The Influence of Status on Group Drinking by Young Adults: A Survey of Natural Drinking Groups on Their Way To and From Bars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Young people's social standing among friends and peers has been linked to general levels of drinking and has been shown to influence others' drinking. We extend previous research by examining young adults' status within their natural-occurring drinking groups as a predictor of their subsequent alcohol consumption and encouragement of group members' alcohol consumption during a night out at licensed drinking establishments, a salient context for heavy drinking and alcohol-related risk among young adults. METHODS: We recruited same-sex young adult drinking groups (n = 104 groups; 63 all-male; average group size = 3.4 members; Mage = 21.86) on their way to drinking establishments to complete a survey-containing measures of member-nominated within-group status, likeability, and self-reported alcohol consumption-and a breathalyzer test. At the end of the evening, participants completed the same alcohol consumption measures and were asked to nominate group members who encouraged other members to drink that night. RESULTS: Multilevel analysis revealed that higher-status members engaged in the most alcohol consumption (via both self-report and breathalyzer) but in heavier drinking groups only. Higher-status members also encouraged the most alcohol consumed by others, regardless of levels of group drinking. Further, even though being liked by one's peers was positively related to intoxication that night, it did not account for the significant relationship between within-group status and drinking. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that peer-related prevention programs for young adults' problem drinking may benefit from focusing on the structure and dynamic of young people's drinking groups. Also, programs targeting peer norms may be more successful if they incorporate status-related issues.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".