text: The effect of intimate exposure to alcohol abuse on the acquisition of knowledge about drinking.
  This study explored how an alcohol education program might be structured to effectively educate college students about the consequences of alcohol use. The primary hypothesis tested stated that individuals would vary significantly in the amount of knowledge learned from a structured alcohol education workshop, based on the degree of familial or social exposure s/he has had to alcohol abuse. Social learning variables of locus of control, dogmatism, and expectancy for risk were tested for interaction with degree of exposure, to determine their influence on learning. A pretest-posttest control group was employed with a sample of 66 undergraduate college students. A four hour alcohol education program was administered to teach cognitive information and fact about alcohol, with a goal of facilitating responsible use/nonuse of alcohol. The Student Drinking Questionnaire measured acquisition of knowledge. The Adult Nowicki-Strickland Internal/External Scale measured locus of control, and Schultze's Short Dogmatism Scale measured dogmatism. The researcher developed an instrument for expectancy for risk. Multiple regression analyses yielded prediction equations for the variables under study. For the sample group, results demonstrated that a significant portion of the variance in the residualized posttest scores was accounted for by level of exposure and dogmatism. When the sample was blocked according to intimate or social exposure, dogmatism was the only construct entering the regression equation at a significant level for the intimate exposure group. None of the constructs were able to predict any of the residualized posttest scores for the social exposure group. It was concluded that: (1) Students in the sample learned differentially based on the degree of intimate exposure of alcohol; (2) Dogmatism is a moderating variable with acquisition of knowledge for those intimately exposed to alcohol abuse, but locus of control and expectancy for risk are not; and (3) Further research is needed to study the effects of differential learning goals set for different populations.