Alcohol myopia and condom use: Can alcohol intoxication be associated with more prudent behavior?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested 2 competing theories about the effects of alcohol on intentions to engage in risky behavior. Disinhibition predicts that intoxicated people will exhibit risky behavior regardless of environmental cues, whereas alcohol myopia (C. M. Steele & R. A. Josephs, 1990) predicts that intoxicated people will be more or less likely to exhibit risky behavior, depending on the cues provided. In 4 studies, we found an interaction between intoxication and cue type. When impelling cues were present, intoxicated people reported greater intentions to have unprotected sex than did sober people. When subtle inhibiting cues were present, intoxicated and sober people reported equally cautious intentions (Studies 1-3). When strong inhibiting cues were present, intoxicated people reported more prudent intentions than did sober people (Study 4). We suggest that alcohol myopia provides a more comprehensive account of the effects of alcohol than does disinhibition.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".