Behavioral Approach System Moderates the Prospective Association Between the Behavioral Inhibition System and Alcohol Outcomes in College Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) is a useful framework for understanding alcohol use, including problematic drinking among college students. Although the link between the behavioral approach system (BAS) and drinking is well established, the role of the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) is less well studied, and findings have been mixed. Consistent with RST, the relationship between BIS and problematic drinking may be moderated by BAS, but tests of the BIS × BAS interaction have been scarce. We hypothesized that high BIS would be a risk factor for subsequent problematic drinking in combination with an elevated BAS, whereas BIS would protect against subsequent problematic drinking in the context of low levels of BAS. METHOD: College student drinkers (N = 638; 66% women) at two universities completed online measures of BIS, BAS, alcohol use, and alcohol problems at matriculation (Time 1 [T1]) and again 1 year later (Time 2 [T2]). RESULTS: Regression analyses of alcohol use and problems were performed with BIS, BAS, and the BIS × BAS interaction as predictors. The interaction was not statistically significant in cross-sectional models (T1 alcohol outcomes), but it was a significant prospective predictor of T2 alcohol use (marginal) and T2 alcohol problems. Simple slopes analyses revealed that BIS was a positive predictor of T2 alcohol use and problems at high but not low levels of BAS, albeit this effect was less reliable for use. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings enhance interpretation of RST, demonstrating a complex link between BIS and problematic drinking risk, one that is moderated by BAS. The prospective nature of these associations suggests that, together, BIS and BAS may promote increases in problematic drinking over time, highlighting the need for targeted interventions during the first year of college.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".