Alcohol in a Social Context: Findings From Event‐Contingent Recording Studies of Everyday Social Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data concerning the effects of alcohol on social interaction in everyday life are limited. METHODS: Healthy volunteers in 4 studies of social behaviors and mood were instructed to complete record forms immediately after a social interaction had occurred, a method known as event-contingent recording. Record forms asked questions about quarrelsome, agreeable, dominant, and submissive behaviors; about aspects of mood; and, in 3 studies, about perceptions of others. Each form also contained a question about alcohol consumption prior to a social interaction. For the present report, only social interactions taking place in the evening and outside the work setting were included. Only individuals who consumed alcohol at least once in these circumstances were included (n = 171). RESULTS: Social interactions involving alcohol were primarily characterized by higher levels of agreeable behaviors, by perceptions of greater agreeableness in others, and by more positive mood. Alcohol consumption was not associated with higher levels of quarrelsomeness. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol consumption in a social context may have predominantly positive effects, an observation which is at odds with most alcohol-induced aggression experiments performed in laboratory settings. Drinking in everyday life may be less likely to result in aggression because, unlike in most laboratory experiments, individuals can choose among a variety of behaviors in response to social cues and the alcohol dose consumed is usually lower. Event-contingent recording provides a new approach for the study of alcohol's effects in everyday life and the conditions in which alcohol might result in interpersonal aggression.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".