The Relations of Anxiety Sensitivity, Experiential Avoidance, and Alexithymic Coping to Young Adults’ Motivations for Drinking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors examined whether motivations for drinking alcohol are associated with the anxiety-related dispositional tendencies of anxiety sensitivity, experiential avoidance, and alexithymic coping. The authors administered the Anxiety Sensitivity Index, Experiential Avoidance Scale, 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale, Revised Drinking Motives Questionnaire, and a demographics questionnaire to 182 university drinkers. In multiple regressions, the dispositional factors significantly predicted the risky drinking motives of coping, enhancement, and conformity. Coping and enhancement motives were significantly predicted by experiential avoidance. Conformity motives were significantly and independently predicted by anxiety sensitivity and alexithymia. The process of experiential avoidance mediated the bivariate correlation between anxiety sensitivity and coping-motivated drinking to a greater extent than did the process of alexithymic coping. The authors discuss the observed relations in regard to the psychological functions of drinking behavior that may portend the development of heavy drinking and alcohol problems in dispositionally vulnerable individuals. They also review implications for refinements of behavior therapy for 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".