The Association Between Self-forgiveness and Alcohol Misuse Depends on the Severity of Drinker's Shame: Toward a Buffering Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives We examined whether symptoms of pathologic drinking are positively related to the subjective experience of shame and negatively related to self-forgiveness. We also tested a theory-based prediction that the association of alcohol misuse to self-forgiveness would be especially pronounced among individuals scoring high on shame. Methods Five hundred sixty-seven college students provided self-report data pertaining to the variables of interest. Results Shame moderated the association between alcohol and self-forgiveness. Specifically, high levels of self-forgiveness were related to low levels of alcohol misuse, but only within the high-shame subgroup. Conclusions These findings tentatively suggest the ability to forgive oneself may reduce the likelihood of alcohol and other drug abuse among people who experience high levels of shame. Pending replication, secondary prevention intervention research may wish to test whether inculcation of self-forgiveness is a health protective form of emotion-focused coping that produces therapeutic benefits in substance abusers who are not yet in treatment and who have a shame-based identity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".