
Mirror tracing
The mean s c o r e s o n t h e m i r r o r t r a c i n g t a s k a r e p r e s e n t e d i n
Table V.
Day
An a n a l y s i s o f
t h e percent change i n performance
1 t o Day 2 s h o w s t h a t ,
s u b j e c t s improved t h e i r
contrary to prediction,
=
( t = .71,
c o v a r i a n c e ( s t a t e o n Day
<
.50,
1 X s t a t e on
1 t r i a l scores
Day 2 ) w a s p e r f o r m e d o n t h e Day 2 s c o r e s w i t h Day
acting a s a covariate.
.54,
p
10).
A 2 X 2 a n a l y s i s of
1/20,
t h e AP
s c o r e s more t h a n t h o s e i n t h e AA g r o u p ,
although t h i s difference w a s not significant
df
from
p
<
.96).
No i n t e r a c t i o n w a s f o u n d ( F = . 0 0 2 ,
N e i t h e r d i d t h e s t a t e o n Day
df = 1 / 2 0 ) o r t h e s t a t e o n Day 2 ( F
=
1 (F
1.03,
.37,
=
p
<
.32,
1 / 2 0 ) s h o w a n y s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s o n Day 2 p e r f o r m a n c e .
p
df
=
<
df
=
Day 1
Mean l e n g t h o f m i r r o r t r a c i n g (cm) ' d u r i n g t h e
Mean d i f f e r e n c e
p r a c t i c e ( P r ) , Day I, and Day 2.
between Day 1 and Day 2 scores (d) and t h e mean
percentage o f t h e Day 1 score t h a t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e
represents (%d) a r e a l s o presented f o r t h e f o u r
experimental groups ( ~ = 6i n each group).
TABLE V.
J.
Pr
J.
''(Day 2
,.,. The
-1.
-
Day 1
Day 2
d
%d"
Day 1 ) / Day 1
L
.
p r a c t i c e scores were m u l t i p l i e d by two as they were
d e r i v e d from a one-minute t r i a l whereas t h e Day 1 and
Day 2 t r i a l s took two minutes.
,.,. Values
.L L
.
d.
-9.
i n parentheses a r e standard e r r o r s o f the mean.
performance was a s i g n i f i c a n t c o v a r i a t e
=
1/20).
The p r o p o r t i o n of
(F
To t e s t
i f
p <.70,
df
p
the
1 t e s t s c o r e ( a two minute t r i a l ) .
t h e PP g r o u p s h o w e d s i g n i f i c a n t i m p r o v e m e n t
t = 2.06,
1 state
= 22).
g r o u p s i m p r o v e d t h e i r p e r f o r m a n c e o n t h e Day
AP:
df
( a one minute t r i a l ) was doubled and
c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e Day
.40;
.001,
a l c o h o l on mirror
learning occured with mirror tracing,
practice t r i a l score
<
A b e t w e e n g r o u p s a n a l y s i s of
Day 1 p e r f o r m a n c e a l s o showed n o e f f e c t of
( t = 0.47,
p
v a r i a n c e a c c o u n t e d f o r b y Day
a n d Day 2 s t a t e c o m b i n e d w a s 1 1 X .
tracing
38.89,
=
<
.lo;
PP:
t = 4.27,
p
1 trial,
(AA:
<
t
.01;
A l l
but only
=1.28,
PA:
t
p
=
<
1.33,
VI. D i s c u s s i o n
The e x p e r i m e n t s u p p o r t s t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e a c t o f
consuming a n i n t o x i c a t i n g d o s e of
e x p r e s s i o n of
creativity.
c o n v e n t i o n a l wisdom,
Also,
a l c o h o l f a c i l i t a t e s some
the
results agree with the
and previous research
t h a t holds alcohol t o be a
f a c i l i t a t o r of
( e . g.
Nash,
verbal fluency.
e x p e r i m e n t a f f o r d s n o e v i d e n c e f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e of
s t a t e dependent sensorimotor learning.
1962),
The
alcohol
These i s s u e s w i l l be
discussed separately.
Alcohol and C r e a t i v i t y
S u b j e c t s p r o d u c e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more n o v e l t r o p e s a n d w r o t e
s i g n i f i c a n t l y more w o r d s when t h e y w e r e i n t o x i c a t e d t h a n when
they were sober.
The d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e i n c r e a s e d o u t p u t of
n o v e l t r o p e s i s i n d e p e n d e n t of
uncertain.
g r e a t e r v e r b a l o u t p u t must remain
S u b j e c t s p r o d u c e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more n o v e l t r o p e s t o
t o t a l tropes i n the alcohol condition,
p r o p o r t i o n of
but
the
greater
n o v e l t r o p e s t o t o t a l words was n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y
significant.
The a l c o h o l r e l a t e d i n c r e a s e s i n n o v e l t r o p e u s a g e i s
e s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g i n l i g h t of
the
fact that frozen trope
u s a g e w a s l i t t l e a f f e c t e d by a l c o h o l .
That is,
u s e c o n v e n t i o n a l metaphors and s i m i l e s ,
not appear
t o increase under
It i s possible that
the propensity
unlike novel ones,
t h e i n f l u e n c e of
t h i s alcohol-linked
to
did
alcohol.
increase i n novel
f i g u r a t i v e l a n g u a g e u s e w a s m e d i a t e d by i n c r e a s e d e m o t i o n i n t h e
subjects.
Non-alcoholics
g e n e r a l l y a n t i c i p a t e , and a t t a i n ,
e l e v a t e d moods a s a r e s u l t
of
drinking alcohol
b e i n g e x p o s e d t o r e l e v a n t c u e s of
& Cappell,
1974).
(Freed,
1978) and
the drinking situation
Emotional experience,
(Pliner
pleasant and unpleasant,
h a s b e e n shown t o g e n e r a t e more i m a g e r y t h a n n o n - e m o t i o n a l
e x p e r i e n c e (Lyman,
Bernardin,
& Thomas,
e m o t i o n a n d mood i n t h e p r e s e n t
measures of
1980).
s t u d y i s a moot
T h e e f f e c t s of
p o i n t s i n c e no
emotion were taken.
Contrary
t o the
creativity hypothesis,
s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t o n RAT p e r f o r m a n c e .
a l c o h o l h a d no
T h e RAT i s much m o r e
r e s t r i c t i v e t h a n a n open ended c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g t a s k and t h i s
may a c c o u n t f o r t h e l a c k of
agreement between t h e s e two
measures.
Hajcak
(1976) found t h a t a l c o h o l produced more o r i g i n a l
verbal responses
( a s m e a s u r e d by t h e K e n t - R o s a n o f f
Association Test),
alcohol
( 9 oz.
of
however he a l s o f o u n d t h a t a h i g h d o s e of
80 p r o o f
i m p a i r e d RAT p e r f o r m a n c e .
r e s u l t s of
Word
whiskey
or more) s i g n i f i c a n t l y
I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o c o m p a r e t h e RAT
the present experiment with Hajcak's
s u b j e c t s d r a n k more a l c o h o l ,
because h i s
were i n an ad l i b drinking
44
situation,
a n d p e r f o r m e d a RAT t e s t
t w i c e t h e l e n g t h of
the ones
used i n the present study.
The a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of
the alcohol condition,
the
creative writing,
might be q u e s t i o n e d .
n o v e l t r o p e s s t a n d i n t e r m s of
That is,
how d i d t h e
g o o d o r b a d w r i t i n g ? No s u c h
a n a l y s e s w e r e c o n d u c t e d s i n c e a m e a s u r e of
p o s e s more m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s t h a n t h e
research could address.
especially in
"good c r e a t i v i t y "
s c o p e of
this
F u t u r e r e s e a r c h e r s may w a n t t o e x p l o r e
t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y a n d d e v e l o p a way t o j u d g e
qualities i n creative writing.
The j u d g e s w o r k i n g o n t h e
measurement were c e r t a i n t h a t a l c o h o l ,
f a i l e d t o p r o d u c e a n y s i g n s of
the aesthetic
trope
i n the present sample,
a Hemingway
o r a Wolfe.
Alcohol and V e r b a l Fluency
No p r e d i c t i o n w a s m a d e r e g a r d i n g t h e e f f e c t o f
amount of
alcohol
t o t a l writing.
Although Nash
increases talkativeness,
t h e p l a n n i n g of
a l c o h o l on
(1962) showed t h a t
there were suspicions during
the present experiment t h a t t h i s alcohol e f f e c t
may n o t g e n e r a l i z e t o w r i t i n g .
O n e r e a s o n why
the tape recorder
was p r o v i d e d d u r i n g t h e c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g t a s k was t o a l l o w t h e
s u b j e c t t o speak h i s t h o u g h t s i n c a s e t h e a l c o h o l weakened h i s
energy or s k i l l t o write.
effect
(p
<
.001)
of
Yet a l c o h o l showed a remarkably s t r o n g
i n c r e a s i n g t h e amount of
This e f f e c t might be a
f u n c t i o n of
t o t a l writing.
possible pharmacological
e f f e c t s of
alcohol
f u n c t i o n of
the
(e.g.
d i s i n h i b i t i o n ) o r i t might
subject's
expectancy.
be a
Future r e s e a r c h might
explore the mediating processes that operate i n alcohol's
p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on v e r b a l fluency.
The P o s s i b l e E f f e c t s of
Expectancy
The a l c o h o l i c b e v e r a g e was e f f e c t i v e i n p r o d u c i n g b o t h
s u b j e c t i v e a n d o b j e c t i v e ( b l o o d a l c o h o l l e v e l ) s i g n s of
intoxication.
The p l a c e b o c o n d i t i o n f a i l e d t o p r o d u c e t h e b e l i e f
t h a t an alcoholic beverage,
consumed.
Accordingly,
of
1.5
oz vodka o r more,
n o n e of
the
s u b j e c t s who e x p e r i e n c e d t h e
p l a c e b o . r e p o r t e d a n y s i g n s of
intoxication.
had been
The f a i l u r e h e r e of
a t o n i c a n d i c e p l a c e b o t o p r o d u c e a n e f f e c t i v e i l l u s i o n of
1.5
c o n t a i n i n g more t h a n
o z of
i t s s u c c e s s e l s e w h e r e (e.g.
vodka i s i n t e r e s t i n g i n l i g h t of
Marlatt e t al.,
1973).
W i l s o n a n d Lawson ( 1 9 7 6 ) u s e d a p l a c e b o r e c i p e s i m i l a r t o
t h e one used i n t h e p r e s e n t study
(their placebo did not include
peppermint) and t h e i r
s u b j e c t s judged
a n a v e r a g e of
liquor.
3.68
oz
i t s alcohol content t o be
D i f f e r e n c e s i n method of
p r e p a r a t i o n may a c c o u n t f o r t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f
They p r e p a r e d t h e d r i n k i n f r o n t of
d i s p l a y of
bottles;
the
maintained a s c e n t of
feedback.
the
styrofoam cup,
t h e i r placebo.
subject with a credible
i n which i t was s e r v e d ,
a l c o h o l ; a n d t h e y p r e s e n t e d f a l s e BAC
A l l t h e s e p r o c e d u r e s p r o d u c e d a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d and
e f f e c t i v e placebo deception.
Also,
t h e demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
could have enhanced t h e placebo e f f e c t .
The e x p e r i m e n t e r
i n the
p r e s e n t s t u d y was i n t r o d u c e d a s a g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t and t h e l a b
s e t t i n g p r o b a b l y c o n v e y e d m o r e of
a
"low r e n t " a p p e a r a n c e t h a n
t h e more p r o f e s s i o n a l and m e d i c a l l y s t a f f e d a l c o h o l l a b of
the
W i l s o n a n d Lawson e x p e r i m e n t .
S i n c e t h e p l a c e b o c o n d i t i o n d i d n o t g e n e r a t e t h e same
intoxication expectancies a s the alcohol condition,
it
is
conceivable t h a t the alcohol related increases i n creative
w r i t i n g were,
a t least
in part,
a f u n c t i o n of
expectancy.
Several s t u d i e s employing a 2 X 2 design,
of
receiving alcohol or
tonic,
tonic crossed with receiving alcohol or
show t h a t e x p e c t a n c y i s a
d e t e r m i n i n g t h e amount of
situation (Marlatt e t al.,
Adesso & M a r l a t t ,
1976).
the
significant variable i n
a l c o h o l consumed i n a n a d l i b d r i n k i n g
1973), aggression
(Lang,
Goeckner,
1 9 7 5 ) , and s e x u a l a r o u s a l ( W i l s o n & Lawson,
I n the l a s t
sexual arousal,
with expectancy
study.,
the expectancy r e l a t e d increases i n
a s measured p h y s i o l o g i c a l l y ,
s u b j e c t consumed a l c o h o l o r n o t .
occurred whether
This i s especially
i n t e r e s t i n g s i n c e a l c o h o l h a s b e e n s h o w n i n some c a s e s t o
d e c r e a s e p h y s i c a l s i g n s of
Lawson & Abrams,
sexual arousal i n alcoholics
1978) and nonalcoholics
(Wilson,
(Briddell & Wilson,
1976).
The c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g t a s k was s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d .
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were e x p l i c i t i n a l l conditions:
the
The demand
experimenter
i s i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a l c o h o l
and c r e a t i v i t y .
T h i s was d e l i b e r a t e s i n c e a n y d e c e p t i o n a b o u t
t h e w r i t i n g t a s k might have produced v a r i o u s r e a c t i o n s
would b i a s t h e measure a n d / o r
inhibit creativity.
A l t h o u g h t h e demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of
t a s k were constant and c l e a r ,
that
t h e r e may
the creative writing
be d i f f e r e n c e s i n
expectancies developed i n the alcohol and placebo conditions.
the
If
s u b j e c t s s h a r e d t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l wisdom t h a t a l c o h o l
facilitates creativity,
when i n t o x i c a t e d ,
i s conceivable that the subjects,
e x p e c t e d t o b e more c r e a t i v e a n d t h e r e f o r e
became more c r e a t i v e .
generate
it
f e e l i n g s of
The p l a c e b o c o n d i t i o n , h a v i n g f a i l e d t o
intoxication,
w o u l d h a v e t h e n s t i m u l a t e d no
such e x p e c t a n c y and t h u s no such e f f e c t .
s u b j e c t s were n o t asked what t h e i r
Unfortunately the
b e l i e f s were regarding the
r e l a t i o n s h i p between a l c o h o l and c r e a t i v i t y .
This simple
p r o c e d u r e w o u l d h a v e a l l o w e d f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s of
the expectancy
issue.
Alcohol S t a t e Dependent Learning
The p r e s e n t s t u d y p r o v i d e s n o e v i d e n c e of
dependent sensorimotor learning.
alcohol s t a t e
N e i t h e r were t h e r e any t r e n d s
i n the data t h a t even suggest such an e f f e c t .
There a r e several
r e a s o n s why ASDL d i d n o t o c c u r i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y :
1
learning a c t u a l l y took place,
1) l i t t l e
2 ) t h e p o s s i b l e i n f l u e n c e of
previously
learned behaviors
similar t o the
s k i l l s being t e s t e d ,
a n d 3 ) t h e r e may h a v e b e e n a n a b u n d a n c e o n Day 2 o f
cues,
1 , t h a t a l l o w e d e a s y r e t r i e v a l of
a s s o c i a t e d o n Day
sensorimotor
'memory
'.
situational
These problems w i l l be d i s c u s s e d
separately.
I t i s c r u c i a l f o r any t e s t
o c c u r r e d o n Day
of
ASDL t o s h o w t h a t l e a r n i n g
1 . T h e AP a n d A A g r o u p s ,
t h e most
important
groups f o r
t e s t i n g ASDL,
f a i l e d t o show s i g n i f i c a n t l e a r n i n g o n
the mirror
tracing task.
A l t h o u g h t h e AA g r o u p showed
s i g n i f i c a n t l e a r n i n g of
AP g r o u p s h o w e d n e a r
d a r t t h r o w i n g a c c u r a c y o n Day
s i g n i f i c a n t l e a r n i n g on t h i s t a s k ,
day d a t a p a t t e r n p r e s e n t s a n o t h e r p i c t u r e .
Day
1 and t h e
the
A c o m p a r i s o n of
two
the
1 a n d Day 2 s c o r e s s h o w s a n o v e r a l l d e c l i n e i n d a r t t h r o w i n g
accuracy i n the
same s t a t e g r o u p s
(AA a n d P P ) .
o c c u r r e d o n Day
1 w a s n o t i n e v i d e n c e o n Day 2 .
Whatever
learning
A n o t h e r p r o b l e m w i t h t e s t i n g f o r ASDL i s t h a t o n e h a s t o b e
c e r t a i n t h a t t h e i n i t i a l l e a r n i n g of
o c c u r s d u r i n g t h e Day
1 trial.
were novel a c t i v i t i e s ,
they
the
s p e c i f i c behavior
Even though t h e two b e h a v i o r s
could have been similar
sensorimotor s k i l l s familiar to the
subject.
to other
T h e s u b j e c t s may
a l s o have experimented w i t h the nonpreferred hand i n o t h e r
tasks.
I n particular,
the
mirror
i m a g e a r e common i n s e l f - g r o o m i n g
r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s (e.g.
s k i l l of
making movements g u i d e d by a
and other mirror
reversing a car using a
m i r r o r ). T h i s u n d e r l i n e s t h e a d v a n t a g e of
r e a r view
testing for alcohol
i s easy
s t a t e dependent learning with verbal learning s i n c e it
t o g e n e r e a t e n o n s e n s e s y l l a b l e s o r u n i q u e word c o m b i n a t i o n s t h a t
would a v o i d t h e p r o b l e m of
Also,
t h e a c t of
of
a
of
body movement.
previous
learning.
throwing a d a r t o r
tracing a mirror
image
p a t t e r n c a n b e i n t e g r a t e d i n t o memory a s a g e n e r a l g e s t a l t
movement
(e.g.
Once t h e
t h e t r i c k of
i m a g e ) t h i s m o v e m e n t may
subject adopts a particular
following a
h a b i t of
pattern through a mirror
become r e s i l i e n t t o s t a t e c h a n g e s .
I t h a s b e e n shown t h a t a l c o h o l s t a t e d e p e n d e n t v e r b a l
subject i s presented
l e a r n i n g can be reduced i f ,
o n Day 2 ,
the
w i t h c u e s t o r e c a l l t h e Day
1 stimuli
(Petersen,
t h e n t h i s f a c t o r may h a v e o p e r a t e d i n t h e
present
1977).
If
study t o
r e d u c e ASDL a s e v e r y c o n t e x t u a l e v e n t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Day
p e r f o r m a n c e w a s r e p e a t e d o n Day 2 .
may
consider employing a
skill a s that
F u t u r e i n v e s t i g a t o r s of
different task than the
1 y e t which c a l l s f o r t h e
specific
l e a r n e d o n Day 1.
d r u g s must b e
u s e d t o i n s u r e t h a t l e a r n i n g becomes s t a t e d e p e n d e n t .
t h i s accounts for
the present study's
the dose used
(1.1
m l
95% e t h a n o l l k g b o d y w e i g h t ) i s
(e.g.
Goodwin e t a l . ,
1969) and h i g h e r d o s e s pose obvious e t h i c a l problems.
be d i f f i c u l t
Perhaps
f a i l u r e t o f i n d ASDL.
common i n h u m a n s t a t e d e p e n d e n t r e s e a r c h
may
ASDL
same s e n s o r i m o t o r
O v e r t o n ( 1 9 7 4 ) a d v i s e s t h a t h i g h d o s e s of
However
1
similar experimental procedure but with
Day 2 p e r f o r m a n c e i n v o l v i n g a
o n e u s e d o n Day
so,
Also,
t o a d m i n i s t e r a dose s t r o n g enough t o cause
it
s t a t e d e p e n d e n t l e a r n i n g y e t weak
impairment of
the
subject's
dependent l e a r n i n g must
a b i l i t i e s on which any s u c h s t a t e
rely.
It i s interesting t o note
effect on the
e i t h e r day.
enough t o a v o i d g r o s s
p e r f o r m a n c e of
t h a t a l c o h o l h a d no s i g n i f i c a n t
e i t h e r sensorimotor measure on
T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e t a s k s were q u i t e easy
(Lewis,
1973).
Implications for t h e F u n c t i o n a l Approach
As d i s c u s s e d a b o v e ,
the
s e n s o r i m o t o r d a t a l e n d no s u p p o r t
t o the notion t h a t alcohol f a c i l i t a t e s sensorimotor performance,
nor does i t support the
hand,
s t a t e dependent hypothesis.
On t h e o t h e r
alcohol did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t e r f e r e w i t h performance.
Accordingly,
t h e d a t a o n s e n s o r i m o t o r p e r f o r m a n c e become
r e l a t i v e l y unimportant
in discussing the
alcohol use and alcoholism.
applicable to such a
functional approach t o
The c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g d a t a a r e more
discussion.
A s discussed i n Chapter
I , an overriding i n t e r e s t behind
t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y w a s t h e v i e w t h a t a l c o h o l d r i n k i n g h a b i t s may
arise,
or be perpetuated by,
t h e i r adaptive consequences.
Intimately entwined with t h i s idea i s the a s s e r t i o n t h a t alcohol
use can be considered on a continuum from harmless t o
deleterious,
a n d t h a t many o f
t h e r e i n f o r c i n g a s p e c t s of
d r i n k i n g can o p e r a t e a t any p o i n t o n such a continuum.
This
general t h e o r e t i c a l outlook i s gaining acceptance and i t has
b e e n n e a t l y s u m m a r i z e d by P a t t i s o n ,
If
t h e a c t of
expectancy,
Sobell,
consuming a l c o h o l ,
either directly
p r o p e r t i e s of
alcohol.
h i s drinking habit.
many o f
the
of
or
through
might
,
the reinforcing
A d r i n k e r , whose b e h a v i o r
i n f l u e n c e d by t h i s r e i n f o r c e m e n t ,
c a s e of
(1977).
causes i n c r e a s e s i n v e r b a l c r e a t i v i t y and f l u e n c y
t h e n we h a v e a d v a n c e d o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g
a s p e c t s of
and Sobell
is being
ignore the dysfunctional
T h i s may h a v e o p e r a t e d i n t h e
famous a l c o h o l i c w r i t e r s .
That alcohol has
b e e n shown t o i n c r e a s e c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g l e n d s more c r e d e n c e t o
t h i s t y p e of
argument.
t a k e n by a l c o h o l i c s ,
present study
However
t h i s may
a n d i n d e e d n o n e of
( a l l were non-alcoholics)
also be a r a r e course
the
sub-jects i n the
appeared t o have
p a s s i o n a t e l y e m b r a c e d t h e c r e a t i v e e f f e c t s of
Treatment of
the individual's
a l c o h o l i s m t h a t f o c u s e s on t h e p a r t i c u l a r s
(Sobell & Sobell,
therapy for alcoholics
e n t a i l s t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of
1978).
(IBTA;
Individualized
Sobell & Sobell,
drinking.
The t h e r a p e u t i c
goal i s to identify alternative responses t o drinking.
d e s i r e for c r e a t i v i t y and/or
c o n s i d e r e d a s t h e r a p e u t i c p o i n t s of
approach.
1978)
s p e c i f i c circumstances t h a t have
resulted i n increased or deleterious
drinker's
of
d r i n k i n g h a b i t s h a s b e e n shown t o b e a n
effective strategy
behavior
alcohol.
A
v e r b a l f l u e n c y might be
departure i n such an
the creative writing results is
The g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of
limited.
Only one d o s e of
may e x p l o r e a b r o a d e r
research on the
a l c o h o l was used.
r a n g e of
psychological
Future researchers
alcohol doses.
e f f e c t s of
experimental setting i s radically
As w i t h m o s t
alcohol,
d i f f e r e n t from normal drinking
environments thereby u n d e r l i n i n g t h e problem of
r)
validity.
However,
external
i n the present experiment such a c r i t i c i s m
m i g h t b e c o u n t e r e d by t h e c l a i m t h a t i f
a l c o h o l can i n c r e a s e someone's
cinderblock university
the
the
t h e a c t of
creative output
consuming
i n a windowless,
laboratory then it should be a b l e t o do
same i n a more n a t u r a l a n d h o s p i t a b l e s e t t i n g .
s e t t i n g would b e e x p e c t e d t o p r o v i d e more s t i m u l i
A natural
for creative
t h o u g h t a n d a m o r e r e c e p t i v e e n v i r o n m e n t f o r t h e e x p r e s s i o n of
it.
D r u g i n d u c e d s t a t e s of
consciousness have been i d e n t i f i e d
with q u a l i t a t i v e l y unique experiences,
e . g.
mysticism (Durr,
1970; James,
1977).
determine i f
the increase i n novel f i g u r a t i v e language use i s
trivial,
or i f
it
i s i n d i c a t i v e of a c o m p l e x s t a t e of
or poetic potential.
of
Further research on alcohol e f f e c t s might
creative
I s a l c o h o l l i n k e d c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g a matter
d i s i n h i b i t i o n o r i s i t o r i g i n a l s y n t h e s i s of
thought?
References
A n o n y m o u s . A l c o h o l i c s A n o n y m o u s Comes of Age.
and B r o t h e r s , 1957.
New Y o r k :
Arieti,
1976.
Harper
-
A&.4c~7"*3-,
-
S.
Creativity:
New Y o r k :
B a s i c Books,
B a n d u r a , A. S e l f - e f f i c a c y : T o w a r d a u n i f y i n g t h e o r y o f
8 4 , 191-215.
P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1977, -
change.
Barlow, J . M . ,
Kerlin, J.R.
& P o l l i o , H.R.
T r a i n i n g manual f o r
i d e n t i f y i n g f i g u r a t i v e l a n g u a g e ( T e c h . Rep. Number 1 ) .
K n o x v i l l e , T e n n e s s e e : U n i v e r s i t y of T e n n e s s e e , M e t a p h o r
R e s e a r c h G r o u p , November 1970.
Steps to an ecology of mind.
Bateson, G.
1975.
B e c k e r , H.S.
Outsiders.
London:
New Y o r k :
Ballantine,
F r e e P r e s s of G l e n c o e ,
1963.
B e e c h e r , H.K.
T h e p o w e r f u l p l a c e b o . J o u r n a l of t h e A m e r i c a n
M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1 9 5 5 , 159, 1 6 0 2 - 1 6 0 6 . B i r c h , C. A n t h o l o g y of C h i n e s e L i t e r a t u r e .
P r e s s , 1965.
New Y o r k : G r o v e
B r i d d e l l , D . W . & W i l s o n , G . T. T h e e f f e c t s o f a l c o h o l a n d
of A b n o r m a l
expectancy on male s e x u a l a r o u s a l . J o u r n a l Psychology, 1976, 8 5 , 225-234.
& Insua,
B u s t a m a n t e , J . A., J o r d a n , A . , V i l a , M . , G o n z a l e z , A . ,
A. S t a t e d e p e n d e n t l e a r n i n g i n h u m a n s . P h y s i o l o g i c a l
Behavior, 1969, 5 , 793-796.
B u s t a m a n t e , J . A . , R o s e l l o , A . , J o r d a n , A., P r a d e r e , E . , &
I n s u a , A. L e a r n i n g a n d d r u g s . P h y s i o l o g i c a l B e h a v i o r , 1 9 6 8 ,
3 , 553-555.
Cappell, K.
review.
33-64.
Conrad,
B.
a n d H e r m a n , C. P . A l c o h o l a n d t e n s i o n r e d u c t i o n : A
Quarterly Journal of S t u d i e s on A l c o h o l , 1972, 33,
Genius and intemperance.
Horizon,
1980, 23,
33-40.
D a r l e y , C. F . , T i n k l e n b e r g , J . , R o t h , W . ,
& A t k i n s o n , R. The
n a t u r e of s t o r a g e d e f i c i t s a n d s t a t e - d e p e n d e n t r e t r i e v a l
under marijuana. Psychopharmacologia, 1974, 3 7 , 139-149.
.,
Davis, D. I
Berenson, D.,
S t e i n g l a s s , P. & D a v i s , S. T h e
a d a p t i v e c o n s e q u e n c e s of d r i n k i n g . P s y c h i a t r y , 1 9 7 4 , 37,
209-215.
/
D u r r , R . A. P o e t i c v i s i o n and the psychedelic experience.
York: D e l t a , 1970.
F r e e d , E . X . A l c o h o l a n d mood:
Journal of the Addictions,
An u p d a t e d r e v i e w .
1978, 1 3 , 173-200.
New
International
G a l a n t e r , M. T h e " i n t o x i c a t i o n s t a t e of c o n s c i o u s n e s s " : A m o d e l
of P s y c h i a t r y ,
f o r a l c o h o l and d r u g a b u s e . American J o u r n a l 1 3 3 , 635-640.
1976, of t h e American
G o o d w i n , D . W. T h e m u s e a n d t h e m a r t i n i . J o u r n a l 2 2 4 , 35-38.
Medical Association, 1973, Goodwin, D . W. A l c o h o l b l a c k o u t a n d s t a t e d e p e n d e n t l e a r n i n g .
Federation Proceedings, 1974, 3 3 , 1833-1835.
G o o d w i n , D . W. A l c o h o l i s m a n d h e r e d i t y .
3 6 , 57-61.
Psychiatry, 1979, -
Archives of G e n e r a l
P o w e l l , B.,
Bremer, D., Hoine, H.,
& Stern, J.
Goodwin, D . W . ,
A l c o h o l a n d r e c a l l : S t a t e - d e p e n d e n t e f f e c t s i n man. S c i e n c e ,
1969. 1 6 3 , 1358-1360.
Goodwin, D . W.,
P o w e l l , B., H i l l , S., L i e b e r m a n , W.,
&
Viamontes, J . E f f e c t of a l c o h o l on " d i s s o c i a t e d " l e a r n i n g i n
alcoholics. Journal of Nervous a n d M e n t a l D i s e a s e , 1 9 7 4 ,
1
5
8
,
1
9
8
2
0
1
.
Graham, K . T h e o r i e s of i n t o x i c a t e d a g g r e s s i o n .
of B e h a v i o u r a l S c i e n c e , 1 9 8 0 , 1 2 , 141-158.
G r e e n b u r g , L . A. A l c o h o l a n d t h e b o d y .
1 8 9 , 86-90.
1953, -
Canadian J o u r n a l
S c i e n t i f i c American,
of a l c o h o l o n c r e a t i v i t y . U n p u b l i s h e d
H a j c a k , F. J . T h e e f f e c t s d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Temple U n i v e r s i t y , 1976.
( I n t e r n a t i o n a l D i s s e r t a t i o n s A b s t r a c t s , 1 9 7 6 , 36-By 6380. )
H a r t o c o l l i s , P. a n d J o h n s o n , D . D i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of a l c o h o l
of S t u d i e s on Alcohol,
on v e r b a l fluency. Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l 1 7 , 183-189.
1956, H o r t o n , D . The f u n c t i o n of a l c o h o l i n p r i m a t i v e s o c i e t i e s :
cross cultural study. Quarterly Journal of S t u d i e s on
Alcohol, 1944, 4 , 199-320.
A
, ' J a m e s , W. T h e v a r i e t i e s of
C o l l i e r , 1977.
religious experience.
New Y o r k :
of a l c o h o l i s m .
J e l l i n e k , E. M. T h e d i s e a s e c o n c e p t Brunswick: H i l l h o u s e P r e s s , 1960.
New
K a s t y l , A. J . C h a n g e s i n e g o f u n c t i o n i n g u n d e r a l c o h o l .
of S t u d i e s on Alcohol, 1969, 3 0 , 371-383.
Quarterly Journal -
. K a z i n , A.
"The g i a n t k i l l e r " : D r i n k a n d t h e a m e r i c a n w r i t e r .
Commentary, 1976, 6 1 , 44-50.
L a n g , A. R . , G o e c k n e r , D . , A d e s s o , V . ,
& M a r l a t t , G . A. T h e
e f f e c t s of a l c o h o l o n a g g r e s s i o n i n m a l e s o c i a l d r i n k e r s .
of Abnormal P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 5 , 8 4 , 508-518.
Journal L e v y , C. M . a n d M u r p h y , P . T h e e f f e c t s o f a l c o h o l o n s e m a n t i c
and phone t o g r a p h i c g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . Psychonomic S c i e n c e ,
4 , 205-206.
1966, L e w i s , E. G . I n f l u e n c e s of t e s t l e n g t h a n d d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l o n
performance a f t e r alcohol. Quarterly Journal of S t u d i e s on
3 4 , 78-88.
Alcohol, 1973, Lyman, B . ,
Bernardin, S.,
emotional experience.
1159-1162.
& T h o m a s , S . F r e q u e n c y of i m a g e r y i n
P e r c e p t u a l -and Motor S k i l l s , 1 9 8 0 , 50,
M a c A n d r e w , C. a n d E d g a r t o n ,
Aldine, 1969.
R.
Drunken comportment.
Chicago:
M a i s t o , S . A. a n d S c h e f f t , B. T h e c o n s t r u c t s o f c r a v i n g f o r
a l c o h o l a n d l o s s of c o n t r o l : H e l p o r h i n d r a n c e t o r e s e a r c h .
2 , 207-217.
Addictive Behaviors, 1977, M a r l a t t , G . A . , Demming, B . ,
& R e i d , J . L o s s of c o n t r o l d r i n k i n g
of Abnormal
i n a l c o h o l i c s : An e x p e r i m e n t a l a n a l o g u e . J o u r n a l Psychology, 1973, 8 1 , 233-241.
M e d n i c k , S . A. T h e a s s o c i a t i v e b a s i s o f t h e c r e a t i v e p r o c e s s .
6 9 , 220-232.
P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1962, M e d n i c k , S . A. a n d M e d n i c k , M . R e m o t e a s s o c i a t e s t e s t :
Examiner's manual. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1967.
F l e m i n g , J . , G i n o , A.,
& Lauerman, R.
M i l l e r , M. E . , A d e s s o , V . ,
E f f e c t s of a l c o h o l o n t h e s t o r a g e a n d r e t r i e v a l p r o c e s s e s o f
h e a v y s o c i a l d r i n k e r s . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y :
Human L e a r n i n g a n d M e m o r y , 1 9 7 8 , 4 , 246-255.
M o o r e , M . C h i n e s e w i n e : Some n o t e s o n i t s s o c i a l u s e .
J o u r n a l of S t u d i e s on A l c o h o l , 1948, 9 , 270-279.
N a s h , H. A l c o h o l a n d c a f f i e n e .
Thomas, 1962.
Springfield,
Quarterly
Ill. : Charles
N a t h a n , P. E., Goldman, M.,
Lisman, S., & T a y l o r , H. Alcohol and
a l c o h o l i c s : A behavioral approach. Transactions of t h eNew
Y o r k A c a d e m y of S c i e n c e s , 1 9 7 2 , 3 4 , 602-627.
O v e r t o n , D . 0 . S t a t e - d e p e n d e n t l e a r n i n g p r o d u c e d by a l c o h o l a n d
i t s r e l e v a n c e t o a l c o h o l i s m . I n B. K i s s i n & H . B e g l i e t e r
( E d s . ) T h e b i o l o g y of a l c o h o l i s m , -V o l . 11: p h y s i o i o g y a n d
b e h a v i o r . New Y o r k : P l e n u m . 1 9 7 2 .
O v e r t o n , D . 0 . E x p e r i m e n t a l m e t h o d s f o r t h e s t u d y of
state-dependent learning. Federation Proceedings,
1800-1813.
33,
1974, -
P a r k e r , E. S . , A l k a n a , R., B i r n b a u m , I . , H a r t l e y , J . , & N o b l e ,
E. A l c o h o l a n d t h e d i s r u p t i o n o f c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s .
of G e n e r a l P s y c h i a t r y , 1 9 7 4 , 3 1 , 824-828.
Archives P a r k e r , E . S . , B i r n b a u m , I . , & N o b l e , E. A l c o h o l a n d memory:
of V e r b a l L e a r n i n g a n d
Storage and s t a t e dependency. J o u r n a l Verbal Behavior, 1976, 1 5 , 691-702.
P a t t i s o n , E. M . ,
S o b e l l , M. & S o b e l l , L . ( E d s . ) E m e r g i n g
o f a l c o h o l d e p e n d e n c e . New Y o r k : S p r i n g e r , 1 9 7 7.
concepts P e t e r s e n , R . C. R e t r i e v a l f a i l u r e s i n a l c o h o l s t a t e d e p e n d e n t
5 5 , 141-146.
learning. Psychopharmacology, 1977, P l i n e r , P . a n d C a p p e l l , H . M o d i f i c a t i o n of a f f e c t i v e
c o n s e q u e n c e s of a l c o h o l : A c o m p a r i s o n of s o c i a l a n d s o l i t a r y
8 5 , 607-610.
drinking. Journal of Abnormal P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 6 , P o l l a c k , D. Coping and a v o i d a n c e i n i n e g r i a t e d a l c o h o l i c s and
7 1, 417-419.
n o r m a l s . J o u r n a l of Abnormal P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 6 6 , / k e e s , L . The i n f l u e n c e of
Journal of A d d i c t i o n ,
drugs on l i t e r a r y imagination.
1961, 5 7 , 3-9.
British
Reputen, N. I., A l ' p e r o v i c h , D., Mikheyev, V . ,
& Scneider, V.
(On t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a m e t h o d f o r e x p e r t i s e o n a l c o h o l
i n t o x i c a t i o n ) . Zh. N e v r o p a t . , 1 9 6 0 , 6 0 , 1 5 2 3 - 1 5 2 8 .
(Abstract
i n Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f S t u d i e s o n ~ G o h o l ,1 9 6 2 , 23,
496-497.
Reus, V . I . , Weingartner, H.,
& Post, R. C l i n i c a l implications
of P s y c h i a t r y ,
of s t a t e - d e p e n d e n t l e a r n i n g . A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l 1 3 6 , 927-931.
1979, Roe,
A. A l c o h o l a n d c r e a t i v e w o r k : P a r t I , p a i n t e r s .
Journal of S t u d i e s o n A l c o h o l , 1 9 4 6 , 6 , 415-467.
A portrait of a l c o h o l .
R o u c h e , B. N e u t r a l s p i r i t : a n d Brown, 1960.
Quarterly
Boston: L i t t l e
S c h u c k i t , M. A. -Drug and a l c o h o l abuse: A c l i n i c a l guide to
d i a g n o s i s a n d t r e a t m e n t . New Y o r k : ~ i e n u m , 1 9 7 9 .
S c h w a r z , R. M . ,
B u c k h a r t , B.,
& G r e e n , S. T u r n i n g o n o r t u r n i n g
off: Sensation seeking or tension reduction as motivational
d e t e r m i n a n t s of a l c o h o l u s e . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g a n d
C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1978, 4 6 , 1144-1145.
S i d e l l , F. R. a n d P l e s s , J . E t h y l a l c o h o l : B l o o d l e v e l s a n d
p e r f o r m a n c e d e c r e m e n t s a f t e r o r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n t o man.
246-261.
Psychopharmacologia, 197 1,
19,
S o b e l l , M . B.
problems:
New Y o r k :
& S o b e l l , L . C. B e h a v i o r a l t r e a t m e n t o f a l c o h o l
I n d i v i d u a l i z e d t h e r a p y and ~ o n t r o l l e d d r i n k i n ~ .
Plenum, 1978.
S p e c t o r , N. H . A l c o h o l b r e a t h t e s t s : G r o s s e r r o r s i n c u r r e n t
methods of m e a s u r i n g a l v e o l a r g a s c o n c e n t r a t i o n s . S c i e n c e ,
1 7 2 , 57-59.
1971, S t o r m , T. a n d C a i r d , W . T h e e f f e c t s o f a l c o h o l o n s e r i a l v e r b a l
l e a r n i n g i n c h r o n i c a l c o h o l i c s . Psychonomic S c i e n c e , 1967,
9 , 43-44.
S t o r m , T. a n d S m a r t , R . D i s s o c i a t i o n : A p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n o f
s o m e f e a t u r e s of a l c o h o l i s m , a n d i m p l i c a t i o n f o r i t s
treatment. Quarterly Journal of S t u d i e s o n A l c o h o l , 1 9 6 4 ,
26. 111-115.
S z a s z , T.
Ceremonial chemistry.
Garden C i t y , NY:
T a r t e r , R. E. D i s s o c i a t e e f f e c t s of
342-343.
Science, 1970,
2,
Anchor,
ethy 1 alcohol.
1974.
Psychononic
T a r t e r , R. E., J o n e s , B., Simpson, C.,
d V e g a , A. E f f e c t s o f
t a s k complexity and p r a c t i c e on performance during a c u t e
33,
a l c o h o l i n t o x i c a t i o n . P e r c e p t u a l a n d Motor S k i l l s , 197 1 , 307-318.
W e i n g a r t n e r , H . , A f e f r i s , W . , E i c h , J . , & M u r p h y , D.
Encoding-imagery s p e c i f i c i t y i n a l c o h o l s t a te-dependent
learning. Journal o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y : Human L e a r n i n g
2 , 83-87.
a n d Memory, 1 9 7 6 , W e i n g a r t n e r , H. and F a i l l a c e , L. A l c o h o l s t a t e d e p e n d e n t
of N e r v o u s a n d M e n t a l D i s e a s e ,
l e a r n i n g i n man. J o u r n a l 1 5 3 , 395-406.
1971, & Murphy, D. Mood-state-dependent
W e i n g a r t n e r , H., M i l l e r , H.,
of A b n o r n a l
r e t r i e v a l of v e r b a l a s s o c i a t i o n s . J o u r n a l 8 6 , 276-284.
Psychology, 1977, -
W i c k e l g r e n , W . A. A l c o h o l i c i n t o x i c a t i o n a n d memory s t o r a g e
d y n a m i c s . Memory a n d C o g n i t i o n , 1 9 7 5 , 3 , 385-389.
W i l s o n , G . T . a n d L a w s o n , D . M. E x p e c t a n c i e s , a l c o h o l , a n d
of A b n o r m a l
s e x u a l a r o u s a l i n male s o c i a l d r i n k e r s . J o u r n a l 8 5 , 587-594.
Psychology, 1976, & A b r a m s , D . B. E f f e c t s o f a l c o h o l
Wilson, G . T., Lawson, D. M.,
on s e x u a l a r o u s a l i n male a l c o h o l i c s . J o u r n a l of Abnormal
8 7 , 609-616.
Psychology, 1978, -
W i n e r , B. J . S t a t i s t i c a l p r o c e d u r e s i n e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n .
York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.
New