Reinforcing Mood Effects of Alcohol in Coping and Enhancement Motivated Drinkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People may be motivated to drink because of differential sensitivities to the rewarding outcomes of alcohol consumption. Previous research has demonstrated that alcohol may produce both potentially positive reinforcing effects (i.e., increased elation; Conrad et al., 2001) and potentially negative reinforcing effects (i.e., anxiolytic effects; Levenson st al., 1980). It was desired to test the effects of alcohol on mood in a sample of two groups of drinkers that report different motivations for alcohol use. It was hypothesized that both potentially positive and negative reinforcing mood effects would be observed and that these effects would be moderated by drinking motive. METHODS: Twenty-four drinkers with Coping Motives (CMs) and 24 drinkers with Enhancement Motives (EMs) were randomly assigned to either an alcohol condition (target blood alcohol level of 0.08%) or a placebo condition. Participants used the Profile of Mood States-Bipolar (Lorr, 1983) to report their mood at (1) sober baseline, (2) after beverage consumption, and (3) during anticipation of a self-disclosing speech (a stressor). RESULTS: As hypothesized, after drinking, those in the alcohol group reported increased feelings of elation and energy relative to sober baseline. Those receiving alcohol also reported feeling more confused and anxious after beverage consumption. Also as hypothesized, participants receiving alcohol reported feeling increased sedation during anticipation of the stressor, whereas those receiving placebo reported increased energy during this period. Contrary to the hypothesis, none of these effects were moderated by drinking motive. CONCLUSIONS: Although potentially positive and negative reinforcing mood effects of alcohol were observed, CM and EM drinkers were not differentially sensitive to these effects. However, it is possible that EM drinkers may highly value the baseline stimulating effects of alcohol, whereas CM drinkers may highly value the anxiolytic effects that were observed during anticipation of the stressor.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".