A Dual-Process Model of the Alcohol–Behavior Link for Social Drinking Antony C. Moss St. George’s, University of London Ian P. Albery London South Bank University A dual-process model of the alcohol– behavior link is presented, synthesizing 2 of the major social– cognitive approaches: expectancy and myopia theories. Substantial evidence has accrued to support both of these models, and recent neurocognitive models of the effects of alcohol on thought and behavior have provided evidence to support both as well. While proponents of these theories have not suggested that they are mutually exclusive views on how alcohol affects behavior, attempts to synthesize the 2 have been conspicuously absent. The dual-process model presented suggests that the alcohol– behavior link is better reconceptualized as involving a “preconsumption” and a “consumption” phase. This is achieved in the context of contemporary models of automaticity in social behavior, emphasizing the commonality of both controlled and automatic processes in drinking-related behavior. It is argued that a complete understanding of the alcohol– behavior link requires an appreciation of the ways in which the mind may become “intoxicated” even in the absence of alcohol consumption. Suggestions for further research in this area, testing the present dual-process model of the alcohol– behavior link, are also discussed. Keywords: alcohol, dual-process models, automaticity, alcohol myopia, alcohol expectancies “ . . . nonconscious or automatic processes . . . are unintended, effort- less, very fast, and many of them can operate at any given time. Most important, they are effortless, continually in gear, guiding the indi- vidual safely through the day. (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999, p. 244) The exact point in history at which alcohol became a commonly consumed beverage is somewhat uncertain, with some estimates putting the date as far back as 10,000 B.C. (Patrick, 1952). It is not difficult, however, to find historical accounts of alcohol use in almost every civilization throughout the ages. Evident from even a cursory glance through the historical literature that describes al- cohol use are the plethora of ways in which the drug is used, thought about, and implicated in behavioral change (for extensive and varied reviews, see Edwards, 2000; Holt, 2006; MacAndrew & Edgerton, 1969). Humans appear to hold as many contradictory views about the substance ethanol as would seem possible, both within and across cultures and historical periods. Alcohol is at once a social lubricant and a socially destructive force; causing people to “come out of themselves,” while leading to the breakdown of relationships (De- partment of Health, 2007). Alcohol consumption is linked to liver cirrhosis (Leon & McCambridge, 2006) and lower risk of heart disease (World Health Organization, 2004). Alcohol is an elixir of life and death, something to be consumed in abundance and moderation. Alcohol is something to be enjoyed daily, with every meal, and is also limited to special occasions or specific social intercourses. When researchers have attempted to examine the way in which alcohol affects behavior, an interesting fact has revealed itself: Alcohol does not consistently affect behavior. While a somewhat surprising statement, the empirical evidence, which we shall review here, is quite unequivocal that asking, “How does alcohol affect behavior?” is actually to misdirect the question. Rather, we should be asking, “How is it that alcohol consumption is sometimes associated with behavioral change?” It is this ques- tion that the present article will address. Throughout we adopt the convention of referring to the object of this question as the alcohol– behavior link. We begin by discussing contemporary models of social behavior that suggest that behavior is guided by both nonconscious, automatic processes and con- scious, controlled processes. In the context of such dual-process theories of behavior, we go on to review the extant evidence supporting two models of the alcohol– behavior link, alcohol ex- pectancy theory, and alcohol myopia theory. Having critically considered each of these models and the supporting evidence in turn, we go on to describe a framework for the alcohol– behavior link that incorporates the key concepts from these models, couched in terms of a normative dual-process model of social cognition and behavior. We then present a dual-process model of the alcohol– behavior link that specifies the mechanisms through which behav- ior may change or alter when we drink. Finally, we consider the additional evidence that is required in order to support our dual- process model of the alcohol– behavior link fully and how our model can be meaningfully utilized to advance research in this area. We assert in this article that the existing evidence relating to the alcohol– behavior link points farther than ever away from notions of simple disinhibition (see Critchlow, 1986, for an account of the historical pervasiveness of a disinhibition approach) and more toward a model of a mind that literally becomes drunk when we drink. This drunkenness, however, is not simply a physiological Antony C. Moss, Division of Mental Health, St. George’s, University of London; Ian P. Albery, Department of Psychology, London South Bank University. We are grateful to Lucy Henry for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Antony C. Moss, Division of Mental Health, St. George’s, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London SW17 0RE, United Kingdom. E-mail: acmoss@sgul.ac.uk Psychological Bulletin © 2009 American Psychological Association 2009, Vol. 135, No. 4, 516 –530 0033-2909/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0015991 516 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.