Table 1.

Means and SDs of participants’ intoxication ratings and estimates of standard drinks consumed and post video ratings

Alc dose	Anti-force cues				No anti-force cues
	Moderate	Low	Placebo	None	Moderate	Low	Placebo	None
# Participants	36	45	42	39	43	40	42	47
Intoxication**	4.2 (1.8)	3.0 (1.9)	1.7 (1.3)	0 (0)	4.6 (1.8)	3.0 (1.9)	2.0 (1.7)	0 (0)
# Drinks***	5.2 (1.6)	4.1 (1.5)	3.6 (2.3)	0.1 (0.4)	4.8 (1.9)	4.3 (2.5)	4.3 (2.4)	0 (0)
Man Continue?	1.6 (0.9)	1.3 (0.9)	1.2 (0.4)	1.3 (0.6)	1.4 (0.8)	1.7 (1.2)	1.2 (0.7)	1.1 (0.4)
You Continue?	1.4 (0.9)	1.4 (1.1)	1.1 (0.4)	1.3 (0.8)	1.2 (0.5)	1.6 (1.1)	1.4 (0.8)	1.3 (0.9)
Woman Responsibility	1.9 (1.6)	2.0 (1.6)	1.7 (1.7)	1.2 (1.1)	1.7 (1.7)	1.9 (1.7)	1.9 (1.6)	1.8 (1.7)
Man Responsibility	4.8 (1.5)	5.4 (1.1)	5.4 (1.3)	5.4 (1.4)	5.2 (1.6)	5.3 (1.4)	5.4 (1.1)	5.3 (1.4)

Note 1. Intoxication was on a scale of 0–10 (“Not at All” to “Extremely”). “Number of Drinks” was open-ended.

^**Mod > Low > Placebo > No Alcohol (all p<0.0001); Cues and the Interaction of Cues and Alcohol Dose non-significant.

^***Mod > Low = Placebo > No Alcohol (all p<0.001, except Low versus Placebo, n.s.) Cues and the Interaction of Cues and Alcohol Dose non-significant.

Note 2. Video Ratings were all on a 1–7 Scale (from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 7 “Strongly agree”).

Note 3. Responsibility ratings were on a scale of 1 (none) to 6 (100%).