Paradoxical Effects of Alcohol Information on Alcohol Outcome Expectancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive associations with alcohol predict both current and future use in youth and young adults. Much cognitive and social cognitive research suggests that exposure to information may have unconscious influences on thinking and behavior. The present study assessed the impact of information statements on the accessibility of alcohol outcome expectancies. METHODS: The 2 studies reported here investigated the effects of exposure to alcohol statements typical of informational approaches to prevention on the accessibility of alcohol outcome expectancies. High school and university students were presented with information statements about the effects of alcohol and other commercial products. The alcohol statements were taken from expectancy questionnaires. Some of these statements were presented as facts and others as myths. The retention of detailed information about these statements was manipulated by (i) divided attention versus focused attention or (ii) immediate versus delayed testing. Accessibility of personal alcohol outcome expectancies was subsequently measured using an open-ended question about the expected effects of alcohol. RESULTS: Participants reported more alcohol outcomes seen during the information task as personal expectations about the effects of alcohol use than similar unseen items. Paradoxically, myth statements were also more likely to be reported as expectancies than unseen items in all conditions. Additionally, myth statements were generated less often than fact statements only under the condition of immediate testing with strong content processing instructions. CONCLUSIONS: These observations are consistent with findings from cognitive research where familiarity in the absence of explicit memory can have an unconscious influence on performance. In particular, the exposure to these items in an informational format increases accessibility of the seen items even when the participants were told that they were myths. The findings have implications for the development of effective prevention materials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".