Page 109 - PhD GT

'normal' social drinkers and that this difference accounts for the phenomenon referred to as loss of control. As Ludwig and colleagues argue (Ludwig et al. 1978, Ludwig and Wikler 1974), their experimental research gives no support to an absolute and inevitable condition but rather supports the relativity of the phenomenon, unpredictability being one of the defining features as described by Keller (1972).
A different approach to defining loss of control was proposed by Glatt (1976) who attempted to assert that there was a critical blood alcohol level beyond which the alcoholic would lose control. Although this priming effect is demonstrated in the laboratory and reported in clinical experience for individuals, there are marked variations between individuals. These variations are the result of varying levels of tolerance and idiosyncrasy of desired effect which operate in addition to the normal factors influencing the experience of a given blood alcohol level such as recent eating, weight, height, altitude. It has, therefore, been found to be impossible to establish a universal level at which all individuals would begin to lose control.
5.2 Does impaired control necessarily imply initial intention?
As noted above, the role of volition was debated by Edwards and Gross (1976) when they suggested that there is a need to distinguish between a decision to drink without limits and the inability to drink within intended limits once drinking had commenced.
In a discussion paper published in 1975, Storm and Cutler unequivocally asserted that loss of control “is defined as drinking more, and becoming more intoxicated, than one intended” (Storm and Cutler 1975 p. 154) but also asserted that this was not a phenomenon found exclusively in alcoholics; “Many normal drinkers make such resolutions (to limit consumption to a particular quantity), sometimes keep them and sometimes do not” depending upon their perception of relative rewards and negative consequences that will ensue. Heavy drinkers will have to make and break the resolution more often than normal drinkers because they drink more and drink more often than normal drinkers.
The role of intention in impaired control was questioned by Chick who noted both the conceptual problem in including prior intention in the definition of this ubiquitous phenomenon and the difficulties in operationalising it for the purposes of measurement. He has warned of the dangers of confusing the artefacts of measurement with the phenomenon being measured. Indeed it may be that the inclusion of the idea of having a pre-planned limit when drinking resulted in his conclusion that impaired control was not part of the core dependence syndrome (Chick 1980a). He therefore
97