Alcohol & Alcoholism Vol. 40, No. 5, pp.

373378, 2005
Advance Access publication 4 July 2005

doi:10.1093/alcalc/agh177

CAN ALCOHOL LEAD TO INHIBITION OR DISINHIBITION? APPLYING ALCOHOL

MYOPIA TO ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION
NAOMI K. GRANT* and TARA K. MACDONALD
Department of Psychology, Queens University Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada
(Received 24 June 2004; first review notified 22 February 2005; in revised form 30 May 2005; accepted 31 May 2005; advance access publication 4 July 2005)
Abstract Aims: Animal experimentation often demonstrates that alcohol leads to disinhibited behaviour, such as increased
aggression, increased social behaviour, or increased impulsivity. However, human experimentation demonstrates that alcohol can have
either disinhibiting or inhibiting effects on behaviour, depending on salient environmental cues. Our aim was to illustrate how alcohol
myopia theory could be applied to the literature assessing the effects of alcohol on behaviour in animals. Methods: The effects of
alcohol on animal behaviour were reviewed in several domains, including aggression, social behaviours, and impulsivity. Suggestions
for testing alcohol myopia with animal research paradigms were provided. Results: Current animal research paradigms are often
designed in such a way that alcohol myopia cannot be tested. To test alcohol myopia, we recommend manipulating the salience of both
impelling and inhibiting environmental cues. Conclusions: Disinhibition alone cannot explain alcohols effects on behaviour. We
contend that alcohol myopia theory helps to explain some contradictory findings in the human and animal literature. We encourage
animal researchers to develop research paradigms to provide tests of alcohol myopia.

INTRODUCTION
How does alcohol affect behaviour? One popular notion is that
alcohol causes disinhibition, or a release of natural impulses by
eliminating learned inhibitions (Critchlow, 1986). For example,
alcohol is used as a social lubricant at parties, which is evidence
of this strong belief in the disinhibiting effects of alcohol on
positive social behaviours. However, alcohol is also believed to
increase antisocial impulses, such as aggression or risk-taking.
Disinhibition alone, however, cannot account for the complex,
and sometimes contradictory research findings. On the one hand,
animal research often demonstrates that alcohol leads to
disinhibited behaviour, such as increased aggression (Miczek
et al., 1993), impulsivity (Poulos et al., 1998; Evenden and Ryan,
1999), and playfulness (Varlinskaya et al., 2001), consistent with
the idea that alcohol is a general disinhibitor. The human
literature has also been guided to a large extent by disinhibition
theory. However, recent research shows that alcohol does not
always lead to disinhibited behaviour, but can either inhibit or
disinhibit behaviour, depending on environmental cues.
ALCOHOL MYOPIA THEORY
Why does alcohol cause disinhibited behaviour in some cases
but not in others? An explanation is offered by alcohol myopia,
which states that alcohol limits cognitive capacity such that
intoxicated individuals tend to focus on cues in the environment
that are most salient (Steele and Josephs, 1990). Alcohol
myopia postulates that intoxicated individuals are unable to
attend to all relevant cues simultaneously because of the
limitation of cognitive capacity associated with alcohol
intoxication. In other words, alcohol produces a myopic effect
causing individuals to attend primarily to, and hence be more
influenced by, salient environmental cues at the expense of less

APPLYING ALCOHOL MYOPIA TO THE

ANIMAL LITERATURE

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed at: Department of

Psychology, Queens University Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada. Tel.:
+1 613 533 2873; Fax: +1 613 533 2499; E-mail: 9nkg@qlink.queensu.ca or
tmacdon@post.queensu.ca

Animal research has virtually ignored alcohol myopia. Indeed,

most research paradigms in the animal literature do not allow
373

The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Medical Council on Alcohol. All rights reserved

Downloaded from by guest on December 15, 2014

salient cues. Individuals who are not intoxicated, however, are

not as easily influenced by salient cues because they are better
able to attend to all the relevant information in the environment.
Evidence to support alcohol myopia has been found in the
domain of health-relevant behaviours, such as drinking and
driving or engaging in unprotected sex. MacDonald et al.
(1995) found that when asked about their attitudes towards
drinking and driving, both sober and intoxicated individuals
reported very negative attitudes. However, when the wording
of the question included an impelling cue to drink and drive
(e.g. having to drive only a short distance), intoxicated
individuals reported less negative attitudes than sober
individuals. This pattern is consistent with alcohol myopia
because intoxicated participants were influenced by the
impelling cue, but sober participants were not.
Intentions towards engaging in unprotected sex have also
been shown to be influenced by salient inhibiting cues such
that intoxicated individuals actually reported more prudent
intentions compared with sober controls (MacDonald et al.,
2000). It is important to note that disinhibition theory cannot
account for these findings; it cannot explain situations in which
intoxicated individuals behave more prudently than sober
individuals. If alcohol is a general disinhibitor, intoxicated
individuals should always exhibit disinhibited behaviour.
Findings emerging from the human literature present a
different picture than those in the animal literature. Although
conventional wisdom might argue that alcohol will always
lead to disinhibited behaviour, it is clear that this explanation
is less than satisfactory. Indeed, researchers are aware that the
relationship between alcohol and behaviour is complex, and
cannot be accounted for by simple disinhibition (Miczek et al.,
1993). We argue that alcohol myopia might resolve some of
the complexities and contradictory findings.

374

N. K. GRANT and T. K. MACDONALD

The purpose of this paper is to explain how alcohol myopia

could be tested within animal research paradigms. First, we
will review the animal literature and main findings for the
behavioural domains of aggression, social behaviour, and
impulsivity. We believe it would be useful to consider
applying alcohol myopia to these particular domains for two
reasons. First, the effects of alcohol on behaviour have been
widely studied in these areas. Second, the behaviours in these
domains are relatively complex, making them more pertinent
to the human alcohol myopia literature on social decisionmaking. We will suggest ways to test alcohol myopia theory
within each of these domains, and finally, we will explain the
specific predictions that follow from alcohol myopia and
compare these predictions with those from a disinhibition
perspective. We will primarily discuss the findings regarding
the short-term effects of alcohol at low and moderate doses,
because these are most comparable with the studies conducted
on humans. Furthermore, although a biphasic doseeffect
curve of alcohol on behaviour has been shown such that lower
doses often cause increases and higher doses cause decreases
in a particular behaviour (Miczek et al., 1993), it is possible
that the effects at high doses might be owing to the sedative
effects of alcohol, which is less pertinent to an alcohol myopia
perspective.
AGGRESSION
The effects of alcohol on aggression have been studied
extensively. To date, studies involve placing the animal in a
situation where aggressive behaviour would normally be
elicited (e.g. a residentintruder paradigm) and observing the
effects of alcohol. For example, when resident ciclid fish
confronted intruder fish, moderate doses of alcohol produced
increases in attacks (Peeke et al., 1973). Similarly, in response
to their mirror image, Siamese fighting fish treated with low
doses of alcohol increased their aggressive displays (Raynes
et al., 1968; Raynes and Ryback, 1970).
Using residentintruder paradigms, low doses of alcohol
have been found to increase aggressive behaviour in mice
(Krsiak, 1976), increase or decrease aggression depending on
whether confrontations took place in neutral or home cages,
(Miczek and ODonnell, 1980), and to have no effects on
aggression (Lagerspetz and Ekqvist, 1978). It is not surprising
that alcohol often causes increases in aggression in these
paradigms. The finding that alcohol-treated animals behave
more aggressively when they are confronted with an intruder
is consistent with alcohol myopia because the intruder acts
as an impelling cue to behave aggressively. Alcohol myopia
would predict that as animals become intoxicated, they will be
unable to attend to all the relevant cues and will focus on the
most salient cues, which in these studies would be the intruder.
However, it is not clear whether disinhibition or alcohol
myopia is the process by which the alcohol-treated animals
behaved more aggressively because disinhibition theory
would predict a similar increase in aggression. Are these
effects the result of the disinhibiting properties of alcohol? Or
does the intruder act as an impelling cue to act aggressively,
which becomes the most salient cue for the alcohol-treated
animals, thereby eliciting aggressive behaviour? It is difficult
to test alcohol myopia within this paradigm because an

Downloaded from by guest on December 15, 2014

for a true test of alcohol myopia. To test alcohol myopia,

both impelling and inhibiting cues should be present. Ideally,
the salience of these cues is also manipulated. In many
animal research paradigms, the salient environmental cues
are generally impelling ones, i.e. ones that would elicit
disinhibition. For example, in testing the influence of alcohol
on aggression, some researchers use a shock chamber
situation (Tramill et al., 1981; Davis et al., 1993). The animal
is restrained in a chamber and aggression is elicited by
shocking the animal. The shock can be seen as an impelling
cue to act aggressively. Therefore, when an alcohol-treated
animal behaves more aggressively, is it because of the
disinhibiting effects of alcohol, or is it because the shock is
a salient, impelling cue to act aggressively? To test both
disinhibition theory and alcohol myopia, two cue conditions
would need to be present in the study. For instance, one could
compare conditions in which shock is either present or absent.
If aggression increases regardless of the presence of shock,
this would suggest that alcohol is simply producing
disinhibition. If, however, the increase in aggression in
alcohol-treated animals occurs only when the shock is present,
that would suggest that the shock is an impelling cue to behave
aggressively.
Cutler et al. (1975) examined the effects of alcohol on
social behaviours in mice and found that alcohol only
increased behaviours that were already stimulated by the
test situation. When the mice were subjected to a new environment, alcohol increased exploratory behaviour. However,
alcohol-treated mice which were not subjected to the new
environment showed no differences in their exploratory
behaviour from untreated mice. Similarly, in a territorial
situation, when territories had not been established, alcoholtreated mice became dominant over the entire enclosure.
When territorial boundaries were established, however,
alcohol-treated mice were no more likely to dominate the
enclosure than the non-treated mice. Although the authors
view these effects in terms of disinhibition, we contend that a
better explanation might be alcohol myopia. When cues
designed to elicit a particular behaviour were present, alcoholtreated mice showed increases in that behaviour. When these
cues were not present, alcohol-treated mice did not differ
from the non-treated mice, which is exactly what alcohol
myopia predicts.
Although the results of the Cutler et al. (1975) study are
consistent with alcohol myopia, only impelling cues were
included in the study. It is important to note that disinhibition
theory and alcohol myopia make opposing predictions when
inhibiting cues are present. Disinhibition theory predicts that
behaviours that would normally be inhibited, such as
aggression or impulsivity, will increase under the influence of
alcohol. Alcohol myopia predicts that, if powerful inhibiting
cues are present, alcohol could cause animals to behave even
less aggressively or impulsively than they would otherwise.
The finding that alcohol intoxication can lead to more
inhibited behaviour has important implications for research,
especially for studies on humans, as many of the behaviours
associated with alcohol are potentially harmful (e.g. drinking
and driving, risky sexual behaviour, and aggression).
Furthermore, including tests of alcohol myopia in animal
research will lead to a better understanding of how alcohol
affects behaviour.

ALCOHOL AND ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION

To sum up, alcohol studies on several types of animals have

generally shown that low and moderate doses of alcohol cause
increases in aggression. However, most of this research involves
subjecting the animals to situations where impelling cues to act
aggressively are present, such as residentintruder confrontations, competitive situations, or shock chambers. To test alcohol
myopia, it is important to include inhibiting cues, or ones that
would encourage an animal to behave non-aggressively.
SOCIAL BEHAVIOURS
The effects of alcohol on social behaviours have also been
studied in animals. Alcohol has been shown to increase play
behaviours in monkeys (Cressman and Caddell, 1971; Crowley
et al., 1974). In contrast, Krsiak and Borgesova (1973) found
that alcohol decreased all social activities in rats. This research
does not provide a test of alcohol myopia because the
environmental cues were not measured or manipulated. For
example, the studies on monkeys involved placing the alcoholtreated monkey with three other monkeys. The resulting
interactions were then observed. It is impossible to control the
behaviour of the other monkeys making it difficult to know
whether the salient cues available to the alcohol-treated
monkey were impelling cues to act sociably, impelling cues to
act aggressively, or a combination of the two.
Varlinskaya et al. (2001) also investigated the effects of
alcohol on social behaviours in rats. Alcohol-treated rats were
either exposed to social stimuli (littermate of same gender)
or non-social stimuli (a cotton ball) placed in the testing
chamber. They found that low and moderate doses of alcohol
increased social behaviours in the social condition (an
impelling cue to act sociably), but failed to do so in the nonsocial condition (no impelling cue), which is consistent with
alcohol myopia. A better test of alcohol myopia would include
an inhibiting cue, or a cue to act non-sociably. For example,
one could compare the responses of alcohol-treated rats to a
littermate with their responses to an unfamiliar rat. According
to alcohol myopia, alcohol should increase prosocial
behaviours in the presence of a littermate (an impelling cue),
but should decrease prosocial behaviours in the presence of an
unfamiliar rat (an inhibiting cue). However, in this paradigm,
these cues might be confounded with other aggression cues,
such as dominant and subordinate positions.
Studies of the effects of alcohol on social behaviours have
generally shown that alcohol tends to increase social
behaviours. The challenge for testing alcohol myopia in this
domain is that cues are difficult to measure or manipulate.
Although it makes sense to test social behaviours in response
to another animal or a group of animals, it is hard to control
the behaviour of the other animals. To test alcohol myopia,
one would need to design a study in which cues could be
manipulated in some way to produce impelling cues (or cues
to behave prosocially) in one condition and relatively
inhibiting cues (or cues to behave antisocially) in another.
IMPULSIVITY
To test alcohols effects on impulsivity, animals are often
presented with a choice between a small, immediate reward or

Downloaded from by guest on December 15, 2014

intruder generally leads to aggressive behaviour by the

resident. Even comparing the residentintruder confrontations
taking place in neutral versus home cages is difficult because
the rate of aggression is often so high in the home cage that a
ceiling effect might occur.
In the residentintruder paradigm, resident rats typically
display a specific pattern of aggressive behaviour resulting in
defeat of the intruder, who eventually displays submissive
behaviour. Although alcohol myopia is difficult to test in this
paradigm, some indirect support for alcohol myopia can be
found in a study by van Erp and Miczek (1997). Resident rats
that showed large increases in aggression after selfadministration of alcohol were classified as high in alcoholheightened aggression. The authors speculate that alcohol
made these rats unresponsive to signals of submission by the
intruder rat. These signals of submission by the intruder
usually lead to decreased attacks by the resident. The idea that
the alcohol-treated rats attended to the salient cue to act
aggressively (an unfamiliar intruder) at the expense of less
salient inhibiting cues (subtle signs of submission) is consistent
with alcohol myopia because it suggests that these rats were
not able to attend to all the relevant cues simultaneously.
Some researchers place the animal in a competitive
situation and observe the effects of alcohol on aggression. In
these studies, animals are categorized based on their social
status, which appears to interact with alcohol. Low and
moderate doses of alcohol have been shown to increase
aggression in dominant rats (Miczek and Barry, 1977) and in
dominant squirrel monkeys (Winslow and Miczek, 1985).
However, Pettijohn (1979) found that during a competition
between three dogs over a bone, low doses of alcohol
increased aggression in subordinate dogs but reduced
aggression in higher ranking dogs. If alcohol were simply
disinhibiting aggressive behaviour, why would alcohol
produce different effects depending on social status? It is
possible that environmental cues function differently for
animals of different ranks. Perhaps alcohol leads subordinate
dogs to attend to the salient bone at the expense of the less
salient social hierarchy. If disinhibition theory were true, all
alcohol-treated animals should respond the same way when
provoked. Instead, the meaning of the cues may vary
depending on the social status of the animals; so animals will
respond differently in a competitive situation depending on
their social status, which is consistent with alcohol myopia.
Shock or pain has also been used to elicit aggression in
alcohol-treated animals. For example, Weitz (1974) found that
alcohol increased fighting behaviour in pairs of male rats when
electric foot shock was employed. In contrast, Tramill et al.
(1980) found that low doses of alcohol decreased aggression
towards a lever when single-restrained rats were shocked. It is
difficult to compare these two studies because the cues are
dramatically different. While shock was employed in both
studies, and may have acted as a cue to behave aggressively, the
target of aggression was another male rat in the study of Weitz
(1974) and a lever in the study by Tramill et al. (1980). It is
quite possible that another male rat could provoke the alcoholtreated rat such that it becomes an additional cue to act
aggressively. It is hard to imagine, however, how a lever in this
instance could act as an impelling or an inhibiting cue. To test
alcohol myopia, it would be important to have two types of cue
conditions in the same study.

375

376

N. K. GRANT and T. K. MACDONALD

reliable indication of the correct lever. Thus, a slow response

to the light would enable the rat to have the highest accuracy
rate and consequently obtain the highest number of food
pellets. Here, the salient cue was the indicator light, which did
not differ over time. Consequently, no effects of alcohol on
impulsivity were found: the rats accuracy rate remained
unaffected by the administration of alcohol (see also Evenden,
1998).
Feola et al. (2000) tested impulsivity using a GoStop task,
where animals must respond as quickly as possible to a go
stimulus, but must withhold their response to a stop stimulus
which follows the go stimulus. Impulsivity was measured by
the stop time, or how long it takes for the animal to stop
responding. They found that alcohol increased stop time,
suggesting that disinhibition occurred. However, the go
stimulus was a visual cue (a light) and the stop stimulus was
an auditory cue (a tone). It is difficult to say, then, whether one
of these cues was more salient than the other. It would be
interesting to know whether the same effect would occur if the
stimuli were reversed. To include tests of alcohol myopia in a
stop-go task paradigm, it would be important to manipulate
the salience of the stimuli, such as the brightness of a light
or the loudness of a tone. If alcohol myopia is correct,
intoxicated animals behaviour will depend more on whichever cue is more salient (i.e. alcohol-treated animals will go
or stop faster when the stimuli are especially salient), but
the behaviour of control animals will depend less on the
salient cue. Alternatively, counterbalancing the stimuli
signalling go and stop would be helpful, as this would
ensure that the results were not due to the specific types of
stimuli used.
To sum up, when impulsivity is measured using the delayof-reward paradigm or with the gostop task, alcohol often
appears to increase impulsivity. However, in the Evenden
studies (1998, 1999), low and moderate doses of alcohol
appear to have no influence on impulsivity. In the Evenden
studies, the salience of the cue (i.e. the indicator light) was held
constant. Alcohol myopia would indeed predict that alcohol
should have no effect on impulsivity in such a paradigm. With
the exception of the study by P. C. Darling, T. L. Pinder,
K. G. C. Hellemans, T. A. Paine and M. C. Olmstead (2003)
(unpublished data), most studies were not designed in such a
way that alcohol myopia could be tested. Therefore, it is
not clear whether the increased impulsivity found in many
studies is the result of disinhibition or because of the effects of
alcohol myopia.
OTHER BEHAVIOURS
Alcohol myopia could also be tested in lever pressing for food
reward paradigms. To do this, cues could be made impelling
or inhibiting by letting the cues signal reward for lever
pressing (e.g. presence of green light signals that reward will
be delivered) or no reward for lever pressing (e.g. presence of
red light signals that reward will not be delivered). Following
this, both cues could be presented simultaneously (e.g. present
both green and red lights). The salience (e.g. brightness) of
these cues could also be manipulated. If alcohol myopia were
true, when conflicting cues are present, alcohol-treated
animals should respond more to whichever cue is most salient,

Downloaded from by guest on December 15, 2014

a large, delayed reward. The index of impulsivity, then, is

based on the number of times the animal chooses the
immediate reward. Poulos et al. (1998) trained rats to respond
to a T-maze in which one arm led to 2 food pellets and the
other arm led to 12 food pellets. Delay was then introduced for
the large reward. They found that alcohol dose-dependently
increased impulsivity, or choice of the arm that led to the
small, immediate reward. Tomie et al. (1997) had rats choose
between two levers, one producing a small, immediate reward
and the other producing a large, delayed reward. They found
that low and moderate doses of alcohol increased the
preference for the small, immediate reward (see also Evenden
and Ryan, 1999).
Although these findings are consistent with disinhibition,
they are also consistent with alcohol myopia. Food
administered with no delay is probably more salient than
delayed food, and alcohol myopia would predict that alcoholtreated animals should focus on the salient cue (the immediate
reinforcer) at the expense of the less salient cue (the delayed
reinforcer). It would be useful to design a study in which the
large, delayed reward was made more salient. For example,
one might modify the delay-of-reward paradigm to have the
large reward inaccessible to the animal during the delay but
still in full view, and have the small reward hidden from view.
Alcohol myopia would predict that the alcohol-treated animals
should show a preference for the large, delayed reward at the
expense of the small, immediate reward when the large reward
is a more salient cue. However, if disinhibition theory is true,
animals should be unable to delay gratification, and should
impulsively choose the small immediate reward in favour of
the large, delayed reward.
One T-maze study of alcohols effects on impulsivity did
provide a test of alcohol myopia. P. C. Darling, T. L. Pinder,
K. G. C. Hellemans, T. A. Paine and M. C. Olmstead (2003)
trained rats in a T-maze in which one arm led to a small,
immediate reward and one arm led to a large, delayed reward
(Unpublished data). In the first study, alcohol increased
impulsivity as measured by choice of the immediate reward.
In the second study, a light predicted either the small
immediate or the large delayed reward, but the arm paired with
the light varied across trials. In this study, alcohol caused an
increase in the tendency of the rats to run towards the lit arm,
regardless of whether it was associated with a small or large
reward. Control rats did not attend exclusively to the lit arm.
We believe the best explanation of these data is that alcoholtreated rats experienced a decrease in attentional capacity and
shifted their attention towards the most salient environmental
stimulus, i.e. the lit arm. It is important to note that in the
second study, alcohol did not cause any increase in impulsivity
as measured by choice of the immediate reward. If
disinhibition theory were true, alcohol should have increased
the impulsivity by increasing the choice of the small,
immediate reward regardless of the light.
When differential salience between cues is not an issue,
studies have found that alcohol does not increase impulsivity.
For example, Evenden (1999) measured reflectionimpulsivity by training rats to wait for a light indicating
which lever is the correct one to press in order to receive a
food pellet. The light signal went on three times. The first light
provided an unreliable indication of the correct lever, the
second light was more reliable, and the third light was a very

ALCOHOL AND ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION

CONCLUSION
In most animal studies, the salience of environmental cues is
not manipulated, making it difficult to test alcohol myopia.
Therefore, when alcohol produces an increase in disinhibited
behaviour, it is impossible to know whether this is because of
the disinhibiting effects of alcohol, or whether it is owing
to salient impelling environmental cues. We have provided
suggestions for how animal researchers might design studies
to test alcohol myopia in the behavioural domains of
aggression, social behaviours, and impulsivity, among others.
We encourage animal researchers to develop ways to test
alcohol myopia within animal research paradigms.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank Cella Olmstead and Lee
Fabrigar for their comments on the earlier drafts of this manuscript. This
project was supported by a New Investigator Award from the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research awarded to T.M.

REFERENCES
Cressman, R. J. and Caddell (1971) Drinking and the social behaviour
of rhesus monkeys. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 19,
764774.
Critchlow, B. (1986) The powers of John Barleycorn: beliefs about the
effects of alcohol on social behaviour. American Psychologist 41,
751764.

Crowley, T. J., Stynes, A. J., Hydinger, M. et al. (1974) Ethanol,

methamphetamine, pentobarbital, morphine, and monkey social
behaviour. Archives of General Psychiatry 31, 829838.
Cutler, M. G., Mackintosh, J. H. and Chance, M. R. A. (1975) Effects
of the environment on the behavioural response of mice to nonataxic doses of ethyl alcohol. Neuropharmacology 14, 841846.
Davis, S. F., Armstrong, S. L. W. and Huss, M. T. (1993) Shock-elicited
aggression is influenced by lead and/or alcohol exposure. Bulletin of
the Pyschonomic Society 31, 451453.
Evenden, J. L. (1998) The pharmacology of impulsive behaviour in
rats II: the effects of amphetamine, haloperidol, imiparamine,
chlordiazepoxide and other drugs on fixed consecutive number
schedules (FCN 8 and FCN 32). Psychopharmacology 138,
283294.
Evenden, J. L. (1999) The pharmacology of impulsive in rats V: the
effects of drugs on responding under a discrimination task using
unreliable visual stimuli. Psychopharmacology 143, 111122.
Evenden, J. L. and Ryan, C. N. (1999) The pharmacology of impulsive
behaviour in rats VI: the effects of ethanol and selective serotenergic
drugs on response choice with varying delays of reinforcement.
Psychopharmacology 146, 413421.
Feola, T. W., de Wit, H. and Richards, J. B. (2000) Effects of
d-amphetamine and alcohol on a measure of behavioural inhibition
in rats. Behavioural Neuroscience 114, 838848.
Krsiak, M. (1976) Effect of ethanol on aggression and timidity in mice.
Psychopharmacology 51, 7580.
Krsiak, M. and Borgesova, M. (1973) Effect of alcohol on behaviour of
pairs of rats. Psychopharmacologia 32, 201209.
Lagerspetz, K. M. and Ekqvist, K. (1978) Failure to induce aggression
in inhibited and in genetically non-aggressive mice through
injections of ethyl alcohol. Aggressive Behaviour 4, 105113.
MacDonald, T. K., Fong, G. T., Zanna, M. P. et al. (2000) Alcohol
myopia and condom use: can alcohol intoxication be associated with
more prudent behaviour? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 78, 605619.
MacDonald, T. K., Zanna, M. P. and Fong, G. T. (1995) Decision
making in altered states: effects of alcohol on attitudes toward
drinking and driving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
68, 973985.
Miczek, K. A. and Barry III, H. (1977) Effects of alcohol on attack and
defensive-submissive reactions in rats. Psychopharmacology 52,
231237.
Miczek, K. A. and ODonnell, J. M. (1980) Alcohol and chlordiazepoxide increase suppressed aggression in mice.
Psychopharmacology 69, 3944.
Miczek, K. A., Debold, J. F., Haney, M., Tidey, J., Vivian, J. and
Weerts, E. M. (1993) Alcohol, drugs of abuse, aggression and
violence. In Reiss, A. J. and Roth, J. A. Eds, Understanding
and Preventing Violence: Vol. 4. Social influences. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Peeke, H. V. S., Ellman, G. E. and Herz, M. J. (1973) Dose dependent
alcohol effects on the aggressive behaviour of the convict cichlid
(Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum). Behavioural Biology 8, 115122.
Pettijohn, T. F. (1979) The effects of alcohol on agonistic behaviour in
the Telomian dog. Psychopharmacology 60, 295301.
Poulos, C. X., Parker, J. L. and Le, D. A. (1998) Increased impulsivity
after injected alcohol predicts later alcohol consumption in rats:
evidence for loss-of-control drinking and marked individual
differences. Behavioural Neuroscience 112, 12471257.
Raynes, A. E. and Ryback, R. S. (1970) Effect of alcohol and
congeners on aggressive response in Betta splendens. Quarterly
Journal of Studies on Alcohol 5, 130135.
Raynes, A. E., Ryback, R. S. and Ingle, D. (1968) The effect of alcohol
on aggression in Betta splendens. Communications in Behavioural
Biology 2, 141146.
Steele, C. M. and Josephs, R. A. (1990) Alcohol myopia: its prized and
dangerous effects. American Psychologist 45, 921933.
Steele, C. M. and Southwick, L. (1985) Alcohol and social behaviour:
I. The psychology of drunken excess. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 48, 1834.
Tomie, A., Aguado, A. S., Pohorecky, L. A. et al. (1997) Ethanol
induces impulsive-like responding in a delay-of-reward operant
choice
procedure:
impulsivity
predicts
autoshaping.
Psychopharmacology 139, 376382.

Downloaded from by guest on December 15, 2014

whether it be impelling or inhibiting. If disinhibition theory

were true, alcohol-treated animals should have difficulty
withholding the lever-pressing behaviour and will produce
more lever pressing in all conditions.
Finally, discriminative stimulus control is another area in
which alcohol myopia could be tested. One discrimination
procedure that could be used is the matching to sample task
using compound stimuli. In this task, animals are presented with
a compound sample stimulus (e.g. a red patch above horizontal
lines). They are then presented with the test stimuli (e.g. red and
orange patches, or horizontal and vertical lines) and are
reinforced if they respond to the stimulus that matches the
sample. This task is particularly well suited to testing alcohol
myopia because the compound stimuli should compete for
attention. The salience of the stimuli could also be varied.
Alcohol myopia would make the counterintuitive prediction that
alcohol treated rats performance would be more accurate than
control rats performance when one stimulus is more salient
than another. For example, if rats were presented with a bright
red patch together with relatively dim horizontal lines, alcoholtreated rats should attend primarily to the red patch at the
expense of the lines. When they are then presented test stimuli
consisting of red and orange patches, alcohol-treated rats will
respond to the correct patch because they attended primarily to
the red patch in the sample phase. However, control rats should
be able to attend to both stimuli simultaneously when presented
with compound sample stimuli. Therefore, attention to the lines
should diminish attention to the red patch. Control rats would
then be less accurate when presented with the test stimuli. In
contrast to alcohol myopia, disinhibition theory would not
predict that alcohol would improve performance on a matching
to sample task.

377

378

N. K. GRANT and T. K. MACDONALD

Tramill, J. L., Turner, A. L., Sisemore, S. F. et al. (1980) Hungry, drunk,

and not real mad: the effects of alcohol injections on aggressive
responding. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 15, 339341.
Tramill, J. L., Wesley, A. L. and Davis, S. F. (1981) The effects of
chronic ethanol challenges on aggressive responding in rats
maintained on a semideprivation diet. Bulletin of the Psychonomic
Society 17, 5152.
van Erp, A. M. M. and Miczek, K. A. (1997) Increased aggression
after ethanol self-administration in male resident rats.
Psychopharmacology 131, 287295.

Varlinskaya, E. I., Spear, L. P. and Spear, N. E. (2001) Acute

effects of ethanol on behaviour of adolescent rats: role of social
context. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 25,
377385.
Weitz, M. K. (1974) Effects of ethanol on shock-elicited fighting
behaviour in rats. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 35,
953958.
Winslow, J. T. and Miczek, K. A. (1985) Social status as determinant
of alcohol effects on aggressive behaviour in squirrel monkeys
(Saimiri sciureus). Psychopharmacology 85, 167172.

Downloaded from by guest on December 15, 2014