The published version is available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/add.15210 AimsTo examine two explanations for the observation that cue-exposure treatment has not been clearly effective in the treatment of alcohol dependence: do alcohol dependent individuals have either 1) slower extinction and/or 2) greater contextual specificity of extinction than non-dependent individuals? DesignIn two exploratory laboratory experiments we used mixed factorial designs with two-group between-subjects factors and within-subjects factors corresponding to performance in different parts of a computer-based learning task.SettingUniversity of Southampton psychology research laboratories and two addiction treatment services in the city of Southampton, UK.ParticipantsExperiment 1: Seventy-four (54 female) undergraduates from the University of Southampton (age M=20.4 years). Experiment 2: One-hundred and two (40 female) participants from the University of Southampton, the local community, and from two Southampton alcohol treatment services (age M=41.3 years). MeasurementsThe Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, a 1-week time-line follow-back alcohol consumption questionnaire, the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (11th Ed), and a computerised learning task. Experiment 2 additionally used the 44-item Big Five Inventory, a drug use history checklist, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. FindingsExperiment 1: light and heavy drinkers did not differ significantly in extinction (extinction block x drinking status interaction, p=.761, η_p^2=.005, 95% confidence interval (0,.028)) or on contextual control of extinction (recovery block x drinking status interaction, p=.514, η_p^2=.009, 95% confidence interval (0,.084)). Experiment 2: slower extinction in abstinent alcohol dependent participants compared with light drinkers (extinction block x drinking status interaction, p=.023, η_p^2=.031, 95% confidence interval (0,.069)) but no significant difference on contextual control of extinction (recovery block x drinking status interaction, p=.069, η_p^2=.033, 95% confidence interval (0,.125)). ConclusionAbstinent alcohol dependent people may have slower extinction learning for alcohol-related cues, than non-dependent light drinkers.