In the present review, we used meta-analytic methods to quantitatively evaluate evidence from alcohol-challenge studies regarding differences in subjective response among low- and high-risk individuals. Whereas several narrative articles have periodically summarized this research area, it has been nearly two decades since Pollock’s (1992) meta-analysis. During that time, subjective response research has intensified, and several important advances—including the development of measures of subjective stimulant alcohol effects—have been made. Although narrative reviews have several important strengths, such as the inclusion of evidence from multiple methodologies, meta-analytic reviews have their own distinct and complimentary advantages. Meta-analysis provides more information, including explicit estimates of both effect size and heterogeneity, and the conclusions generated by meta-analyses are less biased relative to traditional, vote-counting approaches (Schmidt, 2010). Relevant to the current investigation, meta-analytic methods can permit an explicit test of the LLRM and DM given the accumulated evidence, and they additionally allow tests of whether third variables (e.g., gender) predict differences in the effect of at-risk status on subjective alcohol response.
