MacDonald, T.K., Zanna, M.P., & Fong, G.T.'s (1996) study , "Why Common Sense Goes out the Window: Effects of alcohol on Intentions to Use Condoms," in addition to reporting some very significant results, also establishes a very sound methodological approach to the ethical difficulties involved in studying the relationship of alcohol consumption and an individual's decision process. These methods are not only a good measure of the effects of alcohol on the intentions to use condoms, but are applicable to the more general question of the effects of alcohol on any decision process.
MacDonald et al. (1996) studied the effects of alcohol on intentions to use condoms in three different laboratory experiments and in one field experiment. In the first study subjects were either in an alcohol consumption or no alcohol consumption condition. Subjects watched a realistic ten minute video that portrayed a male, whom the subject were instructed to imagine themselves in place of, and female undergraduate student interacting in various social situations. One scene portrays the two students at a bar where they slow dance, and kiss. The movie concludes with the two students in bed discussing the dilemma of not having a condom. The movie ends with the female kisses the male and saying, "What do you want to do?"
Subjects filled out measures for general intentions (e.g. whether or not they would sex), justification (e.g. the impelling cue to engage in unprotected sex), arousal (e.g. level of female's attractiveness), risk perception (e.g. beliefs about protective qualities of a condom) and attitude (e.g. whether the subjects felt sex without a condom was foolish and irresponsible).
MacDonald et al. (1996) found that alcohol consumption increased likelihood on risky sexual behavior. The surprising result was that those who had consumed alcohol and expressed intent of having unprotected sex, reported that they were aware that unprotected sex was risky, and they considered it foolish and irresponsible but would still have unprotected sex anyways. These results were consistent with alcohol myopia which claims that intoxicated people are more likely to respond to the most salient cues, in this case the benefits of having sex compared to the negative consequences that accompanied the act.
Study 2 replicated same results with the addition of the possibility of the subjects getting a condom ruled out. Study 4 was performed in the field, and replicated the results of Studies 1-3 which were conducted in the lab. The third study tested the placebo condition to rule out alcohol expectancy effects. I feel that the methodology used in terms of creating this placebo condition was excellent and should become the standard when trying to establish a placebo condition for alcohol.
MacDonald et al. (1996) reported spraying the room with an alcohol and water mixture to create the smell of alcohol. Subjects were also led to believe that the had seen alcohol poured in the drinks by the experimenter, when in reality it was tonic water in an alcohol bottle. Finally, experimenter's sense of taste perceived the drink to be of alcohol content after the first taste, due to a tablespoon of alcohol that was added last to the drink disguised as lime juice.
I feel the results of this study are very significant in terms of educating people about this alcohol myopia effect. Today's society is faced with the problems of sexually transmitted diseases and drunk driving on a everyday basis. Maybe by educating people about the effect of alcohol myopia demonstrated in this study would lead to a decrease in the occurrence of this negative events.
I think MacDonald et al. (1996) conquered the ethical challenge presented by studying alcohol effects, and did so in a very methodological sound way. I think future research will be spurred on as a result of the results, and no doubt these future studies will include in some way or another the methods used by MacDonald et al. (1996).
Back to Top
Back to Student Analysis List
Back to Course Homepage