Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Addict Behav. 2022 Sep 6;136:107488. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2022.107488

Elixir of Love or Venom of Violence: When Does a Drinking Event Result in Couple Intimacy or Couple Conflict?

Jaye L Derrick 1, Maria Testa 2, Weijun Wang 3, Kenneth E Leonard 4
PMCID: PMC10187977  NIHMSID: NIHMS1882164  PMID: 36088786

Abstract

The short-term consequences of drinking events may be positive or negative. Most studies have considered only one outcome, but both outcomes are possible, even within the same dataset. Guided by the Alcohol Myopia Model, the present study sought to identify predictors of drinking events that would result in couple intimacy, conflict, or neither outcome using existing data from a 30-day ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study. Participants were a community sample of partnered, moderately drinking adults with a recent history of verbal or physical partner aggression (N=249 couples). They provided reports of drinking events, intimacy and conflict events, and ratings of relationship harmony and discord in three randomly signaled reports each day. Mixed-effects multinomial analyses were used to compare predictors of drinking events that, within three hours, resulted in intimacy, conflict, or neither outcome. Consistent with previous research, characteristics of the drinker (individual tendencies to experience intimacy or conflict) and characteristics of the drinking event (alcohol quantity, drinking companions) predicted drinking outcomes. Moreover, the pre-drinking relationship context predicted post-drinking relationship outcomes, consistent with the Alcohol Myopia Model and the idea that alcohol focuses attention on salient contextual cues. Specifically, greater pre-drinking relationship harmony predicted greater likelihood of experiencing intimacy after drinking, whereas greater pre-drinking relationship discord predicted greater likelihood of experiencing conflict after drinking. In summary, characteristics of the drinker, the drinking event, and the pre-drinking relationship context contribute to the likelihood that a given drinking event will have short-term positive or negative relationship outcomes.

Keywords: alcohol, relationships, intimacy, conflict, ecological momentary assessment

1. Introduction

Alcohol use has wide-ranging consequences for affect, cognition, and behavior that may be positive (e.g., social bonding; Sayette et al., 2012) or negative (e.g., aggression; Crane et al., 2016). Acute alcohol use impairs controlled cognitive processing, narrowing attentional focus to the most salient aspects of a situation. This attentional narrowing, or “alcohol myopia” (Giancola et al., 2010; Steele & Josephs, 1990), may lead people to behave more in line with their own predispositions, but it may also lead people to behave consistently with cues in their immediate environment. Within intimate relationships, alcohol may contribute to both intimacy and conflict (Derrick et al., 2019; Rodriguez & Derrick, 2017). In this study, we took an exploratory approach to identify individual differences and situational characteristics that would predict whether a given drinking event resulted in intimacy or conflict.

1.1. Drinking Outcomes

When acute alcohol use focuses people’s attention on positive aspects of a situation, a drinking event can have positive effects. Indeed, it is alcohol’s positive consequences that motivate and reinforce consumption (Cooper et al., 2016; Creswell, 2021; Fairbairn, 2017). Alcohol use increases emotional expression and self-disclosure (Fairbairn & Sayette, 2014), and people experience more positive affect and behave more agreeably in social interactions involving alcohol (aan het Rot et al., 2008). Within intimate relationships, people experience greater relationship harmony and are more likely to report intimacy in the hours (Testa et al., 2022; Testa et al., 2019) and days (Levitt & Cooper, 2010; Levitt et al., 2014) following drinking with their partner.

However, when acute alcohol use focuses people’s attention on negative aspects of a situation, a drinking event can lead to conflict and aggression (see Cafferky et al., 2018, for a meta-analytic review). Experimental studies show that after consuming alcohol, people display more aggression in response to provocation (see Crane et al., 2016; 2017, for reviews), including toward their intimate partner (e.g., Eckhardt et al., 2021). In daily diary studies, after using alcohol, people are more likely to report interpersonal conflict (Brown et al., 2018) and partner aggression (Moore et al., 2011; Testa & Derrick, 2014).

The association of drinking events with both positive and negative short-term relationship outcomes has been observed in different studies but also within the same studies. For example, two papers from the same dataset provided evidence that alcohol use was associated with subsequent intimacy (Testa et al., 2019) and conflict (Testa & Derrick, 2014). How do we make sense of these seemingly divergent findings?

1.2. Variables Contributing to Drinking Outcomes

Alcohol myopia may lead people to focus on their own predispositions (e.g., personality, beliefs, or values). Therefore, some types of people may experience positive outcomes after drinking, whereas others may experience negative outcomes (Rodriguez & Derrick, 2017). For example, couples who generally report more intimacy experiences (perhaps reflecting higher relationship satisfaction or more secure attachment) are more likely to experience intimacy after drinking (Testa et al., 2019). Conversely, couples who generally report more conflict (perhaps due to higher anger or lower empathy; Eckhardt & Crane, 2008; Giancola, 2002; 2003) may be more likely to experience conflict after drinking. Therefore, we predicted:

Individual differences in the tendency to experience intimacy or conflict will be positively associated with the experience of intimacy or conflict, respectively, following a given drinking event (Hypothesis 1).

Alcohol myopia may be stronger at higher levels of consumption or may differ based on drinking companions, so characteristics of a particular drinking event may also influence short-term alcohol outcomes. For example, drinking events involving heavier consumption typically have more negative consequences (e.g., Scaglione et al., 2014). Within couples, drinking events involving higher consumption, particularly by women, can decrease short-term relationship harmony and increase relationship discord (Testa et al., 2022). Drinking companions also matter. Drinking alcohol is associated with increases in relationship intimacy, but only when drinking with the partner (e.g., Levitt & Cooper, 2010; Testa et al., 2019). Accordingly, we expected:

Drinking with the partner and consuming fewer drinks will predict a greater likelihood of experiencing intimacy, whereas drinking without the partner and consuming more drinks will predict a greater likelihood of conflict (Hypothesis 2).

Most importantly, however, it is likely that pre-drinking relationship contexts affect short-term outcomes of alcohol use. Alcohol’s immediate effects are influenced by the environment in which it is consumed (Corbin et al., 2015; 2021) and the expectancies and motivations that precede use (Lee et al., 2018; Treloar et al., 2015). By narrowing attentional focus and cognitive processing to the most salient situational cues (Giancola et al., 2010; Steele & Josephs, 1990), alcohol may potentiate the effects of pre-drinking relationship contexts. When consumed within a context of relationship harmony, alcohol may enhance focus on positive cues (Steele & Josephs, 1990), but when consumed in the context of relationship discord, alcohol may enhance the salience of provocation (Finkel & Eckhardt, 2013; Massa et al., 2019). Therefore, we hypothesized:

When people experience greater pre-drinking harmony—increasing focus on positive cues—they will be more likely to experience intimacy after drinking, but when people experience greater pre-drinking discord—increasing focus on negative cues—they will be more likely to experience conflict (Hypothesis 3).

1.3. Overview

Daily process studies typically examine whether alcohol use on a given day is associated with a specific outcome later that day. However, drinking events may lead to more than one type of outcome. Therefore, we sought to identify characteristics of the drinker (Hypothesis 1), the drinking event (Hypothesis 2), and the pre-drinking relationship context (Hypothesis 3) that determine whether drinking leads to intimacy, conflict, or neither outcome. We also explored the possibility that relationship satisfaction, gender, or gender composition would moderate event-level associations, but we offered no directional hypotheses.

2. Method

2.1. Dataset

Data for this study were taken from an existing 30-day EMA study of alcohol and partner aggression (Testa et al., 2020; 2022). Couples were recruited from the community January 2017-March 2020 via Facebook (86.3%) and referral (13.7%) (see Hanny et al., 2021). To be eligible, both partners had to be 21–35 years old, married or cohabiting for 6+ months, drink at least twice weekly, and have at least two binge drinking episodes (4/5+ drinks for women/men) per month. Both partners had to report verbal aggression (e.g., yelled), or at least one partner had to report physical aggression (e.g., pushed/shoved) in the past year. For safety reasons, if either partner reported aggression causing fear for their life or requiring medical care (guided by the Maryland Model Lethality Screen; Roehl et al., 2005), they were excluded from participation and provided referral information. Psychopathology and stimulant use may increase violence, so couples were excluded if either partner reported psychiatric treatment or use of cocaine or stimulants. Pregnant women were excluded. Same-sex couples were oversampled for questions irrelevant to these analyses (Hanny et al., 2021).

The final dataset included 191 mixed-sex couples, 31 male couples, and 27 female couples, for a total of 249 couples (253 men and 245 women). Most were cohabiting (65.1%) rather than married (34.9%), with average length of cohabitation or marriage of 3.70 years (SD=3.05, range: 0.17–15.17). Men averaged 28.76 (SD=3.64) and women 27.43 (SD=3.38) years of age. Most participants self-identified as non-Hispanic White (85.9%), were employed full- or part-time (95.3% of men and 88.6% of women), and had a bachelor’s degree or higher (62.8% of men, 74.7% of women). Median personal income was $35,000–$44,999 for men and $25,000–$34,999 for women.

2.2. Procedures

The University Institutional Review Board approved all procedures. First, couples completed an orientation session (in-person or videoconference). For the next 30 days, both partners completed three randomly prompted reports per day via smartphone. Random prompts were sent between 10AM–2PM, 2PM–6PM, and 6PM–10PM, with no less than 2 hours between them, and could be delayed up to 60 minutes. Partners were prompted independently to minimize discussion of answers, so the times of their reports did not coincide. Participants were compensated up to $280 per individual, depending on compliance. More than 90% of random prompts were completed (Testa et al., 2022).

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) Items

All EMA items were used previously in daily report studies of substance use and couple functioning (e.g., Crane et al., 2014; Levitt et al., 2014; Testa & Derrick, 2014; Testa et al., 2022; Testa et al., 2019).

2.3.1.1. Drinking events.

Participants indicated whether they had consumed alcohol since their last report (no/yes). If yes, they reported when drinking began, number of standard drinks, whether their partner was present and drinking (no/yes), and whether other people were present and drinking (no/yes).

2.3.1.2. Intimacy and conflict events.

Participants were asked, “Since your last report, have you had a positive interaction or meaningful conversation with your partner that involved intimacy, love, caring, or support?” (no/yes). If yes, they indicated when the event occurred. They were also asked, “Since your last report, did you and your partner have a conflict, argument, or disagreement (either major or minor)?” (no/yes). If yes, they indicated when the conflict began and answered additional follow-up questions. Intimacy and conflict events were positively but weakly correlated (rSpearman=.05).

2.3.1.3. Pre-drinking relationship context.

Participants completed two items assessing relationship harmony (“How close do you feel toward your partner right now?”; “Since your last report, how well have you been getting along with your partner?”; r=.73) and two items assessing relationship discord (“How angry or irritated do you feel toward your partner right now?”; “Since your last report, how much did you argue with your partner?”; r=.60). They responded on scales ranging from 0 (not at all) to 6 (very much/very well). Harmony and discord were negatively correlated (r=−.58). Within the same reporting period, harmony was modestly correlated with intimacy (rSpearman=.23) and discord was moderately correlated with conflict (rSpearman=.47). The harmony and discord variables were time-lagged (t-1) to create indices of the pre-drinking relationship context for the primary analyses.

2.3.2. Baseline Questionnaires

Participants completed questionnaires including demographics and individual difference measures before the orientation session. Of relevance to the current analyses, they completed a widely-used, 5-item global relationship satisfaction measure (Rusbult et al., 1998). They responded on a scale ranging from 0 (Do not agree at all) to 8 (Agree completely). Responses were averaged to obtain the final score (α=.94).

2.4. Analytic Strategy

Data included multiple assessments over time from two partners within couples, violating assumptions of independence, so we conducted mixed-effects analyses with reports (Level 1) nested within individuals (Level 2) and couple designated via clustering. We used a multinomial model, treating intimacy after drinking, conflict after drinking, and neither outcome as a three-category outcome variable, with neither outcome serving as the reference category. Analyses were conducted in Mplus Version 8.5 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors.

To consider couple predispositions to experience intimacy or conflict (Hypothesis 1), we included as individual difference (Level 2) predictors: each person’s total number of intimacy events (grand-mean centered [GMC]) and conflict events (GMC). To consider characteristics of the drinking event (Hypothesis 2), we included as event-specific (Level 1) predictors: number of drinks (person-mean centered [PMC]), drink with partner (no/yes, uncentered), and drink with others (no/yes, uncentered). To examine pre-drinking relationship context (Hypothesis 3), we included as event-specific (Level 1) predictors: pre-drinking relationship harmony (PMC, t-1) and pre-drinking relationship discord (PMC, t-1).

We also included several covariates. To distinguish within-person from between-person effects (Enders & Tofighi, 2007), we included as individual difference (Level 2) covariates (all GMC) each person’s mean number of drinks per occasion, frequency of drinking with partner and drinking with others, and mean harmony and discord. We also included three covariates as event-specific (Level 1) covariates to control for potential temporal confounds: day of the study (GMC to represent a “typical” day during the study), day of the week (weekday/weekend, uncentered), and time of drinking (day/evening; uncentered).

3. Results

Participants reported 11,337 drinking events (M=22.77, SD=10.61), 15,113 intimacy events (M=30.35, SD=21.37) and 3,308 conflict events (M=6.64, SD=4.82). Most drinking events ended with neither intimacy nor conflict (n=8,308, 73.3%) and were classified as neither outcome. However, 2445 drinking events (21.6%) were followed by intimacy at the same hour or within three hours (e.g., drink at 5 PM, intimacy at 5, 6, 7, or 8 PM); these were classified as intimacy after drinking. We chose three hours to approximate the time that blood alcohol concentrations would be elevated (e.g., aan het Rot et al., 2008; Testa & Derrick, 2014; Testa et al., 2019). Another 404 drinking events (3.6%) were followed by conflict at the same hour or within three hours and were classified as conflict after drinking. An additional 152 drinking events (1.3%) were followed by both outcomes. These events were assigned to intimacy after drinking (n=43, 0.3%) or conflict after drinking (n=56, 0.5%) based on the outcome that happened first, given that the first relationship outcome was most likely to be influenced by characteristics of the drinking event, and the second outcome was necessarily influenced by the first. In an additional 53 events (0.5%), intimacy and conflict were reported in the same hour and could not be categorized by primacy; these events were omitted from analyses. Characteristics of the three types of drinking events are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics for drinking events.

Variable Neither Outcome (n = 8,308 events) Intimacy after Drinking (n = 2,488 events) Conflict after Drinking (n = 460 events)
Number of drinks, M (SD) 3.40 (2.53) 2.88 (1.94) 3.06 (2.09)
Drink with partner, N (%) 5,349 (64.4) 1,945 (78.2) 326 (70.9)
Drink with others, N (%) 4,388 (52.8) 1,062 (42.7) 222 (48.3)
Pre-drinking relationship discord, M (SD) 0.51 (1.04) 0.39 (0.90) 0.88 (1.39)
Pre-drinking relationship harmony, M (SD) 4.93 (1.35) 5.24 (1.11) 4.69 (1.47)
Time of drinking (evening), N (%) 6,001 (72.2) 1,868 (75.1) 370 (80.4)
Day of the week (weekend), N (%) 4,763 (57.3) 1,318 (53.0) 237 (51.5)
Open in a new tab

Note. N = 498. Time of drinking was coded 0 (1AM–4PM) or 1 (5PM–midnight). Day of the week was coded 0 (Monday–Thursday) or 1 (Friday–Sunday).

Over half of participants (264/498, 53.0%) reported experiencing each type of event--intimacy after drinking and conflict after drinking--on at least one occasion each. A substantial minority of participants (174/498, 34.9%) reported at least one occasion of intimacy but no occasions of conflict after drinking. Additionally, 27 participants (5.4%) reported no occasions of intimacy but at least one occasion of conflict after drinking, and 33 (6.6%) never reported either outcome after drinking. These groups did not differ by gender, χ2(498) = 1.92, p = .589, or couple gender composition, χ2(498) = 0.95, p = .815.

3.1. Individual Differences

Did individual predispositions to intimacy and conflict (Level 2) predict post-drinking relationship outcomes? Results are presented in the bottom half of Table 2. Participants who reported more intimacy events overall were also more likely to experience intimacy (but not conflict) after a given drinking event. In contrast, those who reported more conflicts overall were more likely to experience conflict (but not intimacy) after a given drinking event. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Additionally, heavier drinkers were less likely to experience intimacy after drinking; effects on conflict were not significant. No other Level 2 effects emerged.

Table 2.

Predictors of intimacy after drinking, conflict after drinking, or neither outcome.

Variable Intimacy after Drinking Conflict after Drinking
RR 95% CI RR 95% CI
Intercept 0.21*** [0.17, 0.26] 0.04*** [0.02, 0.05]
Event-Level (Level 1)
 Day of the study 0.98*** [0.98, 0.99] 0.96*** [0.95, 0.98]
 Day of the week 0.84** [0.75, 0.95] 0.78* [0.63, 0.97]
 Time of drinking 1.05 [0.90, 1.22] 1.42* [1.09, 1.85]
 Number of standard drinks 0.93*** [0.90, 0.96] 0.96 [0.91, 1.02]
 Drink with partner 2.16*** [1.86, 2.51] 1.42** [1.10, 1.83]
 Drink with others 0.64*** [0.55, 0.74] 0.92 [0.72, 1.16]
 Pre-drinking relationship harmony 1.10** [1.03, 1.18] 1.04 [0.91, 1.19]
 Pre-drinking relationship discord 0.97 [0.90, 1.05] 1.24** [1.10, 1.40]
Individual Differences (Level 2)
 Total intimacy events 1.04*** [1.03, 1.04] 1.00 [1.00, 1.01]
 Total conflict events 0.99 [0.97, 1.00] 1.10*** [1.08, 1.12]
 Mean drinks per occasion 0.86* [0.75, 1.00] 0.84 [0.67, 1.07]
 Total drinking with partner 1.00 [0.99, 1.01] 1.00 [0.99, 1.02]
 Total drinking with others 1.01 [1.00, 1.02] 1.00 [0.98, 1.01]
 Mean relationship harmony over 30 days 0.99 [0.89, 1.11] 1.03 [0.87, 1.22]
 Mean relationship discord over 30 days 1.14 [0.95, 1.37] 1.28 [1.00, 1.64]
 Relationship satisfaction 1.01 [0.95, 1.07] 1.08 [1.00, 1.16]
 Gender 0.90 [0.79, 1.04] 0.95 [0.75, 1.19]
 Gender composition 0.85 [0.72, 1.00] 0.81 [0.61, 1.07]
Open in a new tab

Note. The table presents results of the mixed effects multinomial model. The reference category for the three-category outcome variable was neither outcome (i.e., neither intimacy nor conflict after drinking). Analyses were performed based on 11,337 drinking events. For the Level 1 variables, day of the study (1–30) was GMC, day of the week (0=Monday-Thursday; 1=Friday-Sunday) was uncentered, time of drinking (0=1AM-4PM; 1=5PM-midnight) was uncentered, number of standard drinks was PMC, drink with partner (0=no; 1=yes) was uncentered, drink with others (0=no; 1=yes) was uncentered, pre-drinking relationship harmony (0–6) was PMC, and pre-drinking relationship discord (0–6) was PMC. For the Level 2 variables, gender (0=male; 1=female) was uncentered, gender composition (0=same-sex; 1=mixed-sex) was uncentered, and all other variables were GMC. RR=relative risk ratio; 95% CI=95% confidence interval of the relative risk ratio; GMC=grand-mean centered; PMC=person-mean centered.

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001

3.2. Drinking Event Characteristics

Did characteristics of the drinking event (Level 1) predict post-drinking relationship outcomes? As shown in Table 2, when participants drank more than they typically drank, they were significantly less likely to experience intimacy after drinking than neither outcome, as expected; however, the number of drinks did not predict the likelihood of conflict. When participants drank with their partner, they were significantly more likely to experience intimacy after drinking and also conflict after drinking than neither outcome. When participants drank with people other than their partner, they were significantly less likely to experience intimacy after drinking than neither outcome; unexpectedly, the association with conflict was not significant. Altogether, we found mixed evidence for the specifics of Hypothesis 2, but the results were still consistent with the general idea that characteristics of the drinking event would predict drinking outcomes.

3.3. Pre-Drinking Relationship Context

How did pre-drinking relationship context influence post-drinking relationship outcomes? To answer this question, we examined the effects of pre-drinking harmony and discord (Level 1, t-1) on post-drinking intimacy and conflict. As hypothesized—and consistent with the Alcohol Myopia Model—when participants reported greater pre-drinking relationship harmony, they were more likely to experience intimacy (but not conflict) after drinking than neither outcome. In contrast, when participants reported greater pre-drinking relationship discord, they were more likely to experience conflict (but not intimacy) after drinking than neither outcome. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was fully supported.

3.4. Exploratory Moderator Analyses

To examine whether baseline global relationship satisfaction altered any event-level associations, we included it as a Level 2 moderator of the Level 1 associations. There was a significant Relationship Satisfaction × Drink Quantity interaction predicting intimacy, RR=0.98, 95% CI=[0.97, 0.99], p=.001. We examined this association at relatively low and high values of satisfaction (i.e., 1 SD below and above the mean; Aiken & West, 1991). Although the significant interaction indicates that the slopes of the lines were significantly different from each other, the association between drink quantity and intimacy was not significantly different from zero for participants with low or high relationship satisfaction, RR=1.06, 95% CI=[0.97, 1.15], p=.198, and RR=1.04, 95% CI=[0.96, 1.13], p=.294, respectively.

To explore whether event-level associations differed by gender or gender composition, we repeated the analyses with gender and then gender composition as Level 2 moderators of the Level 1 associations. There was a significant Gender × Drinking Quantity interaction predicting intimacy, RR=0.94, 95% CI=[0.89, 0.99], p=.027; however, associations were negative and significant for both men, RR=0.60, 95% CI=[0.91, 0.99], p=.009 and women, RR=0.92, 95% CI=[0.89, 0.97], p<.001. Gender composition (i.e., mixed-sex couples vs. same-sex couples) did not moderate any Level 1 associations.

4. Discussion

Alcohol use in couples has been shown to increase the likelihood of both intimacy (Testa et al., 2019) and conflict (Testa & Derrick, 2014) within a few hours of consumption. In this 30-day EMA study of moderately drinking adult couples, intimacy after drinking was more common than conflict after drinking, consistent with evidence that people expect and drink to achieve positive outcomes (Sayette, 2017). However, most participants reported both types of post-drinking relationship outcomes.

4.1. Summary of Hypothesis Testing

As expected (Hypothesis 1), individual characteristics were associated with the likelihood of experiencing post-drinking relationship intimacy and conflict. People who generally reported more intimacy experiences were more likely to report intimacy after drinking, and people who generally reported more conflicts were more likely to report conflict after drinking. Although not explicitly predicted, there was also a tendency for people who drank fewer drinks per occasion to have more experiences of intimacy after drinking. Lighter drinkers may be more sensitive to the pharmacological effects of alcohol, or lighter drinking people may associate drinking with intimacy or drink to achieve it.

Consistent with Hypothesis 2, characteristics of the drinking event influenced drinking outcomes. As in prior research (Levitt & Cooper, 2010; Testa et al., 2019), consuming fewer drinks was associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing intimacy. When people drank with their partner, they were more likely to experience intimacy after drinking. However, they were also more likely to experience conflict after drinking, perhaps because it is difficult for conflict to occur when partners are not physically together. When people drank with others, they were less likely to experience intimacy after drinking, perhaps because their partner was not present, drinking with their partner in a social setting involves different dynamics or motivations, or they may be reluctant to engage in public displays of affection. Unexpectedly, drinking with others did not have an independent effect on conflict, perhaps reflecting social desirability concerns.

We also found support for the hypothesis that pre-drinking relationship context would contribute to post-drinking relationship outcomes (Hypothesis 3). When people experienced greater relationship harmony before drinking, they were more likely to experience intimacy after drinking. In contrast, when people experienced greater relationship discord before drinking, they were more likely to experience conflict after drinking. Results were obtained after controlling for the significant between-person effects of overall levels of harmony and discord, ensuring that these are situation-specific associations, not attributable to individual predispositions. These results were apparent also when controlling for other characteristics of the drinking event, indicating that pre-drinking relationship context operates beyond the effects of alcohol quantity or drinking companions. Findings support the Alcohol Myopia Model (Steele & Josephs, 1990) in suggesting that alcohol enhances the influence of predominant situational cues. Clinicians might emphasize that clients should not drink to cope with relationship discord, as doing so may prolong or exacerbate conflict.

We found little evidence that global relationship satisfaction altered the effects of other variables. Similarly, we found little evidence that associations between drinking events and outcomes differed for men and women. We also found no evidence that gender composition of the couple influenced drinking outcomes directly or moderated other effects. Thus, based on these results, we have no reason to conclude that relationship processes around alcohol use differ for mixed-sex versus same-sex couples, even though sexual minorities typically report greater substance use than their heterosexual counterparts (Goldbach et al., 2014). It will be important to replicate these findings with larger samples of same-sex couples.

4.2. Limitations and Strengths

Alcohol use and relationship functioning were self-reported, so findings depend on the accuracy and completeness of self-report data, which is unknown. However, we used EMA to minimize the consequences of memory bias and reporting error relative to retrospective reports, which somewhat weakens this concern. Generalizability is limited by the use of a non-representative sample of couples, recruited primarily through advertising, in which both partners were moderate drinkers who had experienced recent aggression. Results may not generalize to couples with discrepant drinking patterns, who often experience poorer relationship functioning (Derrick et al., 2019; Rodriguez & Derrick, 2017). Similarly, results may not generalize to couples who have not experienced any aggression. However, we increased other areas of representation by over-sampling same-sex couples. The timing of partners’ reports did not match (a design choice to minimize discussion of answers between partners), so we could not conduct Actor-Partner Interdependence Analyses (Kenny et al., 2006). There may be unmeasured partner effects on the perception that conflict or drinking occurred. However, it seems unlikely that these would eliminate or alter the observed findings, and there is some evidence that partner effects on relationship satisfaction do not contribute much to prediction beyond actor effects (Joel et al., 2020).

4.3. Conclusions

Experimental and daily report studies have typically considered the impact of alcohol consumption on only one outcome, but both positive and negative drinking outcomes can and do occur in everyday life. Characteristics of the individual and the drinking event matter, but alcohol also appears to amplify the effects of the pre-drinking relationship context. Thus, rather than functioning as either a magic bullet or poison pill, consistent with the Alcohol Myopia Model (Steele & Josephs, 1990), alcohol appears to enhance the influence of predominant situational cues. Results are provocative as a reminder of the complex and nuanced nature of alcohol’s potential impact in daily life.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grant R01AA022946 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of the National Institutes of Health.

Contributor Information

Jaye L. Derrick, University of Houston

Maria Testa, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York

Weijun Wang, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York

Kenneth E. Leonard, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York

References

  1. aan het Rot M, Russell JJ, Moskowitz DS, & Young SN (2008). Alcohol in a social context: findings from event-contingent recording studies of everyday social interactions. Alcohol Clin Exp Res, 32, 459–471. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2007.00590.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aiken LS, & West SG (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New York: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown WC, Wang W, & Testa M. (2018). Alcohol and Marijuana use in Undergraduate Males: Between- and Within-Person Associations with Interpersonal Conflict. Cannabis (Research Society on Marijuana), 1, 48–59. doi: 10.26828/cannabis.2018.02.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cafferky BM, Mendez M, Anderson JR, & Stith SM (2018). Substance use and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Violence, 8, 110–131. doi: 10.1037/vio000007410.1037/vio0000074.supp (Supplemental) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cooper ML, Kuntsche E, Levitt A, Barber LL, & Wolf S. (2016). Motivational models of substance use: A review of theory and research on motives for using alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco. In Sher KJ (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Substance Use and Substance Use Disorders (pp. 375–421): Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  6. Corbin WR, Hartman JD, Bruening AB, & Fromme K. (2021). Contextual influences on subjective alcohol response. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 29, 48–58. doi: 10.1037/pha0000415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Corbin WR, Scott C, Boyd SJ, Menary KR, & Enders CK (2015). Contextual influences on subjective and behavioral responses to alcohol. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 23, 59–70. doi: 10.1037/a0038760 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Crane CA, Godleski SA, Przybyla SM, Schlauch RC, & Testa M. (2016). The Proximal Effects of Acute Alcohol Consumption on Male-to-Female Aggression: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Experimental Literature. Trauma, violence & abuse, 17, 520–531. doi: 10.1177/1524838015584374 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Crane CA, Licata ML, Schlauch RC, Testa M, & Easton CJ (2017). The proximal effects of acute alcohol use on female aggression: A meta-analytic review of the experimental literature. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 31, 21–26. doi: 10.1037/adb0000244 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Crane CA, Testa M, Derrick JL, & Leonard KE (2014). Daily associations among self-control, heavy episodic drinking, and relationship functioning: an examination of actor and partner effects. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 440–450. doi: 10.1002/ab.21533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Creswell KG (2021). Drinking together and drinking alone: A social-contextual framework for examining risk for alcohol use disorder. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30, 19–25. doi: 10.1177/0963721420969406 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Derrick JL, Wittkower LD, & Pierce JD (2019). Committed relationships and substance use: Recent findings and future directions. Current opinion in psychology, 30, 74–79. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.03.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Eckhardt CI, & Crane C. (2008). Effects of alcohol intoxication and aggressivity on aggressive verbalizations during anger arousal. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 428–436. doi: 10.1002/ab.20249 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Eckhardt CI, Parrott DJ, Swartout KM, Leone RM, Purvis DM, Massa AA, & Sprunger JG (2021). Cognitive and Affective Mediators of Alcohol-Facilitated Intimate-Partner Aggression. Clinical Psychological Science, 9, 385–402. doi: 10.1177/2167702620966293 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Enders CK, & Tofighi D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: a new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fairbairn CE (2017). Drinking among strangers: A meta-analysis examining familiarity as a moderator of alcohol’s rewarding effects. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 31, 255–264. doi: 10.1037/adb0000264 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fairbairn CE, & Sayette MA (2014). A social-attributional analysis of alcohol response. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1361–1382. doi: 10.1037/a0037563 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Finkel EJ, & Eckhardt CI (2013). Intimate partner violence. In Simpson JA & Campbell L. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 452–474). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  19. Giancola PR (2002). The Influence of Trait Anger on the Alcohol-Aggression Relation in Men and Women. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 26, 1350–1358. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2002.tb02678.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Giancola PR (2003). The moderating effects of dispositional empathy on alcohol-related aggression in men and women. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 275–281. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.112.2.275 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Giancola PR, Josephs RA, Parrott DJ, & Duke AA (2010). Alcohol Myopia Revisited:Clarifying Aggression and Other Acts of Disinhibition Through a Distorted Lens. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 265–278. doi: 10.1177/1745691610369467 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Goldbach JT, Tanner-Smith EE, Bagwell M, & Dunlap S. (2014). Minority stress and substance use in sexual minority adolescents: a meta-analysis. Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 15, 350–363. doi: 10.1007/s11121-013-0393-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hanny C, Derrick JL, & Testa M. (2021). Remote recruitment and training methods as a way to increase diversity in community samples for EMA studies: A research note. PsyArXiv. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/g8p2e [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Joel S, Eastwick PW, Allison CJ, Arriaga XB, Baker ZG, Bar-Kalifa E, . . . Wolf S. (2020). Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 19061–19071. doi: doi: 10.1073/pnas.1917036117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, & Cook WL (2006). Dyadic data analysis. NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee CM, Rhew IC, Patrick ME, Fairlie AM, Cronce JM, Larimer ME, . . . Leigh BC (2018). Learning From Experience? The Influence of Positive and Negative Alcohol-Related Consequences on Next-Day Alcohol Expectancies and Use Among College Drinkers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 79, 465–473. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2018.79.465 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Levitt A, & Cooper ML (2010). Daily alcohol use and romantic relationship functioning: Evidence of bidirectional, gender-, and context-specific effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1706–1722. doi: 10.1177/0146167210388420 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Levitt A, Derrick JL, & Testa M. (2014). Relationship-specific alcohol expectancies and gender moderate the effects of relationship drinking contexts on daily relationship functioning. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 75, 269–278. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Massa AA, Subramani OS, Eckhardt CI, & Parrott DJ (2019). Problematic alcohol use and acute intoxication predict anger-related attentional biases: A test of the alcohol myopia theory. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 33, 139–143. doi: 10.1037/adb0000426 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Moore TM, Elkins SR, McNulty JK, Kivisto AJ, & Handsel VA (2011). Alcohol use and intimate partner violence perpetration among college students: Assessing the temporal association using electronic diary technology. Psychology of Violence, 1, 315–328. doi: 10.1037/a0025077 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (2017). Mplus User’s Guide: Eighth Edition (Seventh ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  32. Rodriguez LM, & Derrick J. (2017). Breakthroughs in understanding addiction and close relationships. Current opinion in psychology, 13, 115–119. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Roehl J, O’Sullivan C, Webster D, & Campbell JC (2005). Intimate partner violence risk assessment validation study. (No. 209731). U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rusbult CE, Martz JM, & Agnew CR (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Sayette MA (2017). The effects of alcohol on emotion in social drinkers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 88, 76–89. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2016.06.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Sayette MA, Creswell KG, Dimoff JD, Fairbairn CE, Cohn JF, Heckman BW, . . . Moreland RL (2012). Alcohol and Group Formation:A Multimodal Investigation of the Effects of Alcohol on Emotion and Social Bonding. Psychological Science, 23, 869–878. doi: 10.1177/0956797611435134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Scaglione NM, Turrisi R, Mallett KA, Ray AE, Hultgren BA, & Cleveland MJ (2014). How Much Does One More Drink Matter? Examining Effects of Event-Level Alcohol Use and Previous Sexual Victimization on Sex-Related Consequences. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 75, 241–248. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2014.75.241 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Steele CM, & Josephs RA (1990). Alcohol myopia: its prized and dangerous effects. American Psychologist, 45, 921. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Testa M, & Derrick JL (2014). A daily process examination of the temporal association between alcohol use and verbal and physical aggression in community couples. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28, 127–138. doi: 10.1037/a0032988 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Testa M, Wang W, & Derrick JL (2022). Effects of couple drinking events on short-term relationship harmony and discord: An ecological momentary assessment study. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 36, 54–66. doi: 10.1037/adb0000703 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Testa M, Wang W, Derrick JL, Crane C, Leonard KE, Collins RL, . . . Muraven M. (2020). Does state self-control depletion predict relationship functioning and partner aggression? An ecological momentary assessment study of community couples. Aggressive Behavior, 46, 547–558. doi: 10.1002/ab.21915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Testa M, Wang W, Derrick JL, & Leonard KE (2019). Does drinking together promote relationship intimacy? Temporal effects of daily drinking events. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 80, 537–545. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2019.80.537 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Treloar H, Piasecki TM, McCarthy DM, Sher KJ, & Heath AC (2015). Ecological evidence that affect and perceptions of drink effects depend on alcohol expectancies. Addiction, 110, 1432–1442. doi: 10.1111/add.12982 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES