Psychosocial determinants of perceived vulnerability to harm among adult drinkers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Perceived vulnerability to harm is widely acknowledged as a determinant of behavior change, but little is known about why some drinkers believe that they are personally "at risk" for problems while others do not. This study examined perceived vulnerability to alcohol-related harm in relation to epidemiological risk status on a standardized problem-drinking measure and two psychosocial measures of drinking context: (1) typical reasons for drinking and cutting down and (2) social network influences related to alcohol use. We evaluated the general hypothesis that these psychosocial variables would independently affect perceived vulnerability to alcohol-related harm, over and above epidemiological risk status. METHOD: Adults between the ages of 18 and 79 (N = 430; 249 women, 173 men, 8 gender unknown) completed a questionnaire about drinking behavior and drinking-related social and motivational context. RESULTS: There was a positive relationship between problem-drinking status and perceived risk of experiencing harm, and no support for the idea that objectively "at-risk" drinkers believe that they are less likely to personally experience harm than comparable peers. Drinking motives and social network variables each significantly improved the prediction of perceived vulnerability when epidemiological risk status was controlled. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions designed to alter drinkers' risk perceptions should take into account the reasons that people have for drinking and the social network context of alcohol use, in addition to whether or not individuals are "problem drinkers."
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".