Forty subjects participated in a four-choice reaction time experiment in which they received alcohol (1 ml/kg body weight) in one session and no alcohol in another on consecutive days (the order being counterbalanced). Fifty practice trials and then 2,000 experimental trials were given in each session. Subjects were slower, more variable, and less accurate overall with alcohol than without. They were also slower and more variable in the first than in the second session. By combining the data across subjects to produce speed-error tradeoff functions, it appears that practice has little effect whereas alcohol has a substantial effect; responses made within 600 msec of stimulus presentation are more likely to be erroneous with alcohol than without. In addition, the number of consecutive errors was increased by alcohol. The results are interpreted within a model in which it is suggested that the primary effect of alcohol upon performance in speeded tasks is to decrease the rate of accumulation of evidence.Although there have been many investigations into the effects of alcohol on reaction time, few definite conclusions can be drawn from them. For example, Drew, Colquhoun, and Long (1959) pointed out the methodological deficiency in several papers of failing to take account of practice effects. In a review of work published between 1940 and 1960, Carpenter (1962 concluded that the quality and sophistication of most experiments on alcohol and reaction time were very low.While the majority of recent results indicate that "alcohol causes a slowing of reaction time in choice reactiontime tasks" (Schneider, Dumais, & Shiffrin, 1984, p. 15), exceptions include the results of Wilkinson and Colquhoun (1968) and Shillito, King, and Cameron (1974). The former study investigated the effect of alcohol on Leonard's (1959) five-ehoice serial self-paced reaction time task. This uses five lamps, arranged in a pentagon, each adjacent to one of five associated metal contacts. Subjects were required to touch each contact as soon as possible after the lamp next to it was lit. A correct response switched off the lamp and immediately activated the next signal in a pseudorandom sequence. There was no effect on speed and gaps (the number of responses made in a given time and response times more than 1.5 see, respectively), but more errors were made with alcohol, particularly toward the end of a session. Shillito et al. (1974) also found no effect on reaction time, and surprisingly obtained the lowest error rate, not for the placebo, but for a low dose of alcohol. However, in these and other studies (Huntley, 1972(Huntley, , 1974 Tharp, Rundell, Lester, & Williams, 1974), speed and error measures have been discussed independentlyand few have acknowledged the possibility of speed-error tradeoffs (SETOs), that is, the ability to increase speed at the expense of accuracy and vice versa. Thus, variations in response criteria can produce performance changes quite apart from the effects of alcohol. Jennings, Wood, and Lawrence (1976) investigat...