The conflict monitoring and performance adjustment processes that were the focus of the current study are most closely aligned with the DMC notion of reactive control. That is, control failures (and, to a lesser extent, any high-conflict trials) elicit reactive efforts to reinstate control, often reflected in reduced CEs in behavior and heightened neural responses to conflict (see Bartholow et al., 2005; Gehring & Taylor, 2004; Gratton et al., 1992; Kerns et al., 2004). As seen in the current data and other recent reports (see Bartholow et al., 2012; Curtin & Fairchild, 2003; Ridderinkhof et al., 2002), all of which involved an equal probability of high- and low-conflict trials, alcohol disrupts these reactive control processes. However, alcohol appears not to have such robust effects on proactive control. As noted previously, intoxicated performance appears not to suffer under conditions in which conflict is likely or predictable (see Bartholow et al., 2003; Gustafson & Kallmen, 1990a, 1990b; Tarter et al., 1971), conditions that more strongly engage proactive than reactive control (e.g., Burgess & Braver, 2010; see also Gratton, Coles, & Donchin, 1992).
