Journal o! Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 39, No. 5• 1978
Effectsof SocialAnxietyand Social Evaluationon BeerConsumption and Social Interaction KennethA. Holroyd• SUMMARY.In an experimental"party" situation sociall•t anxious subjects and subjectswho receivednegativesocialevaluationsdrank lessbeer and had lower blood alcoholconcentrations than did subjectswho were not socially anxiousor who received positive evaluations.
SYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES ofalcoholism frequently pos-
tulatethat socialanxietyand stressare determinants of
drinking (1), but it is only recentlythat this hypothesized relationship has been investigated in the psychological laboratory. Most of this researchhas been directedtoward the investigation of socialstressors that are assumedto influenceconsumption by heavy drinkersand alcoholics.Recentstudiesof collegestudents identifiedas heavy socialdrinkersused a variety of laboratory stressorsand then assessed their alcohol consumptionduring a tasteratingtask.In two of thesestudiessubjects whothoughtthey wouldbe evaluatedby their peers(2) and subjectswhoseperformanceon a difficult anagramstask was criticized (3) were foundto consume morewinethandid the controls.In a third study in this series (4), threat of painful electric shockwas found to haveno effecton consumption, suggesting that heavysocialdrinkers may be responsive to socialevaluationbut not to all stressors. In another study (5), alcoholicswhose performanceon a roleplayingtaskwasharshlycriticizedsignificantly increased the number of operantresponses they made to obtainalcohol,while social x Department of Psychology,Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701. ACr,.•OWLEDGMV. NT.--I thank Doug Corrigan, Cathy Diehi, Jack Mattachione and Craig Prysockfor their assistance in carrying out this study and Jerry Noble and Frank Bellezza for assistancewith the data analysis. Receivedfor publication:4 November1976. Revision:26 July 1977. 737
738
•:. A. •XOX•ROYD
drinkers,similarlycriticized,showedno increasein response. These resultssuggestthat socialevaluativestressservesto increasethe alcoholconsumption of heavy drinkers. The presentstudy was designedto answera related question. Levelsof socialanxietyand expectancies concerningthe stressfulnessof a socialinteractiontask were independentlymanipulated and their effectson alcoholconsumption and socialinteractionin a laboratory"party"situationwere observed.I hypothesized that
subjects with highscores on a testof socialanxietyand thosewho were led to expectthat a socialinteractiontask would be stressful
for themwoulddrinkmorealcoholthan wouldsubjects with low social-anxietyscoresand thoseled to expectthat the socialinteraction task would be nonstressful. METHODS
The subjectswere 60 male studentsselectedfrom introductorypsychologycourses at OhioUniversity.To qualifyfor inclusionin the study, theyhad to be at least18 yearsold, nonabstainers, as indicatedby their responsesto a brief questionnaireadapted from Cahalan et al. (6), 2
and scorein either the top (sociallyanxious,s^) or bottom (not socially anxious,NS•) quarttic of scoreson the SocialAvoidanceand DistressScale (7). S^ subjectsscoredabove 12 (mean, 16.6), while NS• subjectsscoredbelow 5 (mean, 2.2). These measuresand State Anxiety Scale (8) data xvereobtaincd through self-reporttests com-
pletedby 240 male studentvolunteers in a classroom setting. Procedure.Two s• and two NsA subjectswere scheduledfor each experimental session. When assigned, they were told that the experiment "mightinvolvethe consumption of an alcoholicbeverage"and were instructedneitherto eat nor to drink for 4 hoursbeforethe experiment. All experimentalsessions were conductedbetween 1600 and 1830 hr. Upon their arrival at the laboratoryeach participantwas weighed and allowedto examinea 1-pagereportwhich was describedas a confidentialsummaryof resultsfrom the testsdescribedabove.Actually thesereportsexistedin only two standardforms and constitutedthe social-evaluation manipulation. The first three paragraphsof both forms of the report consistedof a general"Barnum-type" personalitydescription(9) that had been evaluatedas accurate,insightfuland helpfulby 48 subjects in an earlier pilot study.The final paragraphconstitutedthe social-evaluation manipulationand consisted of eithera positiveor negativeassessment of the subject'ssocialcompetence. S• and •;s•, subjectswere randomly assigned to the two social-evaluation conditions (2 X 2 factoriMdesign). They were all primarily beer or wine drinkers.
SOCIAL ANXIETY AND BEER CONSUSIPTION
739
The positive social-cvaluation report contained the following paragraph: "One area that stands out is the area of your social abilities and skills. Socialsituationsand personalrelationshipsneed not be a problem to you. The resultsof your tests indicate that you are quite perceptive of other people.You are able to tell where other people are 'at' even when they are trying to hide their feelings. While you may not be comfortable in every socialsituation,you are able to size up social situationseffectively and to relate personallyand sensitivelyto other people. You have an above average ability to handle interpersonalsituations."
The negative social-evaluation report containedthe following paragraph: "One area that standsout is the area of your social abilities and skills. Socialsituationsand personalrelationshipscan be a problem for you. The resultsof your tests indicate that at times you feel awkward or anxiousin interpersonalsituationsand you feel disappointedwith your relationshipswith somepeople.Sometimesyou may not get acrosswhat you are feeling or thinking to others and they may misinterpretwhere you're 'at.' Social situations can make you anxiousand tense even if you don't always let on. You may not feel sure exactly how to act in a new relationshipor situation.You tend to admire people who appear to be able to initiate relationshipseasily and comfortably.Your ability to handle interpersonalsituationsis somewhatbelow average."
Subjectswere allowed 10 minutes to examine the reports. An experimenterthen instructedthe subjectsto keep the material contained in the report confidential,and escortedall 4 to a comfortablelounge equipped xvith easy chairs, tables and a couch. The seating was arrangedso that subjectsoccupiedthe 4 cornersof a 3-ft square.A covered containerholding 36 12-oz bottles of Strohsbeer (approximately 6%alcohol) and 4 24-oz beer mugs was placed in the center of the squarewithin arms'reachof each subject.As soonas the subjects•vere seatedthe experimenterrcad the following instructions: "We are studying how people get to know each other in different social situations.We are studying how people get to know each other in work, schooland other socialsituations.The situationyou will be participatingin is that of an informal party or get-together.Other people will be participating in different socialsituations. "We would like you to get to know each other as you might at an informal party or get-together.You will have one hour together, then we will ask you some questionsabout your experience.Your interactionwill be observedthroughthis one way mirror. We have provided beer as a refreshment in the cooler. Feel free to help yourself."
The subjectswere then requestednot to leave the room during the hour and eachcompletedthe StateAnxietyScale.The experimenterthen left the room.
740
•c. •,. x-xou•oYx•
Four observers,una•vareof the subjects'experimentalconditions, recordedalcohol consumptionand social interaction from behind a one-way mirror. Each observerrecordedthe amount of time a subject spent talking by depressinga button to activate one channelof an eventrecorder.A fifth observersimilarlyrecordedeach of the subjects in a randomlydeterminedsequenceto assess the reliability of the recordings.Beliability coefficientsranged betxveen.93 and .99 (mean, .95). The number of bottlesof beer openedby each subjectwas also recorded.None of the participantswere observedto sharebeer. The observersalso rated the subjectson a 5-point scale accordingto the extentto which they dominatedor controlledthe group discussion and initiated social interaction.
At the end of the hour the subjectscompleted the State Anxiety Scale again and rated their own and other group members'level of intoxicationon 7-point scales(from completelysoberto very drunk). Their blood alcoholconcentration (B•,c) was measured(by Breathalyzer) and, after debriefing,they were taken home. RESULTS
Anxiety.Table I presentsthe scoreson the anxietyscale:
subjects reportedmoreanxietythandid Ns•,subjects in boththe originalclassroom situation(F = 15.3, 1/56 dr, p < .001) and at the beginningof the experimental drinkingsession (F = 9.5, 1/56 dr, p < .005). Followingthe experimental drinkingsession, however,bothgroups reportedsimilarlowlevelsof anxiety.The anxiety scoresof subjectswho receivedpositiveand negativeevaluations TABI•V.1.-Mean (___SD)Scoreson the State Anxiety Scale of Socially Anxious(SA) and Not SociallyAnxious(NSA) StudentsGiven Positive and Negative Social Evaluations Social Evaluation
SA (N = 30)
NSA (N = 30)
Total
Positive
37.7 ___9.6
30.2 ___5.5
33.9 ñ 8.6
Negative
36.3 ___7.6
29.4 ___5.1
32.9 ___ 7.8
Total
37.0 ___8.7
29.8 ñ 5.3
Positive
37.0 ___6.3
34.0 ___7.9
35.5 ___7.5
Negative
43.5 ___6.6
34.9 ñ 8.2
39.2 ___8.5
Total
40.3 ñ 7.1
34.5 ___7.9
CLASSROOM SITUATION
PREEm'ERIMENTAL SESSION
POSTEXPERIMENTAL SESSION Positive
29.8 ___6.9
27.1 -4- 5.5
28.5 ___6.3
Negative
31.6 ___ 7.7
31.3 ___6.5
31.5 -4-7.0
Total
30.7 ___7.3
29.2 ___6.3
SOC•,L •,NXmXY •,NO •WWn CO•SVM•'T•O•
741
did not differ in the classroom situationprior to the evaluation manipulation. However,at the beginningof the experimental drinking session, followingthe evaluationmanipulation, subiectswho receivednegativeevaluations of their socialcompetence reported significantly moreanxietythandid subiects who receivedpositive evaluation(F -- 3.9,1/56 df, p ,• .05). Aftertheexperimental drinking session the differencebetweensubiects in the two evaluation conditionsonly approachedsignificance(F---=2.9, 1/56 df, p • .10). The resultsindicatethat both levelsof socialanxietyand the social-evaluation manipulation influenced anxietyin the experimental drinkingsession. SocialInteraction.The only significantdeterminantof duration of speakingwaslevel of socialanxiety(F ----5.6, 1/14 df, p ( .05): NSAsubiects talkedmore (mean,985.3ñ 561.5seconds)than did SAsubjects(657.0-+-315.4see).aAlthoughsubiectswho received positiveevaluations of their socialcompetence tendedto talk longer than did subiectswho receivednegativeevaluations(931.4548.2 versus710.9-+-370 sec), this differencewas not significant. Observerratingsof the qualityof the socialinteractionwerehighly correlatedwith durationof talking (r----.79 and .83), suggesting that observerratingsof dominanceand socialinitiativemay have been largelydeterminedby durationof talking. AlcoholConsumption. Beerconsumption and BACS are shownin Table2: NSAsubjects drankmorebeerthandid SAsubjects(F ---5.3, 1/14 dr, p ,• .05) and subjects who receivedpositiveevaluationsof their socialcompetence drankmorethan did subjects receiving negative evaluations(F----7.0, 1/14 dr, p ,• .02).4 The
interactionwasnot significant. NSAsubiectsalsohad higherBACS than did sAsubiects(F----17.4, 1/14 df, p ,• .001). Subiectswho receivedpositiveevaluations had20%higher,CS thandid subiects who receivednegativeevaluations, but the differencewas not significant.Correlations betweenlevelsof anxietyprior to the experimental drinkingsession revealeda negativerelationshipbetween anxiety and both subsequent beer consumption(r=--.29, 58 df, p ,• .05) and nAc (r-----.32, 58 dr, p ,• .05). • Duration of talking, consumptionand n.•c were tcstedby 2 X 2 analysesof variance for related samples(10). Resultsof a chi-squaretest of the homogeneityof variancesand correlations(10) for duration of talking were not significant(•'-' -' 11.8, 8 dr), indicating that the assumptionfor the analysiswere met. ßResultsof chi-squaretestsof homogeneityof variancesand correlationsconducted for both consumptionand •.•c were not significant(;(' --' 14.5 and ;•'• -- 5.7, 8 dr).
742
•. A. HOLROYD
TABLv,2.--Mean (_SD) Beer Consumptionand Blood Alcohol Concentrations in SociallyAnxious(SA) and Not SociallyAnxious(NSA) StudentsGiven the Positiveand Negative SocialEvaluations Social Evaluation
SA
N SA
Total
BEERCONSUMPTION (ml per kg of body weight) Positive
15.6
___4.3
15.7
___5.0
15.7
___4.5
Negative
11.3
ñ 4.3
15.9
ñ 5.5
13.6
ñ 5.2
Total
13.4
... 4.8
15.8
... 4.7
BLOOD ALCOHOL CON-
CENTRATION ( •o) Negative
0.057 _____ 0.016 0.043 _____ 0.026
0.075 ñ 0.024 0.067 _____ 0.030
Total
0.050 _____ 0.022
0.071 ñ 0.027
Positive
0.066 _____ 0.023 0.055 _____ 0.029
The subjects'self-assessments of level of intoxicationwere not significantlyassociatedwith beer consumption(r--.23) or BAC (r--.21). Other group members'ratings of level of intoxication were morecloselyrelatedto the subjects' beer consumption (r---.48, 58 dr, p < .01) and BAC(r----.39, 58 dr, p < .01) than were the subjects' own ratings.Intoxicationself-ratings of subjectswho scoredbelow the median on the Drinking PracticesQuestionnaire (mean, 16.2) were somewhatmore closelyrelated to actual beer consumption(r -- .40, 28 dr, p < .05) and BACs(r -- .37, 28 dr, p < .05) than were self-ratings of subjectsxvhoscoredabovethe median (mean,31.1, r= .04 and .10). DISCUSSION
The importantresultsof the presentstudy were that socially
anxioussubjects and thosewho receivednegativeevaluations of their socialcolnpetence drank lessbeer than did subjectslesssociallyanxiousand thosewho receivedpositiveevaluations of their socialcompetence.These resultsare contraryto those that had been predictedand appearto conflictwith thoseof other studies employingdifferentmethodology(2, 3, 5). One explanationfor the discrepantfindingsmight be found in differences betweensubjects. Marlatt (11) hasrecentlysuggested that drinkingwill not be a likely response to stressunlessthe individualboth lacksa more adequatecopingresponse to the stressful situationand has learned to expectthat alcoholconsumption
SOCIAL ANXIETY AND BEER CONSUMPTION
743
will itself be an "effectiveresponseto the stressfulsituation."Previousstudieshaveemployedassubiects persons who drankheavily andwho thereforemight be morelikely than othersto usedrinking to copewith socialstress.Subiectsof the presentstudy were selected on the basis of their extreme scores on the Social Avoidance
and DistressScale.Thesesubiectsmight be expectedto respond to socialstresswith withdrawaland avoidance(7) and might have avoided drinking becauseit involved social interaction.This interpretationimpliesthat no simplerelationshipcan be expected betxveensocialanxicty or stressand alcoholconsumption.An individual'sexpectancies concerningthe effectsof drinking in relation to alternate responsesto a given stressorwould determine how socialstresswould changedrinking behavior. Anotherpossibleexplanationis the different situationsin which
alcoholconsumption was assessed. In previousstudiessubiects drank alcoholwhile rating the tasteof variousalcoholicbeverages (2-4) or pressinga lever to obtain alcohol (5). In the present studythe subiects were engagedin "gettingto knowone another." Thus the presenceof other peopleor the differing nature of task demandsin these situationsmay have reversedthe influence of social stress.
The resultsof the presentstudy do not fit a tension-reduction model of alcoholconsumption.This model hypothesizesthat alcohol servesto reduce tension,thus reinforcingits consumption and increasingthe probabilityof drinking (12). Althoughexperimental evidencegives little empiricalsupportto this theory (6, 13, 14), it has remainedinfluentialsincethere are few more adequate alternatives.The presentdata are in direct conflict with that model,suggestingthat the tension-reduction model of alcohol consumption mustbe radicallymodifiedif it is to providea useful tool for understandinghuman alcohol consumption.
REFERENCES
1. K•aAFT,T. Socialanxietymodel of alcoholism.Percept.Mot. Skills 33: 797-798, 1971.
2. Hmc•ss, R. L. and MAm.x•:•:, G. A. Fear of interpersonal evaluation as a determinant of alcohol consumptionin male social drinkers. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 84: 644-651,
1975.
3. M•,m•,•r, G. A., KosTmas,C. F. and L.•sc, A. R. Provocationto anger and opportunityfor retaliationas determinantsof alcoholconsumptionin social drinkers. J. Abnorm. Psychol.84• 652-659, 1975.
744
K.A.
HOLROYD
4. HIGGINS,R. L. and MARLATT,G. A. Effects of anxietyarousalon the consumption of alcoholby alcoholicsand socialdrinkers.J. Consult.Clin. Psyehol. 41: 426433,
1973.
5. MILLER, P.M., HERSEN,M., EISLEB,R. M. and HILSMAN, G. Effects of social stresson operant drinking of alcoholicsand socialdrinkers. Behav. Res. Ther. 12: 67-72, 1974.
6. CAHALAN,D., CISiN, ]. H. and C•tOSSLEY, H. M. American drinking practices; a national study of drinking behavior and attitudes. (Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies, Monogr. No. 6.) New Brunswick, NJ; 1969. 7. WriTSON,'D. and FRIEND,R. Measurementof social-evaluative anxiety. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.33: 448-457, 1969. 8. SrIELnERGER, C., GORSVC•A•L-L.and LVSImNE,R. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventorytest manualfor form X. Palo Alto, CA; ConsultingPsychologists; 1969. 9. FORER,B. The fallacy of personal validation; a classroomdemonstrationof gullibility. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 44: 118-123, 1949. 10. Gn•IEs, P. and KLnRE,G. Elementary statistics;data analysisfor the behavioral sciences.New York; McGraw-Hill; 1967. 11. MnRLnXT, G. Alcohol, stress,and cognitive control. In: SrIEL•ERGER,C. D. and SnRnsn.,•, I. G., eds. Stressand anxiety.Vol. 3. New York; Henrisphere. [In press.] 12. CnrrELL, H. An evaluationof tensionmodelsof alcoholconsumption.Pp. 177209. In: GIBBINS,R. J., ISRAEL,Y., KALANT,H., POPHAM,R. E., SCHMmT,W. and S•InRT, B. G., eds. Researchadvancesin alcohol and drug problems. Vol. 2. New York; Wiley; 1975. 13. BROWN,J. S. and CROWELL, C. B. Alcohol and conflict resolution;a theoretical analysis.Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 35: 66-85, 1974. 14. CAI'PELL,H., and HERSInN,C. P. Alcoholand tensionreduction;a review. Q. J. Stud. Ale6hol 33: 33-64, 1972.
Effectsof SocialAnxietyand Social Evaluationon BeerConsumption and Social Interaction KennethA. Holroyd• SUMMARY.In an experimental"party" situation sociall•t anxious subjects and subjectswho receivednegativesocialevaluationsdrank lessbeer and had lower blood alcoholconcentrations than did subjectswho were not socially anxiousor who received positive evaluations.
SYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES ofalcoholism frequently pos-
tulatethat socialanxietyand stressare determinants of
drinking (1), but it is only recentlythat this hypothesized relationship has been investigated in the psychological laboratory. Most of this researchhas been directedtoward the investigation of socialstressors that are assumedto influenceconsumption by heavy drinkersand alcoholics.Recentstudiesof collegestudents identifiedas heavy socialdrinkersused a variety of laboratory stressorsand then assessed their alcohol consumptionduring a tasteratingtask.In two of thesestudiessubjects whothoughtthey wouldbe evaluatedby their peers(2) and subjectswhoseperformanceon a difficult anagramstask was criticized (3) were foundto consume morewinethandid the controls.In a third study in this series (4), threat of painful electric shockwas found to haveno effecton consumption, suggesting that heavysocialdrinkers may be responsive to socialevaluationbut not to all stressors. In another study (5), alcoholicswhose performanceon a roleplayingtaskwasharshlycriticizedsignificantly increased the number of operantresponses they made to obtainalcohol,while social x Department of Psychology,Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701. ACr,.•OWLEDGMV. NT.--I thank Doug Corrigan, Cathy Diehi, Jack Mattachione and Craig Prysockfor their assistance in carrying out this study and Jerry Noble and Frank Bellezza for assistancewith the data analysis. Receivedfor publication:4 November1976. Revision:26 July 1977. 737
738
•:. A. •XOX•ROYD
drinkers,similarlycriticized,showedno increasein response. These resultssuggestthat socialevaluativestressservesto increasethe alcoholconsumption of heavy drinkers. The presentstudy was designedto answera related question. Levelsof socialanxietyand expectancies concerningthe stressfulnessof a socialinteractiontask were independentlymanipulated and their effectson alcoholconsumption and socialinteractionin a laboratory"party"situationwere observed.I hypothesized that
subjects with highscores on a testof socialanxietyand thosewho were led to expectthat a socialinteractiontask would be stressful
for themwoulddrinkmorealcoholthan wouldsubjects with low social-anxietyscoresand thoseled to expectthat the socialinteraction task would be nonstressful. METHODS
The subjectswere 60 male studentsselectedfrom introductorypsychologycourses at OhioUniversity.To qualifyfor inclusionin the study, theyhad to be at least18 yearsold, nonabstainers, as indicatedby their responsesto a brief questionnaireadapted from Cahalan et al. (6), 2
and scorein either the top (sociallyanxious,s^) or bottom (not socially anxious,NS•) quarttic of scoreson the SocialAvoidanceand DistressScale (7). S^ subjectsscoredabove 12 (mean, 16.6), while NS• subjectsscoredbelow 5 (mean, 2.2). These measuresand State Anxiety Scale (8) data xvereobtaincd through self-reporttests com-
pletedby 240 male studentvolunteers in a classroom setting. Procedure.Two s• and two NsA subjectswere scheduledfor each experimental session. When assigned, they were told that the experiment "mightinvolvethe consumption of an alcoholicbeverage"and were instructedneitherto eat nor to drink for 4 hoursbeforethe experiment. All experimentalsessions were conductedbetween 1600 and 1830 hr. Upon their arrival at the laboratoryeach participantwas weighed and allowedto examinea 1-pagereportwhich was describedas a confidentialsummaryof resultsfrom the testsdescribedabove.Actually thesereportsexistedin only two standardforms and constitutedthe social-evaluation manipulation. The first three paragraphsof both forms of the report consistedof a general"Barnum-type" personalitydescription(9) that had been evaluatedas accurate,insightfuland helpfulby 48 subjects in an earlier pilot study.The final paragraphconstitutedthe social-evaluation manipulationand consisted of eithera positiveor negativeassessment of the subject'ssocialcompetence. S• and •;s•, subjectswere randomly assigned to the two social-evaluation conditions (2 X 2 factoriMdesign). They were all primarily beer or wine drinkers.
SOCIAL ANXIETY AND BEER CONSUSIPTION
739
The positive social-cvaluation report contained the following paragraph: "One area that stands out is the area of your social abilities and skills. Socialsituationsand personalrelationshipsneed not be a problem to you. The resultsof your tests indicate that you are quite perceptive of other people.You are able to tell where other people are 'at' even when they are trying to hide their feelings. While you may not be comfortable in every socialsituation,you are able to size up social situationseffectively and to relate personallyand sensitivelyto other people. You have an above average ability to handle interpersonalsituations."
The negative social-evaluation report containedthe following paragraph: "One area that standsout is the area of your social abilities and skills. Socialsituationsand personalrelationshipscan be a problem for you. The resultsof your tests indicate that at times you feel awkward or anxiousin interpersonalsituationsand you feel disappointedwith your relationshipswith somepeople.Sometimesyou may not get acrosswhat you are feeling or thinking to others and they may misinterpretwhere you're 'at.' Social situations can make you anxiousand tense even if you don't always let on. You may not feel sure exactly how to act in a new relationshipor situation.You tend to admire people who appear to be able to initiate relationshipseasily and comfortably.Your ability to handle interpersonalsituationsis somewhatbelow average."
Subjectswere allowed 10 minutes to examine the reports. An experimenterthen instructedthe subjectsto keep the material contained in the report confidential,and escortedall 4 to a comfortablelounge equipped xvith easy chairs, tables and a couch. The seating was arrangedso that subjectsoccupiedthe 4 cornersof a 3-ft square.A covered containerholding 36 12-oz bottles of Strohsbeer (approximately 6%alcohol) and 4 24-oz beer mugs was placed in the center of the squarewithin arms'reachof each subject.As soonas the subjects•vere seatedthe experimenterrcad the following instructions: "We are studying how people get to know each other in different social situations.We are studying how people get to know each other in work, schooland other socialsituations.The situationyou will be participatingin is that of an informal party or get-together.Other people will be participating in different socialsituations. "We would like you to get to know each other as you might at an informal party or get-together.You will have one hour together, then we will ask you some questionsabout your experience.Your interactionwill be observedthroughthis one way mirror. We have provided beer as a refreshment in the cooler. Feel free to help yourself."
The subjectswere then requestednot to leave the room during the hour and eachcompletedthe StateAnxietyScale.The experimenterthen left the room.
740
•c. •,. x-xou•oYx•
Four observers,una•vareof the subjects'experimentalconditions, recordedalcohol consumptionand social interaction from behind a one-way mirror. Each observerrecordedthe amount of time a subject spent talking by depressinga button to activate one channelof an eventrecorder.A fifth observersimilarlyrecordedeach of the subjects in a randomlydeterminedsequenceto assess the reliability of the recordings.Beliability coefficientsranged betxveen.93 and .99 (mean, .95). The number of bottlesof beer openedby each subjectwas also recorded.None of the participantswere observedto sharebeer. The observersalso rated the subjectson a 5-point scale accordingto the extentto which they dominatedor controlledthe group discussion and initiated social interaction.
At the end of the hour the subjectscompleted the State Anxiety Scale again and rated their own and other group members'level of intoxicationon 7-point scales(from completelysoberto very drunk). Their blood alcoholconcentration (B•,c) was measured(by Breathalyzer) and, after debriefing,they were taken home. RESULTS
Anxiety.Table I presentsthe scoreson the anxietyscale:
subjects reportedmoreanxietythandid Ns•,subjects in boththe originalclassroom situation(F = 15.3, 1/56 dr, p < .001) and at the beginningof the experimental drinkingsession (F = 9.5, 1/56 dr, p < .005). Followingthe experimental drinkingsession, however,bothgroups reportedsimilarlowlevelsof anxiety.The anxiety scoresof subjectswho receivedpositiveand negativeevaluations TABI•V.1.-Mean (___SD)Scoreson the State Anxiety Scale of Socially Anxious(SA) and Not SociallyAnxious(NSA) StudentsGiven Positive and Negative Social Evaluations Social Evaluation
SA (N = 30)
NSA (N = 30)
Total
Positive
37.7 ___9.6
30.2 ___5.5
33.9 ñ 8.6
Negative
36.3 ___7.6
29.4 ___5.1
32.9 ___ 7.8
Total
37.0 ___8.7
29.8 ñ 5.3
Positive
37.0 ___6.3
34.0 ___7.9
35.5 ___7.5
Negative
43.5 ___6.6
34.9 ñ 8.2
39.2 ___8.5
Total
40.3 ñ 7.1
34.5 ___7.9
CLASSROOM SITUATION
PREEm'ERIMENTAL SESSION
POSTEXPERIMENTAL SESSION Positive
29.8 ___6.9
27.1 -4- 5.5
28.5 ___6.3
Negative
31.6 ___ 7.7
31.3 ___6.5
31.5 -4-7.0
Total
30.7 ___7.3
29.2 ___6.3
SOC•,L •,NXmXY •,NO •WWn CO•SVM•'T•O•
741
did not differ in the classroom situationprior to the evaluation manipulation. However,at the beginningof the experimental drinking session, followingthe evaluationmanipulation, subiectswho receivednegativeevaluations of their socialcompetence reported significantly moreanxietythandid subiects who receivedpositive evaluation(F -- 3.9,1/56 df, p ,• .05). Aftertheexperimental drinking session the differencebetweensubiects in the two evaluation conditionsonly approachedsignificance(F---=2.9, 1/56 df, p • .10). The resultsindicatethat both levelsof socialanxietyand the social-evaluation manipulation influenced anxietyin the experimental drinkingsession. SocialInteraction.The only significantdeterminantof duration of speakingwaslevel of socialanxiety(F ----5.6, 1/14 df, p ( .05): NSAsubiects talkedmore (mean,985.3ñ 561.5seconds)than did SAsubjects(657.0-+-315.4see).aAlthoughsubiectswho received positiveevaluations of their socialcompetence tendedto talk longer than did subiectswho receivednegativeevaluations(931.4548.2 versus710.9-+-370 sec), this differencewas not significant. Observerratingsof the qualityof the socialinteractionwerehighly correlatedwith durationof talking (r----.79 and .83), suggesting that observerratingsof dominanceand socialinitiativemay have been largelydeterminedby durationof talking. AlcoholConsumption. Beerconsumption and BACS are shownin Table2: NSAsubjects drankmorebeerthandid SAsubjects(F ---5.3, 1/14 dr, p ,• .05) and subjects who receivedpositiveevaluationsof their socialcompetence drankmorethan did subjects receiving negative evaluations(F----7.0, 1/14 dr, p ,• .02).4 The
interactionwasnot significant. NSAsubiectsalsohad higherBACS than did sAsubiects(F----17.4, 1/14 df, p ,• .001). Subiectswho receivedpositiveevaluations had20%higher,CS thandid subiects who receivednegativeevaluations, but the differencewas not significant.Correlations betweenlevelsof anxietyprior to the experimental drinkingsession revealeda negativerelationshipbetween anxiety and both subsequent beer consumption(r=--.29, 58 df, p ,• .05) and nAc (r-----.32, 58 dr, p ,• .05). • Duration of talking, consumptionand n.•c were tcstedby 2 X 2 analysesof variance for related samples(10). Resultsof a chi-squaretest of the homogeneityof variancesand correlations(10) for duration of talking were not significant(•'-' -' 11.8, 8 dr), indicating that the assumptionfor the analysiswere met. ßResultsof chi-squaretestsof homogeneityof variancesand correlationsconducted for both consumptionand •.•c were not significant(;(' --' 14.5 and ;•'• -- 5.7, 8 dr).
742
•. A. HOLROYD
TABLv,2.--Mean (_SD) Beer Consumptionand Blood Alcohol Concentrations in SociallyAnxious(SA) and Not SociallyAnxious(NSA) StudentsGiven the Positiveand Negative SocialEvaluations Social Evaluation
SA
N SA
Total
BEERCONSUMPTION (ml per kg of body weight) Positive
15.6
___4.3
15.7
___5.0
15.7
___4.5
Negative
11.3
ñ 4.3
15.9
ñ 5.5
13.6
ñ 5.2
Total
13.4
... 4.8
15.8
... 4.7
BLOOD ALCOHOL CON-
CENTRATION ( •o) Negative
0.057 _____ 0.016 0.043 _____ 0.026
0.075 ñ 0.024 0.067 _____ 0.030
Total
0.050 _____ 0.022
0.071 ñ 0.027
Positive
0.066 _____ 0.023 0.055 _____ 0.029
The subjects'self-assessments of level of intoxicationwere not significantlyassociatedwith beer consumption(r--.23) or BAC (r--.21). Other group members'ratings of level of intoxication were morecloselyrelatedto the subjects' beer consumption (r---.48, 58 dr, p < .01) and BAC(r----.39, 58 dr, p < .01) than were the subjects' own ratings.Intoxicationself-ratings of subjectswho scoredbelow the median on the Drinking PracticesQuestionnaire (mean, 16.2) were somewhatmore closelyrelated to actual beer consumption(r -- .40, 28 dr, p < .05) and BACs(r -- .37, 28 dr, p < .05) than were self-ratings of subjectsxvhoscoredabovethe median (mean,31.1, r= .04 and .10). DISCUSSION
The importantresultsof the presentstudy were that socially
anxioussubjects and thosewho receivednegativeevaluations of their socialcolnpetence drank lessbeer than did subjectslesssociallyanxiousand thosewho receivedpositiveevaluations of their socialcompetence.These resultsare contraryto those that had been predictedand appearto conflictwith thoseof other studies employingdifferentmethodology(2, 3, 5). One explanationfor the discrepantfindingsmight be found in differences betweensubjects. Marlatt (11) hasrecentlysuggested that drinkingwill not be a likely response to stressunlessthe individualboth lacksa more adequatecopingresponse to the stressful situationand has learned to expectthat alcoholconsumption
SOCIAL ANXIETY AND BEER CONSUMPTION
743
will itself be an "effectiveresponseto the stressfulsituation."Previousstudieshaveemployedassubiects persons who drankheavily andwho thereforemight be morelikely than othersto usedrinking to copewith socialstress.Subiectsof the presentstudy were selected on the basis of their extreme scores on the Social Avoidance
and DistressScale.Thesesubiectsmight be expectedto respond to socialstresswith withdrawaland avoidance(7) and might have avoided drinking becauseit involved social interaction.This interpretationimpliesthat no simplerelationshipcan be expected betxveensocialanxicty or stressand alcoholconsumption.An individual'sexpectancies concerningthe effectsof drinking in relation to alternate responsesto a given stressorwould determine how socialstresswould changedrinking behavior. Anotherpossibleexplanationis the different situationsin which
alcoholconsumption was assessed. In previousstudiessubiects drank alcoholwhile rating the tasteof variousalcoholicbeverages (2-4) or pressinga lever to obtain alcohol (5). In the present studythe subiects were engagedin "gettingto knowone another." Thus the presenceof other peopleor the differing nature of task demandsin these situationsmay have reversedthe influence of social stress.
The resultsof the presentstudy do not fit a tension-reduction model of alcoholconsumption.This model hypothesizesthat alcohol servesto reduce tension,thus reinforcingits consumption and increasingthe probabilityof drinking (12). Althoughexperimental evidencegives little empiricalsupportto this theory (6, 13, 14), it has remainedinfluentialsincethere are few more adequate alternatives.The presentdata are in direct conflict with that model,suggestingthat the tension-reduction model of alcohol consumption mustbe radicallymodifiedif it is to providea useful tool for understandinghuman alcohol consumption.
REFERENCES
1. K•aAFT,T. Socialanxietymodel of alcoholism.Percept.Mot. Skills 33: 797-798, 1971.
2. Hmc•ss, R. L. and MAm.x•:•:, G. A. Fear of interpersonal evaluation as a determinant of alcohol consumptionin male social drinkers. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 84: 644-651,
1975.
3. M•,m•,•r, G. A., KosTmas,C. F. and L.•sc, A. R. Provocationto anger and opportunityfor retaliationas determinantsof alcoholconsumptionin social drinkers. J. Abnorm. Psychol.84• 652-659, 1975.
744
K.A.
HOLROYD
4. HIGGINS,R. L. and MARLATT,G. A. Effects of anxietyarousalon the consumption of alcoholby alcoholicsand socialdrinkers.J. Consult.Clin. Psyehol. 41: 426433,
1973.
5. MILLER, P.M., HERSEN,M., EISLEB,R. M. and HILSMAN, G. Effects of social stresson operant drinking of alcoholicsand socialdrinkers. Behav. Res. Ther. 12: 67-72, 1974.
6. CAHALAN,D., CISiN, ]. H. and C•tOSSLEY, H. M. American drinking practices; a national study of drinking behavior and attitudes. (Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies, Monogr. No. 6.) New Brunswick, NJ; 1969. 7. WriTSON,'D. and FRIEND,R. Measurementof social-evaluative anxiety. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.33: 448-457, 1969. 8. SrIELnERGER, C., GORSVC•A•L-L.and LVSImNE,R. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventorytest manualfor form X. Palo Alto, CA; ConsultingPsychologists; 1969. 9. FORER,B. The fallacy of personal validation; a classroomdemonstrationof gullibility. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 44: 118-123, 1949. 10. Gn•IEs, P. and KLnRE,G. Elementary statistics;data analysisfor the behavioral sciences.New York; McGraw-Hill; 1967. 11. MnRLnXT, G. Alcohol, stress,and cognitive control. In: SrIEL•ERGER,C. D. and SnRnsn.,•, I. G., eds. Stressand anxiety.Vol. 3. New York; Henrisphere. [In press.] 12. CnrrELL, H. An evaluationof tensionmodelsof alcoholconsumption.Pp. 177209. In: GIBBINS,R. J., ISRAEL,Y., KALANT,H., POPHAM,R. E., SCHMmT,W. and S•InRT, B. G., eds. Researchadvancesin alcohol and drug problems. Vol. 2. New York; Wiley; 1975. 13. BROWN,J. S. and CROWELL, C. B. Alcohol and conflict resolution;a theoretical analysis.Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 35: 66-85, 1974. 14. CAI'PELL,H., and HERSInN,C. P. Alcoholand tensionreduction;a review. Q. J. Stud. Ale6hol 33: 33-64, 1972.
